Item B: Delta Sand and Gravel Metro Plan Amendment

Home Browse Search

Lane County Board of Comrn.issioners and Eugene City Council January 29, 2007 Page 4 sampled from various levels of the cores as the opponents have argued must be done. The opponents argurn.ent has been modified and reduced to its o'bjection that ODOT used the cores obtained by Delta and EGR. That argume'nt is not substantial evidence that refutes or rebuts the expertise and analysis of both EGR and ODOT. The testim.ony of ODOT and DOGAMI regarding the significance of the deposit is included in the record of tIlis proc.eeding. The t\\/O state agencies that are charged with regulating the aggregate industry and its products associated with transportation facilities have confirmed EGR's conclusions that the expansion area contains a significant aggregate deposit. DOGAMI went so far as to state that EGR's estimation of the total amount of the deposit was understated by over 50%. That body of evidence ism.ore than sufficient to demonstrate that the deposit is significant as required by the Goal 5 Rule and the elected officials can and should rely upon that evidence in finding that a significant aggregate deposit exists on the subject expansion site. 3. Delta has demonstrated that potential dust impacts can beminlmized. We have addressed the significant portion of this issue earlier in this correspondence. Opponents have argued other points regarding Delta's dem.onstration that it can minimize potential dust impacts. Opponents have argued that dust from truck traffic on local streets will increase if Delta is permitted to mine the expansion site. Delta has de.monstrated that approval of use of additional resource will not create any additional traffic. The LRAPA permit continues to have a production level cap that will not change by the mere addition of additional resource sites. Delta's production of aggregate material will not incre.ase due to the availability of the resource in the expansion area-it will m.e.rely be extended into the future with the addition of the resource into Delta's inventory of total material. Opponents argue that the mining operation will produce what they claim is excessive dust. De.Ita has demonstrated in testimony and in a dramatic visual demonstration on DVD at the public hearing that it does not produce significant dust while mining. The vast majority of dust produced by Delta emanates fronl its rock crushing operation. That operation is regulated and limited by LRAP A and, again, Delta has not been found to be in violation of its LRAP A permit in the operation of its rock crushing. Opponents argue that the proposed aquaclude will somehow remove all underground moisture in the expansion area soil, that the existing "wet mining"wiH cease and that dust will then be produced by mining. EGR has proposed a clay soil barrier that will reduce the amount of groundwater moving into the pit during excavation. EGR has never stated that the aquaclude will prevent all groundwater from moving through the sailor will rem.ove all of the m.oisture that naturally exists underground. In addition, the opponents seem to argue that the waterfalls th.at they witnessed in the DVD contain the only moisture in the soil being mined. Com.mon sense should prevail on that argument. Opponents have provided no expert testimony to support their argument that the aquaclude will remove all moisture from the soil and cause excessive amount of dust to be. produced during mining.