Travis County Commissioners Court
December 15, 2009,
Item 15
Now, number 15 is to consider and take appropriate action on the following: a, applications for site development permits for txi hornsby bend east and west mining sites, permit applications 08-2430, and 08-2431 respectively.
and b, roadway improvement agreement with t.x.i.
operations, l.p.
and there's a notation this may be discussed in executive session pursuant to government code 551.071, which is the consultation with attorney exception.
if there are legal questions.
so we have in mind a brief staff followup overview?
i know some residents have come down on this item so we'll get comment from residents.
not everybody at once.
>> good morning.
this was previously on the November 24th agenda, and at that time there were three remaining items that had not been satisfied that we could require under our regulations.
and those three items were the driveway configuration, the drainage easement, and a roadway agreement.
since that time, the applicant has met those requirements and staff is recommending approval of this motion.
i'm going to let theresa -- I'm going to ask theresa to speak to you about the -- how those items were resolved.
>> and remind us what the items were and are.
>> judge, Commissioners, my name is theresa caulkins with t.n.r.
the three remaining items we discussed were the drainage easements for the facility, 2, the driveway configuration, where driveways connect to dunlap road, and 3, the roadway improvements that t.x.i.
is agreeing to construct or cost share.
and I'll give a brief summary of each.
first the drainage easements.
the last time that we were here, we were already in agreement on the location and the extent of -- that was the language being used in the drainage documents and in particular t.x.i.
was wanting to continue agricultural operations at the site and make sure other things would still be allowed and our Travis County attorney's office has approved language as well as the city of Austin law department.
there are executed easements at the city of Austin law department and we will require a copy of these recorded documents prior to releasing our permit documents.
second, regarding the driveway configuration, murphy engineering has provided driveway plans for the three driveways that connect to dunlap road and we find the driveways meet requirement and they are acceptable.
third, regarding the roadway and intersection improvements, these improvements are included this the roadway improvement agreement that is before you today as an agenda item for your consideration.
because of the plan to haul the mind sand and gravel materials on fm 969 to the excesser webberville processing location, t.x.i.
has agreed to certain introduction agreements.
these are, number 1, reconstruction of dunlap road from the location of t.x.i.'s driveways up to fm 969.
reconstruction includes widening dunlap to a 30-foot section which would include two 12-foot travel lanes and 3-foot shoulder as well as upgrading the pavement structure to support the proposed truck traffic.
this upgrade would occur in two segments.
the first in approximately 6400 feet long segment from fm 969 to the t.x.i.
driveway that's on the west side of dunlap road, north of elm creek.
it would also include the access to the east mining site.
the second segment would be approximately 3400 length segment to the southernmost driveway to west side of dunlap road.
these improvements would be required prior to any mining occurring on the sites to the representative driveways and to achieve the upgrade, t.x.i.
on would provide the engineering design and submit construction plans to Travis County taken city of Austin for review for site development permits.
the fiscals for the cost of these would be be required to be posted.
regarding the intersection improvements, there are three.
first at dunlap road and 969, prior to the start of any mining activities at either the east or west site, t.x.i.
has agreed to provide a channelized right turn lane that can accommodate the turning radius of the haul trucks.
a dedicated turn lane is to be and the road is to be striped for a continuous westbound through lane.
at such time tex dot determines a traffic light would be warranted t.x.i.
has agreed to pay prorata share of costs.
t.x.i.
would also provide the engineer designs and submit construction plans and these plans would be committed to txdot for approval within txdot right-of-way as well as Travis County and city of Austin for any work that would be outside of the txdot right-of-way.
it would also provide fiscal for these improvements which would involve an advance funding agreement and indemnification agreement which we would also bring before Commissioners court for approval at that time.
phase later during mine operations a cost share from t.x.i.
to address upgrades to the intersections at taylor lane and fm 969 and at berle son and manor road at 969.
these improvements include constructing westbound right turn bays at both intersections, restriping the westbound approach and installing traffic signals once warrants are met in the field.
in addition, at taylor lane there would be an increase in the length of the eastbound left turn bay from 50 feet to 300 feet.
now, at both of these intersections these improvements are proposed to be in the form of a cost share, prorata cost share that t.x.i.
would pay to txdot.
as anna has described, with the resolution of these three issue, staff has found the permit applications meet the requirements of code and we do recommend the permits may be issued.
>> so generally speaking, what does the Travis County code require?
>> well, for the most part, there are a number of items that our code speaks to, but they can be broadly categorized to be transportation and drainage issues in nature.
in particular, the -- an applicant for any site development permit -- as well as 100-year flood plain and they have done that.
the results of requirements that they produce.
erosion and sedimentation control plans.
that they also provide information on driveways and where they plan to connect to the transportation network.
and in this particular case, as you see, there is a considerably amount of roadway improvements that are proposed because of the proposed truck traffic.
>> you referenced txdot a few times.
so if txdot actually is on board to do the things mentioned as necessary?
>> txdot would need to approve these particular improvements as well.
so that is correct, they would actually approve and have control over any improvements that would occur within txdot right-of-way.
>> along with the -- go ahead, judge.
>> Commissioner Huber.
>> as it relates to the roadway improvements, I realize they have agreed to do the upgrades to the roadway as you outlined.
but this is a 15 to 20 years project.
and I'm just wondering whether the -- if it's going to be heading upwards of 250-plus heavy gravel trucks on these roadways over the next 15 to 20 years, and I'm just wondering if t.x.i.
is going to support ongoing maintenance of these roadways or will the taxpayers being required to do that?
>> well, at this point in time we would be asking them to provide a engineered design with geo technical information that provides sufficient sub base and grade material.
so they would be required to provide a substantially beefed-up roadway section.
and the idea would be once they actually provide that, that Travis County would be accepting the roadway for maintenance.
>> have we looked at the kind of wear and tear that this kind of heavy traffic would do over the next 15 to 20 years and what would be required of taxpayers to support that maintenance?
>> I think to address that question in particular I would ask our roadway traffic engineer to comment.
>> my name is david greer from road and bridge.
what theresa was speaking to is the beefed-up subgrade and roadway system.
we aren't anticipating additional maintenance need that we otherwise have on dunlap road.
we use have maybe a wider surface area.
we don't have numbers that we've run on actual maintenance costs for a year, but they would be very similar to what we have already on dunlap.
>> do we have experience in Travis County of looking at maintenance costs where you've got the heavy gravel trucks of 250 trips per day over a stretch of road.
plus, I'm seeing figures up to 750.
>> I can't recall off the top of my head the names of roads.
we do have a couple of them.
which one?
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> buck lane.
shoemaker.
i'm not sure of that.
we do have experience, we've had a lot of experience with all the state highway 130 construction tearing up our roads with the certain soils we have out there, it does move a lot.
if you don't have a good solid subgrade, that's why we're requiring a stout subgrade to handle this truck traffic.
it depends how well you build the road and then you will determine if you have maintenance issues.
>> Commissioner, if I may, originally we talked about doing a road maintenance agreement similar to what we did with the shoemaker project.
i believe it was on buck lane.
but in really looking at the information they provided, we decided instead of getting money to off set and maintain the road, that the thing that would make the most difference here would be the road to start out with something that was -- had the appropriate subgrade and was appropriate to the activities they were providing including widening and things of that nature.
we recommended doing that route instead.
>> I understand what you are saying about the base and the ability to have better, less maintenance on it in the future.
but I'm -- I guess my question is will this road even with a better base and this I kind of traffic on it require more maintenance costs to the county thean usual?
>> it's really hard to say.
it just depends on how well it's built.
if it's built according to stand, the main should be similar, overlay every seven to 12 years and chip sealing every three tore five years.
for continuing maintenance it's a thing that we act to what's out in the field.
and so we anticipate if a road is built correctly and with sufficient upgrade, there shod not be additional costs.
the out there right now is not heavily used she but it's not really built for heavy use either.
so we have a standard pothole patching things like that.
we don't anticipate official maintenance than what wield find normally on a road.
>> Commissioner Davis.
>> thank you, judge.
this is going to probably fall in the category of air quality.
i don't think we've discussed that thoroughly enough to see exactly what kind of impact this operation may cause to the persons that are near.
as you know, environmental issues are close to my heart and a whole lot of other folks in here, and sometimes you find entries us, because of the operations, you hear they are causing environmental problems.
we've heard the residents come and they have discussed the water quality, how will it affect their underground well, water supply as far as their drinking wells.
we've heard the residents suggest that they will be impacted healthwise.
we've -- as far as asthma and other lung type related impacts because of emissions what's in the air.
we've heard these things.
and, of course, we know something about par tick you pae matters so we're looking at health concerns.
i'm thinking about the magnitude of the operations.
the diesel fuel that will be emitted.
and those type of things.
i had an opportunity to notify a lot of folks on this issue, ensuring that they have an opportunity to come down and discuss this particular issue.
we've held meetings with the community in that regard back in September and several other meetings that were held.
and it appeared that there is still probably some answers that may need to be made available to the public, but I remember we even notified the -- the dunlap elementary school because we have children there that -- the most vulnerable, in my opinion, on a lot of things that may be impacted by particular matters or things emitted into the air.
so I would like to maybe have just a little inkling of some of the environmental concerns especially with the water situation, especially the well water and the particulate matter that will really be more severe of that operation and, of course, the operation as it exists right now, what kind of -- what kind of -- how do they pose health concerns that's being emitted as far as dust as they operate today.
so there's a lot of things that I still think need to be fleshed out on that issue.
