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

Home Browse Search

Inventory. She said timing was important in that adoption Eugene's GoalS inventory had not been completed. She said the oxbow wetland could not be considered because the Goal 5 Inventory protection measures have not yet been approved by the City and the County. She said there was a pond on the site that was in the County's Goal 5 resource inventory but noted that it was not considered a jurisdictional wetland under Division of State Lands rules. She said there was also a section about agricultural practices which did not have a specific agency that provided specific thresholds to meet. She noted that there was testimony from a community farm owner in the record who had raised concern over groundwater impacts. Regarding minimizing conflicts, Ms. Schulz called attention to Attachment Two of the staff report which contained the mitigation conditions proposed by the applicant to address the required criteria. -Dust Staff Recommendation: The commissions should find that there is a conflict due to dust.that can be minimized to a level that meets DEQ emission standards as applied by LRAP A. Mr. Duncan said sand and gravel operations were allowed to produce a specific amount of material per year. He remarked that if the amount of material produced per year did not increase then there should not be more dust created than the operation was currently generating. Ms. Schulz. said the issue was not about how much material was mined but how much particulate was put in the air. She said there was not a strict correlation with volume of material produced. Mr. Duncan reiterated that there would not be more mining than what was currently being done so if Delta was meeting dust .standards currently then there was no conflict. Ms. Schulz said the expansion area would be included in the current LRAP A permit. She said the possible conflict had m~re to do with whether dust was being generated at once or over a longer period of time. Mr..Duncan stressed that the operation would not change significantly from what was currently being done. Mr. Lawless said there was. also an issue of proximity of dust to the impact area. Mr. Carroll noted that ttle Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAP A) permit enforced DEQ standards. He said as long as the applicant met that standard then there was no conflict. He acknowledged that dust conflicted quality of life but it was measured by how much was produced by the facility. He stressed that the issue was how much dust the facility produced. He said if the standard for dust emanation criterion was met then D.elta was meeting the standard for dust emission. Mr. Dignam confmned that LRAP A regulated dust emissions. He said he was not prepared to second guess LRAP A. He said he was comfortable with the dust issue as long as the LRAP A standards were met. Ms.. Colbath. said her concern was whether the particulate emission met the approval threshold. Ms. Arkin said the reason LRAPA enforced DEQ standards was for impacts on human health. She stressed that dust had an impact and that was what the regulation was all about. She said there was an .MINUTES~Lane County Planning Commission, . ...:July 25~,'2006. ~ Page 7