About Us

Oakridge sits in a narrow mountain valley where air gets trapped. This makes the town especially vulnerable to pollution. For years, Oakridge had some of the worst winter air quality in Oregon because wood stove smoke couldn’t escape the valley.   It took millions of dollars in grants, new stoves, and strict rules for Oakridge to finally meet federal clean air standards.   A quarry would add a new source of dust — including silica, a fine mineral dust created when rock is blasted or crushed. Silica dust is dangerous because it can scar lung tissue permanently and increase the risk of lung disease.   The biggest problem is that LRAPA — the agency responsible for air quality — does not monitor silica at all. Their monitors can detect general dust (PM10 and PM2.5), but they cannot tell whether that dust contains silica. LRAPA also said they would only consider monitoring after a quarry is approved, meaning the community becomes the test case.   Wildfire smoke already pushes Oakridge over the limit many summers. Adding quarry dust on top of that would make the air even harder to breathe, especially for kids, seniors, and people with asthma or COPD.   Conclusion: Oakridge’s air is already fragile. Adding an unmonitored source of silica dust puts residents at risk in a valley that cannot handle more pollution.

TV Butte is part of an important elk calving area. Residents who live near the site still see elk moving through the area regularly. Calving grounds are sensitive — elk need quiet, undisturbed habitat to give birth and raise calves. The applicant for Old Hazeldell has never provided strong evidence showing the quarry would not harm elk.   In fact, LUBA already ruled once that the County relied on unclear and contradictory information from ODFW.   Wildlife biologist Christopher Yee submitted detailed letters explaining why the quarry would disrupt elk behavior, and the applicant has never meaningfully rebutted his findings.   Even though Big Game/Elk Habitat is the main reason the original application was denied in 2021, the new application that was submitted still did not include any new details regarding this county goal concern. Blasting, truck traffic, and constant noise would push elk away from their traditional calving grounds. Once displaced, they may not return.   Conclusion: The applicant has not met its burden to show the quarry won’t harm elk calving grounds — a key Goal 5 resource.

Oakridge’s economy is fragile and hard‑won, built over decades of work to transition from a declining timber town into a nationally recognized outdoor‑recreation destination. People don’t come here by accident — they come for clean air, quiet forests, world‑class trails, and unspoiled views. A quarry on TV Butte would directly attack the core assets that keep this community alive.   Local businesses — bike shops, guides, restaurants, lodging, festivals, shuttle companies — survive on tourism. They cannot absorb a hit to Oakridge’s reputation. Dust plumes, industrial noise, constant truck traffic, and a visibly blasted hillside would make Oakridge feel less like a recreation town and more like an extraction zone. Once that image is damaged, it is almost impossible to rebuild.   Meanwhile, the applicant’s promised jobs and revenue are inflated, speculative, and unsupported by evidence. Any attempts for clarification on the promises noted on the Old Hazeldell website, are left unanswered.   The region already has multiple active quarries supplying aggregate without threatening the town’s economic foundation. There is no unmet need that justifies putting Oakridge’s future at risk.   Conclusion: The proposed quarry would undermine Oakridge’s recreation‑based economy, jeopardize local businesses, and damage the community’s long‑term economic identity — all while offering unrealistic, overstated, and temporary economic benefits. The risks are real, permanent, and irreversible. The rewards are not.

Quarries use a lot of energy — for blasting, crushing, hauling, and lighting. Oakridge’s electrical grid is already strained during extreme weather and wildfire seasons.   State agencies like DOGAMI and DEQ are understaffed and struggle to monitor existing mines. Adding another quarry increases the risk of violations going unnoticed. Across Oregon, quarries have a history of noncompliance, and enforcement is often slow.   Conclusion: Oregon lacks the oversight capacity to regulate another quarry safely and responsibly.

