Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources September 28 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 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 September 28, 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 SPECIAL PRESENTATION 1. NAN LANEY AND CHRIS MORGAN TO PRESENT A PROGRESS REPORT ON THE GRIZZLY BEAR OUTREACH PROJECT (AB2004 -316) Chris Morgan, Grizzly Bear Outreach Project Co- Director, presented a Power Point presentation (on file). Bears are viewed in many different ways by people. The North America grizzly bear used to range over half the continent. He read the presentation. Fleetwood asked who designates the recovery ecosystem. Morgan stated it is designated by the federal government through the Endangered Species Act (ESA). He continued to read the presentation. The British Columbia plan is to go ahead with the plan for capturing bears and monitoring them before transplanting them into the North Cascades. Nan Laney, Grizzly Bear Outreach Project Field Coordinator, continued reading the Power Point presentation regarding the components of the outreach program. Fleetwood asked if there have been confirmed sighting in Whatcom County. Morgan said there have been. There was a class one sighting, a confirmed grizzly bear, by specialists. There was a sighting in the Thunder Creek area. A class one sighting means there was a confirmed evidence by a specialist from a track, genetically analyzed hair, a carcass dig, or an actual sighting. There are about six to 12 reports, but the agencies don't have the resources to check on them all right away. The most recent sighting in Whatcom County was at Thunder Creek in 1991. Fleetwood asked about the British Columbia augmenting program. Morgan stated the British Columbia program has radio collars for candidate bears on the interior side of the coast mountain, away from the Cascade mountains. Those Natural Resources Committee, 9/28/2004, 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 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. bears are monitored for a year. They will pick out the best bears to augment the population in the North Cascades near the Pasayton Wilderness Area. They will add about five bears over five years. Fleetwood asked about basic inaccurate information and perceptions of grizzly bears. Morgan stated people don't know the basic facts about grizzly bear diets, the recovery process, the number of human fatalities per year, and other questions. Caskey- Schreiber asked if Washington State is doing anything to add to this program. Morgan stated there has been slow movements in the recovery process. The focus seems to be more on the Yellowstone National Park and the Northern Continental Divide ecosystem. They get the bulk of the funding, and each have 400 or 500 bears. Washington State hasn't gotten a lot of attention. There is talk of implementing an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the North Cascades ecosystem. It will be seven to ten years before any bears are brought into Washington State. It may never happen. Caskey- Schreiber asked how long the current population can last. Morgan stated there is a lot of pressure about that very thing. They don't know how long they may last. Roy asked if the addition of bears in Canada will supplement the work in America. Morgan stated it will help this population in the Cascades. They are managed separately, but they coordinate and compare notes. Those bears could definitely spend some time in Washington State. Roy stated she spent four days at McNeil River in Alaska, camping with grizzly bears. At one point, her guide came up against two young male bears that were fighting. One started to run toward the group. The guide put up a hand, and the bears turned around and went away. They don't like people a lot. They will go to great lengths to stay away from people. The guide's motto was to let the bear decide. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING MAPS TO CREATE A MINERAL RESOURCE LANDS DESIGNATION NEAR THE CORNER OF NORTH STAR AND BROWN ROADS (JAMES CARR APPLICATION) (AB2004 -082A) Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, described the area. The subject site and surrounding areas are zoned rural, one unit per five acres (R5A). The mine has existed for more than 30 acres. There are two ten -acre parcels to the west that would also be included in the mineral resource land (MRQ boundary. The surrounding area is highly parcelized. There are 23 parcels within one - quarter Natural Resources Committee, 9/28/2004, 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. mile. The average lot size is seven acres. There are five acre lots to the north and west. The applicant owns the 20 -acre parcel to the south. He displayed aerial photos from 2001 and 1975 and photos of the existing pit and surrounding area. The Comprehensive Plan contains nine criteria for designating MRL's. Staff reviewed the criteria, which have been met. Staff recommends approval. In addition to the nine criteria, there are more general Comprehensive Plan policies, including designating a 50 -year supply of construction