HomeMy WebLinkAboutAcoustic Report Red-lined
ACOUSTIC REPORT
Survey of Existing Acoustic Conditions and Expected Acoustic Impacts at:
Strong’s Yacht Center – 5780 West Mill Road – Mattituck, NY
Prepared for:
Mr. Jeffrey
Strong
Strong’s Yacht Center
Engineers:
Sean Harkin
Margot Criscitiello
Sarah Babione
Dr. Bonnie Schnitta
December 1, 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
Section 3.6.1 – Executive Summary 3
Section 3.6.2 – Equipment Utilized 4
Section 3.6.3 – Acoustic Criteria and Definitions 4
Acoustic Criteria 4
Definitions 56
Section
3.6.4 – Analysis of Existing Conditions 78
Ambient Noise Monitoring Results at Project Site 78
Twenty Minute Ambient Reading Results Around Project Site 9
Existing Conditions for Evaluation
with Traffic 1011
Section 3.6.5 – Methodology for Analyses 1418
Development of SoundPlan 3D Model 1418
Development of Traffic Noise Model 1519
In-Situ Data Collected for Dump Trucks 1620
Development
of Construction Noise Model 1721
Development of Build Condition Noise Model 2125
Section 3.6.6 – Potential Impacts Analysis 2125
Construction Noise Impacts 2125
Build Condition Impacts 4448
Section
3.6.7 – Proposed Mitigation 4953
Section 3.6.8 – Review of Alternate SiteTruck Routing Plan 5054
Construction Noise Impacts 5054
Section 3.6.9 – Review of Alternate Site Plan 61
Construction
Noise Impacts 61
Build Condition Impacts 5970
Section 3.6.910 – Reference Data Used for Analyses 6374
Section 3.6.1011 – Existing Traffic Distributions Used for Analyses 75
Section 3.6.12 – Daily Summary Graphs from Noise Monitoring 6479
3.6.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This document serves to summarize the evaluation of the existing acoustic conditions at Strong’s Yacht Center located at 5780 West Mill Road in Mattituck, NY
(“Project Site”), as well as the analysis of the expected acoustic impacts to be incorporated into the SEQRA review of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed development
of the Project Site inclusive of the as-of-right development of the property. This acoustic report has incorporated all items requested by the Town of Southold Planning Board during
the DEIS scoping meetings and as issued in the Final Scope on April 5th, 2021.
SoundSense collected existing sound level readings at the Project Site through noise monitoring performed
from April 14th, 2021, through May 3rd, 2021, and May 13th through May 23rd, 2021, as well as the 20-minute readings collected in nearby areas around the Project Site on April 20th,
2021. These existing sound levels serve as the background sound levels for the area to be incorporated into all noise predictions completed for the project.
The measured sound levels
were used in conjunction with the traffic study provided by Dunn Engineering Services (“Traffic Study”), to assess any increases in traffic noise both during construction and after development
of the project (“Build Condition”), as well as the equipment types and utilization factors provided by Red Rock Industries to develop a construction noise model. Any potential increases
in sound levels at the receiving locations evaluated due to increased vehicle/truck passbys, construction activities, and final sound levels with the new development have been considered
for the Project Site. Calculations were completed using SoundPLAN Version 8.2 (“SoundPLAN”) acoustic modelling software. Traffic calculations were completed using the Federal Highway
Administration’s TNM 2.5 noise model inside SoundPLAN, and construction noise sources used standardized acoustic data available from the Federal Transportation Authority’s Transit Noise
and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual published in 2018 (“FTA Guidelines”). A more detailed description of the methodologies used for the project can be found below in Section 3.6.5.
Using the computer-generated model, an existing noise model for traffic was also developed for existing peak traffic generation. Along with the background sound levels collected, these
baseline noise levels serve as the existing condition sound levels including the existing ambient and traffic levels (“Existing Condition”)”), to which the Build Condition predicted
sound levels can be compared. This comparison allows for evaluation against the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s definitions regarding noise impact as well as
the Town of Southold’s Noise Ordinance in Chapter 180 of the Town Code (“Noise Code”).
While construction noise levels are predicted to have an impact at the nearby Residences, the Town
of Southold specifically exempts construction noise from the requirements in the Noise Code. Nearby residences are predicted to be impacted by the construction for its duration, however
impact from construction is common for any construction project to occur, whether it be commercial or residential, which is why it is commonly exempted from municipal noise codes. Traffic
increases during construction and in the Build Condition, are not predicted to impact nearby residents through evaluation using TNM calculations. Furthermore, the Build Condition is
not expected to increase existing sound levels by more than 4 dBA, which would constitute “No Impact” under the NYSDEC criteria.
In addition to the proposed plan,construction and development
(“Proposed Plan”), an as of right development plan (“Alternate Site Plan”), was modeled based on the revised location and size of the development. Analysis showed sound levels are predicted
to increase significantly during construction and that in the Build Condition there is no significant difference acoustically between the two plans.
3.6.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (Continued):
A proposed alternate truck route plan was also reviewed which diverts some of the trucks used during the excavation phases down Bergen Avenue on
the return trip from the Project Site. Analysis showed that this reduced the impact of increased traffic noise levels at receivers along Cox Neck Road south of the intersection of Cox
Neck Road and Bergen Avenue and was below NYSDOT recommendations at all receptors considered along Bergen Avenue and along Cox Neck Road south of the intersection of Cox Neck Road and
Bergen Avenue.
SECTION 3.6.2 -– EQUIPMENT:
Frequency Analyzer: Bruel & Kjaer Model 2250L, Serial No. 3009718
Type 1 Microphone: Bruel & Kjaer Model 4952, Serial No. 3080415
Sound Calibrator:
Bruel & Kjaer Model 4231, Serial No. 3017454
Frequency Analyzer: Bruel & Kjaer Model 2250, Serial No. 2739677
Type 1 Microphone: Bruel & Kjaer Model 4190, Serial No. 2731530
Sound Calibrator:
Bruel & Kjaer Model 4231, Serial No. 2730164
NOTE: The microphones are Type 1 per ASTM Standards and was calibrated before and after the readings.
SECTION 3.6.3 – ACOUSTIC CRITERIA
AND DEFINITIONS:
Acoustic Criteria
Town of Southold Noise Ordinance – Chapter 180
§ 180-5 General prohibition.
No person or persons owning, leasing or controlling the operation of any
source of noise on any lot or structure within the Town shall permit the establishment of a condition of noise pollution. Except as provided in §180-6, the use of amplifiers, speakers
or other machines or devices capable of reproducing amplified or airborne sound from the premises, dwelling or building within the Town shall be considered noise pollution and shall
be prohibited at all times.
§ 180-6 Standards.
No person shall create or cause to be emitted any noise pollution which when measured on a sound-level meter from the property line of
a complaining property owner exceeds the following standards:
Sunday through Thursday:
From 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., airborne or amplified sound in excess of 65 dB(A); and
From 7:00 p.m.
to 7:00 a.m., airborne or amplified sound in excess of 50 dB(A).
Friday and Saturday:
From 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., airborne or amplified sound in excess of 65 dB(A); and
From 11:00
p.m. to 7:00 a.m., airborne or amplified sound in excess of 50 dB(A).
§ 180-8 Exceptions.
The provisions of §180-5 and 180-6 shall not apply to the following:
(2) Construction activities
between 7:00 a.m. through 7:00 p.m. and the associated use of construction devices or the noise produced thereby, provided that such activities and such equipment and their use comply
with the other provisions hereof.
(11) Emergency construction or repair work.
(14) Emergency stationary and mobile signal devices.
SECTION 3.6.3 – ACOUSTIC CRITERIA AND DEFINITIONS (Continued):
Acoustic Criteria (Continued)
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, “Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts”
The NYSDEC provides guidance for environmental noise impacts in its technical report ‘Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts released
October 6, 2000, and revised February 2, 2001. Table 1 below summarizes the NYSDEC’s guidance provided in Section V, Subsection B, Item c.
Table 1: NYSDEC Thresholds for Significant
Sound Pressure Level (SPL) Increase
Sound Level Increase (dB)
Impact
Need for Mitigation
0 – 3
No appreciable effect on receptors
No need
3 – 6
Potential for adverse noise
impact in cases where the most sensitive of receptors are present
Mitigation may be needed for some sensitive receptors such as churches and theaters
6 – 10
Potential for adverse
noise impact depending on existing SPL and character of surround land use and receptors
Mitigation may be needed for most receptors, depending on existing conditions
10 or more
Adverse
impact
Deserves consideration of avoidance and mitigation measures in most cases
New York State Department of Transportation Noise Analysis Procedures and Project Environmental
Guidelines
The New York State Department of Transportation provides recommended criteria for road noise levels at various receptors in its technical report ‘NYSDOT Environmental Procedures
Manual, Chapter 3.1’ released in August of 1998. It should be noted that the report notes that the sound levels outlined in this document are a criterion, and not a standard. It should
also be noted that the criteria outlined in the document are guided towards future traffic after project completion. Recommended noise levels from Table 1 in the technical report can
be found in Table 2. For the nearest receptors to the roads evaluated for additional traffic for this project, Category B is appropriate for evaluation.
SECTION 3.6.3 – ACOUSTIC CRITERIA AND DEFINITIONS (Continued):
Acoustic Criteria (Continued)
New York State Department of Transportation Noise Analysis Procedures and Project Environmental
Guidelines
Table 2: Recommended NYSDOT Criteria for Road Noise Levels
Activity Category
Leq(h) (dBA)
L10(h) (dBA)
Description of Activity Category
A
57
(Exterior)
60
(Exterior)
Lands
on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue
to serve its intended purpose
B
67
(Exterior)
70
(Exterior)
Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches,
libraries, and hospitals.
