Q:  Mr. Burge, could you briefly describe educational and professional background which qualifies you to comment on acoustical matters.

I hold BS and MS degrees in Mechanical Engineering with an emphasis in acoustics and vibration.  I have been working professionally in noise and vibration analysis and control for approximately 13 years.  

I hold full, active membership in the Acoustical Society of America, the Institute of Noise Control Engineers and the Transportation Research Board (as a member of transportation noise and vibration committee).  

I work primarily in the area of environmental acoustics, including such projects as highway and rail noise, noise from commercial and industrial sources, and noise from recreation sources such as racetracks and amphitheaters.
 

A:  Acentech Incorporated, a multidisciplinary acoustical consulting firm, in business for over fifty years.  Our services include noise control and architectural design.

I am a senior consultant in Acentech’s Transportation and Environmental Noise group.

A:  At the request of the Bloomington Amphitheater Coalition and the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Ecology, I have conducted a review of the Metropolitan Council Sound Study Report for the Proposed Black Dog Amphitheater, dated April 2001.  In addition, I have also reviewed assorted additional supporting documents, including:

- Acoustical analysis for this proposed facility for Sterns & Associates LLC, by Mr. Dennis Paoletti dated April 19, 2000, (presented in the EAW)
- Report on Wind and Temperature Structures at the proposed Wild Amphitheater Site by Mr. Bruce Watson, also for Sterns & Associates, dated March 28, 2000.
- Memorandum commenting on the EAW from Mr. Chris Menge, of Harris Miller Miller & Hanson, Inc., dated June 12, 2001
- Letter to Bill Cavanaugh regarding various errors and criticisms of the Metropolitan Council Sound Study from Mr. Tom Twaites, dated July 30, 2001
- Memorandum responding to Mr. Twaites’ comments from Menge, Cavanaugh, and Paoletti (including revised pages and attachments for the Metropolitan Council Sound Study Report for the Proposed Black Dog Amphitheater), dated August 7, 2001 
- Miscellaneous additional correspondence.

My comments here will generally be limited to my review of the Metropolitan Council Sound Study Report for the Proposed Black Dog Amphitheater (Metropolitan Council Study) Sections 1 through 4, along with occasional reference to the other reviewed documents.

The authors suggest that under “worst case” conditions, and with recommended mitigation measures, violations of the state noise code will be minimized.  For a number of reasons, we feel that the “worst case “ scenario defined by the report is not conservative enough support the conclusion that noise code violations will be minimized.

The background noise measurements presented in this section appear to be correctly conducted and documented.  

However, we note that for the measurements conducted Saturday afternoon and evening, the winds were recorded as being generally from the east.  This represents a downwind condition that would typically enhance the acoustical propagation of highway noise from nearby Interstate-35W to receiver points to the West, including measurement sites 1, 2, 4, and 8.  Indeed, measurement data for these sites show background (L90) levels to be between 2 and 14 dB higher on Saturday than on Friday. We note that Bruce Watson’s meteorological study submitted as part of the EAW reports that during concert times winds will come generally from the East (combined NE, ENE, East, ESE, SE; or 45º through 135º) only 11% of the time.  By contrast, his study reports that wind will come generally from the South (135º through 225º) 59% of the time, and generally from the West (225º through 315º) 39% of the time.  

Given this, it is our opinion that the ambient background measurements conducted during Saturday afternoon and evening overestimate typical ambient background noise levels during concert times by 5 to 10 dB.  This would essentially be the exact opposite of a “worst case” scenario with respect to new source audibility by presenting substantially higher than normal background noise levels.

The sound propagation measurements presented in this section appear to be correctly conducted and documented.  

