Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNoise Notes rev8b FINAL - jkPage | Noise - 1 Rev8b NOISE IMPACTS The DEIS scope calls for the Applicant to prepare a “comprehensive noise study [that includes] existing ambient noise levels, noise produced by all phases of the project, the sources of the noise, and including hours, duration, decibel level both at the source and at the receptor sites (e.g., the outdoor spaces of neighbors' properties such as decks or back yards), and impact on tranquility for residents within hearing range, as well as wildlife.1 (DEIS Scope p.17-1). In response to this requirement, the original (December 2021) DEIS included text based on analyses conducted by SoundSense and included as an attached Acoustic Report (DEIS Appendix R). The Planning Board and its consultant subsequently found that the DEIS had not adequately addressed noise issues. The revised DEIS and accompanying Acoustic Report claim to have addressed the inadequacies in the original DEIS. In doing so both documents raise even more concerns. Fifteen of the 18 tables in the original version of the Acoustic Report which contain data on sound levels have been changed in the revised Acoustic Report. In a majority of these tables, the revisions now show noise levels greater than those reported in the version of the report originally submitted to the Planning Board. No explanation for these changes is provided. This is obviously of concern, and should cause any reasonable person to question whether the new data can be relied upon or used to evaluate the Project’s noise impacts. Collection of Ambient Noise Data Noise monitoring locations selected to establish ambient conditions appear to have been poorly chosen, and the time of year during which data was collected was inappropriate. To assess noise impacts related to on-site construction activities, the acoustic study selected monitoring locations that do not appear to be appropriate for establishing ambient conditions. Noise Monitoring Locations 1 and 2 (as shown on Appendix R Figure 1) are located immediately west of existing marina Buildings 5 and 6. Both locations appear have been situated at or near the base of the steep slope behind these buildings, but it is impossible to be certain because precise location coordinates are not provided. These locations were used to collect data on ambient conditions “at the Project Site.” While the chosen locations collected data on ambient conditions at locations in close proximity to where proposed Storage Buildings No.1 and No.2 will be located, they were not situated so as to measure off- site ambient noise levels. The Construction Excavation Area is at elevations much higher than Noise 1 The DEIS scope went into more detail about the information to be included in the DEIS. The scope also calls for a “[discussion of] the duration of each type of noise expected. Include an evaluation of cumulative noise generation where multiple machines/activities might be running simultaneously. Include protocols for monitoring of the noise level during construction and during operations and include how noise will be attenuated or mitigated.” Page | Noise - 2 Rev8b Monitoring Location 2 (and possibly Noise Monitoring Location 1, as well). In addition, it is likely, given noise at the existing facility, it is that noise, rather than ambient noise where construction is proposed, that is being measured. While this data can be used to predict and assess post-construction changes in noise, they cannot be used to assess impacts associated with Project construction. Significantly, no noise monitoring locations were situated within a) the Construction Excavation Area, where most construction excavation noise will originate, b) in the vicinity of any of the residences closest to the Construction Excavation Area, c) within, or along the shared property line with, the Mill Road Preserve, or d) “the outdoor spaces of neighbors' properties such as decks or back yards” as specifically called for in the DEIS scope. The failure to collect information on existing conditions at these locations is a major failing. Instead, to establish existing conditions “[A]round [the] Project Site, the acoustic study collected data at three locations located along one of the Project’s truck routes. This data was clearly collected to assist in assessing noise impacts associated with on-road traffic, and not noise generated by on-site construction. According to the DEIS, the “Phase 1 Excavation Phase would begin in mid-December and carry through May. Much of the activity would occur during the winter and spring months . . .” (p.214), including “the entire winter season” (p.221). This means that the site preparation phase, and most of the excavation phases of the Project, during which significant construction noise will be generated, will take place over the winter months. This corresponds to the defoliate season, when deciduous trees on the Project site and in immediately surrounding areas, including near nearby residences and the Mill Road Preserve, will have lost their leaves, significantly reducing the degree to which trees will provide a noise buffer between the sources of construction noise and nearby receptors. By summer, when construction of the retaining wall and boat storage structures will begin, all trees will have been removed from the site. “Dense vegetation can reduce noise levels by as much as 5 dB for every 100 feet of vegetation, up to a maximum reduction of 10 dB over 200 feet” (USDOT 1995).2 In addition, noise generally travels farther in colder temperatures because temperature inversions may cause temporary problems when cooler air is next to the earth allowing for more distant propagation of sound (NYSDEC p. 10)3. In general, surveys of background and ambient noise levels should be conducted over periods of time which are representative of the times and days when the noise source will be operational. This was not done in the case of the acoustic study for the Project. Existing sound level readings used in connection with the noise analysis was derived through noise monitoring performed between April 14, 2021, and May 3, 2021 and May 13 through May 23, 2021.4,5 These existing sound levels serve as the background 2 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1995. 3 Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Program Policy DEP-00-1 (February 2, 2001). 4 20-minute readings were also recorded on April 20, 2021. 