Ordinance No. 20413 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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), AASI-ITO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) Standard No.T2 (sections as for ASTM), and ACE (Army Corps of Engineers) Handbookfor 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 DuPriest w/attachments). This conclusion is further based on the arguments in these exhibits 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 Planning Commissions). This consideration also includes EGR's references to subsections of the 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 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 Reed; and Exhibit 274 -from Doug DuPriest w/attachments) in support of this conclusion. 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. Exhibit A to Ordinance 20413 - 10