C
72
(Exterior)
75
(Exterior)
Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above (e.g., commercial, industrial, other)
D
Undeve
loped Lands
E
52
(Interior)
55
(Interior)
Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, auditoriums, offices, etc.
Definitions
Ambient
In
this document ambient refers to the existing sound levels as collected during the noise monitoring performed at the Project Site from April 14th, 2021, through May 3rd, 2021, and May
13th through May 23rd, 2021, as well as the 20-minute readings at areas around the site collected on April 20th, 2021.
Decibel (dB)
Definition: The term used to identify ten times the
common logarithm of the ratio of two like quantities proportional to power or energy. Thus, one decibel corresponds to a power ratio (10 to the 0.1 power) to the n power. Since the decibel
expresses the ratio of two like quantities, it has no units. In this document, all decibels are presented using industry standard 20 µPa as the reference quantity.
A-Weighting dBA –
This weighting metric is commonly applied to sound pressure levels as it is an approximation ofapproximates the hearing response of the human ear which is more responsive to higher frequencies
than lower frequencies.
SECTION 3.6.3 – ACOUSTIC CRITERIA AND DEFINITIONS (Continued):
Definitions (Continued)
Equivalent-Continuous Sound Level (Leq)
Definition: Equivalent-continuous, frequency-weighted
sound pressure level over a specified averaging time is the equivalent steady level, in that time interval, of the time-mean-square, frequency-weighted sound pressure produced by the
sources of steady, fluctuating, intermittent, irregular, or impulsive sounds.
The equivalent-continuous sound level of a time-varying sound is equal to the level of an equivalent steady
sound at a measurement location for the same measurement duration. Specifically, Leq is 10 times the common logarithm of the ratio of the time-mean-square sound pressure
𝑝
2
(𝑡) over
time period 𝑇=
𝑇
2
−
𝑇
1
to the square of the standard reference sound pressure. Measured in dB the Leq is:
𝐿
𝑒𝑞
=10⋅
𝑙𝑜𝑔
10
1
𝑇
2
−
𝑇
1
𝑇
1
𝑇
2
𝑝
2
(𝑡)⋅𝑑𝑡
𝑝
𝑜
2
Standards
The information within this findings document is based on the ASTM Standards. Any variation to the ASTM criteria is based on additional research by such groups as the Acoustic
Society of America and INCE that focuses on the well-being of humans in the presence of noise.
Statistical Sound Levels (L10, L50, L90, etc.)
The sound level that is exceeded for the
percentage of time of that level during a period of time. Example: During a 1-hour measurement, an L10 of 60 dBA means the sound level was at or above 60 dBA for a total of 6 minutes,
whereas an L90 of 60 dBA means the sound level was at or above 60 dBA for a total of 54 minutes. This is often used to demonstrate ambient sound levels. In addition to these sound levels,
minimum and maximum sound levels measured are typically provided and denoted as Lmin and Lmax.
SECTION 3.6.4 – ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS:
Ambient Noise Monitoring Results at the Project Site
To establish the existing sound levels over longer periods of time, noise monitoring
was performed at two locations at the Project Site. A marked copy of a satellite view indicating these locations can be found in Figure 1. Monitoring at Location 1 occurred from April
14th, 2021, to April 28th, 2021, and at Location 2 from April 28th, 2021, to May 3rd, 2021, and then from May 13th, 2021 until May 23rd, 2021 for a total of four full weeks of data collection.
The disruption between May 3rd, 2021, and May 13th, 2021, was due to a disruption in data transmission from the noise monitoring unit. Therefore, additional days were completed after
May 13th, to complete the four full weeks of data collection.
Figure 1: Noise Monitoring Locations at the Project Site
/
SECTION 3.6.4 – ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS (Continued):
Ambient Noise Monitoring Results at the Project Site (Continued)
In addition to the collection of data, inclement weather
can unnecessarily impact the data collected. To mitigate the impact of inclement weather, the data collected was compared to historical weather data from the nearest weather station
at East Hampton Airport, since they maintain historical weather information. Any hour where precipitation was reported was eliminated from calculation of the metrics provided in Table
23, which serve as a summary of the acoustic data collected at each location for the daytime hours between 7 AM and 7 PM. This time range was selected because it is the same time range
as the exemption for construction noise in the Noise Code. The median hourly Leq of 44 dBA was selected to use as the background sound level near the Project Site. This was the lowest
median sound level collected during the measurements completed as seen in Table 23. This table summarizes the minimum, first quartile (statistic which 25% of the data is lower and 75%
of the data is higher), the median (statistic which 50% of the data collected and 50% is higher), the third quartile (statistic which 75% of the data is lower and 25% of the data is
higher), and the maximum. The individual graphs which summarize the sound levels by hour for each day of data collection can be found in Section 3.6.1012. Dominant sounds at the Project
Site include wildlife, nearby construction, and a couple examples of boat washing.
Table 23: Summary of Acoustic Data Collected During Noise Monitoring at the Project Site
Metric
Measurement
Location
Leq
(dBA)
Lmax (dBA)
L10
(dBA)
L50
(dBA)
L90
(dBA)
Lmin (dBA)
Minimum
Location 1
39.4
57.6
48.5
44.1
40.0
29.6
Location 2
36.3
55.3
38.2
31.6
28.5
24.7
Fir
st Quartile
Location 1
42.7
65.1
53.2
47.5
44.1
35.7
Location 2
42.0
64.0
43.6
36.2
31.7
28.5
Median
Location 1
44.5
67.4
55.6
48.8
46.1
37.8
Location
2
44.0
67.9
45.8
37.8
33.4
30.2
Third Quartile
Location 1
46.9
70.7
58.0
51.1
47.9
41.4
Location 2
46.3
72.0
48.4
41.5
36.1
32.3
Maximum
Location 1
58.4
85.4
69.3
63.8
63.2
48.0
Location 2
65.3
83.3
70.6
54.9
46.6
42.3
Twenty Minute Ambient Reading Results Around Project Site
In addition to the above-described noise monitoring
data taken at the Project Site, acoustic readings were collected at four locations near the Project Site and along the route which will be taken by trucks during the excavation phase.
Acoustic readings were collected on April 20th, 2021, in the morning between 7:39 AM and 9:21 AM, and in the afternoon from 3:16 PM to 4:59 PM and were collected for a duration of 20
minutes each. Historical weather data from the nearest weather station on Long Island at East Hampton Airport reported winds between 3-8mph from the SSW during the morning readings with
minimal cloud cover. The winds during this period can be described as a light or gentle breeze. The afternoon reading period had 16-18mph from the SW with minimal cloud cover. Air pressure
was between 29.84-29.88 in. with 0 in. of precipitation. The winds during this period can be classified as a moderate breeze.
SECTION 3.6.4 – ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS (Continued):
Twenty Minute Ambient Reading Results Around Project Site (Continued)
The locations of acoustic readings collected can
be found in Figure 2, while the results of the readings can be found in Table 34. Since the sound levels of vehicles passing were louder at the reading locations than they would be at
the nearest residences, the L90 values have been used to represent the background sound levels at all receiver locations near each reading location. This was chosen because the acoustic
readings were collected on the shoulder of West Mill Road and Cox Neck Road, meaning that vehicle passbys were significantly louder than what would be measured at the nearby residential
structures. This provides a true definition of the background sound levels at each location without, or with minimal, vehicle passbys. For each location, the lowest L90 measured was
used to represent a quieter background noise level and a worst-case scenario for noise impact.
Figure 2: Twenty Minute Ambient Reading Locations Around the Project Site
SECTION 3.6.4 – ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS (Continued):
Twenty Minute Reading Results Around Project Site (Continued)
Table 34: Results of Twenty Minute Ambient Readings Near
the Project Site
Measurement Location
Time Period
LAeq (dBA)
LASmax (dBA)
L10 (dBA)
L50 (dBA)
L90 (dBA)
LASmin (dBA)
Location 1
7:39am – 7:59am
60
79
56
45
41
37
3:16pm
– 3:37pm
58
81
53
45
41
37
Location 2
8:06am – 8:26am
61
76
65
52
51
49
3:45pm – 4:05pm
69
92
69
52
46
41
Location 3
8:32am – 8:52pm
68
85
71
64
52
46
4:10pm
– 4:30pm
65
84
68
50
44
40
Location 4
9:01am – 9:21am
67
84
69
57
48
39
4:39pm – 4:59pm
69
95
70
64
53
46
Existing Condition Sound Levels
While the data
provided above provides a baseline for the background sound levels without the existing traffic data. Therefore, it does not provide a baseline for the Existing Condition as it does
not provide a baseline considering the existing traffic to establish an Leq. To evaluate the Existing Condition, traffic data collected by Dunn Engineering were used to complete a traffic
noise model in SoundPLAN using the FHA’s TNM 2.5 methodology. Incorporating traffic data into the calculation was completed so that the same calculation methodology and noise model is
consistent when establishing the Existing Condition and future predictions. Additionally, this model allows for consistency in the baseline data for traffic generation so that all calculations
are consistentstandardized for total trip generation. Inputs for the model can be found in Table 4 and are the baseline peak traffic levels for analysis. Additionalexisting trips generated
as defined inwere based on data provided by the traffic consultant. The traffic in the analysis varies throughout the Traffic Study were day, as shown by the data. This time varying
traffic was used for the analysis. The existing trips used for all prediction analyses (“Trip Generation”) during construction as well as in the Build Condition.the analysis can be found
in Section 3.6.11. The results of the baseline noise models can be found graphically in Figures 3-5 and overallfor the peak hour sound levels and Figures 6-8 for 8-hour sound levels.
Overall sound pressure levels at each receiving location considered can be found in Table 5 for both peak hour and 8-hour levels. Receiving locations were selected by evaluating locations
near the Project Site, as well as various receiving locations along West Mill Road and Cox Neck Road. These
Existing Condition sound levels are used to evaluate the impacts of construction activities, traffic increases, and the Build Condition for evaluation.