>> for the record, Commissioner, tom webber with t.n.r.
i look at the county role if this permit were to be issued would likely be a monitoring or site visit sort of capacity.
to go out and look at conditions and if we see a violation or problems of, say, tceq requirements or anything relating to environmental that might need to be taken care of.
that's one thing.
we won't be issuing a permit, per se, that controls air quality or water quality.
in regard to air quality, there is not a permit required by the tceq for their operation.
it's -- I think it's largely because this is a mine and they are not proposing stationary facilities at the site.
so they will be subject to the general requirements of the Texas health and safety code which require them not to cause a problem, essentially, that affects property or human health off site.
what t.x.i.
has provided us is a commitment to carry out a watering plan.
the pollutants of concern I think when it comes to air are going to be dust or particulate, as you mentioned.
there could be some impacts from diesel operating equipment, the extent which hay not be great compared to what you might get from diesel operating anywhere else in that part of the county.
in terms of the dust and particulate, a watering plan is a typical management practice that you would implement to keep the dust down when these conditions arise.
to -- whether it's when the trucks are moving down the road, whether it's particulate or dirt that could be loosened up from the road and creating sort of a dust storm.
and so it's -- it's that -- it's those activities by t.x.i.
to keep that dust down that would do the best to make sure there isn't an impact off site on the residents.
so we have a fairly detailed watering plan that they are committed to implementing.
when it comes to -- I think your other question related to ground water.
>> that's correct.
we've heard testimony from --
>> and yes, this is another area where we don't believe the county has authority or clear jurisdiction to require any type of ground water assessment, but we did ask and did receive from t.x.i.
a report from a local hydro geologist on what they would impact to be impacts to ground water, either the supply or the quality of ground water.
and the report that we got suggests that water would continue to move and find the channel -- channels of least resistance around mining areas as it flows kind of from upgrading it and around mined areas toward the colorado river.
that this water will find it's way through this loose alluvial aquifer which is sand and gravel which is identified as mining.
in terms of water quality, it's a similar sort of thing.
sand or gravel in water settles so you wouldn't expect to see a large plume of, I guess, turbid water very far from the mined area.
and the other part would be surface water quality.
and that is subject to a permit from the tceq.
of both for the construction activities and once they begin mining runoff that would be from the mine area.
there is sort of standard provisions that a mining operation would undertake to have the runoff collect and routed into the pits that they've excavated.
there are requirements for monitoring and having those results available for inspection if there is going to be runoff that is discharged.
so a permit that they would seek from tceq, a general permit, I should say, would specify the monitoring requirements and the frequency of monitoring if they are going to have discharges.
>> okay.
well, thank you for that overview.
i appreciate that.
and I have probably further questions, judge, but I know it's a lot of folks down here want to say something.
>> who regulates impact on ground water?
tceq?
>> tceq does from what I understand.
>> [audio difficulties] pretty much standard that a person shouldn't conduct activities that would degrade water
>> [audio difficulties] in a water bearing area.
and
>> [indiscernible] traced back to a responsible party are subject to enforcement.
>> [audio difficulties].
>> the water provisions are enforceable by Travis County
>> [audio difficulties].
>> we are having -- we are having technical difficulties.
>> we couldn't hear Commissioner Eckhardt.
>> the permitting, the initial approval of any sort of plan with regard to the protection of ground water is the realm of tceq, but any kind of discharge, prosecution for discharge is the realm of local prosecution and possibly tceq or the a.g.'s office if they choose to step in, correct?
>> that's correct.
>> we've heard various testimony about potential adverse health effects at the last meeting.
who's b.i.l.i.wick is that?
>> I think -- I might be able to find the actual provision, but there's basically a standard in law that t.x.i.
needs to prevent a condition of air pollution from their operation, and if they don't, they are subject to enforcement by tceq.
and I think presumably long before you find an impact on humans in the area, you would have determined that there were other, lesser environmental impacts from mining and tceq would act prior to that.
>> we're still having technical difficulty.
>> can we just get in there and take a pause for technical?
>> testing.
>> thank you.
>> what about reclamation?
>> reclamation.
>> who's area is that?
>> what I've noted is that the city of Austin in their review of this application has specified certain things that need to be done in regard to reclamation once the mining is completed.
there is -- there is some preliminary drawings that indicate sort of a slope, side slope of the reclaimed land.
there's requirements for stabilization and revegetation of the land so that it -- it -- so that it would not cause an adverse impact if there was runoff through that area.
there's also fiscal surety requirements that the city of Austin has established that t.x.i.
must post, and it needs to remain in place until the city of Austin accepts that reclamation.
what we -- what we have done is we have identified special provisions for our permit so that information comes to Travis County when it comes to the city so that we can review the specific reclamation plans.
but this -- I'm not -- I don't have enough history in this part of the county to understand what might have happened at some of these other excavations that have been left there and nothing done to, but in this particular matter, again, there's fiscal surety to make sure that the reclamation will occur when the mining is complete.
>> so do we know whether fiscal surety has been required historically?
>> by --
>> the appropriate jurisdictions.
>> I don't know if the city has required fiscal in the past for reclamation.
>> okay.
any other questions for staff?
>> I have questions.
>> I just have one more and that is the situation whereby the enforcement, and I really have to put my arms around enforcement.
we've had experiences with tceq, and I'm going to give you an example.
the landfill operations off of 290 and the numerous complaints that have come here because of odors and a whole lot of things that have been discharged from stinky situations.
and, of course, tceq, as we've heard, we've had all type of different staffing problems of not being able to get out when folks call and complain.
my question is, I don't feel comfortable in the role of tceq at this point.
before tceq became tceq, it was called tenrad.
before that it was combined two agencies, the Texas water commission and also the Texas air control board, operated under two different chairs.
now, we have emerged to this so-called tceq, which, in my opinion, has some very serious issues in carrying out the integrity of what environmental regulations and how they are carried out.
it's something has been lost between t.w.c.
and Texas air control board at that time to where it has evolved now, and I'm having some very serious concerns with this particular overview or oversight on such a major, major, major taking in this community.
i'm really having some problems with that.
thank you.
>> Commissioner Eckhardt.
>> it appears that the major categories that we're looking at are water, air, noise, traffic and vulnerable assets like historic sites and natural beauty.
those seem to be the large, broad categories that have been identified so far.
i just wanted to nail down, with regard to our legislative authority, the only -- the only authority that's been placed in our hands by the state with regard to those categories are traffic and to a limited degree water as it relates to runoff and possible future points source discharge.
is that a fair statement?
do we have any other authority placed in our hands with regard to those categories?
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> okay.
so with regard to the traffic, does t.n.r.
staff feel that we have adequately addressed the traffic concerns?
i'm not saying that the fix in the road agreement won't drastically change the character of that area, but with regard to safety, have we addressed the traffic concerns regarding the truck traffic?
>> yes, we do.
>> okay.
and with regard to runoff, drainage and -- well, let's just stick with runoff and drainage, have we addressed -- do we feel that we have both the power and have exercised it to address the runoff possible filtration issues with regard to the aggregate mining?
>> yes, we do.
>> we also have special provisions in this permit to require them to submit to us their pollution prevention plans relating to that runoff so that we can review, comment and potentially improve upon their initial plan.
and that would be a continuing obligation for them to make changes relating to how they manage runoff during the construction and mining phases if we see in the field, for instance, that something is inadequate.
>> and that's good news.
now, with regard to any potential future point source discharge that was not part of the plan because, of course, nobody plans to pollute a stream, does the county attorney's office feel that we have adequate authority to -- to prosecute in an event of a point source discharge?
under the water code.
>>
>> [inaudible] but if the -- if there is jurisdiction over -- and tom may be able to handle a little on this.
if it's our -- if our --
>> well, we have -- these would be discharges into our ms-4, into our municipal separate storm sewer system.
and there are permit provisions and effluent limitations in the tceq permit for discharges from an industrial activity like this, and we would carry out enforcement through the t.n.r.
policies.
>> do we have separate authority from tceq to enforce those?
>> I believe that the Texas water code provides counties that authority.
>> that's good news.
all right.
so that at least -- we have identified some of the potential harm from this procedure and addressed it to the extent that we have authority.
but it appears we have remaining water quality and access concerns, the community does, that are outside of our authority, remaining air quality concerns from the communities that are outside our authority, remaining noise concerns of the community that are outside our authority, and remaining concerns with regard to historic and natural beauty generational assets, which are to some degree outside our authority, but I will state that with regard to the natural beauty we have a pre-existing green print which the county pursues, period.
so to some degree the county does have the authority to preserve natural beauty assets and we are engaged in doing that.
so is -- is that a true statement, that there are a number of continuing concerns that we actually don't have the ability to regulate?
>> that's correct.
>> I have several more questions, but I'm going to reserve them for neighbors or t.x.i.
because they pertain to things that we don't actually have authority on, but as public servants we are keenly interested in seeing how t.x.i.
plans to address them and whether their plan to address them is known and considered adequate by the community.
>> Commissioner Huber.
