HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources November 23 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
48
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
November 23, 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:
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber None
Seth Fleetwood
Also Present:
Sam Crawford
Dan McShane
Barbara Brenner
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL —
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CHAPTERS, MINERAL RESOURCE LANDS
(AB2004 -400)
Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, submitted (on file) and read from a presentation
on the mineral resource element of the Resource Lands Chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Staff proposes to replace map 21 with a new map. The map identifies areas
as potential resource areas, as identified by the State Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) and Geo- Engineers. The new map also identifies the current
existing mineral resource lands (MRL's). Staff recommends removing from the map
the agricultural MRL study area west of Sumas, by Judson Lake. He completed
reading his presentation summary.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the rate of use includes the export of the
materials. Aamot stated there isn't a specific deduction for exportation. However,
the Surface Mining Advisory Committee (SMAC) did not believe there is a significant
amount of net export.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the estimates were made based on discussions
with the material providers. Aamot stated the Geo- Engineers report has estimates
on how much material is being produced now. The SMAC report, pages 21 through
23, list the factors they used in making their demand projections. The existing
Comprehensive Plan has the rate of use in the early 1990's. The SMAC looked at
several alternatives for demand. This was the highest of the five alternatives.
SMAC chose this alternative based on a number of factors. It's difficult to project
Natural Resources Committee, 11/23/2004, 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
out 50 years. SMAC wanted to err on the side of adequately planning for mineral
resources. The SMAC considered other issues.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the volume and cubic yard statistics are similar to
the statistics of other counties of like size. Aamot stated he hasn't looked into that.
The DNR had a methodology that assumed more conservation, which is in the
report, on Council packet page 19. The DNR assumed there would be 90 percent of
the current use in the first 20 -year planning period and 80 percent of the current
use in the last 30 years of the planning period. The SMAC believes that certain
issues, such as more difficult -to- develop sites, would not result in a reduction of
demand.
Roy referenced Council packet page 19. DNR is saying 129 million cubic
yards. The SMAC is saying 174 million cubic yards. Aamot stated the 129 million
cubic yards is not a DNR calculation. The County calculated that amount based on
a DNR methodology from 1994.
Caskey - Schreiber asked if the estimates are high. Aamot stated they are.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if it's the intent of the Growth Management Act
(GMA) to designate a 50 -year supply, and if the main reason is to provide notice to
landowners and to protect the natural resource. Aamot stated the County is
projected to grow by 60,000 people in 20 years. Some of those people will build in
the rural areas and may build near or over mineral resources so they are
inaccessible. The intent is to preserve the resource.
Roy asked if the State guideline for the 50 -year supply is really a suggestion
or is a requirement.
David Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the 50 -year requirement
was initiated by the DNR. The Department of Community, Trade, and Economic
Development (CTED) is tasked with providing guidance to counties to comply with
the GMA requirements for projecting mineral resource needs. CTED referred to
those suggestions from DNR. The GMA does not provide the 50 -year target date.
The County adopted the 50 -year planning horizon in the existing Comprehensive
Plan. The County must abide by the 50 -year requirement unless they change the
Comprehensive Plan. The GMA always looks to a 20 -year planning horizon. If the
County is going to comply with the GMA, it could switch from a 50 -year to 20 -year
planning horizon and still comply with the GMA.
Roy stated the Comprehensive Plan is based on the recommendations of the
DNR, but the GMA doesn't require 50 years. Grant stated the review cycle for
changing conditions and changes in the GMA is every seven years. The planning
horizon is 20 years, according to the GMA.
Roy stated the GMA doesn't say the County has to do this. Grant stated the
GMA tells the County it must do it, but it doesn't set a 50 -year planning horizon.
The County set the policy of selecting a 50 -year planning horizon.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/23/2004, Page 2
1
2 Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated that this is
3 suggested guidance from the DNR. The CTED coordinates with all the agencies to
4 provide that guidance.
5
6 Caskey- Schreiber asked if the County is only out of compliance with the
7 Comprehensive Plan and not the GMA, if it is out of compliance regarding the 50-
8 year planning horizon for MRL's. If the County changed to a 20 -year planning
9 horizon for MRL's, it won't be out of compliance with anything. Grant stated he
10 believed that is correct, with respect to the GMA.
11
12 Caskey- Schreiber stated 50 years is a long way out. It's a good policy to
13 identify and designate lands to avoid conflict. However, at some point they will
14 have to make a choice about what other natural resources they will have to give up
15 to achieve that 50 -year supply of MRL's. It's not a sustainable industry like
16 agriculture is. The sustainable industry should take precedence. Grant stated the
17 GMA gives county legislators the authority to draw out and answer those policy
18 questions.
19
20 Lesa Starkenburg - Kroontje, 115 Front Street, Lynden, submitted information
21 (on file) and stated she is speaking on behalf of the Whatcom Sand and Gravel
22 Association. The 50 -year horizon is based on more than CTED guidelines. It
23 recognizes that the sand and gravel supply is not used up and accounted for
24 equally. A 20 -year supply in the MRL's is of sand and gravel. It doesn't distinguish
25 between the sand resource and the gravel resource. In 1997, the industry
26 presented a matrix of the permitted sites. There was 40 percent gravel to 60
27 percent of sand at that time. There was greater use of gravel. A 20 -year supply of
28 sand and gravel' may well be only a six -year supply of gravel and a 28 -year supply
29 of sand. By over - estimating to a 50 -year supply of sand and gravel, the County
30 has given itself the flexibility necessary for different applications of concrete,
31 asphalt, and fill material. A deposit is not necessarily made up of one type of
32 material.