Table 4: Inputs for TNM Model
to Evaluate the Existing Condition Sound Levels
Vehicle Class
Existing Measured Trips
Automobiles
14
Medium Trucks
12
Heavy Trucks
0
Buses
0
Motorcycles
0
SECTION
3.6.4 – ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS (Continued):
Existing Condition Sound Levels (Continued)
Figure 3: Peak Hour Existing Conditions at the Project Site
/
/
SECTION 3.6.4 – ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS (Continued):
Existing Condition Sound Levels (Continued)
Figure 4: Peak Hour Existing Conditions at West Mill Road and Cox Neck Road
/
SECTION 3.6./4 – ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS (Continued):
Existing Condition Sound Levels (Continued)
Figure 5: Peak Hour Existing Conditions at Cox Neck Road
/
SECTION 3.6.4 – ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS (Continued):
Existing Condition Sound Levels (Continued)
Figure 5:6: Eight Hour Existing Conditions at the Project Site
/
SECTION 3.6.4 – ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS (Continued):
Existing Condition Sound Levels (Continued)
Figure 7: Eight Hour Existing Conditions at West Mill Road and Cox Neck Road
/
/
SECTION 3.6.4 – ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS (Continued):
Existing Condition Sound Levels (Continued)
Figure 8: Eight Hour Existing Conditions at Cox Neck Road
/
SECTION 3.6.4 – ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS (Continued):
Existing Condition Sound Levels (Continued)
Table 5: Existing
Conditions at Each Receiving Location Evaluated
Receiver Number
Location
Peak Hour Existing Condition
(dBA)
Eight Hour Existing Condition (dBA)
Receiver Number
Location
Peak Hour Existing Condition
(dBA)
Eight Hour Existing Condition (dBA)
R1
5106 West Mill Road
44
44
R2
800 North Drive
44
44
R3
805 North
Drive
4644
44
R4
2010 West Mill Road
4744
44
R5
4105 West Mill Road
5149
50
R6
200 East Mill Road
44
44
R7
750 East Mill Road
44
44
R8
3329 Grand Ave
44
44
R9
3001
West Mill Road
4746
46
R10
1525 West Mill Road
6050
50
R11
1480 West Mill Road
6352
52
R12
1065 West Mill Road
6352
52
R13
155 Breakwater Road
6352
52
R14
2100
Cox Neck Road
6557
57
R15
2695 Cox Neck Road
6655
55
R16
1475 Cox Neck Road
6454
54
R17
1020 Cox Neck Road
6256
56
R18
55 Middle Road
6360
60
SECTION 3.6.5
– METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYSES:
Development of SoundPlan 3D Model
As discussed previously, calculations were completed using SoundPlan Version 8.2. SoundPlan constructs a 3D model for all
areas analyzed by importing ground elevation data through Google Earth. Using the elevation data, SoundPlan constructs a 3D Digital Ground Model (“DGM”) of the terrain. Once the DGM
is constructed, building height and location information, and roadway information can be imported using Open Street Map and added to the DGM. In addition, surface composition to calculate
factors such as soft ground attenuation, reflections from buildings, and propagation over water are also calculated and assigned to the DGM. Depending on the specific situation analyzed,
the DGM is updated to indicate changes in the elevation which would occur through the construction process, such as the excavation and retaining wall construction proposed (“Retaining
Wall”). This ensures that the calculations are accurately completed for each phase of the project. An example of the DGM can be found in Figure 69, which shows the 3D model of the Retaining
Wall construction phase. It should also be noted that all calculations completed for the project include frequency dependent data for accurate calculation of barrier effects/diffraction,
although only overall sound pressure levels are presented at each receiving location to simplify the results and compare the results to the Town of Southold Noise Ordinance and, NYSDEC
Criteria and NYSDOT Criteria.
SECTION 3.6.5 – METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYSES (Continued):
Development of SoundPlan 3D Model (Continued)
Figure 69: DGM of Retaining Wall Construction Phase
/
/
Development of Traffic Noise Model
The traffic analysis is completed using TNM 2.5. The TNM noise model was used for evaluation of any traffic increase resulting from the Build Condition
during construction, as well as vehicle traffic down the Haul Road. Additional trips for traffic generation as defined in the traffic study were added to the baseline trips presented
in Table 4.Section 3.6.11. Per the traffic study, three main traffic scenarios were considered for the project. These scenarios include Excavation Phases 1 and 2, Retaining Wall and
Construction Phase Traffic, and Build Condition Traffic. All additional Trip GenerationAdditional trips generated for workers use the same vehicle mixes for vehicle classes asthe construction
phases were used from the existing traffic to remain consistent with memo provided from Red Rock Industries, which noted the existing traffic profile.expected vehicles needed for each
phase of construction. Additional trip generation in the Build Condition was provided in the traffic study completed. This additional trip generation data by phase and vehicle class
used for the truck route can be found in TableTables 6. and 7 for the various phases of the project. As noted in the construction details provided in the Red Rock Memo, the Haul Road
will be used through the Retaining Wall Phase, and then is eliminated from the noise model starting at the Excavation Drainage Phase. Traffic data used to model the Haul Road during
a peak hour are the peak traffic trips per hour all going down the Haul Road.
SECTION 3.6.5 – METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYSES (Continued):
SECTION 3.6.5 – METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYSES (Continued):
Development of Traffic Noise Model (Continued)
Table 6: Peak Hour Additional Trip Generation Data by Project Phase
New Trip Generation
by Condition
Vehicle Class
Tree Grubbing
Excavation PhasesPhase
Construction PhasesPhase
Build Condition
Automobiles
198
7013
20
18
Medium Trucks
0
0
0
0
Heavy
Trucks
80
10
2
0
Buses
0
0
0
0
Motorcycles
0
0
0
0
Total
27
72
18
Table 7: Non-Peak Hour Additional Trip Generation Data by Project Phase
Vehicle Class
Tree
Grubbing
Excavation Phase
Construction Phase
Build Condition
Automobiles
0
0
0
0
Medium Trucks
0
0
0
0
Heavy Trucks
0
10
0
0
Buses
0
0
0
0
Motorcycles
0
0
0
0
In-Situ Data Collected for Dump Trucks
In addition to traffic noise generation completed with TNM, in situ data of a Peterbilt 389 2020 edition dump truck with a Paccar MX13 engine
was collected. The dump truck was loaded with 39 tons of sand/dirt at the time of the readings, which is equivalent to 28-29 yards of material. This truck is Tier 4 compliant with EPA
standards, using the latest technology to reduce environmental emissions. The applicant has mandated that all trucks on the project comply with the Tier 4 criteria. Readings collected
during this testing included the truck passing at 35 mph, idle and backup with a white noise backup alarm, and release of the air brake. It should be noted that all contractors will
be directed to disengage any Jake Brake system on incoming vehicles once they turn onto Cox Neck Road from County Route 48. These data are used in the analysis to demonstrate and to
include sound levels from the backup alarm with engine idle, and air brake release on the construction site. The data collected have been converted into sound power levels and can be
found in Table 78. In addition, calculated sound pressure levels 50’ from the source have also been provided as a reference. A more detailed copy of the reference data showing octave
band sound power levels can be found in Table 2127 located in Section 3.6.910. Any sound levels provided do not constitute a requirement for equipment used for the project but provide
the basis for calculations completed.
SECTION 3.6.5 – METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYSES (Continued):
In-Situ Data Collected for Dump Trucks (Continued)
It should also be noted that the FTA Guidelines list a truck at having a sound
pressure level of 84 dBA when measured at 50 feet. Table 78 shows that the actual data collected by SoundSense of the dump truck collected would have a sound pressure level at 50 feet
ranging from 62-73 dBA depending on the operating condition. This represents a significant reduction compared to the sound level in the FTA guidelines, showing that using the Tier 4
truck would represent a considerable reduction ranging from 11-22 dBA. A 10 dBA reduction in sound level is typically heard as half of the original sound level and would constitute a
significant reduction. It must also be noted that these reduced levels could not be used in the TNM calculations, but these reduced levels support that the TNM calculations completed
would demonstrate a worst-case scenario for sound level increase due to traffic.
SECTION 3.6.5 – METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYSES (Continued):
In-Situ Data Collected for Dump Trucks (Continued)
Table
78: Converted Overall Sound Power and Pressure Levels of Dump Truck Data Collected
Description
Sound Power Level (dBA)
Calculated Sound Pressure Levels at 50’ (dBA)
Engine Idle
and White Noise Backup Alarm
93
62
Air Brake Release
89
58
Vehicle Passing at 35 mph
105
73
Development of Construction Noise Model
To evaluate the impact of construction
noise, a list of equipment used and utilization factors for the equipment throughout the day were requested from Red Rock Industries. No blasting or pile driving is proposed as a portion
of the construction. All construction equipment was then cross-referenced with data available from the FTA Guidelines to find standardized sound levels for construction equipment. Where
information was not available within the FTA Guidelines, the integrated library within SoundPlan was utilized for equipment sound sources. Since the FTA Guidelines only provide sound
data in overall A weighted sound pressure levels and do not provide frequency breakdowns of sound levels, data included for analogous equipment in SoundPlan was adjusted to meet the
prescribed sound pressure level at 50’ as noted in the FTA Guidelines. Overall sound power levels for each piece of construction equipment broken down by each phase of construction,
their quantities, and utilization factors, can be found in Tables 8-139-14 as provided by Red Rock Industries. A more detailed copy of the reference data noting frequency breakdown can
be found in Table 2127 located in Section 3.6.910. Any sound levels provided do not constitute a requirement for equipment used for the project but provide the basis for calculations
completed. All predictions compiled for the construction noise analysis include a peak hour analysis with 100% utilization of all equipment to present a worst-case scenario coinciding
with peak traffic generation, as well as an 8-hour Leq from 8 AM – 4 PM during the proposed construction hours to present an overall
predicted daily average. The only exception to the 100% utilization in the peak hour is for any equipment which has a utilization factor of 10%, where the equipment was included for
48 minutes of that hour, accounting for 10% of an 8-hour day. It should be noted that some of these phases will occur together such as the Retaining Wall Phase to be completed while
the Construction Phase is in progress, and the Excavation Drainage Phase while the Construction Phase is in progress. These phases and equipment types, quantities, and utilization factors
have been included in the analysis.
