02 12 2019 Agenda Packet Speaker HandoutsState Environmental Policy A►ct
Checklist
Prepared for
t4 mendmerit to Coverage Under'Statewide Permit
for
Biosolids Managem ant
Mid Mountain
Fire Mountain Farms, Inc.
856 Burnt Ridge Read
Onalaska, Washin bn.
NoNN ember 1, 241 w►
Amr3idal SIiPA— firs Mmintam Famas ! -' t"'o)I a We 1(111
WAC 197-11-9011:nwi 1-onIll ental elleeklist.
ENVIRONMI:N rAl- CHECKLIST
Purpose crj ,,. : • ;
•Elle '-•I I I t,nnl ntal Policy Act (SEI'A). chapter 43.210 RCW, requires all governmental agencies to
consider II,,. : I• '1'111:. '. .•! Fnipacts ol'a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS)
must be 1'1 I :,I . ! 1.1 .,, 'osals with probable significant adverse impar is on the quality of the environment. The
pui-Ixtsc 01 +'r i. 4.1 1 11, :'I-ovide information to help you and the agency identify impacts loom your proposal (and
to reduce or a' oid iriip:i: - Horn the proposal, if it can be done) and to icip the agency decade whether an EIS is
required.
Irielruclin�a.+.f ar �a����lircr�»,c.
I1,iti cmirilrimcntul checklist asks you to describe some iasic information about your proposal.
C;rn'rrn 1:,71.'1 t«t n +his checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are
Answer the questions brielly. N 'ith the most precise information known, or
iin,,t .i -r .. c. �uc.i mcstion accurately and carefull,,, to the b °�,t �,f your knowledge. In most cases, you
slit II!tI 11, I! !r k7 al) :• -; Ilie qui".lir'', . 1i`Om V011' :' ',' , r ::Liu 1 nr 1 1'.I•jt '1 Mans without the need to hire experts. If
�i+u ICI01'1 dll I,;,t I I••..•.!Ile. ansa, I'. i1 gIIW•:11ill 'i.,% ,. nOI ,W1'1 to "IlI_:r nl osa1. yyrite "do not know" or "does not
apply." t11n11,'' I:. °o th :JLI, .I1;,1,, i 1 LI..I=.Old I.I n c,•..1r� dk 1. later.
So! ;;11; ..Inll . ;ILI.:I1,„{rt --- o. I-�llrzL:rl1,11 IL-LIL.I11t-I,, ,Il, h :I�, ;t!I Ing, shoreline, and landmark designations.
Ail•,',` ci 111E %,u �,t;l. 11 1 r,U hJVe 171''.,' l'II'' lliu ''1. C'S r,n%,l)tatl ,.i.-cricies can assist you.
Ii ,IHk: 1101., .t1' -p1% t(' Al parts c 1 \,rttl 1-II,,I,osal, cyc'n �a plan to do them over a period of time
nl' an .'J 11 ,t I I,. III I.tlld. itx!I inv addirm;
lrl ill: ,rniation th-I v.111 help describe your proposal or its
x'1, 111 °IP14i 111 k' k, i,•, 1" \%llidh % uu submit th.iN C ICCI.i X11::'. itik \ Oki 10 �'.1ll:lin your answers or provide
additional inlorno.IUt'I• ! C:i:,onabN rclat4'd o determliling 11 there mw, 170 Nigi .If scant ads c ",l' Im rILLI.
A. BACKGRO(JND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
Amendment to Application for Coverq,e Under the Statewide General
Permit for Biosolids Management
2. NamcofApplicant:
Fire Mountain Farms, Inc.
Contact: Robert Tlrode
3. .Address and phone number of applicant and contazt person:
856 Burnt Ridge Road
Onalaska, WA 98570
(360) 266-0695 —Office
4. Orate checklist prepared:
November P1, 2016
Amended SEPA--1 ire h1otm4un Farins 12/14/2018 Version
5. Agency requesting checklist:
Washington State Department of Ecology
6. Proposed tithing or schedule (including phasing, i 'applicable):
This SEPA checklist is for addition of a site under the Statewide General
Permit f for Biosolids Management. Bic solids applications would depend
on availability of supply and availabili �v of land
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expan lion, or further activity related to
or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
Fire Mountain Farms, Inc. continues b adjust to changing markets and
demand SEPA will be followed, if required, for any new additions or
expansions proposed: Coverage under the Statewide General Permit for
Biosolids Management will allow for in pplications in future years of
Class B biosolids from any source.
8. List any environmental information you know abc ut that has been prepared, or will
be prepared, directly related to this proposal.
• Biosolids will be analVzed as re luired
• Site Speci%rc Laoxl t pplication Plan, (SSLAP) has been prepared
• Spill Prevention and Response Plan will be prepared far biosolids
transport to site
• List of threatened and endangered species A included in SSLAP
• Location, type and size of surfs ce water bodies are identified on
maps in the SSLAP
9. Do you know whether applications are pending fo. governmental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by yc ur proposal? If yes explain.
Other than the Site Speck Land App `ication Plan no other proposals
are known to be pending at this time.
10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if
known.
Amendment to Coverage Under Statewide General Permit No. BT9902
and the approval of our Site Specific L and Application Plan by
Department of Ecology are the only at tion known to he required.
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposa., including the proposed uses and
the size of the project and site. There are several quest ions later in this checklist that ask
Ameoded tir.PA - I Ric Mountain r.imis 17Jl4/2 19 Verson
yclu to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You Jo not need to repeat those
ans\\ ers on this page. (i.ead agencies may modify thi€ form to include additional specific
inl'Ormation on project description.)
Siosolids will be applied to agricultur4I and/or timber lands at
agronomic rates,for beneficial value q'nutrients and as a soil
conditioner and soil builder. Applicata on will be when soil and crop
conditions are appropriate.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient informe tion for a person to understand the
precise location of your project, including a street adds ess, if any, and section. township,
and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or
boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, ! ite plan, vicinity map, and.
topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required
by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with
any permit applications related to this checklist.
Mid Mountain Unit
Section: 1 & 2, Township: 16N, Range: 2E WM
Latitude: 46° 54' 05.14"N Longitude: 122° 31' 05.12" W
19724 128111 Ave. SE, Yelm, WA
Assessor Parcel numbers: 22601320000, 226 }2430000, 22602420000,
22602130200,22602130100,22602130000,22602120000,22502110100,226021401.00,
22601230000,22602140000
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. EARTH
�r. General description of the site (circle o ae): Flea, rolling, hilly, steep
.slopes, mountainous. other...
This is a generally flat area with some rolling areas.
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (a )proximate percent slope)?
The steepest slope(s) in the proposed a, 7plication areas is less than 5%.
What general types of soil are found on the site (for example, clay, sand,
gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the c assification of agricultural soils,
specify them and note any prime farrnk nd.
Soils for proposed site Baldhill very sit-ny sandy loam 11.6%, Baldhill
very stony sandy loam 0.4%, Baldhill i ery stony sandy loam, 3.4%,
Amended S1:PA — Fite A9oamEain farmis 12,114/20 18 Version
Ealdhill very stony sandy loam, 0.2%, Cagey loamy sand 11.0 2.6%,
Everett very gravelly sandy loam, 1.3%, Kapowsin silt loam, 0 to 3
percent slopes 67.2x/, Kapowsin silt to tm, 9.6%, McKenna gravelly silt
loam, 0.2%, Forma silt loam 2.3%, Tis ch silt loam 1.0 f
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate
vicinity? If so, describe.
No indication of unstable soils has been found onsite during our
investigations. Very .stable and rocky s ails.
Describe the purpose, type, and approx mate quantities of any filling or
grading. proposed. Indicate source of fi 1.
None
Could erosion occur as a result of clear ng, construction, or use? If so,
generally describe.
NRCS has not classed this land a� "highly erodible". There are
permanently vegetated strips ne Kt to streams and ditches.
The current agricultural and fore! try activities do not deem it
necessary for an erosion control Dian. Biosolids will be applied
at agronomic rates and managE,d consistent with established
farming practices. Typical farming practices designed to
reduce erosion potential are in place.
g. About what percent of the site will be c )vered with impervious surfaces
after project construction'?
Less than 2% of the site is currently cc vered with imperriouv surface,.
primarily farm roads and farm buildin qs. No additional impervious
surfaces beyond what currently e-rists ire currently planned. Staging or
storage bunkers could be built in the f cure if there is a need
Proposed measure to reduce or control -�rosioiL or other impacts to the
earth, if any.
None are currently planned but if truc 4 traffic was taken off current
roads it might be necessary to re -seed r-ome areas. If continual use of the
site occurs staging area(s) would be built. Staging areas are normally
concrete slabs ringed with concrete bh ,cks. Location of staging area(s)
will be in areas with little or no risk of erosion.
2. AIR
Amended SEPA - Dire Mtpuwam Farnis 12/14120 1 K Version
3. WATER
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e.,
dust, automobile, and odors, industrial and wood smoke) during
construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe
and give approximate quantities if knok ,n.
There is an odor associated with the sl reading of biosolids Most of this
odor dissipates quickly and what linge s is a musty .smell. Odors vary
depending on source and method of to atment used. There will also be
emissions from equipment used to pun Ip and spread biosolids (tractors)
and emissions from trucks hauling eqi dement and personnel.
b. .Are there any off-site sources of emissi ms or odor that may affect your
proposal? If so, generally describe.
Off-site odors should not be a problem as the current uses of this site is
agriculture /forestry.
C. Proposedmeasures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air,
if any.
There are no proposed measures to re, ruce or control emission or other
impact to the air.
a. Surface
1) Is there any surface water body on of in the immediate vicinity of the
site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater. lakes, ponds,
wetlands)? If yes describe type and pre vide names. I F appropriate, state
what stream or river it Mows into.
This site is 1,000 ft from Nisqually Rit• er: Other small surface water
bodies are identified in the attached m ip.
Yehn Ditch impoundment (20 acres) south southwest of the of site is a
manmade impoundment which was part of a now abandoned irrigation
district water delivery system. Discharj !e from this impoundment is into
the old Yelm Ditch which is blocked at several points so it is not known
if flow seeps into the ground or finds i, s way to the Nisqually River.
Four stock -water impoundments are o 1t the ranch at Y? acre each. The
Nisqually River is to the north and ease and over 1000 feet from site.
Centralia cattal is over 1000 ft.2) Will the project require any work over,
in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the cescribed waters'? If yes, please
describe and attach available plans.
Amended SITA Erre Aloumamn hnns 12/1412[118 Verskin
Application will occur within 200 feet ff stack ponds and small drainage
ditches on this site. To prevent potentia rl contamination of surface water,
we will maintain a minimum buffer of 10 meters to surface water,
buffers may be greater to sensitive wat yrs. a•• fe "uW4' ner .a ed & w
w EeoMgy.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredl a material that would be placed in
or removed from the surface or wetlands and indicate the area of the site
that would be affected. Indicate the soy rtes and fill material.
None
4) Will the proposal require surface wafer withdrawals or diversions?
Give general description, purpose, and .approximate quantities if known.
No
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-yr-ar flood plain? if so, note location
on the site plan.
No
6) Does the proposal involve any disch,,ages of waste materials to surface
waters? If so. describe the type of wast-- and anticipated volume of
discharge.
FAR
Ground
I ) W i II ground water be withdrawn, or Ni Il water be discharged to ground
water? Give general description, purpoie, and approximate quantities if
known.
No, (water rights, far irrigation do eris' for this farm)
} Describe waste material that will be � iischarged into the ground from
"-,rt is tanks or other sources, if any (f6i example: domestic sewage;
i1 ilListrial, containing the following the nical.... ; agricultural; etc.).
Q'-.cribe the general size of the system. the number of such systems, the
nuns I'ver of houses to be served (if applir:able), or the number of animals or
humans the system (s) are expected to serve.
No waste material will be discharged i, ito the ground
Biosolids will be applied to the sail sur face or injected/incorporated into
it. The law, (RCW 70.95J. The rule is • 173-308 WAC) defines biosolids
Amended SH'A - rare MOLIM.'11r) I aFMS 12114/2018 Version
4. PLAN'T'S
as a beneficial commodity and regulates its use in a manner to protect
human health and the environment. Auplication rates will be based on
plant nutrient needs to minimize the ri sk of nutrient leaching.
Water Runoff (including storm water)
i } dic source of runoff (including storm water) and method of
collcc(ioti lind dNposal, if any (include luantities, if known). Where will
this water Ilow'? Will this water flow it to other waters? if so, describe.
The only source of rungff will be norwal rainfall. Tire site will remain in
agricultural or timber crops; thus run(!ff should not present a problem
due to the dispersed nature of overlanteflow from rainfall and vegetated
buffers. Proposed activity will increas ? organic matter in the soil
through the application of biosolids, n creasing infiltration rates and
water retention and decreasing runoff risks. Land application will only
take place when soil and crop conditio gas are appropriate.
?) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally
dcscribe.
No
Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water
impacts, if any.
Agricultural best management practice rs will be followed to prevent
surface, ground, and runoff water impacts. These will include
application methods, applying at agrm+omic rates and adequate
vegetated buffers of 10 meters or more, from surface water (dependent
on slope, soil type and ground cover th ese could be wider).
a. Check or circle types of vegetation foun i on the site:
X deciduous tree: alder, maple, as nen, other
x evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, )they
x shrubs
x grass
x pasture
crop or grain
wet sail plants: (none within proposed application areas) cattail,
buttercup, bullrw h, skunk cabbage, other
water p lants: water lily, ee 1 Bras ;,. m i l foi 1, other
X other types of vegetation
Amcndcd 51,11 a - C irc Moumain 4 amis 12/14/2018 Versian 8
5. ANIMALS
Most types of vegetation native to the heal area can befi)und on site.
No application will occur in water bod ies or wetland areas.
What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
Other than normal agricultural or fort -stry activities, no tic=getation
needs to be removed. Vegetation may l e altered by increasing nutrient
availability and therefore increasing v.:getative growth.
List threatened or endangered species kr own to be on or near the
site.
After reviewing the Washington State Threatened and Endangered
listing of species, no justification wasj'ound to suspect any threatened or
endangered species to be present on th is site. List is provided in SSLAP
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plat ts, or other measures to
preserve or enhance vegetation on the si e, if any:
No landscaping is planned.j'br this site,
Circle any birds and animals which hav z been observed on or near the site
or are known to be on or near the site:
IIi1-ik: tier:
ri 111110 Il eer bear, CDeaver, other coyote
11,Jv bass, salmon. trout, herring, shellfi ih, other:
List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
None known to be on site.
After reviewing the Washington State Threatened and Endangered
listing of species, no justification wasl bund to suspect any threatened or
endangered species to be present on this site. List is provided in SSLAP
c. is the site of a migration route? If so, expla n.