ESEE analysis is one of the most important—and most misunderstood—parts of Oregon’s Goal 5 process. If you’re fighting a quarry, you must understand it, because it’s where counties often get things wrong.   ESEE stands for: E – Economic S – Social E – Environmental E – Energy   -An ESEE analysis is a legally required evaluation that determines: o Should the county allow the proposed mining use, limit it, or prohibit it based on its impacts?   If the ESEE analysis is wrong, incomplete, or outdated, the entire approval is legally vulnerable.   Question: So why is the county not doing an ESEE for the newest application?? The blunt, accurate answer is: The county isn’t doing an ESEE because they are treating Old Hazeldell as if the impacts were already decided back in 2016.   A proper ESEE analysis must weigh so many things:   -Economic consequences -Jobs created vs. jobs lost -Impacts to tourism -Impacts to agriculture (vineyard) -Impacts to property values -Long term public costs (water contamination, road damage) -Social consequences -Health impacts (silica dust, noise, blasting) -Impacts to neighborhoods -Livability -Community opposition -Cultural and recreational impacts -Environmental consequences -Aquifer vulnerability -Landfill disturbance -Wildlife habitat -Dust deposition -Groundwater flow changes -Vibration impacts -Water quality risks -Energy consequences -Fuel use from heavy trucks -Increased emissions -Energy costs of mitigation -Long-term carbon footprint o Counties often treat this category lightly, but it still matters.

Even before the development of the UofO Aquifer study, there was still concern that Blasting could mobilize contaminants.   From the beginning, people raised concerns that quarry blasting could: -Fracture rock -Change groundwater flow paths -Release trapped landfill gases -Mobilize contaminants that were previously stable -Increase leachate production   This is a well documented risk in hydrogeology: disturbing an old landfill can trigger new contamination events   Early Goal 5 records with the county shows: -The landfill was identified as a potential contamination source -The county acknowledged unknown waste -The county noted lack of data -The county recognized groundwater vulnerability   But because no hydrologic study existed at the time, the county treated the risk as “theoretical.”   The UO study changed that.   Conclusion: The evidence is clear: groundwater contamination was never a theoretical worry—it was an unmeasured one. The UO Aquifer Study changed that by proving real pathways for landfill related contaminants to reach the city’s drinking water. With that new science, the county can no longer rely on outdated assumptions. A fresh, site specific evaluation is now required before any quarry approval can be responsibly considered.

Yes — mostly indirectly, and never in a way that resulted in meaningful dialogue with the community.   -Public officials have reached out — but got no engagement. Oakridge’s mayor and full city council formally sent letters opposing the quarry and requesting denial of the application. There is no record of Ed King responding to the city’s concerns or engaging with them directly.   -Community members have attempted contact through public processes. Residents have submitted comments, testified, and raised concerns for nearly a decade. These comments are legally required to be forwarded to the applicant (Old Hazeldell LLC, which includes Crown Properties, managed by Ed King III). There is no evidence in public records or news reporting that King personally replied to the testimony.   -Media outlets have attempted to reach him. Local news coverage (KVAL, KMTR) consistently refers to Ed King as the owner behind the project — but none of the articles include quotes from him, suggesting he did not respond to media requests for comment.   **There is one convo that occurred in 2022 between a private citizen and Ed King.   In timeline perspective, this would have been after the first full application denial of Oct 2021, and prior to the new Application in Nov 2023. In the conversation, Ed King frames the quarry as a “resource” the community must accept.   Throughout the exchange, he repeats a narrative that: -The quarry is a Goal 5 resource -Oregon law “requires” communities to accept it -Neighborhood opposition is expected but irrelevant -The trusts “own a serious resource” and therefore deserve extraction rights   This is not how Goal 5 actually works — but it shows his worldview. He believes the legal framework is on his side and that community concerns are secondary. This mindset explains why he has never engaged meaningfully with Oakridge.   His focus is overwhelmingly on valuation and tax benefits. When donation or buyout options were raised, his immediate response is: -The donation only works if the land is worth “tens of millions” -Without a zone change, the land is worth “far less” -Therefore, donation is “hard to work”   This reveals his primary concern is maximizing financial extraction from the land — either through quarrying or through a high valuation donation. This is consistent with the later lawsuit seeking ~$15M.   He minimizes environmental and community risks — almost dismissively. He uses classic industry talking points: -“Modern blasting is almost undetectable” -“Modern gravel is clean — it is after all, rocks” -“Not fracking” -Every truck is washed” -“Sound berms, dust control”   This is boilerplate quarry PR language, not site specific science. He telegraphs his legal strategy — and his expectation of suing. He explicitly says “I suspect that the quarry will sue Lane County and win.” And later told the same party “I think they’re going to sue.” This shows: -Litigation was always part of the plan -The trusts were prepared to use legal pressure to force approval -He believed the county would eventually be compelled to allow the quarry   This is important because it demonstrates intent, not just reaction. He repeatedly distances himself personally (“I have another day job”). This is a subtle but telling move. He frames the quarry as: -Something the trusts will pursue -Not something he personally owns or drives -Something he is only loosely connected to   This is a strategic distancing tactic. He wants the benefits of the project without personal accountability for its impacts. It proves the community attempted good faith engagement — and Ed King declined to reciprocate.