aggregate. There is only a supply now of ten to 20 years. The MRL must avoid significant impacts to surrounding land uses, public health, safety, and natural resources. Quite a few people attended the Planning Commission public hearing who were concerned. The permit process to do a mine is an administrative process. Buffering would be required. There are requirements for road improvements. A concern expressed at the public hearing regarded water quality impacts to the aquifer. The State of Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) has a sand and gravel general permit and also administer the water pollution control law and the federal Clean Water Act. That sand and gravel general permit is intended to address those issues. The DOE granted the applicant coverage under the general permit, but still must provide additional studies to the DOE to prove the water quality won't be harmed. He submitted a copy of the email from DOE. The Planning Commission recommended approval. Caskey- Schreiber asked if the DOE considers water quantity when it looks at these issues. Aamot stated he doesn't believe they do for sand and gravel. He assumes the operation would need a water right permit to withdraw water. Caskey- Schreiber stated wells tap into an underground source. She doesn't know if the depth of a gravel mine affects that. Aamot stated there is a different process for that. Caskey- Schreiber asked if there is an issue with hydrology. Doug Goldthorp, Senior Planner, stated he requires a groundwater assessment for those wells. It's something he would consider in addition to quality and gradient. Roy stated there is a permitting process that looks at all of these factors. Even if the MRL were approved, there is a possibility that the mine wouldn't meet the conditions for a permit. She asked if they are putting water directly into the Nooksack River. Lesa Starkenburg - Kroontje, 115 Front Street, Lynden, stated she represents the applicant, James Carr. There is water from the public utility district (PUD) line. The PUD withdraws its water from the Nooksack River. The water comes to the site. The site has used the water in the pit. That is what the Washington State DOE permit covers. It makes sure that the water discharged back into the ground is properly tested or treated before being disbursed into the groundwater. Natural Resources Committee, 9/28/2004, Page 3 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. 1 2 Fleetwood moved to recommend approval to the full Council. He asked 3 about the requirement that there be buffering. He asked at what stage in the 4 process the County is able to require buffering. Aamot stated the County can 5 require buffering during the administrative approval process. It is something that 6 Mr. Goldthorp would administer if the MRL were approved. 7 8 Fleetwood asked about the size of the buffer. Goldthorp stated the buffer is 9 as big as it needs to be. The size is based on perceived impact as determined 10 through his assessment, including visual, noise, air, and aesthetic impacts. The 11 buffer is designed to mitigate all those concerns. The buffer details are decided 12 during the permitting process. 13 14 Starkenburg - Kroontje stated there is a shortage of mineral resource land. 15 She explained the process of approving MRL's. They are looking at whether or not 16 to protect a particular deposit in a unique location. Deposits in western Whatcom 17 County are small and isolated. This is one of those deposits. It is close to the 18 industrial area and Ferndale urban growth area (UGA). This deposit can supply 19 material to those areas without transporting material across the county. Staff and 20 Planning Commission recommend approval. The Surface Mining Advisory 21 Committee is finalizing a report on the current MRL's. It's preliminary work is 22 showing there is a shortage of MRL's. 23 24 Mining has taken place on this site for 17 years. This proposal will allow 25 permits to be applied for on the additional 20 acres. Before any mining takes 26 place, the application will go through the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) 27 review, an administrative approval process, the State Department of Natural 28 Resources (DNR) reclamation permit process, and the DOE general permit for water 29 discharge. Material processing is reviewed separately. Public input is taken into 30 account during these processes. Water protection, dust suppression, and noise and 31 traffic concerns are all dealt with during those processes. 32 33 Staff concludes that this amendment is consistent with the approval criteria. 34 Follow through with the recommendation that this continue forward for approval. 35 The area has been parcelized in recent years. Several parcels were created 36 through the gift exemption or short -plat process. The two ten -acre parcels in the 37 application are owned separately. Mr. Carr has agreement from the property 38 owners. If the application does not move forward, the property would be divided 39 into parcels and the area would be lost for mineral protection. Protect the mineral. 40 Deal with the site specific concerns through the permitting process. 