Slaughterhouse 8

Having wrapped up its role in de-planning Whatcom County’s rural areas, the County De-Planning Commission has turned its attention to de-planning agricultural land.

The De-Planning Commission is considering a proposal for “small-scale” slaughterhouses.  Well, that was the original proposal. A trip through De-Planning Land has turned it into something else: 

Slaughtering and processing would be a permitted use with no size limit.  As many animals as you want, covering as much ground as you want, with no setback requirement.  The proposal would allow animals to be imported from anywhere -- the east side of Washington State, B.C, Oregon.  Slaughtering, rendering, PLUS processing would be allowed.  Spam!  Corned beef!  Leather!  Or, what the heck, any other kind of processing, even if unrelated to Ag (who needs LAMIRDs!?!).

But don’t take my word for it.  Here’s what the planner in charge of this matter told a citizen who asked about the current proposal:

You are correct that animal slaughter facilities of unlimited size, with unlimited numbers of employees, and with animals from any source would be a permitted use in the Agriculture district. . .

You are correct that neighboring property owners would not be able to comment through any public process, except the current one which is occurring under the planning filename "Small Scale Slaughterhouses."  While the public may submit comments to be a part of the official file of any proposal, there is no procedural requirement for a public process through WCC 20.40.050 Permitted Uses.

. . .You are correct that the requirement that agricultural processing be related to primary permitted use such as crop production or animal raising which are dependent upon soil and large parcel sizes such as found on the Ag district, process at least 50 percent Whatcom County agricultural products, and have adequate and necessary public facilities such as highways, police, and schools to support the proposal would no longer be required even for facilities with more than 20 employees. . . .

I hope this helps. If you have further questions, please fee; free to

contact me.

Regards,

Josh

Joshua Fleischmann

Natural Resources Division

Whatcom County Planning and Development Services

5280 Northwest Drive

Bellingham, WA 98226

But don’t take his word for it.  Read Planning Commissioner John Lesow’s comments on our prevous blog.  John is the sole remaining Planning Commissioner.  From the Planning Commission.  Back when it Planned.

I think that the others deserve the title “Slaughterhouse 8.”

As for the picture at the top of the blog:  I entered the word “slaughterhouse” into Google Images.  The things that I do for our readers.  This is not an activity that I recommend if you have a weak stomach.

Of the images that didn’t relate to heavy metal bands or Kurt Vonnegut, the picture at the start of this blog is the only one that was, well, palatable. 

(And yes, I do eat meat, and I grew up on a farm that raised beef cattle, so I know where meat comes from.  It comes from the pretty Black Angus cattle that used to graze in the field out our back door.  It just didn’t seem necessary to splatter blood all over our blog.)

The picture came from an article about a slaughterhouse in a residential neighborhood in New York state.  Buncha wimps live in that community.  They’re complaining about a new slaughterhouse that “would be 26,000 square feet, and stand less than 100 feet from some neighboring houses.”  Here’s the article.

Less than 100 feet!  In Whatcom County, make that five feet!   And we'll call it "rural character."

We Won't Know What We've Got 'Til It's Gone

I do hope that Joni Mitchell has become retro, so that a reference to “Big Yellow Taxi” is something more than an admission of having been alive in the late 1960s.

(Ahh, those wasted hours of existential angst, sitting around listening to “Blue”. . .)

Anyway.

Wendy Harris wrote a good column on the value of wildlife in general and, in particular, the value of the Chuckanut Wildlife Corridor.  It’s on the  Northwest Citizen blog page (here’s the link).

The value of nature?  Why does that need defending, here in God’s green Whatcom County?  We all appreciate the beauty and richness of our natural surroundings.  If your goal in life is to live where there’s a minimart on every corner, there’s always Snohomish County, right?

Well, the times, they are a changin’.  (That’s from a different 1960s folkie.)

A mere 7 years ago, on September 13, 2005, the Whatcom County Council updated the County's Critical Areas Ordinance.  Here’s a link to the ordinance.

At the time, the Council made this finding:

The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan projects an increase of approximately 70,000 people, or 41% growth, in Whatcom County by the year 2022. As Whatcom County's population increases, associated development activities will continue to create greater challenges for the preservation and protection of Whatcom County's environmental resources. Without appropriate planning and management, land use activities can create potential impacts that may threaten both environmental resources and the public welfare.

One of the ways that the Council voted to protect “both environmental resources and the public welfare” was by identifying and protecting the Chuckanut Wildlife Corridor.  

