City of DuPont 1700 Civic Drive DuPont, WA Workshop Special City Council Meeting August 30, :00 p.m. AGENDA

Transcription

1 City of DuPont 1700 Civic Drive DuPont, WA Workshop Special City Council Meeting August 30, :00 p.m. Page AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL PRESENTATIONS a) Public Presentations 4. DISCUSSION ITEMS a) Settlement Agreement 5. COUNCIL/PUBLIC COMMENTS 6. ADJOURNMENT Page 1 of 48

2 Public Presentations Page 2 of 48

3 Public Presentations Page 3 of 48

4 Public Presentations Page 4 of 48

5 Public Presentations Page 5 of 48

6 Public Presentations Page 6 of 48

7 Public Presentations Page 7 of 48

8 Public Presentations Page 8 of 48

9 Public Presentations Page 9 of 48

10 Public Presentations Page 10 of 48

11 GROUNDS FOR NOT APPROVING THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT The proponents of the City Council approving the Settlement Agreement would have you believe that it is merely an outline of a seven year process that guarantees no certain outcome. Consider the definition of the word process. A process is the means by which a certain outcome is attained. In the case of the Settlement Agreement the certain outcome to be attained by this laboriously and carefully crafted legal document is support on the part of the City of DuPont, Environmental Caucus members and the Department of Ecology for removing the environmental constraints that now prevent CalPortland s mining Vashon aquifer saturated gravel that lies above Olympia Bed till soil in 117 acres of its existing 315 acre gravel mine and 166 acres of the 200 acre south expansion area, both areas collectively referred to as the South Parcel. Grounds for the City Council not approving the Settlement Agreement are numerous. These include: 1. The adverse public health, financial and environmental impacts of permitting CalPortland to dewatering the Vashon aquifer to mine the South Parcel. These adverse impacts include: * Loss of vegetative cover, top soil and saturated gravel over 177 acres * Loss of Kettle Wetland, its 200 foot buffer and Seep and Riparian Forest Wetlands * Permanent lowering of the groundwater table over an extensive area that will directly and, in perpetuity, adversely impact the native flora and fauna of the upper Canyon reach of Sequalitchew Creek, Edmond Marsh and related wetlands * Creation of an 80 foot high by 3,000 to 4,000 feet long steep slope along the eastern boundary of a spent mine that is prone to sloughing, landslides and collapse at the time of earthquakes as a result of approximately 6.5 million gallons per day of Vashon aquifer water discharging from its face coupled with precipitation and surface water runoff impacting this same saturated and unstable steep slope * Below this 80 foot high by 3,000 to 4,000 foot long steep slope will be approximately 300 acres of impervious Olympia Bed till soil out upon which will flow 6.5 million gallons per day of discharging groundwater commingled with surface water runoff from both the steep slope face above and precipitation falling directly on 300 acres of exposed impervious Olympia Bed soil * Between 6.5 million gallons per day of breached Vashon aquifer groundwater commingled with storm water runoff (1 inch of rain per day falling on 300 acres of Public Presentations Page 11 of 48

12 Olympia Bed soils will generate an additional 6.5 million gallons of water to be disposed of) will create a significant, in perpetuity, and very complex and expensive surface water management problem for the City of DuPont * Infiltration of this polluted runoff water into the mine pit floor will alter the quality and quantity of groundwater discharging from Puget Sound Springs and shoreline seeps out onto the City of DuPont s SMP protected shorelands and into the Nisqually Reach of Puget Sound * Potential degradation of the quality of the City of DuPont s domestic water supply as exposed sediments from Edmond Marsh mineralize and release their organic bound nitrates and toxic metals to water infiltrating into the sea level aquifer below The intent of existing City sensitive and critical area codes and provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and the 1994 Agreement is to prevent these adverse environmental impacts from occurring. Approval of the Settlement Agreement would have the City supporting CalPortland s mining the South Parcel in contradiction to City codes, its Comprehensive Plan and the 1994 Agreement. 2. The Parties to the Agreement self-serving* and contradictory linkage of restoration of the Sequalitchew Creek watershed with an action that lowers the groundwater level throughout much of the Sequalitchew Creek watershed. The natural ecological functioning and beneficial use and value of surface water bodies in the Sequalitchew Creek watershed are dependent upon their continued, and enhanced, connection with the underlying Vashon aquifer groundwater that sustains their natural ecological functioning. * In the DuPont 2011 Settlement Agreement Frequently Asked Questions and Answers handout there appears the question: Why is the Settlement Agreement needed to restore the creek? The answer provided is: Without this agreement to establish a formal framework with which this plan will be developed, reviewed, permitted, implemented and importantly, funded, it is unlikely that the creek could be restored. This is simply not the case as noted in the following section. 3. The relinquishment, to outside parties, of the right and responsibility of the citizens of the City of DuPont to determine and control the destiny of Edmond Marsh, Bell Marsh and Sequalitchew Creek. To approve the Settlement Agreement means assigning little value to, or dismissing out of hand, the recommendations of the Mayor s Sequalitchew Creek/Edmond Marsh Committee that was comprised of a representative cross section of interested and concerned DuPont citizens. These recommendations included: * Develop a Watershed Plan in conjunction with members of the Sequalichew Creek Watershed Council and other interested parties. Public Presentations Page 12 of 48

