HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources June 26 20011
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
June 26, 2001
The meeting was called to order at 9:40 a.m. by Committee Chair Dan
McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Connie Hoag L. Ward Nelson
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. PRESENTATION BY BILL LINGLEY, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES, REGARDING A RECENT SAND, GRAVEL, AND BEDROCK
STUDY (AB2001 -215)
Bill Lingley, Department of Natural Resources, stated this project started
several years ago while trying to do growth management planning for mineral
resources. Several attempts to resolve problems between miners and their
neighbors didn't work out well. Provisions in section 16 of the Surface Mining Act
were rewritten in 1992, and were supposed to force growth management planning
for minerals. That section was vetoed at the last minute. The issue kept coming to
a head. Governor Locke convened a Land Use Study Commission. He and
Councilmember Hoag were both members of the mineral resources subcommittee
of the Land Use Study Commission. Most of the subcommittees failed radically.
The mining subcommittee worked reasonably well. However, the way staff wrote
up the information from the subcommittee was not true to the agreements the
subcommittee worked out. Several provisions the subcommittee created were very
good, including the provision to do aggressive zoning to protect mineral resources.
Among the other compromises from the subcommittee was the sand and
gravel resource study. That study was appropriated for. Now the DNR has done
seven of the 1:100,000 quadrangle studies that cover the state. There are about
15 quadrangles of interest. They were originally going to focus on high population
areas, but Whatcom County asked him to accelerate work on the Bellingham
quadrangle.
The method they used is unique. In North America, only one group is doing
a better job than DNR. The DNR method is the best in terms of providing a county
planning document. This study doesn't tell a county how to zone the land. The
study is only information to advise the Council on its options. The only group doing
better is Alberta, which has 15 geologists working on each quad. Washington State
only has 1.8 total staff, including cartographic support, editorial support,
secretaries, and geological staff.
Natural Resources Committee, 6/26/2001, 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
The method tried to be more scientifically objective about the resources. The
first hurdle they addressed was determining the kinds of thresholds for
environmental impacts and for land use issues. They chose not to address those
issues in this survey. There is no consideration of whether the rock is in an
environmentally critical area or in a highly populated area. It is meant to be
entirely objective. As a consequence, there is no practical way to address
environmental and social impacts. The data is provided in a geographic information
system (GIS) format. Because it is in a map format, they can use it to segregate
out areas with land use considerations due to social or environmental concerns.
They also wanted to have realistic thresholds for mining. Many of the
surveys will show rock resources, even if they are not good resources. The first
threshold is for strength and durability. Data is provided in appendix two of the
study. Before rock is considered adequate for aggregate construction, it has to be
hard and carry a compressive load. The vertical grain -to -grain contact is why rock
is used to build buildings. Cement is too expensive to make, and isn't as hard as
the gravel. They have a threshold for strength and durability of the rock, which
was applied to each deposit. If the deposit didn't make the threshold, it didn't
make the inventory.
McShane asked if they actually tested from each deposit, or made visual
inspections. Lingley stated these are all quantitative tests. The Washington State
Department of Transportation (DOT) has over 10,000 sites tested throughout the
state. The DNR incorporated that DOT data into appendix two. The DNR only did a
couple of tests in areas of interest, at the request of the County's mineral resource
group. All DOT's nationwide have a similar set of tests. In Washington, the set of
tests is called Handbook of Roads and Bridges. They used the standard of asphalt
treated base, which is a middle -of -the road product. If it didn't make the standard
for asphalt treated base, they didn't inventory it.
Hoag asked what they tested, and who made the request. Lingley stated the
question was regarding the Columbia Valley deposit in the northeastern part of the
county. His co- author felt that deposit didn't have adequate strength and
durability. People asked him to test it, which he did. The minutes from their
presentation at the Surface Mining Advisory Committee (SMAC) were excellent, and
would show who precisely requested the testing.
Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, stated it might have been Dr. Babcock from
Western Washington University who made the request. His students did some work
in that area. He brought up some work his students had done. That may have
initiated this discussion.
Lingley continued to state the next threshold is for overburden. Miners can't
afford to remove much overburden. If there is a bunch of clay or topsoil, it is
difficult and expensive to remove. They handle it with a minimum stripping ratio,
which is three parts of sand and gravel or hard and durable bedrock for one part of
overburden. That is pretty generous. Normally miners can't economically pull off a
lot of overburden. It is too expensive. However, they wanted the study to stay
Natural Resources Committee, 6/26/2001, 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
valuable for several decades. If they didn't allow quite a bit of overburden,
deposits would have been thrown out that shouldn't have been. That was not the
case for the strength and durability threshold, which is more absolute.
Another threshold was the size of the deposit. If a deposit is long and
skinny, a miner can't mine it due to the expense of the logistics, permitting, and
reclamation. The threshold was a minimum of 160 acres, and 1,500 linear feet was
the minimum dimension.
They also looked at the minimum volume of the rock to be significant. They
only wanted to inventory significant deposits. They define significant by what the
County needs to know about the deposits for land use planning. The County needs
to know where the resources are significant enough to maintain infrastructure.
Hoag stated that acreage threshold surprised her. The threshold is 160
acres. Whatcom County has many mines in this area that are on parcels much
smaller. She asked why they have to have 160 acres of a deposit before saying it
is something worth mining. Lingley stated they need to think on two levels. One
level is the undiscovered reserves, the gravel to be used in the future. That is what
the 160 acres threshold applies to. Another level is the rock is available currently,
including all the mines present in the county. They looked at all mines down to the
small parcels of three or four acres. That was a limitation of the mapping.
Hoag stated she understood about wanting a large deposit. However, the
threshold eliminates a lot of smaller deposits that could be available for commercial
use. Lingley stated they didn't envision going out and doing the industry's work for
them. They were trying to show the broad areas that rock is available that has not
yet been tapped and the broad areas where zoning for mining would be
appropriate, but they were not trying to show the individual prospects. Phase II
shows the individual existing maps in detail. Fifty percent of construction
aggregate goes to maintaining existing infrastructure, including existing roads,
bridges, and schools. In Washington, the estimate is 12 cubic yards per person per
annum is used. Half of that amount is for infrastructure. In Washington, they are
using six cubic yards per person per annum to maintain infrastructure.
A typical market in Washington that is served by a group of mines has about
100,000 people. If the Council wants to go to the trouble of zoning an area for
mineral resources, they are going to want to know that the area they are specifying
has a significant amount of rock for maintaining infrastructure. The calculation
equals about 10 million tons as a significant resource. Miners can afford to mine
only to a thickness of 25 feet. Ten million tons with a 25 -foot thickness works out
to 160 acres.
McShane stated it seems he'd seen that number, 10 million tons, as a
criterion for getting a mineral resource overlay in some counties. He asked if that
number has been misinterpreted. Lingley stated that philosophically, the
department doesn't want to zone counties. If a county is forced to look at quarry
Natural Resources Committee, 6/26/2001, 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
rock, which is excavated by blasting, one is obligated to have a large setback. In
that case, 160 acres is on the low side.
Hoag questioned Mr. Lingley's credentials in terms of economics. Lingley
stated he is the state's expert on sand and gravel resources. Regarding economics
of mineral departments, he worked in petroleum industry for 11 years. He worked
for the U.S. Geological Survey doing mineral assessments, including economic
analysis of proposed wilderness areas. One -third of his work is related to sand and
gravel. There is a small staff at the state's geological survey. Right now, his work
includes re- mapping the Olympic Mountains. He is the primary regulator and does
all the inspections and engineering for oil and gas wells. He used to be involved in
reclamation of surface mines, but now he runs this program. He has a good, sound
background in mineral economics and a lot of experience as a geologist.