SECTION 3.6.5 – METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYSES (Continued):
Development of Construction Noise Model (Continued)
SECTION 3.6.5 – METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYSES
(Continued):
Development of Construction Noise Model (Continued)
Sound levels for the Tub Grinder and Woodchipper were developed were developed in conjunction with built-in data within
SoundPlan for the Tub Grinder and Woodchipper idling, as well as data provided in a technical report published by the UK Health and Safety Executive titled Noise Emissions and Exposure
from Mobile Woodchippers published in 2008. The data provided in the UK Health and Safety Executive report only provides sound levels during wood chipping and is not representative of
an hourly average. The highest sound power level identified was 124.5 dBA during wood chipping. To calculate a worst-case, but realistic sound power level over an hour, the 124.5 dBA
was energy averaged with sources of 114 dBA for the Tub Grinder and 103 dBA for the Woodchipper based on wood chipping/grinding 50% of the time and idling only 50% of the time. This
results in a sound power level of 122 dBA for both sources.
Table 89: Construction Equipment Overall Sound Power Levels and Utilization Factors for the Tree Removal/Grubbing Phase
Construction
Equipment Type
Source Label
Quantity
Utilization Factor
Sound Power Level (dBA)
Calculated Sound Pressure Level at 50' (dBA)
Loader
S1
1
50%
111
80
Shouting
S2
1
50%
74
42
Exc
avator
S3
1
50%
113
81
Water/Fuel Truck
S4
2
50%
115
83
Tub Grinder
S7
1
50%
114122
8290
Woodchipper
S8
1
50%
103122
7190
Feller Buncher
S9
1
50%
114
82
Raised
Voice
S14
1
50%
64
1132
Air Brake Release
S16
1
10%
89
3858
Dump Truck Idling with White Noise Backup Alarm
S17
1
10%
93
3762
Table 910: Construction Equipment Overall Sound Power Levels and Utilization Factors for Excavation Phase 1
Construction Equipment Type
Source Label
Quantity
Utilization Factor
Sound
Power Level (dBA)
Calculated Sound Pressure Level at 50' (dBA)
Loader
S1
2
50%
111
80
Shouting
S2
1
50%
74
42
Excavator
S3
2
50%
113
81
Water/Fuel Truck
S4
2
50%
115
83
Dozer
S6
2
50%
116
85
Raised Voice
S14
1
50%
64
1132
Air Brake Release
S16
1
10%
89
3858
Dump Truck Idling with White Noise Backup Alarm
S17
1
10%
93
3762
SECTI
ON 3.6.5 – METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYSES (Continued):
Development of Construction Noise Model (Continued)
SECTION 3.6.5 – METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYSES (Continued):
Development of Construction
Noise Model (Continued)
Table 1011: Construction Equipment Overall Sound Power Levels and Utilization Factors for Excavation Phase 2
Construction Equipment Type
Source Label
Quantity
Utilization
Factor
Sound Power Level (dBA)
Calculated Sound Pressure Level at 50' (dBA)
Loader
S1
2
50%
111
80
Shouting
S2
1
50%
74
42
Excavator
S3
2
50%
113
81
Water/Fuel
Truck
S4
2
50%
115
83
Dozer
S6
2
50%
116
85
Raised Voice
S14
1
50%
64
1132
Air Brake Release
S16
1
10%
89
3858
Dump Truck Idling with White Noise Backup
Alarm
S17
1
10%
93
3762
Table 1112: Construction Equipment Overall Sound Power Levels and Utilization Factors for the Retaining Wall Phase
Construction Equipment Type
Source Label
Quantity
Utilization Factor
Sound
Power Level (dBA)
Calculated Sound Pressure Level at 50' (dBA)
Loader
S1
3
50%
111
80
Shouting
S2
1
50%
74
42
Excavator
S3
2
50%
113
81
Water/Fuel Truck
S4
2
50%
115
83
Dozer
S6
1
50%
116
85
Skid Steer
S10
3
50%
108
76
Mini Excavator
S11
2
50%
96
64
Telescopic Forklift
S12
1
50%
100
68
Scissor Lift
S13
1
50%
106
59
Raise
d Voice
S14
1
50%
64
1132
Air Brake Release
S16
1
10%
89
3858
Dump Truck Idling with White Noise Backup Alarm
S17
1
10%
93
3762
SECTION 3.6.5 – METHODOLOGY
FOR ANALYSES (Continued):
Development of Construction Noise Model (Continued)
SECTION 3.6.5 – METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYSES (Continued):
Development of Construction Noise Model (Continued)
Table
1213: Construction Equipment Overall Sound Power Levels and Utilization Factors for the Excavation Drainage
Construction Equipment Type
Source Label
Quantity
Utilization Factor
Sound
Power Level (dBA)
Calculated Sound Pressure Level at 50' (dBA)
Loader
S1
3
50%
111
80
Shouting
S2
1
50%
74
42
Excavator
S3
3
50%
113
81
Water/Fuel Truck
S4
2
50%
115
83
Dozer
S6
1
50%
116
85
Skid Steer
S10
2
50%
108
76
Mini Excavator
S11
2
50%
96
64
Telescopic Forklift
S12
1
50%
100
68
Scissor Lift
S13
1
50%
106
59
Raised Voice
S14
1
50%
64
1132
Air Brake Release
S16
1
10%
89
3858
Dump Truck Idling with White Noise Backup Alarm
S17
1
10%
93
3762
Tab
le 1314: Construction Equipment Overall Sound Power Levels and Utilization Factors for Construction Phase
Construction Equipment Type
Source Label
Quantity
Utilization Factor
Sound
Power Level (dBA)
Calculated Sound Pressure Level at 50' (dBA)
Loader
S1
2
50%
111
80
Shouting
S2
1
50%
74
42
Excavator
S3
1
50%
113
81
Water/Fuel Truck
S4
2
50%
115
83
Dozer
S6
1
50%
116
85
Skid Steer
S10
2
50%
108
76
Mini Excavator
S11
1
50%
96
64
Telescopic Forklift
S12
1
50%
100
68
Scissor Lift
S13
1
50%
106
59
Raise
d Voice
S14
1
50%
64
1132
Air Brake Release
S16
1
10%
89
3858
Dump Truck Idling with White Noise Backup Alarm
S17
1
10%
93
3762
SECTION 3.6.5 – METHODOLOGY FOR
ANALYSES (Continued):
Development of Build Condition Noise Model
Noise impacts from the Build Condition were also considered. Noise sources considered in the Build Condition impact include
a boat being washed, one male speaking at a “Loud” vocal effort level as defined by data presented in a technical report by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1977 titled Speech
Levels in Various Noise Environments written by Karl S. Pearsons, Ricarda L. Bennett, and Sanford Fidell, two males speaking at a “Raised” vocal effort level, and the average acceleration
of one truck, meant to simulate truck acceleration denoting moving boats in and out of storage. For evaluation of the Alternate Site Plan, the same sources were considered, but it should
be noted that acceleration will likely need to be greater and occur for a longer period of time to pull one of the boats up the ramp to get to the Alternate Site Plan location at a higher
elevation. Overall sound power levels for the sources considered can be found in Table 1415 and additional information including noting frequency breakdown can be found in
Table 2127 located in Section 3.6.910. Any sound levels provided do not constitute a requirement for equipment used for the project but provide the basis for calculations completed.
Table
1415: Overall Sound Power Levels for Sources Evaluated in the Build Condition
Construction Equipment Type
Source Label
Quantity
Sound Power Level (dBA)
Calculated Sound Pressure
Level at 50' (dBA)
Shouting
S2
2
74
42
Truck Acceleration
S5
1
115
84
Raised Voice
S14
1
64
1132
Boat Washing
S15
1
74
3442
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL
IMPACTS ANALYSIS:
Construction Noise Impacts
Using the methodologies described in Section 3.6.5, construction equipment descriptions, equipment utilizations, sound power levels, and
traffic modeling methodologies described above, predictions were compiled for sound levels at each phase of construction. An hourly peak Leq and 8-hour Leq were both calculated for each
phase of the construction at the Project Site. These can be found in Figures 7-1810-21 graphically show the results of these calculations at the Project Site. For the additional areas
considered at West Mill Road/Cox Neck Road, and Cox Neck Road, the main noise source is traffic. Therefore, figures for these areas presented focus only on the Excavation 2 Phase and
the Excavation Drainage Phase, as these were the loudest construction phases for each traffic condition. Figures 19-2622-29 graphically show these results for the 8-hour Leq as well
as the peak hour. Sound pressure levels for all evaluation scenarios and receivers can also be found in Tables 1516 and 1617 for the 8-hour and peak hour sound levels.