>> I agree with everything Commissioner Eckhardt has just said.
i would also like to ask one more question as it relates to the water issues and the well issues, recognizing that this is possibly outside our authority as well, but I'm just curious if any of the hydrological studies done by either t.x.i.
or which the county has done or been privileged to indicate what -- if there would be any recharge concerns, recognizing that there are a number of private wells upgrade the proposed mining site that have depths of 20 to 30 feet and proposed mining site could go to depths of 40 feet and recognizing the water and was stated would work its way around in the alluvial capacity, but if you have an open site is that going to have drainage be faster and who has the authority to look at that?
>> well, I think water is going to seek its own volume so if there is an open excavated area water is going to get there a little faster than it would ooze through sand or gravel, I think.
but I think that would fairly -- we're talking tremendous amounts of water in the subsurface.
so I think it would be a relatively quick thing for something like a pit to be filled and then the continuing water -- the water continuing on once it reached that -- once it filled that void and you have basic a static water level again.
>> but if they are continuing to mine in this area and it's below the well levels, then my presumption would be they would be pumping it out so they can mine.
>> yes.
>> is that going to cause recharge problems with existing wells when the mine is in operation?
>> they may need to discuss a little more particularly how they will manage water that collects in pits, but, you know, the proposal, as I understand it, is they will excavate an area, excavate something else, filling in the prior area.
so it's kind of like a pulse moving through.
and so it wouldn't be a growing pool of water.
>> if there were recharge problems with the wells up slope, whose jurisdiction is that?
>> I don't -- I don't know that there is a jurisdiction on a matter like that.
>> is it fair to say the law simply -- state law simply does not address or -- or contemplate a cause of action if one user of ground water interrupts another user's ground water access?
>> I think that's -- I think -- I think that's fair to say that, you know, there is this rule of capture, how ground water is used, extracted from property you own is somewhat of a private matter.
how it interferes with others, there might be private remedies of law.
did you want to add something?
>> yeah, I would like to add.
john white, t.n.r.
Commissioners, I think we have all learned a great deal about the aquifer in this area over the last year, so -- and I think in general what we have learned is that it's a very complex, labyrinth of deposits.
the water is in sort of a maze throughout this area.
generally speaking, it's like a big basin.
and you've got water moving from basically the northwest towards the colorado river along all of those water courses.
and then the colorado river itself can both be filled and cause some charge to the surrounding areas.
so the actual impact on wells that the applicant looked at would be on the high volume public water supply wells that are basically upstream from where they will be mining.
their assessment is there would be no impact on those.
we do have some concern that there could potentially be some impact on some of the smaller wells that are sort of downstream of that, especially during low water flow conditions of the colorado river.
that's probably an unlikely scenario, but it is at least possible.
so they have addressed that impact, I think, as best they can.
but I don't think that they can offer any assurances in that regard.
>> what -- remind me of what kind of buffers are planned.
>> the critical water quality zone buffers vary from 200 to 400 feet along the colorado river.
they are not quite as large along the other rivers, but I believe there in the range of about 200 feet.
from center line.
>> 200 feet from --
>> 200 feet from the other creeks that run through the project.
elm creek, decker creek, gilleland creek.
>> what about buffers between the operation and residents' homes?
>> the -- I believe that they are set back from the property boundaries is 50 feet maximum from the property boundary in many location where buffer zones aren't otherwise provided.
i do understand that there are some additional buffer zones that have been provided by t.x.i.
to address some of the neighbors' -- neighborhood concerns.
so there are some additional buffer zones that aren't related to environmental concerns that are included in the plan along the northern side of the western -- the west mining site in particular.
>> okay.
why don't we allow the t.x.i.
representatives to give comments, then we'll go to residents.
if t.x.i.
has something to add.
if not, we'll go directly to residents.
>> I do have some questions for t.x.i.
representatives.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners.
henry gilmore representing t.x.i.
Commissioners, t.x.i.
has been in the hornsby bend area mining sand and gravel for the last 30 years.
the reason they are there is because this is the area where the colorado river has deposited this material -- these materials.
the materials are essential for growth in Travis County and are used for new roads in Travis County as well as a myriad of other uses.
we all live and work in houses and buildings and drive on roads that were developed using sand and gravel.
Commissioners, we've held three town hall meetings on our applications back in may of this year for which we sent out over 1500 invitations to attend and hear about our plans.
we've also had numerous one on one meetings with various stakeholders to answer questions.
we've also created a website which includes information about the project and addressed frequently asked questions.
did shely we host add site visit for county staff and also for Commissioner Davis to see the site in question.
and also see examples of reclamation of former mine sites back to agriculture use.
in response to feedback received from various meetings, t.x.i.
has amended its application to remove over 50 acres of land from the application and to also phase the operations in a way that will involve mining areas closest to residential development first and then to quickly move away from them.
we are pleased to be able to bring this before you with staff's recommendation.
the recommendation is based upon our compliance with all applicable county requirements as well as our agreement to improve a nearly two-mile stretch of dunlap road before mining operations again and to also pay our prorata share for additional traffic improvements.
david perkins with t.x.i.
will now walk you through a short power point describing the project and then we're available to answer any questions that you may have.
>> thank you.
>> thank you, henry, I appreciate that.
my name is david perkins and I am the director of communications and government afairs for t.x.i.
what I would like to do today is share a brief presentation that's going to provide an overview, give you background about t.x.i.
as well as talk about specifically the project that we're talking about today.
and what I'd like to do is offer, we've got printed copies available and we'll certainly make those available to the court after we complete the presentation.
>> how long is the presentation?
>> I expect it will be about 10 minutes, judge.
>> why don't we skip to this project.
>> okay.
that will be just fine.
>> and if you will hand us the background information, we would be happy to receive that.
>> absolutely.
if you'll give me just one minute to get to the spot in the presentation, that will be just fine.
>> okay.
>> okay.
as you know and as henry just explained, t.x.i.
has been a part of this community for over 30 years, and as a part of our overall strategic involvement in the community and in this greater economic region, the central Texas region, we are looking to expand our reserves to be able to continue operating.
the real critical area there is that we are going to need to meet the growing demand of population here in this area with construction materials.
and the hornsby bent site was selected because it's near our existing operations and as was earlier mentioned by staff, the facility is a natural deposit that has well suited aggregate and sand that is generally suited for construction and landscape and other uses.
the site currently is approximately 2,000 acres and it's contiguous, as I said before, to our webberville operations, which we acquired in 2008.
i'll skip over an overview of aggregate, but essentially sand and gravel and it's naturally occurring material and typically extracted by backhoes to extract the material out.
i'll move along.
one thank I think that is important is this material is critical for sustainability in this area.
you talk about construction and ability to meet the long-term needs of our society and this material plays a critical role in that area.
obviously the construction of roads, the construction of buildings, homes, schools and other public facilities, this ingredient is essentially and critical for that.
there are some direct benefits that come as a result of using our materials, specifically reduction in fuel consumption, paving with concrete has shown a 5 to 20% reduction in fuel consumption by vehicles.
energy efficiency.
buildings consume about two-thirds of the electricity that is consumed in united states.
this material supplies a significant part to those types of buildings, building with concrete.
obviously having a source near the marketplace, again why this area is chosen is the ability to provide good, suitable material to the market locally as opposed to having to bring it in from hundreds and even more miles away in some cases.
i will move along and talk about the hornsby bend project specifically and how it fits in with our long-term applications and talk about the background and research done even before we started permitting process.
to go over this quickly, the reason that we are looking at this location is because it is a nice alluvial deposit that has materials that are well suited for construction n general, this facility will basically be just the extraction.
all the processing is going to be at the webberville site.
the resources in this area are going to be excavated and trucked over to the plant site, and the mining techniques as was previously mentioned are going to allow for what is called concurrent reclamation.
and the best way to share with what that is is essentially an analogy of a zipper.
basically if you've got a zipper with two parts to it or two zippers, you will basically be extracting and opening up that resource and taking out the reserves and then as soon as that unit is completed, then we will come back in with the top material that we excavated and backfill.
so it's going to be opening and closing as we go along the nature or the extent of these reserves.
it's going to be called what is noted as a box cut excavation.
and the reclamation will be taking place basically at the same time the mining is done.
essentially what we will do is open up a new area for excavation and remove the topsoil and go in and take those reserves out.
as soon as the mining is complete, we will go back in and reclaim that site and fill back in that excavated area with the topsoil from the next cut and revegetation and re-seeding.
we're going to be working a very small area of the overall project.
as was mentioned, instead of a growing facility that's going to be getting bigger and bigger, it's going to be a small area that will only be actively mined at any one time.
currently the land use is agriculture.
most of that land will continue to be agriculture as we are working this operation.
when we're complete with our operation, land use will be utilized for either development and/or agriculture, green space, open space development and/or natural habitat.
before we went into the permitting process, we hired local experts in the field and understand the local area and did several things before we moved forward.
as was earlier discussed, we went through a comprehensive ground water analysis to look at the various impacts that the facility could have on ground water.
we went through a cultural and historical artifact study which includes a preservation of the grave sites and the mansion that is there on the facility.
we went through a critical environmental features assessment to identify any areas that we needed to make sure to protect.
we finally went through an extensive testing of the quality and quantity of the reserves that are in the place.
currently the permitting process, as you know, involves both Travis County as well as the city of Austin.
before we went forward or as we were moving forward, we had several individual meetings with residents and landowners in the area.
we followed that up with a series of meetings held in may at the request of Commissioner Davis at the Austin international airport where we had multiple evenings of citizens that were allowed to come in and we provided a presentation and got feedback.
as a result of those meetings, we developed a list of questions and answers which we provided to the court, as well as posted many of those on to a website.
we have a current website that's been up and running for many months which has gone through several changes and additions as a result of input we've received.
in fact, we also have a phone line that we are actively operating now to receive comments and phone calls.
in addition to that, we obviously have someone that is local with our facility there at the harold green facility that is available to meet with and talk to folks who are either interested, have questions or would like to come and visit the facility.
as part of this process, we went through several modifications.
and this has been obviously a lot of work between us and staff as well as the court.
and some of the changes that we made include extending our buffer zones near residential areas.
basically moving back our active site farther away.
as a part of this, we were willingly -- we willingly gave up some of the reserves that reserves thatwere on the site tt to mine those.
in addition to this, we modified our phasing, which essentially means that as I said before, the zipper, we decided to locate our initial phases the closest to the residential areas and excavate away from those areas so we would be in and out of those areas more quickly.
the majority of these operations are going to be taking away far away from the eyesight of the residents.
obviously it involved a transportation and traffic flow analysis that was completed which culminated in what is referred to as the dunlap road improvement agreement.
and just in closing, very quickly, we respectfully request the court's approval of the site development permit applications and the roadway improvement agreement, and at this time I would like to just offer up an opportunity for question and answer period of time.
and I thank you again for the time you have given us this morning.