McShane stated he's relied heavily on a number of Mr. Lingley's papers over
the years. He recently assisted someone on a gravel mine development with offers
of how much they should get. Mr. Lingley's estimates have worked out well. He is
one of the best resources in the state. Lingley stated he served as the Assistant
State Geologist from 1995 to 2000.
Hoag stated Mr. Lingley has an impeccable background with geology.
However, some of his statements about economics may or may not have a basis in
fact.
Lingley stated it comes back to significant resources. That is the key issue.
He is trying hard to focus on what makes a difference. If they spend a lot of time
identifying little resources, many miners will demand that their site is put on the
map. Their parcel may only be a few feet thick and much agricultural land may
have to be destroyed to get at it. The numbers of economic significance becomes
very important. Economic analysis is done on every petroleum prospect. He has
been through three schools put on by the Gulf Oil Corporation and Chevron. All of
the numbers in the report have been tested against the industry folks and the main
rock resource consumers, which are the DOT, the County, DNR, and the big timber
companies. Those are the most important folks to test these economic
assumptions. The DNR went through extensive testing of their method. They
didn't start until they worked on the method for a full year. He was confident the
numbers are in the best interest of Washingtonians in general. They applied the
method evenly across the state. The SMAC wanted DNR to tweak the report for
special needs, and the DNR resisted that so they would have an even, scientifically
objective pass at the entire state.
Hoag stated she was concerned about protecting farmland. She wanted to
make certain they are not overlooking resources in the areas where they are
available and can be commercially mined. She wanted to make sure they are
accurately analyzing what is out there. She asked if 100 acres of resource that met
the thresholds would not be significant. Lingley stated that it would not be
significant.
Natural Resources Committee, 6/26/2001, 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
Hoag questioned whether they are able to produce a map that shows
everything that meets the thresholds but are smaller deposits. Lingley stated they
could. They should get aggregate from quarries. Hard rock quarries will produce
nine times more aggregate than sand and gravel mines for the same surface
disturbance. Quarries have an advantage because infrastructure built with crushed
aggregate will last longer. Miners don't use quarried aggregate if sand and gravel
is available because it is much cheaper to excavate it. Their main problem is that
the finishers hate quarried rock because it is stronger the tools they use. Most of
Europe is now being supplied by a number of super quarries. They have to import
rock to put back in the Rhine River because of erosion due to sand and gravel
extraction. In Europe, Eastern United States, and Midwestern United States, most
of the rock is quarried crushed limestone. That is where they should go
environmentally, and not get the last bits of sand and gravel. For the same amount
of aggregate resource used, they get four times more life of the infrastructure. The
cost of a concrete road versus the cost of asphaltic road is ten percent more.
If they show where the rock is and the economics of the industry, and then
put on the environmentalist's hat, they realize they have to have aggregate
available. He could make a stronger environmental argument for using more
aggregate than less aggregate. The 160 acres, 25 feet, and stripping ratio are well
thought out. They are environmentalist numbers. If they cut the threshold down
to 100 acres, they would be misled. The DNR would have provided those numbers
if the scientists thought they were better numbers.
Hoag stated those numbers would be nice in addition to the numbers
provided in the study, so it would provide information of where the resource is.
Lingley stated the County Planning Department has that information and can
generate that report. The best conclusion from an environmental standpoint is
quarried rock resources.
Lingley continued to state that the map shows the water wells they used and
a geo -tech bore or other kind of bore. Water wells are notoriously bad for testing
the rock. They tried to look at lots of water wells to see where the gravel is in the
sub - surface. Gravel in the surface has no use. That is how most counties typically
map sand and gravel resources. They had to get into the subsurface. The best tool
for that is water well data. The map also shows pits and quarries mostly used for
forest rock resource construction. The map also shows depleted quarries, most
used for forest road applications. The map shows places where sand and gravel
deposits meet the threshold criteria, and the thickness of gravel. If a contour
interval is between zero and 25 feet, then the gravel would be less than 25 feet
thick and would be less than appropriate to mine. The map also shows all the
active mines. There is a database that describes each one of those active mines.
