January 31, 2000
Most of us taxpayers would prefer to pay more for rock than have a quarry here. It would ruin an enormous, vital wetland, four streams, endanger our water supply, and destroy a wild bird sanctuary. It will pose threats to the endangered species of salmon in Cherry Creek, and destroy a vital animal corridor, as well as make our homes valueless.
The gravel trucks will impact our roads, increase truck traffic, and spray even more of our vehicles with gravel. Furthermore, that quarry would ruin a beautiful area everyone enjoys simply for its beauty. The ugliness and noise will affect everyone. The unceasing racket of the rock crushing process and quarry operation will be even worse than the blasting.
Then he has the nerve to tell us the waterfall would not disappear. (Well, of course, it will in our lifetime, he says, but in the distant future, it will reappear.)
The quarry will abut homes, nearly abuts Audubon lands, and the site is beside state recreational fields open to the public. And it is near a school. He seems not to take into consideration that many County codes and policies prohibit mines near homes, wetlands, and agricultural areas.
Despite the fact that Director of DDES, Greg Kipp, states at this public meeting that the need for rock will not be the deciding factor, Mr. Jackels seems to be banking on this exact thing.
I especially felt Mr. Jackel's statement that he would be inviting some of the residents to attend a blasting demonstration an interesting solution to our objections.
Helen Lashway, Duvall