|
2. Impulse noises, such as the banging of dump trucks as they unload, were not measured
<br />by Daly-Standlee. The aquaclude will involve filling of a 30-foot deep trench proximate to
<br />residences, presumably with associated impulse noises, inside the DEQ setback for mining
<br />operations. Therefore, noise conflicts were not fully predicted and minimization of those
<br />conflicts is not assured.
<br />
<br /> 3. Because the expansion site has sensitive receptors, such as residences, on three sides,
<br />it is likely that excavation activities will not always be shielded by the quarry wall during third
<br />and fourth lifts. For instance, the residences on the south side of the expansion site will have a
<br />direct line of sight to excavation occurring along the north property line. Berms will be installed
<br />only temporarily for the aquaclude construction. The Daly-Standlee analysis does not
<br />specifically address whether the distances involved will mitigate the noise impacts. Therefore,
<br />noise conflicts were not fully predicted and minimization of those conflicts is not assured.
<br />
<br /> 4. Most of the proposed mitigation measures depend on administrative oversight, such as
<br />self-monitoring the distances between certain types of equipment and property lines, hours of
<br />operation, frequency of loads, traffic speeds within the expansion area, etc. These are more
<br />Deleted:
<br />We find that Daly-Standlee’s
<br />difficult to monitor and enforce than structural or mechanical solutions, such as the installation
<br />rebuttal of the opponents’ arguments is
<br />reasonable and provides significant
<br />of berms that can be inspected and measured. There is no programmatic monitoring system
<br />evidence that the DEQ noise level
<br />recommended other than DEQ oversight. Therefore, minimization of noise conflicts is not
<br />requirements will be met or exceeded
<br />assured.
<br />through implementation of the proposed
<br />mitigation measures.
<br />
<br />Deleted:
<br />Both Planning Commissions
<br />
<br />found the noise conflict could be
<br />
<br />minimized to a level that meets the state
<br />DEQ standard. The Lane County
<br />
<br />Planning Commission vote was 3-2, with
<br />Lane County found that the initial construction of the aquaclude, which involves the removal,
<br />1 abstention, and the Eugene Planning
<br />stockpiling and return of topsoil and overburden to the trench during the surface digging,
<br />Commission vote was 3-2. ¶
<br />constitutes a construction project that is exempt from DEQ noise level requirements and
<br />Deleted:
<br />
<br />enforcement. The City Council disagrees. Installation of the aquaclude involves mining of
<br />Deleted:
<br />We find further that the initial
<br />aggregate material to a depth of at least 30 feet and sales of most of that material. It is a mining
<br />construction of the aquaclude, which
<br />operation by definitions of OAR 660-023-0180 (Mineral and Aggregate Resources), ORS
<br />involves the removal, stockpiling and
<br />215.298 (Mining in exclusive farm use zone), and ORS 517.750 (Non Agricultural lands) and
<br />return of topsoil and overburden to the
<br />trench during the surface digging,
<br />should not to be compared with the relatively simple surface preparation of a typical construction
<br />constitutes a construction project that is
<br />site. The noise generated by the excavation and filling of the aquaclude trench is a mining
<br />exempt from DEQ noise level
<br />activity and is therefore not exempt from DEQ noise standards pursuant to OAR 340-035-
<br />requirements. We also find that the
<br />applicant’s method of construction of the
<br />0035(5)(g). In any case, noise conflicts associated with aquaclude construction have not been
<br />aquaclude, including the creation of
<br />adequately minimized to meet adopted standards.
<br />temporary berms of the stockpiled topsoil
<br />
<br />and overburden, will not produce noise
<br />levels in excess of DEQ requirements.
<br />Defects in the noise measurements and predictions are cumulative; hence, the total effect of
<br />We find that the remainder of the
<br />overestimating ambient noise levels, underestimating new noise from mining activities and
<br />construction of the aquaclude, because it
<br />involves the extraction and use of the
<br />transporting excavated materials through adjacent neighborhoods, and failure to account for all
<br />aggregate material for aggregate
<br />noise caused by mining to create the aquaclude can result in increases in the perceived noise of
<br />production, does not constitute a
<br />construction project. We find further that
<br />over 15 dBA, a possible violation of DEQ noise regulations.
<br />Daly-Standlee has adequately
<br />
<br />demonstrated, in its subsequent report
<br />placed in to the record of the proceeding
<br />We find that potential noise conflicts from the proposed mining of the expansion area cannot
<br />during the elected officials’ public
<br />been minimized as required by Goal 5.
<br />hearing, that the remainder of the
<br />construction of the aquaclude as proposed
<br />
<br />by the applicant will not produce noise
<br />
<br />levels in excess of DEQ requirements.¶
<br />¶
<br />
<br />Daly-Standlee concludes that, with
<br />Dust
<br />implementation of the provided
<br />The applicant’s expert, Bridgewater, provides evidence that, with the appropriate dust
<br />mitigation measures, the potential noise
<br />conflicts associated with mining activity
<br />minimization measures, mining of the proposed expansion area would be compliant with Lane
<br />in the proposed expansion area will be
<br />Regional Air Pollution Agency (LRAPA) airborne particulate matter emission standards and
<br />minimized consistent with the Goal 5
<br />Rule and, based upon the Daly-Standlee
<br />fugitive dust requirements. We note that, for those types of conflicts addressed by local state or
<br />analysis and conclusions, we find
<br />accordingly.¶
<br />
<br />
|