The green spots on the map mean there is a reclamation permit from DNR. The
map shows the hard and durable material.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Natural Resources Committee, 6/26/2001, 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
Lingley continued to state that some of the rock meets strength and
durability criteria, and in some places they don't. They had to have a separate
designation.
McShane stated the problem is that there isn't much aggregate, which is
preferable to use.
There is the Sumas glaciation, which is the most recent advance of the
Frasier ice down into Whatcom County, and ended near Judson Lake. It rates from
high quality sand and gravel to fine sand in a southwest direction across the map.
Most of that material is Sumas out wash. There is a series of large deposits, but
none are very thick. He showed maps for other quadrangles for comparison.
Whatcom County has an aggregate problem at the moment. The rock it uses
in the future will probably have to come from farther east. Right now, the
Canadians are taking the rock from Whatcom County. To get rock uphill from
Skagit County, it has to be hauled in a 33 -ton truck, which has to be in a very low
gear to climb the hill. That makes the haul time much longer. That renders rock
sub - economic, under current market conditions.
Brenner asked if other counties are running into Whatcom County's problem
of measuring and establishing enough resource for 20 years. The County has no
control over where the supply goes, and a lot of it is going over the border. They
cannot control that. It is discouraging.
Lingley stated Whatcom County is in a tough situation. Pierce County is now
supplying all the rock for the Seattle market. All the rock for Everett and
Snohomish County is coming from the Dupont deposit. That is a flaw in the Growth
Management Act as it applies to Whatcom County. The problem is not as acute
here as it is in Mason County or Pierce County, but it is still an issue. Aggregate
will be much more expensive throughout the state. Whatcom County will see that
rise first.
Hoag questioned whether Mr. Lingley was familiar with the mapping done in
the County Comprehensive Plan process. Lingley stated he helped with that map.
Hoag asked how that map compares to this map. Lingley stated one
difference is that this map has threshold criteria. This map is significantly more
reliable. The other difference is that the DNR went into the well data. The other
map was mine - specific or just used superficial information. The DNR did its best to
look at the subsurface for this map. This map was peer reviewed by the Whatcom
County SMAC. They did make some modifications to it. The County planning staff
and Western Washington University (WWU) geologists made some suggestions, but
it has withstood the test of peer review. As long as it is considered a
reconnaissance map, it is a reliable document.
Lingley stated table four shows only the 16 largest mines. Resources for
Whatcom County total about 68 million tons, which includes the Judson Lake
Natural Resources Committee, 6/26/2001, 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
deposit, which is 12.8 million tons and has not been permitted. On a resource
assessment, they always overestimate the amount of available resource. As they
get more and more data, the reserves always go downhill. This is an optimistic
picture. That is the nature of the business. It is an overestimation, and the
resources are spelled out in the text. Smaller mines have an increment of reserves.
The total reserve including the smaller mines is 105 million tons of rock. That
ought to take the County through 15 to 20 years, given the current assumptions of
county growth. When new people come in, they require more rock. Lots of R5
zoning requires more rock. High density development takes a fraction of the rock
that rural folks use.
Brenner asked if it is a better idea for people to asphalt their drives instead
of gravel, which must always be replaced. She asked how the resource
requirements would be different, and if that is an argument for using asphalt.
Lingley stated it is not, because it is too trivial. The reduced amount of rock used
would be trivial compared to using higher quality infrastructure and high density
housing.
Aamot questioned whether clustering in R5A zones would make a significant
difference in mineral resources. Lingley stated it would.
McShane asked the number of tons per foot of driveway. Lingley stated the
calculation is length multiplied by width, multiplied by thickness, then divided by 27
to convert cubic feet to cubic yards and then multiplied by 1.6 to convert from cubic
yards to tons.
