HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources January 27 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
January 27, 2004
Committee Chair Sharon Roy called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Seth Fleetwood None
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Also Present:
Dan McShane
Barbara Brenner
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
1. ELECTION OF COMMITTEE CHAIR (AB2004 -023)
Caskey- Schreiber nominated Roy.
Motion carried unanimously.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINERAL RESOURCE STUDY FOR
WHATCOM COUNTY, RECENTLY COMPLETED BY GEO- ENGINEERS
(AB2003 -391)
Doug Goldthorp, Senior Natural Resources Specialist - Geology, stated the
Comprehensive Plan requires the study to establish a 50 -year supply of mineral
resources. Staff divided this process into two phases. The first phase is the study.
The second phase, which staff is about to begin, is the planning process using the
information from the study. A scoping committee developed a scope of work that
the consultants followed. A consultant selection committee selected GeoEngineers
to do the study. The consultants strictly followed the scope details and fulfilled all
of their responsibilities. The Surface Mining Advisory Committee (SMAC) and staff
Natural Resources Committee, 1/27/2004, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
reviewed draft versions of the study. This is a scientific study, with very few land
use filters. That is left for phase II.
Chuck Lindsay, GeoEngineers, stated he was a principal investigator on this
study. Most of the work was done last year and completed during the beginning of
this year.
Craig Erdman, Geo Engineers Senior Geologist, read from his Power Point
presentation (on file). The Comprehensive Plan requires this study to be done
within five years of the Comprehensive Plan adoption in 1997. They studied only
the areas in western Whatcom County. The County established some criteria for
assumptions and data limitations. They were asked to look at specific areas.
Assumptions were made when they looked at water well logs and the quality of
data. There are about 30 million cubic yards of sand and gravel remaining in the
permitted portions of the areas designated as mineral resource lands (MRL's) and
about 50 million cubic yards of sand and gravel in the un- permitted portions of the
MRL's. The 50 million cubic yard estimate for un- permitted areas is hypothetical.
They're indicated or inferred deposits. They're not as well understood in terms of
volumes. There's also the possibility that environmental considerations may
restrict mining of those areas. For bedrock, 26 million cubic yards are permitted
and another nine million are un- permitted. The bedrock units of interest mainly
occur in the eastern portion of the county and on Lummi Island. Most of the
bedrock in this area is in the Chilliwack group, within volcanic rocks or
undifferentiated portions where there may be more resistant bedrock. To take a
good look at bedrock, it would take quite a bit of investigation to quantify it. There
are crystalline rocks near the border. There are other outliers that may also be of
interest, but they're remote.
In the southeast portion of the study area is the Twin Sisters. There's a
fairly large deposit. Olivine has a small MRL for refractory purposes. Other areas
may be of potential interest in terms of bedrock. It's also remote from areas that
require bedrock.
There are areas of bedrock on Lummi Island. There are other rocks of
interest. There's limited information on the bedrock. Someone would have to go
there and do more testing, including subsurface drilling explorations that would be
costly. The total measured reserves for bedrock represents approximately 16 years
of reserves, assuming that they substitute bedrock completely for sand and gravel.
Caskey- Schreiber asked about the quantity exported from Whatcom County.
Erdman stated amounts of aggregate that are exported are difficult to track. It
wasn't in the scope of the study, and it's not something anyone tracks regularly.
Roy asked if the GeoEngineer's recommendations for further study are
contained in the report. Lindsay stated they are.
Natural Resources Committee, 1/27/2004, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Fleetwood asked for a summary of the recommendations in the report.
Erdman stated one recommendation is to continue to build up a database. Also,
implement more rigorous monitoring of the mines to track the amount being used,
rather than relying on reports from the operators themselves. Some of the
operators are located at a distance. Sometimes the owners who don't have a good
idea of what is being produced submit the report. The measured bedrock reserves
appear to be adequate for the time being. Other areas warrant further
investigation. They weren't able to field verify some areas of interest for a variety
of access problems. Investigate these areas of potential interest.
Lindsay stated there are identified reserves and undiscovered reserves.
Follow a certain protocol to determine what is a measured, indicated or inferred,
and undiscovered reserve. They couldn't follow that exact protocol. For the
purpose of this study, they made the assumption that measured reserves are the
permitted portions of the MRL's. Those areas are already being mined. The MRL
areas that are not permitted or being mined were grouped into the indicated or
inferred categories. That doesn't mean they will be able to mine those areas.
Other controls go into it. It's less certain they will be able to use that resource.
Undiscovered reserves are based on loose information such as general geological
mapping. A lot of Whatcom County lowland areas are covered with alluvial
deposits, which general have sand and gravel resources. They looked at water well
reports, but the quality of those reports varies when describing the geologic
topography. The control of knowing how much undiscovered reserves exist is
limited right now. It is based on general assumptions.
Roy asked if the measured area is represented in the 16 years supply.
Lindsay stated it is. The additional 30 year supply is the indicated or inferred
supply in the areas within the MRL's that have a good chance of being permitted.