41 42 Regarding water quality and quantity protection, the existing mining site is 43 80 feet in depth. Geo -Test completed a study to show that the groundwater table 44 is lower than 109 feet from the surface. There won't be mining down to the 45 aquifer. There will be a layer of protection. Any shallow wells that exist west of the 46 mine will be reviewed to determine an appropriate buffer so there is no seepage 47 from those wells. Natural Resources Committee, 9/28/2004, 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. Fleetwood asked about DNR's reclamation requirements. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated DNR requires a reclamation permit that includes several elements. The new surface mining act requires segmental mining. A reclamation plan must have segments of no more than eight acres in size that may not be exposed more than one at a time. Also, there must be a narrative on how reclamation would be achieved. DNR may require a hydrology report to determine if there should be any extra protections or precautions for water quality or quantity concerns. DNR requires that the site be staked so there is no mining in the buffer areas. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Starkenburg - Kroontje continued to state that slopes created during reclamation will stay on -site. The DNR requires topographic surveys and maps that show previous conditions and how the site is planned to be left after mining. There may not be any sharp angles or steep slopes. Fleetwood asked why there is the general impression that none of the reclamation requirements happen. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated the majority of the reclamation sites in Whatcom County were permitted under the old surface mining act. There wasn't a phasing plan. Whatcom County had a moratorium on new surface mining permits from 1991 to 1997. Phasing requirements began in 1993. McShane stated DNR has one staff person who oversees mining reclamation. He asked the number of counties that staff person covers. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated DNR reorganized and there is a new staff person. She thinks that person covers five counties. Surface mining fees increased during the last three years for the purpose of getting more staff. Linda Franz, 6640 Trent Lane, stated that if the proposal goes through, the area will be mined to her property line. She was not consulted about this. The County and State are mandated to protect water. The mine had been using the Nooksack River water to wash gravel. It won't be granted any water rights. The mine used the river water in violation of state law. The DOE issued a restriction in the permit, which only covers the current mine, not the expansion. The water must be treated in an appropriate manner. The mine operators continued to violate the regulations, which is a matter of public record. The mine's depth is between 100 to 150 feet, according to the DOE, but only 95 feet according to the DNR. There is a source on record that says the depth is more than 80 feet. DNR says reclamation requires stable slopes, but not filling in the hole that was created. The current 100 - foot setback has been mined without a permit, according to a recent DNR inspection of the existing mine. Their own reclamation plan has a setback, which it mined. The Whatcom County Comprehensive Resource Plan is only a plan. This MRL designation includes a current grandfathered mine, which is in no danger of going away. The two ten -acre parcels aren't really ten acres, and total 19.32 acres. There is a 20 -acre limit for creating a new MRL. The requirements don't say "nominal" 20 acres. It specifically says 20 acres. The current mine does not add Natural Resources Committee, 9/28/2004, 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. substantially to the resource base. The computations of total resource are based on the total acreage, not the acreage available to be mined. The 19.32 acres encompass homes, shops, barns, and a buffer. At this point, there is only 11.9 acres that can be mined, which only adds .42 percent to the mineral resource land base. Two - thirds of that is sand. Sand is already abundant. Neighbors have two shallow wells. If mining is only allowed to 80 feet, the extractable resource is further reduced to 246,906 cubic yards, which is not far above the limit. There is also a wetland in the MRL protected by the County critical areas ordinance. It requires a 100 -foot buffer. If that is included in the calculation, barely the minimum amount of material remains. This would add less than one - third of a percent of the County's land base for sand and gravel. It's not worth the risk to the County for potential litigation, loss of wells, water degradation, environment, and health costs. It will potentially change the availability of the residents' water. There could be contamination. The material may meet State Department of Transportation (DOT) standards, but that doesn't mean the DOT can use the material. The material must meet grade standards also. All the material in this MRL is graded by Geo -Test as poor. It needs