Chapter 4. Acoustic Environment. (Revised February 2018)

Transcription

1 Chapter 4 Acoustic Environment (Revised February 2018)

2 Chapter Contents 4. Acoustic Environment Introduction Scope of Review Geographical Study Scope Regulatory Standards and Guidelines Study Methods Existing Conditions Community Interaction Background Noise Monitoring Potential Project Effects Description of Potential Project Effects Mitigation Summary of Potential Project Effects Characterization of Significance of Residual Effects Monitoring and Follow-Up List of Tables Table 4-1: Scope of Review - Acoustic Environment Table 4-2: Receptors and Background Monitoring Locations Table 4-3: Perceived Impact of Increased Sound Levels Table 4-4: Background Noise Monitoring Results Table 4-5: Weekday and Weekend Summary Data (for Initial and Secondary Background Monitoring at S1) Table 4-6: Weekday and Weekend Summary Data (Tertiary Monitoring) Table 4-7: Monitoring Location Comparison Table 4-8: Measurement Results Comparison Residential Areas Table 4-9: Noise Source Sound Power Levels by Type Table 4-10: Base Case Modelled Activities Table 4-11: Project Case Modelled Activities Table 4-12: Non-Facility Noise Calculation (off-site) Table 4-13: Base Case and Proposed Project Case L den, L n Assessment Table 4-14: Baseline and Project %HA Table 4-15: Maximum Existing Ambient Noise Levels without Centerm Operations Table 4-16: Maximum Existing and Project Scenario Noise Levels Table 4-17: Low-Frequency Noise Level Generated by the Proposed Project Table 4-18: Summary of Potential Project Effects

3 List of Figures Figure 4-1: Acoustic Environment Study Area Figure 4-2: Noise Sensitive Receptors and Background Noise Monitoring Locations Figure 4-3: Baseline Case (Day With Background) Figure 4-4: Base Case Night Time With Background Figure 4-5: Project Case Day Time With Background Figure 4-6: Project Case Night Time With Background Figure 4-7: Base Case Day Time Without Background Figure 4-8: Base Case Night Time Without Background Figure 4-9: Project Case Day Time Without Background Figure 4-10: Project Case Night Time Without Background Figure 4-11: Difference between Project Case and Baseline Case (Day Time) Figure 4-12: Difference between Project Case and Baseline Case (Night Time) Figure 4-13: Supply Chain Appendices Appendix A Noise Assessment Supplemental Information A1 Existing Noise Source Map A2 Noise Source Map A3 Current Equipment Events Per Hour A4 Future Equipment Events Per Hour A5 Noise Statistics A6 Primary and Secondary Noise Monitoring A7 Noise Assessment Screening Worksheet A8 Tertiary Background Study

4 4. Acoustic Environment 4.1 Introduction Acoustic Environment was selected as an Environmental Component because of the potential for the operation of the proposed Project to change noise levels in surrounding communities. Operational activities that could affect the noise levels include road, rail, and marine traffic and the operation of equipment used to move containers. The port authority recognizes the importance of minimizing noise impact on communities surrounding Port of Vancouver lands. The PER Application Submission Requirements stipulate the requirement to conduct an Environmental Noise Assessment. The port authority has developed Project and Environmental Review Guidelines - Environmental Noise Assessment (PMV 2015c) (Noise Guidelines) to assist applicants of projects on lands and waters managed by the port authority in the assessment of potential noise impacts associated with operational activities and proposed projects. Noise was also selected to be a key area of review for the PER process based on feedback from Aboriginal groups and the public during early engagement on the proposed Project. During the Preliminary Comment Period on the scope of technical and environmental studies for the proposed Project, the majority of respondents supported the need to assess how the proposed Project would affect noise levels in the adjacent communities. This chapter summarizes the noise assessment study (Noise Assessment) conducted to determine changes in the Acoustic Environment as a result of operation of the proposed Project. Construction activities also have the potential to generate noise. Effects of construction noise are addressed through mitigation measures incorporated into the draft CEMP (AECOM 2016a). The Noise Assessment was conducted in accordance with the Noise Guidelines and taking into consideration feedback from early engagement. Some of the key themes from the Preliminary Comment Period that are reflected in the design of the Noise Assessment include the following: assessing noise effects on sensitive receptors (Receptors) within 1.5 km of the Terminal, including CRAB Park incorporating noise from rail and truck traffic associated with the proposed Project The Noise Assessment focussed on determining the degree of change in noise from existing conditions at Receptors. These are areas of frequent human use that are susceptible to the adverse effects of noise level change and include residential areas, public buildings (e.g., schools, hospitals, daycare facilities, elderly housing), and public spaces (e.g., CRAB Park). The Noise Assessment work is discussed in detail in Section 4.4 and comprised the following: determining the existing background noise at Receptors determining the level of noise attributable to existing Centerm operations modelling the predicted noise from the proposed Project at full operating capacity and then comparing the change between existing conditions and predicted conditions Based on comments received from the VFPA PER team, the Acoustic Environment chapter of the Environmental Studies, (PER Application 2016), was updated to include additional baseline monitoring data, as well as to include 4-1

5 detailed supporting field data, additional analysis and new figures to communicate results. The conclusions remain the same as those presented in the original Acoustic Environment chapter. Noise monitoring was conducted in a series of field programs. A first round of monitoring was conducted over two periods in December 2015 ( initial monitoring) and February, 2016 ( secondary monitoring), with subsequent monitoring conducted in June, 2017 ( tertiary monitoring). Noise levels from the existing Centerm operations and the proposed Project were modelled using noise levels for equipment and activities derived from published data, manufacturer s data, and monitoring data from other ports of similar activities. 4.2 Scope of Review The scope of review of effects on the Acoustic Environment is listed in Table 4-1, which includes the following: Project Interactions: The components and activities of the proposed Project that are part of the review Potential Effects: The effects associated with the project interactions that are characterized Study Area: The geographic extent within which impacts are considered Indicators: Parameters used to measure the existing state of the Acoustic Environment and the potential change that could occur as a result of project effects Guidelines and Threshold References: The thresholds or limits that are used to characterize the change to the Acoustic Environment as a result of project effects Table 4-1: Scope of Review - Acoustic Environment Project Interaction Construction: Noise will be generated due to construction activities and from equipment Operations Road traffic, rail operations, and marine vessels Use of equipment on-site to move containers Potential Effects of the Proposed Project Increased noise from operations in the surrounding community Construction noise mitigation measures are listed in the draft CEMP (AECOM 2016a) Study Area Receptors up to 1.5 km from proposed Project (Acoustic Environment Study Area) Indicators Sound levels Increase in percentage of highly annoyed individuals Guidelines and Threshold References Port Authority Environmental Noise Assessment Guidelines (PMV 2015c) ISO/R :2003 Guidelines Geographical Study Scope The geographic boundaries for assessing noise effects (Acoustic Environment Study Area) focussed on Receptors up to 1.5 km away from the Site (Figure 4-1). There are no Aboriginal reserve lands located within the local study area. Receptor locations were selected based on land uses and proximity to the Site; areas farther from the Site will have lower noise impacts associated with the proposed Project. Residential dwellings, commercial noise-sensitive spaces (e.g., hotels), and noise-sensitive institutional buildings (e.g., nursing homes, schools) in the area were 4-2

