HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources December 7 20041
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
December 7, 2004
Committee Chair Sharon Roy called the meeting to order at 9:34 a.m. in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Seth Fleetwood None
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Also Present:
Sam Crawford
L. Ward Nelson
Dan McShane
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL —
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CHAPTERS, MINERAL RESOURCE LANDS
(AB2004 -400)
Roger Ellingson, attorney for City of Sumas, stated the City is concerned
about protecting the aquifer recharge area for the May Road well field, which is
overlaid with Kickerville loam soils. The Surface Mining Advisory Committee
(SMAC) identified it as a wish list of where they'd like to mine next.
The Agricultural Advisory Committee endorsed language prohibiting new
mineral resource land (MRL) in agricultural land. Kraig Olason indicated to him that
the Agricultural Advisory Committee considered this for a long time and is working
on mitigation for mining in agricultural land. The committee consensus is of no
mining in Kickerville loam soils, which is the best soil in the county, because there
are only 5,700 acres left of that soil in the county. It retains moisture and still
allows precipitation to flow through it. It is the most valuable soil in the county.
One can grow anything in it. The marginal agricultural land in the county is used
up.
The City of Sumas, Department of Ecology (DOE), and Department of Health
(DOH) recommend staying out of ten -year zone of contribution instead of five -year
zone of contribution.
Last, because of limitations on seeing into the future, revise the planning
horizon to 20 years instead of 50 years. It is impossible to see aggregate use and
technology. They need something in the text about the importation of mineral
Natural Resources Committee, 12/7/2004, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
resources in the county. Even if this Kickerville loam soil can be mined, the
aggregate will go to Canada, not Whatcom County, because of its location.
Linda Franz, Ferndale, stated she has new information. There are proposals
with mitigation that will allow mining anywhere. Mitigation doesn't work. The
proposals encourage spot mining, not a comprehensive plan. Wait for the State
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) study, which encompasses water,
transportation, and quality of life.
Berms, which are noise walls, work the best for people nearest the wall.
However, the berm's effects are barely perceptible at 500 feet. Noise has effects
on human health, including raising heart rate. Sounds effect people physically.
She submitted and read from studies on noise (on file). The noise still affects her
house. The berms are not effective.
Another problem is dust. The traffic from the mines creates dust storms.
Dust can have negative health effects also. Her information also includes
information on dust.
She asked what her mitigation will be. She will pay the same property taxes,
but can't enjoy her property, which will be devalued. This is a nuisance next door.
If this is for the benefit of the county, she asked the benefit to her. This is an
increasing problem that the County will hear about. Most amendments will only
enhance the problem because they encourage ad hoc spot mining. The
Comprehensive Plan should identify MRL areas now, place the designation in those
areas, and do mitigation for the people affected, which may include compensation.
A cost to the business owner of doing business includes purchasing a protective
area around the mine. Montana requires a buffer of 3,000 feet. Before adopting
mitigation, the County had better find out if the mitigation works. Berms and walls
do not stop low frequency noises. Mitigation should be effective for at least 3,000
feet.
Lesa Starkenburg- Kroontje, 115 Front Street, Lynden, stated the County
does not have a 50 -year supply, but don't cut the planning horizon short to a 20-
year planning horizon to allow additional land use conflicts to occur. If they don't
identify the areas now that they can protect, they won't be able to get into those
areas later. Protect the commercially significant deposits. The supply of sand and
gravel they have is not quantified between sand product and gravel product. If the
horizon is 20 years, the County would need to analyze the deposits they've
protected. That work hasn't been done because the planning horizon was higher.
The County needs to do that work before reducing the planning horizon.
Regarding the agricultural land language, the language from the SMAC did
not allow gravel extraction within the agricultural areas, but it set up a program by
which it would be considered and allowed if certain parameters are met. The City
of Sumas and Agricultural Advisory Committee believe certain areas are not
appropriate. By adopting the language from the SMAC, they are not saying
Kickerville soils will be disturbed. The language says they will look at areas in the
Natural Resources Committee, 12/7/2004, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
agricultural district to see if any areas can be disturbed. Areas of marginal
agricultural resource may allow expansion of the mineral reserve without impact to
agriculture. By adopting an outright prohibition, the Council is not allowing those
opportunities.
The goal to protect 100,000 acres for agriculture is not inconsistent with the
SMAC proposal. It's possible to do a trade -off. If agricultural land is used for
mineral resource, then the owner needs to come up with other lands to be rezoned
for agricultural use.