Yes. This site is within tl:e Pack Fly way.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance r wildlife, if any.
Amended SITA — P•rc Mountain harms 12/14/2018 Version
The application of biosolids to. farm or timber land will increase feed
availability for wildlife. Biosolids appl, cation enhances the growth of
vegetation bv providing nutrients need ?d for plant growth.
G. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, )il, wood stove, solar) will be used
to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used
for heating manufacturing, etc.
The only energy required for the proje _t will be diesel fuel for operation
of application equipment.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent
properties? If so, generally describe.
No
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this
proposal`? List other proposed measures to red ice of control energy impacts, if
an y.
None
7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic
chemicals, risk of fire and explosion. spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as
a result of this proposal:' If so, describe.
Potential pollutants in biosolids incluu a nitrogen, metals, and pathogens
(disease causing organismspollutants . tre regulated and all sources will
be within standards. Biosolids are not classified as hazardous or
dangerous wastes by the Washington ,!'tate Department of Ecology. The
producer of the biosolids is required it have certified laboratories
periodically analyze the biosolids to cheek quality.FMF will have on file
certification statements from wastewai er treatment plants andl or
analytical data needed to calculate apl lication rates.
I) Describe special emergency services that might be required..
The types of hazards that exist do not i -equire any special emergency
services beyond those that might be ne ?ded for normal agricultural
activities.
Amended SITA - l iic Motnilam Farms, 121t4/2018 VcF on 10
2) Proposed measures to reduce or cont •oI environmental health hazards,
if any.
13rumans are at little risk from biosolid s -borne pathogens when biosolids
are properly treated and handled. The soil environment, hostile to
human pathogens, serves as the ftnal11hase in the pathogen removal
Process. Based on the type of biosolid-. used, the land will be managed
to control human contact with pathogt ns. We will limit public access
during the required period of time spec •ified in 173-308-210 WAC.
Regulations require buffer zones arou 7d some biosolids applications.
The U.S. EPA conducted a risk assess►nent and determined if manag. ed
appropriately the level of potential poi, ulants does not pose a threat to
health of humans, wildlife or plants.
Only biosolids meeting current 173-304-160 WAC "Table 3"for metals
will be recycled on this site. Nitrogen N) is an essential plant nutrient,
but excess levels of N from biosolids, c r from other fertilizers, can
pollute ground water or surface water and can reduce crop quality. For
this reason, the project will app{, biost -lids to land based on the amount
of biosolids-supplied N needed by the i rop.
Biosolids application site will meet:
1 Chapter 173-308 WAC,
2Biosolids Management guidelines,
3 Site Specific Land Application Plan.
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for
example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
None
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with
the project on a short-term or long-term basis (for example: traffic,
construction, operation, other)'? Indicat what hours noise would come
from the site.
Operation of typical agricultural equil ment will create noise during
normal operating hours. We are prop, using no limitations on daily
timing of applications or restrictions ft or holidays. From a practical
standpoint, applications will normally sccur during daylight hours, and
we do not normally work on holidays. Tltere may be occasions where we
need to deviate from the normal sched vie, such as trying to get a crop
planted prior to the rains coming in. t Ill noise will be consistent with
Arnended SEI'A — Fire Mountain Farms 12/W201 9 Version
{vpical agricultural practices and the y vises associated with those
activities.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or cont -ol noise impacts, if any.
None proposed other than normal exh lust mufflers on equipment.
8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
The historic uses of this site are agricc pure and forestry. Adjacent
parcels for site include agricultural, f, restry and rural residential
b. I las the site been used for agriculture? If sc, describe.
This site has been used for agricultura I and timber production. Plans
are to retain site in these uses. Lando" -tier plans to convert some of the
open ground to timber.
c. Describe ani Structures on the site.
The only structures are agricultural bi rildings and residences on site
See the maps attached.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, w hat?
No
e. What is the current zoning classification of i he site?
Current zoning is Long Term Agricult qre, Rual 1/10 and Rural
Residential Resources.
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
The current comprehensive plan desig jutions far this site is Agriculture
and Rural.
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline plaster program designation of the
site"
Not Applicable
Amended SITA - i tie Moutttain Farms 1211412[)18 Vermox 12
h. Has any part of the site been classified as ar "environmentally sensitive' area?
If so. specify.
Propo.ved land application areas are ma classified as environmentally
,sensitive ureas, confirmed through Th mston County mapping system.
i. Approximatel) how many people would reside or work in the completed
project?
One single family residence are fount on the site. No additional
housing is proposed! The number of N-orkers would increase by one to
four during application times.
J. Approximately how many people would the project displace?
Notre
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any.
9. HOUSING
None
I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and
prqjected land uses and plans, if any.
Proposal will improve the economic vi, ebility of the farm.
a, Approximately how many units would be pEovided, if any? Indicate whether
high, middle, or low income housing.
None.
b. Approximately how many units would be eliminated? indicate whether high,
middle. or low income housing.
None.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control hou ;ing impacts, if any.
None
10. AESTHETICS
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed st •ucture(s), not including antennas;
what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
Amended SHIA — Dire Moujtlam Farms. 12/14/2018 Version 13
No structures are proposed at this time
b. What views in the immediate vicinity woulc be altered or obstructed?
,', i me
wcListirc, to reduce or control aest hetic impacts, if any.
None
11. LIGHT AND GLARE
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would
it mainly occur?
Other than normal lighting from vehic fes, no light or glare would be
produced from this project,
b. Could light or glare from the finished proje(t be a safety hazard or interfere
with views?
No
c. What existing off-site sources or light or gla re may affect your proposal?
None
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any.
None
12. RECREATION
a. What designated and informal recreational c pportunities are in the immediate
vicinity?
This site has controlled accesses, thus providing no formal recreational
opportunities. Informal opportunities may exist.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so,
describe.
No.
Amended SH'A - fire Mountain Fanns 12/14/2618 Vension 14
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control imp icts on recreation, including
recreation opportunities to be provided by the 1 ,roject or applicant, if any.
None
13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION
a. Are there any places or objects Listed on, or proposed tor, national, state, or local
preservation registers known to be on or next to the sit:? If so, generally describe.
None known to be on the site.
b. Generally, describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or
cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.
None
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if an v?
None
14. TRANSPORTATION
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed
access to the existing street system. Show on site plan, if any.
Access to site is gffof 128th Ave. SE, formal access far trucks will be at
the end of 128`' Ave.
b. Is the site currently served by public transit" if not, what is the approximate
distance to the nearest transit stop?
Not served by public transit, unknown distance to nearest transit
stop. (Google maps directions cannot fi►rd a public transportation route
to at_from the site)
c. Now many parking spaces would the comp] :ted project have? How many
would the project eliminate?
Tolle
d- W111 the proposal require any new roads or !.treets, or improvements to existing
rc�acl ; tier streets, not including driveways'? If sc generally describe (indicate
hC1110r public or private).
No.
c �� +11 the project use (or occur in the immedi ite Vicinity of) NNatcr. rail or air
tr wi portation? If so, generally describe.
Arnendod SGP A - Fire Mountain Farms I2,1I40018 Version 15
No.
f. I low many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed
project? 11' known, indicate when peak volume i would occur.
E.rpected vehicular trips per day Burin; application times would he from
1 to as many as 50 for duration liquid Wosolids application projects.
Typically the Higher the volume the sl orter the Duration.
Typically high volume would occur M,inday -Saturday During daylight
Hours, During the application windo►+ of March though October
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any.
None
15. PUBLIC SERVICE
a. Would the project result in an increased nee] for public services (for example:
Fire protection, police protection, health care, s.:hools, other)? If so, generally
describe.
No
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direst impact on public services, if
any.
None
16. UTILITIES
a. Circle utilitie-s. currently available at the site ectricit natural gas, nater
efuse service telephoneJ sanitary sewerse tits stem Cher.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the
service, and the general construction activities m the site in the immediate
vicinity which might be needed.
No utilities will be needed for this proj ,,cl
lrnended tiITA Fire Mkiuntiun Farms 12/14/2018 Version 16
� t�
I POLLUTION CONTROL HEARIN sS BOARD
STATE OF WASHINGTON
f 1i�1- M()l'NI'AIN FARMS, INC.,
Appel lant. PCHB N, i. 16-132
a
`, ORDER :,RANTING DEPARTMENT OF
ECOLOGY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
s'I- 1-H oF WASHINGTON, JUDGMENT
(, DLTAR f MENT OF ECOLOGY,
Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
i)
Fire. Mountain Farms, Inc. (Fire Mountain) filed an api}eal with the Pollution Control
10
Hearings Board (Board) challenging the Department of Ecolo ,y's (Ecology) decision to deny
11
approval of Fire Mountain's applications for fertilizer registra ion. Ecology moved for summary
12
judgment on all issues and dismissal of the appeal.
13
The Board considering this matter was comprised of Board Chair Thomas C. Morrill, and
14
Members Joan M. Marchioro and Kay M. Brown. Administr, Live Appeals Judge Carolina Sun -
15
1Vidro�% presided [or the Board. Attorneys Brian E. Lawler w d Geon' Palachuk represented Fire
16
Mountain. Assistant Attorney General Jonathan C. Thompsoi represented Ecology. The Board
li
considered the following in its decision on the motion:
18
!. Ecology's Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment on
19 All Issues:
?p 2. Declaration of Jonathan C. Thompson in Support of Ecology's Motion for
Summary ,ludgrnent, with Exhibit A:
21
ORDER (ARAN IINCi DIA'ART ME NTOF FC'()IA)GY'S
M011ON I•OR S1"11NI:ARY .IUD( >V VNT
P[TIII
1
13
14
15
16
W1
18
19
20
21
3. Declaration of Gregory K. Could in Support of Ecology's Motion for
Summary Judgment. with Exhibits A-E;
4. Declaration of Thomas M. Cusack in Support c f Ecology's Motion for
5Lilillw.ir,, Judgment, with Exhibits A -C;
5. Fire Mountain's Response to Ecology's Motion for Summary Judgment;
6. DtiLlai a tion oI' Robert Thode in Response to Ecology's Motion for
Summary Judgment, with Fxhibits A -C;
7. Declaration of Brian E. Lawler in Response to Ecology's Motion for
Summary Judgment, with Exhibits A -D;
8. Declaration of Janet Knox \\ ith ,Attachments;
9. Resubmittal of Declaration of Janet Knox in PCHB No. 14-109c;
10. Resubmittal of Supplemental Declaration ofJa iet Knox in PCHB No. 14-
109c;
11. Ecology's Reply in Support of Motion for Surrmary Judgment;
12. Second Declaration of Thomas M. Cusack in Support of Ecology's
Motion for Summary Judgment;
13. Second Declaration of Gregory K. Gould in Support of Ecology's Motion
for Summary Judgment, with Exhibit F; and
14. Board's file in Fire Mountain Forms, Inc. v. D p't of Ecology, PCHB No.
16-132.
Based on the evidence and pleadings submitted, the Board enters the following decision
granting Ecology's motion for summary judgment.
ORDFA GRAN FIND DETARTMENI` OF ECOLOGY'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
PCI IB No. f6-132
2
2
3
4
5
b
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
BACKGROUND
Since the 1990s, Fire Mountain has been in the busine .s of applying to its lands industrial
wastewater sludge and municipal sewage treated sludge (biosolids).' Thode Decl.,1I112, 3. Fire
Mountain contracted with Emerald Kalama Chemical (Emerald) and its predecessors to haul
away industrial wastewater sludge generated by Emerald (Em :raid sludge or sludge) and store or
apply it on Fire Mountain's fields. Thode Decl.,114, Ex. A. Ire Mountain also stored or
applied on its fields biosolids that it received from municipal 1 ewage treatment plants under
applicable permits. Thode Decl., �, 2.- Ex. A.
Biosolids management regulations define biosolids and establish sampling requirements,
contaminant pollutant limits, land application rates, and monitoring and recordkeeping
procedures for the application of biosolids to land. Fire Mour tarn Farms, Inc. v. Dept of
EcoloKv, PCIIB No. 16-050, at 3 (Sept. 15, 2017, Order Granting Dep't of Ecology's Mot. for
Summ. J.). Emerald sludge does not meet the definition of bir )solids and may not be applied to
land.2 Fire Mountain Farms. Inc. v. Dept ofEcolo�y, PC HB No. 14-109c, at 13 (Sept. 28,
2015. Order on Summ. J.) (citing WAC i 73-308-020(3)(a), (t)).
At times Fire Mountain mixed the sludge and biosolid ( and stored the mixture in three
storage units: an above ground bunker at Big Hanaford, a sur ace impoundment at Burnt Ridge,
I and a surface impoundment at Newaukum Prairie. Gould Dec 1.. 1; Thode Decl., IM 3, 7, Fire
Writer treatment plant that can
be benefici.!II, IL -t. requirements, R(- It 70.95J :)11)(I1- (4): %% AC 173-308d180.
Fire -%I(, n!. 1k, phi.t5e IFmcrald Kalama Chemical I hinsts reshunse and the declaration of
Robcr( I funic. 11 c:. udustrial wastewater sludge generstcd M 1 mcr .Id ��iII be rrierred to as sludge or
f ntcra!Icl sludge ht%i ruse it does not meet the definition ol`" biosolids."
ORDER GRANTING DET'ARTMENT OF 1:CoLOGY'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1'C1113 No. 16-132
3
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I f1
!1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
�Icrintruij;, PCI IB No. 14-109c, at 7-8. In 2014, Ecology issu(d several administrative orders
after reviewing Fire Mountain's practice of receiving weekly, leliveries of Emerald sludge and
either applying it directly on its fields, or storing and mixing i with biosolids at the three storage
sites before land applying the mixture. Fire Mounwin, PCHB No. 14-109c, at 7-8. In
Administrative Order No. 10938, Ecology determined that Fir.- Mountain and Emerald were
cogenerators of listed dangerous waste in the three storage sits and required them to designate,
manage, and dispose of -the dangerous waste in accordance wi :h dangerous waste regulations. Id.