sorting and mixing to meet gradation standards. This creates additional noise, dust, and a need for water. North Star Sand and Gravel is not on the County's list of bidders. The mine is over an aquifer, and would affect two more aquifers if allowed to expand. A land fill could be created. The noise levels in the staff report are inaccurate. The levels in the report are for a class C industrial zone based on the activity. Noise levels should be rated according to the area. This is a class A area where humans reside and sleep. Allowing the MRL designation would set a precedent for putting a mine anywhere. They are subsidizing the industry. The spot zone hurts adjacent property owners by depleting property value without lessening their property taxes. It increases the need for road maintenance at the cost to the taxpayer. It discourages research to produce more long term plans for surface mining. The Whatcom County mining industry calls for the mining of more reserves, and then sells those reserves out of the county. This double standard causes the taxpayers to pay the price for lost property value while paying to maintain roads used to haul away the county resource. A neighbor to the south has been trying to sell the property. When buyers find out about the mine, they won't buy. Very few test wells were drilled while looking for this material. More tests should be done that is more comprehensive before they determine there is material in this area. There may be other sites out there that would not be so severely impacted. If allowed, the area will be an industrial area in an R5A zone. Loretta Monfore, 6547 North Star Road, submitted a petition (on file) against the expansion. She represents a group of homeowners who will be impacted by the noise, pollution, and the water. Their water is supplied by the aquifer under the existing pit. The water association well supplies about 50 homes. There are about 70 homes directly affected by that aquifer. Mining on the two ten -acre parcels will Natural Resources Committee, 9/28/2004, 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 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. increase the impact to 100 homes. Dumping in the mine includes concrete, asphalt, wood products, soil, and other things. The mine is about 20 feet above the groundwater, which isn't much of a buffer. Once contaminated, the aquifer will stay contaminated. Mr. Carr wanted to treat the water with chlorine, which is poison. The response to residents' complaints to the DOE and Whatcom County is that it doesn't have enough staff to supervise and inspect. Inspections were made with prior notice. Residents reported many violations. There is still some of this material being dumped into the pit. Homes with no water have no value. The pit owners will not have the resources to fix this problem. The County will become a deep pocket, which is a liability for the County. Approval sets a precedent. Any 20 -acre area in the county could be mined in this way. That would create a lot of anxiety for rural landowners. The current zoning laws don't offer protection. They can be changed. People have their savings tied to their homes, which would lose value. The elected officials must protect water more than sand and gravel. It's a more valuable resource. Don Higgerson 7998 Blaine Road, Blaine, stated he is a real estate agent representing Nick Valentine at 6620 Trent Lane. He listed all four of the original parcels at that location. It took a number of years to sell all those parcels. The last sold to Mr. Valentine 18 months ago. He re- listed the Valentine property in August. Within four or five days, he had four offers to buy the property at a price at least the listed price. He had several offers higher than listed price. The highest offer was rescinded due to the upcoming rezone change. He accepted the next highest offer and again, the offers were rescinded due to the rezoning possibility. He feels badly for those people who live around this project. It will decrease the value of the property. He asked the Council to think about this during its deliberation. Jeffery Bob, 3617 Brown Road, stated the pit, if expanded, would abut his property line. He has a shallow well that is 96 feet deep. He asked how the mining is going to effect his well. It has not been addressed yet. He is also concerned about property values plummeting. This is a spot zone. Lakhbir Dhami, 3629 Brown Road, stated he bought his property for $300,000 last year. He wants to raise his kids in a quiet area. His well is shallow and has concerns. Don't expand the mine. His property value will go down. Make the real estate people tell buyers about gravel pits near homes. