Item B: Delta Sand and Gravel Metro Plan Amendment

Home Browse Search

M:oving to the next issue, Mr" Carmichael asked, . Do yo.u believe the groundlvater conflict call be m.in.intiz€tl through tlte applicant's proposed conditions? In response to Ms. (~olbath, Ms. Schulz concurred that tile n1aps illustrated that the aquaclude was outside of the 150 foot boundary of the adjacent uses. Ms. Arkin stated tllat the EGR report stated that the ground\vater \vould rise on the\vest side of the barrier, claiming that tile level \vould not impact anyone. She added that both groundvvater and surface \vater responded to l11flux of precipitation, vvhich \vould cause a rise in the \vater table, and subsequent n10vement of groulld\vater. Mr. Sullivan referred to a Novelllber 8, 2006 staff report, in \vhich staff expressed concerns. lIe stated the report indicated there were no local, state or federal standards effecting ground\vater, al1d responsible state agencies did not have tile resources to COl1duct due diligence regarding ground\vater concerns, although the Departnlent of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) did have enforceme11t authority through GoalS. He asked how the staff COl1cem had changed since November 8, and expressed coneenl th.at tbe respOl1sibility for n10nitoring would fall directly on the elected officials. Ms. SCllUlz responded that additional u1aterials had been..submitted in the record describing professional phblications and discussions tllat described the technology as being useful and capable of providing the re-quiredprotection for the groundwater. Mr. Sullivan asserted that was one of the few places in the application that placed the onus 011 th.e elected officials ,vas the governing agency of \vbat ,vas and what \-vas not good groundwater. Mr. Siekiel-Zdziel1icki said a proposal stipulated that mitigation l11easures, i.e, the aquaclude, \vould be 111stalled according to. an approved plan by DOGAMI, the responsible state agency. Mr. Sullivan this would fall on the operating plan for enforcement, \vhich Vias a long way off. He said the Plarnling COlnmission could reconunel1d to tbe elected officials that they require a barrier map. Ms. Colbath asked if there \-vas an oversight agel1cy to revie\\t, as \vell as provide follow-up to ensure continued compliance. Ms. Schulz was unaware of such an agency. Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki opined the follow-up \vas complaint driven. He cOll1ffiente,d tllat in the expansion area for the quarry, the applicant would dig 60 feet to extract aggregate, whilepumpi11g water constantly. He said that the aggregate did not end at the expansion area, but continued to the residential area. He stated the aqllaclude was planned for 30 feet because of an impermeable barrier of concrete and aggregate. He expressed concern that groundwater ,vouldbe effected~ Mr. Carroll said the applicant's proposal indicated it would minimize groundwater conflict. He understood the impermeable barrier would not impound water, butrather would divert the water. He added the testill10ny offered at the public hearing .did not cOllvincingly argue agaillst that diversion concept. H.e concluded this was a logical way to ntinimize the groundwater effect. MlNUTES- August 30, 2006 Joint Lane County and Eugene Planning C0111mission Page 3