|
<br />how' the completion of the low permeability barrie~ would ~ffect the flow of'water was a factor in the
<br />Pl~ng Commissioner recoinmendation. '
<br />
<br />The Lane Cou~ty Planning COQlmls.loD ,voted 5-1 that ,tberewI. a c~DOIct due to noodlDg, Ind'
<br />they ,voted 4-1 that ~he eonmet cannot be minimized to meet theFEMA standard.
<br />l'he Eugene,Plinnlng Commission vot~d 3-2 that there WI. Dot. cODRlet du~ to flooding.
<br />
<br />WETLANDS CONFLICTS , , ' ,
<br />Wedand protection criteria 'is geneially addressed by Division of State Lands' (DSL) FilllRemoval
<br />Permit Requirements 'of ,OAR .l41-8S.Contlictsare likely to be minimized by'demonstrating
<br />~nfonnance with ,PSL requirements. the ab~onedqUarry pit and the East Santa 'Cl~ Waterway ,
<br />(Site, R-57) are on the DSL &, Loc8l Goal S, Inventories. "
<br />
<br />Mini~7.Ation ofconf1icts'~ 'WetlaUtds - There are setbackS required ,f~~ mj,ning operations 'undti Lane
<br />Code 1~,.217. Completion of the low permeability banier on the west/northwest bOUndary,ofthe site
<br />, that, woUld parallel Site 'ES7. was considered by both planning 'cOmmissions to be an un:'aDalyzed
<br />potential impact that should be, addresse<L, The analysis provided ,by ,the applicant did not' include
<br />consideration 'of the aqUaclude impacts~ Mug setbacksar~ greater, than natural resource protection
<br />setbacks ~ntemplated for Goal 5,resources.
<br />
<br />Both, Plannllie COmmlsi~DS fOUD~ that there is a ,coDOId to. wetla.ds. Lane' County, vot~ 4-2,
<br />and E~leDe voted 3-1. ' ' '
<br />
<br />, Th~ 'Lane' COllDty' Planning' Commission.' voted 2-4' ~h*t linp.d~ to wetlands e~u1d 'Dot .be
<br />mlnlinl7,ed. , '
<br />
<br />The Eugene, P1aimlDg' CommlssloD ~oted uDanimously that any conOId with, w~t1.Dds, 'eoulcl be
<br />,mlnlml~ed. '
<br />
<br />GROUNDW ATBk C(jNFLI~ ',' , '
<br />, ~' t Co~cts regarding groundwater are 'J1Ot, addressed, by any local, state ~r f~~. When
<br />, 'developing a program to allo~ mining, coordination occursbetweenDQG~. as part of the inter- '
<br />jurisdictional review in conCU1Tel1ce with the Oregon Water Resources Department. The nionitorlng ,
<br />plan requires OOOAMI approval. The applicant Proposes to'miflimi7,e the cOnflict with ~eighboiing,
<br />wells by" completing ,'a below grade low permeabili~ b~er (aquaclude) along,the' ~ge of the' ,"
<br />expansion area to impeded the flow of iro~ter 'into the,pit that would be, created by 'ex~vation of
<br />the site. '
<br />
<br />. '
<br />
<br />Then, was coMldei:able testimony from'neighboring residents during the planning commissionhcaring
<br />regarding the aquaclude. The'neighbo~ood resideitts' expres~ed..concert) with the lack of analysis of
<br />dust and, noise impacts from activities conducted ,to complete the~aquaclude, priinarily because the
<br />a<l\iaclud~ts proposed location wUI be closer:to th~ homes than ~ expanded mining operation. The
<br />applicant 'asserts that the'building, 'of the aqU:8clude is not inining, therefore, it is not subject to' ~y~is,
<br />, and' is not included in detenilining the impacts under analysis cond,:\cted by the applicant,. SUC~ as
<br />, "digging out' the ,overbUrden, and the slope ratio of the wails 'of, the ~quaclude. The aquaclude is
<br />proposed for constroction .within the 150' setb~ck to r~uce groundwater fto~ from the"surrounding
<br />land. . .. '
<br />
<br />,-,Board/Council Hearinc-<mliDance No. PA 1238 ' ". '.
<br />, AI~ CoV~Men1O
<br />
<br />De~ Sind (\ ~Oravel Expansion
<br />
|