6 considered to be noise sensitive. The Receptor and monitoring locations are listed in Table 4-2; a map of Receptor and monitoring locations is provided on Figure 4-2. Receptor locations were identified using Vancouver zoning maps, aerial photography, and visual confirmation and are representative of the most affected noise-receptors within 1.5 km of the Site. 4-3

7 Date: 10/25/ :54:24 AM Path: P:\ \900-Work\ (GIS)\ StudyAreas\Figx StudyAreas mxd THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THE USE OF AECOM'S CLIENT AND MAY NOT BE USED, REPRODUCED, OR RELIED UPON BY THIRD PARTIES, EXCEPT AS AGREED BY AECOM AND ITS CLIENT, AS REQUIRED BY LAW OR FOR USE BY GOVERNMENTAL REVIEWING AGENCIES. AECOM ACCEPTS NO RESPONSIBILITY, AND DENIES ANY LIABILITY WHATSOEVER, TO ANY PARTY THAT MODIFIES THIS DRAWING WITHOUT AECOM'S EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT, DO NOT SCALE THIS DOCUMENT. ALL MEASUREMENT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM STATED DIMENSIONS LEGEND ^_ Centerm Expansion Project Study Area FOR INFORMATION AND REVIEW 2016/05/05 ^_ 1:16, m :16,000 FIGURE 4-1

8 ² Date: 11/9/2017 3:48:57 PM Path: P:\ \900-Work\ (GIS-Graphics)\02_MXDs\Report\Noise\ CEP-FIG-ACL-Noise-0005.mxd THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THE USE OF AECOM'S CLIENT AND MAY NOT BE USED, REPRODUCED, OR RELIED UPON BY THIRD PARTIES, EXCEPT AS AGREED BY AECOM AND ITS CLIENT, AS REQUIRED BY LAW OR FOR USE BY GOVERNMENTAL REVIEWING AGENCIES. AECOM ACCEPTS NO RESPONSIBILITY, AND DENIES ANY LIABILITY WHATSOEVER, TO ANY PARTY THAT MODIFIES THIS DRAWING WITHOUT AECOM'S EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT, DO NOT SCALE THIS DOCUMENT. ALL MEASUREMENT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM STATED DIMENSIONS Howe St Seymour St!P FH Granville St Richards St!P Homer St PPH S5 W Hastings St LEGEND!> Initial and Secondary Monitoring!> Tertiary Monitoring!>D Vandalized Station!P Sensitive Receptors Centerm Expansion Project Hamilton St Cambie St Centennial Road Overpass Beatty St Dunsmuir Viaduct S4 Water St W Cordova St W Pender St!> Site 4 Res02 FOR INFORMATION AND REVIEW 2017/11/09 Res01!P CRAB Park!>D S3!P!P!P!P!P!P Res03 E Pender St Res04!P Res22 Res05 Main St Res06!P!P Res07!P!P!> Res08b Res08aSite 1 RES20 Site 2 Res09 Res11 Res Site 3!P!>!P!P!>!P!P!P!P!P!P!P!P Res12b S2!>D!P School Park Res12a Res13 E Cordova St S1 Res14 Res15b Res15a Res17 Powell St Cordova Divers E Hastings St!> Site 5 1:8,000 Clark Dr m 1:8,000 FIGURE 4-2

9 Table 4-2: Receptors and Background Monitoring Locations Receptor ID/Closest Measurement Site Type of Receptor Location FH (S5) Hotel Fairmont Hotel Park (S5) Park Oppenheimer Park PPH (S5) Hotel Pan Pacific Hotel Res01 (S4) Residential 55 Alexander Street Res02 (S4) Residential 52 Alexander Street Res03 (S4) Residential 54 Alexander Street Res04 (S4) Residential 120 Columbia Street Res05 (S4) Residential 153 Powell Street Res06 (S4) Residential 185 Alexander Street Res07 (S1) Residential 200 Alexander Street Res08a (S1) Residential 370 Railway Street Res08b (S1) Residential 245 Alexander Street Res09 (S1) Residential 310 Alexander Street Res10 (S1) Residential 393 Powell Street Res11 (S1) Residential 412 Alexander Street Res12a (S1) Residential 510 Alexander Street Res12b (S1) Residential 422 Alexander Street Res13 (S1) Residential 512 Alexander Street Res14 (S1) Residential Alexander Street and Princess Road Corner Res15a (S1) Residential 610 Alexander Street Res15b (S1) Residential 614 Alexander Street Res17 (S1) Residential 658 Alexander Street Res20 (S1) Residential Alexander Street Res22 (S4) Residential 118 Columbia School (S1) School Alexander Street Crab Park (S4) Park 101 W Waterfront Road Initial and Secondary Monitoring (S1) N/A Monitoring Location Impark, Alexander Centre - Lot #645 Initial and Secondary Monitoring (S2) N/A Monitoring Location Oppenheimer Park Initial and Secondary Monitoring (S3) N/A Monitoring Location Alexander Street at Columbia Street Initial and Secondary Monitoring (S4) N/A Monitoring Location Gastown, Near 108 Cambie Street Initial and Secondary Monitoring (S5) N/A Monitoring Location Canada Place Tertiary Monitoring (Site 1) N/A Monitoring Location Jim Green Residence, 415 Alexander Street Tertiary Monitoring (Site 2) N/A Monitoring Location Vancouver Japanese Language School, 487 Alexander Street Tertiary Monitoring (Site 3) N/A Monitoring Location Centerm CSSF Building, 777 Centennial Road Tertiary Monitoring (Site 4) N/A Monitoring Location Metro Vancouver Portside Meteorological Station, 101 W Waterfront Road Tertiary Monitoring (Site 5) N/A Monitoring Location Van Raymur NMT, 955 Centennial Road 4.3 Regulatory Standards and Guidelines The Noise Assessment for the proposed Project and its supply chain (marine, rail, and trucking) was conducted in accordance with the Noise Guidelines, including the following: tabulating the noise screening procedure included in Appendix A7 assessing previous noise complaints related to Centerm measuring existing noise levels at select Receptors and the surrounding area assessing existing and projected noise impacts of the existing Terminal and proposed Project on select Receptors and the surrounding area using a computational model (CadnaA) 4-6

