CC Minutes - 01/16/08 Joint Elected Officials

Home Browse Search

With regard to traffic, Howe indicated the County engineer waived the requirement for a traffic impact analysis. He noted it is an existing site and the existing processing operation is not going to change. He said all that is happening is that it is expanding the area from which they are taking the gravel. He explained because of the scale and size of the proposed extraction rate in the expansion area, it didn’t warrant a detailed traffic analysis for road performance. He indicated that the County found that they did not require further analysis and traffic impacts had been minimized. With regard to groundwater, Howe reported that the construction of the aquaclude is proposed to minimize any loss of groundwater and any impact to neighboring wells. He said it is a low grade barrier that would eliminate flow on the groundwater into the pit. He said groundwater by the Board of Commissioners has been determined to be minimized with the aquaclude. Under wetlands, Howe noted the Division of State Lands is the regulatory body. He indicated there are two identified wetlands on the property and the completion of the aquaclude would function to retain groundwater that could also retain water in the lower reaches of the wetlands and it wouldn’t impact the wetlands. He indicated the Board of Commissioners has concluded that the impacts to wetlands have been minimized. With regard to flooding, Howe stated that FEMA is the agency standard. He added that gravel extraction doesn’t impede the water flow. He said the extraction of the aggregate proceeds in a downward manner and doesn’t create any barriers that impede flood flows. He indicated under this analysis, the Board concluded that the potential impact of flooding has been minimized by meeting the FEMA regulations. Under agricultural conflicts, Howe reported that there are two standards under the state rule, Agricultural Land Goal 3. He said the proposal won’t force a significant change in accepted farm or forest practices and won’t significantly increase the cost of accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands. He said the property is currently being farmed and the land being farmed is an appropriate interim use for future gravel resource. He said the agricultural uses that have been identified in the record are beyond the 1500 foot impact area. He stated no minimization conditions are proposed and the agricultural conflicts have been met. With regard to notice, Howe noted the category is addressed by the regulations of the DEQ. He said under Goal 5, only the expansion area is subject to the noise threshold requirement. He indicated that there is an existing operation. He added that the plant and processing faculties are currently operating under a permit. He added that the focus on noise conflicts with the final analysis, the minimization procedures and the conditions and findings provided were sufficient evidence for the Board to conclude that potential noise conflicts of mining the expansion area are minimized to the level required under the Goal 5 Rule by meeting the noise standards. Under dust, Howe stated the DEQ regulates the dust emission standards through LRAPA through an air contaminate discharge permit. He indicated that Delta’s processing operation directly east of the expansion site operates under the current LRAPA permit and if approved the future mining expansion area would be added to the existing permit that would be updated to include the expansion area and conduct operations in a manner with the applicable standards under the existing authorized permit. He indicated that the sources of dust include activities from overburden removal, aggregate extraction and truck traffic on the haul roads from the expansion area to the processing plant on the existing approved operation. He said the Board found that the potential dust conflicts would be minimized to the 3 MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 16, 2008 Page Joint Elected Officials Meeting