Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 34
6 Reflections on the Workshop I n the final session of the workshop, participants identified cost- effective actions that can be taken to reduce noise in the national parks: • Improve maintenance of park equipment, such as the repair or replacement of noisy mufflers. • Move idling buses to a location where the noise they generate is shielded. • Educate park personnel to minimize their use of noisy equipment. • Create an inventory database of equipment, with associated noise levels, to help park personnel determine which equipment to repair or replace first. • Amend purchase guidelines for new park equipment. • Establish a policy to reduce road noise as roads in the parks are repaved. • Monitor noise levels in parks to establish baselines and the extent to which they are exceeded. • Develop and/or apply other sound metrics to quantifying park soundscapes. • Draft noise control specifications to serve as guidelines in contracts. • Provide training for park resource managers on soundscape awareness so that they have the tools and information they need to take action. • Use past and future surveys of park superintendents to help identify noise problems and potential solutions in each park. • Have park managers sit down and listen to the noises gener- 34
OCR for page 34
REFLECTIONS ON THE WORKSHOP 35 ated in their parks to build awareness of what and where the problems are. • Establish a single person in each park who is responsible for protection of the soundscape. • Involve concessionaires in noise reduction since they are a vital component of operations in many parks. • Establish quiet zones and quiet times to raise awareness of noise issues among park visitors. • Inform visitors who enter parks with loud vehicles of the parks’ desire to limit noise. • Forge a partnership with the Institute of Noise Control Engi- neering of the USA (INCE/USA) to bring expertise to bear on noise problems in the parks, perhaps through an INCE/USA technical committee or sessions at INCE’s annual meetings. Trevino acknowledged that the Park Service needs to lead by exam- ple in regulating noise in the parks. Others commended the Park Service for steps it is already taking to reduce noise and its mandate to protect visitors’ enjoyment of the parks. One participant suggested action on noise from snowplows since the noise can be heard from 10 miles away when the machines operate above treeline. In terms of the feasibility and desirability of a noise restriction on people coming into national parks, participants observed that some groups and individuals may resist—such as motorcycle groups that favor modified (i.e., louder) exhaust systems. But such a restriction would nonetheless significantly reduce noise in the parks. Trevino noted that states have begun to adopt noise restrictions on motorcycles, but she also pointed out that many people urge advocacy in the parks on noise levels ahead of regulation. For instance, sound levels from motorcycles have been recorded and measured to help make motorcycle riders aware of the noise they generate. This approach can be applied to all vehicles, not just motorcycles. Finally, workshop participants expressed interest in a continuing forum for review of noise issues and policies, to extend the deliberations of the workshop and continue to lay the groundwork for reducing noise in the national parks. Trevino and Turina expressed their thanks to workshop participants and said they would begin to develop an implementation plan the next day. Showing that the benefits of noise mitigation can extend to actual cost savings for parks and for the Park Service will be critical, they said.