10 The assessment included site and supply chain effects. In the absence of enforceable federal noise limits, the port authority considers the following criteria and specifies required mitigations within the project permit conditions: post project noise is expected to exceed a Day-Evening-Night noise level (L den ) of 75 dba low frequency noise level (LLF) (defined as the sum of the 16, 31.5, and 63 Hz octave bands) is expected to exceed 70 db increase of community noise exposure associated with the operation of the Project and associated number of residents likely to be highly annoyed (HA) 1 The Noise Assessment was also conducted in accordance with Acoustics -- Description, measurement and assessment of environmental noise (ISO/R :2003) guidelines. The primary metric for measuring noise impact is the change in noise level above existing noise levels. Table 4-3 summarizes the perceived impact of changes in sound level by difference in noise level. Table 4-3: Perceived Impact of Increased Sound Levels Increased Sound Level Above Ambient (db) Perception Perceived Impact 0 to 3 Not Perceptible 1 Minor 3 to 5 Perceptible Low 5 to 10 Up to twice as loud Medium Greater than 10 Twice as loud or greater High Adapted from Engineering Noise Control, Theory and Practice 4th edition, David A. Bies and Colin H. Hansen, 2009, and ISO R E. 4.4 Study Methods In accordance with the Noise Guidelines, the following noise metrics were assessed using a computational model (CadnaA software version ): Day-evening-night sound level (L den 5 db penalty applied to evening levels, 10dB penalty applied to night-time levels) Night equivalent sound level (L n ) Percent highly annoyed (%HA) Maximum noise level (L AFmax ) Weekday and weekend noise levels Three scenarios were considered: Modelled Base Case: Existing facility and supply chain operating at normal operating level. Project Case: Proposed project, including sources from the Base Case (modified to represent activities associated with the proposed Project) as well as from the proposed Project, resulting in an increase of equipment and capacity, normal operation. No-Project Case: Changes that would occur to the existing facility should the proposed Project not go ahead. Since no equipment changes are anticipated in the No-Project Case, this scenario is considered equivalent with the Base Case and is not evaluated separately. Noise produced from the Base Case and the proposed Project Case at the Receptor locations was predicted using the ISO noise prediction algorithm, the US Federal Highway Administration Transportation Noise Model (TNM), Federal Transportation Authority (FTA) railroad standards, and professional judgement. 1 The term "highly annoyed" refers to a response to a social survey question on noise annoyance with a response in the top 27% to 29% on an anchored numerical scale or in the top two categories on an adjectival; five point verbal scale (Noise annoyance in Canada, Michaud, Keith & McMurchy, 2005). 4-7

11 Due to the active urban and industrial area of the proposed Project, the noise model could not be directly calibrated using field monitoring results. There are no locations where direct validation of results could be measured, as all possible measurement locations have contributions from non-facility noise sources. Monitoring within the existing Centerm boundary would capture near field effects of Terminal noise and provide an opportunity to validate at that on-site location; however, that validation would not apply beyond the Centerm boundary, and as such, will not produce a model that will reflect the average noise projection beyond the facility boundaries. The model was created using manufacturer sound data, past project data, and terminal equipment count, location, and usage information. Noise levels were predicted in accordance with the ISO prediction algorithm implemented in the Datakustik Cadna/A modeling package. The modelling results showed that the Centerm noise levels are predicted to have a small contribution to overall noise levels at the primary and secondary monitored locations, as well as at tertiary monitoring locations located in the community (Site 1 and Site 2). 4.5 Existing Conditions The area surrounding the Site has a variety of land uses including other port terminals, residential, recreation, and commercial areas. Immediately surrounding the Site are other marine facilities including Canada Place, Ballantyne Pier, AGT, Rogers Sugar, and Vanterm. These active industrial activities contribute to the existing noise levels in the area. There are residential locations south of the Site beyond the railway tracks, and recreational areas to the south and west Community Interaction Records of noise complaints received by the port authority within the previous three years (2013 to 2016) were reviewed to evaluate community interaction with respect to noise from existing Centerm operations. There are a total of 38 recorded noise complaints in the past three years with the majority occurring in The majority of the complaints are related to low frequency noise emanating from one of the onboard generators of a vessel docked at Centerm. Only two complaints were unrelated to the vessel generators: one was regarding trucking noise and the other regarding the safety alarms on the rubber-tired gantry cranes. In most cases, the port authority respondent discussed the source of noise with the complainant and the need for the activity, but also discussed mitigation efforts including initiatives related to shore power. The sound levels also vary with the type of ship at berth. Most complaints involve a Hyundai vessel, especially the Hyundai Mercury. DPWV worked with the port authority and the local shipping line representative to analyze and investigate the complaints. Noise monitoring was completed to determine the impacts in the surrounding area Background Noise Monitoring Noise monitoring was conducted to characterize the existing noise levels in proximity of Noise Sensitive Receptors and the surrounding community. Monitoring was conducted at locations listed in Table 4-4 and shown on Figure 4-2. As is typical in urban and industrial environments, monitored noise levels include contributions from noise sources not related to the existing Centerm operations such as road traffic, local business and industries, and residential and recreational noises. Due to these other contributions, it was not possible to isolate noise from Centerm operations; rather, overall background levels were measured, which included noise from Centerm. 4-8

12 Noise monitoring was conducted in a series of field programs. The initial and secondary rounds of monitoring were conducted over two periods, from December 8 to December 16, 2015; and from February 1 to February 11, 2016 using Larson Davis Model 831 class 1 sound level meters setup in environmental enclosures. Data during periods of inclement weather (defined as any precipitation and/or wind speeds in excess of 20 km/hr) were excluded from analysis, in alignment with best practices as advised in the Noise Guidelines. Equipment was vandalized at two locations (S2 and S3) during the initial monitoring program and data for these two locations were determined to be unreliable and were not used in the analysis. Background noise levels for Receptors near S2 and S3 was approximated using data from S1 and S4, respectively, due to their relative proximity. The initial monitoring program s weekend data was excluded due to inclement weather, thus a secondary monitoring program was completed to determine if there were any significant differences in noise levels between the weekend and weekdays. Site observations by field staff indicated that noise from Centerm was indistinguishable from the other background noises at the majority of the monitoring locations during the initial and secondary monitoring. Noise from Centerm was barely audible at monitoring location S5 (Canada Place). A summary of monitored weekday (day/night) and weekend (day/night) hours and activity logs from operations at Centerm during the initial and secondary background monitoring are included in Appendix A6. Following review of the initial Acoustic Environment chapter, the VFPA PER team requested that additional baseline monitoring be collected. As a result, a separate tertiary background study was completed between June 7 and June 23, This additional study was requested due to the initial and secondary monitoring being conducted in non-ideal conditions (inclement weather) and that two of the stations were vandalised. By undertaking the tertiary monitoring, additional baseline information was made available that was in conformance with the Noise Guidelines, and that can be considered in the noise assessment. The tertiary monitoring was completed at 4 locations, plus data measured by VFPA s nearest permanent noise monitoring terminal (NMT), VAN Raymur, for comparison ( tertiary Site 5). Locations of the tertiary monitoring (including the VFPA monitoring location) are shown as the red icons on Figure 4-2. The tertiary monitoring included data from the following locations: Jim Green Residence, 415 Alexander Street (Site 1); Vancouver Japanese Language School, 487 Alexander Street (Site 2); Centerm CSSF Building, 777 Centennial Road (Site 3); Metro Vancouver Portside Meteorological Station, 101 Waterfront Road (Site 4); and VFPA Permanent NMT, VAN Raymur (Site 5). Monitored data were used to calculate metrics relevant to assessment of existing noise levels against the Noise Guidelines. A summary of processed noise monitoring data is presented in Table 4-4. Note that the direct L AFmax levels from the monitoring were high and were believed to be associated with outlier events not related to Centerm (e.g., emergency vehicle sirens and heliport). As such, the 95th percentile of the L AFmax was used to eliminate the outlying data from the L AFmax. 4-9

