Item C: Delta Sand and Gravel Metro Plan Amendment

Home Browse Search

geologically and mechanically distinct layers, Dr. Reed contends that the samples are no longer representative of the resource quality. He provided in the record examples of the differences between the “younger” and “older” layers. He asserts that the site’s sampling “are not Exhibit representative, therefore the fact that they pass the ODOT standard is of no consequence” ( 33a, pages 1-7 ). He further states that only 19 percent of the deeper gravel thickness was tested Exhibits 62 and 262 (). Discrepancies in Boring Hole 3’s geologic log data call into question the thickness of the different layers, such as the thickness of the sand and gravel layers. Dr. Reed’s testimony suggests that if the log of one of the entire three boring holes is erroneous, it calls into question the validity of the other two boring tests as well. Since the logs of the boring holes form the factual basis of the determination of sufficient thickness of the resource, the applicants may not have provided adequate information to support this criterion. Dr. Reed also notes that the existing excavation pit (located immediately easterly of the expansion site) does not provide historic data for comparison Exhibit 62 or extrapolation to the expansion site (), even though, as the applicant contends, the original site would not have been continuously mined had the materials not been of sufficient quality. (b) The material meets local government standards establishing a lower threshold for significance than subsection (a) of this section; or This provision is not applicable because Lane County has not established a lower threshold for significance than Subsection (a) above. (c) The aggregate site is on an inventory of significant aggregate sites in an acknowledged plan on September 1, 1996. This provision is not applicable because the expansion site has not been included on the inventory of significant aggregate sites of the Metro Plan. (d) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of this section, except for an expansion area of an existing site if the operator of the existing site on March 1, 1996 had an enforceable property interest in the expansion area on that date, an aggregate site is not significant if the criteria in either paragraphs (A) or (B) of this subsection apply: (A) More than 35 percent of the proposed mining area consists of soil classified as Class I soils on Natural Resource and Conservation Service (NRCS) maps on June 11, 2004; or This provision is not applicable because there are no Class I soils on the site. (B) More than 35 percent of the proposed mining area consists of soil classified as Class II or of a combination 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: (i) 60 feet in Washington, Multnomah, Marion, Columbia, and Lane counties; The area of Class II soils on the expansion site exceed 35 percent; therefore, the aggregate site cannot be considered significant unless the average thickness of the aggregate layer within the mining area exceeds 60 feet in Lane County.