33
34 The Planning Commission was presented with information that exporting is
35 not an issue. There is more material coming into than leaving Washington State.
36 Once an area is surrounded by people or has an inconsistent use, such as a
37 wellhead protection area, they've precluded that area from a sand and gravel
38 development. Err on the side of too much supply.
39
40 The industry is concerned with two main issues regarding the SMAC and
41 Planning Commission work. First is the issue of closing off any discussion about the
42 process by which designations could occur in the agricultural lands. The SMAC set
43 up, by consensus, a process to determine where mining may be appropriate in the
44 agricultural zone. The Planning Commission removed that process. Include that
45 process created by the SMAC. If they don't, they will be in a crisis. In 1997, the
46 industry explained to the Council that there is a shortage of quality gravel. It took
47 seven years to get through that review. The community can't afford another seven
Natural Resources Committee, 11/23/2004, 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
years to go by. The cities' growth management compliance is based on material
being available to develop the infrastructure.
The second issue deals with wellhead protection areas. The language
adopted in 1997 set forth protection for wellhead protection areas in addition to all
the protection in the State law. Have a hearing so these issues can be addressed,
or docket the shortage of quality aggregate for 2005. Her letter includes the
SMAC's recommendation and its rationale.
Crawford stated the SMAC report did not say they should put MRL's in
agricultural areas. The SMAC report said there is a process to work on, to be done
by the end of 2005. Starkenburg- Kroontje stated the report also said that the
process may or may not result in an MRL designation in agricultural lands, and may
or may not result in lands that qualify for any criteria set forth. The first sentence
of the SMAC report section 12 says it all.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Linda Franz, 6640 Trent Lane, Ferndale, submitted information (on file), and
stated she would like to participate in SMAC, but cannot drop other activities. The
Comprehensive Plan is to discourage incompatible use, not draw up MRL's after the
area has become incompatible. Preserve quality of life and preserve water. Amend
to increase protection of water supplies.
There are red flags. She is against dropping criteria, even for expanding an
MRL designation. The only adequate buffer is 3,000 feet before quality of life is
reduced and property value goes down. If one can expand at will, there is no point
to an MRL designation.
She is concerned about lowering the criteria for sand and gravel to fill
material. They will be designating MRL's for fill material. She is also concerned
about allowing MRL designations adjacent to, which means near, residential zones
and urban areas.
The definition of comprehensive includes quality of life and water in addition
to the mineral supply. The State will provide an opportunity to study all of this and
come up with models that encompass quality of life, forestry, water resources,
agriculture, and mineral deposits. The information in her handout on truck
shipment from Washington by commodity is not specific to Whatcom County. The
study shows that material is going across the border.
These things not only affect her quality of life and devalue her property, it
also creates a public nuisance in the neighborhood. The County is asking the
citizens of the county to subsidize an industry when the resource isn't being used
for the county. Even if the resources weren't going to Canada, the County needs to
start thinking about compensation for individuals who are affected by this after the
fact. She has a material loss in her property value and quality of life. Her health is
endangered from dust and noise. Most of the new provisions encourage ad hoc
Natural Resources Committee, 11/23/2004, 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
MRL designations that only bring this issue forward to the County again and again.
They need these minerals. However, there is no incentive for people to conserve
the material.
Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, Ferndale, stated this is an important issue.
As a member of the Planning Commission, he has not seen the Planning
Commission do such a poor job on an issue. Previously, the Commission spent a
lot of individual and group time on the issues. For this, most of the commissioners
were not privy to the information. They haven't taken enough time to work on all
the various points they need to cover. This should go back to the SMAC, which
should educate the Planning Commission on the process it goes through.
Ending up short of the resource will have an economic impact to the county.
It will also have impacts on housing affordability. Farmers use a lot of gravel.
Their costs will rise. Thirty percent of the gravel resources is used for public
facilities. Almost everything they've done has required more use of these assets.
Roy asked if the SMAC talked to the Planning Commission. Wiesen stated
the Planning Commission didn't get the whole picture. There was one short field
trip.
McShane asked the cost per mile per ton to haul. Wiesen stated his trucks
cost less than those gravel trucks. It costs his trucks about $.80 to $.85 per mile
to run. However, his trucks haul 55,000 pounds gross instead of 105,000 pounds.
His equipment costs $34,000, not over $100,000 per truck and equipment. He
estimates the cost to haul the material would be a couple of dollars per mile.
Mary Dickinson, Building Industry Association Government Affairs Director,
stated she agrees with Mr. Wiesen's request for more time to review the issue. If
they don't have an adequate supply of the resource, it could affect affordable
housing and where developers can build. It doesn't provide certainty. They don't
want an under - supply. It's hard to comment on this without having the minutes
and staff report from the Planning Commission. She asked that the Council hold a
public hearing and possibly return the issue to the SMAC to get more citizen
involvement.
