oEPA
Agency
Chicago. Illinois 60604
905R81114
The Review Of Highway
Project Related Environmental
Impact Statements For Noise
Concerns: A Brief Outline
And Checksheet
CD CD CD CD CD
CD CD CD CD CD
CD CD CD CD CD
CD CD CD CD CD
CD CD CD
nnn
-------
The Review of Highway Project Related Environmental
Impact Statements for Noise Concerns:
A Brief Outline and Checksheet
By
Gale R. Hruska
Noise Control Specialist
Region V Noise Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
- 1981 -
-------
SUBJE •
PREFACE
K
,Jfcmy~prQjects, especially ttrose Involving Federal actions or Federal funding,
require the submission of environmental Impact statements (EIS). To assist
the people responsible for EIS preparation, many useful sources of Information
have been developed. However, almost no attention has been given to assisting
the person who has to review one. It seems to be Implied that the same
material used for preparation of the document is adequate for Its review.
Unfortunately, as people who have had to review EIS's know, this is not
quite the case. The different perspectives of the preparer and the reviewer
require that they approach the EIS from different directions. The EIS pre-
parer strives to include sufficient information to provide a complete descrip-
tion of the noise impact of the project, while the reviewer must be able to
ask the right questions to pinpoint the Inadequacies that remain.
In response to requests from both professional EIS reviewers and the public,
the Region V Noise Program has asssembled a list of concerns that it feels
every EIS should address. This particular document is concerned with highway
projects. It 1s our hope that, 1n spite of Its brevity, 1t will be a basis
from which a competent noise review can be effected.
-------
DRAFT
SUBJEOT
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION Al - A2
CHECKSHEET Bl - B5
COMMENTARY ON CHECKSHEET CONCERNS Cl - C7
REFERENCES Dl
-------
INTRODUCTION
C j
Anyone who reviews Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for noise considera-
tion is certain to discover that there is no single set of questions that
can be used to judge EIS adequacy. The reasoning behind this conclusion is
that each project (and the environment that the project impacts) is unique.
What is a major concern for one project can often have minimal impact on
another. However, this is not to say that there is no systematic way to
evaluate an EIS.
After reviewing many EIS's for noise impact, the Region V Noise Program has
come to feel that there are five basic areas In which an EIS should provide
information:
1. Site description
2. Project description
3. Existing and future noise levels
4. Noise impact caused by the project
5. Mitigation measures necessary to reduce noise impact to
acceptable levels
To assist the reviewer on determining whether or not a highway related EIS
has adequately addressed these concerns, an EIS Review Checksheet has been
prepared. The purpose of this exercise is not to set standards, but only to
provide a systematic 11st of concerns that the Ideal EIS will address.
Therefore, there is no discussion of the quantitative aspects of environmental
review. There are no tables, graphs, or equations for predicting how much
noise will be produced or how serious the noise impact will be. If the
reviewer wants to corroborate this type of Information, he will have to go to
other sources, such as those given in the references.
A-l
-------
The checksheet consists of six major questions relevant to the adequacy of
the noise portion of the EIS. Associated with each question are a number of
minor aspects which can be used to determine if the question is adequately
addressed. It is suggested that the reviewer checkoff the minor aspects as
he encounters them in the EIS. Those that are poorly discussed should be
noted. For those aspects that are not discussed at all, the reviewer should
determine if they are relevant to the particular project. Those that are not
discussed but are relevant should be noted. After the adequacies and
Inadequacies of all of the minor aspects have been examined, the reviewer
then uses the accumulated findings to determine how well he feels the major
question has been answered, I.e. Has the EIS addressed the question adequately,
adequately with reservations, or not adequately?
Those who are not familiar with environmental noise assessment may find the
checksheet rather terse. For these people, a brief commentary dealing with
each of the six basic questions has been included. Should one want to dig
deeper into this subject, he must go to the literature.