Fire Mountain and Fmerald appealed Administrative ( order No. 10938 to the Board. The
Board upheld the order, concluding as a matter of law that the sludge and mixed sludge and
biosolids are listed dangerous waste and not exempt from dan serous waste regulation as a
"fertilizer that contains recyclable materials" under WAC 173.303-505(1)(b)(iii). Id at 32. To
gwilil-\ for thc li<rtihier elemption. Fire Mountain had the buoden of proving that the dangerous
wastes contained in the alleged fertilizer were legitimately recycled pursuant to federal law, and
that each dangerous waste constituent met applicable land disposal restriction treatment
standards. IJ at 20. In concluding that Fire Mountain did nol meet its burden of demonstrating
that the dangerous wastes were legitimately recycled, the Boa -d determined that the wastes were
not managed as a valuable product, contained hazardous conn ituents, and did not provide a
useful contribution to the recycling process or produce a vale, ble product. Id. at 19-32. The
Board also concluded that the sludge and mixed sludgelbiosol ds did not meet applicable land
disposal restriction treatment standard for at least one waste c -)de that it carried (acetaldehyde),
ORDI .R (IRANTING D[TAR t'MI:NT CN- j;COLOCY.S
M(? I I()N I ()R Sl!htN1ARY -ll1D(3M1.:NT
11101B No. If, 132
4
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1 ()
20
21
which requires combustion as the treatment method before lard disposal. Id. at 39; Gould
Duel., ¶¶ 23. 24. Fire Mountain has not incinerated the materials in the storage units or obtained
a variance from that treatment standard. Gould Decl., ¶ 28. f owever. Emerald and Fire
Mountain agreed to seek a variance from the combustion treat vent standard as part of the
delisting process. Could Deck. ¶ 28, Ex. A, p. 4 -,see, supra.
Fire Mountain and Emerald sought judicial review of the Board's decision dismissing
their appeal. The proceedings were stayed in superior court p..nding the parties' negotiations on
how to dispose of the materials in Fire Mountain's three stora.;e units. Gould Decl., ¶ 7. In June
2016, the parties executed an Agreement for Conditional Corr pliance with Ecology
Administrative Order No. 10938 During Judicial Review. Go.ild Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. A. The
Agreement allows Emerald and Fire Mountain to petition the J.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and Ecology for regulatory -delisting" of the dangero is waste materials in the three
storage units in lieu of removing and disposing the wastes ata permitted facility. Id. Until the
delisting process is completed, the requirement in Administral ive Order No. 10938 that the
materials in Fire Mountain's three storage units be managed a td disposed of as dangerous waste
continues. Gould Decl.,11¶ 7. 8.
Since the sludge and sludge/biosolids mixture in the st)rage units carried the waste codes
I for toluene and benzene, Emerald and Fire Mountain also agrt ed to sample the soil for those
wastes in the fields on which the sludge and mixed sludgelbio solids were spread in order to
confirm %shcther the wastes were present at concentrations po sing a risk to human health and the
;I 111cl-ald a ,�I Sarre, d Ijgcd JLill gerous wastes benzene (lJD 19) and toluene (t.J220). Fire Mountain. PCI IB
tiu.. 14-101k. 0 16.
ORDER GRANT ING DE✓PAR'rME:N I' OF ECOLOGY'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JLIE]GMF,N`r
PC'HB No. 16-1321
5
2
3
4
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1
16
17
18
19
20
21
environment. Gould Decl., IT 11-17, Ex. A. p. 5-6, Ex. C, p. -l. After Ecology disapproved
Fire Mountain's fertilizer registration applications, Emerald p .rformed the soil sampling and
submitted the results to Ecology in December 2016. Gould D:cl., � 18; Exs. B, C. The soil
sampling report showed that benzene and toluene were mcasu �ed below Model Toxics Control
Act cleanup levels. Gould Decd., 1 18, Ex. C, p. 3-1.
On April 15. 2016, Fire Mountain tiled two applications to register commercial fertilizers
with the Washington State Department of Auriculture (Agriculture). The Fertilizer Registration
;Act. ch. 15.54 RCW, authorizes Agrl(ultk3 c �jnJ i c d 7gy to j( intly regulate fertilizers to ensure
that: fertilizers rneet standards for ,111,= cihlc rici' tlti. purchases know the contents of fertilizer
products, and use of waste -derived fertilizers complies with ct7rtain enumerated law. RCW
15.54.265:.330(4):.820(1). The Fertilizer Registration Act specifically provides that
Agriculture must obtain written approval from Ecology before it can register a waste -derived
fertilizer. RCW 15.54.330(4)..824.
Fire Mountain sought to register the materials in its Ne waukum Prairie and Burnt Ridge
impoundments as Blend 2 and Blend 3 fertilizers. Cusack De,.l.. 110, Exs. B, C. According to
Fire Mountain, proposed Blend 2 is derived from biosolids, ar d Blend 3 is derived from
hiosolids and coy -, manure. Fire Mountain's applications inch ded reports on the testing for
toluene, benzene, and acetaldehyde in the materials in the Bur it Ridge and Newaukum Prairie
impoundments. Cusack Decl., Exs. B, C, Supporting Documents for Blend 2 and Blend 3
Fertilizer Registrations. These hazardous constituents were ar iong those that the Board required
to meet land disposal restriction treatment standards in order t ) be either disposed of in a landtil I
ORDER GRAN i IN(I IyITAR I M1:N I ()1 I:C 01.O6Y'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
PC11B No. 16-132
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
or qualify as a fertilizer containing recyclable materials. Fire Mountain, FCHB 14-109c, at 36,
On August 12, 2016, Agriculture e-mailed Fire Mount iin's fertilizer registration
applications to Ecology For review for consistency with, amor g other criteria, the Hazardous
Waste Management Act (HWMA), ch. 70.105 RCW, and implementing regulations. Cusack
Decl., JET 7, 9. In a letter dated October 18. 2016, Ecology dei ied approval of the applications as
inconsistent with the HWMA and Ecology's Administrative Order No. 10938. See Oct. 18, 2016
Letter from Ken Zarker, Section Manager for Ecology's Haza -dous Waste. and Topics Reduction
Program to Robert Thode Re: Notice of Denial in Board's apteal file. Ecology detc rmined that.
Fire Mountain could not mix the materials in its NewaukuM Prairie and Burnt. Ridge
impoundments with cow manure to create a fertilizer "produce" that meets the legitimate
recycling test when Administrative Order No. 10938 and the Board's decision upholding that
Order concluded that the materials constituted dangerous waste that must be managed and
disposed of as such. Id. Ecology further determined that eve, if the proposed mix of dangerous
waste materials and cow manure could be considered a "legiti nate fertilizer product," Fire
I Mountain diel not meet its burden to demonstrate that the product satisfied the terms of the
ferdIVer exemption in WAC 173-303-5051 1 )(b)(iii). Id.
I-cq) l�7 I7a�1 00 do\ � Ire nt re dell c I the I':rtilizer regi! tration applications to advise
1,,riculture whether the applications mire consistent with the HWMA and other applicable law.
RC 15.54.820(3); Cusack Decl., T 19. Ecology acknowledEes that it issued its October 1.8,
2016. denial letter a week beyond the 60 -day period. Cusack Xcl.,1 19.
ORI)1 R GRANT ING DEPARTMENT OF FC01.06Y'4
MOTION FOR Sl IMMARY KA)GM13NT
FCHB No. 16-1321
7
4
6
7
S
9
1.0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
I' i rr ", _oLintain allpcaled the denial of its fertilizer registration applications to the Board.
I lie Board a prehearing order establishing the legal issries governing this case:.
1. Did Ecology fail to process its review and to provide comments to the
Washington Department of Agriculture in the t me frame (60 days)
required by RCW 15.54.820 (3), and if so, is tF is a basis for reversal?
2. Did Ecology err in determining or concluding that the proposed fertilizer
products, Blends 2 and 3, fail to meet all requitements of RCW 15.54.820
(1), (2)?
3. Has Ecology erroneously represented and incor -ectly assumed that Fire
Mountain Farms (FMF) is proposing to mix "u ispecified quantity of
manure" with the material proposed for registnition as Blends 2 and 3, and
if so, is this a basis for reversal?
4. Has Ecology erroneously stated and concluded hat Ecology
Administrative Order 10938 is relevant to and .ontrolling in Ecology's
responsibility to revic�% �%aste derived fertilizes of these Blends 2 and 3?
5. !-las Ecology erroneousl% stated and concluded �MF failed to "demonstrate
that there is a known market or disposition"?
6. Has Ecology erroneously stated and concluded �W failed to "demonstrate
that there is a known market or disposition." w len during the review
process under RCW 15.54.820, Ecology piled to request such a
demonstration from FMF, and upon inI0rn1, W!i and belief, never
requested ademonstration o f a known market i r ai3r ether fertilizer
product submitted to Ecology for approval?
7. Has Ecology erroneously stated and concluded hat Ecology
Administrative Order 10938 and the Agreemert for Conditional
Compliance with Ecology Administrative Ordt r No. 10938 bars FMF
lrom pursuing any fertilizer registration under tCW 15.54.820?
8. Has 1 colog� erroneously stated and concluded he proposed fertilizer
blends do neat rncet the land disposal restriction treatment standards for
U001 (acetaldehN de )?
ORDER GRANTING DI -TAR IAII NTOF I.COLOOVS
MOTION FOR SUMMARY _It;l)(NENT
PCHB No. 16-132
8
1
2
3
4
5
6 appeal.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
9. Was Ecology obligated to request further analyi ical testing to determine if
the proposed fertilizer products contained UOO (acetaldehyde), and if so,
whether Ecology failed to do so?
10. Is Ecology's Administrative Decision arbitran and capricious if FMF can
demonstrate that Ecology does not refuse to ap )rove registration of
compost that contains food waste that contains acetaldehyde?
Ecology moves for summary judgment on all issues ar d dismissal of Fire Mountain's
ANALYSIS
1. Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is a procedure available to avoid i nnecessary trials where there is no
genuine issue of material fact. Am. Express Centurion Bank i Stratman, 172 Wn. App. 667,
675-76, 292 P.3d 128 (2.012). The summary judgment proced are is designed to eliminate trial if
only questions of law remain for resolution, and neither party zontests the facts relevant to a
legal determination. Rainier Nat 7 Bank v. Security Slale Ban c, 59 Wn. App. 161, 164, 796 P.2d
443 (1990), review denied, 117 Wn.2d 1004 (1991). The part moving for summary judgment
must show there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Magula v. Benton Franklin Title Co., Inc., 131 Wn.2d 171, 182,
930 P.2d 307 (1997). A material fact in a summary judgment proceeding is one affecting the
outcome Linder the governing law. Eriks v. Denver, 118 Wn.3 d 451, 456, 824 P.2d 1207 (1992).
If the moving party is a defendant who meets the initial burde t, the inquiry shifts to the party
with the burden of proof at trial to present evidence demonstr: ting that material facts are in
dispute or establishing an element essential to its case. Alhert In Condo As.s'n v. Blume Dev. Co.,
i1N)l 11, (dr I I:;f, Int E" {r f �li.� l CJI ! [ [11 [Cy S
M01141, I ,1",
11011? Nu. 16-13-
9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
115 Wn.2d 506, 516, 799 11.2d 250 (1990), Right -Price Recreation, LLC v. Connells Prairie
Cmty. Council. 146 Wn.2d 370, 381-82, 46 P.3d 789 (2002). Bare assertions concerning alleged
genuine material issues do not constitute facts sufficient to de eat a summary judgment motion.
SentineIC3, Inc. v. Harm, 181 Wn.2d 127, 140, 331 P.3d 40 (2 )14). When determining whether
an issue of material fact exists, all facts and inferences are cor strued in favor of the nonmoving
party. Jones v. Allstate Ins. Co., 146 Wn.2d 291. 300. 45 P.3c 1068 (2002).
At the outset. the Board disagrees with Fire Mountain's claim that Ecology's motion
should be denic..d bc�.,I use: it relies cx luslvel� oii unsubstantia ed declarations of Ecology's
employees, Mr. Gregory Gould and Mr. Thomas Cusack, whose credibility Fire Mountain
disputes. The Board rejects the claim. First, the Board's reso ution of the legal issues in this
case does not turn on the credibility of the parties' declarants. Second, as Ecology employees
whose job duties include determining compliance with fertilizer and dangerous waste
regulations. it is proper for them to opine on the meaning of re gulations that Ecology is charged
with developing and implementing. Cusack Dec:l., ¶ 2.4; GOL Id Decl., ¶ 2; Friends ofthe San
Juans v. Wash. Deli't qff ish & Wilcdlifc, PCHB No. 10-085, 4t 1 l (Aug. 19, 2011, Order
Granting Summ. J.); cf., Garrett v. Dept of Ecology, SHB No 5.03-031 and 03-032, at 4-5 (Apr.
23. 2004, Order on Summ. J.) (concluding that declaration fro -n Ecology expert supports
Ecology's interpretation of flood plain regulation). Finally. F re Mountain cannot rely on bare
assertions that Ecology relies on speculative and unsupported declarations to create a genuine
issue of material fact. Based on the summary judgment record. the Board concludes that the
undisputed facts Support the challenged Ecology decision.
OR17FR GRAN I ING 17x1;1'1'1 RTMENT OF ECOLOGY'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JLJD(-iMFN'I'
PCI Ila No. 16-132
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Ib
17
18
19
20
21
2. 60 -days Period to Review Application for Fertilizer Registration (Issue 1)
Issue I asks whether Ecology failed to evaluate Fire N ountain's fertilizer registration
applications NN ithin the 60 -day time period required by RCW 5.54.820 (3), and if so, whether
such failure warrants reversal of Ecology's denial decision.
The Fertilizer Registration Act prohibits a person frotT distributing a commercial
fertilizer until it has been registered with Agriculture. RCW 15.54.325(1). Applications for
registration must be made on a form furnished by Agriculture and contain certain required
information. RCW 15.54.325(2). "Within sixty days of recei� ing the completed [registration]
application. [Ecology] shall advise [Agriculture] as to whethe . the application complies with the
requirements of subsections (1) and (2) of this section." RCV+ 15.54.820(3) (emphasis added).
Subsection one in turn directs Ecology to evaluate whether tht use of the proposed waste -derived
ferti I iter is consistent with, among other law, the H W MA. ant I the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq. RCW 15.54.820(l). iubsection two directs Ecology to
apply the standards in RCW 15.54.806 or chapter 173-303 WAC (dangerous waste regulations)
if the WAC standards are more stringent.
Ecology acknowledges that its decision to deny approk al of the applications was issued a
week beyond the 60 -day time period under RCW l 5.54.820(3 0 Nonetheless, Ecology argues
that the time period is directory or di�,crcil ntary, rather than rr andatory, and that the untimeliness
of its decision does not warrant reversal. Ecology relies on th ! purpose of the Fertilizer
Registration Act and case law interpreting similar statutory lajiguage to support its argument.
' However. Iicolouv maintains that it had earlier inIN-med Agriculture of i s general position regarding the proposed
tertilizers' inconsistcncN NNith the 11WMA. Cusack DccL. !1 19.