While Old Hazeldell Quarry notes they could provide only 10onsite jobs, those are not guaranteed to go to local residents.   Also, the quarry threatens Oakridge’s current tourismeconomy, which currently supports far more than 10 jobs. Tourism is Oakridge’slifeblood — mountain biking, outdoor recreation, festivals, and hospitality.   The quarry’s impacts (dust, blasting, truck traffic,degraded viewshed, water risks) could reduce tourism revenue and thereforeeliminate more jobs than it creates.

  An impact zone is the area around a proposed quarry where measurable negative effects—like dust, noise, vibration, groundwater changes, and land use conflicts—are expected to occur.   Even though the technical “impact zone” for a quarry is drawn as a 1,500 foot circle, real world impacts don’t stop at an imaginary line. Oakridge is a small town — only about 2.2 square miles — and TV Butte sits right next to it. Noise, dust, truck traffic, and blasting vibrations don’t stay contained. They travel down the valley, across neighborhoods, and into the places where people live, work, and recreate.   Both Oakridge and Westfir city councils have formally opposed the quarry because they understand how close it is to homes, schools, businesses, and the Willamette River. Local organizations — the Chamber of Commerce, Oakridge Trails Alliance, Oakridge Air, and others — have all documented how the quarry would affect tourism, outdoor recreation, and the peaceful environment that draws visitors here.   The Willamette River is also just outside the 1,500 foot zone, but rivers don’t care about zoning lines. Dust, runoff, and contamination can reach waterways easily, especially in steep terrain like TV Butte.   Conclusion: The quarry’s impacts extend far beyond 1,500 feet — they affect the entire Oakridge–Westfir community, its economy, and its environment.

TV Butte is culturally significant to the Molalla people. Historical records show that Molalla families once owned land in the area. The Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs have expressed concern about the quarry’s impact on cultural resources.   Destroying a culturally important landscape for a gravel mine would erase part of the region’s Indigenous history.   In 2015–2016 the quarry proposal triggered major public opposition, including Tribal governments and Indigenous community members, local residents, environmental groups, and Oakridge community leaders.   Tribes raised concerns about cultural resources on and around TV Butte, potential disturbance of ancestral lands, and the lack of proper cultural resource surveys.   Tribal opposition continued during the county’s review process Tribal governments and Indigenous community members continued to submit written objections, provide testimony, and participate in protests. This included Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde, Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, and Individual Indigenous community members with ancestral ties to the region.   Conclusion: The quarry threatens a culturally significant site tied to the Molalla people and regional tribal history.

Besides the immense health concerns of living next to a quarry from silica dust, multiple possible groundwater concerns based on the aquifer and landfill, and concern of issues with fire mitigation impacts in our area due to loss of 5,000 gallons of water per day, there's also an often overlooked concern: property values.   On average, property within a mile of the quarry will lose about 19% of its value as soon as a quarry begins. Over half of Oakridge's homes are within that mile. If the quarry is approved, this could mean millions in lost property value and potential financial ruin for many.   Not to mention how you could be impacted if there was groundwater contamination. Citizens would not know until we started getting sick. If the landfill is connected to any contamination, it would bankrupt the town, completely tanking any remaining property values in our homes.   We would have nothing left and no equity to help us move on elsewhere.

