Item B: Delta Sand and Gravel Metro Plan Amendment

Home Browse Search

that was in the County's Goal 5 resourc-e 1tlVentory but noted that it was not considered a jurisdictional \vetland under Division of State Lands rules.. She said tllere was also a section about agricultural practices \vhich did not have a specific agency that provided specific thresholds to nIeet. She noted that there was testimony from a COmI1Iunity farm owner 111 the record \\Tho had raised concern over groundwater iInpacts. Regarding minimizing conflicts, Ms.. Schulz called attention to Attacrul1ent T\vo of the staff report w~hich 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 tbat meets DEQ emission standards as applied byLRAP A. Mr. Duncan said sand and gravel operations ,^,ren~ 'allowed to produce a specific anlount of material per year. He renlarked that if the amoullt Ofl11aterial produced per year did not increase then tllere should not be more dust created than the operation \vas currently gel1eratillg. Ms.. Schulz said the issue ~as not about ,ho\v rnuch ll1aterial "vas nlined but how much particulate ,vas put in the air. She said tllere was not a strict correlation with volume of In ate rial produced. Mr. Duncan reiterated tllat there would not be 1110re Inining than \vhat \vas currently being dOlle so if Delta \vas meeting dust standards currently then there was ,no conflict. Ms. Schulz said the expansion area \vould be included in the current LRAP A permiL She said the possible conflict had lnore to do with whether dust was b~ing generated at once or over a 'longer period of tinle. Mr. Duncan stressed that the operation would not change significantly fronl what was currently being done. Mr. Lavvless said there was also an issue of proximity of dust to the impact area. Mr. Carroll noted that the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAPA) permit enforcedDEQ standards. He said as long as the applicant ll1et that standard then tllere \vas no conflict. He acknowledged that dust conflicted quality of life but it "vas measured by 110\V much \vas produced by the facility. Fie stressed that the issue \vas ho\\! 111uch dust tlle facility produced. 11:e said if the standard for dust emanation criterion "vas met then Delta was nleeting the standard for dust emission. Mr. Dignam confimled that LRAP A regulated dust elnissions. He said he \vas not prepared to second guess LRAP A. He said he was comfortable \vith the dust issue as long as the LR~PA standards "veTe 111et. Ms. Colbath said her concern was \vhether the particulate emission met the approval threshold. Ms. Arkin said the reason LRAPA ~nforced DEQ stand-ards was for inlpacts on human health. She stressed that dust had an inlpact and that ,vas what tIle regulation was all about. She said there was an expert in the record who had stated that many neighborhoods \vouldbe impacted by dust emissiollS from the site. She added that there "vas also a physician on record talking about pulmonary diseases and other health impacts to nearby residential areas. Slle noted that the applicant did not do an air dispersion model MINUTES-Lane County Plaruling.Con1mlssion July 25, 2006 Page 7