13 Table 4-4: Background Noise Monitoring Results Monitoring Location Day Evening Night Noise Level L den (dba) Night Equivalent Noise Level Ln (dba) 1 95th percentile L AFmax (dba) % Highly Annoyed Impark (S1) Gastown (S4) Canada Place (S5) Jim Green Res (BKL Site 1) Japanese Language School (BKL Site 2) Centerm CSSF Building (BKL Site 3) MV Portside Station (BKL Site 4) Van Raymur NMT (BKL Site 5) With 10 db night time penalty applied for Ldn and Lden calculations. The Noise Guidelines specify that differences between the weekday and weekend noise levels be incorporated into the assessment. Results from the secondary monitoring program at location S1 are presented in Table 4-5. Results for the tertiary monitoring are presented in Table 4-6. The results indicate that there is a negligible difference between the weekend and weekday noise levels at locations representative of noise sensitive areas, and therefore, for the purposes of this Noise Assessment, the weekend and weekday noise levels were considered to be the same. Table 4-5: Weekday and Weekend Summary Data (for Initial and Secondary Background Monitoring at S1) Valid Weekday Data Valid Weekend Data Time Period Day-time Evening Night Time Period Day-time Evening Night Mean Value (dba) Mean Value (dba) Standard Deviation (dba) Standard Deviation (dba) Table 4-6: Weekday and Weekend Summary Data (Tertiary Monitoring) Valid Weekday Data Valid Weekend Data Monitoring Location Time Period Day-time Evening Night Day-time Evening Night Jim Green Res (BKL Site 1) Japanese Language School (BKL Site 2) Centerm CSSF Building (BKL Site 3) MV Portside Station (BKL Site 4) Van Raymur NMT (BKL Site 5) Mean Value (dba) Standard Deviation (dba) Mean Value (dba) Standard Deviation (dba) Mean Value (dba) Standard Deviation (dba) Mean Value (dba) Standard Deviation (dba) Mean Value (dba) Standard Deviation (dba) A comparison was conducted between the results of the initial and secondary background monitoring results and the tertiary background monitoring results. The tertiary background study presented monitoring data for 5 locations. Site 3 and Site 5 were located at or adjacent to Centerm (in the nearfield for port noise) and were not representative of noise sensitive locations. Site 4 was located on the north side of a rail switching yard to the southwest of Centerm. Although located across a rail line from noise sensitive locations, Site 4 is not representative 4-10

14 of the noise sensitive areas as this monitoring location is expected to have high contributions of rail noise with no building shielding, trucking noise from the adjacent truck parking/staging area, and lacking contributions of noise from local activities near the noise sensitive locations. Site 1 and Site 2 could be considered representative of locations between Gore Avenue and Heatley Avenue (downtown east side). A comparison of the monitoring locations and represented areas is presented in Table 4-7. Table 4-7: Monitoring Location Comparison Classification Area Initial and Secondary monitoring Tertiary monitoring Noise sensitive area Industrial/open space Downtown East Side S1 Site 1, Site 2 Gastown S4 - Waterfront hotel area S5 - Centerm near Canadian Fishing Company - Site 3 Waterfront Road helicopter pad/truck parking adjacent to rail yard - Site 4 (VFPA) Van Raymur Noise Monitoring Terminal - Site5 Site 1 and Site 2 are located on the roof tops (about 5-6 stories) of noise sensitive buildings on the same block south of Centerm. Note that although roof top locations will be afforded more shielding from localized noise sources, while having a higher exposure to noise from Centerm, the tertiary background monitoring noted that although Centerm activities were audible at the monitoring locations, there was no obvious correlation between the activities at Centerm and the measured noise levels. The data from the tertiary background monitoring, that was representative of noise sensitive locations, was processed to compare with the initial and secondary background measurements. A comparison of the results is shown in Table 4-8. The results indicate that there is little variation in overall noise levels between the street level measurements from the initial and secondary background monitoring in this area and the roof top levels measured in the tertiary background monitoring. Table 4-8: Measurement Results Comparison Residential Areas Monitoring Location Day Evening Night Noise Level L den (dba) Night Equivalent Noise Level Ln (dba) 1 95th percentile L AFmax (dba) % Highly Annoyed Impark (S1) Gastown (S4) Canada Place (S5) Jim Green Res (BKL Site 1) Japanese Language School (BKL Site 2) 1 With night time penalty applied for Ldn and Lden calculations The tertiary background monitoring provides similar sound level results to the initial and secondary background monitoring at the locations where the two data sets are sufficiently overlapped (downtown east side), however the tertiary background monitoring does not provide representative noise levels for the Gastown and Waterfront hotel areas. As such, the background non-centerm noise levels for these areas were taken from the initial and secondary background monitoring for use in calculating the total net future noise. 4-11