5 The acoustic report (Appendix R) includes daily summary graphs from noise monitoring (Figures 47-78) for Noise Monitoring Locations 1 and 2. As discussed, the data is of limited use in evaluating ambient conditions at the Project property line. Page | Noise - 3 Rev8b sound levels for the area to be incorporated into all noise predictions completed for the Project (DEIS p.240, Appendix R p.3). Much of the construction proposed for the Project will occur during the fall and winter, outside the seasonal period during which data was collected. In addition, during the period when noise measurements were conducted, wind in trees may have resulted in the recording of ambient noise levels greater than those that would exist during the proposed construction period. This could have reduced the differential between ambient noise levels and modeled noise levels during the Project construction period. The DEIS and Appendix R identify 18 individual receiver (receptor) locations (R1-R18) for which ambient noise levels, and noise levels during the various phases of Project construction, were modeled/calculated.6 No actual measurement of ambient conditions at these receptors was undertaken. Receptor locations include residences closest to the Project site, and residences along one of the two proposed truck routes.7 This data is presented in Tables 5, 16 and 17 in Appendix R and duplicated in Tables 38, 39 and 40 in the DEIS. These tables are among those that contain significant difference between noise levels in the original and revised versions of both the DEIS and Acoustic Report. The modeled (not actually measured) eight-hour Leq 8 “Existing Condition” dBA, for 13 of the 18 receptor locations have been changed. All of the changes indicate that the sound levels in the revised DEIS and Acoustic Report are now lower (as much as 11 dBA lower). Likewise, peak hour Leq “Existing Condition” at 11 of the 18 receptors have been changed to lower values. No explanation for these significant changes in modeled ambient noise conditions is provided. Construction Equipment Noise Levels According to the Acoustic Report (Appendix R) the construction noise model used to assess noise impacts relied on “data available from the FTA Guidelines 9 to find standardized sound levels for construction equipment. Where information was not available within the FTA Guidelines, the integrated 6 The acoustic analysis relied on the SoundPLAN noise model to establish both ambient and anticipated project-related traffic noise levels. However, modeling results are only as good as the data input into the model. 7 The NYSDEC notes, in its Program Policy DEP-00-1, that one of the factors that determines the level or perceptibility of sound at a given point of reception is distance from the source of sound to the receptor. Neither the DEIS nor the acoustic study provide this information, although it presumably could be derived from graphics in the acoustic report 8 Leq is the average sound pressure level during a period of time. Leq is often described as the average noise level during a noise measurement. Although an 8-hour Leq is frequently used in noise studies because it corresponds to a typical 8-hour work day, workdays at the Project site will vary from 10 hours during the excavation phases to 12 hours during the construction phase. 9 Federal Transportation Authority’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (2018). Page | Noise - 4 Rev8b library within SoundPlan10 was utilized for equipment sound sources” (Acoustic Report p.21). Tables 9- 14 in the Acoustics Report includes overall sound power levels for various equipment types that will be used during each phase of Project construction.11 The equipment types include loaders, excavators, dozers, water/fuel trucks, tub grinders, woodchippers, feller-bunchers, skid steers, mini excavators, telescopic forklifts, and scissor lifts. The only pieces of construction equipment (other than trucks) listed in these tables for which a noise level is provided in the FTA Guidelines are loaders and dozers. Presumably, noise levels for the other type of equipment came from the “library within SoundPlan.” As that “library” is proprietary, there is no way to independently assess the bases for the assigned noise levels. The noise analysis failed to include all equipment types that will be used during Project construction. According to the Acoustic Report the equipment types and utilization factors used model Project- generated construction noise were requested from, and provided by, Red Rock Industries (DEIS Appendix R, Acoustic Report pp. 4, 27). The information from Red Rock Industries is included in DEIS Appendix F. Two additional pieces of noise-generating equipment that will be used to construct the Project are missing. The first of these are vibratory rollers which will be used during construction of the Project’s retaining wall (discussed below). The second are the concrete trucks that will provide the concrete for the retaining wall foundations and the floor slabs for the new storage buildings.12 During its review of the original DEIS the Planning Board questioned some of the reference noise levels for several types of equipment that would be used. “The levels shown in the table in the acoustic report [for tub grinders and wood chippers] are similar to other machinery, which leads us to believe the additional noise from the actual grinding and chipping is not included” (Planning Board May 10, 2022 memo). The Planning Board was correct. The revised DEIS shows that the noise levels associated with these two equipment types have been increased significantly.13 The revised Acoustic Report cites UK Health and Safety Executive’s 2008 Noise Emissions and Exposure from Mobile Woodchippers,14 as the basis for the revised noise levels. That same reference indicates that noise levels generated by woodchippers are also dependent upon the nature of the material being chipped (hardwood vs 10 SoundPlan is a proprietary suite of noise modeling software. Appendix R provides no specific reference to what information in the “integrated library” was used in developing the noise model for the Project. 11 Following general practice, sound power levels are given as the typical noise, 50 feet from the source, in dBA. 12 According to data in the Federal Highway Administration’s Construction Noise Handbook, concrete mixer trucks have an Lmax of 79 dBA at 50 feet. 13 The sound power levels for tub grinders and woodchippers were increased by 8 dBA and 19 dBA, respectively. Calculated sound pressure levels at 50 feet increased by 8 dBA and 19 dBA, respectively. This is another example of the lack of technical rigor associated with the preparation of the DEIS. 14 https://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr618.pdf Page | Noise - 5 Rev8b softwood, trimmed vs untrimmed, and moisture content). The Acoustic Report has not accounted for this. Although the revised analyses in the Acoustic Report have been revised to include the noise generated by woodchippers during operation, this raises the question as to whether the reference noise levels associated with other equipment types reflect noise levels during operation, or at