Regarding site - specific mitigation, language is to address certain situations
where the Council may determine it is appropriate to place an MRL because of
mitigation, with that specific site. Staff, then the Planning Commission, then the
County Council will review site - specific mitigation. Once permits are applied for,
mitigation would again be addressed. When a permit is requested, the DNR and
County can request noise studies. Those are issues addressed through designation
criteria and operational controls. Leave the County the flexibility of site - specific
mitigation.
Crawford asked the Planning Commission reasoning for not allowing planning
for any mineral extraction in the agricultural reasons. It seems obvious they would
want to plan. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated the debate was on whether reclamation
could occur. The discussion was on the actual mining in the agricultural zone
rather than the process that is laid out. The process says they will look at whether
there are appropriate places for mining.
Crawford asked if the Planning Commission said why they wouldn't look at a
process. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated one Planning Commission member who is
also on the Agricultural Advisory Committee said the Agricultural Advisory
Committee wasn't interested in looking at the process, but it hadn't been brought
fo rwa rd.
Crawford asked if the wellhead protection areas are harmed by gravel
operations. He asked if the County would also have to eliminate agricultural uses
in wellhead protection area if the County outright prohibits mining operations.
Roy stated that is a question the Council must debate.
David Davidson, City of Sumas Administrator, stated the ordinance from
Thurston County was passed, and the publication date of the study was after that.
It's also true that after the study came out, Thurston County created a special
protection area where gravel mining was prohibited on the basis that a lot of people
lived over that area and used it as their sole source of water.
On page two of the chapter, goal 8 of the Growth Management Act (GMA)
doesn't mention minerals specifically. On page three of the chapter, in the GMA
Requirements section, the first two sentences are wrong. The correct language
begins at, "In addition, the Act mandates..."
Natural Resources Committee, 12/7/2004, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Roy stated the committee would begin on packet page 23, chapter page 18.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she wanted to talk about the ten -year wellhead
protection zone. Councilmember McShane wanted to work with the Health
Department on language, which the Council received a copy of (yellow cover
version).
Roy read the proposed change from the Health Department into the record.
McShane asked if the main rationale for a ten -year protection zone is the
potential risk from after - mining activities.
Chris Miller, Environmental Health Specialist II, stated that's correct.
McShane asked if there is a way to mine above the ten -year travel time if a
gravel deposit is separated by a clay layer from an aquifer. Miller stated it depends
on the case. The language tries to address all water systems and wellhead
protection areas. The language can try to address it. The second portion of this
language is straight out of the zoning code. The only change is he clarified who is
responsible for the systems. The Council needs to decide whether or not to allow
surface mining in ten -year wellhead protection areas. The calculated fix radius ten -
year area can over - compensate or under - compensate. They need to be looked at
more closely.
McShane stated it could narrow the area where mining would be excluded.
Miller agreed. Each situation is different. They could add language that further
study could be done if an MRL occurs in an higher model ten -year area to show
whether or not the mine will affect the water system.
McShane stated they require that evaluation for a mine. Now, they are
considering susceptibility. He asked if there is language they should include on
susceptibility.
Doug Goldthorp, Senior Planner - Geology, stated he is not aware of any
examples where it has been a problem in the past. However, given the public
sensitivity and the value of the water resources, extra language may be useful.
Roy asked if an analysis by a hydro - geologist would discover susceptible
problems. Miller stated the language says that if there is a higher model, there is
no MRL in the ten -year protection zone. It allows challenge of the fixed radius
model. If they want to go further, a higher model could be challenged by an even
higher model, which is a particular study on that one water system, to show that
the MRL will not impact the water system water quality or quantity.
zones.
Crawford asked how much area is between five -year and ten -year protection
Natural Resources Committee, 12/7/2004, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, stated he has a map with that information.
McShane stated applicants should be given the opportunity to show a mine
isn't in a zone of protection.
Roy stated the actual scientific analysis may show that the geology of the
area is different from a five -year protection zone.
Aamot stated 2,760 acres would be eliminated if the Council increases from a
five -year to a ten -year zone of protection.
Crawford asked what that would accomplish, or if it's general protection.
Aamot stated the Health Department recommends a ten -year zone of protection.
Mr. Davidson brought a variety of information on wellhead protection in a ten -year
zone of protection.
Crawford asked if a five -year zone of protection is ineffective. Aamot stated
it's a matter of degree.
