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

Home Browse Search

argued that the proposed expansion area is an “unused site” and that equipment moved to that area should be considered a “new noise source on a previously unused site.” Delta Sand and Gravel Company has elected to address potential noise impacts of a new noise source on a previously unused site and to subject its future aggregate extractions to the more restrictive DEQ noise limits for such a noise source. Because Daly-Standlee states that certain areas within the impact area may be subjected to mining activity noise above the limit allowed by the DEQ for a new noise source on a previously unused site, this application must demonstrate that the potential noise impacts can be minimized. OAR 660-023-0180(1)(g) provides that noise conflicts are considered minimized under the rule when the relevant DEQ noise regulations (OAR 340-035-0035) are met. Daly-Standlee concludes that, with appropriate mitigation measures, noise generated by mining activity at the proposed expansion area will comply with the most demanding interpretation of DEQ regulations at all residential properties within the impact area. Daly-Standlee proposes a variety of mitigation measures, starting with limiting the first and second lift mining operations to the time period from 7 o’clock AM to 10 o’clock PM. Daly-Standlee proposes alternative mining procedures at various locations of the proposed expansion area. Those alternative procedures are provided in Tables 7 and 8 of the noise study. The study further concludes that if the proposed alternative procedures are followed during the first and second lifts then no noise mitigation will be required for the third and subsequent lifts. That statement is based upon the fact that due to the depth of operating equipment below grade (surface level), the noise barrier effect provided by the face of the excavation combined with the distance effect will reduce noise to a level in compliance with the DEQ noise restrictions at all locations within the impact area. Opponents of the application have challenged the Daly-Standlee report on grounds of methodology and conclusions. We find that Daly-Standlee’s rebuttal of the opponents’ arguments is reasonable and provides significant evidence that the DEQ noise level requirements will be met or exceeded through implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. We find further that the initial construction of the aquaclude, which involves the removal, stockpiling and return of topsoil and overburden to the trench during the surface digging, constitutes a construction project that is exempt from DEQ noise level requirements. We also find that the applicant’s method of construction of the aquaclude, including the creation of temporary berms of the stockpiled topsoil and overburden, will not produce noise levels in excess of DEQ requirements. We find that the remainder of the construction of the aquaclude, because it involves the extraction and use of the aggregate material for aggregate production, does not constitute a construction project. We find further that Daly-Standlee has adequately demonstrated, in its subsequent report placed in to the record of the proceeding during the elected officials’ public hearing, that the remainder of the construction of the aquaclude as proposed by the applicant will not produce noise levels in excess of DEQ requirements. Daly-Standlee concludes that, with implementation of the provided mitigation measures, the potential noise conflicts associated with mining activity in the proposed expansion area will be minimized consistent with the Goal 5 Rule and, based upon the Daly-Standlee analysis and conclusions, we find accordingly. Dust Bridgewater concluded that, with the appropriate dust minimization measures, mining of the proposed expansion area would be compliant with Lane Regional Air Pollution Agency (LRAPA) airborne particulate matter emission standards and fugitive dust requirements and, Page 15 – FINDINGS OF FACT