idle. As noted above, the Acoustic Report has relied in its analyses on generic reference noise level data for various equipment types. However, actual noise levels within each equipment type can vary depending upon size, model, engine type, and manufacturer within each equipment type.15 Although the DEIS has identified the specific model of haul truck tractor that will be used during the Project, it has not done so for other equipment types. For that reason, all of construction noise level data in the DEIS and the Acoustic Report derived through modeling should be treated as estimated and approximate, rather than precise, noise levels. Construction Noise Impacts Modeled sound levels for each phase 16 of the Project are included in Tables 16 and 17 in the Acoustic Report, and Tables 39 and 40 in the DEIS. According to both the Acoustic Report (p. 48) and the DEIS (pp. xxiv, 259) a “significant increase” in noise was found at Receptors R1-R16 for at least one phase of construction for either peak hour or 8-hour Leq. For Receivers R1- R8, the increases are predominantly due to sound created at the Project site from construction activities. R1-R3 are the three residences closest to the Project site (5106 West Mill Road, and 800 and 805 North Road). R6-R8 are located on the east side of Mattituck Inlet. R9-R16 are residences along the Project truck route along West Mill and Cox Neck Roads. At the three nearest residences peak hour Leq will increase from an existing level of 44 dBA at all three locations, to a worst case of 89 dBA at 800 North Drive (R2) during Excavation Phase 2—an increase of 45 dBA. During other construction phases noise levels will increase between 13 and 30 dBA. At 5106 West Mill Road (R1) noise levels will increase by 13-14 dBA. At 805 North Drive (R3) levels will increase by 10-38 dBA. At 3329 Grand Avenue (R8), on the east side of Mattituck Inlet, levels will increase from 20-34 dBA. Both the DEIS and the Acoustic Report acknowledge that “[T]hese increases would have a 15 For example, the guaranteed external noise levels for Case brand excavators vary from 101 dBA for model CX210D to 105 dBA for model CX350D. https://www.casece.com/emea/en-eu/resources/downloads. It should also be noted that the Planning Board’s consultant (Nelson Pope Voorhis), in their review of the adequacy of the DEIS, recently prepared a DEIS for a proposed project in Calverton. The noise analysis in that document utilized sound levels associated with specific makes and models of construction equipment. 16 The phases are tree removal/grubbing (sometimes referred to in the DEIS as site preparation), Excavation Phase 1, Excavation Phase 2, Retaining Wall Phase, Excavation Drainage Phase, and Construction Phase. The DEIS generally combines the last three phases in to a single Construction Phase. Page | Noise - 6 Rev8b significant impact as defined by the NYSDEC criteria to the nearby residences during the periods of construction” (DEIS p. 259, Acoustic Report p.48). As noted above, the original December 2021 DEIS and Acoustic Report indicated that the increase in noise levels during construction would be considerably less than is indicated in the revised versions of these documents. However, those documents stated that “These increases would be considered a significant and adverse impact, as defined by the NYSDEC criteria” (emphasis added). The revised documents, which report even greater increases in Projected noise levels no longer describe the increase in noise as “adverse.” 17 The same NYSDEC Program Policy cited by both the DEIS and the Acoustic Report also contains the following table: HUMAN REACTION TO INCREASES IN SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL Increase in Sound Pressure (dB) Human Reaction Under 5 Unnoticed to tolerable 5-10 Intrusive 10-15 Very noticeable 15-20 Objectionable Over 20 Very objectionable to intolerable Based on the information the DEIS and Acoustic Report, at least 11 of the residences corresponding to Receiver/Receptor locations will be subjected to “very objectionable to intolerable” peak increases in noise levels during some Project construction phases, and 8 will be subjected to “very objectionable to intolerable” eight-hour Leq noise levels. Both the DEIS and the Acoustic Report attempt to further qualify and downplay the significance and severity of noise impacts during construction. The Acoustic Report (p.48) states that “these [noise] increases are temporary only during construction” (emphasis added). The SEQRA Handbook is clear that short-term (temporary) impacts, including noise impacts, can be significant. The described impacts are temporary only in the sense that they will not be permanent. Temporary in this case means 10-12 hours a day, six days a week, for a period in excess of one year. In another instance both the DEIS (pp. xxv, 259) and the Acoustic Report (p.48) state that the increase in noise “would be limited to during daytime hours, and would be temporary since these increases are only during construction.” The absurdity of this is readily apparent when one considers that the 89 dBA level at a residence on North Drive is equivalent to the noise made by a carwash at 20 feet. According to NYSDEC this noise level is not only “very annoying”, but 8 hours of continuous exposure can result in hearing damage.18 17 This change was made even though Table 1 in the Acoustic Report (NYSDEC Thresholds for Significant Sound Pressure Level (SPL) Increase) indicates that an increase of 10 or more decibels is an “Adverse impact” that “Deserves consideration of avoidance and mitigation measures in most cases.” The change in language is clearly an attempt to downplay the severity of noise impacts. 18 Table E in NYSDEC Program Policy DEP-00-1. Reproduced from Barksdale, R.D., editor, 1991. The Aggregate Handbook, National Stone Association, Washington, DC. Page | Noise - 7 Rev8b Construction noise levels during several phases of construction have been underestimated. As noted above, two additional pieces of noise-generating equipment which will be used to construct the Project are missing. Vibratory rollers will be used during construction of the Project’s retaining wall. They are not included in the equipment list in DEIS Appendix F. As a result, they are not included in Table 12 of the Acoustic Report (Construction Equipment Overall Sound Power Levels and Utilization Factors for the Retaining Wall Phase). This means that the modeled noise levels during retaining wall construction at the 18 Receivers/Receptors (almost all of which are residences) shown in Tables 16 and 17 have been underestimated. Concrete Trucks which will be required during the construction phase of the Project are missing from the equipment list in Appendix F and from Table 12 in the Acoustic Report. As a result, they are not included in