>> go ahead.
>> is that all right?
>> yeah, well -- go ahead and I'll -- go ahead.
go ahead, Commissioner.
>> I understand that you all have a water plan with regard to the actual procedures on the mine.
is that correct?
>> yes, ma'am, that's correct.
>> and in the outlyization of ground water in the procedure, this is a basic rinsing of the gravel?
>> yes, ma'am, that's right.
>> and is the water -- what is the plan for the minimumization of ground water use?
>> the plan for minimumization of ground water use?
>> correct.
>> I'll just give a quick answer and then we've also got some other folks that can provide detailed information that are here with us today.
but essentially the operation itself, the material is going to be ex today indicated video in a wet state and that material will be allowed to drain back into the excavated area so that water actually is not going to be removed.
it's going to be left in place as it's being excavated.
and the remaining inherent material is going to be able to help it to have a minimumization of dust.
our operational practices are in and of themselves designed to minimize the usage of ground water because the moisture content of that material we want to keep it down as much as possible so we don't have to haul that water.
>> and in terms of the water plan as well as any runoff, to what extent were you required by Travis County to -- to implement such a plan or to make such a plan?
>> what I would like to do is I'd like to ask one of our folks to provide additional information on that --
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> ...
as far as I'm aware, it's not required by Travis County.
>> that was exactly what I was going for.
with regard to the traffic plan for the operations, to what extent was that required by Travis County?
>> it was a part of our roadway improvement agreement, so that was a requirement.
>> I'm going to ask you some questions about health and human safety concerns, which to my understanding is outside Travis County's authority to -- I don't want to give anyone the false impression that we have authority from the state to regulate these in the permitting process.
with regard to the air quality, to what extent has txi identified a baseline of the air quality around the mining site?
>> to my knowledge, we have not done any air sampling or any air quality sampling.
typically the tceq does not require those types of actions as part of the operation.
as was earlier state the, there was no point source emissions, no combustion or any other processing operation that's are going to be taking place there, so that's typically in the a requirement.
>> so will txi doing any monitoring of the air quality of the pendency of the mining operation.
>> at this time we don't have any specific plans to do any air quality monitoring, again that's required under the tceq.
>> with regard to water, what has txi done to identify the baseline quality of water around the site?
>> again, I'll defer that to -- to mr.
peckham, I'm sorry, daryl is our hydro geologist who we have used in terms of assessing the grown water quality.
so I will let him answer that one.
>> the baseline information that -- that was available, I had the -- I had the opportunity for -- for approximately half of the area that I had actually -- actually conducted hydrogeologic investigations in search of public drinking water sources for another client.
this is prior to -- prior to txi's work in this area.
and -- and so I had -- I had -- I had -- quite a bit of experience in baseline water quality in this area.
especially since that was the criteria, why there aren't public drinking water wells there right now.
>> and what is -- what is in your professional estimation the quality of the water in -- in -- immediately adjacent to the mining operations?
>> adjacent to and on.
or underneath the property.
>> uh-huh.
>> it is -- it's extremely good water.
the only issue that -- take caused us not to -- to have public drinking water wells were nitrates.
we had -- we had nitrates that exceeded the tceq secondary limits.
>> okay.
and -- and what plan, if any, does txi have to monitor the quality of the water during the operation?
during the mining operation?
>> I will take that one, thank you.
yes, we certainly have a willingness in an agreement to install or to put a monitoring system in to manage and monitor the quality of the wells in the area and we're certainly agreeable to working with the county as well as the other residents to do so.
>> and are you aware of any obligation, any -- any entity that could obligate you to -- to monitor that water quality?
>> no, ma'am, I'm not aware.
>> okay.
thanks for bearing with me on these questions.
i know that we're at lunch time.
what would you like to do, judge?
i have a few more.
>> > I do, too, I got a couple of 'em, judge, that I think is pretty essential.
>> I say go on with your questions.
>> okay.
>> all right.
>> we have already -- Travis County staff has already responded to issues with regard to siltation and runoff.
and I believe that they are of the opinion that we have adequately addressed those.
we have the authority and we have adequately addressed those.
with regard to access to ground water, by the neighboring wells, what is txi's policy with regard to -- to diminishing access to ground water as a result of the operation?
i understand there's some shallow wells that some of the residents are relying on.
shallow by meaning -- meaning 50 feet or less, is that an appropriate designation of the shallow well, 50 feet or less?
>> yes, that is a shallow well.
>> yes, it is.
could you restate the question?
was --
>> does txi have any -- any policy and of course I have to say, Travis County has had issues with this as well.
where we have been in your shoes.
does txi have any policy or procedure with regard to diminishing access to water in shallow wells adjacent to the mining sites that are a direct result?
>> what I would say is that we would certainly work with any residents that experienced concerns in that regard in terms of their levels of water diminishing.
basically the reason to establish a type of monitoring problem ahead of time would be to be able to tell if there are any impacts, we feel that's in the best interests, both for us as well as the residents.
>> during txi have any prior -- how has txi handled prior circumstances, similar circumstances?
>> I can't name any specific circumstances.
i do know that we have had other concerns and issues with neighbors and residents around other facilities of ours and we certainly are very proactive and willing to work with them to resolve those issues.
we have already answered traffic through Travis County staff.
thank you, I appreciate that.
with regard to noise, has txi identified any baseline with regard to noise in the area?
additionally, does txi have any plan to monitor the change in that baseline due to the operation of the mine?
>> we don't have any current plans to -- to do any monitoring after the fact or as the
>> [indiscernible] is going on there.
there's certainly noise levels required as part of the mining health and safety administration.
mhsa, those all relate to on-site workers with relation to the high noise.
we do have plans, plans in place to provide adequate buffers.
the buffers that essentially are going to be along the property lines are going to be raised and elevated to provide a noise barrier.
in addition to that, as we get into the excavations, the equipment itself, will be fairly well below grade.
so our anticipation is that the noise impacts of those mining operations and excavation will not be significant on the property line.
>> okay, with regard to quality of life, which is recognize can be a very subjective metric, you have just mentioned buffers.
how widely the buffers be to the immediately adjacent neighbors?
>> there's a requirement to have a 50-foot buffer.
but in some cases those buffers are going to be substantially more.
i don't know the exact width of the buffers and jim, if you have the outline, jim skeef is with murphy engineering, he has done a lot of the engineering work for the property and could probably provide some more clarification on that.
>> I'm jim
>> [indiscernible], murphy engineering, there's obviously buffers associated with the creeks established by city of Austin ordinance, in some cases those creeks border --
>> jim, step closer to the mic, please, I can't hear you.
>> pull in closer to the mic.
>> okay, sorry.
>> in any case there's buffers associated with the creeks and in some cases the creeks are adjacent to the adjacent property owners.
in addition, as -- as david mentioned, there's the 50-foot minimum buffer and txi has also agreed to offset adjacent residential areas to a tune of approximately 56-acres, to -- so that they are mining the area -- their mining area will be much farther away and it would be several hundred feet as opposed to, say, 50 feet.
>> now, y'all have already mentioned some changes in your operation with regard to phasing.
so that you could get in and out of the areas that you plan to mine that are immediately adjacent to neighbors.
but I wanted to ask, with regard to your plan for -- for how do you say concurrent reclam nationations, what is the size of the working face in concurrent reclaimations, working phase.
>>
>> [indiscernible] acres possibly, that will be the active working site.
>> okay.
do you all plan to have a separate handling of topsoil and subsoil for the reclamation?
>> a separate handling as in terms of different -- using different equipment or --
>> no, so that in the reclamation the topsoil actually is on top?
>> [laughter]
>> well, yes.
that's essentially what's going to happen is we will start with one phase, we will remove the topsoil and then we will basically pile that on the site as we remove that excavation, that topsoil will then be placed back into the excavation.
does that answer your question?