David Davidson, City of Sumas Administrator, submitted information (on file)
and referenced page 11 of his handout. The City of Sumas is the water supplier of
30 square miles. A liquid with the viscosity of oil and diesel would leak through to
the water table in about four minutes if there were a spill from the use of heavy
equipment, which is likely to happen every one to three years. The City of Sumas
is opposed to surface mining in its wellhead protection area. He is pleased that the
Planning Commission prohibits siting MRL's within the ten -year time -of- travel zone.
The State Department of Ecology (DOE) guidance document, written by a
hydro - geologist, says that sand and gravel mining is recommended not to take
place in areas highly susceptible, such as a wellhead protection area. The Planning
Commission recommendation is not as stringent as what the Planning Commission
Natural Resources Committee, 11/23/2004, 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
came up with years ago, which was a 15 -year time -of- travel prohibition. The
Council watered it down to the ten -year time -of- travel prohibition.
McShane stated item eight on Council packet page 23 refers to the ten -year
time -of- travel protection zone for wellhead protection areas. He asked if Mr.
Davidson has looked at any of the National Pollution Discharge and Elimination
(NPDES) guidance for the Department of Ecology and surface mining. Davidson
stated that both he and Ms. Starkenburg - Kroontje sat on the Department of
Ecology advisory committee for its most recent rewrite a few years ago. He did not
provide any of that information in his handout. Multiple people believe there is low
risk associated with mining in a wellhead protection area. He doesn't dispute that
belief. However, low risk isn't no risk.
McShane asked if, in that five- to ten -year travel time, an issue is the type of
operations. There is a difference in the risk. He asked if the Council should think
about that if it wants to get to a shorter time -of- travel area. Davidson stated that
is correct. The existing County code talks about the kinds of things permissible in
that lesser time -of- travel area. Have prohibitions on the riskier activities.
Refueling is the biggest concern.
McShane asked if, from the perspective of a water purveyor, Mr. Davidson
has any opinion on the success of monitoring from the DOE or DNR. Davidson
stated page 31 of is handout shows a letter about that issue. The DOE doesn't
have much staff to do monitoring or compliance. The likelihood of visiting a pit
here is rare.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the application of pesticides to prevent root rot
was looked at regarding the five -year versus ten -year travel time for wellhead
protection zones. Davidson stated if the mining were to occur successfully,
reclamation of the mine includes a reduced overburden thickness and it will be
easier for agricultural products to leach into the groundwater. The odds of incorrect
agricultural practices having worse affects on the wells is more likely. The only
affects on the wells have been from agricultural practices. Ideally, the whole
wellhead protection area would be forest.
Crawford asked if the City of Sumas has formally said this is what it wants.
Davidson stated the Sumas City Council has formally taken this position. He would
provide those minutes to the County Council. The Sumas City Council directed him
to put this information before the County Council. The Sumas City Council spent
over $250,000 in the last 15 years gathering this expert analysis.
Chris Miller, Environmental Health Specialist II, stated he spent a lot of time
working on the wellhead protection areas. He has published resource papers
regarding the local wellhead protection areas. The majority of the water systems in
the county have the most basic model applied to them, called the calculated fixed
radius, which looks like a bulls eye. He overlaid these model areas in the
geographic information system (GIS). The ten -year time of travel area according
to the calculated fixed radius model least matched the higher level groundwater
Natural Resources Committee, 11/23/2004, 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
flow models of the ten -year time of travel area. That's important because a
proposed MRL in the ten -year calculated fixed radius wellhead protection area could
really be in a one- or five -year area in a higher model, or could not at all occur in
the protection area of a higher model. An MRL applicant, whenever there is a
proposed mine in a ten -year calculated fixed radius, should challenge that fixed
radius with a higher model to get a better idea of the groundwater flow to that well
and see whether or not the proposed MRL will really be in the wellhead protection
area. There are about 400 water systems in the county. Of those, only 30 or 40
have a higher model that shows more specific and truer five- and ten -year
protection zones. Most of the water systems have the more basic acceptable
model, which looks like a bulls eye. The reason the Health Department feels that
no MRL's should happen within the ten -year area is because the applicant still has
the opportunity to challenge those areas with a higher model and show more
significantly whether or not the MRL will affect the well.
McShane stated the City of Sumas has done that more sophisticated
modeling. Miller stated it has. Its wellhead protection area goes up into Canada.
The option of a higher model benefits both the applicant and the County. When an
applicant proceeds with a higher model, the ten -year zone doesn't capture so much
land area. It provides more areas for the MRL to grow.
McShane stated section eight only specifies the zone of contribution for
designated wellhead protection areas. He asked if a mining applicant today could
alter that wellhead protection area by doing a higher model. Miller stated that is
done through a new wellhead protection plan for the water system, done by a
hydro - geologist or licensed engineer. The water system is generally a part of the
process also.
McShane asked if there is a model they look at. Miller stated the State
Department of Health allows four specific modeling levels. From lowest to highest,
they are the calculated fixed radius model, the analytical model, the hydro - geologic
model, and then the numerical transport model. They become costlier and more
complex. Whatcom County is unique because it has gotten far in protecting its
public wells. All the wells have some form of protection, which is rare. Snohomish
County is having problems with MRL's in wellhead protection areas.
