Ordinance No. 20413 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(A) More than 35 percent of the proposed mining area consists of soil classified as Class I on Natural Resource and Conservation Service (NRCS) maps on June 11, 2004; or The proposed mining area does not include any Class I soil. See Exhibit 1, original Delta application page 11, and including Exhibit E, EGR document dated June 2005, Evaluation of Aggregate Resources: Delta Sand and Gravel Expansion Area. (B) More than 35 percent of the proposed mining area consists of soil classified as Class II, or of a combinatioll of Class II and Class I or Unique soil, on NRCS maps available on June 11, 2004, unless the average thickness of the aggregate layer within the mining area exceeds. . . 60 feet in . . . Lane countfyJ. The applicant's report shows that more than 35 percent of the proposed expansion mining area consists of Class II soils. See Exhibit 1, original Delta application page 11, and Figure 6 in Exhibit E, EGR document dated June 2005: Evaluation of Aggregate Resources: Delta Sand and Gravel Expansion Area. The EGR report estimates that the average thickness of the aggregate layer in that area is 70.5 feet; however, DOGAMI evaluation observed only 51.5 feet depth (see Exhibit 144). The Council also finds that EGR's Exhibit A (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"). The EGR report also acknowledges that layers of mud flow/clay from 4 to 12 fee thick have been experienced on the existing excavation site and are encountered along the pit wall (see also in Exhibit 1, EGR's Exhibit A (e.g. p. 5- 8 and 11- 13, Figures 7, 8, and 9, and Boring Log of pit wall) anq Exhibit 216). Based on that information, we also find that neither of these individual layers of aggregate is 60 feet thick. Therefore, OAR 660-023-180(3)( d)(B) applies. In summary, even if the proposed expansion site satisfied the significance criteria of OAR 660- 023-180(3)( a), because section (3)( d)(B) applies to the site, the site would not be significant. Step 3 Determine if conflicts from mining can be minimized OAR 660-023-180(5) -- For significant mineral and aggregate sites, local governments shall decide whether mining is permitted. For a PAPA application involving an aggregate site' determined to be significant under section (3) of this rule, the process for this decision is set out in subsections (a) through (g) of this section. Because the City Council has found that the proposed expansion site is not a significant aggregate site under OAR 660-023-180(3), findings under -180(5) are superfluous. Nonetheless, the City provides the following findings to provide a complete evaluation of the application. (a) The local government shall determine an impact area for the purpose of identifying conflicts with proposed mining and processing activities. The impact area shall be large enough to include uses listed in subsection (b) of this section and shall be limited to 1,500feetfrom the boundaries of the mining area, except wherefactual information indicates significant potential conflicts beyond this distance. For a proposed expansion of an existing aggregate site, the impact area shall be measured from the perimeter of Exhibit A to Ordinance 20413 - 12