At the time, the Council said:

The Chuckanut Corridor map, attached as Exhibit 3, is necessary to officially recognize the last remaining wildlife corridor area in the Puget Trough where natural land cover extends from marine waters to the National Forest Boundary east of Chuckanut Mountain which has been identified as such through an eco-regional assessment prepared by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Fast forward to 2012.  The Growth Management Hearings Board has found that the County didn’t live up to its obligation to protect the Wildlife Corridor in the Rural Element of its Comprehensive Plan. I wrote a little bit about that, in this blog post.

At a committee meeting on June 5, several County Council members expressed their distaste for the concept of a wildlife corridor in no uncertain terms.  The word “suspicious” was used several times. 

Did the County ever really adopt a wildlife corridor?  That’s “suspicious.” 

(Of course, we have provided the County Council with a copy of the ordinance.  But as Wendy always tells me, it’s not like anybody in the County actually reads anything that I send in!).

Why would people want to protect a wildlife corridor? That’s “suspicious.”  There must be some conspiracy to drive homo sapiens out of the County.

As it happens, the simplest explanation is the best.  As the County Council said in 2005, "Without appropriate planning and management, land use activities can threaten both environmental resources and the public welfare."

Let's not pave paradise. To. . . you know the rest.

Friends Don't Let Friends Face the Honey Badger Alone

Faced with the looming threat that Whatcom County will be the site of North America’s largest coal terminal, it’s understandable that everybody’s attention is focused on Cherry Point.

I’m afraid that we’re not going to have much of a county left, once the coal terminal goes away.

Whatcom County remains fixated on making sure that all of the County’s increased population, between now and 2029, can live in new houses built outside of cities.  It has not planned for this growth, in the sense of providing capital facilities.  It can’t pay for this growth – no impact fees.  It’s illegal under the Growth Management Hearings Board’s decision in January.

But honey badger just don’t care.   

(Warning:  the link is to a YouTube video that uses a bad word.  It’s a variation on “crap,” which apparently is a statesmanlike term – see below.)

Are you all tired of hearing about the County’s illegal, invalid Rural Element?  Somebody yesterday commented that “it’s like climate change – it goes on forever and people just get used to it.”  If it’s any consolation, nobody is as tired of it as David and I.  But the problem is –

It matters.

The Planning Commission has passed the Rural Element on to the County Council.  The Council’s Planning and Development Committee got the first crack at it yesterday.

I had to leave the meeting yesterday before it got good.  I hear that a hearty session of wildlife-bashing took place after I left.  No room for critters in a human-centric county (hear that, honey badger?).

And then there was Council member Sam Crawford’s “rant,” as reported here, in the Herald’s Politics blog.  

For someone who’s going to have to stand up before this Council in the next few weeks, I must say that there’s something particularly daunting about this "rant."  The description of the Hearings Board and its work as “crap” and “political" makes it pretty clear that we’re going to be in a hostile environment.  

Closeup view of a Honey Badger.

I had hoped that the reality of compliance – the words “illegal” and “invalid” – might promote some moderation at the County.  So far, we’ve experienced exactly the opposite.

But we’ll fight on, because what else can you do.

It sure would be nice to have some friends.  Friends?  Can we count on you to help out?  

I’ll be posting more about where to write and when to come to Council meetings.  It's all going to happen between now and July 10th, the County's compliance deadline.

Please, let’s make sure that we have clean water, room for wildlife, firefighters and police and roads -- all those first-world amenities that the County is not planning for.  All in all, it's up to us to make sure that Whatcom County remains a great place for our kids and their kids.

Coal Port Speech Ban: We Can All Just Get Along

There’s a little bit of an uproar going on in the Bellingham Herald Politics blog.  It seems that some folks don't like being told what they can say during County Council "open sessions." 

The blog posted a pronouncement read into the record before Tuesday night’s Whatcom County Council meeting.  This pronouncement is SO IMPORTANT THAT IT MUST BE READ IN ALL-CAPS!  So don't blame me.For those who don't like to read all caps, the PRONOUNCEMENT says that no comments about the Gateway Pacific terminal will be allowed during open session. 

Here it is, as reprinted in the Herald.  I hope that Council Chair Kershner read it in an appropriately stern voice:

THE COUNCIL HAS RECEIVED A WRITTEN LEGAL OPINION FROM THE WHATCOM COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE CLARIFYING FOR US THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED GATEWAY PACIFIC TERMINAL PROJECT DURING “OPEN SESSION”. WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT SUCH COMMENT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED AT THIS TIME. 