Peter Willing, Surface Mining Advisory Committee Member, stated he told the
Planning Commission that the Department of Ecology's enforcement person spends
only 40 percent of his time being responsible for 275 gravel permits in seven
counties. Only six percent of one full -time equivalent (FTE) employee is given to
Whatcom County. The DOE enforcement officer told the SMAC that most of his
enforcement activity is complaint- driven. There is not a regular, systematic
presence.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the SMAC had enough time to work on this section
of the chapter. It seems like it did a thorough job. Willing stated he doesn't agree
with his fellow SMAC members on all the issues, but they all would agree that they
didn't leave any stones unturned. They had thorough debate.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/23/2004, 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 stated he attended one of the SMAC meetings when it discussed
the import /expert issue. He asked about the import /export issue and
recommendations for importing the resource. Willing stated SMAC looked long and
hard at the sufficiency of the material within Whatcom County to meet Whatcom
County's needs. The SMAC concluded that they will run out no matter what, at
some point. The question is what happens then. The economy serves to
equilibrate the supply and demand. Other places import the resource or make do
with alternatives. That will happen here eventually. The public sector, in addition
to the private sector, in Whatcom County needs to get on top of the issue and think
about it ahead of time.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if a change to a 20 -year supply would hurt the
County's ability to employ conservation, or if that is the reality. Willing stated that
changing from a 50 -year to a 20 -year horizon would not change the work they
have to do or change the reality. It would not change the need for long -term
planning for water supply protection and getting on top of the gravel supply for
future use.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that with a 50 -year supply requirement, there is a
lot of pressure to make new MRL designations. The question is how much they
have to give up. She asked if the ten -year protection zone is enough. Willing
stated he would prefer the 15 -year protection zone, however the State and County
should be consistent. The ten -year protection zone is better than the five -year
protection zone.
Aamot stated studying the amount of imported material isn't an action item,
but could be. It is a SMAC recommendation. The Council could add an action item
to chapter eight.
Wiesen stated he does not criticize the work of the SMAC, but the Planning
Commission needs to do a better job.
Fleetwood asked if the Department of Health and County staff recommend a
five- or ten -year zone of contribution.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the Department of Health recommended a ten -year
zone of contribution.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Aamot stated the staff defers to the recommendation of the Department of
Health opinion because it is a public health issue.
Fleetwood asked the opinion of the SMAC and Planning Commission. Aamot
stated the SMAC had a consensus process. At the end, votes were taken because
they wanted to be done. He can't remember if this was an issue in which a vote
was taken.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/23/2004, 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
Caskey- Schreiber she wanted to amend Council packet page 20, policy 8P -1,
"Designate a 50 yea 20 -year supply..." or leave the 50 -year supply and amend the
end of the policy, '...with protection of water resources, agricultural lands, and
forest lands, or consider fulfilling supply demands through importation of product."
McShane stated he disagreed with the 20 -year supply. The language that
has already been added gets to the issue of the struggle. They don't have to
designate every gravel deposit. They want to protect other sustainable resources,
and give them some sort of preference over gravel. That's okay. Philosophically,
they should designate as much MRL as possible. No matter what, the county
doesn't have a 50 -year supply. They could designate a 500 -year supply if they had
it, but they don't. Keeping houses, development, and incompatible uses away from
gravel mines is a good idea. Having a longer period of time out there to protect
would be okay if the resource is good and if it doesn't conflict with protecting other
resources.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she agreed with Councilmember McShane.
However, her bigger issue is choosing unsustainable industries over sustainable
industries. If they are out of compliance now, people will use the 50 -year supply as
a hammer to push their agenda to mine in agricultural land. They are working
under the premise that this is more important than setting a 50 -year supply of
agriculture.
McShane stated the Comprehensive Plan already has an amount of
agricultural land that the County wants to have. The question is how to get to that.
They haven't done a good job ensuring that the amount stays there. His concern is
on a long -term basis. They're hearing that there will be a shortage of minerals,
guaranteed. When it happens, there will be a dramatic shock to the system.
When that happens, people begin to use alternative methods. If they don't identify
the resources they are trying to protect, then the shortage will come and a future
council may decide that the mineral resources are more important than agricultural
uses. At that time, someone could easily change the designation criteria. Instead,
protect the 50 -year supply and figure out a way to import gravel into the county.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she still has reservations about how the 50 -year
supply number was achieved. They've heard that estimate is high. The intent of
the 50 -year supply is to designate areas, not to harvest the resource. She asked
how much burden there is to designate a 50 -year supply and the consequences to
being out of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Aamot stated Mr. Grant
addressed the burden to designate the supply earlier. There is a Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) that defines the planning period as 20 years, or longer
as designated by the local government. There is some latitude on that issue.
Regarding compliance with the County Comprehensive Plan, it is an issue. The
County is not in compliance right now. They can change the language to, 'Seek to
designate a 50 -year supply" or something like that.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/23/2004, Page 9
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
Caskey- Schreiber moved to amend policy 8P -1 and any other policies
throughout the chapter that begin with "designate," "Seek to Bdesignate..."
Fleetwood asked if changing the planning horizon has a trickle -down affect
throughout the chapter, requiring a myriad of changes elsewhere. Aamot stated it
would.
Fleetwood asked the practical difference between designating and seeking to
designate.