However we note the authors comments regarding the suitability of the time of the year that the measurements were conducted, specifically: 

“The sound propagation measurements were conducted (at that time) largely because the opportunity to acquire some data of this type presented itself.  The ideal measurement period for these measurements is during summer evenings, when concerts are expected to occur.  In addition, it is during summer evenings when temperature inversions are most likely to occur, and we expect that those atmospheric conditions are the most likely to result in the enhanced sound propagation conditions that has been described by residents of the Bloomington bluffs.  Further, winds are more often from the south and southwest during summertime, also potentially enhancing sound propagation from the proposed site to the bluffs.  Therefore, the sound propagation result reported in this memo should be thought of as some additional information on sound propagation under atmospheric conditions that existed at the time. And, those condition were not characteristic of those conditions during summer evenings.”

It seems clear from this statement that the HMMH consultants felt that the propagation measurements that they conducted were not conclusive, and that lacking the typical atmospheric conditions expected during the time of day and season that the facility would generally be in use, these measurements were not sufficiently conservative to characterize amphitheater sound propagation.

The weather observations for the time period during which the sound propagation measurements were conducted were noted as being “Overcast” or “Drizzle” and with a moderate wind.  These observations would generally preclude the existence of a temperature inversion condition that would typically enhance acoustical propagation.

The author lists the exclusion of excessive atmospheric propagation effects in the analysis as a conservative measure.  We believe that the reverse would be true considering that such effects as downwind conditions and temperature inversion would cause amphitheater noise to propagate much more effectively into surrounding neighborhoods.  Further, due to natural nocturnal cooling patterns, temperature inversion conditions (which enhances acoustical propagation in all directions) are much more likely at night than are temperature lapse rate conditions (which would inhibit acoustical propagation).  Given this, the exclusion of potential atmospheric effects is not a conservative measure, but instead will almost certainly lead to a serious under-prediction of acoustical propagation into surrounding neighborhoods. 

The author also counts the exclusion of ground attenuation as a conservative measure, although it seems that ground effects would play, at best, a limited role for acoustical paths to receiver locations elevated above the source or where noise barriers are present.  It also excludes the consideration of any potential acoustical reflections from existing or future structures, hard ground surfaces (such as exposed hard rock surfaces or future paved parking areas), and nearby existing bodies of water (including the Minnesota River) any of which could contribute to higher than predicted noise levels.

The author states that the actual angular distance between source and receiver would be greater than the projected (plan) distance used for his calculations (implying that the actual noise levels would be lower than those presented in the report).  In reality, the differences between the plan and angular distances would certainly be insignificant in terms of sound level drop-off.  For Site 2, where one would expect to find the greatest difference, the difference between actual and projected distance is about two feet.  The claim that this difference is conservative is either a miscalculation or a misleading exaggeration.  The author goes on to say that there are some “slight” variations in source-receiver distances documented by different parties due to the “different site plans and exact location of the amphitheater (that were) used by each party.”  However no reference is made to the order of magnitude of the discrepancies or whether it would place the source closer or further from the receiver.  In fact, in Appendix A the author places seven out of eight of the receiver sites as being further from the source, than was measured by HMMH in Sections 2 and 3.  Averaging over all receiver directions, the author has placed the receiver locations an average of 226 feet further from the source than in earlier estimates. 

The Author also states that indoor receivers will receive additional attenuation.  However, the Minnesota noise regulation clearly establishes that noise limit criteria are meant to be applied to outdoor noise level measurements.  Therefore it is certainly not a matter of being conservative, but rather of understanding how to applying the noise regulation correctly.  Noise criteria that offer alternative indoor levels typically specify the alternate indoor noise level criteria to be substantially lower than outdoor level criteria (for example FHWA noise abatement criteria specifies 67 dB on the exterior of residential structures and 52 dB on the interior – 15 dB lower).

In the section titled “General Background,” the author states that the L1 level is generally taken to be representative of the maximum sound levels.  This is incorrect, as by definition, the time-varying noise level exceeds the L1 level 1% of the time.  The example shown in Figure I-2 of the report suggests that Lmax exceeds L1 by 5 to 25 dBA. 

