Item A: Delta Sand and Gravel - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

As is explained in more detail below, the Council finds that the applicant has failed to meet its burden of establishing that there is an aggregate layer with an average thickness of 60 feet that is comprised of aggregate meeting the applicable Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) specifications for base rock. The Council also finds that EGR’s Exhibit 1,Original Delta application, including Exhibit E from EGR: Evaluation of Aggregate Resources: Delta Sand and Gravel Expansion Area (e.g. p. 5- 8 and 11-13, Figures 7, 8, and 9), Appendix E well logs and table, and related materials, establish that there are two contiguous, but distinct, layers of sand and gravel, in the expansion area. These layers consist of an upper layer (“younger alluvium”) and a lower layer (“older alluvium”). Based on that information, however, we also find that neither of these individual layers is 60 feet thick. For the reasons stated herein, the Council finds that the applicant has failed to provide a “representative set of samples of aggregate material in the deposit” sufficient to demonstrate the quality of the aggregate for either layer. Instead, the applicant’s information as to aggregate quality is based on the use of mixed samples that combine materials from the two distinct geologic layers before testing the quality of the aggregate. This mixing of aggregate from distinct layers before testing makes it impossible for the Council to determine that there is a layer of aggregate of the required quality, and of sufficient thickness, sufficient to satisfy the rule. The conclusion that the aggregate samples described by EGR (Exhibit 1,Original Delta application, including Exhibit E from EGR: Evaluation of Aggregate Resources: Delta Sand and Gravel Expansion Area; and Exhibit 55 – EGR & Associates Inc. rebuttal to M. Reed & M. Kupilas including original samples and re-sampling of boreholes), regarding significance of the resource, and relied upon by the applicant, do not constitute the “representative set of samples of aggregate material on the site”, as required by subsection (3)(a) of the rule, is based, in part, on the definitions and principles of representative sampling of sand and gravel and other aggregate deposits as laid out in the sampling standards of the ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) Designation D75-97 (especially sections 3.1, X2.2.2, and X2.3.2), AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) Standard No.T2 (sections as for ASTM), and ACE (Army Corps of Engineers) Handbook for Concrete and Cement Chapter CDR-C 100-75 (especially sections 3.3, 4.1, 4.3, and 5.1), sampling standards as cited in the written and oral testimony of University of Oregon professor of resource geology Mark Reed ( Exhibit 33 – Testimony of Concerned Santa Clara Residents on Delta Mining Expansion Proposal; Exhibit 55 – EGR & Associates Inc. rebuttal to M. Reed & M. Kupilas regarding significance of the resource,; Exhibit 62 – Response to EGR’s assertion of significance of the resource from M Reed; Exhibit 65 – Rebuttal to applicant from Doug DuPriest, attorney; Exhibit 66 – Applicant’s final rebuttal to Planning Commissions; Exhibits 262 and 272 – testimony from Mark Reed; and Exhibit 274 –from Doug This conclusion is further based on the arguments in these exhibits DuPriest w/attachments). concerning the application of the ASTM, AASHTO and ACE standards, including Delta’s departure from these standards by testing: (1) samples composed by mixing material from the two separate layers of sand and gravel (the upper and the lower layers), and (2) samples that do not include the full vertical extent of material in each of the separate layers. The Council has considered oral and written arguments on sampling made by Delta geologic consultant EGR (including but not limited to Exhibit 55 – EGR & Associates Inc. rebuttal to M. Reed & M. Kupilas regarding significance of the resource; and Exhibit 66 – Applicant’s final rebuttal to ). This consideration also includes EGR’s references to subsections of the Planning Commissions ASTM, AASHTO and ACE standards that pertain to bulk sampling of material that is already mined and processed, as opposed to sampling of unprocessed aggregate in the ground. The Council finds that EGR’s sampling methodology, that mixed two distinct layers of sand and Ordinance - 11