>> yes.
we have spoken some about the end use of the operation as a whole.
with regard to the
>> [indiscernible] public assets, like historic sites, my understanding is that you have taken the historic sites including the grave sites out of the proposed mining area.
you have not identified any environmentally -- environmental issues, although Travis County has preidentified before txi was on the scene, we had preidentified prized diminishing natural beauty, included in the site.
for our green print acquisition.
my concern here is that there are a number of issues to which Travis County specifically has no authority to address.
additionally, there are some issues that apparently no Texas governmental authority has jurisdiction to address.
one notable one is noise, but although you do identify a federal source that requires for worker safety that there be a diminished noise, that's good news.
what I would ask, it -- there appears to have been a disconnect in -- in providing information and consultation with neighbors on this project.
i -- I do agree that many of the issues have been identified and to some degree addressed, but I also believe that there are some outstanding issues to which neighbors would -- we will hear from the neighbors and I don't mean to speak for the neighbors, but what my hope would be is that txi and the neighbors would both be willing to enter into an interspace negotiation premining to put those to rest to the greatest extent possible and then to continue working together through the mining operations.
is txi willing to do a third-party mediated negotiation with the neighbors?
on these issues that are outside of Travis County's control?
>> yes, ma'am, we certainly are willing to do that.
and we have expressed and want to continue to express our willingness to work with the residents and the neighbors around our facilities as we do in all of our operations, that critical to our business.
>> would txi be willing to pay for such a mediation and sponsor the ongoing efforts without the dependency of the mining.
>> we would certainly be willing to talk about that in determining what the total amount is.
>> and to a great degree I believe the premining conditions have been identified but as testimony here today indicates, some of the premining conditions have not because, frankly, no authority requires you to.
for instance, noise, water quality, which are two very important issues.
would txi be willing to identify those baseline premining conditions and to monitor those throughout the -- as well as air quality, I'm sorry, noise, air quality and water quality.
>> well, we already have mentioned that we definitely will be willing to do a water quality assessment and to provide baseline conditions.
at this time, regarding air quality and noise, we're not in a position to be able to say that we can do that.
but we would certainly be to go talk during the mediation process and go through those issues on a specific issue by issue basis.
>> I would ask y'all to review what staff has put together for us with regard to air quality monitoring.
it appears that both capcog and tceq have air monitoring equipment that could be available to us for that purpose.
and lastly, are you all aware of a performance based buffering bill that Travis County urged in the last legislative session?
a performance based buffering bill that Travis County urged in the last legislative session?
with regard to industrial uses adjacent to preexisting residential areas.
>> [indiscernible]
>> jeff.
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> I would ask that -- I would ask for your participation, all my previous asks were participation with the neighbors.
on this ask, I would ask for your participation with Travis County on the performance based buffering bill because I think that it could address these issues in a way that is -- that we don't have this painful ad hoc process and instead strengthen the -- the position, the collaboration between industry and residences so we don't have this incredible disconnect between industrial use and preexisting residentials.
i would ask you to review that legislation and to work with us in -- in -- in presenting something to the state that is based on measurable health and safety in order to create compatibility between industrial and existing residential.
may I have that commitment from txi.
>> we appreciate --
>> go ahead.
>> my name is maurice osborne, manager of communications and government affairs with txi.
my response to that would be we would be very much interested in pursuing conversation with you and/or other Commissioners in relation to that.
>> there have been several --
>> Commissioner Davis.
>> thank you, judge.
there's been several attempts made to address compatible land use because the state does not grant us such compatible land use authority as it does cities and municipalities within their particular jurisdictions, which is really a tough situation, like fighting a bear with a switch.
a broomstick.
it's really tough for us to make decisions.
even saying that, even in saying that, I would lining to know because publicly a lot of folks may be just tuning into this issue this morning, this afternoon.
and they may not know that this particular operation, sand and gravel operation is even going on.
and, of course, can you state the hours of operation that you will be up under if this goes forward, accordingly?
what type of hours of operation, mining operation will really be imposed on adjacent communities, we have a school a whole bunch of things over there in that particular area.
>> Commissioner Davis, our intent is to operate this facility during typical daylight hours.
>> what final to what time.
>> you are talking probably about 7:00 in the morning until 5:00 or 6:00 in the evening are our standard operating hours.
>> how many days of the week?
>> there will be five to six days per week.
>> six.
>> those are -- those are guidelines, those are not set in stone.
but those are our intentions to operate the facility.
there may be times when we might have to operate extended based on demand or based on other --
>> minimum, minimal days.
>> six days per week.
>> six days.
>> all right.
then it could end up going to seven.
okay.
how many trucks will be used in this particular operation, event, under that type of scenario?
hauling -- hauling sand and gravel to the other site?
how many trucks will you be actually using?
>> I'm not sure of the exact number.
i would say probably about 250 roughly trips.
as far as the number of vehicles.
>> trips?
>> as far as the number of vehicles, I don't have that information.
but I can ask one of our folks who is here to provide that, if you will bear with me just a moment.
>> okay.
let's find, let's put that on the table.
>> okay.
>> and go ahead.
>> jeff resler, I'm the gun ral manager of operations for sand and gravel operations for txi in Texas and oklahoma.
general we are looking around 5,000 to six thousand tons a day of material, generally a truck carries about 25-tons.
>> you do the math.
>> I was hoping that you would do the math for me
>> [laughter]
>> go ahead.
>> what are we talking about.
>> about 250.
250.
>> truck trips.
>> all right.
>> per day.
>> correct.
>> all right.
of course that's significant.
i bring those points up for several reasons.
before I became an elected official, we had a situation over there, the -- the -- the infamous gasoline storage tank farm.
and the water quality was in suspect, but of course folks said hey there's nothing wrong with the water, blah, blah, blah, but it was independent wells at that time, deemed and dug.
and what we found out there was significant, significant contamination in the water supply.
those folks that had wells within a radius so long, within a certain radius, of course, were also impacted as far as property was concerned from what I understand.
so I'm concerned about the water quality.
and monitoring and the results of whose well is it, who is going to be digging wells?
you know, the wells are dug independently to make sure we get accurate information outside of the -- of the folks that we were looking at as far as contamination of the water.
number 2 is this -- is that those folks that were living around those particular gasoline storage tank farms, the resident themselves, they had a significant depreciation of their property value because of the perception of an environmental catastrophe there.
now, here we are talking about quality of life issues.
have they been built in with this quality of life issue that we are discussing here today, have there been any built in consequences that what you also may be doing is -- is because perception is reality in a lot of this.
folks see this as a mining operation.
they say, well, look, I may not want to move there.
my property is going to depreciate.
those things are built in.
what -- there's other impacts other than the impacts that you have -- that we'll hit on today.
there's other circumstance type of impacts.
and the point is how long, how long will this operation be in place, for the mining operation under these two different permits that you have submitted here before Travis County.
the east and the west hornsby bend permit, how long will a -- as far as years are concerned -- are we talking about that this mining operation will be in place before total reclamation will be implemented?
can you tell me how long that operation will take place?
years?
how many years?
>> our estimate is based on market conditions, but we assume it will be approximately 15 years worth of time, it could be as many as 20 or lower than that, depending on demand.
what I will also mention again is that during any active time that we're going to be operating on this facility, there will be a fairly small proportion of actively mined area.
the reminder is going to be reclaimed or used as agriculture.
our phasing will be such that we will go up against the residential areas, we will get in there and complete that mining and do the reclamation first and get out of the way so the bulk that's going to be taking place will be well away from those buffered and property border areas.
>> well, have you taken into consideration the impact on property value that may take place because after -- there was a significant decrease in the appraised value of the property value of those residents around the gasoline, old gasoline storage tank farms on airport, right around that area.
significant.
have that been taken into consideration as far as what your operation will encounter?
>> we certainly heard feedback and concerns from the residents in that regard.
>> what -- how did you answer it?
>> well, first of all, I would mention that this type of facility is significantly different from a storage facility for petroleum products.
and there are no standing structures or there are no potentially hazardous materials that will be stored on site.
this is an excavation of naturally occurring material and we will be reclaiming it with naturally occurring material.
the excavations themselves, we will be using low profile equipment, basically a backhoe and mostly that will be done below the surface and will be out of sight.
we have had instances in other properties that we have mined, both as we've been operating those facilities as well as after we have operated those facilities where we've had residential developments take place.
in fact, there is one next to one of our existing facilities in the area there, where development was actually put in after the mining took place and was taking place as the mining was taking place, that's currently going on.
so there are examples of properties and developments that are residential and in some cases very high end that actually come up and abut active mining areas.
that being said, the designation and the ability to determine property values is very subjective.
and it's very difficult to tell what types of factors come into play.
obviously the economy is not as good as it was two years ago.
but what I'll say is that just generally our concern is to work with the residents to ensure that our operations are going to have the best result for them in terms of their quality of life.
us as a company is committed, we as a company, are committed to working with those residents to ensure that.
>> okay, last question, last two questions.
that is have you been cited by tceq for not coming in compliance with the regs or any -- the complaints that have been filed against you as far as violating any type of -- of operation within your mining operation?
now maybe not at this site.
i know that probably been some complaints from what I've heard.
but anyway, but any of your sites here in the state of Texas, that's the first question.
and I will let you answer that, then I'm going to get you one more and I'm going to shut up.