Caskey- Schreiber stated it would be helpful at some point to have an overlay
map of water rights, soils, and other factors that would be useful. Aamot stated
that information would be provided in the second step of this study process. This
step, which is the first step, is a scientific study. The Surface Mining Advisory
Committee wants to address the 50 -year supply issue and the action items in the
Comprehensive Plan. He will take that issue to that committee, then the Planning
Commission, then to the Council next fall.
McShane stated this study has helped them figure out where things are, but
it doesn't set the policy. Have Comprehensive Plan amendments and MRL
designations that take into account the value of the resource and extracting it
versus the value of what other use might be there.
Fleetwood moved to recommend approval of the resolution to the full
Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
Natural Resources Committee, 1/27/2004, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Harry Skinner, 6600 Goodwin Road, Everson, stated it's a huge job to
accomplish what these contractors have done.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Skinner continued to state that there is a lot of language in the study that
warns of the limitations on dependability of a report such as this. Look carefully at
the recommendations. Further study may be needed. They may not have a
document that warrants continuing with land use planning, based on the
information required by the Comprehensive Plan.
Fleetwood asked how the councilmembers, who are geology laypeople, are
to approve this study based on technical merit. Skinner stated he doesn't know
how much more onsite investigation is necessary. There's a lot of speculation in
the report. If they can make comfortable land use decisions with all the
speculation, it's fine. It's harder to depend on it. They may miss large amounts of
valuable, high - quality aggregate.
Roy stated the advisory committee will have expertise. Some of Mr.
Skinner's concerns will be addressed with a more thorough look from the advisory
committee. Aamot stated GeoEngineers and staff made certain assumptions to
determine whether or not they have a 50 -year supply, based on population,
consumption rate, and other factors. One question staff asked was whether the
County would designate additional mineral resource lands or highlight areas where
they'd invite gravel operators or private landowners to submit applications. They
will need more specific information from gravel operators testing individual sites to
make sure a specific area meets the criteria for approval of an MRL in the
Comprehensive Plan. The study is the first step in the process to designate MRL's.
They have to decide if they need more specific information from landowners.
Roy stated they also need people who want to extract the resource. They
can designate all they want.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the consultants determined the northeast
Nooksack and Judson - Pangborn areas as possibly the best for future expansion
based on what's available. She also asked if they looked at other factors. Erdman
stated they looked at a number of factors to evaluate potential resource areas,
including nearby MRL's, general proximity to market, and other factors mentioned
in the report. Overall, there was good nearby subsurface information that led to a
higher confidence of the actual deposits.
Skinner stated six MRL's are on the map without any resource designation.
Also, there is a DNR study that shows considerable amounts of information, which
the consultants probably used. The DNR study showed a huge source of mineral
resources in an area west of Lynden. In a subsequent study, that area vanished
from the map. He'd like to know why that study isn't on the map.
Natural Resources Committee, 1/27/2004, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
It appears from the study that most of the aggregate in Columbia Valley is
not high quality aggregate. He wants to be sure they have good information to
prove that is or isn't the case. Politically, it removes an enormous amount of
resource from what's available for the county. It takes the pressure off the existing
mines in the rest of the county. They may find the Columbia Valley has a huge
qualified resource. Keep an open mind about the Columbia Valley, and find out
what happened to the area west of Lynden that has disappeared.
John Matzinger, Surface Mining Advisory Committee Chair, stated the County
is fortunate that the Council undertook this study, and that GeoEngineers provided
a good overview. The study is not totally exact or complete, with good reason. All
this stuff is generally under the ground where they can't see or feel it. They've
used the best methods possible.
Whatcom County is going to run out of gravel someday. Before that, there
will be a conversion of use to the lesser quality bedrock. The committee wants to
help the county use the remaining resources intelligently, which has to do with land
use. That's the next challenge.
Gravel mines are not popular. The rules and regulations are extensive. A
new mine doesn't happen overnight. If there isn't gravel out there worth getting,
intelligent people aren't going to make new mines for the fun of it, and aren't going
to burden the Council with requests. Any requests made are done by competent
and responsible operators. It takes a lot of money to get into this business. Most
of the millions of yards of gravel are delivered by responsible people who will go
after this resource in the future.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she's heard there's a monopoly in the gravel
industry. She asked why the land isn't being reclaimed, if the operators are so
responsible. Matzinger stated that might be a matter of perception, neglect, or
timing. He invited Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber to attend the SMAC meetings.
The SMAC has discussed those issues. Overall, reclamation is being handled
rightly. There may be some exceptions. There are controls in place that don't let
reclamation run away. The long -range planning and DNR controls and rules apply.
Most mines with long -term permits include a reclamation plan. What
Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber sees may have been done before the existing
rules and regulations were put in play. Now, mining plans include reclamation
plans that are done over a period of years.