The old Dunning Road Landfill is a major concern. It was an unregulated dump where hazardous materials may have been buried. The quarry’s processing area would sit only 25 feet from the landfill boundary. This is where an Industrial Rock Crusher would run 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, for the next 3-5 decades, vibrating the old landfill area that currently has an unknown structural soundness.   DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality) notes that although there is no submitted reports of toxic and/or hazardous material in the old Dunning Road landfill, they acknowledge the very real potential of these contaminates and recommend testing.   The applicant omitted these details from the application, simply stating that there are no reports of these type of hazardous and/or toxic materials being present, even though DEQ recommended testing to verify AND the contract between the city of Oakridge and the Old Hazeldell owner/applicant (Stone Broke) also notes the potential of hazardous and toxic material.   Blasting and heavy equipment could disturb buried waste, releasing contaminants into the groundwater system identified by the UO study. Anonymous testimony notes potential barrels of Penta — a toxic wood treatment chemical — were dumped there decades ago.   Since the contract between the city of Oakridge and the Old Hazeldell owner/applicant (Stone Broke) notes that the city of Oakridge is liable for any issues with the old Landfill, if contamination spreads, Oakridge could face health risks and expensive cleanup costs, bankrupting the city and tanking housing values for citizens.   Conclusion: The landfill poses a real contamination risk, and quarry operations could disturb hazardous materials buried decades ago. If any contamination occurs, it would not only bankrupt the city and tank both the local economy and citizens housing values, but could leave countless citizens sick for years.

Quarries operate early in the morning and late into the evening, which means bright industrial lighting on a hillside that is currently dark. Artificial light disrupts wildlife in many ways. Nocturnal animals become confused about when to feed or hide. Birds that migrate at night can become disoriented and collide with structures. Insects are drawn to lights and die from overheating, which affects the animals that rely on them for food.   Light pollution also affects plants by disrupting their growth cycles and pollination. Even small changes in nighttime lighting can have big impacts on ecosystems.   Oakridge and Westfir are known for their dark skies and natural setting. A brightly lit quarry would change the character of the valley and harm wildlife that depends on natural darkness.   Conclusion: Industrial lighting on TV Butte would disrupt wildlife, pollinators, and the natural nighttime environment that defines Oakridge.  

Quarries are known to depress nearby property values due to noise, dust, blasting, and heavy truck traffic. Homes near industrial extraction sites are harder to sell, attract fewer buyers, and often lose long term value. But Oakridge faces an even more severe risk: the quarry sits beside an unmapped, unlined historic landfill and directly above the city’s drinking water aquifer.   Any contamination event — even the perception of contamination — would have an immediate and devastating impact on property values. If blasting or excavation disturbed landfill waste or altered groundwater flow, Oakridge and Westfir could face: -Plummeting home values as buyers avoid a community associated with water quality uncertainty -Mortgage and insurance challenges, as lenders often restrict loans in areas with known or suspected contamination -Long term stigma, where the market treats the area as environmentally compromised even after remediation   Tourism decline would further reduce investment in housing and local businesses.   The applicant’s claim that the quarry supports housing growth is contradicted by the very real harm it would cause to livability, market confidence, and the financial stability of homeowners.   Conclusion: The quarry threatens property values, housing stability, and long term community investment in Oakridge and Westfir — especially under the very real risk of aquifer or landfill related contamination.

o It is fundamentally different in location, risk, and economic impact. o The other quarries are NOT on top of Oakridge’s drinking-water aquifer. o Unlike the proposed Old Hazeldell Quarry, Existing quarries are: - Not directly above residential areas. - Not positioned to send silica dust, blasting vibration, and truck traffic throughout town. - The other quarries do NOT threaten Oakridge’s recreation economy. - The other quarries are not built directly next to a landfill that could contain toxic/hazardous material, which Oakridge would be liable for if any leakage occurs.

The new Old Hazeldell quarry is dramatically larger, closer to the landfill, and far more impactful than the old Dunning Road operation that ran in the pre 1970's.   Key differences:   -It’s much bigger. The new quarry would remove millions of tons of material — far larger in scale, duration, and footprint than the old pit on Dunning Road.   -The industrial processing center would sit ~25 feet from the unlined landfill. They are not blasting into the landfill, but the crusher, conveyors, and processing yard would operate right next to it, increasing vibration, dust, and water movement risks around buried waste, which Oakridge would be liable for.   -Traffic would be far heavier. The new quarry would generate 86 heavy truck trips per day, moving through the Highway 58 corridor and local intersections. The old quarry produced nowhere near this volume.   -It sits to impact multiple aspects of our lives. The old quarry did not threaten homes, economy, recreation assets, or the shallow groundwater system documented in the UO study.   -It faces unified regional opposition. Oakridge, Westfir, Oakridge Air/SWFC, Cog Wild, Oakridge Trails Alliance, and the Oakridge/Westfir Chamber of Commerce have all filed formal opposition — something that never happened with the old quarry.   The issue isn’t that there was a quarry on Dunning Road. The issue is that this new quarry is far larger, far closer to the landfill, far closer to town, and would bring far more traffic and risk than anything that existed before.