A-2
-------
HIGHWAY PROJECT EIS REVIEW CHECKSHEET
DP
PROJECT
DATE
1. IS AN ADEQUATE VISUAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE PROVIDED?
[ ] Adequate [ ] Adequate with reservations [ ] Not adequate
Aerial Photograph [ ] Drawn schematic [ ] None [ ]
C ] Map scale: reasonable size, explicitly given
[ ] Project route superimposed on map
[ ] Identification of affected roadways
[ ] Prefered alternative
[ ] Other alternatives
C ] Existing roads
C ] Identification of land use and zoning districts
[ ] Identification of noise sensitive sites
[ ] Residential areas
[ ] Churches
[ ] Schools and libraries
[ 3 Hospitals and nursing homes
[ 3 Parks and zoos
[ 3 Other
2. IS SUFFICIENT QUANTITATIVE INFORMATION ABOUT THE SITE AND ITS PRESENT
USAGE GIVEN?
[ 3 Adequate [ 3 Adequate with reservations [ 3 Not adquate
[ 3 Physical layout of present road system detailed: dimensions,
right of-ways
[ 3 Traffic volumes provided for all affected roads
[ 3 Average Dally Traffic (ADT)
[ 3 Maximum hourly volumes (MHV)
B-l
-------
[ 3 Speed limits provided
I 3 Relative distribution of truck and non-truck P-f ' " : " "\
i 4
traffic provided ~J- ' ' -:4
C 3 Information relative to noise affected sites provided
L" 3 Identification
[ 3 Population affected and times of usage
[ 3 Distances from roadways
3. IS THE SCOPE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ADEQUATELY DESCRIBED?
[ 3 Adequate [ 3 Adequate with reservations [ 3 Not adequate
[ 3 Physical changes to be made: dimensions, distances,
new construction
[ 3 Expected traffic volumes for project road
[ 3 Average daily traffic: near future, far future
[ 3 Maximum hourly volume: near fu/ture, far future
[ 3 Expected traffic volumes for affected non-project roads
[ 3 Average daily traffic: near future, far future
[ 3 Maximum hourly volume: near future, far future
[ 3 Speed limits: existing , future
[ 3 Relative distribution of truck and non-truck traffic: future
[ 3 Newly Impacted noise sensitive sites - all roads
[ 3 Identification
[ 3 Population affected
[ 3 Distances from roadways
[ 3 Identification of noise sensitive sites which will experience
a decrease In impact due to the project
[ 3 Identification of expected relocations and demolitions
C 3 Description of construction activities. Including truck
hauling routes
B-2
:>
-------
[ ] Description of alternatives considered but not chosen
[ 3 Development anticipated after completion of proposed project
[ ] New Roads
C 3 New building projects
[
C'
4. ARE ADEQUATE NOISE LEVEL PREDICTIONS PROVIDED?
[ 3 Adequate [ 3 Adequate with reservations [ 3 Not adequate
C 3 Noise descriptors used
[ 3 Day-Night Equivalent Sound Level L(dn)
[ 3 Hourly Equivalent Sound Level Leq(h)
L~ 3 Exceedence levels L(l), L(50), etc.
[ 3 Other
Present
C 3
C 3
C .1
After Project
Completion
C 3
C 3
C 3
C 3
C
C
C
3
3
3
Predicted noise contours for
preferred alternative route
Predicted noise levels at specific
noise sensitive sites-preferred
alternative route
Measured noise'levels
[ 3 Adequate site selection
C 3 Adequate times and durations
of measurements
Discussion of noise levels for non-
preferred alternatives
Noise level predictions from affected
non-project roads
Construction noise levels, Including
noise levels generated by truck
hauling to site
" /
B-3
-------
r- • . ,
C
5. IS THE NOISE IMPACT ADEQUATELY DISCUSSED? " " ••
[ ] Adequate [ ] Adequate with reservations [ 3 Not adequate
C 3 Discussion of noise measures and their relation to impact
[ ] Definition of noise level metrics (L(dn), Leq(h),
L(10), etc.)