Nate Kronenberg, 2351 E. Pole Road, stated the study is predicated on
designation of mineral resource lands to satisfy Comprehensive Plan policies. The
State Growth Management Act only requires a 20 -year construction aggregate
supply. He asked the urgency to designate a 50 -year supply, which requires
expansion of MRL's at the cost of rural residential and agricultural lands. DNR says
the reason is to reduce land use conflicts and to mitigate future aggregate
shortages. The aggregate industry is securing their future and avoiding responsible
conservation. The Comprehensive Plan calls for recycling. High density
Natural Resources Committee, 1/27/2004, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
development at increased cost and political decisions may reduce demand for
aggregate, despite continued population growth, according to DNR geology reports.
Crushed bedrock production will offset any round rock aggregate shortage, which is
sufficiently abundant in the county.
Roy stated the Council isn't done talking about this yet. There will be future
discussions on these issues.
2. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE DRAFT INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE LUMMI NATION, NOOKSACK TRIBE, WASHINGTON
STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE, WHATCOM COUNTY
AND THE CITIES OF BELLINGHAM, BLAINE, EVERSON, FERNDALE,
LYNDEN, NOOKSACK, AND SUMAS (AB2004 -083)
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated the purpose of the interlocal
agreement is to make sure that, from this point forward, they have a better way to
engage the tribes and State regarding the issue of salmon recovery. It is also to
find a way to engage the federal agencies regarding the Endangered Species Act
(ESA).
This interlocal replaces the 1998 memorandum of agreement (MOA). The
County's designation of lead entity is exclusively in context to the grant applications
to the Salmon Recovery Funding (SRF) Board. This interlocal would replace that
lead entity status.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if it would eliminate the controversy of different
ranking systems for salmon restoration projections. Monsen stated there is
reference to a local government caucus and to make sure that caucus continues to
actively engage all the stakeholders locally. This new board creates a way to settle
the controversy.
Roy stated the local government caucus seems to have the same members
as the committee they're creating. Monsen stated the board is made up of every
signer to this agreement. When it comes down to making a project list, the formal
action is a matter of two votes. One vote from each caucus. Each caucus has to
sort themselves out about how to vote.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if it would alleviate the problem of the two factions
not working together when setting priorities. They may not always agree, and it
may be more difficult for them to prioritize, but at least each will know where the
other stands. Monsen stated that has occurred. The problem in the past has been
that the County, in it's role, was put in a position to mediate the discussion, but
had no authority to end the discussion. This board will have the authority to end it.
Roy asked where that leaves the County Council. Monsen stated the
interlocal agreement is a vehicle by which the Council will see more things come
forward. There is administrative agreement to move ahead, so the administration
Natural Resources Committee, 1/27/2004, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
will need policy support for implementation. Salmon recovery is almost all
administrative. The driver is still the County Council establishing policy through the
Comprehensive Plan. Any matter discussed in this board will continue to come to
the Council at the monthly work sessions.
Roy asked about organizations like the Nooksack Salmon Enhancement
Association (NSEA). She asked if their voice is heard through these entities.
Monsen stated all stakeholders would have a voice and be aware of what is going
on, at least through the governmental caucus. They will always promote
opportunities for clear discussion across the two caucus lines, without creating a
barrier of authority. The caucus structure is focused on policy comparison issues.
The technical issues are dealt with collectively.
Fleetwood asked who came forward with the idea of change. Monsen stated
that as they began to finish the salmon recovery plan and get into implementation,
he went through an exercise to replace these documents with an interlocal
agreement. The focus at the time was that it wasn't right for completion because
there was some work on governance of the watershed planning process that
confused the issue. Second, it was based on the idea that the County
administration would try to engage the smaller cities more substantively. The
tribes have some concerns about that. One big difference procedurally is the idea
of creating two caucuses to protect the tribal interest of government -to-
government relation, and still allows the small cities to be there.
Fleetwood asked if any of the parties expressed opposition to the change.
Monsen stated this draft is going through the two tribes and State officials. This
draft has been distributed to all the cities. He will meet with them soon. He has
not yet contacted Skagit County, which needs to acknowledge the shift in lead
entity status. He doesn't expect opposition, but he also doesn't underestimate the
significance of signing an interlocal agreement.
He is not asking for approval from the Council yet. He only wants the
councilmembers to bring forward questions, comments, and concerns. The Council
will see this again before it has to determine approval. The Council will hear a
report on how other parties react to the draft.
Fleetwood asked if the County's representative on the board would come to
the Council for discussion and look to the Council for policy direction. Monsen
stated it is similar to the water resource inventory area (WRIA) process. However,
actions by the board are not binding to the respective legislative agreements.
Decisions are only valid when endorsed by the respective legislative bodies.
Roy stated the legislative bodies should be consulted before the board's
discussion. The Council needs someone it trusts to enter into these discussions and
come back to the Council before the decisions are made. Monsen stated they all
have different ideas about what a policy discussion is. This is the enabling body. A
Natural Resources Committee, 1/27/2004, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
policy discussion is not exclusive to the legislative body. However, even those who
aren't required to go to the legislative level, will.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10:55 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, 1/27/2004, Page 8