Laserfiche WebLink
Bettman asked if the sound was measured within 1500 feet from the residences. <br /> <br /> Noxon explained that wasn’t a DEQ rule. He said the impact area of a quarry is 1500 <br />feet past it to see if there are any problems. He said the acoustic engineering company <br />that was hired to assess the quarry’s proposed plan for expansion found that the impact <br />zone wasn’t 1500 feet as far as noise was concerned. They found that it was <br />approximately 850 feet. He indicated it was in a report of June 14, 2005. <br /> <br /> Bettman asked if the sound impact was evaluated from the aquaclude trench. <br /> <br /> Noxon stated in the memo dated October 27, 2006, there are two figures. He said they <br />say there is a zone of set back line of 475 feet for the average sound level violation and <br />there is a 250 foot for the short time high level voice standard. He said it is based on an <br />inaccurate model of the noise that is being generated. He said the setbacks aren’t valid <br />setbacks. He stated they had not presented any real noise study associated with the <br />trenching process. He said the noise generated in the trenching process uses machines of <br />similar size and character and power as the ones in the pit. <br /> <br /> Bettman asked about impacts of the mining operation and aquaclude not previously <br />evaluated. <br /> <br /> Yeider said for some of the impacts the entire site was studied. He recalled with the <br />discussion of noise, that there would be a temporary impact when the aquaclude was dug <br />and refilled and a sound berm was added to the project description. <br /> <br /> Bettman asked what happens if Lane County and Springfield want to have a dissolution <br />of LRAPA, so in a year there is no LRAPA to monitor or enforce the assumptions <br />included in the report that showed how they mitigated. <br /> <br /> Yeider thought the enforcement branch would go to DEQ. He didn’t know if LRAPA <br />had different standards than DEQ or if DEQ has as many local enforcement abilities that <br />LRAPA might have. <br /> <br /> Bettman asked if that was a viable assumption to say that the mitigation had been <br />achieved based on the fact that LRAPA is an entity that could monitor. She asked if <br />DEQ would have to be included in the mitigation. <br /> <br /> Taylor thought they needed someone from LRAPA present. She thought there were <br />complaints and then they are forgiven. She said because it is being used as evidence, <br />they need facts. <br /> <br /> Sorenson asked about the quality of the sampling and what was wrong with the sampling. <br /> <br /> Reed responded that the upper 25 feet is so high in quality that it is a substantial resource <br />and profitable to produce. He said the 60 foot rule was put together by DLCD to <br />establish a quantity to justify destroying the soil at the top. He said the standard for the <br />Page 17 – Joint Elected Officials' Meeting – December 12, 2006 <br />WD bc/m/06121/T <br /> <br />