15 However, since the tertiary background monitoring included locations which were subject to less shielding effects, and thus more exposure to Centerm noise contributions, the tertiary background monitoring was used to determine that the modeling was overestimating the Centerm noise level contributions to the total noise levels. This was determined by inputting Receptor locations of Site 1 and Site 2 into the base case noise model described in Section The prediction results were higher than the measured values, which would indicate that noise from Centerm would be the controlling source of noise, which was not the case from the tertiary background monitoring site observations. The overestimation of site noise levels will result in a conservative assessment, as the calculated background noise levels will be lower (underestimated) and have less masking effect on the predicted site noise levels, and thus show a greater impact. This is further discussed in Section The tertiary monitoring results are provided in Appendix A Potential Project Effects The noise sources, activities, and equipment associated with the proposed Project are listed in Section 2.3.1; modelled activities for daytime and nighttime hours are listed in Table 4-10 (Base Case) and Table 4-11 (Project Case). The noise sources are also shown on figures in Appendix A1 and A2. The facility does not have hourly activity variation outside of daytime/nighttime variations. Equipment noise data were gathered from manufacturer s data, source data from similar projects, FTA, Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), and textbook references (Bies and Hansen 2009). Table 4-9 presents the sound power levels for each source type used in noise modelling. The Terminal was assumed to be operating continuously. Table 4-9: Noise Source Sound Power Levels by Type Description Sound Power Level 1, db(a) Sound Characteristic 2 Hoteling (self-powered) 118 Steady Container Reefers (entire ship) 111 Steady Hoteling (shore powered) 98 Steady Rubber-tired gantry 93 Steady Rail-mounted gantry trolley 40 kw Assume 1,600 RPM 4 units 105 Steady in source Rail-mounted gantry hoist 140 kw Assume 1,600 RPM 2 units 107 Steady in source Train crossover max level 122 Steady Idling truck 90 Steady Idling train 104 Steady Internal transfer vehicle peak level 109 Steady Highway truck peak level 103 Steady Maintenance shop door small door 93 Steady Maintenance shop door big door 97 Steady Exhaust fan (1.75 m up blast) 88 Steady Exhaust fan (centrifugal) 85 Steady Makeup air unit 2 m tall and wide 79 Steady Trane HVAC unit 80 Steady Reacher stacker pass-by 124 Steady Spreader bar locking (container lift) (T2) 3 88 Impulsive Container lower and place (T5) 3 78 Impulsive (max)spreader bar locking Impulsive 4-12

16 Description Sound Power Level 1, db(a) Sound Characteristic 2 (max)lower and place Impulsive Gantry motor 30 kw 1,750 rpm 16 units 97 Steady Boom hoist 265 kw 1,650 RPM 107 Steady Main trolley 265 kw 1,650 RPM 107 Steady Main hoist 480 kw 1,500 RPM 2 units per crane 98 Steady Maximum locomotive sound 119 Steady 1 Power level is referenced to Watts and is measured or predicted after applicable penalties are applied. 2 Sound Characteristics note that the following sound characteristics were not observed: quasi steady impulsive, buzzing, tonal, and cyclic. 3 A 5 db adjustment (penalty) has been added in the model for regular impulsive noise character, as per port authority guidelines. 4 Penalty not applied as levels were only used in determining predicted L AFmax, where annoyance due to sound quality is not applicable. Table 4-10: Base Case Modelled Activities Equipment Type Number operating at once Site Stack Containers Processed/hr Ship Containers Processed/hr Train Containers Processed/hr Container Events per hour (placement + lift up) Container Events per Equipment Type /hr Daytime Rubber-Tired Gantry Reacher Stacker Quay Crane Quay Trolley Nighttime Rubber-Tired Gantry Reacher Stacker Quay Crane Quay Trolley Table 4-11: Project Case Modelled Activities Equipment Type Number operating at once Site Stack Containers Processed/hr Ship Containers Processed/hr Train Containers Processed/hr Container Events per hour (placement + lift up) Container Events per Equipment Type /hr Daytime Rubber-Tired Gantry Reacher Stacker Quay Crane Quay Trolley Rail Mounted Gantry Nighttime Rubber-Tired Gantry Reacher Stacker Quay Crane Quay Trolley Rail Mounted Gantry Description of Potential Project Effects To calculate noise levels originating from neighbouring sources, the modelled levels of the Base Case were subtracted from baseline measurements. The results are presented in Table

17 Table 4-12: Non-Facility Noise Calculation (off-site) Measurement Site/Receptor Measured Ambient Noise (dba) Base Case Modelled Centerm Noise Level (dba) Noise Generated from other (non-centerm) Sources (dba) Day Eve Night Day Eve Night Day Eve Night Impark (S1) Gastown (S4) Canada Place (S5) Jim Green Res - Site Japanese Language School - Site Centerm CSSF Building (BKL Site 3) 1, MV Portside Station (BKL Site 4) 1, Van Raymur NMT (BKL Site 5) 1, Base case for Tertiary modelling BKL Sites 1 to 5 includes additional shielding from higher container stacks. 2 Not representative of noise sensitive locations, presented for informational purposes only. The above results indicate that existing Centerm operations are a small contributor to the measured background noise values at locations S1, S4, and S5. This is consistent with field staff observations that noise from Centerm was barely perceptible at monitoring location S5 (Canada Place). Modeling results for the Base Case were also produced for tertiary background monitoring sites representative of noise sensitive locations (Site 1 and Site 2). Initial Base Case modeling results (not presented here) showed facility noise contributions higher than the measured noise levels. A brief investigation was conducted to determine the discrepancy. Review of the tertiary background monitoring location shows that the shipping containers in the Centerm yard were stacked higher (4-5 containers high, with few gaps) than the modeled Base Case (mainly 1-4 containers high with gaps between stacks). Modeling results in Table 4-12 for tertiary monitoring locations account for this difference in container yard. The modeling results for Site 1 and Site 2 (shows that Centerm is the controlling source of noise), and the observations from the tertiary background monitoring (Centerm is not the controlling source of noise), indicate that the noise model is over estimating the noise from the Site. Overestimated site noise levels will result in a conservative assessment, as the calculated background noise levels will be lower (underestimated) and have less masking effect on the predicted site noise levels, and thus show a greater impact. As modeling for the initial and secondary background measurements were more consistent with site observations, and will predict higher Centerm contributions to future noise levels, the assessment proceeded with the initial and secondary background measurements. To account for changes from the Base Case and proposed Project Case, noise levels for each scenario were determined by the model at each Receptor (Table 4-13). Ambient noise not associated with the Centerm or the proposed Project at the closest measurement point to each Receptor was added to modelled levels to obtain overall Base Case and proposed Project Case noise at each Receptor. Proposed Project Case day, evening, and night noise levels (L den ) and night equivalent noise levels (L n ) were calculated and are presented in Table Evening predicted noise levels are adjusted (increased) by 5 db to account for the increased sensitivity of noise in the evening, while nighttime hours are adjusted by 10 db for L den calculations. 4-14