SECTION 3.6.6
– POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS:
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
Figure 710: Eight Hour Leq Sound Levels from the Tree Removal/Grubbing Phase at the Project Site
/
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS:
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
/
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS:
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
Figure 811: Peak Hour Leq Sound Levels from the Tree Removal/Grubbing Phase at the Project Site
/
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS:
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
/
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS:
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
Figure 912: Eight Hour Leq Sound Levels from Excavation Phase 1 at the Project Site
/
/
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS:
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
Figure 1013: Peak Hour Leq Sound Levels from Excavation Phase 1 at the Project Site
/
/
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS:
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
Figure 11: Eight Hour Leq Sound Levels from Excavation Phase 2 at the Project Site
/
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS:
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
Figure 12: Peak Hour Leq Sound Levels from Excavation Phase 2 at the Project Site
/
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS:
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
Figure 13: Eight Hour Leq Sound Levels from the Retaining Wall Phase at the Project Site
/
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS:
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
Figure 14: PeakEight Hour Leq Sound Levels from the Retaining WallExcavation Phase 2 at the Project
Site
/
/
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS:
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
Figure 15: EightPeak Hour Leq Sound Levels from the Excavation Drainage Phase 2 at the Project Site
/
/
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS:
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
Figure 16: Eight Hour Leq Sound Levels from the Retaining Wall Phase at the Project Site
/
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS:
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
Figure 17: Peak Hour Leq Sound Levels from the Retaining Wall Phase at the Project Site
/
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS:
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
Figure 18: Eight Hour Leq Sound Levels from the Excavation Drainage Phase at the Project Site
/
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS:
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
/
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS:
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
Figure 17: Eight Hour Leq Sound Levels from the Construction Phase at the Project Site
/
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS:
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
Figure 18: Figure 19: Peak Hour Leq Sound Levels from the Excavation Drainage Phase at the Project
Site
/
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS:
Construction Phase at the Project SiteNoise Impacts (Continued)
/
Figure 20: Eight Hour Leq Sound Levels from the
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS:
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)Phase at the Project Site
/
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS:
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
Figure 19: Eight21: Peak Hour Leq Sound Levels from Excavationthe Construction Phase 2 at West Mill
Road and Cox Neck Roadthe Project Site
/
/
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS:
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
Figure 22: Eight Hour Leq Sound Levels from Excavation Phase 2 at West Mill Road and Cox Neck Road
/
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS:
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
20Figure 23: Peak Hour Sound Levels from Excavation Phase 2 at West Mill Road and Cox Neck Road
/
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS:
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
/
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS:
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
Figure 2124: Eight Hour Sound Levels from Excavation Phase 2 Phase at Cox Neck Road
/
/
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS:
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
Figure 2225: Peak Hour Sound Levels from Excavation Phase 2 at Cox Neck Road
/
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS:
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
/
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS:
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
Figure 2326: Eight Hour Leq Sound Levels from the Excavation Drainage Phase at West Mill Road and
Cox Neck Road
/
/
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS:
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
Figure 2427: Peak Hour Sound Levels from the Excavation Drainage Phase at West Mill Road and
Cox Neck Road
/
/
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS:
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
Figure 2528: Eight Hour Sound Levels from the Excavation Drainage Phase at Cox Neck Road
/
/
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS:
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
Figure 2629: Peak Hour Sound Levels from the Excavation Drainage Phase at Cox Neck Road
/
/
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS (Continued):
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
Table 1516: Eight Hour Leq Sound Pressure Levels at All Receivers for Construction Activities
and Additional Traffic
Receiver Number
Location
Existing Condition (dBA)
Tree Removal/ Grubbing (dBA)
Excavation Phase 1 (dBA)
Excavation
Phase 2 (dBA)
Retaining Wall Phase (dBA)
Excavation
Drainage Phase (dBA)
Construction Phase (dBA)
R1
5106 West Mill
Road
44
4554
4950
4950
5150
5150
5150
R2
800 North Drive
44
6677
4478
7680
7076
7176
7076
R3
805
North Drive
44
6276
7475
7173
6369
6469
6368
R4
2010 West Mill
Road
4544
4967
5758
5960
4957
4957
4857
R5
4105 West Mill
Road
50
5165
5759
6061
5157
5157
5157
R6
200
East Mill Road
4544
4864
55
6061
5060
5060
4960
R7
750 East Mill Road
4544
4963
5859
6061
5459
5459
5459
R8
3329 Grand Ave
44
5367
6365
6769
5968
5968
5868
R9
3001
West Mill
Road
4746
4860
5457
5558
4852
4852
4852
R10
1525 West Mill
Road
6150
6158
6168
6168
6162
6162
6162
R11
1480 West Mill
Road
6352
6356
6371
6371
6364
6364
6364
R12
1065 West Mill
Road
6352
6358
6471
6471
64
64
64
R13
155 Breakwater Road
6352
6355
6371
6371
6364
6364
6364
R14
2100 Cox Neck
Road
6657
6655
6667
6667
66
66
66
R
15
2695 Cox Neck
Road
6655
6655
66
66
6665
6665
6665
R16
1475 Cox Neck
Road
6454
6455
6465
6465
6462
6462
6462
R17
1020 Cox Neck
Road
6256
6259
62
62
6261
6261
6261
R
18
55 Middle Road
6660
6663
6663
6663
6662
6662
6662
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS (Continued):
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS (Continued):
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
Table
1617: Peak Hour Leq Sound Pressure Levels at All Receivers for Construction Activities and Additional Traffic
Receiver Number
Location
Existing Condition (dBA)
Tree Removal/ Grubbing
(dBA)
Excavation Phase 1 (dBA)
Excavation
Phase 2 (dBA)
Retaining Wall Phase (dBA)
Excavation Drainage Phase (dBA)
Construction Phase (dBA)
R1
5106 West Mill Road
44
4758
57
57
5957
59
57
57
R2
800 North Drive
44
7274
8657
8789
8084
8084
7984
R3
805 North Drive
44
6972
8454
82
7377
7377
7377
R4
2010 West Mill Road
44
5463
6766
69
5565
5565
5565
R5
4105 West Mill Road
5049
5461
6766
69
5465
5465
5465
R6
200 East Mill Road
44
5260
6563
7069
5768
5768
5768
R7
750 East Mill Road
44
5459
68
7069
6367
6367
6267
R8
3329 Grand Ave
44
5964
74
78
6777
6777
6777
R9
3001 West Mill Road
4746
5157
6463
64
5058
5058
5058
R10
1525 West Mill Road
6050
6056
6169
6269
6064
6064
6064
R11
14
80 West Mill Road
6352
6355
6372
6372
6366
6366
6366
R12
1065 West Mill Road
6352
6356
6472
6472
6366
6366
6366
R13
155 Breakwater Road
6352
6354
6372
6372
6366
6366
6366
R14
2100 Cox Neck Road
6557
6555
6668
6668
6668
6668
6668
R15
2695 Cox Neck Road
6655
6656
6665
6665
6668
6668
6668
R16
1475 Cox Neck Road
6454
6455
64
64
6462
6462
6462
R17
1020 Cox Neck Road
6256
6259
62
62
62
62
62
R18
55 Middle Road
6360
63
63
63
6362
6362
6362
SECTION
3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS (Continued):
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS (Continued):
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
While
receivers near the Project Site are impacted by the construction noise, noise impacts due to construction are specifically exempt from the Noise Code. As can be seen from the figures
and Tables 1516 and 1617, there is a significant increase at receivers R1-R16 for at least one phase of construction for either the peak hour or 8-hour Leq. For Receivers R1-R9.R8, the
increases are predominantly due to sound created at the Project Site from construction activities. These increases would have a significant and adverse impact as defined by the NYSDEC
criteria to the nearby residences during the period of construction and particularly, with the highest levels during excavation, butExcavation Phase 2. However, this noise would be limited
to during daytime hours, and would be temporary, since these increases are only during construction. It should alsoFor receivers R9-R18, any increase in the sound levels would be dependent
on additional traffic, which is highest during the excavation phases. Sound levels are higher than recommended by the NYSDOT at receivers R10-R14 during the excavation phases, and during
all construction at receivers R14 and R15. However, as noted that thein Section 3.6.3, the NYSDOT criteria are not standards, and these increases are temporary only during construction.
All results presented are exterior sound levels. This impact is reduced to the interior of a nearby residence. As presented in the NYSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual, Chapter 3.1
published in August 1998, it is expected that a light frame building type with ordinary sash windows is expected to reduce sound levels by 20 dB. Should a storm window be used, this
reduction is expected to increase to 25 dB. This 20-25 dB decrease in sound levels is expected to reduce the impact to the interior of residences and would minimize impact to quality
of life while indoors. During the late fall/winter/early spring it is expected that most nearby residencesresidents will be primarily indoors during construction at those times, reducing
the impact on quality of life. Once the ground has been excavated, the impact is significantly reduced, except for R2 and R3 since the excavated area acts like an acoustic barrier. Due
to the elevation and line of sight for R2 and R3, this benefit is not receivedIf the reduction of 20 dB is applied to the traffic data for receivers R10-R14, which exceed the outdoor
recommendations from the NYSDOT, the interior recommendations
in Category E of Table 2 for interior noise levels are met and would be within the NYSDOT recommended criteria for those receivers.
Build Condition Impacts
While construction noise would
be temporary, build conditionBuild Condition impacts are typically most critical under SEQRA review. The proposed project will be a storage facility. While the buildings will be largely
inactive for a significant amount of the year, there will be times when boats are loaded into and out of the building. Due to the grading which will occur at the site, the retaining
walls act as a sound barrier, largely containing the noise within the graded area. Figures 27-2930-32 show the graphic presentation of the peak sound levels predicted at the Project
Site using the noise sources presented previously in Table 1415, as well as peak future traffic generation along Cox Neck Road and West Mill Road. Table 1718 presents the overall sound
pressure levels at each location.