13 * As a policy matter, do not allow for any revision to the code that would allow a dewatering of the Vashon Aquifer. * Revise the City Code to more specifically prohibit undesirable activity that further degrades sensitive areas while at the same time allowing beneficial habit-restoration related activities. 4. The Settlement Agreement commits the City to actively support CalPortland s commercial interest in mining of the North and South Parcels to the detriment of the City actively supporting the wellbeing, private property values and quality of life for the citizens and property owners of the City of DuPont. 5. The City Council needs to examine and press the issue of the legitimacy of the City Council s 2006 inclusion of the South Expansion Area as a part of DuPont s Mineral Resource Overlay. The Vashon aquifer saturated gravel in the South Parcel could not be mined in 2006, nor can it be mined now, under the provisions of CalPortland s current gravel mining permit and existing DNR approved Reclamation Plan. 6. Failure to factor in the promise vs. performance track record of CalPortland in assessing the likelihood that it will honor the terms of the Settlement Agreement. CalPortland has not mined in acre plots pursuant to its current mining permit which requires reclamation of each acre plot taking place within two years of actively mining each plot. Rather it has mined with the intent of extending its mining operation into the North and South Parcels. 7. The denial of equal presentation time allowed to opponents of the Settlement Agreement by the Mayor and City Administrator during the City Council s deliberation on whether or not to approve the Settlement Agreement. Whereas the proponents of the City Council approving the Settlement agreement have been allowed in excess of four hours (with an additional three hours scheduled in September to present their groundwater arguments) to present their case for approval, those opposed have been limited to three minutes at Council meetings to present their case for the Council not approving the Settlement Agreement. I believe that the role of the DuPont City Council should be to preserve, protect, restore and enhance the wellbeing, property values and quality of life for the citizens of DuPont, not act to promote the commercial interests of CalPortland whose expanded South Parcel mining activities would diminish the value of all that the citizens of DuPont cherish. I urge you to not approve the Settlement Agreement for the sake of the citizens that you represent. Don Russell August 2, 2011 Public Presentations Page 13 of 48

14 Public Presentations Page 14 of 48 Brief Critique of 2011 DuPont interests under-represented. DuPont outvoted 12-to-1. Narrow focus on Creek and Aggregate. No protection against worst case outcomes. DuPont citizens oppose tentative 2011 Settlement.

15 Public Presentations Page 15 of 48 They came for this...

16 Public Presentations Page 16 of 48 Or for this...

17 But NOT FOR THIS! Public Presentations Page 17 of 48

18 Public Presentations Page 18 of 48 Tentative 2011 Assets/Liabilities Assets (to DuPont) - Creek restoration plan only. - Minimal future tax revenues. Liabilities (to DuPont) -Loss of mineral resource. - Water worries - Worst case construction risks. - Post-mining remedial and restoration costs. Reasonable Conclusion: Liabilities far outweigh Assets

19 Public Presentations Page 19 of Assets/Liabilities Assets (to CPC + WWP) -Admirable risk control. -Efficiency of scale. -Quality of aggregate. -Efficiency of water transport of product. -No post-mining costs. Liabilities (to CPC) -Future minimal tax revenues. -$200,000 payment for Creek plan. Reasonable Conclusion: CPC s Assets far outweigh CPC s liabilities

20 Public Presentations Page 20 of 48 Comparison--CPC to DuPont in proposed 2011 Agreement CPC gets best of all possible financial arrangements. DuPont gets DuPit Reasonable Conclusion: 2011 = public subsidy for profit-making business.

21 Public Presentations Page 21 of 48 Citizen Request: a New Chapter New Chapter Topic: a Remediation Plan for North, South and current parcels including Creek. Remediation Plan to be consistent with longterm vision of DuPont. CPC accepts to underwrite remediation 100% through cash payments to a trust fund.

22 Public Presentations Page 22 of 48 Additional Requests Existing environmental parties to 2011 resign; substitute locally-based environmental parties indigenous to Chambers/Clover Creek/Sequalitchew watersheds Written CPC agreement to hold DuPont harmless for construction risks. Clarification and rewriting of several questionable passages list to be supplied.

23 Public Presentations Page 23 of 48 You Eight will decide for Us Exercise your longer term leadership vision and inclusive planning. The generations will bless you for a far-sighted, courageous vote to rewrite the terms. So, do act to revise the proposed 2011 Agreement. Thank you in advance.