Oakridge’s transportation network is small, fragile, and already overburdened. The town has one highway, two key local roads, and zero alternate routes. The proposed quarry would inject industrial traffic into the very arteries that residents, schoolchildren, tourists, and emergency responders rely on every single day. This is not a theoretical inconvenience — it is a direct threat to public safety and basic mobility.   Highway 58, the only east–west corridor through Oakridge, is a two lane mountain highway with narrow shoulders, blind curves, and no bypass. Every quarry truck must travel the entire length of town, moving slowly through residential areas, school zones, crosswalks, and the central business district.   This corridor already carries: School buses transporting children multiple times a day, Tourists unfamiliar with the road or mountain driving, Cyclists and pedestrians drawn by Oakridge’s recreation identity, Local residents with no alternative route, Emergency vehicles that depend on an unobstructed highway Highway 58 is not designed for industrial hauling through a populated corridor. For Oakridge, this is a single point of failure safety issue.   The impacts extend beyond the highway. Dunning Road and Fish Hatchery Road are not industrial haul routes — they are community lifelines used daily. These roads are narrow, winding, and heavily used by vulnerable road users.   Introducing high frequency heavy trucks fundamentally changes their safety profile, creating Blind corners become truck conflict points, School bus stops become high risk choke points, Tourist traffic becomes unpredictable and vulnerable, Local drivers face constant conflict with industrial vehicles, Cyclists and pedestrians lose safe, functional corridors.   This is not normal traffic. This is not compatible with community roads. This is not safe.   Conclusion: The quarry would Compromise the safety of Highway 58, Endanger school buses, tourists, cyclists, and residents, Increase collision risks and emergency response delays, Overwhelm infrastructure never designed for industrial hauling and ultimately create unsafe road conditions for residents, schoolchildren, and visitors.

The University of Oregon study revealed something crucial: TV Butte is connected to a shallow, vulnerable aquifer that flows toward Oakridge. This means anything that happens on the butte — blasting, excavation, contamination — can affect groundwater that residents rely on.   The study also shows that the old Dunning Road Landfill sits directly within this same groundwater system. The landfill operated from the 1950s to the 1960s, long before environmental regulations existed. It may contain hazardous materials, including chemicals like Penta, which residents reported seeing dumped there.   Under Oregon law, the applicant must prove the quarry won’t harm groundwater. But they have not provided hydrologic modeling, contamination pathway analysis, or any new data to address the UofO study. Without that, the County cannot legally approve the quarry.   More info can be seen in the UofO blog: https://oakridgestrong.org/blog/a-preliminary-study-of-the-alluvial-aquifer-in-oakridge-or/   Conclusion: The UofO study shows the aquifer is vulnerable and connected to the landfill — making the quarry too risky without major new scientific analysis.

Quarries use large amounts of water for dust control. The applicant still has not determined where the, up to, 5,000 gallons of water PER DAY will come from for this dust mitigation, but taking water from any source in and/or around the Oakridge area could impact firefighting, and drought resilience.   During wildfire season, Oakridge needs every gallon available. Water usage for quarry operations could strain the system at the worst possible time. The applicant also misrepresented the purpose of the city’s water tank easement, claiming it was intended for quarry use, when it was not.   Water is one of Oakridge’s most valuable resources — far more valuable than gravel.   Conclusion: The quarry would place unnecessary strain on Oakridge’s water supply, especially during drought and wildfire seasons.

County comprehensive goals are the statewide land use goals that every Oregon county — including Lane County — must follow when making land use decisions. The goals that matter most for the quarry are:   -Goal 2 – Land Use Planning: Must coordinate with Oakridge & Westfir and base decisions on a solid factual record.   -Goal 5 – Natural Resources: Covers mining, wildlife, scenic resources, and groundwater. Requires an ESEE analysis when there are conflicts.   -Goal 6 – Air, Water, and Land Quality: Protects drinking water, groundwater, and air quality.   -Goal 7 – Natural Hazards: Applies to landslides, blasting impacts, and ground instability.   In short: These goals are the legal standards the county must meet before approving anything — including the quarry.

