Heads I Win, Tails You Lose – Glacier Northwest to Flip Coin with DuPont
ByThe city has spoken on the GlacierNW proposed mine expansion and the story was carried in this morning’s edition of the Tacoma News Tribune. The story is reprinted below.
Dig, says DuPont, but protect canyon
City wants Glacier Northwest to use pipeline, not ravine, in expansion of gravel mine
The City of DuPont gave its blessing Friday to a dramatic expansion of the Glacier Northwest gravel mine, with one major condition.
Rather than carving out a V-shaped gap in the Sequalitchew Creek ravine, the city wants the mining company to bury drainage from its expanded mine operation in a 500-foot pipeline.
“There is real strong sentiment here that that canyon should not be breached,” City Administrator Bill McDonald said. “It’s a beautiful canyon with historical significance, and people feel strongly that the condition it’s in now needs to be protected.”
Glacier Northwest, which has a 387-acre gravel mine in DuPont, wants to expand its operation onto an adjacent 177 acres. The mining company wants to dig about 80 feet into the new site, cutting through an aquifer and removing about 35 million tons of high-quality gravel over 14 years.
Residents have vigorously objected to the expansion, maintaining it would hurt streams and wetlands.
Pete Stoltz, who’s been overseeing the permitting process for Glacier Northwest, said Friday that the company hadn’t had time to analyze the city’s proposed conditions in terms of cost or productivity.
“We’re still evaluating the staff report and the changes that have been made,” Stoltz said. “We’ll have to look at it from a technical and engineering standpoint before we can tell exactly what it might mean.”
However, Stoltz said he doubted the change would significantly affect production. Installing the pipeline might be cheaper than re-contouring a more natural intersection between the two creeks, he said.
If allowed to proceed, Glacier Northwest will break through a natural aquifer in the mining operation.
In an environmental impact statement prepared by the city, the preferred alternative was to deal with the water flow by constructing a new creek in the bottom of the mine after gravel had been removed to harder glacial till.
The new creek would have flowed through a 70-foot-deep notch in the Sequalitchew ravine in order to connect with Sequalitchew Creek and then out to Puget Sound.
Two critics of Glacier Northwest’s expansion plans, former DuPont Mayor Judy Krill and Tom Skjervold of the Nisqually Delta Association, hadn’t seen the city’s report Friday, but both were skeptical about the pipeline idea.
“That might be a step in the right direction,” Skjervold said, “but I don’t think it begins to address all of our concerns.”
Skjervold said Glacier Northwest’s proposal ignores a 1994 settlement agreement that established a buffer zone around Sequalitchew Creek and the ravine.
The Nisqually Delta Association has hired an attorney, Skjervold said, and the group is prepared to take action to ensure that the 1994 agreement is followed.
The city’s approval of the project is significant, but not the final word on Glacier Northwest’s expansion. The city’s recommendation now goes to a hearing examiner, who’s charged with making the final decision.
The public will have the month of February to review the city’s decision. Then, on the evening of March 3 and all day March 4, the hearing examiner will listen to arguments at public hearings.
The hearing examiner’s decision can be appealed to Pierce County Superior Court.
Glacier Northwest also will need approval from the state departments of Ecology and Fish and Wildlife and, possibly, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Stoltz said.
Glacier Northwest also is involved in a gravel project on Maury Island. The company is building a tube and conveyor system to carry gravel to barges.
The company ran out of time this week to complete work in the water for the project, which must be halted until Aug. 15 to protect spawning herring and migrating salmon.
Opponents fighting the project resorted to civil disobedience during the past month. On Tuesday and Wednesday, they launched a flotilla of kayaks to get in the way of cranes and pile drivers.
If you have lived in DuPont for the last several years, this should not surprise you in the least. The public outcry is easily dismissed by the town leadership and the idle rant of a select few. The city clings to the apathy that comprises this largely transient town.
What is interesting about this article that appeared in Tacoma this morning is that there is absolutely no mention of any of the other issues associated with the expansion. Nothing stated about the noise, dust, or other environmental impacts. Nor, does it state just how much money is being wagged in the cash strapped city’s face. Rest assured, it probably isn’t much. Certainly not enough to restore the fire department or expand city services.
Don’t worry, salaries have already been covered.
So the next step is the hearing examiner in March. Glacier should plan a picnic for those days, or to fund the train restoration. Anything suitable to distract the citizens all the while appearing to be magnanimous.
Remember, they are not expanding the mine, but restoring salmon habitat!
