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

Home Browse Search

Dr. Kimberly said the difference was in the type of dust. He said the farmer in his field raised dirt dust. He said dust from processing rock was different from dirt 'around gravel on a driveway. He said the type and size of particles could cause chemical reactivity. He said older people and people with existing lung conditions would be much more susceptible to problems associated with rock dust. In response to a question from M.r. Belcher regarding the amount of particulate matter speculated to be raised by processing a million tons of rock and whether the need. for gravel would prompt the same amount of dust in another location, Dr. Kimberly said that was not his area of expertise. He added that he had not read anything that quantified the amount of dust that would be produced. Mr. Dignam ql1:estioned whether Dr. Kimberly was familiar with the geology of the site. He noted that'Delta had indicated that they would not increase production of rock and questioned whether the new area had more potential to generate more of the 'bad' dust or whether the discussion was ov~r the same amount of dust that was currently generated by the operation. Dr. Kimberly said he had no information as to the geology of the Delta site nor could he give an educated opinion about any changes in dust generated" by the facility. He said there was a possibility that the new area being proposed would be better in terms of dust production than what was happening currently but added that it also could be worse. Ethen Perkins, 2410 Monroe, spoke as a wetlands consultant and a natural resources specialist for the opposition. He said, in his professional opinion, the use change of the land would have the adverse effect of removing on site waters t~at recharged the local aquifers. He added that aquifer interfaced with an abandoned river meander or oxbow wetland expression above the 375 foot elevation contour. He said the reduced onsite flow of water would require state and federal wetlands permits and a mitigation plan based on an approved wetland delineation. . He noted that none of this had been provided by the application. He saidthe outlined zoning change plan submitted by " the applicant did not avoid significant adverse impact to the wetland despite mining occurring outside of the wetland itself. He said the low permeability barrier would impede movement of.water through the local aquifer and would change the existing wetlands functions and values and would not adequately replace them. He cited wetland vegetation, songbird habitat, amphibian habitat, nitrogen removal, and phosphorous retention as examples. He added that western pond turtle breeding on the site should be documented in areas where breeding might occur~ He also said that the possibility of red legged frogs should also be examined. He said if either of those species were present on the site then the possible impacts of the proposed zone change should be analyzed fully. He added that there should be analysis of possible down stream impacts to salmon such as migration and breeding habitat. He recommended t~at the application should be.denied. He said the details of the mining reclamation were insufficient and, as exa.mple, said the low permeability barrier, if left in place, would not be restored to pre-mining conditions. In response to a question from Ms. Arkin regarding whether there was a map of the wetlands in the record, Mr. Perkins said one of the problems with the application was that the wetland area was only briefly described. He said the area was essentially on the oxbow area with the tree lined on the west of the project as he understood it. He added that it did not include the already existing ponds which -could also be wetlands but were not part of the proposal. . In response. to a. question from Ms. Arkin regarding the low permeability barrier and whether water would flow around it, Mr. Perkins said it would but noted that the barrier was close to the existing wetland and remove any water flowing off the swfaces that were further out into the present field. He said the ground water would be held in place and would therefore be elevated. MINUTES-Lane County Planning Commission " Eugene.Planning Commission . January 17 t .2006 10