THE PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE ADVISES THAT THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF A FAIR HEARING PROCESS IS THAT DECISIONS ARE MADE ENTIRELY ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE CONTAINED IN THE RECORD AT THE TIME OF THE PROCEEDINGS. BECAUSE OF THIS, THE APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS DOCTRINE, AS CODIFIED BY CHAPTER 42.36 RCW, PROHIBITS EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS. AN EX PARTE COMMUNICATION IS A ONE-SIDED COMMUNICATION BETWEEN A DECISION-MAKER AND THE PROPONENT OR OPPONENT OF A PARTICULAR PROPOSAL WHICH TAKES PLACE OUTSIDE OF THE FORMAL HEARING PROCESS ON A QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTER. OUR PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE BELIEVES THAT COMMENTS DURING OPEN SESSION, OUTSIDE OF THE FORMAL HEARING PROCESS, ARE EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS. IT SHOULD BE EMPHASIZED THAT THE STATUTE DOES ALLOW FOR THE SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS, PROVIDED THEY ARE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD.

Some rude people made fun of this pronouncement.  Oh, all right, I was one of them.  Here’s the blog link.

But before we get all Europeany and revolting, let's take a step back and think about this.  Can’t we all just get along?  Why, sure we can.

Note that the PRONOUNCEMENT only applies to the Gateway Pacific project.  Nobody’s stopping anybody from educating the Council about coal terminals in general.

For example:  One might say “If a 48-million ton coal terminal were built on the west coast, it would require 487 of the world’s largest bulk carriers to transport all that coal across the sea to China.  Did you know that those carriers burn the dirtiest fuel on earth?”

No ex parte contact there!

Or, one might talk about Large Facilities.  As in, “when bulk materials such as coal are transported by train to Large Facilities, the diesel particulate emissions are so significant that a health risk assessment should be performed.”

Another non-ex parte contact!

It’s easy. And we can all play.

Coal Trains: Good News, Bad News

Picture courtesy of Communitywise.  Hope they don't mind.

1.  Cumulative Impacts:  Nicely Done, Department of Ecology

Yesterday, the Washington Department of Ecology sent a letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, requesting an evaluation of the cumulative effects of proposals to build west coast coal terminals.  The letter relates to a proposed terminal in Port Morrow, Oregon. 

Port Morrow would be just a wee mite of a terminal, compared to Gateway Pacific:  a mere 8.8 million tonne facility, or less than 1/5 the size of Gateway Pacific at buildout.  But add a little coal port here, a bigger coal port there and you have – a whole lot of environmental impacts. As Ecology notes in its comments. 

Here’s a link to the analysis that supported Ecology’s letter.  I do like me a good legal analysis, and Ecology provides a clear, succinct summary of relevant case law on cumulative impacts.

You’ll notice that there’s none of the foolishness that you’ve heard from Gateway Pacific supporters, claiming that there’s no need to look at impacts outside of the terminal site.  What Ecology is saying here is that, when the environmental impact statement evaluates the impacts of transporting coal to and away from the terminal, it should look at the impacts that will occur if all of these terminal projects are approved.

All of the rail traffic. All of the air pollution.  All of the greenhouse gas emissions.  From all of the terminals. 

Every terminal goes through an individual permit process, but the environment doesn’t respond to permit processes.  Environmental quality (or lack thereof) results from all of the “disturbances” that we throw at it.  “Disturbances,” a term used in the report, means pollution.  Changes.  Anything above the status quo.

For those who just want to cut to the chase, the main points are:

There are permit applications pending for three other coal export facilities in the Pacific Northwest. SSA Marine has submitted an application for a coal export facility in Whatcom County, Washington at Cherry Point, with annual export of 48 million tons at full build-out. Millennium Bulk Logistics (a subsidiary of Ambre Energy, like Coyote Island Terminals) has submitted an application for a coal export facility in Longview, Washington with annual export capacity of 44 million tons at full build-out. A dredging permit at Coos Bay, Oregon is currently under appeal, with expectations that the dredging will accommodate a coal export facility with approximate annual export capacity of 10 million tons. All of these facilities would entail transport of coal by train from the Powder River Basin to their Oregon and Washington locations, followed by shipment overseas to Asian markets. There are also two other permit applications expected at two separate sites at the Port of St. Helens, Oregon and Hoquiam, Washington.

. . .  In the important cumulative impacts case of Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390(1976), the Supreme Court stated: “[W]hen several proposals for coal-related actions that will have cumulative or synergistic environmental impact upon a region are pending concurrently before an agency, their environmental consequences must be considered together.”. . .

[T]here will be eleven coal trains traveling weekly to the Port of Morrow at full build-out. Ecology assumes that the trains will be making round trips. Thus, it appears that this proposal would result in 22 additional train trips to and from the proposed facility, or slightly over 3 trips per day. We understand that the trains will travel on BNSF tracks from the Powder River Basin, traveling through Spokane, and then continuing southwest through Washington until crossing the border in the south to Oregon.