Well, that was the original plan before the city proposed a pipeline to drain the water from the aquifer. Not divert, drain. Of course, GlacierNW won’t mind since it saves them some money in having to breach the creek, probably something they never really wanted to do in the first place due to the costs involved.
So we are left with the city promoting this novel win-win proposal. The water won’t flow down the creek (as if this was the only issue) and GlacierNW gets to save some scratch by ordering a pipeline from a catalog.
Next time there is a town hall meeting, be sure to grab a bottle of water and a snack because that is all you are getting.
Interesting that the city does not feel that this decision is not important enough to post a link on the front page of their piece of s*** website.
Yehle Mom – look on the left hand side of the site – way down under community development. Yes, their website has issues.
The CITY missed requiring Glacier to apply for a permit to cut into the Canyon. Parametrix called Glacier on it. That goes to show you just how much the City values our beautiful canyon. And the staff report shows you just how much the City values our water.
The drain pipe was Glacier’s alternative de-watering method. Cutting into the canyon was their first motive. Somewhere in the original EIS for the project, they stated that the pipe would be more expensive than the “v-notch”, also known as a ditch. How do salmon get through micro-tunnels anyway?
What about water levels in DuPont? Fort Lewis told Glacier that they didn’t want Glacier to drain the aquifer for they think their water levels will be lowered. Fort Lewis isn’t afraid of telling Glacier what they REALLY think, and they did so – it’s outlined in the staff report. However, DuPont’s answer to this is to have Glacier dig Fort Lewis new wells. What about our own wells? We have one that gets pretty darn low during the summer months. No one knows with 100% authority the complexity of our aquifer system under DuPont. The City would rather gamble with water issues than to tell Glacier to go take a hike, or dig us new wells.
The City’s answer to the possibility of Glacier draining Edmonds Marsh is to have them plant new vegetation. But with out water, the new vegetation will die. Never mind that a Class One Wetland is supposed to be protected. We can market Edmonds Marsh as the deadest Class One Wetland in the State.
Does anyone have a brain at City Hall?
The City is ok with Glacier creating a new stream or “ditch” in an area that is currently zoned to become Industrial and residential after the mining occurs – NOT a stream. But if they create a new stream, then they have to include buffers on either side of that stream. Suddenly, the city is losing quite a bit of land that homes or businesses should have been placed on. This is also a loss in potential property and sales tax revenue into the City. No where does the staff report mention this. But that shouldn’t suprise us either. THe City has no long term financial plan. The City does not collect sales tax on gravel or sand. All they get is property tax off of land that is de-valued compared to its surroundings.
And what about the 1994 Settlement Agreement? Months back, the City Administrator was spouting off saying that the staff report would take it into consideration. Guess what? The staff report ignores it.
The Settlement Agreement doesn’t allow for any alteration of the natural flow of Sequalitchew Creek, which runs from Edmonds Marsh to Puget Sound. If you cut into an aquifer, draining those underwater supplies to the creek and re-route them, seems to me your altering the natural flow of things.
Welcome to DuPont.
Yehle Mom,
Another issue that is apparently not important that the city posts a notice on the front page is the issue of the Fire Levy. On Tuesday the lawyer that has been hired specifically for the levy never showed up to the council meeting. So, the city rescheduled the meeting for 1/20/09 (6pm city hall) to talk about the rate which they are going for. This could also turn out to be interesting too with the city.
The tax revenues from Glacier is what the city needs to keep their salaries high and pet projects rolling forward.
I will vote NO for a fire levy or any other request for money from this untrustworthy group. There is no communication, no explanations, it is total bullshit.
Do we have a mayor or a hologram? Why is she always silent on these issue? You would think that something as big as this, after the outcry and town hall meeting, would warrant her response.
Our mayor and council, city hall, treat knowledge and information like currency. They only share it when they are trying to get something in return.
Well, if you want to talk to the mayor then this Friday you can take off from work, drove back to DuPont, and go to Forza for “Coffee with the Mayor.”
What a gig she has where she can make herself available during business hours on a weekday.
I really hope someone files a lawsuit soon.
I as a Tacoma resident, just reading the TNT news article about this DuPont mine expansion and because within the U.S. today a company opening a new mine might just-be-required by law to purchase and maintain a ‘bond’ that pledges the bonding company to pay for this mines cleanup cost just-in-case the mining company itself goes bankrupt and walks-a-way from the mining site because there is no-profit in site clean up after mine is closed.
