Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

that is not being mined and run it and go to places offsite to measure it instead of having their receptors behind the houses. He said they created a test situation where they elevated the existing background noise. He said they would keep the amount within ten decibels above that. He indicated what Art Noxon’s report said is they are getting two sets of ten decibels and the increase from the current ambient. He said the noise study they have doubles the amount the DEQ allows. He thought the application should be denied. Sorenson asked what sampling Christenson was able to do of the top layer. Christenson said they had three samples: top layer with the lower layers. He said there was actually a fourth sample from the pit wall. Sorenson asked if the sampling technique he performed was in compliance with DOGAMI, ODOT and ASHTOS standards. Christenson said there are a number of different standards they could use and none are referenced by the OAR that prescribes how it is to be. He said it only says representative. He said it is their responsibility as a licensed geologist to take their expertise and apply it to this. He added it is their responsibility to make sure they do it in a manner that is consistent with the way the resource may be used. He believed Dr. Reed was in error in the way he had read both the standards on how that is to be done. He said they also took standards across the bottom. He noted not once did any sample fail or come close to failing with base rock standards. Sorenson asked if the proposed pit is further away from the river. Christenson said when he sees the rocks, they are the same at any level he looks at them. He said they have to be able to demonstrate that there is rock throughout the entire 60 foot level, it doesn’t necessarily all have to pass the test. He said it has to be minable and useable through the depth to meet the standards of the OAR. Christenson indicated the testimony he heard rebutting the work they had done is primarily a point of view trying to demonstrate they shouldn’t be disturbing farmground. He didn’t think it directly pertains to what the OAR actually says, its intent or the intent of the testing to be done. Sorenson asked why an ESEE analysis was not presented. Christenson responded that the application doesn’t require the ESEE analysis unless it has been demonstrated or presumed that the mitigation cannot be done. He said it is the next step but it is not required at this step. Alan Babb, Eugene, recalled that Dr. Reed spoke mostly about EGR and that he didn’t like their sampling. He said subsequent to that they had ODOT come in and they did not touch the borings, they pulled their own samples and made their own analysis of the Page 11 – Joint Elected Officials' Meeting – December 12, 2006 WD bc/m/06121/T