The trains associated with at least two of the other proposed facilities are expected to travel this same route in Washington. Those proposals at full build-out could result in approximately 18 daily trips (Gateway) [hey, THAT’S US!] and 16 daily trips (Millennium Bulk). Thus, a minimum of 37 coal trains might daily transit the same route. The rail traffic from some of the other proposals may also travel the same route, further adding to the potential for environmental impacts of increased traffic.

. . .[R]ail capacity is constrained along much of the BNSF route from Sandpoint to Oregon . .  Spokane [is] a “choke point” in the rail system. Rail capacity issues are an important challenge for this proposed project, especially when considered cumulatively with the other proposals.

The increase in coal train traffic also presents the potential for other environmental impacts of concern. For example, coal dust is known to be emitted from uncovered coal cars during transit. The length and number of trains could result in longer wait times at at-grade crossings for emergency personnel and members of the traveling public. Increased trains could result in noise impacts and increased air emissions, including diesel particulate emissions. The potential for these and other types of impacts have not gone unnoticed by communities located along this corridor. Many are expressing strong concerns about the potential for significant environmental impacts that could occur from the cumulative impacts of these proposals. These communities’ concerns and these potential impacts should be considered in an EIS for the proposal.

Yeah! 

2.  Speaking of “Rail Capacity Issues”. . .

Not so good for our little corner of the world: BNSF’s potential approaches to increasing rail capacity are coming to light.  In a new Crosscut article (the link is here), Floyd McKay discusses the massive increase in rail capacity that would be needed to accommodate the coal trains to Cherry Point.  He notes:

BNSF told city officials last week that three tracks might be needed through at least part of the waterfront. The third track might be only a short siding, or it could be part of a plan to add track capacity along a much longer segment.

The South Bellingham siding, WSDOT documents reveal, would close several busy crossings and eliminate vehicular access to the popular Boulevard Park and Taylor Dock. . .

The Crosscut article refers to a study recently published by Communitywise Bellingham, entitled  Gateway Pacific Terminal Train Impacts on the Bellingham Waterfront. Read it and weep.

It's Only Money

Whatcom County Council just voted to spend $104,000 for more studies on dredging gravel from the Nooksack River.  The purpose of the studies, apparently, is to “provide the opportunity for the community to better understand the complexities of permitting,” according to this article in today’s Bellingham Herald. 

This made me wonder.  How many hundreds of thousands of dollars does it take for Whatcom County to understand that we’re not living in the 1800s any more, and that permitting isn’t going to go away?

I don’t even want to talk about the County’s current, endless, dispiriting noncompliance with the Growth Management Act.  I’ve spent far too many hours of my life over the past few months with, and listening to, the Whatcom County Planning Commission, as it boldly rebels against any hint of “planning” in response to the County’s (current, and apparently permanent) noncompliance with the Growth Management Act. 

How many hundreds of thousands of dollars has the County spent on this effort?  How many hundreds more will we spend?

As for the gravel studies – in 2010, I attended a presentation by consultants who told the Council about an existing gravel dredging program on the Fraser River in Canada.  They pointed out that, unlike the situation here in Whatcom County, the Canadians started with decades of data on fish habitat.  These data are lacking here, and would be needed in order to understand the impacts of dredging.  (The Herald article neglected to mention that we share the river with fish).

The consultants also pointed out that this gravel dredging program is extremely expensive for the government, although apparently some private companies in B.C. are making money by selling the gravel. 

So – here we are, throwing good money after bad to pursue an idea that isn’t going to pass any kind of cost-benefit, much less environmental, test.  Just so people will understand that it’s complicated. 

The article also made it clear that Carl Weimer, who voted against the expenditure, is the true conservative on the County Council.  So-called conservative Bill Knutzen told the Herald that “the $130,000 [that figure must be adding in funds that the County has already spent] is a lot of money, but, in the scope of things, when you start dealing with floods, it's really not."

Just one problem with that:  the $130,000 won’t deal with flooding.  Its only benefit will be to start to address the County’s state of denial 

If the County really wants to deal with flooding, it might address some of the root causes.  For example, the Planning Commission just voted to allow unlimited impervious surfaces (hardscape) on rural properties.  Why?  As far as I could tell, to make sure that all rural property owners would be able to have paved parking lots if they want to.  Honestly, that's what they talked about.  Not water quality or flooding, that's for sure. 

Here are just a few examples of sources that describe the relationship between impervious surfaces and flooding:  one  , two   , three.

Don't look for Whatcom County to take a preventative approach any time soon, though.  There’s no reason to worry about an ounce of prevention when tax dollars can be spent on a "cure."