As a result, leaving the former mine, now closed and abandon, to local government or ‘Taxpayers’ to restore, fix, or remediate (put the land areas back to a natural environment) the former mine land areas of the mines site; so my question is this: Did and does State of Washington, Pierce County, or DuPont have any ‘bonding’ requirement or agreement with this specific GlacierNW proposed new mine expansion? And, if a bond was required, what is everybodys’ opinion; it follows, does it the ‘bond’ have enough money, in future dollars, for this mine site restoration, just-in-case the mine becomes closed and gone and responsible business bankrupt?
Anybody know the answer?
I have always wondered why Chambers Bay former mine site was sold- or gifted-to Pierce County and University Place; it follows, the mine owners could have fixed up the former mine property and sold it as Puget Sound Waters view property and residential developments lands, or did that just cost the mine operators too much money to restore the property, so now Pierce County has their own operational mine property holdings and ‘Taxpayers’ park with new golf course?
From memory of my past book reading, the profits from mining activities are so-small that reserve money accounts are not created and set-aside for clean-up expenses as a last project after the mine is closed.
Good post Mr Sherman, examples like the Chamber Bay site litter the western states yet these elected officials never seem to learn. To add to the Bond point you are making: How sound is GlacierNW if we face a prolonged economic downturn where the building industry is adversely affected?
Not that THAT could ever happen…right?
Need I remind everyone that the company which mined out what is now Chambers Bay is now known as Glacier Northwest.
I know there are bond requirements, but I’m not sure by which agency or layer of government…federal, state, etc. DuPont is going to have a serious problem figuring out what to do with the existing mine. It could be a giant lake or 100 Olympic sized swimming pools. I don’t know how you reclaim a giant hole in the ground or what you can put on it that is safe. The only reason why the existing mine has trees around it and that it wasn’t mind straight to the ground like Chambers is because mining rules went into place to protect something like that from ever happening again. But still, it’s going to cost a lot of money to reclaim the existing site. The City of DuPont has not been dilligent in making sure Glacier is in compliance with how deep they were supposed to dig or what the setbacks are. The City is short staffed and basically has turned a blind eye to the mine for many years.
I don’t understand what DuPont is so afraid of. Yes, council approved the 200 acres which Glacier wants to mine out as a mineral resource overlay area in 2006, which basically gave Glacier the blessing to mine away. But Did anyone know they needed to drain an aquifer that supplies our drinking water and is linked to our marshes and wetlands in order to mine out the aggregate? There are places in this country where people wind up dead over the talk of draining an aquifer. Water is a precious resource. We may not understand that to the extent we need to living in the Pacific Northwest. It’s very telling that Fort Lewis said no, yet DuPont said yes. Fort Lewis looks out for their soldiers and their families. DuPont does not.
This is simply mind blowing… What can we do to stop this irresponsibility? Or is too late???
Lawyers are a pretty good start.
I don’t trust city hall.
We voted for an improved EMT service 2 years ago and now they have taken away what we voted for. They tried to fool us with a $1.80 levy in November, then came back and said they only really need $1.
They go against citizen’s will, against the input they receive. They give themselves a huge raise when most of us are getting nothing this year. The 2009 budget prioritizes items that are in no way more important than a fire dept.
As far as Glacier, they do what they want, and it is all about the money. It is just another example of Bill McDonald doing what he wants to do with an inept mayor and council.
True dat!
Very well said Chuck! Couldn’t agree with you more!
The staff report is pretty in-depth and addresses all of the concerns that were given during public comments. It just doesn’t address them the way the majority of people wanted the outcome. It’s mitigation upon mitigation, upon mitigation. They want to tear something up then do 20 steps to repair it which costs a lot of money. If it aint broke, then don’t fix it. Glacier was really using the spin of DuPont getting a salmon stream as a selling point for this project. But DuPont’s response sortof sounds like they aren’t to keen on the salmon idea. If DuPont really wants salmon, why not restore the original flow of the creek by correcting the diversionary dam on Fort Lewis? Before that thing was there, the salmon used to make it all the way to Edmonds marsh to spawn. That is the correct and historic flow of the creek. The City needs to stop altering our natural history and selling it off for the highest bidder. We’re not getting anything in return.
Get ready for the big Schmoozefest, the April ballot is right around the corner.
There will be a big rush to get a ballot measure put together, followed by a town meeting where a non-specific slide set is shared that details how impoverished our fire department is today. They will have Q&A without any real solid specific answers. Food and drink provided by the fire union. Council members will greet you like a new member of the church.
Then, you will see a big story in the clipper explaining the risks to our community if you don’t vote for the levy. And finally, the sign waivers on the corner of McNeil and Center.
If it passes, you will hear nothing more from the city. If it fails, you will be blamed for the city’s poorly resourced fire department.