ORDER GRANTING DEPAR`CME:NT OF ECOLOGY'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGML:N-l`
PCI 113 No. 16-13.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Fire Mountain argues that the term "shall" in RCW 15 54.820(3) generally imposes a
mandatory duty. Fire Mountain also points to other subsectio 1s in RCW 15.54.820 in which the
term "shall" directs mandatory actions. See RCW 15.54.820(:'.) (Ecology "shall apply standards
in RCW 15.54.8007'); .820(4) (review of Ecology's decision to approve or deny fertilizer
registration application -shell" be conducted under ch. 43.21 E RCW). Given these mandatory
requirements. Fire Tt OUntain contends that Ecology's interpre ation would lead to the
nonsensical result of the Legislature mandating requirements n all aspects of Ecology's review
of fertilizer registration applications and appeals from its revit w decision except as to the time
period that Ecology has to complete its review.
The word "'shall" in a statute generally imposes a man, latory requirement unless there is a
contrary legislature intent. Erection Co. v, Dep `t gfLahor car indus., 121 Wn.2d 513, 518, 852
P.2d 288 (1993). "Shall" may be directory or discretionary, d, -pending upon legislative intent
gleaned from both the language of the statute in which "shall' appears, and from the statute's
purposes. F.rectio�n Co.. 121 Wn.2d at 519; State v. Ric=e, 174 Wn.2d 884, 896-97, 279 P.3d 849
(2012); Andersotr v. Wevc rhaeuser Co., 116 Wn. App. 149, 1'3-55, 64 P.3d 669 (2003); Niiched
v. Lancaster, 97 Wn.2d 620, 627, 647 P.2d 1021 (1982). In d :termining whether "shall" is
mandatory or directory in any given instance, courts consider ill the terms and provisions of the
act in relation to the subject of the legislation.. the nature of thi ! act, the general object to be
accomplished, and consequences that would result from const -wing the particular statute one way
or another. Rice, 174 Wn.2d at 897. There are no attendant c, )nsequences with violation of a
i directory statute whereas violation ofa. mandatory statute eith :r invalidates purported
ORDER GRAN HN(i DEPARTTMFZNT OF t;C'0L0CYY"S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY Jt)I)GMENT
PCH E3 No. 16-132
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
transactions or subjects the noncornplier to affirmative legal liabilities. Niichcl, 97 Wn.2d at
623.
The Board concludes that the statutory time period for review at issue is directory.
Although RCW 15.54.820(3) directs Ecology to review fertili !er registration applications within
60 days. there is no dispute that the statute does not provide R r enforcement of the time period
or specify any consequence if Ecology fails to conduct timely review. This supports reading the
statute as directory. Michel, 97 Wn.2d at 623-24 (statutes stat ing that county assessor "shall"
list. value.. and file assessment on property by specified date a -e directory; assessor's failure to
comply %% ith deadline did not invalidate assessment where sta-utes do not limit taxing power or
prescribe any other consequence for untimely actions), State i. Miller, 32 Wn.2d 149, 151, 154-
5 5.
54-55. 201 P.. d 136 (1948) (statute providing "it shall be the dut"" of the attorney general to
institute legal action within thirty days of receiving report disc losing public officer's unlawful
act was directory N% here statute did not otherwise limit attorne � general's power to act after
expiration of time period). This interpretation is also consiste it with the principle that a statute
setting a time period within which a public officer is to perfor In an official act is directory unless
the nature of the act or language of the statute makes clear tha. the time period limits the officer's
power. Sullivan v. Dep 't. of'Transp., 71 W n. App. 317, 323, 1.58 P.2d 283 (1993); Michel, 97
Wnd.2d at 623; Miller. 32 Wn.2d at 155.
The nature of the time period provision in RCW 15.54 820(3) and its relation to the
purpose of the statute further supports interpreting the time period as directory. A statute is
directory if it i , , c r,.,ly a guide for conducting business and orderly procedure rather than a.
ORU1:R 1 ,, €I [ }I I ( )I f 1 Y'S
M(}`l ION I t 1 1'• I ', KY J1,1DO M LN i
PC'HB i- I ;
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
liMiMIi0r' 01 I W,L'hel, 1)_7 Wn.2d at 624. Additionally, when the time and manner of
performing the authorized action is not essential to the purpos, of the statute, the time and
manner provisions are considered directory. Id. The purpose of chapter 15.54 RCW is to
strengthen the fertilizer adulteration laws to protect human health and the environment by
ensuring that fertilizers meet standards for allowable metals, allowing purchasers and users to
know about the contents of fertilizer products, and clarifying, tgriculture's and Ecology's
oversight au€hirritw over waste -derived fertilizers. RCW 15.5•.265(1).
Like the statutes in ,1liichel and Miller, RCW 15.54.82 )(3) only prescribes Ecology's
procedure in evaluating fertilizer registration applications for,.ompliance with applicable law; it
does not purport to limit Ecology's authority to conduct evalu itions and approve or deny
applications. Indeed, another related statutory provision on fertilizer registration is silent on the
time period by which Ecology must complete its evaluation of fertilizer registration under RCW
15.54.820. See RCW 15.54.330(4) (stating only that "[b]eforr registering a waste -derived
fertilizer ... [Agriculture] shall obtain written approval from I Ecology] as provided in RCW
15.54.820."1
I lie specified time period for Ecology to evaluate applications is also not essential to the
purposc ofthe fertilizer registration statute. Even if Ecology had approved Fire Mountain's
applications as consistent with dangerous waste regulations, p griculturc must A II evaluate the
application for compliance with other requirements. See RCV' 15.54.330(1)-(2). The time
period in RCW 15.54.820(3) is therefore directory because it selates to the procedural manner in
OROVR i.iRANT IN[; DEPARTMENTOF ECOLOGY'S
MOTION FOR S NIPOARY Jt.IDGME'NT
PCHB No. 16-132
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
la
Il
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
which Ecology evaluates fertilizer registration applications an i is not essential to the purpose of
the fertilizer registration statute as a whole.
Finally. although f=ire Mountain does not state the con ;equence resulting from construing
RCW 15.54.$20(3) as mandatory, the Board notes that revers, I or invalidation of Ecology's
decision would frustrate the statute's purpose of strengthening the fertilizer adulteration laws to
protect human health and the environment. This weighs in fa, -or of construing the time period in
RCW 15.54.82(}(3) as directory. See, e.g., Miller, 32 Wn.2d at 156 (construing statute setting
time period for attorney general to institute action as directory where mandatory construction
would frustrate statute's purpose to protect state interests).
In sum. the Board agrees with Ecology that, as a matter of law, its failure to comply with
the 60 -day time period in RCW 15.54.820(3) is not a basis to 'everse its decision to disapprove
Fire Mountain's fertilizer registration applications. Ecology i entitled to summary judgment on
Issue 1.
2. Disapproval of Fertilizer Registration Applications, Co lateral. Estoppel (Issues 2-8).
Issue 3 n .hs whether Ecology erroneously represented and incorrectly assumed that Fire
Mountain is pri,[ ,ing to mix "unspecified quantity of manure:" with the material proposed for
registration-, a,, Wands 2 and 3, and if so, whether the error % rrants reversal. Ecology argues
that alIN di:-puik + ti:erning Fire Mountain's intention to add row manure to the mixture of
Emerald sludge and biosolids proposed as Blend 3 fertilizer is not material and not a basis to
ORDER GRAN HNG DEPARTMI.NT OF Et:(?LOCY'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY .JUDGMENT
P'CNI3 No. 16-132
15
2
7
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
reverse Ecology's disapproval of the fertilizer registration applications.' In response, Fire
Mountain only asserts that there is a factual dispute concernin; whether it had mixed Emerald
sludge with biosolids.
The Board agrees with Ecology. Any error in Ecolog3 assuming that Fire Mountain was
proposing to mix "unspecified quantity of manure"' to its prop )sed Blend 3 fertilizer is not a
basis for reversal because Ecology did not disapprove the fert liter registration applications on
that basis. To the extent Fire Mountain is arguing in this issut that it did not mix Emerald sludge
with biosolids and other materials in its storage units so as to ;venerate dangerous waste under the
mixture rule, the Board concludes that the argument is barred :)y collateral estoppel as discussed
below.' Ecology is entitled to summary judgment on Issue 3.
In Issues ?, 4, and 7, Fire Mountain challenges Ecolog y's general reliance on its prior
administrative order in disapproving the fertilizer registration applications. Issue 2 asks whether
Ecology erroneously determined that proposed Blends 2 and _ fertilizer products fail to meet all.
requirements of RC W 15.54.820(1), (2). Issue 4 asks whether Ecology erroneously concluded
that Administrative Order No. 10938 is relevant to and contro ling in Ecology's review of
proposed waste derived fertilizer Blends 2 and 3. Issue 7 ask4 whether Ecology erroneously
I T'he challenges) Ecology statement concerning co,.\ manure states that -F :ology understands the proposed fertilizer
to be a combination tiff some unspecified quantity of manure %\ith the mixt ire of municipal sewage sludge and
industrial waslewater sludge from Emerald that is the subject of Lcolog} ( rdcr No. 10938:' See Oct. 18, 2016
Letter from Ken ?arker, Section Manager ]Or Ecology's I lazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction Program to Robert
Thode Re: Notice of Denial in Board's appeal file. The basis for Ecology 5 statement was Fire Mountain listing
cost manure as one of the three ingredients in a questionnaire form that 1 --ii c Mountain submitted as part of its
application to register proposed fertiliser Blend 3, Cusack IkcI- "; 13, 1A 13; .see also, Thompson Decl., Ex. A. p.
5-6. Fire Mountain did not list co,.v manure as an ingredient in its proposed fertilizer Blend 2. Cusack Decl., Ex. C.
'This argument also appears in Fire Mountain's response independent of. ny legal issues. See Fire Mountain
farms. Int.'s Responsc to Ecology's Mot. for Summ. J. at 15.
ORDER C RAN HNO DFPAR l'MI N ]'OF 1-:COLOCY'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
PCI III No. 16-1371
r1c
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
14
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
24
"1
concluded thal Administrative Order No. 10938 and the Agref ment for Conditional Compliance
with Administrative Order No. 10938 bars Fire Mountain fror i pursuing any fertilizer
registration under RCW 15.54.820.
In Issues 5. 6, and 8, Fire Mountain challenges the pro.ess and specific bases of
Ecology's disapproval of its fertilizer registration applications. Issue 5 asks whether Ecology
erroneously concluded that Fire Mountain failed to "demonstt ite that there is a known market or
disposition" for the proposed fertilizer materials. Issue 6 asks whether Ecology erroneously
concluded that Fire Mountain failed to "demonstrate that there is a known market or
disposition," %N lien during the review process under RCW 15.:14.820, Ecology failed to request
such a demonstration from Fire Mountain, and upon information and belief, never requested a
demonstration ol'a known market in any other fertilizer produ.t submitted to Ecology for
approval. Issue 8 asks whether Ecology erroneously concluded that the proposed fertilizers do
not meet the land disposal restriction treatment standards for t 1041 (acetaldehyde).
Ecology contends that it properly determined that the i ise of the proposed fertilizers
would be inconsistent with the HWMA and dangerous waste tegulations under RCW
15.54.824(1) and (2) because the materials that Fire Mountain sought to register and distribute as
fertilizers are dangerous waste. Ecology also argues that because the Board has previously
determined that the materials are listed dangerous waste that r lust be managed as such, Fire
Mountain is barred by either collateral estoppel or res judicata from relitigating that issue. In
addition, Ecology argues that Fire Mountain is barred by either collateral estoppel or res judicata
from relitigating the related issues that challenge the status of the materials as listed dangerous
ORDER GRANTIN(i Dl:PARTMI;NT OF ECOLOGY'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY .IUDGMEN'T
PCHB No. 16-132
IIF►
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
waste: (1) whether Ecology is equitably estopped from requiring the sludge or mixture of sludge
and biosolids to be managed as dangerous waste, (2) whether he sludge and sludge/biosolids
mixture meet the legitimate recycling criteria' so as to quality for the "fertilizers that contain
recyclable materials" exemption under WAC 173-303-505(1) b)(iii), and (3) whether the
materials meet the land disposal restriction treatment standard i for each waste code it carries as
required under WAC 173-303-505(1)(b)(iii)(B) because the rr aterials do not meet the treatment
standard of -combustion for at least one waste code — U001 (ac etaldehyde).
The Board concludes that Ecology property relied on 1 xior regulatory and Board
determinations that the materials which Fire Mountain seeks t ) register as commercial fertilizers
are dangerous waste. and Ecology properly concluded that approving the registration
applications would violate the HWMA. Collateral estoppel applies to bar Fire Mountain from
challenging the regulatory status of the materials as dangerous waste.
Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, prevents a parl y from relitigating issues that have
been raised and litigated by the party in a prior proceeding. C lark v. Baines, 150 Wn.2d 905,
912-13, 84 P.3d 245 (2004); Juniper Beach Water Dist. v. Det;'t of Fish & Wildlife, PCHB No.
1 I -176c, at 7 (May 16, 2012, Order Granting Summ. J.); Frie, ids of the San Juans v. Dept of
Fish &- Wildlitc. PCt1B No. 10-085, at 9 (Feb. 24, 20 l 1, Orde - Granting Partial Summ. J. on
Collateral Estoppel). Collateral estoppel applies to _judgments rendered in quasi-judicial or
administrative proceedings. Christensen v. Grant County Horp. Dist. No. 1, 152 Wn.2d 299,
Hit 4:;,i1 i !1.1tk, g criteria includes factors such as whether the wat to provides a useful contribution to the
rcc;, clic I product or the rec}-cling process, whether the rec: cling process produce a valuable product,
and v,ii,:ll,.:r t iti ..,,,tc is managed as a valuable commodity. Dire Mountca W. PCHB No. 14-109c, at 22 (citing
lormer -til C.F.R. J 260.43(6)-(c) (20013)).
ORDER GRAN I IN6 DEPARTMEN"r Ol Fcot.OGY'4
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMEN`t.
1`0113 No. 16-132
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
307-08, 96 P.3d 957 (2.004). The Board has applied collateral estoppel to prevent relitigation of
issues previously decided between the same parties. See, e.g., Juniper Beach, PCHB No. l l -
176c, at 7-9. Friends of the San Juans, PCHB No. 10-085, at 2-13. A person asserting
collateral estoppel must prove that: (1) the issue decided in th;, prior adjudication is identical
with the one presented in the second. (2) the prior adjudicatiol i must have ended in a final
Judgment on the merits; (3) the party against whom collateral -stoppel is asserted was a party or
in privity with a party to the prior adjudication; and (4) applic.►tion of the doctrine must not work
,in injustice. Clark, 150 Wn.2d at 913; Juniper Beach, PCHB No. 1 1-176c, at 7-8.