The Save TV Butte movement has been fighting for roughly adecade to protect Oakridge from the Old Hazeldell Quarry.   In 2021 we were successful in getting the permit denied.This took work — letters, phone calls, generating press, meeting with thecounty, and a lot of good old-fashioned work ethic. But Crown Properties hasre-submitted its application and is throwing the full force of its millionsbehind it. We plan on putting an end to this once and for all, no matter whatit takes!   Oakridge Strong has been created to support theSave TV Butte Movement, and in 2026 Oakridge Strong has been set up as anEnvironmental and Economic 501(c)(3) nonprofit. This will allow us to spreadthe outreach for the Save TV Butte movement farther, involve corporations, andwork on grants to help fight our cause and to help build on Oakridge, Westfir,and their rural areas — bringing more visibility to the Save TV Butte Movement.

Both Oakridge and Westfir are formally opposed to the Old Hazeldell Quarry. The Oakridge City Council unanimously submitted an opposition letter, and Westfir has aligned with Oakridge in raising environmental, economic, and public health concerns.   In addition to the cities themselves, several major regional organizations also submitted formal opposition letters, including:   o Oakridge Air / South Willamette Forest Collaborative o Cog Wild o Oakridge Trails Alliance o Oakridge/Westfir Chamber of Commerce   In short: Every local government and every major recreation, business, and environmental organization in the Oakridge–Westfir region has formally opposed the quarry.   Goal 2 requires that the County coordinate its review and decision on the Application with appropriate government agencies. Based on the noted opposition letters, you can see that the local governments decision is unanimously opposed to the Land Use changes being requested. The quarry would be in direct opposition of the current economic growth plan that our local government has been and is continuing to work toward. Therefore the application by Old Hazeldell LLC is shown not to be in line with Goal 2.   On top of the city’s opposition, the county has also bee provided with over 3,000 opposition petition signatures from citizens and visitors of Oakridge/Westfir, as well as opposition letters from Oakridge Air/South Willamette Forest Collaborative, The Oakridge Trails Alliance, Cog Wild (local mountain biking company), Oakridge/Westfir Chamber of Commerce, Westfir’s Mayor, and hundreds of personal opposition letters from citizens.

After Lane County denied the Old Hazeldell Quarry application in October 2021, Ed King’s company — Old Hazeldell Quarry LLC — filed a federal takings lawsuit against the county.   The lawsuit claims that by denying the quarry, Lane County effectively “took” the property’s economic value, and therefore owes the company approximately $15 million, which they argue is the value of the rock resource they were prevented from mining.   In legal terms, the company is arguing: -The county’s denial deprived them of an economically viable use of the land -The andesite deposit is a “significant resource” under Goal 5 -Therefore, the county should compensate them for the lost value   Lane County disputes this, and the case has remained active in federal court, with no final ruling issued as of the most recent docket activity. In short: The $15M lawsuit is a regulatory takings claim arguing that denying the quarry amounts to the county owing the applicant the value of the rock they couldn’t extract.

Old Hazeldell Quarry LLC is owned by Crown Properties, atrust of the King family including Ed King of King Estate Winery.

-Because the ESEE analysis for Old Hazeldell is based on 2016 assumptions, not:   o The UO Aquifer Study o The new vineyard o The expanded recreation economy o The updated dust and vibration science o The landfill contamination risks o The increased residential development o The new wildfire smoke vulnerability of the community o The economic shift away from extraction toward tourism   -A correct ESEE analysis today would show: o The environmental, social, and economic harms outweigh the benefits. o And under Goal 5, that means the county must either limit or prohibit the quarry.   Ultimately, a new ESEE would likely force the County to deny or restrict the quarry   A modern, accurate ESEE would show:   -Environmental harms are high -Social harms are high -Economic benefits are tiny -Energy impacts are non trivial -The aquifer risk is unacceptable -The landfill risk is unknown -Tourism jobs outweigh quarry jobs -Agriculture (vineyard) is threatened

o Logging was a full economic system — not a single site. At its peak, over 1,000 jobs in Oakridge/Westfir were tied to timber. Logging was an economic engine, not a single project.   o Old Hazeldell is a small, short-term extraction site. The quarry would create: ~10 onsite jobs, Mostly specialized positions, Not guaranteed to be local hires, A finite lifespan (quarries deplete). It is a tiny, isolated operation compared to the timber economy.   o Logging towns were built around mills — quarries don’t build towns. Quarries do NOT: Build housing, Support schools, Create multi-generational careers, Attract families, Anchor a town’s identity,   o They are low-employment, high-impact operations.   o Logging was high-wage; quarry jobs are not. -Timber jobs were: Unionized, High-paying, Stable, Multi-generational -Quarry jobs are: Few, Often non-union, Lower-wage, Not guaranteed to be local, Vulnerable to automation -This is not a replacement for what Oakridge lost.