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated the Geo -Test report references material quality and quantity. The Comprehensive Plan comments have been met. They won't get to the permit process until they get the MRL. The MRL creates some uncertainty about property that is for sale. Once through the MRL process, people will have more certainty again. Property values of other MRL areas do not decline. Other properties have sold recently. John Franz, 6640 Trent Lane, stated the 17 acres doesn't include setbacks or grade. If they are going to mine out that amount, it will have to go 100 feet Natural Resources Committee, 9/28/2004, 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 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. straight down. The road shoulder would drop 100 feet. That's not realistic. The County Planning Department is optimistic in assuming the acreage stated. Caskey- Schreiber stated she is against it. She visited this area and spoke to residents of the area, including residents who support it. Testimony from the Planning Commission meeting was that the mine is already at 100 feet. If the water table is at 109 feet, neighboring shallow wells are at risk. This is something that could be handled during the permit process. However, she doesn't have faith that setbacks and restrictions won't be messed with. She doesn't have faith in the County's or DNR's ability to enforce conditions. The repercussions of this going awry could backfire on the County. She is also concerned about the narrow roads. North Star Road would probably have to be improved. She doesn't know how they can improve it when they've mined up to the edge of it. If the road is widened, the land will have to come from the property owners abutting the east side of the road. Those owners may not have supported the mine if they'd known that. One supporter was promised a truckload of gravel for a driveway. The houses are close. There are children in the area. The dump trucks take up the whole road. There is a safety issue. Fleetwood asked how the permitting process would adequately mitigate for the risk of water contamination. Goldthorp stated they address the perceived impacts and develop mitigations based on scientific evidence and observation as best they can. That doesn't guarantee there isn't going to be a problem. People are violating the rules and regulations every day. There is a staffing problem so they cannot process all the violations that come in the door. It's a fact of life. There is no guarantee of safety to the groundwater. There are means of dealing with the potential. Fleetwood asked if testing can be done during the pre - approval phase to determine whether there is a water vein. Goldthorp stated that's part of the initial groundwater assessment. The background information includes gradients, depths, water quality, pH levels, and other factors. They use that for investigating potential future infractions. Roy asked if that is done after the damage has been done, or part of the permitting process. Goldthorp stated the checks happen during the permitting process. Fleetwood asked if they can determine that a water vein won't be broken. Goldthorp stated there wouldn't be, based on the information they have and if everything goes as planned. It's not an exact process. Roy stated she shares the same concerns as Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber. The notion of a 50 -year supply is bogus if they don't consider the material that leaves the county. She asked how they can determine the supply when they don't know how much is leaving the county. The whole intention of the regulations related to MRL's is to keep them in rural areas so they don't disturb the Natural Resources Committee, 9/28/2004, 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 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. neighbors. Sixteen percent of the parcels abutting the site are small parcels. However, the report says it meets the requirements based on the concept of gross density. Concept is different from reality. The road issue also concerns her. She doesn't intend to put an MRL in someone's neighborhood. McShane stated this is an issue that keeps coming up. The current regulatory scheme for permitting is flawed. They should think about importing material. The committee should take a look at mining regulations and rules that permit mining. He's not fond of some of the things he sees in the gravel industry and permitting in Whatcom County and elsewhere. The industry is harmed because there is one DNR person covering five counties. Fleetwood stated applying the Comprehensive Plan criteria in the face of stiff neighborhood opposition is difficult. He's impressed that the staff and Planning Commission reviewed those criteria in detail and found that all were met. He is concerned about water, but believes the permitting process will work and identify problems. He will vote in favor of the application. Caskey- Schreiber stated she agrees with Councilmember McShane about revisiting the MRL and permit approval process. Look at the study and figure out where they want to go in the future to provide predictability for property owners and the mining industry. Motion to recommend moving to full Council for concurrency failed 1- 2 with Fleetwood in favor OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Natural Resources Committee, 9/28/2004, Page 9 1 2 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. Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Sharon Roy, Committee Chair Natural Resources Committee, 9/28/2004, Page 10