I 11t-, Board concludes that collateral estoppel bars relitigating Issue 2 and Issues 4-8. All
four requirements for application of collateral estoppel are met. As to the same issue element,
the crux of Ecology's decision to disapprove Fire Mountain's fertilizer registration applications
is that the proposed fertilizers are composed of the same mate •ials that were determined in
Administrative Order No. 10938 to be dangerous waste. The 3oard's summary judgment order
in Fire R owilain. PCFIB No. 14-109c, upheld Administrative Order No. 10938. In Issue 2 and
Issues 4-8, Fire Mountain continues to challenge the status of the impoundment materials as
dangerous waste. Thus, the same issue element is met. The F oard's summary judgment order
was final.' and the: parties in this case were also parties in Firt Mountain, PCHB No. 14-109c.
Finally. there is no injustice in barring Fire Mountain from rel itigating the same underlying issue
it has already had a full and fair opportunity to litigate before he Board, and which Board
R For collateral este+ppcl to Kar Fe IiIil-1 ktlon 01- ISS UC " and 1."ues 4-8. itis not necessary that the issues were
previously rook ud through a trial ur hcaring: rather. a gratlt of summary'i idgment constitutes a final judgment on
the mcrlt5 Lull hx- tall' tianic prec1USi%C cllcct dS a IUll triLd 01'111C Issues. B "Uwgfield V. C.liy of Yakima. 178 Wn,
App. 850. 870, 1, 16 1'.,d 5'°t (2014).
ORDF.R t;R NN l IN(i DI:PAR I MENT OF ECOI,06Y'S
M01'10N I.OR SI NIrvtARY JUDGM1 NT
PCHB No. 16-132
19
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
jecisir It 1 Irc::':Icr_,ntain has appealed to superior court. On this element, Fire Mountain argues
that collateral estoppel cannot apply as a matter of law to bar its appeal because it would be
unjust and turn any appeal of Ecology's decision void ab initio. However, Fire Mountain
provides no authority to support its argument, and the Board h as applied collateral estoppel to
bar relitigation of the same issues between the same parties th tt were decided on summary
judgment. See. e.g., Juniper Beach, PC14B No. 1 1-176c, at 8.
Fire Mountain contends that collateral estoppel cannot apply to bar Issues 5 and 6 which
a •r. �, th,o..,,logy erroneously concluded that Fire Mountain failed to demonstrate a known
market or disposition for the proposed fertilizers as required u ider WAC 173-303-017(4).
According to Fire Mountain, Ecology conducted only a perfu¢ ctory review and did not ask Fire
Mountain to demonstrate a known market or disposition for tre proposed fertilizer.
The rule at issue provides in part that:
Respondents in actions to enforce regulations i nplementing chapter
70.105 RCW [HWN1A] who raise a claim that i certain material is .. .
conditionally exempt from regulation, must demonstrate that there is a
known market or disposition for the material, a 7d that they meet the terms
of the exclusion or exemption. In doing so, thf y must provide appropriate
documentation (such as contracts showing that a second person uses the
material as an ingredient in a production proce,.$) to demonstrate that the
material is not a waste, or is exempt from regulation.
WAC 173-303-017(4).
Contrary to Fire Mountain's assertion that Ecology was under a burden to seek out
information on a known market, the regulation imposes the bt rden on the party raising the claim
that its materials are exempt from dangerous waste regulation to demonstrate a known market for
(]FA)l I< <.;Ir. I i':r; I!l.F'ARTMENT OF t•COLMY'S
MoI l[ �N I ( IR "I ',.I',1 NRY .lUt)GMENT
PCI IIs
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
the proposed fertilizers. Thus, it is immaterial whether Ecolo;;y failed to request that information
from Fire Mountain or performed an alleged perfunctory revit w. Moreover, given the Board's
previous detertnination that the proposed fertilizer material w,s a dangerous waste, it was not
unreasonable for Ecology to determine that Fire Mountain failed to demonstrate a known market
or disposition of the materials. The del isting process has not l -eln completed, and thus the
material remains a listed waste and there was no error in Ecology relying on the Board's decision
on this issue. Neither Ecology's failure to ask for known mar .et information, nor Fire
Mountain's bare assertion in a declaration that there is a mark :t for its proposed fertilizers,
preclude the application of collateral estoppel or granting summary judgment on Issues 5 and 6.
Senfinel('3. Inc.. 181 Wn.2d at 140.
Fire Mountain also generally argues against the preclu sive effect of the Board's prior
decision, asserting that the decision did not address subsequer t events. Fire Mountain
specifically points to 2016 testing results of the sludge and sludgelbiosolids mixture. The results
showed toluene, benzene, and acetaldehyde concentrations to )e below laboratory detection
limits. Thode Decl., Ex. B: Cusack Decl., F..xs. B. C. Fire Mc untain also points to the December
2016 results of -the soil sampling of the fields where the sludge and sludgelbiosolids mixture had
been spread. The results showed that benzene and toluene we •e measured below Model Toxics
Control Act cli,all p levels.
To the e.tcnt Fire Mountain contends these test results prohibit the application of
collateral estoppel, the Board disagrees. To defeat collateral c stoppel, the change in
circumstance must resolve or overcome the reason for the pric r Board decision on the ultimate
[)RDI,R t Fh -tN I IN(i DE-PARTNIFN I OI ITOLOGY'S
MO I ION 10 R 41 AIMARY JUDGMENT
I'CHH No. 16-1 32
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
C)
10
Il
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
issue of whether the materials are dangerous waste that does rot qualify for the fertilizer
exemption. C. f.' De .Tray v. City of Olympia. 121 W n. App. 77 7, 789-90, 90 P.3d 1116 (2004)
(res judicata does not bar subsequent land use application if tl- ere is substantial change in
circumstances or conditions in subsequent application that is t elevant to and resolves disputed
issue in previous application). Subsequent evidence of concentrations of listed waste codes in
the sludge and mixture of sludgefbiosolids in the impoundmei ts, and in the soil where the
materials were spread, does not refute the Board's prior deters iination that the materials
constitute listed dangerous waste that fails to qualify for the ft rtilizer exemption.
The test results also do not constitute material facts th, t preclude summary judgment.
-I halt is because the present concentrations of hazardous const] tuents in the waste is not
dispositive of whether a waste becomes or remains a listed da igerous waste, especially where a
waste was listed in part due to its origin or source. WAC 173 303-070(3); -082(l); Knox Decl.,
p. 3; Fire A1ownlain. PCHB No. 14-109c, at 14-18 (Emerald s udge contained listed dangerous
waste benzene (I, 010). toluene (U220), and acetaldehyde (U01)). For example, in its previous
decision, the Board determined that the sludge was a dangerous waste, in part, because Fire
Mountain and Emerald had not complied with applicable land disposal restriction treatment
standards. Fire Mounlain, PCHB No. 14-109c, at 36-39. The testing results are not a change in
I circumstance that impacts that determination.
In sum, fire Mountain's issue 2 and Issues 4-8 present the same fundamental issue that
was litigated before the Board in Fire Mountain's appeal of A iministrative Order No. 10938:
whether the materials in its storage units (now sought to be re;;istered as fertilizers) qualify for
ORDER GRAN-] IN"(1 DI-TARTMENT O1- FCOLOGY'S
MOTION FOR St'NINI ARY JUDGMFiV r
PC[ -TB No. I6-132
22
2
3
4
5
h
7
g
y
I {1
11
12
13
14
15
lb
17
18
19
20
21
L,xcmption from dangerous waste regulation as "fertilizers tha contain recyclable materials"
under NV AC 173-303-505(l)(b)(iii). Collateral estoppel there are applies to bar relitigation of
these issues. The Board grants summary judgment to Ecology on Issues 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
3. Acetaldehyde (Issues 9 and 10)
Issue 9 asks whether Ecology was obligated to request further analytical testing to
determine ifthe proposed fertilizer products contained 0001 (acetaldehyde), and if so, whether
Ecology failed to do so. Issue 10 asks whether Ecology's disc pproval is arbitrary and capricious
I l fire Mountain can demonstrate that Ecology does not refuse to approve registration of food
" aste compost that contains acetaldehyde.
Ecology argues that it was not obligated to request analytical testing of the proposed
iertilVers for acetaldehyde because the land disposal restriction treatment method for that
chemical is combustion instead of a demonstration that it is bt low a specified numeric
concentration. -The. Board agrees. Secy Fire Mountain, PCHB No. 14-109c, at 16, 39. Fire
Mountain failed to demonstrate that analytical testing for acet.rldehyde is relevant for Ecology's
fertilizer registration application review. Ecology's failure to request such testing does not
warrant reversal of its disapproval decision. The Board grants summary judgment to Ecology on
Issue 9.
As to Issue 10. Ecology argues that Fire Mountain's a< sertion that Ecology has
previously approved compost food waste containing acetaldet yde as a fertilizer is not relevant.
Ecology asserts that its decision to disapprove Fire Mountain'; applications was not arbitrary and
capricious because the proposed waste -derived fertilizers contained the listed waste code U001
ORD FR GRA Nt'ING DEPAR 1'MENT OU ECOLOGY - S
WTI I OK `I lNtARY JL!DGMF:Ni"
PC'HB No. 16-13'
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
(acetaldehyde). and as a listed waste it had to meet the land disposal restriction treatment
standard ofcombustion before land application. ,See, Fire Mountain, PCHB No. 14-109c, at 39.
According to Ecology, other alleged decisions concerning fertilizer applications are not relevant
to this instance in which the proposed fertilizer material has been determined to be a dangerous
waste. Fire Mountain responds with conclusory statements ar d argumentative assertions that
Ecology has acted arbitrarily by disapproving the fertilizer red istration applications without
regard to evidence.
The Board agrees with Ecology. The Board previous)., upheld Ecology's determination
in Administrative Order No. 10978 that the materials which aie being proposed For use as
fertilizers contained the listed waste code U001 (acetaldehyde) and were dangerous waste
because the land disposal restriction treatment standard of combustion had not becii diet hel'ort
land application. Moreover, Fire Mountain did not set forth a iy evidence of other instances
where Ecology had approved a similar application to register ;i proposed fertilizer containing
discarded chemical product acetaldehyde (0001). The Board grants summary judgment to
Ecology on Issue 10.
Final)•, lire Mountain argues that the Board should df ny Ecology's motion because it is
equitably estopped from seeking summary dismissal of this at peal where Fire Mountain has long
relied on Ecology allowing its business practices. The Board ias already considered and rejected
the same equitable estoppel argument. See, Fire Mountain, Pi -'HB No. 14-109c, at 18-19. Fire
Mountain is therefore collaterally estopped from raising the s, me equitable estoppel claim in this
I case.
ORDER GRAN I ING DETAR rMEN'T OF ECOLOGY*S
MOTION ["OR SUMMARY JtJDGMI;N,r
€'CFIB No. 16-132
24
2
3
4
5
6
S
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Based on the foregoing, the Board enters the followinf :
ORDER
Respondent Department of Ecology's Motion for Sum nary Judgment on all issues is
GRANTED. and Appellant Fire Mountain Fauns, Inc.'s appe: I is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED this 15th day of September, 2017.
POLLUTION t ONTROL HEARINGS BOARD
THOMAS C. MO?RRILL. Board Chair
JOAN M. MARCHIORO, Member
KAY M. BROWN, Member
iCAROLINA SUN-WIDROW, Presiding
Administrative Appeals Judge
ORDER GRANTING DFITAR I'ME:NT OF ECOLOGY'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGME'N'T
PCFIB No. 16-13t
25
4.50
SITE SPECIFIC LAND APPLICATION PLAN
FOR Mid Mountian
This Plan is a component of Firek Mountain Farms.-
Application
arms.Application for Coverage Under the
General Permit for Biosolids Management
Permit No. BT99 32
Location:
Site Address
19724 128th Ave—SE, Yelm, WA
(General
Location:
GPS Coordinates
Latitude: 46° 54' C1U.14"N Longitude: 1221 31'
of Site Entrances:
05.12" W
Sec, Twp, Rge:
Section: 1 & 2, Township: 16N, Range: 2E,
WM
Water Resource
-- ------- -------
Inventory Area:
1 1
County:
_Nisqually
Thurston
Fire Mountain Farms. Inc. - Mid Mountain Ranch SSLAP
12/17118 Version Page 1
Table of Contents
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................3
1.0
Past Biosolids Use...........................................................................................................................4
2.0
Maps.................................................................................................................................................4
2.1
General location Map.. ...... ....................................... .. .......................................
................ 4
2.2
Site Map or Field Map..............................................................................................................4
2.3
Soils Map.....................................................................................................................................4
3.0
Seasonal and Daily Timing of Biosolids Application; ...........................................................5
4.0
Biosolids Staging and 5torage...................................................................................................5
5.0
Cropping Practices and Livestock Management,...............................................................f
6.0
Other Nutrient Sources and Soil Amendments......................................................................7
7.0
Methods of Application..........................................................................................
8.0
Determining and Validating Application Rates...................................................................8
8.1
Determining the Plant Available Nitrogen Requirement................................................8
8.2
Calculating the Application Rate.........................................
Error! Bookmark not defined.
9.0
Sampling Plan.............................................. --.................. .........................................................
...9
9.1
Soil Sampling............................................................................................................................10
9.2
Biosolids Sampling and Analysis..............................................Error!
Bookmark not defined.
9.3
Pathogen Reduction.............................................................................................................12
9.4
Trace Elements........................................................................................................................12
9.5
Vector attraction Reduction Standard.............................................................................12
10.0
Ground,.Nv<-itr r Protection Plan...... ............................................................................................
...12
11.0
Erosion (-,,-)ritrol Plan.................... ...............................................................................................13
12.0
Noxio r i V'V ed Plan...........................................................................................
...................... ....14
13.0
Restri, i it', ito Access...............................................................................................................14
14.0
Recordkeeping............................................................................................................................14
15.0
Additional information..............................................................................................................14
Appendices. .................................... .............................................. .......................................................... 15
Fire Mountain Farms, Inc. — Mid Mountain Ranch SSLAP
1211711gVersion Page 2
Introduction
This introduction is intended to give the reviewer a quick and general overview of
this site and related items. Many elements of this int oduction are more
completely addressed later in this Site Specific Lang Application Plan.
The goals of this plan include the following:
• Establish procedures to best manage biosolids storage and land application
on the site.
• Ensure that consistent and uniform land applica' ion practices are performed
and observed.
• Provide improved site soil characteristics througV sound agronomic
management.
• Establish procedures to meet the beneficial use )f biosolids as defined in WAC
173-308.
This farm is currently used for beef cattle (cow calf operation), forage production
(hay, silage, pasture) and ti: -,, _:i production. The site consists of flat to rolling
fields. The site has 1 residence %ouated on it, the hot ne is for the herdsman
Structures on site include barns, a machine shed ar d general livestock handling
facilities.
Leaseholder Arrangements: No leaseholder for this ! ite.