The Valley View deposit is glacial marine, and is unique. The middle layer is
thick overburden that can't be removed. The upper part is 25 feet thick, and the
lower part is 35 feet thick, but the middle doesn't make the three -to -one stripping
ratio, so they are stuck with just getting the top layer. The mines in that area are
largely depleted.
In the Trapline area, the mines are largely depleted. The Judson Lake
reserve has 12.8 million cubic yards. Axton Road is depleted due to an overburden
problem. The Pole Road complex has 15 million tons of reserves. There are issues
related to Nooksack flood plain. The Siper Road complex is deep below the water
table. It still has significant reserves. Columbia Valley is a question. Minimal data
is available. It should be great gravel. However, most of the outcrops didn't meet
specifications. They took more samples that made the specifications.
The Tilbury deposit is up on a hill and hard to get down. It also has a
problem with a hanging wall. The deposit was used for cement, not construction
aggregate. The actual deposit is much smaller than the size of the Tilbury mine.
Twin Sisters are a wonderful resource that has not been used for construction
aggregate. If there was an opportunity to mine in that area, that would be terrific
if it can be done environmentally.
Natural Resources Committee, 6/26/2001, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
McShane asked about the weight of hauling that rock. Lingley stated it
would be more expensive aggregate. The total aggregate available is about 105
million tons that is currently under permit. A lot of that is in small deposits, and
should last between 15 and 20 years.
The thicker the deposit, the lower the environmental impact. A thick deposit
minimizes any impacts related to reclamation. Deposits in the county are very thin.
Hoag questioned whether a site with mixed quality could sort the materials
commercially. Lingley stated it is too expensive, and there is a discharge problem.
A manmade swamp is the best way of removing turbidity from an effluent stream
from a gravel pit. It is very effective at removing the suspended clay. To get that
weak rock out of Columbia Valley, it would take a huge constructed swamp.
Hoag stated some of the softer stuff is what people prefer for their
driveways. Lingley stated that from the Council's standpoint, they need to look at
aggregate for infrastructure. The softer stuff doesn't work for that purpose.
Aamot asked if the green areas on the map represent the 15 -20 year supply.
He also questioned whether it is known how much material is remaining in the
yellow areas designated on the map. Lingley stated it is vastly in excess of 105
million tons. The point of the map is to determine whether they want to designate
the thicker areas and approve mining in some of those areas, or protect the land
for agricultural uses.
Aamot questioned whether there might be a 50 -year supply if the County
designated more areas. Lingley stated that there could be. There could probably
be a 100 -year supply, but by the time they get done using it, there would be some
pretty hellacious holes in the northeast part of the county.
Lingley stated a major issue is the Nooksack mining. He encouraged the
County to not do that. There has never been a single flood control effort in the
world that has done anything other than make flooding worse.
The DNR has been working to provide the same study in the Mt. Baker
Quadrangle. Whatcom County approved a resolution to contribute funding to that
study. The department looked into doing that study. Because of severe budget
cutbacks, they can't fulfill their responsibilities on that study. The County may be
able to work with the author of this study, or talk to Commissioner Sutherlund.
There are too few geologists and too much stuff to do. They are losing 200
positions this year. They don't have the resources to do it. It will be done in the
normal rotation, in about four years. He was very sorry about that problem. He
commended Matt Aamot, who has done a wonderful job on this. Mr. Aamot is very
professional, worked hard, and balanced the myriad of views on this issue.
McShane stated Mr. Lingley alluded to efforts to conserve the resource. He
asked if any counties have done any aggressive conservation planning. Lingley
stated no one has done it. Industry is doing it because of economics. The main
Natural Resources Committee, 6/26/2001, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
conservation effort is recycling asphalt roads. Concrete can be recycled, but it can
only be used for fill. For conservation, they could aggressively zone to allow
recycling sites. A lot of times, there is pressure to minimize the impacts of a
mining site. However, if they concentrate all the mining activities in one spot, that
is beneficial. Allowing recycling plants for asphalt or concrete onsite or nearby is a
good step.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:03 a.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 6/26/2001, Page 9