Table 12 of the Acoustic Report (Construction Equipment Overall Sound Power Levels and Utilization Factors for the Retaining Wall Phase). This means that the modeled noise levels during both the retaining wall phase (when foundations for the retaining wall will be constructed) and the construction phase (during construction of the floor slabs for the new storage buildings) at the 18 Receivers/Receptors shown in Tables 16 and 17 have been underestimated. Traffic Noise Impacts During Construction The need to address how noise impacts would affect “quality of life” is called out twice in the DEIS scope (p.17). The scope also calls for the DEIS to Include an assessment of the Project’s “impact on tranquility for residents within hearing range” (p.16). In its review of the original DEIS the Planning Board’s consultant found that the “DEIS does not adequately address the quality of life impacts associated with significant noise (as well as dust and potential vibration) associated with the necessary heavy construction trucks on local roadways” (NPV p. 4). The Applicant has submitted to the Planning Board an annotated copy of the Planning Board’s determination of the original DEIS’ inadequacy. That document indicates only that the revised DEIS has been “revised” to address this comment. However, the portion of Section 3.7.2 of the revised DEIS entitled “Construction Noise Impacts” contains only minimal revisions relating to the application of NYSDOT noise criteria. As discussed below, those criteria have been misrepresented and misapplied. The Acoustic Report analyzed modeled ambient and projected noise levels at ten Receiver/Receptor locations (R9-R18) (residences) located along West Mill and Cox Neck Roads. According to the DEIS and the Acoustic Report: “[F]or 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” (emphasis added) (Acoustic Report p.48, DEIS pp. xxiv, 259). Page | Noise - 8 Rev8b As with construction noise, both the DEIS and the Acoustic Report attempt to qualify and downplay the importance of this fact with the statement that “these increases are temporary only during construction” (emphasis added). As noted above, the SEQRA Handbook is clear that short-term (temporary) impacts, including noise impacts, can be significant. Both the DEIS and the Acoustic Report also attempt to qualify and downplay the importance of the Project noise increases with the statement that “the NYSDOT criteria are not standards” (Acoustic Report p.48, DEIS pp. xxiv, 259). Table 2 in the Acoustic Report (Recommended NYSDOT Criteria for Road Noise Levels) is based on a table in NYSDOT’s Environmental Procedures Manual.19 The NYSDOT criteria are treated in the Acoustic Report as recommended maximum exterior noise levels associated with various Activity Categories. The maximum exterior noise level for Activity Category B, which includes residences, is 67 dBA. The residences at 1065, 1480 and 1525 West Mill Road, 155 Breakwater Road, and 2100 Cox Neck Road will be subject to traffic noise that exceeds NYSDOT recommended levels for at least six months. The Category B Activity Category was the only category employed by SoundSense in preparing the Acoustic Report. Activity Category A includes “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” (Acoustic Report p.6). The recommended maximum exterior noise level associated with Activity Category A is 57 dBA. The Mill Road Preserve clearly falls within Activity Category A. The Project-adjacent Mill Road Preserve is never discussed in the Acoustic Report. Both the DEIS and the Acoustic Report attempt to further downplay the nature of the adverse noise impact from Project construction truck traffic. They note that the projected noise levels that will exceed NYSDOT recommendations refer to exterior noise levels, rather than interior noise levels, and these exceedances will occur when “the majority of this period would see most residents indoors and would minimize the impact to quality of life” (DEIS p. 259). This ignores the fact that the period of highest construction traffic volume (the excavation phases) will extend into June. The NYSDOT Manual (and Table 2 in the Acoustic Report) list an Activity Category E which includes “recommended” interior noise levels for residences. The Acoustic Report, citing the NYSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual as basis, states that 19 Although the contents of Table 2 in the Acoustic Report, and Table 1 in Chapter 3 of the NYSDOT’s Manual are the same, the titles are not. The title of the table in the NYSDOT Manual is “Noise Abatement Criteria.” The Manual states that “NACs [noise abatement criteria] represent a balancing of that which may be desirable and that which may be achievable. Consequently, noise impacts can occur even though the NACs are achieved. The NACs should be viewed as maximum values recognizing that in many cases the achievement of lower noise levels would result in even greater benefits to the community. The NACs should not be viewed as Federal standards or desirable noise levels. They should not be used as design goals for noise barrier construction” (emphasis added) (p. 3.1-28). Page | Noise - 9 Rev8b “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 residents will be primarily indoors during construction at those times, reducing the impact on quality of life. If 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 (Acoustic Report, DEIS pp. xxiv-xxv, 259). The above discussion is a misrepresentation of what the NYSDOT Manual actually says.20 If one applies the 10 dB reduction in sound levels which the NYSDOT Manual says should be used “unless there is firm knowledge that the windows are in fact kept closed almost every day of the year” (see fn 18, below), then interior noise levels at the residences corresponding to R10-R14 (and R15 and R16 as well) will, contrary to conclusion in the Acoustic Report and the DEIS, exceed NYSDOT “recommended” noise criteria. Noise Impacts to Users of the Mill Road Preserve Significantly, the Town-owned Mill Road Preserve does not appear to have been identified as a Receiver/Receptor location.21 As noted above, the Acoustic Study (DEIS Appendix R) never even mentions the Preserve. However, the DEIS Executive Summary, under the heading “Impacts to the Mill Road Preserve” concludes that “construction noise would be of temporary nature and all noise impacts would cease upon completion” (p. xxi). Additional language in the DEIS, contradicted by its own data analyses, is even more extreme. In contradiction of all the data indicating that the Preserve will be impacted by noise (as well as other factors) the DEIS (pp. xxiii-xxiv, 249) states that “[T]he proposed action would not alter the public’s enjoyment of the Town-owned preserve property during all phases of the action as there would be no new impact on Mill Road Preserve from April to September 30, which is likely to be a time when the trails are most frequently used.” This is false. The DEIS clearly states that the “[B]uilding Phase of the project will begin in late Spring, early Summer of 2024 and last until the late Fall of 2024” (DEIS p. 216). 