General Site Description: The site consists of fiat to sl ghtly sloping. This area
consists of rocky soil deposited at the enrl cif the lash ice age. None of this
property lies in either the 100 or 5 :. j ,/,77%ci, lki-'_>d zone. There have been no
observations of threatened or end(anueie-1 species on the site. The site is in
current agricultural and forestry production. It is not expected that the
application of biosolids will impact threatened or endangered species or critical
habitat for such species. A list of threatened, endar gered and species of
concern as listed by the Department of Fish and W1 dlife for Thurston County may
be found in Appendix 7.D of this plan.
General Biosoiids Handling: Biosolids will be deliverE d to the site during the
application window. No storage units are located on this site but may be built in
the future. Potential Staging areas are identified or Map 2D.
Ownership, Management, and Landowner Agreerr encs
Owners are as listed below.
Fire Mountain Farms, Inc. -- Mid Mountain Ranch $SLAP
12117118Version Page 3
Owner
Parcels
Tonin
Jason Abston
22601320000
ARL - Agricultural Resource Lands
36625 Mountain Hwy E,
22602430000
Eatonville, Wa, 98328.
22602420000
22602130000
Jason Abston
22602130200
RRR-,' Rural Residential/ Resource
3662.5 Mountain Hwy E,
22602130100
Eatonville, Wa, 98328.
This site is zoned as listed in the above table and ccnversion to other land uses is
not allowed. There is no known conversion being pl )nned.
See Appendix 1 for signed agreements from landowners (as distinguished from a
lessee, farmer, or others entitled to use the land) that acknowledge the
applicabili-. _)nd requirements of Chapter 173-3-08 "VAC when their property is
used for dids land application or storage.
1.0 Past Biosolids Use
No biosolids have been applied at this site that we ar owner know of.
2.0 Maps
Mapping units will designate Fire Mountain Form's c rea of biosolids land
application. These maps denote both site and setb ick boundaries (road and
property fine) as well as anomalies (e.g. swales, sloe es >l 5%, physical barriers,
etc.). Fire Mountain Farms site application maps will show proposed
staging/stockpiling locations, site acreage, site name, common name for site,
and other identifying characteristics for each site. Maps are located in Appendix
2 of this plan. This site does not lie in either the 100 o' 500 year flood zone.
2.1 General Location Map
Appendix 2.A - Vicinity Map
Appendix 2.B - Not Used
2.2 Site Map or Field Map
Appendix 2.0 - Aerial Overview of Site, Field I D
Appendix 2.E7 - Residences, Wells, Roads, Sign, Field Id., Surface Water
Appendix 2.E - Not Used
Appendix 2.F - Flood map
Appendix 2.G - Zoning Map
Appendix 2.H - Topographic Map
2.3 Soils Map
Appendix 3 - Soils Report (includes site soils rr ap)
Fire Mountain Fauns, Inc. —Mid Mountain Ranch SSLAP
12117118Version Page 4
3.4 Seasonal and Daily Timing of Biosolids Applic ations
Biosolids applications at this site are limited YE arly from March 1 st until
October 15th. Fire Mountain Farms may requost approval from Ecology to
proceed with land application activities outside of these dates if crop
conditions and weather per MANURE SPREACING ADVISORY (MSA)
fhttps://www.wadairyplan.org/MSAI are app'opriate for application. An
extension may be granted by Ecology for application at no greater than
one week intervals. Requests will be sent to Ecology 7 calendar days
ahead of application outside of dates. If Cher � is not a response by the end
of the 7 days application can proceed. Fror i a practical standpoint,
applications will normally occur during daylig -it hours and operations
usually do not occur on weekends or holiday ;. There may be occasions
where deviation from the normal schedule w II be required, such as the
need to apply biosolids so that a subsequent crop may be planted in a
timely manner prior to rain or adaption to neighbor's requests.
4. Buffers
Buffers will be marked so they are easily visible during application (for example
temporary flags or stakes). Surface water buffers w II be increased to 150% of
below when the potential for run off is heightened i i early spring applications,
(March 151 to April 15th), and late fall after Septemb(�r 30th.
Type
BuIffe r in Meters
Well
30.5
Residence
30.5
Wetland/ Creek
10
Un -delineated Wetland
10
Public roadways
2
Property boundary
2
4.0 Blosolids Staging and Storage
There is no structures on site. Staging or storage strLctures may be built in the
future, storage plan will be submitted for approval prior to construction
Access points at the site all have lockable gates. A1 -cess to this site will also be
resfri,: I(.1 --i by informational signs that are shown in AJI endix 5 of this plan. To
insure that drivers follow procedures, Fire Mountain =arms hus printed instruction
sheets describing biosolids offloading procedures. Tiese instruction sheets are
sent to all biosolids suppliers. New drivers to the site ire walked through these
procedures. A triple check system is in place to asst re all loads are accounted
for: First, all loads are to be scheduled with the Ope-ations Office prior to delivery.
Second, all sources have been supplied numbered Delivery Tickets (these are
numbered sequentially and if a number is missing. F re Mountain Farms
investigates what happened to it). See Appendix b.0 of this plan for an example.
Fire Mountain Farms, Inc. — Mid Mountain Ranch SSLAP
12l17118Version Page 5
Third, all deliveries are recorded on "Delivery Kecor A 5neeT" at saes. gee
Appendix 6.D for an example. Liquid biosolids has c similar three level record
system, load out sheet, delivery sheet and truck sheets.
5.0 Cropping Practices and Livestock Managemont
Acreage and Number of Fields:
Field Acreage:
Field ID
Acers
Crop/Use Alternative Crops
MM -1
16.24
Pasture Timber
MM -2
4.39
Pasture/ Timber Timber
MM -3
160.27
Pasture Timber
Total
180.9
Field boundaries rnay change
within perrnitted area tc coincide with cropping activities
Crops may change to any food, feed, fiber or fuel crop as markets and other
factors change. Harvest will be in accordance with WAC 173-308-210.
Total Acreage:
Parcel Number
..22601320000
Acrea e
65
22602430000
120
22602420000
40
22602130200
10
22602130100
5
22602130000
25
Total
265
Livestock are managed on this site in an intensive pasture management system.
This system requires many small fields with water available and frequent
movement of cattle to new pasture. Application of biosolids is done when cattle
are moved off of a field and not put hn(* on that f eld for at least 30 days at
minimum from last date of appiicati _:n. When grass is growing fast, there are still,
45 days between the times when cattle are moved off of a field until the crop is
ready to pasture again. This results in 15 days to apply to the field.
Some fields will be cut for hay or silage.
Forested areas will be managed for timber product on on a 40 to 60 yr rotation. If
timber is remove and converted to crops stumps wi I be removed and a crop
planted. Most of the timber has been recently cut rind site replanted.
Application methods will change as trees develop. Timber acres will be
calculated by area to be covered (i.e. road length' spreading width)
Fire Mountain Farms, Inc. -- Mid Mountain Ranch SSLAP
12117118Version
Page E
6.0 Other Nutrient Sources and Soil Amendments
Posturing cattle does return some nutrients to the scil. This addition of nutrients is
taken into account when determining biosolids application rates. Lime may be
applied to this site as a soil amendment. This additic n of lime acts to bring the
soil -pH into a range that supports optimal pasture g -owth. Other products may
be used to supplement biosolids application when seeded. For example,
biosolids is low in potassium and cobalt or soil may need supplements to adjust
soil pH for optimal plant growth. This is further addre3sed in the section on
calculating application rates where all nutrient and soil amendments will be
accounted for. Additional organic or inorganic Nitrogen applications, excluding
Pasture application from the cattle will be submitted in the same manner as
biosolids application.
7.0 Methods of Application
Fire Mountain Farms has a wide variety of application equipment and methods
for field applying biosolids. Some of the equipment s very specialized (such as
the timber liquid application setup) and others are more common in typical
agricultural production. Land application of biosolicls will be conducted with
equipment that is suitable for the site and cik,, f,� jr ft e material being land
applied. Land application methods will I:t _ for :in even and consistent
distribution in accordance with the calculate -_J app ication rate (see Subsection
9.2). Quality management of biosolids rr�np.) c1°s the flexibility to adjust to various
site conditions.
Equipment that may be used includes:
• Rear- and side -discharge manure spreaders for dewatered biosolids.
• Spray irrigation equipment for liquid biosolids.
• Drag hose systems for liquid biosolids.
• Other equipment as approved by Ecology.
Buffer widths have been noted on attached maps, ind will not generally change
with application method. However, from a practice I standpoint, some methods
of application will require increased setbacks to insure biosolids do not enter the
buffer area. For example, using a "big gun" (a sprir kler-type system designed to
apply liquid materials) could require the setback of an additional distance if wind
is determined to be an operational concern. Compliance may also be met on a
calm day by stationing a crew member in the field to closely monitor the
operations and maintenance of setbacks. Along with buffers comprised of an
approved setback distance, vegetated buffers ma r also be used to protect
sensitive areas from biosolids. Fire Mountain Farms considers the method of
application to be less of a factor in the setting of bL ffers than other aspects such
as field slope, type of vegetation, permeability of sail and sensitivity of buffered
areas.
Fire Mountain Farms, Inc. — Mid Mountain Ranch SSLAP
12117118Version Page 7
Currently Fire Mountain Farms has the following equipment:
For de-watered biosolids:
Knight side slingers (5)
Meyers rear discharge
Big A with FarmCo box
John Deere hyc: o push
For liquid application
Truck spread ,. i+h splash plates
Nuhn _500(
Terigater ;'-'jcI�4 reader
Harr) ! o.,� iec. t;)
i1,l i big cjun
ith 120H spray bar
Drag hose system
With airway aerator
With sod injector
With 7-shank injector
With splash plate
Due to the rocky soil on site the airway aerator may not be suitable so liquid
applications would be by splash plate or big gun. k night or Meyer spreaders are
normally used for de -watered material. The methoc of application will be
matched with the type of biosolids being delivered the crop and soil conditions.
For example, the 7 -shank injector is only usable with liquid biosolids being applied
to annual crops, whereas the Meyer works best for � eery dry biosolids (total solids
content of 40`70'i or greater). There may be occasior s such as soil condition, crops
being grown ,_,,.v seeding, equipment availability, characteristics of the biosolids
being delivered or other factors that may require u! e of different application
equipment.
When biosolids must be incorporated to meet the vector attraction reduction
(VAR) standard for Class B biosolids, one of the following methods will be used:
Injection with drag -hose system
Incorporation with tillage tool such as a disk r arrow
8.0 Determining and Validating Application Rote;
The subsections below detail the process to set desi•ed nitrogen levels for a given
crop, determine how much nitrogen is available in !)iosolids being applied, and
how to calculate volume of biosolids to apply to a ( liven field.
Ecology reserves the right to exercise professional jidgment when evaluating
proposed application rates and the site suitability so as to ensure biosolids rule
requirements and the goals and objectives of this p an are met.
Fire Mountain Farms, Inc. — Mid Mountain Ranch SSLAP
12I17l1BVersion Page 8
8.1 Determining the Plant Available Nitrogen Requirement
Agronomic rates for biosolids application will be de ermined using one or a
combination of the following methods:
■ Recommendation of professional agronomist or forester.
• As prescribed in farm plans on file with Thurston County Conservation
District.
• As recommended by Washington State UnivE rsity (WSU) Cooperative
Extension guidance.
• Production estimate based on potential of sc 'I as determined by NRCS Soils
Surveys, WSU or other Cooperative Extension guidance.
• As determined by actual production data using WSU rates per production
unit or the following formula. Calculation of r itrogen requirement for crop
production such as hay or pasture will be as f allows:
Dry matter yield (DmY) x (;)N) =N -uptake
(%N)= Crude Protein/6.25
Example:
DmY=4500 ib, Crude Protein= 18.75%, %N=18.7516.25=3%
N -uptake= 4500x .03 = 135 Ib nitrogen utilization
• Rates will be adjusted as indicated by biosolids nutrient data, soil sampling
and post-harvest soil nitrate testing. Record o' past production is the
preferred method, but when that is not ovailluble (i.e., new site or new
crop), Fire Mountain Farms will base application rate on the best available
recommendation. Fire Mountain Farms, Inc. will use the Department of
Ecology document, Biosolids Management G uidelines for Washington
State, to assist with the calculations as appropriate, The Fire Mountain
Farms Application Report (see Appendix 6.A .)f this plan) will be used to
record and document application rates.
8.2 Calculating the Application Rate
Application rates are calculated using Worksheet for Calculation Biosolids
Application Rates in Agriculture (PNW051 1 e), Excel spreadsheet based off of
PNW051 1 e (aka Cogger/Sullivan Worksheet). See A apendix 7.A of this plan for an
example. This spreadsheet allows input values for previous applications of
biosolids, ammonium retention, and mineralization tote.
Ecology shall have 14 calendar days for review of it formation regarding
agronomic rate recommendations. The 14 -day revi �w period shall begin after all
necessary information to calculate the recommenc'ation is received in writing by
the designated Ecology staff member. If Ecology dines not respond within 14
days of receiving all necessary information upon which a recommendation is
k-ji_j; -jd ar�r: !ir-.-,tion can proceed as proposed.
Fire Mountair, Farris. Inc. — Mid Mountain Ranch SSLAP
12117118Wersinn Page 9
Information that maybe needed to support application rates
a Cogger -Sullivan Spread sh yet
o What crop grown, harvested as,
o Other inputs, Irrigation, cor-rmercial products, lime
o Previous yields and expected yields
o Animals: type, size, time or field
o Soil test results
o Biosolids analytical data and type
Proposed application rates with anticipated application after September 15th
shall not exceed application rates recommended per an appropriate fertilizer
guide for fall application. In addition, application o,, -curring after September 15th
must include information received from the current season's fall soil samples.
8.3 Verifying the Application Rate
When applying biosolids, application rates are calculated in gallons per acre for
both dewatered and liquid applications. For dewatered biosolids, each
application unit is assigned a volume amount, and the number of loads per field
is determined. For less experienced operators, the s 4uare feet of area to be
covered will be determined. Depending on which upplicntor is being used, the
correct area will be covered by varying speed and width of spread. More
experienced operators will check the maximum number of loads per field and
set travel area and width so as to come out at that number or less. The typical
application rate procedure works like this: the upeivisor determines rate and
maximum number of loads for a field. This is E i ierec on the "Application Report"
and the report is given to the operator .vith o :-onse rvative factor built in
(typically 1 to 3 loads less than For lic, uid applications, a
determination of the number of dry tons �;`] ,i,r d is calculated. Then, using the
percent total solids of the biosolids, the galls,-,,, lv,er �icre can be determined. The
percent total solids will be checked periodic :illy an -I an adjustment to the
agronomic rate will be made if needed. VT),'n using the drag -hose system, a
flow meter is mounted in the tractor and a read ou- is displayed in acres per
hour. For example, if an application rate requires 31,000 gallons per acre and a
flow rate of 10003 gpm (gallons per minute), the tractor speed is set to two acres
per hour. All of this information is recorded on the "liquid Application Report"
located as Appendix 6.15 of this plan.