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS (Continued):
Build Condition Impacts (Continued)
Table 1718: Sound Pressure Levels at All Receivers
in the Build Condition
Receiver Number
Location
Existing Condition (dBA)
Build Condition (dBA)
R1
5106 West Mill Road
44
44
R2
800 North Drive
44
48
R3
805 North Drive
44
4544
R4
2010 West Mill Road
44
44
R5
4105 West Mill Road
5049
50
R6
200 East Mill Road
44
4544
R7
750 East Mill Road
44
44
R8
3329 Grand Ave
44
4544
R9
3001
West Mill Road
4746
4746
R10
1525 West Mill Road
6050
6050
R11
1480 West Mill Road
6352
6352
R12
1065 West Mill Road
6352
6352
R13
155 Breakwater Road
6352
6352
R14
2100 Cox Neck Road
6557
6557
R15
2695 Cox Neck Road
6655
6655
R16
1475 Cox Neck Road
6454
6454
R17
1020 Cox Neck Road
6256
6256
R18
55 Middle Road
6360
6360
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS (Continued):
Build Condition (Continued)
Figure 27:30: Peak Sound Levels in the Build Condition at the
Project Site
/
/
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS (Continued):
Build Condition (Continued)
Figure 2831: Peak Sound Levels in the Build Condition at West Mill Road and Cox Neck Road
/
/
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS (Continued):
Build Condition (Continued)
Figure 2932: Peak Hour Sound Levels in the Build Condition at Cox Neck Road
/
/
As seen above, no receiving locations exceed 6 dBA above the Existing Condition sound levels. This is categorized as no impact as classified by the NYSDEC evaluation criteria categorizes
this as no impact and would not be expected to impact quality of life for any nearby residence. The greatest predicted increase would be 4 dBA at the Residence at Receiver R2. Furthermore,
sound levels predicted also meet the conditions of the Noise Code at all receiving locations. The results of the analysis show that in the Build Condition that mitigation measures would
not be required.
SECTION 3.6.7 – PROPOSED MITIGATION:
As discussed previously, based on the results, there is no mitigation needed for the Build Condition scenario based on the results of the analysis. For the construction phases, a few
mitigation measures have been integrated into the requirements for any contractor for the project. These requirements include the following measures:
Construction activities would be
limited to Monday to Saturday from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM in accordance with the Noise Code. No work would be completed on Federal or State holidays, or on Sundays.
In accordance with the
Noise Code. Excavation phases would be limited from Monday to Friday from 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM. No work would be completed on Federal or State holidays, or on Sundays.
During construction
phases, work on Saturdays and after 5:00 PM Monday to Friday will only include vehicle and machinery maintenance and planning. No work would be completed on Federal or State holidays,
or on Sundays.
Any vehicle which requires the use of a back-up alarm will use a white noise back-up alarm instead of a single tone beep.
All trucks and drivers will be instructed to
disengage all Jake Brake mechanisms once turning on to Cox Neck Rod from County Route 48.
All dump trucks utilized will be Tier 4 certified by EPA standards.
These mitigation measures
are critical to minimizing impact to nearby neighbors during the construction phases. It is well documented that tonal sounds are significantly more disturbing than sounds with a more
distributed sound spectrum across all frequencies. While both the beeping backup alarm and tonal beep alarm are both OSHA compliant and have similar overall sound levels, the white noise
alarm distributes the sound level over a wider range of frequencies so that the sound is less disturbing to nearby residents. Like the backup alarm, the Jake Brake mechanism on trucks
causes a significant high frequency disturbance while trucks are moving through residential areas. In communication with Benimax Trucking, the company used to coordinate the in-situ
readings of the Tier 4 dump trucks, it is understood that it is standard practice to disengage all Jake Brake mechanisms when driving through residential areas and is a requirement on
nearly every project which the company takes on. Finally, while there is no standardized data available for sound levels on Tier 4 truck sound levels, the field testing and calculations
in Section 3.6.5 show that a significant reduction in sound levels is predicted compared to standardized data from the FTA Guidelines.
SECTION 3.6.78 – REVIEW OF ALTERNATE TRUCK ROUTE:
An alternate truck route has been proposed as mitigation of truck traffic. The alternate plan involves trucks during the excavation
phases using Cox Neck Road to travel to the site, and then using Bergen Avenue access Sound Avenue when leaving the site. This alternate plan reduces the amount of truck traffic on Cox
Neck Road south of the intersection between Cox Neck Road and Bergen Avenue. The revised routing is not proposed for additional traffic due to vehicle bringing in workers which would
arrive at the beginning of the day and leave at the end of the day. As sources on Bergen Avenue were not considered in the Potential Impacts Analysis, additional acoustic data was collected
along Bergen Avenue to quantify the existing ambient sound levels on August 2nd, 2022. Figure 33 below shows the location of the readings collected, noted as Location 5 and Table 19
provides the results of the acoustic readings collected. The afternoon L90 was used in the analysis as the ambient sound level
Figure 33: Location 5 for Data Collection at Bergen Avenue
/
Table
19: Results of Twenty Minute Acoustic Readings at Bergen Avenue
Measurement Location
Time Period
LAeq (dBA)
LASmax (dBA)
L10 (dBA)
L50 (dBA)
L90 (dBA)
LASmin (dBA)
Location
5
7:39am – 7:59am
59
78
56
46
43
40
5:39pm – 5:59pm
65
87
54
42
41
40
SECTION 3.6.8 – REVIEW OF ALTERNATE TRUCK ROUTE (Continued):
To evaluate traffic, additional traffic distributions were needed to evaluate traffic down Bergen Avenue for both the Existing
Conditions were needed. Reference data was provided from the traffic consultant and can be found from 8 AM – 4PM in Section 3.6.11. For additional trips, the additional trip generation
data for Excavation Phases 1 and 2 were used as they represent the highest truck traffic during construction. However, the additional trip generation differs from that found in Tables
20 and 21 for peak hour and non-peak hour trip generation on Cox Neck Road and Bergen Avenue since trucks are not traveling twice down this road after leaving the Project Site and will
instead be returning to Sound Avenue via Bergen Avenue.
Table 20: Peak Hour Additional Trip Generation for Alternate Excavation Phase
Vehicle Class
Cox Neck Lane
Bergen Avenue
Automobiles
13
13
Medium Trucks
0
0
Heavy Trucks
5
5
Buses
0
0
Motorcycles
0
0
Table 21: Non-Peak Hour Additional Trip Generation for Alternate Excavation Phase
Vehicle Class
Cox
Neck Lane
Bergen Avenue
Automobiles
0
0
Medium Trucks
0
0
Heavy Trucks
5
5
Buses
0
0
Motorcycles
0
0
Using the additional trip generation data, the TNM
analyses in SoundPlan were completed for R15 – R18 for receivers on Cox Neck Road, and then for new receivers R19 – R24 for new receivers which were inserted into the model for Bergen
Avenue. Using the results, the sound levels at R15 – R18 for the alternate truck plan were compared to the sound levels during Excavation Phase 1 to show the reduction in sound level.
Table 22 shows the existing and predicted excavation phase peak hour Leq sound levels, while Table 23 shows the existing and predicted excavation phase 8-hour Leq sound levels at each
location. Figures 34 and 35 show the graphic representations of the existing peak hour and 8-hour sound levels, respectively. Figures 36 and 37 show the graphic representation of the
excavation phase peak hour and 8-hour Leq sound levels, respectively. As seen in the figures, there is a 1-2 dBA reduction in both peak hour and 8-hour sound levels, showing an improvement
in sound levels at the locations along Cox Neck Road. Although there would now be an impact to receivers along Bergen Avenue, all predicted sound levels are lower than the NYSDOTs suggested
criteria of 67 dBA at the receivers considered in the alternate plan.
SECTION 3.6.8 – REVIEW OF ALTERNATE TRUCK ROUTE (Continued):
Table 22: Peak Hour Sound Levels with the Alternate Excavation Truck Route
Receiver Number
Location
Existing Conditions
(dBA)
Alternate Excavation (dBA)
Proposed Excavation
R15
2695 Cox Neck Road
55
65
73
R16
1475 Cox Neck Road
55
62
70
R17
1020 Cox Neck Road
55
62
62
R18
55
Middle Road
60
63
63
R19
5350 Bergen Avenue
51
62
44
R20
4680 Bergen Avenue
48
52
44
R21
4300 Bergen Avenue
50
54
46
R22
3049 Bergen Avenue
48
49
46
R23
1525
Bergen Avenue
52
53
46
R24
1405 Bergen Avenue
52
53
46
Table 23: Eight Hour Sound Levels with the Alternate Excavation Truck Route
Receiver Number
Location
Existing Conditions
(dBA)
Alternate Excavation (dBA)
Proposed Excavation
R15
2695 Cox Neck Road
55
65
73
R16
1475 Cox Neck Road
55
62
70
R17
1020 Cox Neck Road
55
62
62
R18
55
Middle Road
60
63
63
R19
5350 Bergen Avenue
51
62
44
R20
4680 Bergen Avenue
48
52
44
R21
4300 Bergen Avenue
50
54
46
R22
3049 Bergen Avenue
48
49
46
R23
1525
Bergen Avenue
52
53
46
R24
1405 Bergen Avenue
52
53
46
SECTION 3.6.8 – REVIEW OF ALTERNATE TRUCK ROUTE (Continued):
Figure 34: Existing Peak Hour Sound Levels at Bergen Avenue and Cox Neck Road
/
SECTION 3.6.8 – REVIEW OF ALTERNATE TRUCK ROUTE (Continued):
Figure 35: Existing Eight Hour Sound Levels at Bergen Avenue and Cox Neck Road
/
SECTION 3.6.8 – REVIEW OF ALTERNATE TRUCK ROUTE (Continued):
Figure 36: Alternate Truck Route Eight Hour Sound Levels at Bergen Avenue and Cox Neck Road
/
SECTION 3.6.8 – REVIEW OF ALTERNATE TRUCK ROUTE (Continued):
Figure 37: Alternate Truck Route Peak Hour Sound Levels at Bergen Avenue and Cox Neck Road
/
SECTION 3.6.9 – REVIEW OF ALTERNATE SITE PLAN:
Construction Noise Impacts
To evaluate the difference in construction noise impacts in the proposed planProposed Plan compared to the
Alternate Site Plan, the Excavation Drainage phase was selected. This phase is anticipated to have the highest sound levels created once the excavation is complete and the two plans
would be sufficiently different to compare. The same equipment utilizations, sound levels, and traffic generation were used for evaluation, with the only changes made being the location
and grading to match the Alternate Site Plan. Figures 3038 and 3139 present the graphic representation of the data during construction for the peak hour sound level generation and 8-hour
Leq sound levels predicted at the Project Site. Figures 32-3540-43 show the predicted 8-hour Leq and peak hour sound levels at West Mill Road and Cox Neck Road. Tables 1824 and 1925
present the predicted sound levels for all receiving locations for the 8-hour Leq and peak hour Leq, respectively. Tables 1824 and 1925 also present the difference in predicted sound
pressure levels for a direct comparison to the proposed plan.Proposed Plan. Results show that there would be a significantan overall increase in sound level because the grade would no
longer actfunction as an acoustic barrier and would lose the transmission loss provided by the retaining wall. This is most evident at R1R4, where increases range from 10-164-5 dBA,
as well as R2-R7 as well as R9,additional receivers which show increases ranging from a 1-3-10 dBA. These changes are significant and will cause a greater disturbance to increase. It
should be noted, that R6 shows a wider range of areas2 dBA reduction in expected sound level with the alternate plan. However, all other receptors show either no difference, or an increase
in sound levels during the construction. when the Alternate Site Plan is implemented.