20 According to the Manual: “In those situations where there are no exterior activities to be affected by the traffic noise, or where the exterior activities are far from or physically shielded from the roadway in a manner that prevents an impact on exterior activities, the interior criterion shall be used as the basis of determining noise impacts. The Manual goes on: “Interior use applies mostly to schools, churches, and hospitals.” Although the Acoustic Report has applied a reduction of 20 dB to derive estimated indoor sound levels for wood frame structures with ordinary sash windows, it does not mention that this applies to closed windows. According the Manual, interior noise levels in all building types are reduced by only 10 dB if windows are open and that “windows shall be considered open unless there is firm knowledge that the windows are in fact kept closed almost every day of the year” (emphasis added) (NYSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual p.3.1-12-13). 21 R4 (2010 West Mill Road) is a lot that abuts the Preserve. Page | Noise - 10 Rev8b In addition, no data is presented in either the DEIS or the Acoustic Study (DEIS Appendix R) to support the claim that April to September 30 is likely to be a time when the Preserve trails are most frequently used. No visitation data for the Mill Road Preserve is included in the DEIS. The claim that the number of visitors from April thru September is “likely” to be meaningfully different from other times of the year is conjecture. The idea that fewer people being impacted equates to “no new impact” is absurd on its face.22 Ambient conditions at the Mill Road Preserve as shown on Figures 3 and 6 in the Acoustics Report (DEIS Appendix R) are mostly within (below) the 45 dBA contours for both peak hour Leq and eight-hour Leq. However, Figures 10 -15 indicate that the eight-hour Leq sound levels during the tree removal/grubbing phase, and the two excavation phases, will range from 55-70 dBA, and that the peak hour Leq will exceed 70 dBA in some parts of the Preserve. This is within, or exceeds, the 11-20 dBA increase that NYSDEC considers “very noticeable” to “objectionable.” The DEIS does not mention this. The Historic Resources Survey (DEIS Appendix T) prepared for the Project independently concluded that “it is possible that the sound of the haul trucks on the temporary haul road or on W. Mill Road could be heard by walkers on the [Preserve’s] perimeter trail” (DEIS Appendix T, p.16). The DEIS conclusion that “[O]verall, based on the above, no significant adverse impacts [including noise impacts] to Mill Road Preserve are anticipated” (DEIS pp. xxiii-xxiv, 249) has no basis in fact, and is contradicted by data in the DEIS. Noise Impacts on Wildlife The DEIS scope calls for the DEIS to assess “the potential adverse impacts from noise on . . . wildlife generated by the operation of machinery, heavy equipment and trucks both on-site and off-site as they travel through neighborhoods and the region.” The DEIS does contain a discussion of how Project- related noise could impact wildlife (pp.139-140). That discussion, taken nearly verbatim from DEIS Appendix N (Ecological Conditions and Impact Report), is deficient in a number of regards. The discussion begins with the statement that the “potential for the proposed action to generate noise from construction activities, vehicular traffic, and operation of the proposed boat storage facility is analyzed in detail in the Acoustic Report (see Appendix R).” This statement is only correct in that the Acoustic Report discusses the potential for the proposed action to generate noise. The Acoustic Report never discusses or mentions if or how Project-generated noise will impact wildlife.23 22 It should be noted that this statement in the DEIS Executive Study is intended to apply to all aspects of the environment, not just noise. 23 It does mention that “[D]ominant sounds at the Project Site include wildlife . . .” (Acoustic Report p.10). This would obviously change during construction. Page | Noise - 11 Rev8b According to the DEIS’ discussion of impacts to wildlife, and Appendix N, “[U]nder proposed build conditions, sound levels will not increase by more than 6 dBA above existing conditions and, therefore, is consistent with “no impact” following NYSDEC standards for impacts to human receptors. As there are no standards for wildlife, the human standards were applied” (emphasis added) (DEIS p.139, Appendix N p.31). There are multiple problems with this statement. First, NYSDEC guidance indicates that an increase in noise level of 5-10 dB should be considered “intrusive” (see above). 24 Second, the statement in the DEIS and Appendix N refers only to sound levels under “build conditions.” For example: “Post-development, no significant adverse noise-related impacts would result” (emphasis added) (p. xiii). The DEIS ignores the fact that noise associated with Project construction will exceed the 6 dBA increase and is much more likely to adversely impact wildlife surrounding the Project site. Third, the implied assumption that noise impact standards for humans are appropriate for applications to wildlife is not supported by any scientific evidence as numerous studies have concluded that sensitivity to noise varies widely across taxa.25 Finally, both the DEIS and Appendix N misrepresent NYSDEC’s “guidance” as “standards.” According to the NYSDEC “It is not the intention of this guidance to require decibel limits to be established for operations where such limits are not required by regulation.”26 The DEIS claim that an increase of up to 6bB “is consistent with ‘no impact’ following NYSDEC standards” is false and misleading. Both Appendix N and the DEIS (which duplicates the text in Appendix N) discuss only impacts to avian species. There is no discussion, or even mention, of potential noise impacts to types of fauna other than birds, such as large and small mammals and reptiles. The difficulties in assessing these impacts does not excuse ignoring them.27 24 The DEIS and Appendix N cite Section VBc of NYSDEC’s 2001 Program Policy DEP-000-1 Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts as the basis for Table 1 in Appendix N which relates sound levels to impact. However, both the DEIS and Appendix N ignore the NYSDEC’s qualifying language that “The above thresholds as indicators of impact potential should be viewed as guidelines subject to adjustment as appropriate for the specific circumstances one encounters.” As noted, both the DEIS and Appendix N ignore Table B “Human Reaction to Increases in Sound Pressure Level” in the same NYSDEC guidance. 