Caskey- Schreiber stated designating is a mandate, which makes her
uncomfortable. It will force future councilmembers to decide whether agriculture or
MRL's is more important. For her, there's no question that agriculture is more
important. She doubts that they can have both. Seeking to designate means they
will try their best. It is not a mandate.
Roy stated she agrees with the motion. They've built a house of cards by
requiring a 50 -year supply. The supply is finite. When it runs out, and the
Comprehensive Plan tells the County it must identify areas, then the Council will
begin to identify inappropriate areas.
Fleetwood stated he sees the distinction from a policy perspective. If they
are going to include the word seek,' they should add criteria.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Fleetwood opposed.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the amendment includes Findings of Fact item 16 on
Council packet page four.
Roy referenced Council packet page seven, chapter page two. The rationale
for the proposed amendment implies that mineral lands are sustainable. That is a
false premise. They are not sustainable. Aamot stated the first part applies to
agriculture, forestry, and mineral resources.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to amend the last sentence of the next -to -last
paragraph on Council packet page 10, "Surface mines do have the potential,
however, if reclaimed properly, to create wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat,
possible productive agricultural land for a limited number of crops, or provide land
for parks...." She will refer to the report done on July 10, 2000, which states that
land, once mined and reclaimed, does not live up to agricultural production
standards. Reclamation has not been done successfully.
Roy stated she agreed. The British Columbia Minister of Agriculture has said
that he has not seen one successful reclamation.
Fleetwood asked if there has been one single successful reclamation. He
asked why it is even referenced if there has never been a successful reclamation.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/23/2004, Page 10
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
Caskey- Schreiber stated they can grow corn successfully. Some may feel
that is successful.
Motion carried unanimously.
Caskey- Schreiber referenced the top of Council packet page six. Reclamation
can just as easily have a negative effect on water quality. She asked for
suggestions on how to amend the language in that sentence. Willing stated many
surface mining operations are reclaimed according to the DNR permits.
Reclamation to pit ponds is one option for reclamation. The pit ponds are
surrounded by residential housing. Many of these don't have public sewer systems.
They have onsite waste disposal systems. Recycling the nutrients from an onsite
waste disposal system into a pit pond will turn it green. That problem concerns
him.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to amend the last sentence of the first paragraph
on Council packet page 11, which is chapter page six, 'BAs mineral deposits are
depleted, reclamation to lakes or wetlands can mitigate the displacement of wildlife
and have a pes E tive effeet en wateF quaRy on occasion have water quality
consequences."
Roy stated the pit ponds that have hit groundwater have steep sides. She
asked if the water is from the water table. Willing stated it often is.
Roy asked what happens if it is left alone, without septic systems and
impacts from people. She asked if that is harmful to the water table. Willing stated
the key question is who is responsible for the post- mining land use. If left alone, it
probably won't suffer any post- mining adverse consequences.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they are exposing groundwater to evaporation.
Willing stated that is true, in the amount of three feet of water per year off the top.
Motion carried unanimously.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to amend goal 8J, "Sustain and enhance, when
possible, Whatcom County's mineral resources industries..." Sustaining and
enhancing this industry is a mandate, which is not possible. The industry is not
sustainable.
McShane suggested a friendly amendment to use "when appropriate"
instead of "when possible."
Caskey- Schreiber accepted the friendly amendment to amend goal 8J,
"Sustain and enhance, when appropriate, Whatcom County's mineral resources
industries..."
Motion carried unanimously.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/23/2004, Page 11
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 moved to amend policy 8K -4, "€neeUr-age Require the reclamation of
mineral resource...." Reclamation is required.
Fleetwood stated there may be some rural locations where there is no need
for reclamation for agricultural purposes. They could encourage reclamation for
these areas, and require reclamation for agricultural purposes.
Roy stated DNR asks for reclamation of every mine.
Aamot stated some sort of reclamation is always done.
Fleetwood asked why reclamation would be encouraged, not required, if the
State standard is reclamation. Aamot stated reclamation is in DNR's jurisdiction,
not the County's. The County doesn't have the authority to require reclamation.
McShane asked if there could be a County conditional use permit requirement
that the mining operation comply with the State reclamation permit. Aamot stated
that is true for smaller operations.
Doug Goldthorp, Senior Planner - Geology, stated the County is stepping into
the DNR's jurisdiction by requiring a mining operation to comply with the State
reclamation permit. The statute is clear on the County's and State's authorities.
The County has reclamation standards for smaller conditional use projects.
Reclamation of mines over three acres is the State's jurisdiction.
Fleetwood suggested a friendly amendment, "EneeuFage Require, where
there exists County jurisdiction, the reclamation of mineral resource...."
Roy accepted the friendly amendment to amend policy 8K -4, "EneeuFage
Require, where there exists County jurisdiction, the reclamation of mineral
resource.... ".
Motion carried unanimously.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to amend Council packet page 13, chapter page
eight, to delete the sentence, "
-ee'a *ffie ' aF " That has not occurred.
Motion carried unanimously.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to amend Council packet page 13, chapter page
eight, the end of the first paragraph, "...soil rehabilitation difficulties, eprd negative
cost - benefit balance, and drainage may also be adversely affected." The British
Columbia Ministry of Agriculture has repeatedly said that the area is restricted to
corn and grass crops after drainage is taken away. Other crops can't be grown.
