SHINE — The project nicknamed “pit-to-pier” was dealt a setback earlier this month when a Kitsap County Superior Court judge granted a summary judgement motion that dismissed the project owner’s lawsuit against the state Department of Natural Resources.
Thorndyke Resources of Poulsbo seeks to build a 998-foot pier on state-owned land 5 miles south of the Hood Canal Bridge to annually load onto barges some 6.75 million tons of gravel that would be transported on a 4-mile conveyor belt from a quarry at Shine.
In its suit, the company was contesting a 55-year conservation easement announced in July that would block development on more than 4,800 acres of state-owned tidelands along Hood Canal, stretching from the Hood Canal Bridge south to just below the border between Jefferson and Mason counties, something that opponents feel would make it difficult or impossible to continue the proposed operation.
Dan Baskins, Thorndyke’s project manager, said the company hasn’t decided whether to ask the judge to reconsider the May 20 decision “because certain parts of the ruling weren’t clear.”
“We don’t always win in the first round, so we are going to the second round,” Baskins said.
“Whatever we do we are confident that we will prevail.”
Baskins said the project would create 2,000 jobs during construction as well as 100 land and 100 sea jobs during operation.
He said the project would be good for the rehabilitation of Puget Sound and that it is “the right type of industry.”
There is no timetable for completion of the project, he said, expecting that an appeal would take about 18 months.
“Time isn’t as important as doing it right,” he said.
Thorndyke had asked the court to nullify the easement and order that the company has preserved rights to develop the property and also asked the court for an injunction preventing the state and Navy from enforcing the easement.
Judge Sally Olson ruled that Natural Resources had the authority to grant the conservation easement and its establishment of the land’s value was not “arbitrary, capricious or unlawful,” as Thorndyke had said in its lawsuit.
The Navy paid Natural Resources $720,000 for the easement, which restricts development in the area around Naval Base Kitsap and gives the Navy unrestricted access to waters for military exercises.
In its motion, Thorndyke argued that the amount was less than half the fair market value for the property.
Assistant Attorney General Edward Callow said in his declaration that the project was at cross purposes with Naval operations.
“This project would directly interfere with Navy’s national security interests in protecting Naval Base Kitsap; would jeopardize the Hood Canal Ecosystem and would prohibit the public form using state-owned aquatic lands in the area of the proposed dock for the entire length of time the dock exists,” Callow wrote.
Opposition to the project has focused on possible environmental effects, traffic and the potential impact, including collisions, of multiple Hood Canal Bridge openings required by up to six barges a day.
Project proponents say the environmental impact of a conveyor belt and barge terminal would be far less than if the gravel were transported by truck.
John Fabian, volunteer leader of the Hood Canal Coalition, called Thorndyke “the picture of persistence,” adding that he expected an appeal will be filed.
Fabian said the controversy echoes other similar battles where “the companies wait for the environmentalists to die while the environmentalists wait for the companies to go bankrupt.”
Fabian said this has already happened in this case as original developer Fred Hill Materials, which applied for the project’s permits in 2003, declared bankruptcy and closed in 2012.
Thorndyke took over the project at that time.
“We will continue to fight,” he said.
“This is not a short-range deal.”
_______
Jefferson County Editor Charlie Bermant can be reached at 360-385-2335 or cbermant@peninsuladailynews.com.
