Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Daly-Standlee begins its analysis of potential noise impact by stating that certain areas within the <br />impact area may be subjected to mining activity noise above the limit allowed by the DEQ for a <br />"new noise source" on a "previously unused site." DEQ noise limits for a new noise source on a <br />previously unused site (OAR 340-35-0015(14) and 340-35-0035(1)(b)(B)(i) (Table 8)) are more <br />restrictive than the noise limits for "existing noise sources" (OAR 340-35-0015(17) and 340-35- <br />0035(1)(a) (Table 7)). Daly-Standlee states that historically DEQ has ruled that when a mine site <br />is expanded onto contiguous property, noise criteria which applied to the equipment before <br />expansion shall also apply to the equipment while in the expansion area. Because aggregate <br />mining has been occurring on the 474 adjacent acres of Delta Sand and Gravel COITlpany <br />ownership since 1927, it could be argued that the existing mining operation is an "existing noise <br />source" and that the expansion area should be subj ected to the less stringent existing noise source <br />criteria under that historic DEQ interpretation. However, it could also be argued that the <br />proposed expansion area is an "unused site" and that equipment moved to that area should be <br />considered a "new noise source on a previously unused site." The city finds that the latter <br />interpretation is the correct one. <br /> <br />Delta Sand and Gravel Company has elected to address potential noise impacts of a new noise <br />source on a previously unused site and to subject its future aggregate extractions to the more <br />restrictive DEQ noise limits for such a noise source. Because Daly-Standlee states that certain <br />areas within the impact area may be subjected to mining activity noise above the limit allowed <br />by the DEQ for a new noise source on a previously unused site, this application must <br />demonstrate that the potential noise impacts can be minimized. OAR 660-023-0 180( 1 )(g) <br />provides that noise conflicts are considered minimized under the rule when the relevant DEQ <br />noise regulations (OAR 340-035-0035) are met. <br /> <br />Daly-Standlee proposes a variety of administrative mitigation measures (as compared to <br />structural or engineered solutions that do not require constant monitoring), starting with limiting <br />the first and second lift mining operations to the time period from 7 0' clock AM to 10 0' clock <br />PM. Daly-Standlee proposes alternative mining procedures at various locations of the proposed <br />expansion area. Those alternative procedures are provided in Tables 7 and 8 of the noise study. <br />The study further concludes that if the proposed alternative procedures are followed during the <br />first and second lifts then no noise mitigation will be required for the third and subsequent lifts. <br />That statement is based upon the fact that due to the depth of operating equipment below grade <br />(surface level), the noise barrier effect provided by the face of the excavation combined with the <br />distance effect will reduce noise to a level in compliance with the DEQ noise restrictions at all <br />locations within the impact area. Daly-Standlee also recommend restricted use of certain types <br />of heavy equipment in zones proximate to residential property, and additional noise attenuating <br />equip met on some equipment to meet DEQ standards. <br /> <br />Opponents of the application, primarily through testimony of Arthur Noxon, PE, acoustic <br />engineer, have challenged the Daly-Standlee report on grounds of methodology and conclusions. <br />(See Exhibits 33e,37, 64, 65, 264, and 278). The city council is compelled by opposition's <br />comments pertaining to the following issues: <br /> <br />1. Ambient noise levels in residential areas were not measured from the more sheltered, <br />quieter private outdoor spaces that may be most impacted by the expanded quarry. Therefore, <br />ambient noise levels used in the noise analysis were higher than true ambient noise levels in <br />some residential locations, and truck noise in residential streets not fully measured. Therefore, <br />noise conflicts were not fully predicted, and minimization of those conflicts is not assured. <br /> <br />Exhibit A to Ordinance 20413 - 18 <br />