Cavanaugh Tocci Had a few issues with Hessler’s sound study to point out just one in particular
Hessler omitted sound levels from position 4 from their average because they decided that the sounds at this location were “anomalous” in other words they deviated from what is normal- since they “…are consistently lower than all other locations.
” The text continues…”The reason for this “anomalous” behavior is not clear, but may be associated to lack of vehicle noise on seldom used Fox Creek Road, relative lack of insect noise,” or the fact that the monitor was not particularly close to any trees and was exposed to less wind –induced noise.” The last quote is an explanation of why sound levels at position 4 are quiet, not an argument for eliminating it from the average.
Data collected at position 4 should be included in the average. The fact that it is quieter at this location than all others, in our opinion is not sufficient reason for excluding it from the average,
If a location is consistently quiet maybe it is just quiet!!
Link here to read Cavanaugh Tocci's Findings based on their review of Hessler's methods RE: CV DEIS
2 comments:
K. What you quote from Hessler seems to suggest all the other sites should have been dumped and they should have used only site #4. What a crock!
The site #4 sound level should be used for those homes in the site #4 vicinity.
Post a Comment