SECTION 3.6.79 – REVIEW OF ALTERNATE SITE PLAN (Continued):
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
Figure 30: Peak38: Eight Hour Leq Sound Levels from the Excavation Drainage Phase
at the Project Site with the Alternate Site Plan
/
/
SECTION 3.6.79 – REVIEW OF ALTERNATE SITE PLAN (Continued):
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
Figure 3139: Peak Hour Leq Sound Levels from the Excavation Drainage Phase
at the Project Site with the Alternate Site Plan
/
/
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS:9 – REVIEW OF ALTERNATE SITE PLAN (Continued):
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
Figure 3240: Eight Hour Leq Sound Levels from
the Excavation Drainage Phase at West Mill Road and Cox Neck Road with the Alternate Site Plan
/
/
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS:
Construction Noise Impacts9 – REVIEW OF ALTERNATE SITE PLAN (Continued)):
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
Figure 3341: Peak Hour
Sound Levels from the Excavation Drainage Phase at West Mill Road and Cox Neck Road with the Alternate Site Plan
/
/
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS:
Construction Noise Impacts9 – REVIEW OF ALTERNATE SITE PLAN (Continued)):
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
Figure 3442: Eight Hour
Sound Levels from the Excavation Drainage Phase at Cox Neck Road with the Alternate Site Plan
/
/
SECTION 3.6.6 – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS:9 – REVIEW OF ALTERNATE SITE PLAN (Continued):
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
Figure 3543:
Peak Hour Sound Levels from the Excavation Drainage Phase at Cox Neck Road with the Alternate Site Plan
/
/
SECTION 3.6.89 – REVIEW OF ALTERNATE SITE PLAN (Continued):
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
Table 1824: 8-Hour Sound Pressure Levels at
All Receivers for Construction Activities and Additional Traffic with the Alternate Site Plan and Difference in Sound Pressure Level compared to the Proposed Plan
Receiver Number
Location
Existing
Condition (dBA)
Proposed Plan Construction (dBA)
Alternate Plan Construction (dBA)
Difference (dBA)
R1
5106 West Mill Road
44
5150
6851
161
R2
800 North Drive
44
7176
7578
41
R3
805 North Drive
44
6469
6971
52
R4
2010 West Mill Road
4544
4957
5961
104
R5
4105 West Mill Road
50
5157
5860
73
R6
200 East Mill Road
4544
5060
5958
9-2
R7
750
East Mill Road
4544
5459
59
40
R8
3329 Grand Ave
44
5968
6169
20
R9
3001 West Mill Road
4746
4852
5554
72
R10
1525 West Mill Road
6150
6162
6162
0
R11
1480
West Mill Road
6352
6364
6466
02
R12
1065 West Mill Road
6352
64
6466
02
R13
155 Breakwater Road
6352
6364
6366
02
R14
2100 Cox Neck Road
6657
66
66
0
R15
2695
Cox Neck Road
6655
66
66
0
R16
1475 Cox Neck Road
6454
6465
6465
0
R17
1020 Cox Neck Road
6256
6261
6261
0
R18
55 Middle Road
6660
6662
6662
0
SECTION 3.6.89 – REVIEW OF ALTERNATE SITE PLAN (Continued):
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
Construction Noise Impacts (Continued)
Table 1925: Peak Hour Sound Pressure Levels
at All Receivers for Construction Activities and Additional Traffic with the Alternate Site Plan and Difference in Sound Pressure Level compared to the
Proposed Plan
Receiver Number
Location
Exist
ing Condition (dBA)
Proposed Plan Construction (dBA)
Alternate Plan Construction (dBA)
Difference (dBA)
R1
5106 West Mill Road
44
5957
7158
122
R2
800 North Drive
44
8084
8487
52
R3
805 North Drive
44
7377
7680
3
R4
2010 West Mill Road
44
5565
6370
85
R5
4105 West Mill Road
5049
5465
6368
93
R6
200 East Mill Road
44
5768
6366
6-2
R7
750
East Mill Road
44
6367
6468
10
R8
3329 Grand Ave
44
6777
6978
1
R9
3001 West Mill Road
4746
5058
5961
93
R10
1525 West Mill Road
6050
6064
6264
10
R11
1480
West Mill Road
6352
6366
6367
1
R12
1065 West Mill Road
6352
6366
6368
01
R13
155 Breakwater Road
6352
6366
6368
02
R14
2100 Cox Neck Road
6557
6668
6668
0
R15
2695
Cox Neck Road
6655
6668
6668
0
R16
1475 Cox Neck Road
6454
6466
6466
0
R17
1020 Cox Neck Road
6256
62
62
0
R18
55 Middle Road
6360
6362
6362
0
SECTION 3.6.89 – REVIEW OF ALTERNATE SITE PLAN (Continued):
Build Condition Impacts
As discussed previously, the Build Condition for the
proposed planProposed Plan has no impact predicted on the nearby receivers. The most considerable difference between the proposed planProposed Plan and the Alternate Site Plan is the
ramp which will need to be used to access the storage buildings. Vehicles using this ramp will need to accelerate more significantly to access the area, leading to increased sound generation.
Figures 36-3844-46 presents the graphic representation of the data, while Table 2026 presents the predicted sound levels at all receivers. The Build Condition would still comply with
the Noise Code and would have the same anticipated sound level except at R2 where the increase due to the Alternate Site Plan is only 1 dBA, which is not perceivable.
Figure 36:44:
Peak Hour Sound Levels in the Build Condition at the Project Site with the Alternate Site Plan
/
/
SECTION 3.6.8 – REVIEW OF ALTERNATE SITE PLAN (Continued):
Build Condition Impacts (Continued)
Figure 37: Peak Sound Levels in the Build Condition at West Mill Road and Cox Neck
Road with the Alternate Site Plan
/
9
SECTION 3.6.8 – REVIEW OF ALTERNATE SITE PLAN (Continued):
Build Condition (Continued)
Figure 38: Peak Hour Sound Levels in the Build Condition at Cox Neck Road with the Alternate
Site Plan
/
SECTION 3.6.8 – REVIEW OF ALTERNATE SITE PLAN (Continued):
Build Condition Impacts (Continued)
Figure 45: Peak Sound Levels in the Build Condition at West Mill Road and Cox Neck Road
with the Alternate Site Plan
/
SECTION 3.6.9 – REVIEW OF ALTERNATE SITE PLAN (Continued):
Build Condition (Continued)
Figure 46: Peak Hour Sound Levels in the Build Condition at Cox Neck Road with the Alternate
Site Plan
/
SECTION 3.6.9 – REVIEW OF ALTERNATE SITE PLAN (Continued):
Build Condition Impacts (Continued)
Table 2026: Sound Pressure Levels at All Receivers for the Build Condition with the Alternate
Site Plan and Difference in Sound Pressure Level compared to the Proposed Plan
Description
Receiver Number
Location
Existing Condition (dBA)
Proposed Plan Construction (dBA)
Alternate
Plan Construction (dBA)
Excavation Phase 2Difference in Sound Level (dBA)
R1
5106 West Mill Road
44
44
44
0
R2
800 North Drive
44
48
49
1
R3
805 North Drive
46
45
45
0
R4
2010 West Mill Road
47
44
44
0
R5
4105 West Mill Road
51
50
50
0
R6
200 East Mill Road
44
45
45
0
R7
750 East Mill Road
44
44
44
0
R8
3329 Grand Ave
44
45
45
0
R9
3001 West Mill Road
47
47
47
0
R10
1525 West Mill Road
60
60
60
0
R11
1480 West Mill Road
63
63
63
0
R12
1065 West Mill Road
63
63
63
0
R13
155 Breakwater
Road
63
63
63
0
R14
2100 Cox Neck Road
65
65
65
0
R15
2695 Cox Neck Road
66
66
66
0
R16
1475 Cox Neck Road
64
64
64
0
R17
1020 Cox Neck Road
62
62
62
0
R18
55
Middle Road
63
63
63
0
SECTION 3.6.910 – REFERENCE DATA USED FOR ANALYSIS:
Table 2127: Sound Pressure/Power Levels for Sources Evaluated
Sound PressurePower Level (dB) at Identified Frequency (Hz)
Source
Description
Label