Nelson asked how they determine five -year and ten -year zones of protection.
Miller stated there are four methods approved by the State Department of Health
for delineating wellhead protection areas. The first is the calculated fixed radius,
which looks like a bulls eye. The next method is the analytical model, then the
hydro - geologic model, then the numeric model. Each method requires more
analysis, data, and information. The method depends on the water system's
ability, time, and money to produce a map. The models change as the method get
higher and higher.
Nelson asked who decides on the five- or ten -year zone delineation. Miller
stated most have been done through State Department of Health susceptibility
assessment.
Nelson asked if someone who disagrees would have to bring forward his or
her own analysis. Miller stated that is correct. Higher models are done by a
licensed engineer or hydro - geologist. A wellhead protection plan is written also.
Caskey- Schreiber stated Peter Willing convinced her this is the right thing to
do. There used to be a 15 -year protection zone. There is little they can do to
protect water quality in the county. This is one of those things. The water systems
are very expensive and run by independent community associations. The
associations don't have other options for a water source. This is the least the
County can do. The language from Mr. Miller provides some flexibility. She can
support it. However, look out for the current water systems in the rural areas.
There aren't any more water rights if these go afoul.
Fleetwood moved to amend item eight on packet page 23, chapter page 18
to the language presented by the Health Department.
Natural Resources Committee, 12/7/2004, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Crawford asked if the intent is to allow encroachment in a ten -year area if it's
not harmful, and that the ten -year area is different than a fixed radius. Aamot
stated that's correct.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Nelson asked the timeframe to do one of these studies.
Miller stated a local engineer said it was $2,500 to $3,500 in cost, and can be
done quickly. Also, Evergreen Rural Water of Washington is a nonprofit agency
that does wellhead protection plans for free for water systems across the state. It
can do analytical models relatively quickly, depending on the characteristics of the
water system. There are templates for writing the plan. The higher models will
take more time.
Nelson asked if the studies that can be done quickly are the ones that are
allowed, according to this amendment. Miller stated that is correct.
Roy stated the plan needs to be accepted by the State Department of Health
for group A systems, and the County for group B systems. There is not a
guarantee that the plan would be accepted. The plan needs to be evaluated for
protecting the water source.
McShane stated the proposed language beefs up what was in the code
before. It protects the County from getting in a fight between the well user and the
mining company. Miller stated language in the zoning code is for existing MRL's
and surface mining applications. This language is for new MRL's and the applicant.
McShane stated that this way, the issue is looked at in the beginning of the
process.
Crawford asked Mr. Miller's experience on gravel operation and
contamination. Miller stated his research focused on the areas that they capture
and how basic models compare to higher models. He didn't look at all the potential
contaminants that can occur, which are endless. Someone can do that. He
provided documents on specific examples to the committee two weeks ago, which
he found rather quickly. Mining removes a layer that may decrease water quantity
or quality over time.
Caskey- Schreiber stated there are many cases across the nation showing
how mining is detrimental to water systems. Many people say the State
Department of Ecology (DOE) issues water permits, however only one person is
working at 40 percent to monitor 275 gravel mines in seven counties. It would
take that person two years to visit every mine just once. Protect the water quality
and availability in the county.
Crawford stated they have the same goals in mind, which is water quality
protection. They differ in understanding what a reasonable amount of protection is,
Natural Resources Committee, 12/7/2004, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
given the demand for resources in the county. They're talking about taking out
2,700 acres of resource. There are constraints on the area available. Current MRL
designations will need to expand a little over a decade at the current rate of gravel
use, which doesn't account for new developments. Much of the stuff that has
occurred in the past has been to level ground. Now, they have to look at more use
of mineral resource products to accomplish what they have in the past.
Crawford asked how Ms. Starkenburg feels about the change to the ten -year
window. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated the language already exists and the
opportunity is already available, through the zoning code. Now, the language just
spells out that someone with a new MRL proposal will do the increased analysis
first. This language doesn't deal with the ten -year time of travel and how fast the
water travels to the well. It doesn't deal with the protective layer or determining
the source of the actual impact. Everything has risk. Surface mining is something
they're singling out as unacceptable and prohibited.