18 Table 4-13: Base Case and Proposed Project Case L den, L n Assessment Receptor/ Closest Measurement Site Proposed Project Case Daytime Noise due to Facility only (dba) Base Case Existing Day Evening Night Level (L den) (dba) Proposed Project Case Day Evening Night Level (L den) (dba) Change in L den (db) Base Case Project Night Equivalent Level L n (dba) Proposed Project Case Night Equivalent Level L n (dba) Change in L n (db) FH (S5) Park (S5) PPH (S5) Res01 (S4) Res02 (S4) Res03 (S4) Res04 (S4) Res05 (S4) Res06 (S4) Res07 (S1) Res08a (S1) Res08b (S1) Res09 (S1) Res10 (S1) Res11 (S1) Res12a (S1) Res12b (S1) Res13 (S1) Res14 (S1) Res15a (S1) Res15b (S1) Res17 (S1) Res20 (S1) Res22 (S4) School (S1) Crab Park (S4) As shown in Table 4-13, project L den noise levels are predicted to be below the port authority 75 dba limit at all Receptors (Figure 4-3, Figure 4-4, Figure 4-5, and Figure 4-6). The information presented on these contour plans has been developed form interpolated datasets obtained from available monitoring locations. This data has a reducing level of confidence as the distance from the monitoring stations increased. In addition, L den and L n noise level changes are predicted to be below perceptible levels, with a maximum noise level increase of 1.6 db. For industrial noise sources, %HA is calculated using the formula (ANSI 2005): 100 %HA n = [1 + exp ( (L dn )] Where: %HA n = Highly annoyed percentage L dn = Day-night sound level (based on a 15-hour day and 9 hour night period) Highly annoyed percentage results for each Receptor are listed in Table The Receptor showing the highest change in %HA is Res14 (3.31 %) due to its proximity to rail and other activities, and the lack of shielding between Centerm and this Receptor. 4-15

19 Date: 2/1/2018 3:23:25 PM Path: C:\Users\knottj\Desktop\Projects\Centerm\ CEP-ACL-04-3.mxd THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THE USE OF AECOM'S CLIENT AND MAY NOT BE USED, REPRODUCED, OR RELIED UPON BY THIRD PARTIES, EXCEPT AS AGREED BY AECOM AND ITS CLIENT, AS REQUIRED BY LAW OR FOR USE BY GOVERNMENTAL REVIEWING AGENCIES. AECOM ACCEPTS NO RESPONSIBILITY, AND DENIES ANY LIABILITY WHATSOEVER, TO ANY PARTY THAT MODIFIES THIS DRAWING WITHOUT AECOM'S EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT, DO NOT SCALE THIS DOCUMENT. ALL MEASUREMENT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM STATED DIMENSIONS. LEGEND Site Confidence Zone Tertiary Monitoring Stations Primary and Secondary Monitoring Stations Sound Levels (dba) < > 75 N S5 CONFIDENCE ZONE S4 Site Site 3 Site 1 Site 2 S Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS Userm Community Site 5

20 Date: 2/1/2018 3:52:09 PM Path: C:\Users\knottj\Desktop\Projects\Centerm\ CEP-ACL-04-4.mxd THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THE USE OF AECOM'S CLIENT AND MAY NOT BE USED, REPRODUCED, OR RELIED UPON BY THIRD PARTIES, EXCEPT AS AGREED BY AECOM AND ITS CLIENT, AS REQUIRED BY LAW OR FOR USE BY GOVERNMENTAL REVIEWING AGENCIES. AECOM ACCEPTS NO RESPONSIBILITY, AND DENIES ANY LIABILITY WHATSOEVER, TO ANY PARTY THAT MODIFIES THIS DRAWING WITHOUT AECOM'S EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT, DO NOT SCALE THIS DOCUMENT. ALL MEASUREMENT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM STATED DIMENSIONS. LEGEND Site Confidence Zone Tertiary Monitoring Stations S5 Primary and Secondary Monitoring Stations Sound Levels (dba) < > 75 N CONFIDENCE ZONE S4 Site Site 3 Site 1 Site 2 S Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS Userm Community Site 5

21 Date: 2/2/ :51:01 AM Path: C:\Users\knottj\Desktop\Projects\Centerm\ CEP-ACL-04-5.mxd THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THE USE OF AECOM'S CLIENT AND MAY NOT BE USED, REPRODUCED, OR RELIED UPON BY THIRD PARTIES, EXCEPT AS AGREED BY AECOM AND ITS CLIENT, AS REQUIRED BY LAW OR FOR USE BY GOVERNMENTAL REVIEWING AGENCIES. AECOM ACCEPTS NO RESPONSIBILITY, AND DENIES ANY LIABILITY WHATSOEVER, TO ANY PARTY THAT MODIFIES THIS DRAWING WITHOUT AECOM'S EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT, DO NOT SCALE THIS DOCUMENT. ALL MEASUREMENT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM STATED DIMENSIONS. LEGEND Site Confidence Zone Tertiary Monitoring Stations S5 Primary and Secondary Monitoring Stations Sound Levels (dba) < > 75 N CONFIDENCE ZONE S4 Site Site 3 Site 1 Site 2 S Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS Userm Community Site 5

22 Date: 2/2/ :54:06 AM Path: C:\Users\knottj\Desktop\Projects\Centerm\ CEP-ACL-04-6.mxd THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THE USE OF AECOM'S CLIENT AND MAY NOT BE USED, REPRODUCED, OR RELIED UPON BY THIRD PARTIES, EXCEPT AS AGREED BY AECOM AND ITS CLIENT, AS REQUIRED BY LAW OR FOR USE BY GOVERNMENTAL REVIEWING AGENCIES. AECOM ACCEPTS NO RESPONSIBILITY, AND DENIES ANY LIABILITY WHATSOEVER, TO ANY PARTY THAT MODIFIES THIS DRAWING WITHOUT AECOM'S EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT, DO NOT SCALE THIS DOCUMENT. ALL MEASUREMENT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM STATED DIMENSIONS. LEGEND Site DB_HI Confidence Zone Tertiary Monitoring Stations S5 Primary and Secondary Monitoring Stations < > 75 N CONFIDENCE ZONE S4 Site Site 3 Site 1 Site 2 S Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS Userm Community Site 5

23 Table 4-14: Baseline and Project %HA Receptor Base Case %HA Proposed Project Case %HA Change in %HA FH Park PPH Res Res Res Res Res Res Res Res08a Res08b Res Res Res Res12a Res12b Res Res Res15a Res15b Res Res Res School Crab Park Maximum Noise Levels Maximum measured ambient noise levels were estimated by calculating the 95th percentile L AFmax value at each measurement site. Maximum predicted noise levels from the Terminal were modelled and evaluated against maximum measured ambient noise levels. This provides a realistic maximum ambient noise level while excluding extreme outliers (i.e., a brief loud noise unrelated to Centerm occurring directly next to the noise monitor). Modelled maximum base case noise was subtracted from maximum ambient noise to obtain maximum ambient noise levels without Centerm operations (Table 4-15). Maximum modelled noise levels from the proposed Project were calculated for each Receptor. Maximum existing ambient noise levels without Centerm operations (Base Case) were modelled to obtain the maximum proposed Project noise levels at each Receptor (Table 4-16). Maximum base case and project noise contours are shown without background in Figure 4-7, Figure 4-8, Figure 4-9, and Figure As shown in Table 4-16, the proposed Project is predicted to cause an imperceptible change in maximum noise levels with the greatest change being a 1.7 db increase predicted at a residential Receptor located at Alexander Street and Princess Road (Res14). As described in Table 4-3, sound increases between 0 3 db are not perceptible. 4-20