9.0 Sampling Plan
Sections below describe soil sampling and biosolids sampling procedures.
Fire Mountain Farins. Inc. — Mid Mountain Ranch SSLAP
1211711gVersion Page 10
9.1 Sail Sampling
The collection of soil samples and observation of crop response will assist
with the determination of correct biosolids ap plication rates. The fall post-
harvest soil nitrate test helps to gauge the eff activeness of the biosolids
application rates by measuring the concentnition of Nitrate -N remaining in
the top one foot of soil at t? ,- +:I-,; .+ of the growing season and before soils
become saturated. We MI icfli!_ �r Oregon Stcte University/ Washington
State University guidance #EM 8$82-E "Post-hairvest Soil Nitrate Testing, for
Manured Cropping Systems west of the Casc odes" by D.M. Sullivan &C.G.
Cogger for sampling Protocol and analyzing ;ampling results. Results will be
provided to Dept. of ecology within 14 days of receiving results.
Post-harvest soil nitrate testing is performed b / collecting soil cores at
multiple locations throughout the field, and combining the cores together
to form a composite sample. The depth of ec ch core will be labeled..
These samples will be dried or refrigerated or frozen to stop biological
activity that could change results before ship Ding to laboratory for analysis.
Post-harvest, report -cord, trends will be comp ared to threshold goals to
determine biosolids application rates for the following year. Additional
biosolids land application will be determined by considering the following
the trend nitrate testing, previous agronomic ate of N applied, weather
conditions for the growing season, other farming practice that could upset
current trend point. Oregon State University/ "Vashington State University
guidance #EM 8832-E "Post-harvest Soil Nitrate Testing, for Manured
Cropping Systems west of the Cascades" by ).M. Sullivan &C.G. Cogger
recommendations for Nitrate -N within the fop foot will be used for residual
goal. Fields with a 10 year history of Biosolids application will have percent
organic matter checked. Resampling interva s will depend on organic
material levels. Fields with substantial lime stc bilizer biosoiids application
with have soil pH tested.
Due to the complicated nature of soil nitrogen processes, an alternate
method of determining biosolids land application rates may be used with
Dept. of Ecology's concurrence. That method would include conducting
spring pre -application sampling for soil Nitratf!-N and Ammonium -N prior to
biosolids application, with those results subsequently used to determine
appropriate application rates using the PNWVC X51 1 e spreadsheet or similar.
Once those calculations are complete and the results submitted, Ecology
will consider allowing land application rates c n a field by field basis.
Fire Mountain Farms, Inc. —Mid Mountain Ranch 55LAP
12117/18Version Page 11
See the soil Sampling plan and Analysis Plan for more detailed soil
collection and testing information. A samplincl and analysis plan detailing
the procedures for the collection of soil samples may be found in
Appendix 8A of this plan.
Siosolids Sampling and Analysis
Documenting that biosolids meet the standards for and application in WAC 173-
308 is performed by either the biosolids generator (e.g. wastewater treatment
plant) or by Fire Mountain Farms, Inc. If biosolids quality is changed by Fire
Mountain Forms after receipt through the process of blending multiple biosolids
sources, Fire Mountain Farms will follow Ecology's Policy on Mixing Different Non -
Exceptional Quality Biosolids-2008. A sampling and analysis may/ will be
submitted To Ecology for approval. An overview of :)iosolids sampling
requirements is being presented here.
9.2 Pathogen Reduction
Pathogens are organisms, such as certain types of bacteria that have the
potential to cause disease in humans. Biosolids mus - be processed to meet
certain pathogen reduction standards. The pathos en reduction requirement for
biosolids received at this site shall be met by one of the alternatives listed in WAC
173-308-170 (5) through (7). When biosolids from multiple sources are mixed on-
site, documentation of pathogen reduction will be arovided through the
collection of seven samples that are representative of the blended biosolids and
analyzed far fecal coliform. These samples will be d =livered to a State of
Washington accredited laboratory following a chai-7-of-custody protocol.
Pathogen reduction shall be considered to have been accomplished if the
geometric mean of the seven fecal coliform sompli,s is less than 2,000,000
MPN/g-total solids (dry weight basis).
9.3 Trace Elements
At ❑ minim.!n i, l..,icsolids lana applied at ih � site, ML St meet the Ceiling
Concentira ri [Jinits for pol _'tarts fr_ . .ca in 1 )f WAC 173-308-160 (1). It is ❑
policy of Fire t0ountain Farms to of ; : ept uosoli ds that meet the more
restricilve Pollutant Concentration Linnil found in Table 3 of WAC 173-308-160 (3).
9.4 Vector Attraction Reduction Standard
Vector attraction is the characteristic of biosolids th cit may attract insects and
animals (vectors) capable of transmitting disease. In general, biosolids meeting
vector attraction prior to arriving at the site will have gone through a process to
reduce volatile solids or has physical properties such as high pH that reduces
vector attraction. To meet vector attraction reducf on (VAR) after biosolids arrive
at the site, a physical process such as injection or it', vorporation of the biosolids
will be performed as part of the application procec ure.
Most biosolids, prior to being received at the site, shall meet one of the vector
attraction reduction (VAR) requirements in WAC 17 3-308-180 (1) through (6). If
Fire Mountain Farms, Inc. —Mid Mountain Ranch SSLAP
12117118Version Page 12
the VAR requirement has not been met prior to the biosolids arriving at the site,
one of the VAR requirements in WAC 173-308-210 (z) (a) or (4) (b) shall be met at
the time of biosolids application and WWTP will be provided with confirmation
documentation that VARs was met.
10,0 Groundwater Protection Plan
Fire Mountain Farms will not apply to fields where depth to the water table is less
than three feet, or during a time when water table s near three feet and rising.
Determining depth to the water table:
1. Review Natural Resource Conservation Service, (NRCS), soil surveys for
depths to water table
2. Those soil types that have water table that comes within 36 inch of the
surface will have depth monitored prior to application.
3. Monitoring will be with temporary bore holes :)r permanent monitoring
wells.
a. Temporary bore holes will be drilled, observation made, then refilled.
b. Permanent monitoring points may be installed
4. Locations of monitoring points will be proposed to Ecology for approval.
5. Locations of monitoring points will be submitt{gid to Ecology for approval.
6. Field log will be kept on observations made c t monitoring points. Copy of
this log will be submitted to Ecology as part o: Annual Report and will
include at a minimum field conditions and wE gather, date, location
information, and depth to water.
7. After five years of observation if water table r as not been observed at a
monitoring point Fire Mountain Farms may close that monitoring point after
conferring with Ecology.
11.0 Erosion Control Plan
f,JRCS has not classed this land as "highly erodible". There are permanently
vegetated strips next to streams and ditches. The current agricultural and forestry
activities do not deem it necessary for an erosion control plan. Biosolids will be
applied at agronomic rates and managed consistent with established farming
practices. Typical farming practices designed to reduce erosion potential are in
place.
Fire Mountain Farms. Inc. - Mid Mountain Ranch SSLAP
12117118Versian Page 13
1 2.0 Noxious Weed Plan
Sites are managed for specific crops with standard farming practices in place to
control noxious weeds. There are no known specific concerns on this farm.
13.0 Restricting Site Access
A copy of Fire Mountain Farms' informational sign c :in be found in Appendix 5 of
this plan. Signs will be placed as noted on the map listed as Appendix 2.D.
Signs will be placed at all normal points of access and at least every quarter mile
along roadways that border application areas. Sigr s will also be placed at other
points along the boundary where it is deemed app ,opriate by Fire Mountain
Farms or as requested by DOE. Entering improved property without permission of
land owner or person who has right of possession (If ase holder) is a violation of
state law. The posting of signs noting the site is restri,.ted adds an additional
measure for protection for those who might violate the law and also signals to all
that the land is not open for public access.
14.0 Recordlceeping
Fire Mountain Farms shall keep specific records of Ic nd application activities.
These records sh.jll be available for inspection by Etiology upon request. As a
minimum, the following information shall be included in the land application site
records:
Fire Mountain Farms will maintain the following infor nation as required. Forms for
maintaining this information are located in Append ces 6 and 7 of this plan.
• Sampling and analysis data obtained or usec to make decisions on land
application.
• The source of biosolids delivered.
• The amount of biosolids delivered.
• The amount of biosolids applied and to whici i field.
• The number of acres on which biosolids were applied.
• The rate of application.
• The date biosolids were applied.
• The targeted vegetation and its nitrogen requirement.
• Information on how site management and access restrictions were met,
including for livestock.
• Information on how vector attraction reduction requirements were met if
biosolids were required to be tilled or injectec .
15.0 Additional Information
See the following appendices of this Site Specific Lc nd Application Plan for more
information.
Fire Mountain Farms, Inc — Mid Mountain Ranch SSLAP
12117118Version Page 14
Appendices
1. Land Owners Agreements
2. Site Maps
A. Vicinity Map
B. Not Used
C. Aerial Overview of Site, Field ID
D. Residences, Wells, Roads, Signage Field ld-:ntification Map Surface
Water, Wells
E. Not Used
F. Flood Map
G. Zoning Map
H. Topographic Map
3. Soils Report (includes site soils map)
4. Well Logs
S. Informcti:-�r,..il '�.ic-In
6. Forms
A. Land Application Report
B. Liquid Application Report
C. Haul Delivery Ticket
D. Delivery Record Sheet
7. Spreadsheets/Charts
A. Agronomic Rate Spreadsheet Example
B. Trace Elements Spreadsheet
C. Grazing Plan and Control Chart Example
D. Priority Habitat and Species List
8. Sampling and Analysis Plan
A. Soil sampling Plan
B. Biosolids Sampling Plan (may be submitted at a later date)
9. Post -Harvest Soil Nitrate Testing
Fire Mountain Farms, Inc. — Mid Mountain Ranch SSLAP
12117118Version Page 16
The People for City of Yelm
Proclamation
WHEREAS, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;
and that all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority; and
WHEREAS, the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees, "...the Right of the people to keep
and bear .firms, shall not be infringed" and Article 6, Section 2-7his Constitution, and the laws... made in
Pursuance thereof Shall be the Supreme Law of the Land... ; and
WHEREAS, Article 1, Section 2, of the Washington State Constitution declares "The Constitution of the United
States is the supreme law of the land. "; and
WHEREAS, Article I, Section 24, of the Washington State Constim ion further guarantees "The Right of the
individual Citizen to bear arms in defense of himse f or the state, shall not be impaired..."; and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has declared "...a law repugnant to the Constitution is void..." (see
Marbury v. Madison); and .... "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties, it is in
legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed. "(see Norton v. Shelby County)
WHEREAS, the people in City of Yelm regard as inalienable their Natural Right of self-defense,
constitutionally -guaranteed by the right to keep and bear arms; and further in its exercise derive economic benefit
and enjoyment in all safe forms of recreation, hunting, and shooting; and
WHEREAS, the myriad of measures imposed by government that criminalize lawful gun ownership do, in their
substance and effect, infringe upon and impair the constitutionally -guaranteed right to keep and bear arms as
exercised by Law-abiding citizens, inhibit lawful self-defense, do nothing to increase security in our schools and.
homes, nor address gang violence;. and
WHEREAS, the commissioners of City of Yelm, and the numerous council members of the various incorporated
cities within City of Yelm are elected to represent the Citizens within their respective jurisdictions, and are duly
swam by their Oaths of Office to support and defend the State and Federal Constitutions; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: the People for City of Yelm call upon the said county commissioners
and city council members to declare their respective jurisdictions to be 2nd Amendment Preservation in the
protection of Law-abiding citizens exercising of their constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms, AND
FURTHER to direct that no Sheriff, Police Chief, agent, employee, or official of their respective jurisdictions
provide material support to or participate in any way in the enforcement of any act, order, rule, law, or regulation
repugnant to the constitutionally -guaranteed right to keep and bear arms exercised by Law-abiding citizens of City
of Yelm.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: the People for City of Yelm call upon all counties in Washington State to join us in
this action by calling upon their elected officials to act in protecting their Law-abiding citizens in the exercise of
their constitutionally -guaranteed right to keep and bear arms by passing a similar resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: the People for City of Yelm wish to provide this resolution to the elected officials
within City of Yelrn and those representing City of Yelm at the state and national levels; and to all the People within
our state.
Resolved this loth day of February 2019, in Olympia, Washington by the People for City of Yelm
Scott Bannister Diane Lawry Mark Jensen
2019 City of Yelm, State of Washington
Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance
SECTION 1. TITLE
The title of this ordinance shall be known as the "Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance,"
or "SAPO."
SECTION 2. FINDINGS
The City ofYelm, in Thurston County Washington. The Mayor and city council members find
and declare:
1. Acting through the United States Constitution., the people created government to be their
agent in the exercise of a few defined powers, while reserving the citizen's right to decide on
matters, which concern their lives, liberties, and properties in the ordinary course of affairs;
A. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America states, "A
well -regulated Militia beta necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the
People to kccp gird bear arms, shall not be infringed";
B. The rights of the t)eople to keep and hear arms are further protected from infringement by
State and Local Governments under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution
of the United States of America as well as Article 1 of the Constitution of the Great State
of Washington;
C. Article 1, Section 24 of the Constitution of the Great State of Washington states, "The
right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be
impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or
corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men ";
D. Article 1, Section 30 of the Constitution of the State of Washington, RIGHTS
RESERVED. The enumera-tion in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be con-
strued to deny others retained by the people.;
E. Justice Thomas M. Cooley in the People v. Hurlbut 24 Mich. 44, page 108 (187 1) he
surmises: "The State may mould local institutions according to its views of policy or
expediency: but local government is matter of absolute right; and the state cannot take it
away
F. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America Section 1
it states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws ";
G. There is a right to be free from the commandeerin hand of `o emment that has been
most notably recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Printz v. United States.
The Court held: `The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the
States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their
political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. The
anticommandeering principles recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Printz v. United
States are predicated upon the advice of James Madison, who in Federalist #46 advised
"a refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union" in response to either unconstitutional
federal measures or constitutional but unpopular federal measures;
2. It should be self-evident from the compounding evidence that the right to keep and bear arms
is a fundamental individual right that shall not be infringed and all local, state, and federal
acts, laws, orders, rules or regulations regarding firearms, firearms accessories, and
ammunition are a violation of the Second Amendment;
3. Local governments have the legal authority to refuse to cooperate with state and federal
firearm laws that violate those rights and to proclaim. a Second Amendment Sanctuary for
law-abiding citizens in their cities and counties;
4. Therefore, through the enactment of this document City of Yelm, in Thurston County,
Washington is hereby a Second Amendment Preservation County;
SECTION 3. PROHIBITIONS
A. Other than in compliance with an order of a District or Circuit court, and notwithstanding any
other law, regulation, rule or order to the contrary, no agent, department, employee or official
of, City of Yelm, in Thurston County political subdivision of the State of Washington, while
acting in their official capacity, shall:
1) Knowingly and willingly, participate in anyway in the enforcement of any Extraterritorial
Act, as defined herein regarding personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition.
