Thurston commissioners allow asphalt recycling, expand opportunity for mining
Asphalt recycling can be permitted in the Nisqually subarea, following a 2-1 vote by the Thurston County Board of Commissioners last week.
The commissioners approved several amendments to the county comprehensive plan during its final regular meeting of 2020. The plan outlines the long-term vision for the county’s growth and can only be amended once a year.
The amendments approved this year included an update to a policy within the Nisqually Subarea Plan that allows asphalt recycling provided landowners are approved for a permit and follow certain best management practices.
Some community members have contested this policy change out of concern that reclaimed asphalt pavement may contaminate groundwater in the critical aquifer recharge area.
However, other stakeholders have contended that the recycling can be done safely by covering the reclaimed asphalt pavement and continuously monitoring water quality.
Lakeside Industries, an Issaquah-based asphalt company with a plant on Durgin Road, has petitioned the board to take up this issue several times in the past and finally persuaded the board to add it to its official docket in 2017.
Commissioners John Hutchings and Gary Edwards voted to approve the Comprehensive Update package that included the Nisqually subarea policy update. Commissioner Tye Menser opposed the measure because he disagreed with several aspects of it.
Regarding the Nisqually subarea plan, Menser said he is close to believing asphalt recycling could be done safely but argued the policy update should be considered withing the context of a large update to the entire Nisqually Subarea Plan.
“I have preferred as I previously stated to having recycled asphalt, for example, decided within the context of the Nisqually Subarea Plan,” Menser said. “But that’s not really the deal breaker for me on this package. The deal breaker for me is the natural resource lands chapter.”
The updates also included various changes related to the mineral lands, forestry, parks and health elements in the plan. Most notably the updates expanded the mapping of mineral lands in the county. The policy changes do not outright permit more mining, but they do allow operators to apply for mining permits in more situations.
Menser said he disagreed with the direction of these updates.
“I believe that the amendments do not do enough to protect agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance in the county, which are rapidly dwindling,” Menser said. “There were good compromise positions on the table in front of the Planning Commission, but they were not chosen.”
He said agriculture has been a key part of the county’s identity and argued it should be protected more thoroughly. One particular policy amendment Menser took issue with changed criteria to allow mineral lands to be co-designated with agricultural land where they overlap.
About 95% of written comments opposed this amendment in favor of maintaining current criteria. Menser said this policy change cemented his opposition.
Hutchings said the policy change still requires landowners to seek a permit, which must undergo extensive review.
“The best thing about mining is that it always allows for or requires governmental approval,” Hutching said. “A policy designation does not equal a permit.”
Hutchings said his staff has informed him that mining does not consume open space.
Edwards also said he does not think mining will impact agricultural land to the extent Menser is concerned it will.
“I don’t think we’re losing our rural character to gravel mining,” Edwards said. “We’re losing our rural character to growth. ... As far as losing that agriculture land to mining, I just don’t see that actually happening. I know it’s a possibility, but it’s not actually happening.”