Motion carried unanimously.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/23/2004, Page 12
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
Caskey- Schreiber moved to amend goal 8M to add language at the
beginning, "Recognizing that the agricultural industry is a long -term sustainable
industry, achieve a balance between the conservation of productive mineral lands
and the conservation of productive agricultural lands, within or near the agricultural
zones of Whatcom County."
Fleetwood stated he appreciates the intent. However, it's tantamount to
saying the County will achieve a balance in equality, but they are not equal. They
know mineral resource lands and agricultural lands are not equal. He asked why
they are trying to achieve a balance. Aamot stated this policy was adopted in the
1997 Comprehensive Plan. How to balance those things is the County Council's
decision. Outside the agricultural zone, there's not adequate minerals. Statewide,
50 percent of the gravel and sand goes to transportation networks. There is a
public interest to having the resource. It was recognized that there isn't a sufficient
amount of the resource if they don't include the resource in the agricultural zone.
Therefore, the 1997 Comprehensive Plan contemplated that they would consider
mining in the agricultural zone if they demonstrated a shortage in the study.
McShane stated they should focus on the goal, and don't try to rewrite the
goal. The question is what their goal is.
Caskey- Schreiber stated it's important to identify the priority. Agricultural
land is their priority.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Caskey- Schreiber continued to state that agriculture and mining are not
equal. It's important to call out which industry is sustainable. She doesn't have a
problem with mining as allowed in policy 8M -1.
Fleetwood stated he agreed they need to express the goal, which goal 8M
does not do. Therefore, goal 8M does require a rewrite. The question is whether
they can rewrite it now.
Roy stated this item would be scheduled at the next Natural Resources
Committee meeting and there will probably be a public hearing.
Caskey- Schreiber amended her motion to amend goal 8M to add
language at the beginning, "Seek to achieve a balance "1,t.•..,en the conservation of
productive mineral lands and achieve the conservation of productive agricultural
lands, within or near the agricultural zones of Whatcom County."
McShane stated they could cross - reference the goal to have and maintain a
certain amount of agricultural land in the county.
Caskey- Schreiber amended her motion to amend goal 8M, "Seek to
Aachieve a balance between the conservation of productive mineral lands and the
conservation of productive agricultural lands, without sacrificing the goal of
Natural Resources Committee, 11/23/2004, Page 13
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
adopting 100,000 acres in agricultural zoning in the county within or near the
agricultural zones of Whatcom County."
Roy stated the language sounds awkward. She suggested holding this
motion until a later date.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the committee could
recess and reconvene after the Planning and Development Committee ends.
The committee concurred.
Goldthorp stated it was brought to his attention that there is a reclaimed site
on Pole Road that is growing raspberries.
(Clerk's Note: The committee recessed from noon to 4:10 p.m. When the
committee reconvened, begin tape three, side A.)
Caskey- Schreiber amended her motion to amend goal 8M, "Seek to
Aachieve a balance between the conservation of productive mineral lands and the
conservation of productive agricultural lands within or near the agricultural zones of
Whatcom County without jeopardizing the critical land base that is necessary for a
viable agricultural industry." The American Farmland Trust said they need about
100,000 acres for a viable agricultural industry. They currently have about 88,000
acres. The county can't afford to lose any more.
Roy stated the true goal is to preserve agricultural land.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the policies are about allowing mining on a small
scale for personal use reasons.
Fleetwood suggested a friendly amendment to amend goal 8M, "Aehieve
-ranee between Recognize the importance of conserving productive mineral
lands and conserving productive agricultural land within or near the agricultural
zones of Whatcom County without jeopardizing the critical land base that is
necessary for a viable agricultural industry...."
Caskey- Schreiber accepted the friendly amendment.
Motion carried unanimously.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to amend policy 8M -2, "Avoid the use of
designated agricultural land for mineral or soil mining purposes unless the soils can
be restored to their original productive capabilities as soon as possible after mining
occurs."
Motion carried unanimously.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/23/2004, Page 14
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
Fleetwood referenced goal 80. He asked the criteria by which someone
would be allowed if impacts are minimal. He asked if there is a good reason to
include "or minimized."
Caskey- Schreiber stated they don't want to tie the hands of the County for
flood mitigation.
Aamot stated it might be practically difficult to avoid all impacts. There is a
Department of Fish and Wildlife and Army Corps of Engineers approval process. No
one has been on the river since 1995 because environmental regulations are more
restrictive. Anything they do has some kind of impact.
Brenner stated take out "avoided" and leave "minimized." There are times
when they do the fish a service by cleaning out the channel and creating a channel
deep enough for the fish to run. Sediment gets deep and makes a mess. It has
hurt fish runs in the past. Allow extraction from gravel and river bars when the
hydrologic and other environmental effects are minimized.
Fleetwood asked if a minimal environmental affect is one that doesn't harm
salmon, for example. Aamot stated the Department of Fish and Wildlife and Army
Corps of Engineers rules are aimed at that.
McShane suggested an amendment to goal 80 to add stream channels.
There are two streams they are actively dredging.
Roy moved to amend goal 80, "Support the extraction of gravel from river
bars and stream channels in Whatcom County for flood control purposes and
market demands where adverse hydrologic and other environmental effects are
avoided or minimized."