The author refers to various federal noise standards, siting HUD, FAA, and FHWA levels as being about 65 dBA.  The discussion ignores the fact that the HUD and FAA levels are expressed in dBA Ldn, which includes a 10 dBA nighttime noise penalty.  The FHWA cautions that noise impacts can occur below the noise abatement criteria, and that the criteria is expressed as loudest single hour Leq in order to determine “where noise abatement must be considered.”  The author also excludes the EPA noise level threshold of 55 dB, Ldn for exterior residential areas as “requisite to protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety.” 

The author reports categorically that “There is no increase above the ambient that is allowed by a new noise source.”  We find no such wording in the Minnesota Noise Pollution Control rules.  The author also states in this section that the noise pollution control agency “allow for no variance” with respect to the noise criteria, when, in fact, Section 7030.0080 lists circumstances under which persons may apply for variance (which, presumably, would not apply to this case). 

The author states that approximately six seasonal performance events are expected to be in the loudest event category used to defined the worst case scenario.  This is an assumption that is not addressed in the Summary of Recommended Acoustical Controls section, and presumably, many more such events could potentially be scheduled.  This section also references typical noise levels at some unknown venue, without any discussion regarding the type of performance or number of seasonal events.

The particular method presented is not familiar to us and no reference is made as to whether this method has been peer-reviewed, or has been published in any recognized technical journal.  Without such, it cannot be determined whether this technique is “a reasonable tool for assessing likely community reaction to (concert sounds)” as claimed by the author.  From a technical standpoint we are also concerned about the application of this technique when the ambient noise spectra and the source noise spectra are substantially different (as is the case with broad-band highway noise supposedly masking tonal and time-varying musical noise).  

Also, in applying this technique the author equates the maximum noise level to the one percentile noise level (L1).  As stated above, these are not the same, and could be different by as much as 25 dBA as shown in one of the author’s own figures.  

This technique may very well be valid.  However, without a valid technical reference we cannot know whether the proposed techniques has actually been shown to be a reasonable tool in predicting community reaction to noise in general, to concert and crowd noise in particular, or if the method is even being applied correctly.  Considering this, together with the fact that community annoyance due to noise is a very complicated and subjective issue, we find the use of this technique to be suspect.

In this section it is stated that noise measurements were only conducted outdoors and therefore represented “the most conservative and demanding conditions.”  As stated above, the Minnesota noise regulation clearly states that noise limit criteria are meant to be applied to outdoor noise level measurements, therefore the use of outdoor measurements is neither conservative nor demanding, but what is minimally required.  

As discussed in detail in our comment to Section 2, we believe that the ambient background measurements conducted during Saturday afternoon and evening overestimate typical ambient background noise levels during concert times by 5 to 10 dB.

As discussed in detail in our comments to Section 3, we feel that the conditions under which the tests were conducted (different season, no temperature inversion condition, atypical wind direction) do not represent typical conditions that would exist during concert times.  Therefore, in our opinion the measurements failed to fulfil this purpose and should be considered irrelevant.  Also, given the atypical conditions during the tests, any discussion comparing measured and theoretical propagation is moot.  

The author also states that, while sound levels could increase by 5-10 dBA as the result of atmospheric conditions that it is “not possible to predict with any confidence how often (these) conditions will occur.”  We contend that the atmospheric phenomena that enhance long range acoustical propagation (temperature inversion or downwind conditions) will occur when appropriate conditions exist, and that these conditions will exist a significant period of the time when concerts are expected to be held.  The foremost cause of temperature inversion is nocturnal radiational cooling, which generally occurs on clear calm nights following sunny days, starting around sunset and progressing through dawn.  When these conditions exist, temperature inversion is likely to occur.  It is also recognized that some valley areas exhibit localized temperature inversion conditions even more frequently.  If concerts were typically scheduled for the hours between 10 AM and 4 PM, the authors would be justified in dismissing temperature inversions as an infrequent factor, however, that is not the case.  Moreover, when the development of a temperature inversion is thwarted by moderate winds, the resulting downwind condition (in at least one general direction) will serve to enhance acoustical propagation.  In any case the suggestion of evaluating “worse case” noise levels absolutely demands the inclusion of atmospheric affects favorable to acoustical propagation.