C ] Discussion of relations between noise levels and
degrees of hearing loss and annoyance
L" ] Discussion of the impact on the area in general
/
[ ] Numbers of people affected at various noise levels
[ ] Land use zones affected at various noise levels
[ ] Discussion of areas which will experience significant
Increased Impact
[ ] Discussion of areas which will experience significant
decreased impact
C 3 Discussion of increased or decreased impact on specific noise
sensitive sites
[ 3 Residential properties
[ 3 Schools and libraries
[ 3 Churches
L~ 3 Hospitals and nursing homes
C 3 Parks and zoos
[ 3 Other
[ 3 Concerns and comments from other governmental agencies and
the general public included and discussed
C 3 Discussion of relative Impact between alternatives
C 3 Discussion of construction noise impact
B-4
-------
f •'' ' '
6. ARE MITIGATION MEASURES ADEQUATELY CONSIDERED? c
v- s.
C 3 Adequate [ ] Adequate with reservations [ ] Not adequate
[ ] Areas needing noise mitigation specifically documented
[ ] Specific mitigation measures proposed for each Impacted area
[ ] Recessed roadways
C ] Relocations
[ ] Noise barriers or earth berms
[ 3 Sound Insulation of residences
[ ] Zoning and land use restrictions
[ 3 Speed limit restrictions
[ ] Other
[ 3 Stated commitment to provide noise mitigation where needed
B-5
-------
!-'*•• > - • ,.
COMMENTARY TO EIS CHECKSHEET
r
1. IS AN ADEQUATE VISUAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE PROVIDED?
There is no better way to obtain an overall view of a project than to have
access to an aerial photograph of the impacted area. This is particularily
true for highway projects that cover large areas. The photograph should be
of sufficient scale and clarity so that individual noise sensitive receptors
can be identified. Superimposed on the photo will be the routes of the
various road alternatives under consideration, the names of the major existing
roads that can be expected to be affected by traffic pattern changes, an
identification of important noise sensitive sites, and an explicit map scale
so that the reviewer can determine distances. The identification of land use
and zoning districts is also useful.
Blueprints and site drawings can provide much of the above information, but
the aerial photograph is by far the better tool. It allows the reviewer an
independent view of the impact area. There have been many instances where the
perusal of one of these photographs has located potential noise affected
areas not discussed in the EIS. Close scrutiny of this photograph should
always be made if it is provided.
2. IS SUFFICIENT QUANTITATIVE INFORMATION ABOUT THE SITE AND ITS PRESENT
USAGE GIVEN?
In order to assess the accuracy of the EIS predicted noise levels, the reviewer
needs quantitative data about the road system, road usage, and the area
impacted. It frequently happens that one or more pieces of this information
are omitted in the EIS.
C-l
;>
-------
Should this situation occur, the reviewer can often make some judicious
guesses of his own as to what values of the parameters to use. For instance,
it is our practice that when only average daily traffic volumes are given,
but hourly traffic volumes are needed in the noise calculations, we divide the (
daily volume by 10 and use it as a maximum hourly traffic volume.' When the >
' , r*
distribution between truck volumes and non-truck volumes is not available,
we generally assume a six percent distribution of trucks. If the road appears
to have a large truck usage, we might Increase the percentage; if truck usage
appears small, we would decrease the value. As the reviewer becomes more
experienced, he will develop his own set of "rules of thumb". He should be
careful, however, not to forget that these are his estimates, and that if his
noise level predictions vary significantly from the EIS values, it could be
that his assumptions, and not the EIS calculations, are inaccurate.
The EIS should provide details about the noise affected sites which would not
be evident from the visual material alone. The kinds of noise sensitive
activities at each site, the number of people that will be affected, and the
usage schedule are examples of the type of information that will be useful
for assessing noise impact.
3. IS THE SCOPE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ADEQUATELY DESCRIBED?
In this context, the scope of a project refers to all of the physical and
operational changes that will occur as a result of the project being Implemented.
This includes physical changes In the road system, operational changes related
to traffic flow, newly affected noise sensitive sites, relocations and
demolitions, and construction activities. A description of the project
alternatives that were considered, but not chosen, should also be given.
C-2
-------
1,
c
There are two areas where many EIS's fail to provide adequate information.
The first Involves projects that are expected to come on board after the
present project is initiated. This would include industrial parks, shopping
centers, residential developments, etc; which become attractive to developers
as a result of the new road. If the possibility of such development is
known, it should be documented.
