Item A: Delta Sand and Gravel - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Agency; Exhibit 53, Dick Ruth; Exhibit 61, peer review; Exhibit 63, Knepler; Exhibit 223, SAIF; Exhibit 224, Sarah Hendrickson, MD; and Exhibit263 and 263a, S. Kimberley, MD). Questions about LRAPA’s ability to adequately regulate in a consistent and timely manner (Exhibit 65, DuPriest) and the long term viability of LRAPA were raised during the joint elected officials’ hearing, (see Nepler, DuPriest, Bettman, and Taylor testimonies at the 12/12/06 joint public hearing). In case of LRAPA’s dissolution, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) would be responsible for enforcing local air quality standards. The Council finds that conditions of approval dependent on LRAPA’s enforcement are not satisfactory for long term mitigation of a potentially hazardous source of dust proximate to an urban residential area. Both Planning Commissions found unanimously that there is a conflict due to dust, and that the conflict due to dust could not be minimized to a level that meets the DEQ emission standards applied by LRAPA. Neither planning commission conducted further ESEE analysis because none had been provided by the applicant. The Eugene Planning Commission voted 3-2 that the conflict could not be minimized, and Lane County Planning Commission voted 3-2 with one abstention. We concur, and find that potential dust conflicts from the proposed mining of the expansion area can not been minimized as required by Goal 5. Flooding EGR has concluded that the Delta Sand and Gravel Company method of mining will create no obstructions or other physical features that could impede flood flows across the proposed expansion area or (thereby) cause flooding on neighboring properties. Essentially that conclusion means that flood flows should not be impeded across the proposed expansion area if no fill within the floodway occurs. All mining activity proposed for the expansion area will occur as excavation taking place below existing ground surfaces. Within that mining methodology overburden will be removed and stockpiled in areas higher in elevation than base flood elevations and/or stockpiled at locations on company property that are below existing ground elevations. EGR concludes that the proposed mining methodology on the proposed expansion area will not impede flood flow, reduce flood storage volume within the flood plain or increase the velocity of water flowing across the proposed expansion area. EGR further concludes that the proposed mining methodology completely avoids all potential flood impacts. Opponents of the application argue that the existence and operation of the aquaclude (see subsequent discussion and findings regarding the aquaclude) will cause flooding on adjacent residential lands because groundwater will be prevented by the aquaclude from migrating from those lands to the mining site during heavy rain events. EGR has addressed that argument and has demonstrated, in its rebuttal materials provided during the planning commission joint public hearing and deliberation, that the movement of groundwater is not connected to surface water that constitutes flooding during such events. Nonetheless, in response to the opponents’ argument, the applicant and EGR have provided a modified aquaclude construction that leaves the top elevation of the clay-filled aquaclude one foot below the measured elevation of the wetland that exists on the meandering scar, approximately six to eight feet below ground surface. While continuing to impede the rate of flow of groundwater from the adjacent property to the expansion area (and mining pit), the aquaclude would allow the passage of a limited amount of groundwater from the adjacent property, over the clay material and into the mining area during heavy rain events. That elevation will also ensure that the aquaclude has no negative impact on the water level of the wetland at different times during the year. We find that EGR has provided significant evidence to support it conclusion that the aquaclude will minimize potential conflicts resulting from the movement of groundwater from adjacent lands to the mining area and that its existence and operation will not produce flooding on adjacent lands. The Eugene Planning Commission voted 3-2 that there was not a conflict due to flooding. Ordinance - 21