Item A: Delta Sand and Gravel - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

gravel, and that is based on principles for sampling of processed gravel (instead of unprocessed aggregate), does not yield “a representative set of samples of aggregate material in the deposit on the site” as specified by OAR 660-023-0180(3)(a). In reaching this conclusion, the Council relies, in part, on the analysis contained in the Reed testimony and letters (including but not limited to Exhibit 33 – Testimony of Concerned Santa Clara Residents on Delta Mining Expansion Proposal; Exhibit 62 – Response to EGR’s assertion of significance of the resource from M Reed; Exhibit 65 – Rebuttal to applicant from Doug DuPriest, attorney; Exhibits 262 and 272 – testimony from Mark ) in support of this conclusion. Reed; and Exhibit 274 –from Doug DuPriest w/attachments Since the Council finds that the set of samples obtained and tested by the applicant was not representative of the aggregate material in the deposit, and the applicant has failed to provide adequate information to otherwise characterize that aggregate material, it is immaterial, for purposes of this decision, whether the samples collected comply with ODOT’s base rock specifications. Some persons speaking in support of this application suggested that, because the applicant has operated a gravel operation on nearby land for many years, the proposed site somehow meets the quality and quantity standards in the rule. The Council finds that this position is mistaken, for several reasons. The applicable rule expressly requires the applicant to demonstrate, by use of proper sampling and analysis, that the proposed new or expanded site meets specific quality, quantity and location requirements. Proponent’s suggestion incorrectly assumes what the rule requires be proved. Past operation of an aggregate business on nearby land is not equivalent to, or a substitute for, the required testing and demonstration. OAR 660-023-0180(3) requires testing of the proposed new or expanded site; the quality, quantity and location of aggregate on a nearby property is not at issue. This contention regarding prior, nearby aggregate use also appears to mistakenly assume or imply that the nature and extent of aggregate material from the old pit meets current standards. In addition to being irrelevant, such evidence is absent from the record. The purpose of these OAR aggregate standards is to ensure that an adequate depth and volume of high quality aggregate is present in a potential new or expanded site before it is converted from high quality agricultural land to aggregate use. Here, the applicant’s sampling methodology was based, in part, on methodology appropriate for testing processed, instead of unprocessed, aggregate. The applicant failed to provide samples of the full vertical extent of the aggregate layers. The applicant has failed to provide a representative set of samples of each layer. By mixing of material from distinct layers prior to testing, it is impossible to know the composition of the individual layers of aggregate. Without knowing the composition of the individual layers, and without a representative set of samples, it is not possible to determine whether the aggregate deposit meets the standards of OAR 660-023-0180(3). For these reasons, the Council concludes that the applicant has failed to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of OAR 660-023- 0180(3). The estimated quantity of the resource must exceed 2 million tons to satisfy this aspect of the criterion, since the site is located in the Willamette Valley. The applicant’s report concludes that there is over 6 million cubic tons of material, and possibly more than 9 million cubic tons of material, present beneath the expansion site, an amount well in excess of the 2 million ton requirement. DOGAMI, while acknowledging that resource evaluation is not typically part of the function of the Mined Lands Regulation and Reclamation Division, estimates the resource to be over 15 million tons on the 53 acre site. DOGAMI based their estimate on EGR’s assumed aggregate resource depth of 82 feet, not the 51.5 foot depth observed by DOGAMI on the site. DOGAMI estimates did not subtract silt and clay occurrences, which, DOGAMI writes, may not represent separate layers and may be treated as internal waste in the production phase. By not subtracting the silt and clay occurrences, the Council concludes that the applicant has failed to Ordinance - 12