63
125
250
500
1000
2000
4000
8000
Sound Power Level (dBA)
Calculated Sound Pressure Level at 50' (dBA)
Payloader
S1
116
112
109
112
104
98
96
89
111
80
Shouting
S2
0
40
56
69
71
67
61
49
74
42
Excavator
S3
110
106
110
109
109
106
100
92
113
81
Water/Fuel Truck
S4
107
112
109
112
109
108
103
96
115
83
Truck
Accelerating
S5
108
108
106
109
108
108
108
109
115
84
Dozer
S6
111
112
108
105
107
104
114
103
116
85
Tub Grinder
S7
107
107
107
107
107
107
107
107
114
8290
Woodchipper
S8
96139
96129
96121
96116
96113
96112
96112
96114
103122
7190
Feller Buncher
S9
107139
107129
107121
107116
107113
107112
107112
107114
114122
82
Skid
Steer
S10
113
111
104
103
103
100
100
89
108
76
Mini Excavator
S11
102
94
92
92
91
88
87
78
96
64
Telescopic Forklift
S12
108
102
98
96
96
92
88
85
100
68
Sc
issor Lift
S13
108
105
102
102
102
99
93
91
106
5974
Raised Voices
S14
0
53
59
64
59
54
49
43
64
1132
Boat Washing
S15
69
60
60
67
69
66
66
66
74
3442
Measur
ed Air Brake Release
S16
91
83
80
83
87
82
76
70
89
3858
Measured Dump Truck Idling with White Noise Backup Alarm
S17
95
91
82
85
91
84
81
69
93
3762
Measured Dump Truck Idling with White Noise Backup Alarm
S17
95
91
82
85
91
84
81
69
93
3762
SECTION 3.6.1011 – EXISTING TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTIONS UTILIZED FOR ANALYSES:
Table
28: Existing Traffic Distribution at West Mill Road
Hour
Automobiles
Medium Trucks
Heavy Trucks
Buses
Motorcycles
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
4
1
1
0
0
0
5
1
2
0
0
0
6
6
5
0
1
0
7
14
12
0
0
0
8
17
12
0
0
0
9
18
9
0
0
0
10
21
13
0
0
0
11
25
13
0
0
1
12
28
13
0
0
0
13
26
16
1
1
1
14
25
14
0
0
0
15
19
11
0
0
0
16
35
13
0
0
0
17
25
9
0
0
0
18
16
5
0
0
0
19
16
5
0
0
0
20
10
2
0
0
0
21
8
1
0
0
0
2
2
7
1
0
0
0
23
3
0
0
0
0
SECTION 3.6.11 – EXISTING TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTIONS UTILIZED FOR ANALYSES:
Table 29: Existing Traffic Distribution at Cox Neck Road
Hour
Automobiles
Medium Trucks
Heavy Trucks
Buses
Motorcycles
0
11
3
0
0
0
1
6
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
3
4
1
0
0
0
4
5
3
0
0
0
5
18
8
0
1
0
6
31
22
0
2
0
7
73
56
1
1
0
8
93
60
2
0
1
9
108
57
1
1
0
10
114
59
1
0
1
11
140
64
1
0
2
12
153
61
1
2
0
13
134
58
2
0
1
14
132
60
1
0
1
15
136
60
1
0
0
16
140
64
1
0
0
17
155
51
0
0
1
18
134
50
0
0
1
19
107
39
0
0
0
20
98
23
0
0
0
21
73
15
0
0
0
22
46
9
0
0
0
23
20
3
0
0
0
SECTION 3.6.11 – EXISTING TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTIONS UTILIZED FOR ANALYSES:
Table 30: Existing Traffic Distribution at Sound Avenue
Hour
Automobiles
Medium Trucks
Heavy Trucks
Buses
Motorcycles
0
44
10
0
0
0
1
19
5
0
0
0
2
10
3
0
0
0
3
13
5
0
1
0
4
35
19
0
1
0
5
147
75
0
4
0
6
407
216
1
8
0
7
659
309
2
7
1
8
735
292
3
12
1
9
756
255
4
13
2
10
777
265
1
12
1
11
867
238
2
12
2
12
985
260
3
11
2
13
916
241
1
10
1
14
1006
278
2
11
2
15
1085
335
2
11
1
16
1308
342
1
9
1
17
1086
264
0
3
1
18
844
197
0
2
1
19
582
124
0
1
0
20
500
93
0
0
0
21
337
62
0
1
0
22
244
34
0
1
0
23
122
22
0
0
0
SECTION 3.6.11 – EXISTING TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTIONS UTILIZED FOR ANALYSES:
Table 31: Existing Traffic Distribution at Sound Avenue
Hour
Automobiles
Medium Trucks
Heavy Trucks
Buses
Motorcycles
0
44
10
0
0
0
1
19
5
0
0
0
2
10
3
0
0
0
3
13
5
0
1
0
4
35
19
0
1
0
5
147
75
0
4
0
6
407
216
1
8
0
7
659
309
2
7
1
8
735
292
3
12
1
9
756
255
4
13
2
10
777
265
1
12
1
11
867
238
2
12
2
12
985
260
3
11
2
13
916
241
1
10
1
14
1006
278
2
11
2
15
1085
335
2
11
1
16
1308
342
1
9
1
17
1086
264
0
3
1
18
844
197
0
2
1
19
582
124
0
1
0
20
500
93
0
0
0
21
337
62
0
1
0
22
244
34
0
1
0
23
122
22
0
0
0
SECTION 3.6.12 – DAILY SUMMARY GRAPHS FROM NOISE MONITORING:
Figure 3947: Noise Monitoring Data from Wednesday 4/14/21 at Location 1
/
Figure 4048: Noise Monitoring Data from Thursday
4/15/21 at Location 1
/
SECTION 3.6.1012 – DAILY SUMMARY GRAPHS FROM NOISE MONITORING (Continued):
Figure 4149: Noise Monitoring Data from Friday 4/16/21 at Location 1
/
Figure 4250: Noise Monitoring Data
from Saturday 4/17/21 at Location 1
/
SECTION 3.6.1012 – DAILY SUMMARY GRAPHS FROM NOISE MONITORING (Continued):
Figure 4351: Noise Monitoring Data from Sunday 4/18/21 at Location 1
/
Figure 4452: Noise Monitoring Data
from Monday 4/19/21 at Location 1
/
SECTION 3.6.1012 – DAILY SUMMARY GRAPHS FROM NOISE MONITORING (Continued):
Figure 4553: Noise Monitoring Data from Thursday 4/20/21 at Location 1
/
Figure 4654: Noise Monitoring Data
from Wednesday 4/21/21 at Location 1
/
SECTION 3.6.1012 – DAILY SUMMARY GRAPHS FROM NOISE MONITORING (Continued):
Figure 4755: Noise Monitoring Data from Thursday 4/22/21 at Location 1
/
Figure 4856: Noise Monitoring Data
from Friday 4/23/21 at Location 1
/
SECTION 3.6.1012 – DAILY SUMMARY GRAPHS FROM NOISE MONITORING (Continued):
Figure 4957: Noise Monitoring Data from Saturday 4/24/21 at Location 1
/
Figure 5058: Noise Monitoring Data
from Sunday 4/25/21 at Location 1
/
SECTION 3.6.1012 – DAILY SUMMARY GRAPHS FROM NOISE MONITORING (Continued):
Figure 5159: Noise Monitoring Data from Monday 4/26/21 at Location 1
/
Figure 5260: Noise Monitoring Data
from Tuesday 4/27/21 at Location 1
/
SECTION 3.6.1012 – DAILY SUMMARY GRAPHS FROM NOISE MONITORING (Continued):
Figure 5361: Noise Monitoring Data from Wednesday 4/28/21 at Location 1
/
Figure 5462: Noise Monitoring Data
from Wednesday 4/28/21 at Location 2
/
SECTION 3.6.1012 – DAILY SUMMARY GRAPHS FROM NOISE MONITORING (Continued):
Figure 5563: Noise Monitoring Data from Thursday 4/29/21 at Location 2
/
Figure 5664: Noise Monitoring Data
from Friday 4/30/21 at Location 2
/
SECTION 3.6.1012 – DAILY SUMMARY GRAPHS FROM NOISE MONITORING (Continued):
Figure 5765: Noise Monitoring Data from Saturday 5/1/21 at Location 2
/
Figure 5866: Noise Monitoring Data
from Sunday 5/2/21 at Location 2
/
SECTION 3.6.1012 – DAILY SUMMARY GRAPHS FROM NOISE MONITORING (Continued):
Figure 5967: Noise Monitoring Data from Monday 5/3/21 at Location 2
/
Figure 6068: Noise Monitoring Data
from Thursday 5/13/21 at Location 2
/
SECTION 3.6.1012 – DAILY SUMMARY GRAPHS FROM NOISE MONITORING (Continued):
Figure 6169: Noise Monitoring Data from Friday 5/14/21 at Location 2
/
Figure 6270: Noise Monitoring Data
from Saturday 5/15/21 at Location 2
/
SECTION 3.6.1012 – DAILY SUMMARY GRAPHS FROM NOISE MONITORING (Continued):
Figure 6371: Noise Monitoring Data from Sunday 5/16/21 at Location 2
/
Figure 6472: Noise Monitoring Data
from Monday 5/17/21 at Location 2
/
SECTION 3.6.1012 – DAILY SUMMARY GRAPHS FROM NOISE MONITORING (Continued):
Figure 6573: Noise Monitoring Data from Tuesday 5/18/21 at Location 2
/
Figure 6674: Noise Monitoring Data
from Wednesday 5/19/21 at Location 2
/
SECTION 3.6.1012 – DAILY SUMMARY GRAPHS FROM NOISE MONITORING (Continued):
Figure 6775: Noise Monitoring Data from Thursday 5/20/21 at Location 2
/
Figure 6876: Noise Monitoring Data
from Friday 5/21/21 at Location 2
/
SECTION 3.6.1012 – DAILY SUMMARY GRAPHS FROM NOISE MONITORING (Continued):
Figure 6977: Noise Monitoring Data from Saturday 5/22/21 at Location 2
/
Figure 7078: Noise Monitoring Data
from Sunday 5/23/21 at Location 2
/