The author refers to technical work done by the Disney organization as having concluded “wind and weather conditions are so chaotic, that it is not possible to fit adjustments for such conditions into a theoretical propagation formula.”  The author does not include a valid technical reference to support this conclusion.  However, recently published technical work by Disney Engineers on this subject (Bronsdon, R.L. (Disney) and H. Forscher, “A Propagation Model Based on Gaussian Beams that Accounts for Wind and Temperature Inversions,” Noise Control Eng. J. 1999 Sept-Oct) seems to contradict the author’s conclusion.

In this paper, Disney’s Bronsdon reports the following:
 

- Accurate meteorological models are important to accurate prediction of community noise impact of sound sources.

- Certain atmospheric conditions like temperature inversions and wind tend to reduce or totally eliminate the effectiveness of noise barriers, leading to complaints in the surrounding community.

- Experiences at current installations indicated that the standard approaches tended to grossly underestimate the amount of sound that reached the community.  The problems occurred during times of strong radiational cooling, clear skies, and low winds.

-Complaints from the surrounding community are frequently a response, not to average levels which exist most nights of the year, and which may well conform to community noise regulations, but to seasonal peaks that clearly exceed regulations.

- Predictions need to be made based on meteorological conditions that represent the typical worst case and not on the yearly average.  It also means that demonstrations of a sound containment system should be carried out under realistically difficult conditions, not conditions where the atmosphere is either benign or even providing additional insertion loss.

- Meteorological models are important if one wishes to accurately predict the impact of a sound source on the surrounding community.

In another paper presented to the Acoustical Society of America in 1997, Bronsdon writes the following:

“Sound propagation models have typically been used to develop noise control solutions for a wide variety of troublesome sources (including) outdoor amphitheaters.  Almost all of these models assume that there is no variability in the atmospheric properties of the propagating medium but this assumption is invariably false.  The problems usually come at night, when temperature and wind variations in the atmosphere create propagation conditions which are not favorable, resulting in much higher noise levels in the community, often on the order of 15-20 dB.

The author states that “for worst case wind and inversion conditions sound levels could increase in the range of 5-10 decibels.”  We feel that this number should be even more conservative (perhaps 10 to 15 dB at such distances).  However this even this modest “worst case” increase is not used in the calculations for predicted sound propagation in Appendix A.  The author goes on to suggest that a proposed concert sound monitoring system should include weather monitors in order to adjust for such conditions.  We feel that it is unlikely that a rudimentary weather monitor can reliably predict such conditions as a temperature inversion without having sensors at several different elevations.  The only practical way to determine noise levels at distant locations is to place noise monitors at those locations (either via roving monitors or permanent neighborhood monitor locations), which the author lists only as an “optional” components of the Sound Management System (Appendix C, item 1C, and 1F). 

On page 16 and 17 a table is presented showing the measured ambient sound data for the eight identified noise monitor locations for Friday and Saturday night and Saturday afternoon.  As discussed earlier, we believe that the data for Saturday afternoon and evening should be deleted from this table, as these data were collected during atypical weather conditions and that they generally overestimate the typical ambient background noise levels during concert times by 5 to 10 dB.

The author proposes a maximum sound level at the mix station of 100 dBA, L1,.  We note that this is 5 to 12 dBA less than the loudest groups noted in the table on page 19, which may or may not be reasonable from a customer satisfaction standpoint.  This represents a 60% to 95% reduction in acoustical energy.  This might also be experienced as approximately half as loud as what patrons and performers might otherwise expect to experience at competing venues.  Also, this may have little or no influence on crowd noise.

The author states that the evaluation of crowd noise is a “complex and unpredictable outdoor noise issue.”  Be that as it may, it is our experience that crowd noise at open air venues is often a major source of neighbor complaints, especially late in the performance as crowd energy builds the crowd attempts to coax performers into performing encores.  

