Thurston County hears appeal of Johnson Creek Quarry expansion, commissioners set written decision for Dec. 9

Thurston County commissioners on Dec. 3 heard competing legal arguments over a hearing examiner—s approval of Mountain Stone Aggregate—s special use permit for the Johnson Creek Quarry expansion, with appellants urging reversal or remand and the applicant asking the board to uphold the examiner—s decision. The board said it will issue a written decision by Dec. 9, 2025.

The appeal, filed by Asia Alexander and a group of local residents, contends the examiner—s approval is legally defective because it approved a 228-acre mine boundary while authorizing active mining on only 42 acres. Appellant counsel Brian Tellegen said the discrepancy could allow the county to lose the ability to deny or condition future expansions if a broad mine boundary is deemed a permitted use under the county code. "If the mine boundary is approved for the whole 228 acres, then it is very possible that the county could lose its authority," Tellegen said during oral argument.

Tellegen also argued the applicant failed to submit a required forest land conversion application with the permit, a filing the appellant said is necessary for the county to assess how much forest land would be converted and to determine whether the project complies with the Long Term Forestry (LTF) zone purposes. He cited Thurston County Code provisions governing conversion permits and special uses and asked the board to reverse the decision or remand the matter for further processing so that a conversion permit application can be submitted and reviewed.

Nancy Rogers, land-use counsel for Mountain Stone Aggregate, urged the commissioners to uphold the hearing examiner. Rogers said the record shows the proposal expands active mining from 10.4 acres to a 42-acre operations area and separately expands the mine—s site boundary to 228 acres to include soil stockpiles, monitoring wells and other operational areas. "A new special use permit absolutely will be required for any expansion beyond those 42 acres of operation area," Rogers said, pointing to condition 26 in the examiner—s decision and to the site plans and exhibits in the record.

Rogers told the board that condition 34 requires a conversion-permit application to be submitted, processed and approved before mining extends onto the 42-acre operations area. She also said reclamation planning is governed by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources and that condition 32 requires a DNR reclamation plan that designates post-mining use as forestry.

Commissioners asked detailed follow-up questions about how the decision—s findings and conditions limit disturbance to the 42-acre operations area, what the 228-acre boundary governs (stockpiles, monitoring and noise study areas), and whether the record contains the hydrogeologic data County staff says is necessary to protect groundwater and salmon habitat. Tellegen emphasized staff—s hydrogeology concerns in the record and said those concerns underscore the need for strict, process-level fixes; Rogers responded that the examiner examined the hydrogeological evidence and found the code—s hydrogeologic requirements were satisfied.

The board did not take a vote at the hearing. Chair (name not specified) announced the commissioners will issue a written decision on or before Dec. 9, 2025, and then moved into a closed session to consult legal counsel about the quasi-judicial matter.

What to watch next: the written decision due Dec. 9, 2025, which will state whether the board reverses, remands or upholds the hearing examiner—s conditions and findings.