24 Date: 2/2/ :56:58 AM Path: C:\Users\knottj\Desktop\Projects\Centerm\ CEP-ACL-04-7.mxd THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THE USE OF AECOM'S CLIENT AND MAY NOT BE USED, REPRODUCED, OR RELIED UPON BY THIRD PARTIES, EXCEPT AS AGREED BY AECOM AND ITS CLIENT, AS REQUIRED BY LAW OR FOR USE BY GOVERNMENTAL REVIEWING AGENCIES. AECOM ACCEPTS NO RESPONSIBILITY, AND DENIES ANY LIABILITY WHATSOEVER, TO ANY PARTY THAT MODIFIES THIS DRAWING WITHOUT AECOM'S EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT, DO NOT SCALE THIS DOCUMENT. ALL MEASUREMENT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM STATED DIMENSIONS. LEGEND Site Tertiary Monitoring Stations S5 Primary and Secondary Monitoring Stations Sound Levels (dba) < > 75 N S4 Site Site 3 Site 1 Site 2 S Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User m Community Site 5

25 Date: 2/2/ :58:55 AM Path: C:\Users\knottj\Desktop\Projects\Centerm\ CEP-ACL-04-8.mxd THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THE USE OF AECOM'S CLIENT AND MAY NOT BE USED, REPRODUCED, OR RELIED UPON BY THIRD PARTIES, EXCEPT AS AGREED BY AECOM AND ITS CLIENT, AS REQUIRED BY LAW OR FOR USE BY GOVERNMENTAL REVIEWING AGENCIES. AECOM ACCEPTS NO RESPONSIBILITY, AND DENIES ANY LIABILITY WHATSOEVER, TO ANY PARTY THAT MODIFIES THIS DRAWING WITHOUT AECOM'S EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT, DO NOT SCALE THIS DOCUMENT. ALL MEASUREMENT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM STATED DIMENSIONS. LEGEND Site Tertiary Monitoring Stations S5 Primary and Secondary Monitoring Stations Sound Levels (dba) < > 75 N S4 Site Site 3 Site 1 Site 2 S Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User m Community Site 5

26 Date: 2/2/ :00:43 AM Path: C:\Users\knottj\Desktop\Projects\Centerm\ CEP-ACL-04-9.mxd THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THE USE OF AECOM'S CLIENT AND MAY NOT BE USED, REPRODUCED, OR RELIED UPON BY THIRD PARTIES, EXCEPT AS AGREED BY AECOM AND ITS CLIENT, AS REQUIRED BY LAW OR FOR USE BY GOVERNMENTAL REVIEWING AGENCIES. AECOM ACCEPTS NO RESPONSIBILITY, AND DENIES ANY LIABILITY WHATSOEVER, TO ANY PARTY THAT MODIFIES THIS DRAWING WITHOUT AECOM'S EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT, DO NOT SCALE THIS DOCUMENT. ALL MEASUREMENT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM STATED DIMENSIONS. LEGEND Site Tertiary Monitoring Stations S5 Primary and Secondary Monitoring Stations Sound Levels (dba) < > 75 N S4 Site Site 3 Site 1 Site 2 S Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User m Community Site 5

27 Date: 2/2/ :02:32 AM Path: C:\Users\knottj\Desktop\Projects\Centerm\ CEP-ACL mxd THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THE USE OF AECOM'S CLIENT AND MAY NOT BE USED, REPRODUCED, OR RELIED UPON BY THIRD PARTIES, EXCEPT AS AGREED BY AECOM AND ITS CLIENT, AS REQUIRED BY LAW OR FOR USE BY GOVERNMENTAL REVIEWING AGENCIES. AECOM ACCEPTS NO RESPONSIBILITY, AND DENIES ANY LIABILITY WHATSOEVER, TO ANY PARTY THAT MODIFIES THIS DRAWING WITHOUT AECOM'S EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT, DO NOT SCALE THIS DOCUMENT. ALL MEASUREMENT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM STATED DIMENSIONS. LEGEND DB_HI Site Tertiary Monitoring Stations S5 Primary and Secondary Monitoring Stations < > 75 N S4 Site Site 3 Site 1 Site 2 S Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User m Community Site 5

28 Table 4-15: Maximum Existing Ambient Noise Levels without Centerm Operations Measurement Site/Receptor Measured Ambient Noise (95th percentile L AFmax (dba)) Maximum Base Case Modelled Port Noise Level (dba) Non-Centerm Maximum Noise Day Eve Night Day Eve Night Day Eve Night Impark (S1) Gastown (S4) Canada Place (S5) Jim Green Res (BKL Site 1) N/A 3 Japanese Language School (BKL Site 2) Centerm CSSF Building (BKL Site 3) 1, N/A 3 MV Portside Station (BKL Site 4) 1, Van Raymur NMT (BKL Site 5) 1, Base case for BKL Sites 1 to 5 includes additional shielding from higher container stacks. 2 Not representative of noise sensitive locations, presented for informational purposes only. 3 N/A indicates that the measured ambient background is lower than the modelled port noise. The modeled results for the Site 1 and Site 3 locations were higher than the measured maximum during the night time and therefore are not applicable. As the tertiary background monitoring activity logs indicate there were night time activities at the port including rail switching, the monitored data supports qualification that the modeling was conservative. Table 4-16: Maximum Existing and Project Scenario Noise Levels Receptor (Closest Measurement Site) Existing Maximum Noise Level (Ambient + Existing Modelled) (dba) Project Maximum Noise Level (Ambient + Future Modelled) (dba) Change in Maximum Noise Level (db) Day Eve Night Day Eve Night Day Eve Night FH (S5) Park (S5) PPH (S5) Res01 (S4) Res02 (S4) Res03 (S4) Res04 (S4) Res05 (S4) Res06 (S4) Res07 (S1) Res08a (S1) Res08b (S1) Res09 (S1) Res10 (S1) Res11 (S1) Res12a (S1) Res12b (S1) Res13 (S1) Res14 (S1)