The author also states that “projected sound levels and limits recommended at the facility are based on data bases which do not segregate crowd sound as such, and are used for the analysis reflected in the summary tables on pages 23 and 24 (the MN standards and audibility criteria) of the report.”  We find this wholly unacceptable for a several reasons:

First, the author reports an estimate of “crowd only” noise for Site 2 of 50 to 60 dBA.  However the table on page 24 estimates a Concert Sound Community Level L1 of only 44 dBA.  If this projected level, as stated above, does not segregate crowd noise, then it must be at least 6 to 16 dBA too low!  Otherwise it does not sufficiently account for crowd noise.  The claim that the projected concert noise (amplified music plus crowd noise) used for the analysis is based on a database is false.  It is based on a contrived maximum noise level, which is substantially below industry norms.  Frankly, we have more faith in the actual crowd noise measurement presented on page 21 (75 dBA at 350 feet) than the contrived Concert Sound Level Limit presented on page 20 which supposedly includes crowd noise (even though crowd noise cannot be turned down at the mixing board). 

Second, the calculated noise levels in Appendix A account for a lumped attenuation of up to 20 dB for noise barriers.  While the covered seating areas may receive significant noise reduction from the side and overhead structure, the crowd and speakers at the exposed rear lawn will realistically receive little or no benefit from noise barriers.  It has long been understood, and recently documented that noise barriers offer little protection to distant receiver locations.  A soon to be published investigation by a noted environmental noise expert concludes, in part, that highway noise barriers offer little protection (less than 5 dB) beyond a few hundred feet, even under neutral meteorological conditions (Roger Wayson et al, University of Central Florida, recently presented at Noise-Con 2001, and soon to be published by the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC).  Bronsdon (above) also concluded this.  Any limited barrier insertion loss on such distant receivers would be easily wiped out by even a mild temperature inversion or downwind condition.  The result is that the estimated attenuation is likely 10 to 15 dB too high with respect to crowd and outdoor loudspeaker noise.

Finally, the calculated noise levels in Appendix A also account for a lumped attenuation of up to 20 dB for directivity of loudspeaker configurations.  Crowd noise would likely be much less directional than highly directional loudspeakers configurations, and the directivity would have a pattern different than that of loudspeakers (since speakers face the audience area and the audience generally faces the stage).

The author states that they have developed a sound propagation model to project “worst case” concert sound levels at representative residential locations, yet somehow avoid using his own “worst case” 5-10 decibel increase for meteorological conditions as stated on page 15.  We argue again that either a temperature inversion or downwind condition (from the South, South-West, or West) is likely to occur during concert times.  We also reiterate our argument above that crowd noise is probably seriously underestimated by 15 to 20 dB (due to both an underestimation of crowd noise at its source and an overestimation of barrier attenuation effects on outdoor noise sources).  

These concerns taken together may suggest that the projected worst case sound levels may conservatively be 15 to 25 dBA higher than those presented in tables on pages 24 and 25.  These more conservative estimates would reasonably result in regular exceedances of the Minnesota State noise standards at measurement sites 2, 3, and 6, and occasional exceedances at sites 1 and 4.  In terms of the audibility criteria (using the more typical Friday night background noise level data), these more conservative projections would reasonably lead to “Generally audible” conditions (and a severe community response) at sites 2, 3, 4, and 6, and a “sometimes audible” condition (and a moderate community response) at sites 1, 5, and 7.

Also in this section, the author states that while crowd noise is “sometimes identified as a source of annoyance apart from general concert sound from outdoor concerts.”  They go on to state that “concert performing groups generally do not want to be penalized for exceeding limits with respect to crowd noise over which they do not have direct control.”  While this may be true, we would suggest that crowd noise is still the developer’s responsibility.  It also seems to validate our concern that the mix station operator does not “have direct control” over crowd noise.

In general, the acoustical controls in this section seem reasonable and well planned.  Although, for reasons discussed earlier, we believe that these controls will not be sufficient to prevent regular exceedances of the Minnesota State Noise Standards.