Motion carried unanimously.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to amend the last paragraph on Council packet
page 19, "Meeting the geal to designate a 50 yea demands for construction
aggregate in Whatcom County supply requires expansion of the mineral resource
land designations and consideration of the importation of aggregate. The policies
and criteria below are meant to be a guide this expansion."
Motion carried unanimously.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to amend the last paragraph on Council packet
page 19, "...The policies and criteria below are meant to guide this-ejpan
meeting the demand for construction aggregate."
Motion carried unanimously.
Fleetwood moved to amend policy 813-1, "not
Natural Resources Committee, 11/23/2004, Page 15
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
Motion carried unanimously.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to amend policy 8P -2, "...and urban growth
areas, unless it is more viable to consider importation of needed material where
feasible."
Fleetwood asked the criteria for establishing viability.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the criteria include cost and whether there are lands
around the urban growth area (UGA) or city that are available for MRL designation.
Brenner stated there are areas in the county that are more than ten miles
away, and they're not importing.
Caskey- Schreiber withdrew her motion.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to amend policy 8P -2, "...construction aggregate
is are within ... and urban growth areas where feasible."
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane suggested amending policy 8P -1, "Seek to designate a-59 -rear
supply of commercially significant construction aggregate supply deposits as
mineral resource lands, to the extent that such designations are compatible with
protection of water resources, agricultural lands, and forest lands."
Caskey- Schreiber moved to amend policy 8P -1, "Seek to designate a 50-
commercially significant construction aggregate supply deposits as
mineral resource lands, to the extent that such designations are compatible with
protection of water resources, agricultural lands, and forest lands."
(Clerk's Note: The committee did not vote on the motion.)
Fleetwood asked if an unintended consequence would be that they designate
every place in the county that has commercially significant portions of aggregate.
Presently, it is limited in scope by identifying supply. This means they have to
designate everything that is there.
McShane stated they only designate the places they are aware of. The SMAC
did not achieve consensus on the definition of what is significant.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she hoped this doesn't jeopardize the GMA mandate
that they have a 20 -year supply designated somewhere out there. She asked if
Councilmember McShane is confident that won't pose a conflict.
McShane stated one may be able to make an argument for it legally, but they
either have a supply or they don't. If they don't have a supply of material, it's hard
Natural Resources Committee, 11/23/2004, Page 16
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
to designate areas. The goal is to protect the good resources they have from
incompatible uses.
Brenner stated she would like to remove the reference to designating a 50-
year supply. They don't have a 50 -year supply in Whatcom County.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she argued for that earlier, but the point of this
designation is to provide notification to certain areas that there are resources in
that location and someone may choose to use them. Councilmember McShane's
proposal gets at that. She always thought they should designate for 20 years,
according to the GMA mandate. Staff feels that they meet the legal issue by
leaving it open -ended and designating the commercially viable construction
aggregate. She's fine with that.
Roy stated she originally felt that they should remove the requirement for a
50 -year supply. However, they've included enough new language that indicates
they know they don't have a 50 -year supply. They recognize the fact they may
have to look outside of Whatcom County for aggregate. She doesn't feel as
passionate about removing that language as she did. She's comfortable that the
changes make it clear they don't have that supply.
McShane stated thinking about a 50 -year supply is critical because they will
be more likely to designate enough areas.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape three, side A.)
McShane continued to state that only planning for a 20 -year supply may
result in allowing subdivisions on a tremendous resource. They don't want to pave
over their gravel resources.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they have a 50 -year demand they cannot meet,
which creates pressure to use the existing resources wisely right now. In addition,
they may also be able to change the designation requirement from a 50 -year
supply to a 20- to 50 -year supply. She made the argument earlier that the Council
is often pressured into designating MRL's because the Comprehensive Plan requires
a 50 -year supply. She doesn't like being pressured like that. However, it's good to
look to the horizon and identify what they can and can't do. The committee
included new language that says they need to find other ways to meet that 50 -year
supply instead of mining in forestry and agriculture areas.
Roy stated it's necessary at this point to change the language from a 50 -year
supply.
Fleetwood stated they know there is not a 50 -year supply. That's a fact.
Referencing a 50 -year supply is, therefore, misleading.
McShane stated they should look at the context of where those references
are in the chapter.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/23/2004, Page 17
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
Caskey- Schreiber moved to amend item five on Council packet page 22,
under General Criteria for Non - Metallic Mineral Deposits, "All pre- existing legal
permitted sites meeting the above criteria w�R may be designated." That allows
some certainty, but it's not a mandate.
Motion carried unanimously.
Roy asked if river bar scalping, as referenced in policy 8Q -6, is really okay.
Caskey- Schreiber stated it hasn't happened since 1995. It's related to
flood stuff, which is out of their control. She referenced Council packet page 23,
item 10 under General Criteria for Non - Metallic Mineral Deposits and moved to
amend, "Abutting parcel size density must not exceed one unit per nominal five
acres for more than 2SWe 15% of the perimeter of the site, unless p~ ejeet sp,,ei
mitigation is " They have no standards for what mitigation is. They have
no enforcement procedure. Also, she would rather specify 15 percent instead of 25
percent.
Roy asked where that percentage came from. Aamot stated it was in the
1997 Comprehensive Plan.
McShane asked if an MRL applicant would have to provide mitigation before
the MRL is designated. Aamot stated the applicant would have to at least make a
proposal for mitigation.
