Item 1: PH on Ordinance Amending Metro Plan (Delta Sand and Gravel)

Home Browse Search

'Moving to the next issue, Mr. Carmichael asked, '.' . Do you helievethegroundwater conflict can he minimized through the applicant's proposed conditions? In response to Ms. Colbath, Ms. Schulz concurred that the maps illustrated that the aquaclude was outside of the 150 foot boundary ofthea~jacent uses. MS..Arkinstat,edthat the EGR report stated that the groundwater would rise on the west side of the barrier, claiming that the level would not impact anyone. She added that both groundwater and surface water responded, to influx of precipitation, which would cause a rise in the water table, and subsequent movement of groundwater. 'Mr. Sullivan referred to a November 8,.2006 staff report, in which staff expressed 'concerns.He stated the report indicated there were no local, state or federal standards effecting groundwater, and responsible state agencies did not have the resources to conduct due 'diligence regarding groundwater concerns" although the , Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMQ did have enforcement authority through Goal 5. He asked how the staff concern had changed since November 8, and expressed concern that the responsibility for monitoring would fall directly on the elected officials. Ms. Schulz responded that additional materials had been submitted m,the record describing professional publications and discussions that described ,the technology as being useful and capable of providing the required protection for the groundw~ter. Mr. Sullivan asserted that was one of the few places in the application that pl~ced the onus on the elected officials was the governing agency of what :was and what was not good ground~ater. Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki said a proposal stipulated that mitigation measures, i.e, the aquaclude, would be installed according to an approved plan by DO.GAMI, the responsible state agency. Mr. Sullivan this would'fall on the operating plan for enforcement, which was a long way off. He said the Planning Commission could recommend to th~ elected officials that they require'a barrier map. Ms. Colb~th asked if there was an oversight agency to review, as well as provide follow-up to ensure continued compli~ce. Ms. Schulz was unaware of such an agency. Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki opined the follow-up was complaint drive~. He commented that in the expansion area for the quarry, the applicant would dig 60 feet to extract aggregate, while pumping water constantly. He said that the aggregate did not end at the expansion area, but continued to the residential area. He stated the aquaclude was planned for 30 feet because of an impermeable barrier of concrete and aggregate. He expressed concern that groundwater would be effected. . Mr. Carroll said the applicant's proposal. indicated it would minimize groundwater conflict.. He ,understood the impermeable barrier would not impound water, but rather would divert the water. He added the testimony offered at the public hearing djd ~ot convincingly argue against that diversion concept. He ,concluded this was a logical w~y to minimize the groundwater effect. Mr. Belcher expressed frustration by his lack of knowledge and being forced'tovote, on an issue he did 'not clearly understand. He was challenged to understand 'how an aquaclude that prevented loss of groundwater in summer did not increase the chance of flooding in the winter.. .