The assumptions for the noise analysis include an upper limit to the number of “loud” events, and an operator-controlled noise limit.  However none of these are detailed in this section.  We would also insist that only permanent neighborhood noise monitoring devices can reliably determine remote noise levels.

PAUL L. BURGE
Senior Consultant
Transportation Systems, Noise and Vibration Control
 

EDUCATION

B.S., Mechanical Engineering, California State University, Long Beach, 1988
M.S., Mechanical Engineering, California State University, Long Beach, 1993

Acentech Incorporated, 1991 - present
Anatrol Corporation, 1990 - 1991
Douglas Aircraft Company, 1988 - 1990

Acoustical Society of America
Institute of Noise Control Engineers
National Academy of Sciences
Transportation Research Board Committee on Transportation Noise and Vibration
EIT Exam (California) 1989

Mr. Burgé works on projects involving transportation noise and vibration impact and mitigation design, community and environmental noise studies, mechanical system noise and vibration measurement and control, and the evaluation and control of vibrations in vibration-sensitive facilities.  He has experience in a variety of noise and vibration measurements, analysis and mitigation techniques; community noise surveys; acoustical intensity and vibrational modal analysis; and theoretical acoustical modeling.

CONSULTING EXPERIENCE

Transportation Noise and Vibration

Extensive highway noise analysis experience ranging from preparation of environmental impact statements, highway noise measurements, highway noise predictions, and noise barrier design and optimization using the FHWA computer programs STAMINA 2.0/OPTIMA, TNM 1.1, Caltrans Sound32/2000, as well as planning and participation in public participation programs.  Rail experience includes measurement and prediction of rail noise and vibration, mitigation design, cost-benefit analysis, and preparation of technical reports, for freight, commuter and transit rail studies.  Transportation noise and vibration mitigation experience includes design of noise barriers, and the evaluation of residential sound insulation, ballast mats and special track types.

Environmental Noise

Environmental noise studies include the evaluation of noise impacts from recreation sources such as race tracks and amphitheaters, property developments, manufacturing, industrial and commercial facilities upon sensitive receptors such as residential neighbors, schools and hospitals.  Services in this area include measurement and prediction programs, evaluation of existing noise regulations and legislation, evaluation of potential mitigation measures and options, and participation in public meetings.
 Mechanical Noise and Vibration Analysis and Control

Noise and vibration analysis and control projects include various products and equipment (industrial and consumer) vibration sensitive facilities, manufacturing facilities, rotating machinery and power equipment.  Services in mechanical noise and vibration control include general measurement surveys, detailed measurement programs (including acoustic intensity measurements and model analysis) and design recommendations.

 ABB Environmental
Amtrak 
Anderson DeBartalo & Pan
Air Research
Amgen
BBN
BRW, Inc.
Bayside Engineering
California Department of Transportation
Central Engineering
CH2M Hill
ChemClear Plant
Connecticut Department of Transportation
CRSS
CSX Railroad
Carol R. Johnson Associates
De Leuw, Cather & Company
Dodson-Stilson Engineers/DLZ
Douglas Aircraft
Earth Tech
Edwards and Kelcey Engineers
Engineering Technology Inc.
F.R.Harris
Fay Spofford & Thorndike
Forbes Engineering
Foth & Van Dyke Environmental
Gordon R. Archibald Engineers
Harris Semiconductor
Hayden Wegman Incorporated
Hoyle Tanner & Associates
HNTB Corporation
IBM Corporation
Jones Payne Architects
Kollsman Equipment
Lev Zetlin Associates, Inc.
Logan International Airport
Longwood Cricket Club
LA County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Lucent Technologies
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
Massachusetts Highway Department
Massachusetts Water Resource Authority
Mass Eye and Ear Hospital
Massachusetts Port Authority
Meissner & Wurst
Merck Pharmaceutical
Metcalf & Eddy
Micrion
National Forest Service
NASA
Netco
New York State Thruway Authority
Nitash Inc.
Norfolk Southern Railroad
Ocean State Power
Ohio Department of Transportation
Parsons Transportation Group
Payette Associates
Planning Consultants Research
Panda Brandywine
Procter & Gamble
Public Affairs Management
Rhode Island Department of Transportation
Rollins Investments
Shadyside Hospital
Shipley Company
Symmes Maini McKee & Assoc.
Steinman
Sullivan Equipment
Sylvania
Surface Transportation Board
Tight & Bond
Transportation Corridor Agencies
Tri-Met
Union Pacific/Southern Pacific Railroad
U.S. Army
U.S. Air Force
Wayne County Airport, Detroit
Warner Brothers’ Studios
Welded Aluminum Boat Manufacturers’ Assoc.
 

