Trucks drive toward the Zimmerly gravel pit near Washougal in 2018. (Amanda Cowan/The Columbian files)
The Clark County Council is revisiting a request from ZP#5 LLC, a company controlled by Washougal Pit mine owner Judith Zimmerly, to reclassify Southeast 356th Avenue as a public road, despite the council’s unanimous vote against the request in July.
Zimmerly applied for a permit to resume mining operations in October, a year after the same permit was denied. If the permit is approved, Zimmerly will need access to the road to haul gravel from the mine.
Chairman Gary Medvigy raised the topic during the council’s Oct. 30 meeting.
“I have a sincere concern that I voted the wrong way,” Medvigy said during the meeting. “Additionally, we’ve had updated — from different sources — status for resource materials in the county.”
Medvigy said he received a report debunking the idea that there is plenty of aggregate material available locally. Aggregate materials are the raw materials — such as sand, gravel and crushed rock — used to make concrete, mortar and other building materials.
“All these issues weigh on my mind that I would like to reconsider,” Medvigy said. Councilors Karen Bowerman and Michelle Belkot readily agreed. Councilor Glen Yung said he wasn’t ready to change his vote but would agree to revisit the July decision.
In an interview Friday, Yung said there wasn’t one piece of new information but lots of smaller bits of new information that he wanted to explore.
“I don’t think we fully understood the request and the background behind it. I don’t think we quite understood the process that had taken place to get to that point when we originally had the hearing,” Yung said. “There’s not a whole ton of any kind of game changers at this point, but I am a real believer in process.”
The council is tentatively scheduled to review the request at 10 a.m. Dec. 2.
Yung also told the council he had recently met with the Washington Department of Natural Resources to get a better understanding of local mining operations and the availability of natural resources in the county.
“Thank you for doing your due diligence. There’s a lot of misinformation out in the public about the overabundance of aggregate being available and the fact that it doesn’t cost any additional money buying it elsewhere,” Medvigy said.
Councilor Sue Marshall was opposed to reconsidering the previous vote.
“I think the decision that we made, related to the road dedication, I believe my position would be the same,” Marshall said during the meeting. “Other issues related to the mine, we could discuss that, but I don’t think I would change my vote on the road.”
At least some of the new or updated information came directly from Zimmerly, including an October analysis of permitted aggregate mine sites in the county. According to the report, earlier studies done in 2018 and 2021 found that Clark County “was facing challenges with its construction aggregate resources due to a limited and decreasing supply of permitted reserves combined with high demand in the rapidly growing county,” yet the number of mines operating in the county has decreased since those earlier studies were completed.
The cost of aggregate material also appears to be a concern. If there is not enough aggregate available locally to meet the county’s growth, aggregate would have to be barged in from elsewhere, the report states.
“There is a significant increase in costs for such barged aggregate, as it must be mined and then transported to a barge loading facility; loaded and barged to a delivery terminal; unloaded into the terminal stockpile and sales area; and then loaded into customer trucks for delivery to construction projects,” the reports states, adding that those costs are ultimately passed onto consumers or taxpayers.
The council’s decision to revisit its previous vote won’t be well received by the dozens of residents and environmental groups who submitted public comment ahead of the meeting and spoke during the July meeting.
Ann Foster, president of Friends of Clark County, said Medvigy’s own words illustrate why the request shouldn’t be approved.
“In July 2024, Chair Medvigy — in support of his position to deny dedicating this as a public road — stated, ‘This is not going to be a public benefit. It’s going to be too costly. There is too much potential litigation surrounding it that’s still ongoing. There’s just too many gray areas.’ We agree,” Foster said Friday. “The council should not create a new tortured path for this long and winding road, and as to their unanimous decision to deny it, let it be.”
This story was made possible by Community Funded Journalism, a project from The Columbian and the Local Media Foundation. Top donors include the Ed and Dollie Lynch Fund, Patricia, David and Jacob Nierenberg, Connie and Lee Kearney, Steve and Jan Oliva, The Cowlitz Tribal Foundation and the Mason E. Nolan Charitable Fund. The Columbian controls all content. For more information, visit columbian.com/cfj.
Morning Briefing Newsletter
Get a rundown of the latest local and regional news every Mon-Fri morning.
