Bickleton Council sets new course
Lou Marzeles
News Editor
When you come into Bickleton-if easing into a three-block business district can be called pulling into a town-you pass a small green sign leaning lazily to the right that announces, "Bickleton, unincorporated, population 90."
"That sign's been up there for years," Mike Copenhefer says, sitting back in his chair at the Bluebird Inn, the oldest continuously operating tavern in the state of Washington. "The population's been about the same all that time."
One wonders who really knows for sure, since reports are that the 2000 U.S. Census largely bypassed the region. Apparently no one from the Census Bureau was all that sure exactly what area the name Bickleton covered, or where to find its few residents. Even today there is no clear indication of where the town, for want of a more accurate term, begins and ends, other than the green sign which seems to serve primarily as a loose frame of reference.
But if there was ever any doubt about what made up the community of Bickleton, it no longer lingers in the collective mind of the Bickleton Community Council, of which Copenhefer is chairman. "We're coming together," he says. "We're moving ahead."
At its meeting last Thursday, about a dozen council members surrounded a large, rustic, wooden table in the Market Street Café. If the term "town" has to be used poetically to refer to Bickleton, then the Café may be its poetic town hall. Above its rows of sundry goods are lined endless variations of bird houses, reflecting the area's renown for its bluebird population.
The members were engaged, on time, and serious about their determination to bring positive growth to their region.
"We've talked to Yakima County," Copenhefer says at the meeting, "about fixing that road." He reads a letter from the county that tells them no such fix is going to happen-the Yakima County side of the road in question coming out of Bickleton is just fine, thanks for asking. The collective reaction from the Bickleton Community Council: we'll just see about that.
"We've got to start collecting data, to make our point," Copenhefer stresses. A discussion follows on how to do that. The sense is clear and strong. If Bickleton had been a colony during the American Revolution, it would have been the one to come up with the famous slogan, "Don't Tread on Me." But in a very nice way.
While the community council members are pointedly determined, their attitude is also shaped by the quality of life the area enjoys. That means the demeanor is friendly, pleasant, and inclusive. Even when they point out attitudes toward their region that, common sense makes clear, should change. For example, Bickleton-not Goldendale, as, they say, has often been stated in the past-is the east side of Klickitat County. "We're the east end of the county," reaffirms Rinna McHugh, a council member. "Goldendale used to say that about itself a lot." But her tone is neither defensive of Bickleton nor accusatory of Goldendale; its matter-of-factness reflects the certainty that a casual glance at a map of Klickitat County would readily reveal.
Bickleton' school system is another source of regional pride. A new school is soon to be built, which by all indications will prove the equal of most schools anywhere in the state. Its educational approach has drawn the attention of figures on the national educational level, some of whom plan to take a much closer look at what goes on there, to learn more about the kind of impact a small, but determined, rural population can do.
The Bickleton Community Council meeting Thursday really occurred in two distinct, and telling, parts. First a portion of the council informally and coincidentally landed at the Bluebird Inn, to order up chicken strips and burgers and talk over issues casually. Then they all sauntered across the street to the Café with the large handmade wooden table, and they spread out their papers, signaling the start of the formal, organized meeting. These are friends who get a lot done, and who looked very poised to do a lot more.
Lorena Butte is case study in reading notices
Lou Marzeles and Andrew Christiansen
The Sentinel
Edgar Holbrook wants to mine 111 acres of Lorena Butte, up from the 60 he presently has a permit for. To many, the matter may seem quite immaterial-until they realize that the butte is the one with the big letter "G" on it, overlooking Goldendale.
"Every time this comes up, it's a concern for the community," says Curt Dreyer, Planning Director for Klickitat County. "It's near a landmark that everyone knows, and it's visible from the highway."
A public hearing on the matter is scheduled for Aug. 3, and in the meantime the community has until this Monday to comment on or appeal the present finding that Holbrook does not need to undertake an environmental impact study. (County offices are closed July 3, so comments or appeals cannot be delivered on that day.) A notice about the August hearing ran in The Sentinel's Notices section on June 18, which meets the county's sole obligation to advise the public of it. Some worry that the notice will be too easily lost or ignored in the stretch of gray text on the page. But this very case is a good example of why it's important for readers to take these notices seriously and look them over carefully.
"While the notice is all the county is legally required to do," Dreyer says, "it helps to have the public very aware of what this meeting is about. It can affect the whole community."
And the site is already out of compliance with the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) reclamation permit, which allows Holbrook and his company, Bishop Red Rock, reclamation rights to only eight of the 66 acres he has presently disturbed on the butte-which is also beyond the county's existing mining permit of 60 acres.
It can get confusing-the county issues one kind of permit, and DNR issues another. The way it works is, a request is made to the county, in this case, to mine the land. The county makes the requesting party put together pertinent information, such as here's what we want to do and here's what the projected impact on the land will be. If that's all good, the county says OK, here's your permit for this work on so many acres. The county and the requesting party also come up with a plan for what the land will look like and be used for after all the work is done, called continuing or ongoing use, which is the reclamation phase of the project. Then DNR comes into the picture, and it governs how the agreed-upon continuing use plan is to be implemented and what will constitute adequate reclamation. In the case of the Lorena Butte mine, DNR has approved only eight acres of land use that must be reclaimed for continuing use, though Bishop Red Rock has already disturbed-turned dirt over-on 66 acres.
Of more immediate concern to many in the area, though, is just the fact that Holbrook wants to roughly double the area he's already using. If that happens, some wonder if the landmark "G" above town will slowly disappear into a cloud of dust, as more of the red rock cinder of the mine gets shipped off to Japan and other upscale markets for decorative landscaping and roadwork.