SPONSORED TECHNICAL REPORTS AND PUBLICATIONS

“A comparison of Transverse Tined and Longitudinal Diamond Ground Pavement Texturing for Newly Constructed Concrete Pavement” with Keith Travis and Zoltan Rado.  Transportation Research Board, paper #02-4090, Washington, DC (January 2002)
-
“The Power of Public Interaction” Acentech AIA Educational Seminar Series (November 2001)

“Using FHWA Traffic Noise Model to Compare Acoustical Characteristics of Candidate Pavement Types” Proceeding of Noise-Con 01, Institute of Noise Control Engineers (October, 2001)

“Ohio Department of Transportation, Noise Impact Analysis and Noise Mitigation Design for The Maumee River Crossing Project,” AI Report No. 283 (October 2000)

“New York State Thruway Authority, Noise Mitigation Prioritization Study for Westchester, Rockland and Orange Counties,” with Todd Busch and Robyn Spencer, AI Report No. 251 (July 2000)

“Value-Based Barrier Optimization Procedures for FHWA Traffic Noise Model (TNM®)” paper presented at the Transportation Research Board Summer Conference (July, 2000).  Also published in July/August edition of The Wall Journal

“New York State Thruway Authority, Alternative Pavement Noise Analysis,” with Jeff Zapfe and Todd Busch, AI Report No. 266 (June 2000)

“Urban Canyon Rail Noise Modeling,” paper presented at the Transportation Research Board Summer Conference (August 1999)

"Feasibility and Prioritization of Red Line Noise Mitigation for Beacon Hill Portal Area, Boston, MA,” with Robyn Spencer, AI Report No. 222 (February 1999).

“Noise Mitigation Prioritization Study for an Existing Rail Line,” paper presented at the Transportation Research Board Summer Conference (July 1998).

“MBTA Attleboro Commuter Rail LineNoise Mitigation Prioritization Study,” with David Coate and Chris Maxon, AI Report No. 201 (July 1998)

“Train Noise Mitigation Alternatives Study—CSX/Conrail Acquisition Environmental Studies,” with David E. Coate, AI Report No. 187 (August 1997)

“Route 85 Noise-Mitigation Study, Santa Clara County, CA,” with Todd A Busch and Ray E. Nugent, AI Report No. 184 (October 1997)

“Noise Barrier Acoustical Design, Longwood Cricket Club, Chestnut Hill, MA” (October, 1997)

“Measurement and Assessment of Vibrations due to Amtrak Train Passages, Warwick, RI,” with David E. Coate, AI Report No. 179, 180, 181 (July 1997)

“Environmental Assessment Noise Impact Analysis, I-95 Ramp Improvements, Civic Center Interchange, Providence, Rhode Island,” with David E. Coate, AI Report No. 173 (January 1997)

"Noise & Vibration Study & Abatement, Phase II, French Avenue Noise Mitigation Feasibility Study,” (for Massachusetts Bat Transportation Authority) with David E. Coate, AI Report No. 175 (December 1996)

“Noise Analysis of the Lebanon Valley Speedway,” with David E. Coate, AI Report No. 155 (August 1995)

“Final Engineering Design-Noise and Vibration Mitigation-Hillsboro Extension of the Westside Corridor Light Rail Transit,” AI Report 150 (July 1995)

“Siting the NIST Advanced Technology Laboratories: Consideration of Transportation Induced Vibrations,” with Hal Amick et al., paper presented at the Transportation Research Board Summer Conference (July 1995).