29 Receptor (Closest Measurement Site) Existing Maximum Noise Level (Ambient + Existing Modelled) (dba) Project Maximum Noise Level (Ambient + Future Modelled) (dba) Change in Maximum Noise Level (db) Day Eve Night Day Eve Night Day Eve Night Res15a (S1) Res15b (S1) Res17 (S1) Res20 (S1) Res22 (S4) School (S1) Crab Park (S4) As shown in Table 4-15 as well as Figure 4-11 and Figure 4-12 the Project is predicted to cause an imperceptible change (i.e., <3.0dB) in maximum noise levels. The noise measurements were taken at a height of 1.5 metres. Actual non-facility noise at these locations (roughly 6 storeys high) is expected to be higher due to a lack of screening (more exposure) from non-facility marine and rail noise sources. 4-26

30 Date: 2/2/ :04:32 AM Path: C:\Users\knottj\Desktop\Projects\Centerm\ CEP-ACL mxd THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THE USE OF AECOM'S CLIENT AND MAY NOT BE USED, REPRODUCED, OR RELIED UPON BY THIRD PARTIES, EXCEPT AS AGREED BY AECOM AND ITS CLIENT, AS REQUIRED BY LAW OR FOR USE BY GOVERNMENTAL REVIEWING AGENCIES. AECOM ACCEPTS NO RESPONSIBILITY, AND DENIES ANY LIABILITY WHATSOEVER, TO ANY PARTY THAT MODIFIES THIS DRAWING WITHOUT AECOM'S EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT, DO NOT SCALE THIS DOCUMENT. ALL MEASUREMENT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM STATED DIMENSIONS. LEGEND Site Tertiary Monitoring Stations S5 Primary and Secondary Monitoring Stations Difference < > 12 N S4 Site Site 3 Site 1 Site 2 S Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS Userm Community Site 5

31 Date: 2/2/ :08:23 AM Path: C:\Users\knottj\Desktop\Projects\Centerm\ CEP-ACL mxd THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THE USE OF AECOM'S CLIENT AND MAY NOT BE USED, REPRODUCED, OR RELIED UPON BY THIRD PARTIES, EXCEPT AS AGREED BY AECOM AND ITS CLIENT, AS REQUIRED BY LAW OR FOR USE BY GOVERNMENTAL REVIEWING AGENCIES. AECOM ACCEPTS NO RESPONSIBILITY, AND DENIES ANY LIABILITY WHATSOEVER, TO ANY PARTY THAT MODIFIES THIS DRAWING WITHOUT AECOM'S EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT, DO NOT SCALE THIS DOCUMENT. ALL MEASUREMENT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM STATED DIMENSIONS. LEGEND Site Tertiary Monitoring Stations S5 Primary and Secondary Monitoring Stations Difference < > 12 N S4 Site Site 3 Site 1 Site 2 S Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS Userm Community Site 5

32 Low Frequency Noise Level The Noise Guidelines recommend that low frequency noise levels (LLF, sum of the sound levels at the 16, 31.5 and 63 Hz octave bands) be assessed; the LLF results are shown in Table The Noise Guidelines do not provide threshold limits for LLF; therefore, threshold limits for the assessment were drawn from ANSI s Part 4 Quantities and Procedures for description and measurement of environmental sound. Part 4: Noise assessment and prediction of long-term community response - Annex D. According to ANSI, the LLF should be less than 70 db to prevent the potential for noise-induced rattles. No low frequency sound is predicted to exceed 70 db in the proposed Project Case. Table 4-17: Receptor Low-Frequency Noise Level Generated by the Proposed Project Octave Band Hz 63 Hz LLF (db) FH Park PPH Res Res Res Res Res Res Res Res08a Res08b Res Res Res Res12a Res12b Res Res Res15a Res15b Res Res Res School Crab Park Hz noise data unavailable for Terminal noise sources Consequential Noise Effects Assessment The Noise Guidelines also require consequential noise effects to be assessed. Consequential noise is the noise that originates from sources attributable to the proposed Project but not directly related to Terminal operations. The proposed Project would generate additional supply chain traffic from increased railway and truck activity. The supply chain routes are identified on Figure While these sources were included in the assessment of Base Case, Project Case, and No-Project Case, they are also considered separately in the assessment of consequential noise. Additional rail activity was found to have the largest contribution to consequential noise impacts off the Terminal. 4-29

33 Road truck volume to the Terminal would increase from 47,304 operating truck hours per year to 78,525 operating truck hours per year. Destinations of the trucks after they leave the Centerm site are highly variable, however they generally follow two corridors from the port; South along the Clark-Knight corridor, and east along the port roadway to Highway 1. This assessment assumes that the vehicle volumes will be proportionally increasing on these existing routes. To consider the worst possible potential noise impact, the assessment reviewed the situation where truck traffic would be the controlling source of noise (no other vehicles and local noises). In this situation, the change in traffic would cause a maximum increase of 2.2 db. As described in Table 4-3, sound increases between 0 3 db are not perceptible. Train traffic associated with the Terminal follows two corridors from the port; South along the Burrard Inlet line corridor, and east along the south shore to Port Coquitlam and beyond. The train traffic volumes on these two corridors would be expected to increase proportionally from a combined total of approximately 430 operating trains per year to over 1,000 operating trains per year. This equates to approximately two trains per day (current operations), increasing to over three trains per day, split across both rail corridors. To consider the worst possible potential noise impact, the assessment reviewed the situation where train traffic would be the controlling (most apparent) source of noise (no other vehicles and local noises). In this situation, the change in train traffic volumes would cause a maximum increase of 3.7 db to the average daily noise levels associated with train traffic along the supply chain. However, train activity on these corridors already includes commuter, grain, and container trains associated with other terminals, and those trains would be expected to mask some of this predicted increase. 4-30

34 Date: 1/26/ :06:49 AM Path: P:\ \900-Work\ (GIS-Graphics)\02_MXDs\Report\Air\Jan 22, 2017\ CEP-FIG-ACL-AIR-A2-8.mxd THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THE USE OF AECOM'S CLIENT AND MAY NOT BE USED, REPRODUCED, OR RELIED UPON BY THIRD PARTIES, EXCEPT AS AGREED BY AECOM AND ITS CLIENT, AS REQUIRED BY LAW OR FOR USE BY GOVERNMENTAL REVIEWING AGENCIES. AECOM ACCEPTS NO RESPONSIBILITY, AND DENIES ANY LIABILITY WHATSOEVER, TO ANY PARTY THAT MODIFIES THIS DRAWING WITHOUT AECOM'S EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT, DO NOT SCALE THIS DOCUMENT. ALL MEASUREMENT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM STATED DIMENSIONS LEGEND N Project Location Drayage Supply Chain Boundary Rail Supply Chain Boundary Marine Supply Chain Boundary Freeway Arterial Road :100, km :100,