If Bishop Red Rock were to be granted the additional acreage it wants, it might come about because of insufficient public awareness, some argue. A scant few lines in the legal notices section of a newspaper can go too easily unobserved; it's happened before that notice was legally provided to a community with too few people seeing and/or understanding what the notice was really about. Then come complaints from upset citizens about goings-on that they could have spoken up about, but didn't because they just didn't realize when a hearing was or what it involved.
Asked about his request to mine almost double the area presently disturbed, Holbrook claims that the request is not an expansion of the quarry itself. "This will be inclusive of the property being disturbed," he states. "DNR has its way of viewing things, and the county has its way of viewing things as to what is included in disturbed land. This effort that is taking place right now is to unify the quarry, to accommodate the county's position as well as DNR's."
As to DNR's citation to him for being out of compliance, Holbrook claims that he considers himself already moving into compliance. He says a berm was put into place on the west side of the mine, facing Highway 97. "It was seeded about 10 years ago," he says, in an effort to comply with a requirement that he provide a visibility barrier between the mine and the highway. He did not address, however, the complaint that he is in excess of the allotted reclamation limit of eight acres.
Regarding the eventual fate of the butte, with its landmark shape and large letter "G," Holbrook considers that its appearance will change so gradually as to be largely unnoticed. Each phase of mining digs a little deeper and a little wider, and eventually the outer rim of the mine will fold down over into pit, and the whole butte will gradually reduce in size. "The next phase cuts into a lower level," he says. "There will not be a change in the overall top of any significance. It will decrease in height slowly."
Holbrook says his mine ships to a Japanese market for its decorative rock, and that road construction crews like it because it's very abrasive and light weight, so large volumes can be easily hauled. The mine employs about 25 full-time personnel, between mining and marketing.
He also states that he considers DNR's non-compliance citation no problem. "I appreciate what DNR and the county are doing. We are getting on the same page. It's a real positive step."
The DNR citation uses blunt language in its letter. "During our [recent] meeting," it reads, "we concluded that your mine exceeds the current permitted eight acres. Furthermore, the current mining disturbed area is greater than 67 acres," which places it also out of compliance with the county's mining permit. DNR's letter, written by Surface Mine Reclamation Inspector Lorraine Powell, says that Bishop Red Rock risks receiving a stop work order. The company was given until Sept. 20 to submit materials and a $2,500 expansion fee to DNR to address the situation.
The public hearing on Aug. 3 is to allow community feedback on Holbrook's request to the county and on a continuing use reclamation plan.
BPA meeting gathers consensus on proposed power lines
Lou Marzeles
News Editor
Although the headline in an advertisement that ran in last week's Sentinel was in error, a meeting held July 1 at the Goldendale High School from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. likely records public opinion on where a proposed line of electrical transmission towers will go in Klickitat County.
The ad's headline made reference to Okanagan County. "It was an unfortunate typo," says Doug Johnson, a spokesman for Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), which placed the ad and is requesting the public meeting. "It got by everyone."
The new power lines, significantly, are largely in anticipation of new wind farms coming online in Klickitat County. "I would say a majority of the transmission service requests we have received that led us to consider constructing this line are for wind projects," Johnson states.
BPA had to determine initially whether or not it could even carry the planned transmission lines. To do so, it studied the transmission system and identified where existing capacity was available and where the system needed upgrades. The studies found that there was not enough available transmission capacity to accommodate all requests for long-term service from the east side of the Cascade Mountains along the Oregon/Washington border, to load centers west of the Cascades, and to major transmission lines serving California.
In particular, wind generation facilities built and proposed in the region have greatly increased the amount of power being produced on the east side of the Cascade Mountains. Further studies revealed that building a new high-voltage line from BPA's existing Big Eddy Substation in Oregon to a point on BPA's existing Wautoma-Ostrander transmission line in Washington would allow BPA to accommodate the requests for transmission service in this area.
To that end, the July 1 meeting was set to obtain public input on potential environmental issues, including land use, socioeconomics, cultural resources, visual resources, electric and magnetic field effects, sensitive plants and animals, soil erosion, wetlands, floodplains, and fish and water resources.
The transmission line alternatives being considered also cross portions of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. BPA has established a 45-day scoping period during which tribes, affected landowners, concerned citizens, special interest groups, local and federal governments, and any other interested parties are invited to comment on the scope of the proposed lines, including potential routing alternatives to be considered and environmental impacts to be evaluated. Scoping helps ensure that a full range of issues related to this proposal is addressed, and also identifies potentially significant impacts that may result from the proposed project.
BPA is proposing to construct a 500-kilovolt line from BPA's Big Eddy Substation in
The Dalles to a proposed substation (to be called Knight Substation) that would be located under existing BPA transmission lines about four miles northwest of Goldendale. The proposed project is needed to increase the electrical capacity of lines in response to requests for transmission service in this area. BPA is presently considering three routing alternatives and a no-action alternative for the proposed project.
The routing alternatives for the transmission line route range from about 26 to 28 miles long. Portions of all three routes parallel existing BPA lines in the area and cross both private and state lands. All alternative routes cross the Columbia River and are partially located in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. Two substation sites are also being considered.
For those unable to make the July 1 meeting, BPA has provided other ways to comment on the proposed lines. All comments from the public must be received by BPA by July 21. Comments can be submitted online at www.bpa.gov/comment, or comments can be faxed to (503) 230-3285. Comments can also be phoned in by calling the toll-free number (800) 622-4519. Reference "Big Eddy-Knight Transmission Project" with your comments. All comments received will be posted online at the same web site.
The environmental review process for the proposed lines will likely take about two years, with a decision on whether and how to proceed with the project expected by spring 2011. |