“In-Situ Noise & Vibration Measurements and Design Recommendations for Welded Aluminum Jet Boats,” with Stephen Lind, paper presented at the Transportation Research Board Summer Conference (July 1995).

“Noise Barrier Design for the New England Thruway- Acoustical Analysis Technical Report,” with David E. Coate and Bruce M. Jagolinzer, AI Report No. 145 (April 1995)

“Noise Barrier Design for Interstate 271 in Cuyahoga County, Ohio,” with David E. Coate and Bruce M. Jagolinzer AI Report No. 134 (February 1995)

“Draft Environmental Impact Evaluations, Thompson Road/Old Farms Road, Avon, Connecticut,” with David E. Coate and Bruce M Jagolinzer AI Report No. 131(January 1995)

"Final Environmental Impact Statement - Disposal and Reuse of Castle Air Force Base," U.S. Air Force (November 1994).

“Final Environmental Impact Statement - Disposal and Reuse of Grissom Air Force Base, Indiana,”  U.S. Air Force (November 1994)

“Noise and Vibration Study of Proposed Mixed Use Development at Lockheed B-1/Building 199 Site, Burbank, California,” with Ramon E. Nugent and Stephen J. Lind, AI Report No. 119 (May 1994)

"Final Environmental Impact Statement, Improved Access to Quonset Point/Davisville From Route 4, East Greenwich and North Kingston, Rhode Island," with David E. Coate, AI Report No. 115 (March 1994).

“Wake Island Environmental Assessment,” with Ramon Nugent et al., U.S. Army Space and Strategic Defense Command (January, 1994)

"Final Environment Impact Statement - Disposal and Reuse of Wurtsmith Air Force Base, Michigan," U.S. Air Force (September 1993).

“Welded Aluminum Jet Boat Noise Measurement Results and Design Recommendations,” with Stephen J. Lind and Ramon E. Nugent, AI Report No. 104 (July 1993)

“New and Existing Methods for the Evaluation and Control of Vibrations in Vibration-Sensitive Facilities,” California State University, Long Beach Thesis (May 1993)

"Study of Vibrations near Maverick Square due to MBTA Blue Line Train Passages," with David E. Coate, Dr. Eric Ungar, Hal Amick, Frank Iacovino, Stephen Munier, and Philip Praino, AI Report No. 90 (November 1992).

"Draft Preliminary Environmental Impact Statement - National Aero-Space Plane Flight Test Program," U.S. Air Force (July 1992).

“Noise Impacts of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor on the U.C. Irvine Campus,” with Ramon E. Nugent, et al., AI Report No. 80 (July 1992)

“Noise Impact Study of the Proposed Mixed Use Office/Commercial/Residential Development at Desoto Avenue and Oxnard Street in the Woodland Hills Community,” with Ramon E. Nugent, AI Report No. 76-115 (March 1992)

"Noise Impact Study for the Proposed ChemClear of Los Angeles, Inc. Facility--Vernon, California" with Ramon E. Nugent, Acentech Report 72 (October 1991).

“Design and Application of a Damping Treatment to a Jet Engine Nozzle,” with Ahid D. Nashif, Anatrol Corporation Report (April 1991)

“An Experimental Technique of Separating Airborne and Structure-Borne Noise Using Wavenumber-Frequency Spectrum,” with Gopal P. Mathur, Bryce K. Gadener and James Phillips, Douglas Paper 8451 (October 1990)

“UHB Demonstrator Interior Noise Control Flight Tests and Analysis,” M.A. Simpson et. Al., NASA Report 181897 (October 1989)

“Interior Noise Control Ground Test Studies for Advanced Turboprop Aircraft Applications,” with Myles A. Simpson, Mark R. Cannon and Robert P. Boyd, NASA Report 181819 (April 1989)