The second area In which Information Is often not Included in an EIS involves
the benefits that would accrue if the highway is built. Many projects,
especially those involving road relocations, will cause signigicant reductions
in noise impact to areas presently experiencing noise problems. The EIS
should provide the details necessary to substantiate this benefit. It 1s
surprising how many EIS's fail to even consider this aspect.
4. ARE ADEQUATE QUANTITATIVE NOISE LEVEL PREDICTIONS PROVIDED?
The corroboration of the noise level predictions given in the EIS is the
most technically difficult part of an EIS review. If all of the previous
questions have been answered satisfactorily, the reviewer will have all of
the data required to assess this concern. The references in the appendix
provide methods for calculating the noise levels. We prefer to use one of
the Federal Highway Administration methods (Reference 1) since they are ones
used by most highway EIS preparers. We have found the hand-held calculator
program (Reference 2) to be especially convenient.
C-3
-------
; I
^
Noise levels 1n highway project EIS's are usually given in any of three
metrics: the day-night equivalent sound level L(dn), the hourly equivalent
sound level Leq(h), or the 10% exceedance level L(10). The hourly equivalent
sound level is an energy-averaged sound level over a one hour period. L(dn)
is similar to Leq(h) in that it also is an energy-averaged sound level.
However, in this case the sound energy is averaged for a 24 hour period, with
a 10 decibel penalty added to all noise occuring between the normal sleeping
hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has correlated
annoyance and hearing loss to L(dn) values, which makes it useful in assessing
noise impact. The exceedance level L(10) is the noise level exceeded 10% of
the time for a stated time period. There are methods given in the references
for converting from one metric to another when enough data is given. In
"normal" situations when complete data is not available, we have used the
following two "rules-of-thumb":
The L(dn) value in a given situation will be about 3-4 db lower than the
Leq(h) value for a maximum traffic volume hour.
The L(10) value in any hour will be about 3 db higher than the Leq(h)
value for that hour.
The use of these rules will allow one to estimate L(dn) from Leq(h) or L(10).
How should the EIS present the quantitative noise level predictions? The
predominant format in use today is that of noise contour maps. A noise
level contour is a line drawn over a site map, together with an associated
noise level, such that the land within the contour experiences noise levels
greater than or equal to the given noise level. The noise contour map is
analagous to a topographic map, where points at a specific height are connected
together to make an equal height contour, only in this case it is equal noise
level points that are connected.
C-4
-------
V-' s~- _
A complete noise contour map consists of a set of contours (usually 1n 5 or
10 db increments) ranging from the highest expected noise levels down to about
the 40 or 45 db level. Contours should be shown for both pre-project and
post project conditions.
In addition to the overall view given by the noise contour map, the good EIS
will provide specific noise levels expected at important noise sensitive
sites. It also provides noise level predictions for non-project roads which
could be affected by changing traffic patterns. Some discussion of the noise
levels which would have ocurred had one of the non-preferred alternates been
chosen 1s also useful for evaluation of their merits relative to the chosen
alternate.
The effects of construction noise on the public can often be significant.
The EIS should address this concern. Earth moving and pile driving equipment
are frequent sources of complaint. In addition to actual construction site
noise, attention should be paid to the noise caused by trucks hauling material
to and from the site. This often overlooked aspect can be the cause of
major noise impact, especially when the truck routes pass through normally
quiet residential areas.
Many EIS's Include a report of noise measurements made under existing
conditions. The quality of these reported studies varies greatly frori EIS to
EIS. Before the reviewer puts much credence 1n one, he should verify that
the data: (1) are taken at a sufficient number of "good* sites to adequately
represent the existing noise environment, (2) are taken at times that Include
maximum traffic flows (i.e. rush hours), and (3) are taken for a reasonable
period (normally 15 minutes or greater) at each measurement site.
C-5
-------
5. IS THE NOISE IMPACT ADEQUATELY DISCUSSED? ; _
A discussion of noise Impact Involves more than simply providing noise levels.