25 e.g. Kaseloo, P.A. and K.O Tyson (2004). Synthesis of Noise Effects on Wildlife Populations. US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC; Brumm, H and H Slabbekoorn (2005) Acoustic communication in noise. Advances in the Study of Behavior 35, 151–2093. 26 The significance of misrepresenting of NYSDEC guidance as “standards” needs to be considered in light of the following: The DEIS notes that “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.” It then goes on to state that “However, as noted in Section 3.6.3 of the Acoustic Report and in Section 3.7.1 of this DEIS, the NYSDOT criteria are not standards . . .” In other words, guidance becomes standards when it is positive for the Project, but standards become guidance when they are not. 27 “Sensitivity to noise varies widely across taxa (Kaseloo & Tyson, 2004); Brumm & Slabbekoorn, 2005; Morley, Jones & Radford, 2013; Slabbekoorn, 2013), and may also vary depending upon context, sex, and life history (Ellison et al., 2012; Francis & Barber, 2013). Noise can induce compound biological responses (e.g. shifts in vocalisation and movement; McLaughlin & Kunc, 2013), and is rarely isolated from other forms of environmental disturbance, such as habitat alteration Page | Noise - 12 Rev8b Both the DEIS and Appendix N acknowledge that Project-generated construction noise will have an impact on wildlife: “Potential noise levels during daytime construction hours over [during] the 12-month construction period (45-76 dBA compared to 44 dBA under existing conditions) slightly overlap with the range of the chronic industrial levels (75-90 dBA) that have been found to impact bird breeding productivity [Habib et al, 2007] and are similar to the change in sound levels (11-20 dBA)[28] that have been found to adversely impact bird community composition and abundance, foraging and nesting behavior, and body condition [Injaian et al, 2007; Ware et al, 2015](DEIS p.140), and . . . due to the increase in daytime noise levels, it is expected that a temporary reduction in the habitat quality provided by the adjacent forest for bird reproduction would occur during the construction period” (fn 27 added) (DEIS p.139; also Appendix N p.32). However, the DEIS attempts to minimize the significance of this by stating that: It should be noted that potential noise impacts during construction would only occur during daytime construction hours and noise levels would return to background conditions; in contrast, studies identifying adverse impacts to birds due to noise have analyzed more continuous noise associated with industrial facilities and large roadways. . . “Mitigation measures to lessen the magnitude of short-term, noise-related impacts during construction to neighbors are discussed in the Acoustic Report and include the use of white noise back-up alarms rather than single, tone beeps; no use of Jake Brake mechanisms on site; and use of dump trucks that meet USEPA Tier 4 standards. These mitigation measures would serve to reduce potential impacts to birds and wildlife by decreasing high frequency noise” (DEIS pp.140, 246, see also pp. xxxiv, 144; Appendix N p. 32). There is no scientific basis for assuming that limiting noise increases to daytime hours would have a less severe impact on wildlife than a permanent increase. In addition, as discussed above, the proposed “mitigation” measures are not, in fact, mitigation. The noise reductions achieved by the proposed and visual disturbance, confounding interpretation of biological responses to noisy environments (Summers, Cunnington & Fahrig, 2011). Furthermore, determining the scale and extent of disturbance involves carefully measuring characteristics of the sound source, such as duration (chronic, intermittent), frequency content, and intensity (Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2007; Francis & Barber, 2013; Gill et al., 2015)” [Shannon et al. (2016) A synthesis of two decades of research documenting the effects of noise on wildlife, Biological Reviews, Cambridge Philosophical Society 91(4):982-1005]. 28 The 11-20 dBA change should not be considered a threshold for noise impacts to be adverse. Some studies have found that sound-level changes of only a few decibels can result in substantial changes in animal responses. See Pater et al. (2006) Recommendations for Improved Assessment of Noise Impacts on Wildlife, The Journal of Wildlife Management 73(5):788- 795. Page | Noise - 13 Rev8b measures are no guarantee that wildlife will not be significantly impacted by noise associated with Project construction. Although the DEIS has provided information sufficient to establish that Project construction-related noise will adversely impact wildlife, especially wildlife in the Mill Road Preserve, it fails to clearly call this out. While the mitigation measures proposed may reduce potential noise impacts to “birds and wildlife,” there is no evidence presented to suggest that they will, or that they could be expected to reduce noise impacts to the point where they will not adversely affect wildlife. Finally, both the DEIS and Appendix N contain significant inconsistencies with information presented in Appendix R. According to both the DEIS and Appendix N: “Analysis of potential noise levels at nearby residential sites (such as 5106 West Mill Road, 800 North Drive, and 805 North Drive) indicate that noise levels in the property’s natural areas may increase temporarily during " construction to 66 dBA during tree removal/grubbing (in December), 76 dBA during excavation phases (between December to June), and 71 dbA during building and drainage construction phases (between June to November)” (DEIS p. 139; Appendix N p.31). However, according to the Acoustic Report (DEIS Appendix R) rather than an increase in noise levels during tree removal/grubbing to 66 dBA, the calculated increase will be to 77 dBA. Rather than an increase to 76 dBA during excavation phases, the calculated increase will be to 80 dBA. Rather than an increase to 71 dBA during building and drainage construction, the actual calculated increase will be to 76 dBA. Applicant-Proposed Mitigation As noted above, in its review of the original December 2021 DEIS, the Planning Board’s consultant found that the “DEIS does not adequately address the quality of life impacts associated with significant noise (as well as dust and potential vibration) associated with the necessary heavy construction trucks on local roadways” (NPV p. 4). They also concluded that “The applicant has provided no meaningful and enforceable mitigation to address these issues” (NPV p. 4). As is also noted above, the Applicant has submitted to the Planning Board an annotated copy of the Planning Board’s determination of the original DEIS’ inadequacy. That document indicates that the revised DEIS has been “revised” to address this comment. This is not true. The language in the revised DEIS that relates to mitigation of noise impacts has not been changed. No new or revised noise impact mitigation measures are proposed in the revised DEIS. The revised DEIS still provides no meaningful and enforceable mitigation to address noise impacts. The DEIS states that “To mitigate noise impacts to surrounding properties and wildlife during the excavation and construction phases, the following measures would be implemented: any vehicle which Page | Noise - 14 Rev8b 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 Road from County Route 48; and all trucks utilized would be Tier 4 certified by U.S. EPA standards . . . and all gasoline or diesel-powered machinery would be equipped with adequate mufflers” (DEIS p. xxv, see also pp. xxxvi, xxxviii, 19, 140, 144, 173, 228, 259, 261, 287-288). In addition, the DEIS states that the “excavation phases with truck activity would be limited to Monday to Friday from 7:00 am to 5:00 pm as mitigation offered by the Applicant” (DEIS p. xxxi, also pp. 19, 259, 261, 293). The DEIS and the Acoustic Report state, in relation to the Project’s noise reduction efforts, that “all trucks utilized would be Tier 4 certified by U.S. EPA standards” (pp. xxii, xxxii, xxxv, 278; Acoustic Report pp. 20, 53). Tier 4 standards are intended to apply to emissions affecting air quality, and do not directly relate to noise.29 In addition, Tier 4 diesel engine standards apply to all post-2014 model year construction equipment. The Applicant is merely agreeing to not use old trucks or equipment. The DEIS’ claim that having all Project trucks meet Tier 4 standards cannot be considered mitigation. The DEIS contains more than a dozen references to the fact that the Applicant will limit the use of Jake brakes 30 as a noise mitigation measure. However, those references are inconsistent and confused. The DEIS states that ““all trucks and drivers will be instructed to disengage all Jake Brake mechanisms once turning on to Cox Neck Road from County Route 48” (pp. xxiii, xxix, xxxv, xxxvi, 19, 246, 248,272, 278,281). This would seem to indicate that Jake brakes would not be used by empty trucks traveling to the Project site. No mention is made of prohibiting the use of Jake brakes by full trucks traveling from the Project site to County Route 48. The Project acoustics report uses different language in regard to this matter stating 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” (emphasis added) (DEIS Appendix R, p.16.) This needs to be clarified. Given the wording in the DEIS, clarification is also needed as to whether or not Jake brakes will be used by haul trucks while they are using the on-site haul road. There will be no limitation on the use of Jake brakes on the Sound Avenue, Northville Turnpike, and CR 58 portions of the Project truck route. 29 The Acoustic Report indicates that “FTA Guidelines list a truck at having a sound pressure level of 84 dBA when measured at 50 feet. . . [The] actual data collected by SoundSense [found that the haul trucks] 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” (Acoustic Report p. 21). However, the Acoustic Report also states that “there is no standardized data available for sound levels on Tier 4 truck sound levels” (Acoustic Report p. 53). There is no basis for assumption that the decreased noise levels are directly related to the use of trucks with Tier 4 engines. The 84 dBA level in the FTA Guidelines is for a “typical” truck, and does not take into account the size of the truck, its condition, its engine type, or the road conditions on which it is operating. As discussed in comments on air quality, Tier 4 standards apply only to off-road vehicles—not on-road vehicles such as Project haul trucks. 30 A Jake Brake is a type of compression release brake that helps truck drivers slow down their truck without wearing out the service brakes. Commonly called an engine brake, Jake Brakes are often used in large diesel engines on semi-trucks. Jake brakes generate maximum braking power for a diesel engine. Page | Noise - 15 Rev8b The DEIS states that “there would be no Jake Brake mechanisms on the site” (p.xxxii, 136, 139, 169). This is both a meaningless and incorrect claim. All haul trucks operating on site likely will be equipped with Jake Brake systems. Other than trucks, the types of construction equipment that will be used are never equipped with Jake brakes. The DEIS’ claim that all trucks and drivers will be instructed to disengage all Jake Brake mechanisms once turning on to Cox Neck Road from County Route 48 cannot be considered mitigation. It is also possible that any prohibition on the use of Jake brakes will be ineffective in reducing noise. Truck, engine and equipment manufacturer studies 31 have consistently found that improperly muffled vehicles are the root cause of construction vehicle and equipment noise. Vehicle operating sound levels have been shown repeatedly to be much higher for vehicles with improper, defective or deteriorated mufflers. The drawback to a simple inspection is that it may not catch all offenders. Improper, defective or deteriorated mufflers that appear intact from the outside may be missed. Detecting these cases requires a roadside noise test. It should also be noted that any reduction of noise impacts derived from a prohibition on the use of Jake brakes, will be offset to some degree by the loss of braking power and an increase in haul truck stopping distance. This will result in an increased safety risk to vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians on West Mill and Cox Neck Roads, especially along portions of those roads with limited sight distances. The DEIS states that “in accordance with Town Code and indicated above, all construction activities would be limited to Monday to Saturday from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm. The excavation phases with truck activity would be limited to Monday to Friday from 7:00 am to 5:00 pm as “mitigation offered by the Applicant” (DEIS pp. xxiv, xxxi, 19, 259, 293). While this would at first glance appear to be an accommodation, it is not. Since the total number of 22-wheel tractor trailer truck trips required to haul sand from the site will remain constant, the only effect of reducing truck activity during the construction phase by two hours per day, is to increase the number of days during which the community will be subject to heavy haul truck traffic impacts. Finally, the DEIS attempts to exempt the Project from responsibility for creating adverse noise impacts by claiming that “construction-related noise impacts would be limited to the times and days specified, which are permitted by Town Code” and “the proposed project