>> well, Commissioner, I'm not aware specifically of any instances of violations that we've had.
i know that we have multiple facilities in the state of Texas.
we operate aggregate facilities, we operate ready-mix concrete facilities as well as
>> [indiscernible] production facilities.
at each of those facilities I would say that we do have a very good compliance record with regard to tceq regulations, any time we do have outstanding violations, those are resolved very quickly.
we do make sure that we take care of any problems that might come up.
to my knowledge, we don't have any egregious outstanding compliance issues.
obviously that information is public information.
and at this point, I'm not familiar with any specific instances where we've had difficulties in that regard.
>> okay.
my last question is the back -- back to the subject matter of depreciation of property.
i'm just wondering whether or not if you have contacted the Travis County appraisal district who actually determines what impact any of this has on -- on current property value in the area, have that been done?
because I'm still talking about perception.
perception becomes reality, regardless of what we say.
perception at times becomes reality.
especially when it comes to appraisal of property and what's adjacent to that property.
the folks hear about that and they say, hey, my property ain't worth a plug nickel now.
so have you contacted the -- the question is have you contacted the Travis County appraisal district to see what type of adverse impact could be embraced, have to be embraced by these particular property owners in this particular arena.
>> well, Commissioner, to my knowledge we have not spent any time with the appraisal district in that regard.
>> okay, thank you.
>> Commissioner, if I might, just quickly on -- on compliance, the reference that was made at the prior meeting had nothing to do, number one, with our sand and gravel operations or our aggregate operations.
to my knowledge, we have not been in non-compliance with any of our aggregate operations.
the other issues that they brought up were related to other type of operations and were not serious issues.
>> now, it is now a little bit after 12:30, I suggest that we try to go to 1:00.
break for lunch until -- probably 45 minutes for lunch.
but let's go on till 1:00.
at 1:00 decide how to proceed this afternoon.
let's give residents an opportunity to come forth and give comments.
>> two quick points of clarification.
>> okay, two quick questions.
>> I just want to clarify an understanding when we are talking about 250 trips per day, are we talking about round trips per day?
those will be one time in order to get that material, I guess it will end up being 125 because we will have to take them down.
>> you are talking about single point in a road a vehicle passing it 250 times, whether it's coming and going.
>> that's right, in order to move that material.
>> secondly, when we talked about the noise issues, am I correct in assuming there's not been any assessment of the vehicular noise generate bid these trucks and the impact on the neighborhood.
>> to my knowledge, nam, there has not.
>> thank you.
>> let's give residents an opportunity to come forth and what we will do is start to the left and work our way to the right as we -- as we face the -- the different speakers.
mr.
priest.
>> morris priest, speaking on my own behalf.
i really don't believe this Commissioners court should -- should approve this -- this total malfeasance to me, an amoral decision.
the reasons are -- are all of the one that's are previous -- previously been -- been stated.
however, as I understand it from this presentation, what's happened thus far, the county has done nothing to check the air quality control of the -- or the water quality control.
they just merely have asked hornsby bend to do this work and then rely upon the actual parties involved in this matter to -- to give their input on -- on -- which I think is biased to say the least.
the second part of the agenda item, talking about the road improvements, absolutely 100% no guarantee, of course some of these roads, all of these roads I do believe require the county to sign-off on some of the road work is -- is the city and county and some of the road work is the city, county and txdot, but as we have seen recently with txdot, even with ramps, there's no guarantee any of these things are going to be done by txdot.
at best it could be a very poor assumption on the county's part.
also, what I have heard, I guess 100 times from my Commissioner, Commissioner Eckhardt, and other members of this court, which I strongly disagree with, I think it's beyond a mischaracterization, this court, just like any individual has opportunities look into matters -- such as title vi.
i know that Margaret Gomez you've had this brought up by capital metro, as well as this has been brought up by different groups, ncaa, poder, for a toll roads and things of that nature.
there's other areas of the law, health and safety control, capcog would be an agency that could deal with these things as well.
the court has a physical -- fiscal responsibility to take -- to protect the property of the county.
i'm a firm believer in people being able to do with their property as they see fit, however we all know whether it's a pig rendering plant or a gravel mine it's going to be a future dump site because this will be the only thing that it will be used for is a different scenario than what's normally taken into consideration when you are dealing with property rights.
there's not been one credible answer posed by the public here today.
so many questions still unanswered by the presentation at txi, by the questions asked by the county.
that I think that this would just be the -- the most enormous travesty of justice, your responsibility.
i want to reiterate again, each and every single person on this dais, this courted, has discretion.
i would ask you to use that discretion at this time and just say no to this -- to this -- this nightmarish financial and environmental -- too numerous to count -- adjectives to explain the unfit request that's been made.
thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you, mr.
priest.
>> by the way, as one speaker finishes, if we could get another one to come forth, we would appreciate that.
if you are an impacted resident, I would be interested in learning whether you believe that -- that mediation with txi in some form would be productive and whether you are interested in proceeding with that.
yes?
>> I'm jeanette kincaid, I live in
>> [indiscernible] crossing which is in the middle of both sites.
i have sent this also to your e-mails to you have access to it.
txi's response to our concerns were misleading at least and completely erroneous at best.
i am bothered by every issue raised by all of the citizens, however as you know my biggest concern is the dust and health implications that it will cause.
in xxi's response, they state statements about cancer and other health issues, txi response, the mining safety and health administration knows that it is a federal agency that reviews miner health and safety.
this requirements require operators to adhere very strict rule to ensure all employees long and short term health and well-being while working at the site.
consequentially as this string gel level of health protection is mandated for employees directly at this site has logically established that there is no health issue to employees at the site.
therefore, it stands to reason that there will be no adverse health effects to adjacent property owners or residents.
i have sent links to the msha standards and recommendations to you, I would like to quote directly from one has is handout for employees using crushers, which txi has said they are going to predominantly been using.
because so much rock dust has silica in it, you should take steps to protect yourself against possible health hazards, some dust is stopped naturally by the body's defense system, but the smallest dust can go deep into the lungs, it describes it as fatal and irreversible.
they fail to state it does not have anything to do with the air quality in and around the mind, the protections are precautions employees must take, staying downwind wearing respirators possibly.
it does not stand to reason that they will properly keep our children's play areas downwind of dust clouds.
furthermore, they will not be inspecting the play areas, street they ride their bikes on or end suring that our children wear their respirators properly.
it goes without saying that txi is not going to issue our children respirators like they are required bylaw to issue the workers of this mine.
the statements made by txi were meant to discredit or concerns and make it seem that they are missound and silly.
they are spinning and omitting information to make the tables turn in their favor.
if they are dishonest before the permit is approved it stands to reason that -- you are able to to deny this permit based on code 64 that says a permit can be denied because it's not compatible with surrounding developments.
a dust mine is not compatible with a residential area.
i personally live directly across from del mont road in my back road.
this will be her back yard where she's going to be living.
please take a stand for human dignity and don't approve this permit.
>> mediation, yes or no?
>> I don't want the mine there.
if mediation means that we're going to put the mine there, no, I don't want the mine there.
>> if the mine does go there, do you want -- this is a rhetoric question because I know the answer, it would be my answer as well-being a mother of children.
would you want air quality monitoring ongoing in order to prove up the lileterious effects,.
>> absolutely.
>> I fear if it does get approved the monitoring is going to be why are all of the children getting sick, why does everyone in this area have asthma, why are the lung cancer rates 50% higher?
then they are going to look into it.
if this does get approved which I sincerely hope that each of you are brave enough to say no, that is continuously monitored.
not every now and then monitored.
our children's safety is forefront.
>> thank you.
yes.
>> > good morning, my name is vera mesaro representing
>> [indiscernible] aclp.
first of all, I would like to start by thanking everybody for working together on this to some extent.
i would also actually like to express my gratitude for txi in the sense that they actually have addressed some of our comments as it relates to buffering, so forth, so on.
one of the things in hearing this very, very complicated issue that I'm having a hard time getting my arms around, is there a are lot of we wills.
we would be happy to.
we have done this.
i don't see any document out there that gives anybody in this room, including the court, the ability to enforce those I i will" ".
so my recommendation to the court is possible consider a delay.
enter into a phasing agreement.
having been in the shoes of txi on many other projects, some of which were not so easy and actually harder than this project, phasing agreements were a thing that happened, a way for the county to enforce them, a way for the residents to enforce them.
i would certainly request some consideration for that.
relative to property values.
we are a clear case of the everything of the project on property values.
as you all might remember, we were before this court less than 60 days ago with the project to purchase some additional -- some lots by Austin habitat for humanity.
the court opted not to go forward with that contract because of the txi issue.
Commissioner, the point is made.
there are just other little items, talking big picture, ear quality, neighborhood.
my concern is on the neighborhood, no truck traffic.
all goes back to the phasing agreement.
no truck traffic down hunters bends, no truck traffic absolutely down Austin quality boulevard.
sensing not just buffers, but visual impact.
so there's numerous other little things.
i understand the big scope, the big picture, but there's other little things that I think could be addressed with the phasing agreement.
so your consideration to this request would be appreciated.
thank you.
>> thank you.
>> my name is judy holden, I would like to ask a representative of txi if you are going to sell any of the topsoil?
whoever can answer that.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> you will have to be on mic.
>> come up to the mic for the record.
>> we have multiple sites in the area.
we have the webberville site where we're processing materials and we would -- we would probably sell topsoils off of those locations before we would move any materials off of the webberville location.
but it's possible that we might be selling top soils off of that.
>> okay.
when you say that you are going to return the land to agricultural use, do you mean that row crops can be planted there?
>> yes, row crops could be planted there.