Our caution isn’t hypothetical — it’s based on real issues that have already occurred in nearby communities affected by large quarry operations. Surrounding areas such as Dexter and Prineville have experienced significant environmental and water‑related problems linked to blasting, excavation, and the disturbance of volcanic rock formations. These cases offer important lessons for Oakridge, especially as TV Butte sits directly above the town’s aquifer recharge zone. Understanding what happened elsewhere helps us anticipate what could happen here.   ## **Parvin Butte Quarry / Dexter**   Just a few miles west on Highway 58, the Parvin Butte Quarry had damaging effects on Dexter, Oregon — impacts that closely mirror the risks Oakridge faces. Local residents allege that blasting operations dried up water wells relied on for farming and everyday life. Many quarries, including the proposed Old Hazeldell Quarry, use ammonium nitrate–fuel oil (ANFO) to fracture large rock formations. This type of blasting has been observed to disrupt groundwater flow, fracture aquifers, and disturb wildlife habitats. The Dexter experience shows how quickly blasting can alter water availability in communities with shallow or interconnected groundwater systems, making it a relevant warning for Oakridge’s own aquifer‑dependent households.   ## **Knife River Quarry / Prineville**   Prineville provides another cautionary example. The Knife River quarry operates in volcanic rock formations similar to those found on TV Butte. When blasting and excavation fractured these formations, manganese levels in nearby wells increased significantly. This is important because the Old Hazeldell Quarry application indicates operators would be digging into volcanic rock on TV Butte — the same type of geology associated with manganese mobilization in Prineville.   The University of Oregon hydrogeology study provides evidence suggesting that Oakridge’s aquifer is hydraulically connected to TV Butte and this aquifer sits \*\*upgrade\*\* from town, meaning disturbances on the butte can directly influence groundwater quality and flow downhill. If blasting exposes or fractures volcanic rock, manganese and other minerals can leach into the aquifer more easily, just as they did in Prineville. Combined with ANFO blasting, which can alter groundwater chemistry, the parallels between the two sites are striking.   And it is important to note that Prineville didn’t have an old landfill that ALSO sits above the aquifer like Oakridge does — a landfill that Oakridge is liable for and which the proposed quarry’s processing center will surround. So not only could nearby blasting impact the structural stability of this old landfill, but you will have an industrial rock crusher vibrating away 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, for the next 3–5 decades, with a flow of gravel trucks traveling around the old landfill’s “assumed” perimeter, with loads of gravel being dumped into the average of 86 trucks per day.   We have been and will continue to keep up to date on this fight in Prineville and keep folks here in the loop, so we can keep people informed on what kind of trouble Oakridge/Westfir could face if Old Hazeldell Quarry is approved.

o No — the Old Hazeldell Quarry cannot be considered sustainable, especially when you apply any modern sustainability framework (including Douglas Farr’s, which Lane County Commissioner Pat Farr himself often cites).   -Douglas Farr’s Sustainable Urbanism emphasizes: Long-term value; Environmental protection; Community health; Walkability and livability; Projects that strengthen place.   -Old Hazeldell violates all of these: It is extractive, not regenerative; It degrades livability; It threatens water, the most basic public resource; It provides short-term private gain and long-term public risk   -A sustainable industry must strengthen a community’s long term environmental, economic, and social health. Old Hazeldell weakens all three.

No — contaminants in an old, unlined landfill don’t just disappear. Many chemicals from the 1950s–60s (solvents, metals, PFAS type compounds, fuels) can stay in place for decades and continue leaching as long as groundwater flows through the waste.   Disturbance — like blasting — can wake up a quiet landfill by: -Fracturing rock -Creating new pathways for water -Releasing contaminants that were previously trapped   Bottom line: Old landfills remain long term pollution sources, and disturbance makes the risk worse.