2) Utilize any assets, county funds, or funds allocated by any entity to the county, in whole or in
part, to engage in any activity that aids in the enforcement or investigation relating to
personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition.
SECTION 4. PENALTIES
A. All local, state and federal acts, laws, orders, rules, or regulations, which restrict or affect an
individual person's, or The Peoples', general right to keep and bear arms, including firearms,
firearm accessories or ammunition shall be foreign laws and defined as Extraterritorial Acts,
and are invalid in this county. Such Extraterritorial Acts shall not be recognized by , are
specifically City of Yelm, in Thurston County rejected by the voters of this county, and shall
be considered null, void and of no effect in City of Yelm, in Thurston County Washington,
and this includes, but shall not be limited to the following:
1) Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not
common to all other goods and services on the purchase or ownership of those items by
citizens; and
2) Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition;
3) Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition;
4) Any registration and background check requirements on firearms, firearm accessories, or
ammunition for citizens; and
5) Any Extraterritorial Act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of any type
of firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by citizens of the legal age of eighteen and
over; and
6) Any Extraterritorial Act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or
ammunition from citizens; and
7) Any prohibitions, regulations, and/or use restrictions related to ownership of non -fully
automatic firearms, including but not limited to semi-automatic firearms; including
semiautomatic firearms that have the appearance or features similar to fully automatic
firearms and/or military "assault -style" firearms by citizens; and
8) Any prohibition. regulations, and/or use restrictions limiting hand grips, stocks, flash
suppressors, bayonet mounts, magazine capacity, clip capacity, internal capacity, or types of
ammunition available for sale, possession or use by citizens; and
9) Any restrictions prohibiting the possession of open carry or concealed carry, or the transport
of lawfully acquired firearms or ammunition by adult citizens or minors supervised by adults.
A. Exceptions:
a. The protections provided to citizens in Section A(l)-(A)(9) of this ordinance do
not apply to persons who have been convicted of felony crimes.
b. This ordinance is not intended to prohibit or affect in any way the prosecution of
any crime for which the use of, or possession of, a firearm is an aggregating factor
or enhancement to an otherwise independent crime.
c. This ordinance does not permit or otherwise allow the possession of firearms in
State or Federal buildings.
d. This ordinance does not prohibit individuals in from City of Yelm, in Thurston
County voluntarily participating in assisting in permitting, licensing, registration
or other processing of applications for concealed carry permits, or other firearm,
firearm accessory, or ammunition licensing or registration processes that may be
required by law in other legal jurisdictions outside City of Yelm, in Thurston
County or by any other municipality inside Thurston County.
SECTION 5. PRIVATE CAUSE OF ACTION
A. Any entity, person, official, agent, or employee of the City of Yelm, in Thurston County,
Washington who knowingly violates this ordinance, or otherwise knowingly deprives a
citizen of City of Yelm the rights or privileges ensured by the Second Amendment of the
United States Constitution.
B. In such actions, the court shall award the prevailing party, other than the government of City
of Yelm in Thurston, Washington or any political subdivision of the county, reasonable
attorney's fees and costs.
C. Neither sovereign nor official or qualified immunity shall be an affirmative defense of the
County in cases pursuant to Section 4 or 5 of this ordinance.
SECTION 6. SEVERABILITY
A. The provisions of this act are hereby declared to be severable, and if any provision of this act
or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance is declared invalid for any
reason, such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this act.
SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE
A. The effective date of this ordinance, The Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance or
SAPO shall be effective immediately upon certification of approval by the City Council
Members of Yelm in Thurston County State of Washington.
YELM CITY Council
MAYOR:
JW Foster Signature
Council Seat 1
EJ Curry Signature
Council Seat 2
Molly Carmody Signature
Council Seat 3
Cody Colt
Signature
Council Seat 4
Tad Stillwell
Signature
Council. Seat 5
Tracey Wood
Signature
Council Seat 6
Joe Depinto
Signature
Council Seat 7
Terry Kaminski Signature
WE THE PEOPLE
Of
Thurston County and 2nd district of Washington State
On This Day of January 28'h 201
Present Our Redress of Grievances
Meeting with Senator Randi Becker, State Rep JT Wilcox, State Rep Andrew Sarkis & Sheriff Jahn Snaza
m,, 7
Scott Bannister of Yelm, Wa. & Matt Marshall of McKenna, Wa. Wash. State 11196
We The People are presenting our verbal Redress of Grievances with our Elected Officials and, are
advising the upcoming REMONSTRANCE coming with the Peoples Demands of Our 15; 2id 4"'
Amendments not be infringed. And Our 9th & TCT'Amendments be restored to the States.
The People Demand Our Elected Officials of Thurston County and 2"e Legislative District
Do Not Compiy to the Unjustified and Unconstitutional Statues, Codes and Laws and INFRIDGEMENT on
the Peoples 2 N Amendment God Given Inalienable Rights, being passed by Tyrants to the Republic
The People Demand our elected officials uphold their sworn Oaths to Defend the Constitution and
Republic both Foreign and Domestic Enemies
The People Demand any Elected Official willing and knowing that they are Not honoring their Oath to
People they Serve, Step dowry from their Elected position willing and not resisting or be arrested by The
People's Militia
The People Demand any Elected Official that is a current BAR Association Member, Step down from their
Elected position willing and not resisting or be arrested by The People's Militia Per the Original 1P
Amendment, That No Member of the BAR Association was able to hold any elected public official seat.
We The People Pray we can come to an Agreement on These Peoples Demands Above to be met or at
least considered or Grand Jury Indictments will come down from The People on Our Elected Officials..
Sincerely,
We The People of Thurston County in the State of Washington
God Bless Our Republic
Matt Marshall Scott Bannister
In the Zoig Congressionat-
Session
Of
the State of %Vashington
PETI' QN OF REMUNSTRANCE
UNDER HOUSE RULES:. 14, UNDER SENATE RULES: 17
IM: :r • F : :i
• � f
go
IN THE THURSTON COUNTY SUPERIOR FAMILY AND jUVENUX
COURT CASES 14-3-00302-2114-3-01694-9
WASHINGTONCUNSZTTUTIDN ARTICLE 1
SECTIONS: 1, 29 39 4, 71,99 109 139 14, 179, I8, 209 219 229 27, 329 35
PURSUANT TO WASHINGTON STATUTES:
RCW: 2.48.170.2309 9A.28.0409 42.55.030
Emotes Vbi hWons -18 U.SG §§§ 74'1, .242, 643,128 U.&C: § 1927,129 U.&C § 1109
He has erected a nud&ude of New Qj)ke:�, and sent hither swarms of
0,07cm to harass otw peoples and eat out their suhstanc-
EXECUTIVE ORDER 13518 ON HUMAN TRAFFICKING
(Pffb c Law 114-329) semen 212(t)
8 U.SG 1182(1), (1NA), 3 U.SG seefim 301
28 U-9 C M-1608 1330 1 `T'am 31 U.& 373 e
PREPARED BY:
NICHOLAS D. E ERRING
MA&W humin nr est obvA n fum
CIG P.U. Boa 1203, Olympia, Washington [985071, Phone (360) 810-"57y Ems
nioof Sh3474 &c*m
Rears exc4Mexdb ft adw
Le sabd do peaWe est la sxWmw Mi
Nd 4W emr1wx fifew quod Ae rmav i
Praefinlrc AcW nope debet alai ane
Lex arra ore orrwes mar
9
Om
mnito btates; Of awrica
UNDER:
28 U.S Code §§§ 2201, 2202, 2415
FOLLOW-UP IN THE MATTER OF: 18 -1472
CHRISTOPHER E. HALLETi' VS FL, DEPT. OF REVENGE
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
UNLAWFUL EMOLUMENTS AS UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICES OF LAW
Pursuant to -
JUDICIAL MANDATE ISSUED
Unjust Conviction Law
18 UAC- sem 729 — 732 [May 24, 938, ch. 266, 52 Slat. 4381
Treatise on Law Malicious Prosecutionh / Treatise on False Arrest & Imorisonmentfs
Forcefully to deprive a man of freedom to to where -so -ever be may is clearly a treses False
imprisonment was indeed one of the first trespasses recognized by the Common Law.l
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws,
and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves
invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
AMICUS CASE BRIEF
PREPARED BY:
CHRISTOPHER EDWARD 14ALT ETT
LOSS PREVENTION PRACTICE
Malitfis hominum est obviandum
(Lic. No. 4430791 Florida Notary Commission No. GG154748)
Rens excipiendo fi# ador, Judici offidum snuurn excedend non pardur
Judex damnatur cum nocens absoh*ur, Praetextu I&M non debet admitti illicitum
Pradevu legis hnjusda agens dupio puniendus
16062 SW 34 CT RD, Ocala, Florida, 34473, Phone (352) 4701-8460, Email eclausell�grnailxom
PREFACE
Christopher Edward Hallett (DBA E—Clause LLC) with full authority in Standing
pursuant to the attached Judicial Mandate, establishment of Lass Prevention
Practice, and through the attached Lawfully created Corporation by and through
the Florida Department of State to provide Loss Prevention Services to the United
States of America Corporation. Duties include, but are not limited to:
1) (Job Description) Malitiis hominem est obviandum. The malicious designs of
men must be thwarted.
2) Integrity of Legal 1 Lawfiil Process Issues as unlawful Emoluments, Pyramid
Schemes, Sham Prosecutions, Defective Business Practices, etc.
3) Lawful and Equal Enforcement under the Constitution of the United States of
America, and the Constitutions of the Several States pursuant to Article 4,
Section 2, of the United States Constitution.
4) Advising the Courts through this Process in accordance with established Due
Process of Law as I redress my grievances with my Legislature as written in
the Constitution; and paying due Respect to Lady Justice in accordance with
the Judiciary Act of 1789.
The questions to be answered in this case by the court are pursuant to these
fundamental principles (Maxims) of Lawful Process as follows:
1) Justita est iibertate prior. Justice comes before Liberty.
2) Jusddia nemini neganda est. Justice is to be denied to no one.
3) Jus etfraus nunquam cohabitant. Right and fraud never abide together.
1) How is it anything less than Treskson to continue to deny the People true
Justice under the Law by not enforcing perjury statutes against Government
Actors, in positions of Emoluments, knowing these three (3) most
fundamental Principles and Practices of Law?
2) How does the court reconcile (hold accountable) the BAR Association in
using The Declaration Oflndependence's declared acts of tyranny like a
"Check List" of things "To Do" in these cases to perpetuate litigation, and
those actions not constitute Treason on the Court?
3) How is Title 4 et al of the Social Security Act (unlawful Emolumentls)
anything but practicing Barratry and Extortion under the color of Law;
knowing unlawful incarceration is the end result as clearly established in this
case pursuant to the cited "Unjust Conviction Law", and the cited Treatises?
A) Treatise on Law Malicious Frosecution/s
B) Treatise on False Arrest & Imprisonment/s
4) How is The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA) anything less
than State Sponsored "Human Trafficking"? (A Death Penalty Offense as
articulated by the World Court)
Tbe Tm Q111,10mmatommts;
Lex uno ore omnes ai% uitur
The Law speaks to all with one mouth
1. You shall have no other Gods but me.
Z. You shall not make for yourself any idol, nor bow down to it or worship it
3. You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God
4. You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy.
5. Respect your father and mother.
6 You must not commit murder.
7. You must not commit adultery.
8. You must not stem
9. You must not give false evidence against your neighbour:
10. You must not be envious of your neighbour's goody You shall not be envious
of hes house nor his wife, nor anything that belongs to your neighbour.
Praetextu licid non debet adwW Mkitum
What is illegal ought not be entered under the pretext of legality
the Z�`eu Principles rhat &ivery Procedwe &
gaup Deccstau a c ty
(Mason's Procedural Manual, 2010 EdWon)
The group must have the authority to take the actions it purports to take.
Jurisdiction must be given; it cannot be assumed. Groups sometimes assume
powers that they do not have.
2. There mast be a meeting of the decision-making group. When authority is
vested in the group collectively and not merely in the individual members of the
group. To make a decision, the group must meet and make up its collective
mind.
3. A proper notice of the meeting must be given to all members of the group.
All members of the group are entitled such a notice of the time, place and
purpose of the meeting as will enable them to attend and participate. Failure to
give such a notice will invalidate actions taken at the meeting.
4. There mast be a quorum present at the meeting. A quorum is a sufficient
number or proportion of the members as will qualify those present to act for the
entire membership. A quorum is a majority of the members qualified to act,
unless a lesser number is given that authority by proper authority or a higher
number is especially required. A member who is not entitled to vote on a
particular question cannot be counted to make a quorum for voting on that
question.
• quorum, n. (17c) Parliamentary Law. The smallest number of people who
must be present at a meeting so that the official decisions can be made;
specif., the minimum number of members (a majority of all the members,
unless otherwise specified in the governing documents) who must be
present for a deliberative assembly to legally transact business. Pl.
quorums. (Black's Law 10'* Edition, page 1446)
5. There must be a question before the group upon which it can make a
decision. The question may be a Motion, Resolution or other proper form, may
be oral or in writing and in most cases should be capable of being answered by
an affirmative or negative vote. A member has the right to know what the
question is and what its effect will be before voting on the question.
6. There must be an opportunity to debate the question. An opportunity to
debate is necessary to enable the members of a group to reach a collective
judgment. A member has the right to express personal opinions and hear the
opinions of the other members.
7. The question must be decided by taking a vote. It is not enough to presume
how a member will vote. A vote actually must be taken. It must be taken by an
authorized and fair method.
8. There must be a majority vote to take an action or decide a question. In.
order to take any action or decide any question, there must be an expression of
the will of the majority. This is usually a majority of the legal votes, but
sometimes a majority of the entire membership or two-thirds vote is required. A
minority vote or a tie vote will not take any action.
9. There must be no fraud. trickery or deception resulting in injury to another
member. A person is entitled to protection of the courts from injury through
injustice by a body making a group decision as in any other situation involving
injury.
14. To be valid, any action or decision of a body must not violate any applicable
Law or Constitudonal Provision. The decision-making procedures of any body
must comply with the applicable provisions of any local, state or federal Law. It
is governed by any statutory or court -made law, including provisions of
Constitutions and Charters.
Lex specialis der„ o u enerali
A special Law detracts from the general Law