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

Home Browse Search

Minimization of conflicts – Dust - addressed by DEQ Emissions Standards applied by Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAPA) through an Air Contaminant Discharge Permit (ACDP): Visible Air Contaminant Limitation (LRAPA 32-010) Particulate Matter Weight Standards (LRAPA 32-015) Particulate Matter Size Standard (LRAPA 32-055) Other Emissions (LRAPA 32-090) Rules for Fugitive Emissions (LRAPA 48-015) This PAPA is for future mining of an adjacent expansion site. Delta’s processing operation directly east of the expansion site operates under a current LRAPA permit (No. 20119). If approved, the proposed future mining expansion area will be added to the existing permit and compliance requirements will be updated to include the expansion area and conduct operations in a manner that complies with the applicable standards under the existing authorized permit. The existing operation is not under review in this PAPA application. The submittals from the SCRO raises issue with the dust impact analysis and with the trustability of the applicant to meet the LRAPA requirements. LRAPA past violations are included in the written record. Additionally, some of the neighboring residents have health issues that are exacerbated by poor air quality, asthma and breathing problems and have raised that issue. The analysis conducted by Bridgewater models a conservative approach to the predicted conflict. The Planning Commissions had concerns about lack of analysis of additional impacts from dust if the setback variance request to complete a low permeability barrier (aquaclude) was granted. The location of the aquaclude and methodology for completion was considered to be a large factor in the determination of impacts for this conflict. See PA1238 Exhibit ‘C’, Conditions #13- #21 for dust minimization conditions proposed by the applicant. Both of the Planning Commissions found unanimously that there is a conflict due to dust, and that the conflict due to dust could not be minim ized 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. Lane County Planning Commission voted 3-2 with one abstention, and Eugene Planning Commission voted 3-2 that the conflict could not be minimized. FLOODING CONFLICTS The Lane County Flood Hazard requirements are found in Lane Code 16.244 Floodplain Combining Zone. Refer to applicant’s submittal Evaluation of Potential Flood Impact (Exhibit H) The applicant describes how all activity will be below ground and not affect the base flood level. Federal Emergency Management Agency requirements as implemented by Lane County in Lane Code 16.244(7)(c)(ii): “Where base flood elevations have been provided but floodways have not, the cumulative effect of any proposed development, when combined with all other existing and anticipated development, shall not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one foot at any point.” Gravel extraction activity does not impede floodwaters because extraction of the aggregate will proceed in a downward manner, and will not create any barrier’s that impede flood flows. Conflicting testimony and photos submitted during the public hearing dispute that assertion. Residents in the (Exhibits 41 & 42) neighborhood submitted photos of flooded streets and provided testimony at the th November 15 2005 Hearing expressing concern that mining of the expansion area would exacerbate flooding in the surrounding neighborhoods, especially the new residential developments built within the impact area. The relationship between groundwater and surface water in a flood and uncertainty of Board/Council Hearing – Ordinance No. PA 1238 Delta Sand & Gravel Expansion Agenda Cover Memo Page 13 of 23