McShane stated County staff, the Planning Commission, and County Council
would review the mitigation proposal. The mitigation could vary depending on who
is making the decision, but it would go through public scrutiny.
Caskey- Schreiber amended her motion, "Abutting parcel size density
must not exceed one unit per nominal five acres for more than 2SQ10 15% of the
perimeter of the site, unless project specific mitigation is created and approved,
and a bond is secured the make sure it's done correctly."
McShane stated the SMAC had some ideas of what mitigation should be
considered.
Roy stated she is not in favor of removing the language the Planning
Commission added. She liked the fact that they are looking for mitigation.
Caskey- Schreiber withdrew her motion.
Fleetwood referenced item eight on Council packet page 23. The Planning
Commission increased the designation restriction from the five -year zone of
contribution to the ten -year zone of contribution. He asked if Councilmember
McShane approves of a restriction only in the five -year zone of contribution.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/23/2004, Page 18
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 stated he is uncomfortable going all the way to the ten -year zone of
contribution for general designation criteria. It doesn't speak to what might
actually be occurring on that site. If one is only occasionally excavating, and
doesn't operate equipment in the mine, his level of concern is pretty small. He's
more worried about what happens later on, such as an asphalt batch plant in the
mine. They can break out certain types of activities under the permitting part.
They could say that the MRL designation within a ten -year zone of contribution
would be more limited in scope.
After an area is mined, there may be increased risk from less material
layered above the groundwater. That will be a problem on those permeable gravel
areas regardless. He would be in favor of compromising on that language.
Caskey- Schreiber stated Peter Willing, a hydrologist, fought for this long and
hard. The restriction used to be in 15 -year zones of contribution. According to the
SMAC report, groundwater- dependent public water systems have substantial
investments in their infrastructure and have no alternative water supplies available
in many cases. Consequently, they are disinclined to accept any increase risk of
contamination to the aquifer that may result in from mineral extraction. They are
mindful that surface mining opens a window to the aquifer that increases risk of
groundwater contamination. Don't take the risk. The increased zone is not that
big. The least they can do is make mining compatible with a community's
groundwater. The number one goal of GMA and the Comprehensive Plan is to
protect water resources.
Roy stated the Department of Health believes that there may be a higher
standard of precise evaluation of bigger mines that make the zone narrower.
Aamot stated there are a few methods of delineating the wellhead protection area.
One is the fixed radius model, which overlays a bulls eye on the wellhead. Another
method is the higher hydrology model which is more detailed about the individual
site.
Caskey- Schreiber stated material from the Health Department staff talks
about only four out of 50 wells in Goldbar that were not affected by a nearby
mining operation. All affected wells experienced water quality problems and dried
up due to the mining operation.
Miller stated that although all wellhead protection areas are in place, as
determined by the calculated fixed radius bulls eye model, they can all be
challenged by the applicant with a higher level of model. When the higher level
model is applied, that bulls eye will change and the applicant may or may not be
able to move forward with a project. Both the mineral resource land applicant and
water system benefit from a higher level model. They get a better idea of where
the groundwater is flowing and whether the extraction will affect the well. That's
why the Health Department recommends a ten -year restriction. If not allowed in
the ten -year protection zone, that zone could be challenged, which would provide
more information.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/23/2004, Page 19
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
Fleetwood stated he would support the restriction in the ten -year zone of
contribution if there is language that allows the applicant to prove there are
protections.
Starkenburg - Kroontje stated the language that allows a higher model is in
the zoning code.
Fleetwood asked Ms. Starkenburg - Kroontje why she believes the difference
between the five- and ten -year zones of contribution is arbitrary. Starkenburg -
Kroontje stated wellhead protection areas were developed to see how long is the
time of travel. It was not developed with the idea to restrict mining operations.
The language has worked since 1997. There is currently a prohibition on the five -
year zone of contribution and activity is limited within the ten -year zone of
contribution. All the controls are through the permits and Title 20 regulations,
development standards, and performance standards. Other activities can cause an
impact, but this is the only part of the County code that prohibits activity within a
wellhead protection area. They have to balance the true risk. Wellhead protection
programs say they must look for a low to moderate risk within the wellhead
protection areas. The literature says that surface mining is a low to moderate risk.
Most studies conclude that bare surface mining has a low risk, yet they are saying it
can't happen in the ten -year time of travel. That's excessive and arbitrary.
Roy stated there are still issues to discuss that include whether or not to
designate a 50 -year supply and whether or not to restrict mining operations from
the ten -year zone of contribution for wellhead protection areas. She asked the
committee to hold this item in committee for more discussion.
The committee concurred.
McShane stated he's not sure the criteria currently reflects the goal and
policies regarding balancing agriculture and mining. The committee made decisions
about policy regarding agriculture. They need a lengthy discussion about the
criteria in the agricultural zone based on what the goals and policies are.
Fleetwood stated CTED and the Growth Management Hearings Board made it
clear that they have a grace period of a couple of months if they don't reach
concurrency on Comprehensive Plan amendments by the end of the year.
Caskey- Schreiber asked Mr. Miller to come up with language that would
support the mining restriction in the ten -year zone of contribution for the next
meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/23/2004, Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:30 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Sharon Roy, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 11/23/2004, Page 21