Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />!I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />SECTION THREE Affected Environments and Environmental Consequences <br /> <br />3.6.2 Alternative 2 . Improve Routing of Pawnee Creek Flood Flows (Proposed <br />Action) <br /> <br />Alternative 2 would result in minor changes in air quality during construction activities due to <br />exhaust from heavy equipment and possible increased dust levels. Any adverse changes in air <br />quality would be localized, minor, and short ternl. No pernlit would be required. However, if <br />dust becomes a problem, the contractor would have to implement dust control procedures (i.c., <br />water down the work area). <br /> <br />3.6.3 Alternative 3 . Pawnee Creek Overflow Cutoff <br /> <br />The effects of Alternative 3 on air quality would be the sanle as discussed for Alternative 2. <br /> <br />3.7 NOISE <br /> <br />Sounds that disrupt normal activities or otherwise diminish the quality of the environment are <br />designated as noise. Noise can be stationary or transient, intermittent or continuous. Noise <br />events that occur during the night (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) are more annoying than those that occur <br />during normal wake hours (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.). Noise events within the project vicinity are <br />presently associated with climatic conditions (wind, thunder, etc.), transportation noise (traffic on <br />existing roads), and "life sounds" (children playing in a park, dogs barking, etc.). <br /> <br />Neither Sterling, Atwood, nor Logan County currently have specific noise ordinances. Noise <br />problems in Sterling are handled under the City's nuisance provisions in their Code of <br />Ordinances (J. Kiolbasa, Public Works Director, City of Sterling, personal communication <br />1998). <br /> <br />3.7.1 Alternative 1 . No Action <br /> <br />Alternative 1 would have no effect on noise levels within the project vicinity or surrounding <br /> <br />areas. <br /> <br />3.7.2 Alternative 2 . Improve Routing of Pawnee Creek Flood Flows (Proposed <br />Action) <br /> <br />With Alternative 2, noise levels within the project area would be increased during the <br />construction of the levees, channels, and of the box culverts by earth moving and other <br />construction equipment. Noise from construction equipment would be similar to noise levels <br />currently associated with agricultural activities in the area. Construction activities would be <br />restricted to daylight hours to further reduce the impact of noise. No sensitive noise receptors <br />were identified within the project area. It is expected that all equipment necessary to complete <br />the proposed action would be outfitted with proper mufflers to reduce construction-related noise <br />levels. <br /> <br />3-10 <br />