would comply with the permitted times set forth in Chapter 180 of the Town Code (pp. xxii, xxiii, xxv, 246, also pp. xxxi, xxxvii, xxxix, 19, 248, 259, 293, 298). However, as the DEIS points out (p.52), during those permitted times32, Section 180-6 31 https://www.jacobsvehiclesystems.com/sites/default/files/2018-08/vehicle-noise-and-compression-release-engine-braking- 28307b.pdf 32 A. Sunday through Thursday: (1) From 7:00 am to 7:00 pm., airborne or amplified sound in excess of 65 dB(A); and (2) From 7:00 pm. to 7:00 am., airborne or amplified sound in excess of 50 dB(A). B. Friday and Saturday: (1) From 7:00 am to 11:00 pm., airborne or amplified sound in excess of 65 dB(A); and (2) From 11:00 pm. to 7:00 am., airborne or amplified sound in excess of 50 dB(A). Page | Noise - 16 Rev8b sets the maximum allowable noise level at 65 dBA. As the data included in Tables 39 and 40 demonstrate, this level will be exceeded at many of the receiver/receptor locations listed in those tables. The DEIS dismisses this concern by referencing Section 180-8 of the Town Code which exempts construction activities from the standards in Section 180-6. Even though this blanket exemption allows the Project to avoid violating local law in regard to noise generation, that is not the same thing as saying Project-related noise impacts will not be significant. Although the DEIS quotes Town Code Sections 180- 5, 180-6, and 180-8 in their entirety, it makes no mention of Section 180-2 which states, in part: “[T]he existence of unreasonably loud, unnecessarily disturbing or unusual noise within the Town has become an increasingly significant problem during recent years. Such noise pollution which is prolonged, unusual or unnatural in its time, place and use is harmful to the peace, welfare, comfort, safety, convenience, good order and prosperity of the inhabitants of the Town of Southold. It is the public policy and findings of the Town Board that every person is entitled to noise levels that are not detrimental to life, health and the enjoyment of his or her property.”33 Compliance with the Town of Southold’s Town Code is following the law. It cannot be considered mitigation. The DEIS scope calls for the DEIS to “Include protocols for monitoring of the noise level during construction.” No noise monitoring protocols are provided in the DEIS or Appendix R.34 Post-Development Noise Impacts According to the DEIS, “[A]s a proposed winter storage facility, the buildings would be largely inactive for almost half of the year. The noise would occur when boats are loaded into and out of the building. Due to the proposed grading, the retaining wall would function as a sound barrier, largely containing the noise within the graded area” (DEIS p.260). The acoustic analysis is based on the assumption that post- construction noise generators would be limited to, “truck acceleration, raised voices, and boat washing, as well as peak future traffic generation along Cox Neck Road and West Mill Road.” (DEIS p.260). However, the DEIS does not indicate whether or not the huge roll-up doors on the proposed storage buildings will be equipped with warning alarms that sound whenever the doors are operated. Those alarms can be as loud as 120dB. 33 Section 180-8 which exempts construction activities also states that it applies “provided that such activities and such equipment and their use comply with the other provisions hereof.” The Town Code is not clear as to whether or not Section180-2 is “a provision thereof.” 34 Vibration, but not noise, monitoring protocols are described in the Vibration Report and the DEIS. Page | Noise - 17 Rev8b DEIS Conclusions “. . . construction noise levels are predicted to have an impact at the nearby Residences . . . Nearby residences are predicted to be impacted by the construction for its duration” (Acoustic Report p.3). The Acoustic Report attempts to obscure these findings by stating that “the Town of Southold specifically exempts construction noise from the requirements in the Noise Code” and “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” (Acoustic Report p. 3). The fact that Project- generated noise levels will not violate provisions of the Southold Town Code is not sufficient reason to ignore the fact that Project-generated noise will adversely affect the quality of life of local residents. The suggestion that just because noise impacts are associated with construction they can be ignored, is absurd on its face. In regard to the post-construction operation of the Project, Sound Sense concluded that “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” (Acoustic Report p.3). This is not what the NYSDEC criteria say. However, Table 1 in the Acoustic Report correctly notes, quoting from the NYSDEC criteria, that a sound level increase of 3-6 dB has the “[P]otential for adverse noise impact in cases where the most sensitive of receptors are present.” NYSDEC does not define what a “most sensitive receptor” is. The Mill Road Preserve, which abuts the Project site, should have been treated as a sensitive receptor.35 As noted above, the Acoustic Report never mentions possible impacts to the Preserve. Even if one accepts SoundSense’s conclusion that once the Project is in operation it will not generate noise levels more than 4 dBA above existing noise levels, it is difficult to reconcile their conclusion that this constitutes “no Impact” with a 2019 noise assessment prepared by SoundSense which states that a change of 4-5 dB constitutes a “Perceivable and Significant” change (emphasis in original). That same report also states that the “standard acoustic ruler is that any sound that exceeds the background noise level by 5 dB(A) or more has the potential to be an annoyance”. 36 The conclusion the Acoustic Report’s Executive Summary that “Analysis showed sound levels are predicted to increase significantly during construction” (Acoustic Report p.3) is not included in the DEIS. 35 The USEPA defines “environmental receptor” as including “natural areas such as national or state parks, forests, or monuments; officially designated wildlife sanctuaries, preserves, refuges, or areas; and Federal wilderness areas" (emphasis added) (40 CFR §68.3). Definitions of “sensitive receptor,” in the context of assessing noise impacts, include “areas or places at which acoustic environmental values must be protected. Among others, the list of sensitive receptors includes: a dwelling, a library or educational institution, childcare center, hospital, commercial or retail premises, a protected area and public park” (Noise and vibration—EIS information guideline, State of Queensland, 2022). 36 Acoustic Report, Acoustic Blueprint Review at Pop Displays, 1 International Drive, Rye Brook, NY., Prepared by SoundSense (Jennifer Scinto, Jacob Watrous, and Bonnie Schnitta), February 26, 2019.