>> not just grazing.
it will be suitable for row crops?
>> it will be suitable for agricultural use.
i'm not going to define what sort of row crops that someone may be able to grow.
>> but they will be able to grow them?
>> it will be suitable for agricultural use.
>> that could mean grazing.
>> yes, it could be.
>> my specific question is whether or not it will be suitable for row crops, will there be good topsoil?
>> it will be the topsoil, it will be all of the soils that in place on that site.
there will be no foreign soils brought into this location.
>> it will be flat and even?
>> no.
there will be roll to the final grades.
>> okay.
and will there be berms forever?
>> berms will be removed at the end of the project.
>> okay.
and I'm just curious and you may not be able to answer this, why do they call it the hornsby bend project?
>> I'm not sure why that name was chosen.
>> it is not hornsby bend, it's hunters bend.
why are you not reclaiming hornsby bend at this time?
>> we are reclaiming our site at this time.
>> okay.
thank you, thank.
>> thank you.
>> is there like a best practices set of standards for reclamation after a gravel pit operation?
>> judge, the practices in the mining industry, especially the sand and gravel industry have changed over the years.
the site at the Austin green location was one that was typically excavated with draglines.
and those have become a process that we're not continuing to use as we have moved to our other locations.
specifically our location at owen and our location at webberville.
and it would also be the proposed sort of equipment with track hoes and articulating haul units that would be used on the hornsby bend site.
>> okay.
>> yes?
>> good afternoon, I guess.
dr.
elizabeth jones, I also live in chaparral crossing.
i will be right across the street from the proposed mine.
thank you for this opportunity to speak.
i appreciate it.
i have several concerns.
one is I really -- I question the objectivity of the studies that were done or conducted by txi or txi's partners.
those studies were used to actually make the permitting decisions by both county and city staff.
i truly question those, it seems like it might be a -- it would be a conflict of interest in my mind.
so I question those studies and think that we would -- I would feel more comfortable with independent studies that gave me that information.
yes, I appreciate the txi meeting.
i attended one of them.
but what concerns me as I -- as things keep changing of the first of all, we're going to have a conveyor belt, then no we're moving to trucks.
i've heard different things about the berm, so I'm excited to hear that the berms will be removed.
maybe 20 years from now, but I'm happy to hear that the berms will be removed.
i have heard that they would stay.
i moved there for the beauty.
okay?
i have owned this house for two years now, I'm sure my bank is thrilled.
i mean, you know, I'm going up into emotion and not logic.
but anyway I have lived there for two years.
property value will go down.
i will never be able to resale this house, it is perception as you have pointed out and financially it is a huge problem for me personally.
but on a community level, I don't trust a company that keeps changing its mind and changing its story.
based on who they're talking to.
i also want to point out again that the community has changed.
it has changed even since you probably first started looking at doing this gravel pit.
to have a residential area across the street from a mining expedition is really, really unthinkable, particularly in a place like Austin.
and the other thing I guess I question is talking about the length of the project.
i understood that the length of the project would be much shorter than 15 to 20 years when I first heard about it at the hotel.
and now that it's going to be 15 or 20 years, that's a very different picture to me and it makes me wonder sort of what else might be going on.
because I was very happy with the get the gravel and go approach and true reclamation would have worked.
but I hope that you will deny this permit, thank you.
>> thank you.
>> yes, sir?
>>
>> [indiscernible] I live on milam road.
just a few things that have come up in the speakers before now.
one I want to talk, they've said they have made concessions about buffer zones so that they will be done mining adjacent to the neighborhoods.
they have put in one buffer zone as far as I can tell, other than the ones required by the critical water quality zones and it's along hunters bend.
i don't know if you know where little, but it's --
>> take the mic.
it's adjacent -- okay.
here's the east side.
this is chaparral crossing.
this is Austin's colony.
they have put in a 50-acre buffer zone along here.
what it's adjacent to is unbuilt homes.
you know, people don't live there yet.
something asked by qualico who owns most of these lots, they are going to sell their home, this is all Austin colony, all of it, I'm adjacent to it.
all of this is adjacent to it.
there's not one place that's adjacent to it.
they are going to put in a little buffer zone.
there's been a lot of talk about txi changing their mind and what they're going to do.
they've talked about how they want to work with us to solve these water -- well water issues.
they were asked repeatedly by theresa to identify all of the local drinking and irrigation wells within a quarter of a mile of this property and they provided a list of the state registered wells.
i don't know, I've they have been told I'm required to register my well, but they have never done one thing to go find out who has a well and where it is and how it will be affected.
back on February 19th, when they asked the first round of questions sent out by theresa, comment 19, identify whether option one or option two will be utilized.
the actual plan for operation needs to be identified on the plan.
their comment, the plans have been changed to show only the conveyor operation.
you know.
there's been a lot of talk about this conveyor, where it went, why it went, I think it's this sort of thing everybody knows and there's comments we were sent around last night, well, if we can get some cooperation from the county and city, we will find an alternative way to transport take material.
you know, they -- that material.
as far as the knowledge that I have, the conveyor was dropped to avoid a city of Austin variance hearing and their plan, they go in and make this roadway agreement with you to say we're going to do these road improvements, but there's always some 60 day out, they can get out of this agreement if they find an alternative, people at the city have told me over and over, well, they think they are probably going to come back and revise their plan, put in the conveyor.
let's stop this thing now, get them to make up their mind and apply for the permit with the way they're going to use it.
forget this out business, if you're going to go to the roads, go on the roads.
one of the things, the roadway agreement that they talk about, this is what I would like to wonder, they have a -- they have it scheduled for a description of roadway and traffic improvement.
it says dedicate or cause to be dedicated the right-of-way within the property needed to achieve the improvements identified in paragraphs 1 c, 1 d, 1 b, this is on exhibit b of the contract, roadway improvement agreement.
basically what they are saying is they are going to improve this intersection on dunlap and 969, it's in the middle of decker creek, it's on a bridge, they're going to put a stripe in the road and make it two lanes?
i mean, how are they going to dedicate land to expand that intersection.
they don't own that property.
this is the kind of thing that seems like is just going to get slipped in this contract to get this through so they can get their permit in hand and then we don't know what's going on happen because everything has changed up until now.
thank you.
>> mr.
reeferseed.
>> thank you all.
and thanks to everyone here.
i just wanted to express my concern as a citizen briefly I -- I agree with all of the questions and doubts that have been raised.
and I want to just express my wish that y'all would stand up as citizens yourselves and just say no.
this is madness.
more detriment than can even be spelled out with all of these concerned citizens saying over and over and over and naming real problems that have been ignored and then the one question that I had was for the ever so sleek lawyer routine here is why -- who came up with this plan and why did it seem better to rush through to do the -- the sites that are closest to homes first?
what's the logic of that?
i don't understand why -- why that is paraded as some kind of reason to go along with this.
it's like we're going to make it so bad that you just can't, you know -- going to -- push it over and make it extra bad right at the beginning and you can't do anything bit, you -- we won't have time to build up the data to make a complaint and it just seems backward minded to me on that one question until again I will leave the time for everybody else, but I agree with all of these other concerns and questions and I really hope and wish that you all would pay attention to the citizens this time.
thanks.
>> thank you.
yes, sir?
>> yes, I'm -- I'm
>> [indiscernible] research scientist.
military research scientist retired and a psychotherapist.
i'm licensed by the family marriage and family therapy act.
i'm a health department licensee.
i went yesterday and have more footage as to one of txi's former sites.
nearly 80-foot from the level of water yesterday where I took samples.
and have them en route to appropriate testing labs.
i question whether there's been even a step on to edwin lane and hergoetz lane, which has that site.
a truck driver for txdot told me he went to that site as a truck driver for txdot, not -- yes -- txi, txi, why am I saying txdot, I apologize.
you access this area behind callahan's and the area is about 10-miles square.
10 square miles with site after site after site of -- of gravel pits.
there's a home for sale right now by the owner at 8909 ramirez lane.
i checked with the t cad values, assessed values, and for the side of land I -- I'm for the going to get into -- exact evaluation because I did this as a 70-year-old at 11:00 p.m.
last night.
and I don't want to depend on my ability to remember or to read the fine print of -- of travis cad.
mr.
davis, I -- I am -- I am thrilled to hear you talk about the devaluation, the perception of devaluation being possible and being concerned.
but I would vouch that this -- that the -- that the people that own the property at 8908 ramirez, that they can have a well or well water.
the only thing that they can live on is Austin water supplied to them.
if they did a well in that area, I would vouch -- not scientific evidence, but just common ability to look at the question -- now, this -- this txi representative just minutes ago said that he was going to -- that txi was going to commit to making vegetation possible for the growing of -- there is a firm called -- on dalton lane, called color star.
it's a high -- hydroponic farm.
it's a big farm.
that is the kind of farming that will be possible, is hydroponic farming, where you have a closed in area and you grow things with water that's piped in.
it is a risky thing.
i -- I own 25 acres of farm property.
i don't believe that you could do the kind of farming that used to be possible by the saenz family or the ramirez family or by the hergoz family in 1926, it's just not feasible to do that in the nice farmland close to the colorado river, just one-half mile away from where I took the water samples.
i invite this television station to go there with me any time you wish.
each of you.
i invite each of you that has to make this voted to defer or phase in an agreement somehow dealing with the kinds of questions that's visible.
if it's -- if my video camera was possible to show right now, I would ask that same time period be seen as -- and be part of your record.
but I can't -- I haven't had the time to reduce that.
i do have photos on my still camera of the -- of the samples I brought out.
judge Biscoe, I do not want you to
>> [indiscernible] kenneth that's enough.
i really want everyone possible -- there's 3,000 plus families in the immediate zone.
they have not -- not even one fifth of that 3,000 families has had -- that will be directly affected -- has had a chance to hear even the basics about this project.
there -- they've had, yes, a chance to go to a meeting at some hotel.