The EIS should discuss how the noise measures used In the EIS relate to
hearing loss and annoyance. General relations between noise levels and the
degree of Impact on people (e.g. noise levels vs percent of people annoyed)
can be obtained from the literature and should be Incorporated. The annoyance
aspects are most Important since there are very few sites that will experience
noise levels so loud as to cause physical hearing damage.
The EIS should first consider the overall noise Impact on the area affected
by the highway. The land use zones and the number of people (or residences)
exposed to various levels of noise should be identified and the magnitude of
the impact stated. The previously identified noise sensitive activities
should be discussed in detail with respect to potential noise impact. The
degree of impact and its ramifications should be covered. If no significant
impact is expected at a particular site, that fact should be stated.
It should be noted that "the degree of Impact" 1s a relative concept. If
ambient noise levels are low to begin with, the impact of a project could be
significant In spite of the fact that the new noise levels might not exceed
normal standards. For example, consider a highway built 1n a rural area
which originally experienced L(dn) noise levels in the 40 db range. If the
post-project levels turn out to be 10 db greater, they would still be accept-
able for most urban areas. To the people living in the rural area, however,
the new levels would cause an appreciable Impact since they would be sub-
jectively twice as loud as the one the people were used to.
C-6
-------
r;T
In our considerations of noise impact, we generally feel that outdoor L(dn)
levels of 55 db or less are reasonable for residential areas, while levels
above 65-70 db are definitely excessive. In terms of noticeable changes of
impact, a 3-4 db increase will be noticeable, while increases greater than
7-8 db are considered major.
The impact of construction noise, although it is only temporary, can be
substantial. In the immediate neighborhood of the site earth moving acti-
vities and pile driving can generate annoyance. If hauling trucks are exten-
sively used, the impact could be extended to all of those neighborhoods
along the truck routes. The EIS should assess these potential problems in
detail. Too many EIS's only make a token effort in discussing this problem.
6. ARE MITIGATION MEASURES ADEQUATELY CONSIDERED?
After all of the noise analysis of the project has been presented, there are
often a number of sites where the noise impact is large enough to warrant the
consideration of implementing noise mitigation measures. (We consider levels
above L(dn) values of 65 db in residential areas as prime candidates.) The
EIS should explicitly Identify these sites, provide a discussion of those
mitigation measures which are applicable at each site, and provide a clear-
cut statement of the degree of commitment to implementing them. We see more
than a few EIS's that simply dismiss mitigation with a wave of the hand and
with unsupported statements to the effect that mitigation would be either
too expensive or Ineffective. It is possible that these conclusions are
accurate, however, the EIS must provide supporting data.
C-7
;>
-------
J> t— A-
r? COP
APPENDIX REFERENCES
1. FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model. U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration Report FHWA-RD-77-108, 1978
2. "Hand -Held Calculator Listings for the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise
Prediction Model", U.S. Department of Transportaion, Federal Highway
Administration, FHWA Technical Advisory T5040.5
3. A Manual For the Review of Highway Noise Impact. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 550/9-77-356, 1977
4. Design Guide for Reducing Transportation Noise in and Around Buildings.
D. Pallett, et al, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards
Stock Number 003-003-01687-0, 1978
5. Guidelines for Preparing Environmental Impact Statements on Noise.
Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and Biomechanics, National Research
Council, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. 1977
6. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public
Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA 550/9-74-004, 1974
7. The Audible Landscape: A Manual for Highway Noise and Land Use. U.S.
Department of Transportation, Washingt on, D.C. 1974 Stock Number 5000-00079
D-l
-------
-
*
Appendix 1 - References
1. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public
Health and Welfare With an Adequate Margin of Safety. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460, 550/9-74-004 March 1974
2. Calculation of Day-Night Levels Resulting from Civil Aircraft Operations.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 550/9-77-450 January 1977
3. Guidelines for Preparing Environmental Impact Statements on Noise. Committee
on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and Biomechanics, National Research Council,
National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. 1977
4. Aircraft Noise Impact Planning Guidelines for Local Agencies, U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development. TE/NA - 472 November 1972
5. Design Guide for Reducing Transportation Noise 1n and Around Buildings,
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards,
003-003-01687-0, 1978
D-l
------- |