Crawford stated they do this analysis to plan for the future needs of the
county. One of the things that keeps getting brought up is that the industry is not
necessarily working on the basis of Whatcom County's needs, and the gravel keeps
going out of Whatcom County. He asked if gravel is being shipped out of the
county, the quantity, and how much they can be sympathetic to. Starkenburg -
Kroontje stated Whatcom County cannot say that certain commodities do not leave
the county. There is also not a prohibition to allow gravel into the county. The
amount going out is extremely small. One company that operates on both sides of
the border indicated less than four percent of its supply is traded between its
locations. Now, the material available in Canada is more economical.
Nelson asked if anyone has done an economic analysis of taking out the
2,700 acres. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated they have not.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if people who are concerned have any ideas for
amending it.
McShane stated he's fine with one possible addition to the first sentence,
"...for susceptible aquifers as approved by the State Department of Health..." The
intent is to avoid creating greater susceptibility during and after the mining.
Roy asked if there is a definition of a susceptible aquifers. Goldthorp stated
there is a definition for the term from the Department of Ecology.
Peter Willing, Hydrologist, stated susceptibility has been defined. It is
defined as a critically sensitive aquifer recharge area. He looked at the basic
geologic map of the county from Don Easterbrook. He also looked at well logs, well
completion reports, and soil information. They can make a determination, but
there are fuzzy areas. Well log information does not come from hydro - geologists.
It's difficult to look at those well log descriptions and say they are accurate. It's
difficult to say if there is a protective zone between the surface and water table.
There is a great value to administrative simplicity.
Natural Resources Committee, 12/7/2004, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
McShane asked if the Sumas aquifer is a susceptible aquifer. Willing stated it
is.
Fleetwood asked if Willing supports the language change from the Health
Department. Willing stated he's just seen it. He hasn't had time to think about it.
McShane stated they can also borrow from the State solid waste rules, which
the County Health Department enforces on landfills.
Nelson asked how many areas in the county are critically sensitive recharge
areas. He asked for a percentage of MRL's in the County that fall into that
category. Willing stated he doesn't know.
Goldthorp stated the percentage is probably around less than ten percent.
Nelson stated he is concerned about a carte blanche ten -year zone of
protection on areas that aren't critically sensitive. He asked if there is evidence
that five -year zones in non - critically sensitive areas are detrimental. Willing stated
five years is a short planning area in either a critical or non - critical area.
Nelson asked if there is evidence where problems have occurred in a five -
year area in Whatcom County. Willing stated Whatcom County has been lucky so
far. That doesn't mean anyone has looked in a lot of these zones or looked
elsewhere. As the operator of a water system, he looks at the risk.
Nelson stated anything they do has some risk. He asked what they used for
a definition of a critically sensitive recharge area. Willing stated the definition is
included in the zoning ordinance.
Nelson stated ten -year zones should be in place without the extra language
for a critically sensitive area. On the other hand, a five -year zone is enough to
protect non - sensitive areas that won't impact wellhead protection areas.
Roy stated they are only concerned about the wellhead protection areas
themselves. There is evidence about the risk and issues in other areas. The
Department of Ecology and City of Sumas have provided a lot of testimony about
the risk. They're only talking about wellheads where people get their drinking
water, not any aquifer anywhere in the county.
Miller stated that regarding susceptibility, group A systems have gone
through susceptibility analysis and have been ranked.
Ellingson stated the committee does not have the information before it on
the impact of the change to the ten -year zone of contribution on the amount of MRL
available. The 2,700 acreage includes agricultural land.
Roy asked if that's true. Aamot stated it is true.
Natural Resources Committee, 12/7/2004, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Roy stated the 2,700 acres includes land they won't mine anyway.
Fleetwood stated the concern from the committee now is that it doesn't have
a definition and criteria for susceptibility.
McShane stated the Planning Commission recommendation was to extend to
ten years. There is discomfort about that for some. There has been no debate
ever that five years is appropriate. Leave it as five years. He will look at language
about susceptible aquifers for ten years. That way, there is assurance within a
five -year zone that there won't be mining. The susceptibility issue is gone. That's
how it's been since this Comprehensive Plan designation was put into place. The
only change is whether they go out to ten years, including all aquifers or
susceptible aquifers. He believes there is already criteria for susceptibility in the
State solid waste rules.
Fleetwood withdrew his motion to incorporate the Health Department's
recommended language for item eight.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she preferred to stay with the ten -year zone of
protection, which used to be 15 years.
Fleetwood moved to amend Finding of Fact 11, "The Growth Management
Act (GMA) requires counties, where appropriate, to designate mineral resource
lands..." to be consistent with the Revised Code of Washington (RCW).
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Sharon Roy, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 12/7/2004, Page 9