15 miles away or 11 miles away.
if you have children in the home, you don't go out in the night or in the afternoon necessarily to a meeting.
you just don't have the chance and it's been said by counsel that you are interested in the council having the chance to post negotiate.
i went to txi's attorney --
>> we need you to move on.
do you have anything you want to hear me --
>> Commissioner Eckhardt recommended, kenneth, one of the possibilities is for your neighborhood associations, which I represent one, to get together.
well, we've tried.
but we're not here testifying.
and it's time that this be deferred or a no vote complete and basic be considered.
thank you very much.
>> thank you.
yes, sir?
>> I appreciate your time.
>> [inaudible - no mic] limited authority provided by the state.
>> what's your name.
>> ryan
>> [indiscernible] Austin colony, a homeowner.
>> okay.
>> I understand you are restricted to chapter 64 of the code potentially for approving or denying this permit.
just to reiterate --
>> turn on your mic.
>> closer to the mic.
>> you bet.
>> sometimes it's better to see things than hear them.
i have a few maps that you all can take a look at when you have a moment.
these are all of the reported wells in the adjacent areas of the txi proposed sites.
again, these are only the recorded wells.
there are numerous other that's belong to both agricultural users and homeowners association to use as well.
homeowners to use as well.
these are just local land uses that surround the sites and then these series of aerial maps show the damage that txi and the others are doing to the riparian corridor of the colorado river.
great.
is that better?
>> yes.
thank you.
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> not better.
>> maybe another mic.
>> yeah, give him another one.
>> thanks so much.
for --
>> > no problem.
>> that's better.
>> from the montopolis bridge at 183 crossing the colorado river downstream to the processing plant where they propose to transport the materials excavated from the east and west site shown on the map, there are numerous areas of excavation that have already gun on.
gone on.
this aerial map is six years old.
if you look at it and follow the rivers downstream, there are numerous excavations and since the time these maps were taken, there were several others that have either been -- properties acquired by txi or other mining operations or already commenced operation there.
the last one that you will see is the -- is the processing site where these materials will be transported and it's plainly obvious from this aerial photograph that they are not protecting our river from storm water flows leaving the site.
it's clear that there are not berms adequate enough from stopping the runoff from this site which is completedly destroyed to enter our river.
that's just sediment pollution.
that the knot talking about the habitat this provides, nutrient cycling allowed to go on without disturbed areas.
so these are all things that you guys do not have the authority to regulate as mentioned previously.
so I would like to move on to the things that you are allowed to regulate.
first of all, by allowing txi to permit the roadway improvements separately from this site development permit, you are allowing them to dance around federal and state regulations.
this roadway improvement crosses two tributaries which aren't shown on the map conveniently.
roadway improvements across tributaries of the united states are subject to army corps regulation.
there are two types of regulations here.
the colorado river is a section 10 water protected by the rivers and harbor act.
the tributaries are protected by section 404 of clean water act.
those require federal permits.
federal permits require the
>> [indiscernible] process that allows for things like noise evaluation, air quality and on and on.
the human environment, not just the natural environment, which should be also looked into in more thorough manner than has been conducted.
your own code says that you cannot authorize a permit without having receipt all other federal, state, municipal permits have been approved.
has the city of Austin approved their permit for this?
i think not.
i think we're still talking about that.
there's one permit that you don't have.
do you have any information regarding corps of engineer compliance?
if txdot were to review the roadway improvements, which they will have to ultimately, they will be -- txi will be provided the luxury of having this -- the roadway improvements evaluated without consideration of the excavation activities that are going on in this pit.
if they are allowed to do that, then the noise considerations will be minimal, talking about truck traffic, not machinery operating what they claim to be about 13 hours a day.
we have heard 24 hours a day in the past.
it's funny that they are singing a different tune.
there are several others, I don't want to tie up all of your time about going through the txdot review process, but it's very similar to the nepa process, adopted after the process and allows for a thorough review under three different types of review, categorical, environmental and impact -- environmental impact statement review.
this certainly wouldn't be a categorical exclusion.
i think there's enough of us here today speaking up to validify to say this needs more review than just a categorical exclusion.
if you allow them to proceed independently from the other roadway improvement permits, you are taking away the citizens only opportunity to stop this.
it states throughout your code that -- that -- that you have to have approval from other agencies to approve your own permit.
i would like to know, have there been any variance agreements from the code?
because there's several items in the code that would require a variance prior to authorizing a permit.
for instance, if the roadway improvement wasn't reviewed with the site development permits, that involves work according to chapter 64, section 67, work on public property, if the floodplain --
>> okay.
you raise interesting issues for us.
anna bolin is the one in the burgundy top.
make sure she has your phone number, we will get you the answer to those questions and any other questions that you have next week.
>> I understand.
i appreciate that.
>> there's no way for us to act on this today.
one thing is that I have got to chat with our lawyers we are out of time basically.
but if you have those questions and others and this nepa federal process is interesting.
but we can get you those answers.
can we do that?
>> my questions and answers -- and answers to those questions will be all for naught judge, if you approve that permit today.
>> as I just said we won't take action today if the court follows my lead.
>> thank you, sir.
>> what my recommendation would be that we have this back on the court's agenda next week, say at 10:00.
plan to take action.
whatever action we plan to take.
by 10:15 or 10:30.
our last speaker today ...
yes, sir.
>> dr.
don holden.
before I retired in 1993, I was with shell oil company as a research geo physicist for 25 years and I want to talk a little bit about the credibility of the hydrology that we're looking at here.
when I was with shell and we wanted to -- to assess the credibility of people's work, we would look at their publications, these are publications in journals that are peer reviews, such as that.
over a year ago I asked -- thornhill group, your hydrology consultants here, for any publications they had as to the work they had done.
why do I believe that they know what they're talking about?
never heard anything back from them.
i would like to suggest, we should -- we should have somebody looking that the ebb and flow of the water from the river into the aluvium and back the other way, goes back ways.
we should have somebody of the -- of the -- somebody like a university of Texas professor and the one that I have got in mind here is dr.
>> [indiscernible] cardenas, doing research on exactly this sort of a thing.
he's working out at the hornsby bend wastewater treatment plant, love to have him out there.
he is looking at the question of as you open and close the dams in this system that we are -- water system that we live on here in the river, the water goes from the river to the aquifer, from the aquifer back to the river and it does it right in harmony with those -- when those dams are opened and closed.
he would be a very knowledgeable guy to look at these things.
the other name that I want to drop is jeffrey saunders, he's with the lcra, he wrote a classic paper in a journal, quantification, qualification of the colorado river aluvium as a minor aquifer in Texas, this is a little bit less technical than the publication that I mentioned just before this, but it's also mentioned in a technical journal.
he goes through all of the ways from here on down to the coast that the colorado river aluvium is being used by so many people in -- and in irrigation and for their homes, whatever, so forth.
it's a it gets a little better status if you call it a minor aquifer, the other thing that he says in his paper here is that it's awfully liable for pollution.
basically says whatever you did don't let that colorado river alluvium get polluted.
so I just wanted to impress you that these are important considerations we're making here.
>> yes, sir, thank you.
>> thank you.
>> we have heard a lot of information and received a lot of testimony last week and today.
very, very quickly.
>> I was going to ask, will there be citizens communication next week, I can wait until next week.
>> the court has to agree, but I'm about to throw out a suggestion that makes sense to me, let's see how much sense it makes to the court.
but I need to chat with legal about a couple of issues and the question really is whether I will be able to do that today or next Tuesday.
i do think rather than take action today as I promised several people by e-mail, I'm not ready.
i don't know whether other court members are.
but seems to me to make sense to have this back on the agenda next week.
i don't know that it gets easier with time.
next Tuesday is just a few days before christmas.
but this Commissioners court will be here working for the people of Travis County.
as long as we need to.
>> [ applause ]
>> amen to that.
>> how does that sound?
>> if we have back on the agenda and if -- who is here today that needs to give comments next week?
all right.
one person right here mayor, two or three.
>> I'm sorry, I didn't hear your question, judge.
>> three or four here today would like to give comments next week.
hopefully not the same thing.
but we will take a few.
now, in order for us to make that happen, then, we do need to go to lunch, what if we go to lunch until 2:00?
what I will do is recommend to staff that the appointments that they have scheduled this afternoon start at 2:45.
2:45, 3:30, 4:15.
will get us done right at 5:00.
there are a couple of items that we do noticed to take in executive session.
and so that gives us between 2:00, 2:45, to do that.
and between now and this afternoon, I will see what other items we can postpone to next week.
>> okay.
>> how does that sound?
thank you all for coming, though.
it doesn't get easier with time.
maybe a little bit more difficult.
but this court is committed to take action next Tuesday.
with that, I move that we recess to 2:00.
>> second.
>> all in favor?
that passes unanimously.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 2:30 PM