24 Presentation to the City Council and guests at the DuPont Town Hall: My greetings to the members of the City Council and all those interested in the future of DuPont. I am the Rev. Dr. James Lewis and I am representing the Archives and History Commission of the Pacific Northwest Conference of the United Methodist Church. I come out of a concern for the potential damage to the historical site of the Methodist Episcopal Church Mission. Many of you are of course familiar with the name and possibly the history of Chloe Clark because of the grade school not far from here in her name and the statue on the school grounds which honors her memory. For those not familiar with her history and its significance to both DuPont and the State of Washington, I will give some brief historic facts. Chloe graduated from the Wesleyan Academy in Wilbraham, Massachusetts. She sailed from New York Harbor on October 9, 1839 with a 51 member missionary group. The ship arrived on June 1, 1840 at the Hudson Bay Company s Fort Vancouver on the Columbia River. Chloe was assigned as the Nisqually Mission Teacher under the guidance of Rev. Dr. John Richmond. Others included Mrs. America Richmond, 4 children and William Wilson, the ship s carpenter. They arrived at the Hudson Bay Company s Fort Nisqually on July 10 th. They lived at the Fort for three weeks while William Wilson readied the mission building that was located a mile from the Fort. After a short courtship, Chloe married William Wilson on August 16 th. This was the first marriage performed of Americans in the present state of Washington. Chloe taught school five days a week for up to 50 Nisqually students although her diary says that attendance was sporadic by the children. By May of 1841 her husband William had completed building the mission station which consisted of two joined 9 foot high log buildings 18 by 32 feet and 18 by 20 feet, enclosed in a stockade with space for a vegetable garden and school area. However, we assume that a much larger area was used by the mission for those living there. Public Presentations Page 24 of 48

25 That same May, Chloe gave premature birth to a son that lived three days. To our knowledge, this was the first birth of a child to an American family in the Puget Sound region. She and William departed the Nisqually mission on June 5 th of that year to go to a new work site at present day Oregon City. What is especially important is that the mission gave support for the presence of American settlers in the Puget Sound area and therefore a claim to include this region in the United States. Thus, when a treaty between the United States and Great Britain was signed in 1846 they extended a border along the 49 th parallel to the Pacific Ocean. The marker that recognizes this historic site of the Methodist mission may not be as sacred as a Native American burial site, but it has great significance in the history of the Nisqually region and the later formation of the State of Washington. In the Settlement Agreement with CalPortland and the City of DuPont there is a reference (4.7) that CalPortland will not mine within 189 feet of the marker. One of our concerns is that, while the area has had an initial review by an archaeologist, there may well be artifacts that have historical significance well beyond the 189 yards. We would therefore want to be consulted on any action that might impact the prospect of mining that close to the historical site. We would also want the CalPortland Company to have an archaeologist available when actual mining was to be done that close to the historical site. While it is not directly affecting this specific proposal, we understand that the current property owner where the historical site is located is considering a possible relocation of that historical marker. We would want similar restrictions on any development that would impact the potential loss of historical artifacts. Our Archives and Historical Commission works year round, but it only meets twice a year for review and specific action. The next meeting where the full Commission can discuss such issues should be in early October. We would be willing to have that meeting be held here in DuPont to help us take action on these issues. If you have any questions about these issues, I would be glad to respond to them. Submitted by Rev. Dr. James D. Lewis Public Presentations Page 25 of 48

26 Public Presentations Page 26 of 48 OUR COMMUNITY

27 Public Presentations Page 27 of 48 Was born out of a plan.

28 Public Presentations Page 28 of 48 It s a place where design allows living close to nature, that's at our backdoor

29 Public Presentations Page 29 of 48 where business can be a neighbor, too.

30 Public Presentations Page 30 of 48 We've grown to become a community of 8,400 people

31 Public Presentations Page 31 of 48 who care for their surroundings

32 Public Presentations Page 32 of 48 in good times, and each other, and in sad.

33 Public Presentations Page 33 of 48 But, the plan has changed.

34 Public Presentations Page 34 of 48

35 Public Presentations Page 35 of 48 We're at the crossroads of a monumental decision that requires balance to respect our future that is a win-win for everyone, to make sure we don't go the wrong way.

36 Public Presentations Page 36 of 48

37 Public Presentations Page 37 of 48 Because, if we re not careful, we could lose something very special

38 Public Presentations Page 38 of 48 that can never be replaced.

39 Public Presentations Page 39 of 48 The people of our community recognize that what we have is too special to lose

40 Public Presentations Page 40 of 48 and have come out in supportit s about people knowing that it is worth saving and protecting.

41 Public Presentations Page 41 of 48 We have to do our part to keep the Puget Sound and our community healthy for all of us.

42 Public Presentations Page 42 of 48 just like it s been done next door at Nisqually.

43 Public Presentations Page 43 of 48 Because, what we do in our own backyard matters to our neighbors.

44 Public Presentations Page 44 of 48 Clean water and a clean, healthy community brings life to all of us.

45 Public Presentations Page 45 of 48 Draining millions of gallons of water each day from our aquifer does not.

46 Public Presentations Page 46 of 48 Dewatering brings too many unknowns, too much danger and potential for permanent loss for our community.

47 Public Presentations Page 47 of 48 PLEASE SAY NO TO DEWATERING

48 0& u f Public Presentations Page 48 of 48