Federal Aid Project #RPHP21L-0484(001) MERCED CAMPUS PARKWAY

T E C H N I C A L R E P O R T Federal Aid Project RPHP21L-0484(001) NOISE MERCED CAMPUS PARKWAY Prepared for Merced County Department of Public Works Roads Division 715 Martin Luther King Jr. Way Merced, CA 95340 and Caltrans District 10 1976 Charter Way Stockton, CA 95201 June 2004 1333 Broadway, Suite 800 Oakland, CA 94612 26812934

Campus Parkway Noise Study Report TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 E XECUTIVE SUMMARY... 1-1 1.1 Purpose and Project Description...1-1 1.2 Land Use and Terrain...1-1 1.3 Existing Noise Levels (Ambient)...1-1 1.4 Future Predicted Noise Levels...1-1 1.5 Traffic Noise Impacts...1-2 1.6 Noise Abatement/Mitigation Considered (range of heights, lengths, insertion losses and number of benefited receivers)...1-2 1.7 Areas Where Abatement/mitigation are Not Feasible...1-3 1.8 Construction Noise...1-3 2.0 NOISE IMPACT TECHNICAL REPORT... 2-1 2.1 Introduction...2-1 2.2 Project Description...2-1 2.3 Fundamentals of Traffic Noise...2-3 2.3.1 Decibels and Frequency, and A-Weighting...2-3 2.3.2 Noise Descriptors...2-4 2.3.3 Perception of Noise...2-4 2.3.4 Noise Source Characteristics (Vehicles and Roadways)...2-4 2.4 Federal and State Policies and Procedures...2-5 2.5 Local Noise Standards...2-6 2.5.1 County of Merced...2-7 2.5.2 City of Merced...2-8 2.6 Study Methods and Procedures...2-8 2.6.1 Selection of Receivers and Measurement Sites...2-8 2.6.2 Field Measurement Procedures...2-8 2.6.3 Noise Prediction Method Used...2-9 2.7 Existing Noise Environment...2-10 2.7.1 Noise Sensitive Land Uses and Site Geometry...2-10 2.8 Future Noise Environment, Impacts and Considered Abatement/Mitigation...2-10 2.8.1 Future Traffic Data Assumptions...2-10 2.8.2 Future Noise Levels...2-10 2.8.3 Noise Abatement...2-11 2.8.4 Areas where abatement/mitigation is not feasible...2-12 2.8.5 Alternative Barrier Locations...2-12 2.8.6 Berms versus Soundwalls...2-12 2.8.7 Reduced Noise Pavement Surfaces...2-13 2.9 Construction Noise...2-13 2.9.1 Construction Noise Control...2-14 X:\x_env\_permit\Campus_parkway\Noise Report\(rev2 June 2004) Campus Pkwy Noise Rpt.doc 6/17/2004 i

Campus Parkway Noise Study Report 3.0 REFERENCES... 3-1 List of Figures Figure 1-1 Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations Figure 1-2 Considered Noise Barriers List of Tables Table 1-1 Short-Term Noise Measurement Data Summary Campus Parkway Noise Study Table 1-2 Long-Term Data Measurement Summary Table 1-3 Comparison of Predicted and Existing Noise Levels to Caltrans Criteria for Project Alternatives Table 1-4 Comparison of Predicted and Existing Noise Levels to County Criteria for Project Alternatives Table 1-5 Barrier Heights to Satisfy Caltrans and County Criteria for Project Alternatives Table 1-6 Noise Abatement Costs for Each Project Alternative to Satisfy Caltrans Abatement Criteria Table 1-7 Noise Abatement Costs for Each Project Alternative to Satisfy County Abatement Criteria Table 1-8 Noise Abatement Costs for Each Project Alternative to Satisfy Caltrans and County Abatement Criteria Table 1-9 Noise Reduction Performance from Berms versus Soundwalls Table 2-1 Noise Abatement Criteria Table 2-2 Typical Construction Flow Chart Table 2-3 Noise Level Ranges of Typical Construction Equipment Appendices (on CD-ROM) A Noise Measurement Equipment Used B Field Notes C Long-Term Noise Data Output D Traffic Volumes Used for Sound32 Traffic Noise Analysis E Computer Modeling Input and Output X:\x_env\_permit\Campus_parkway\Noise Report\(rev2 June 2004) Campus Pkwy Noise Rpt.doc 6/17/2004 ii

Campus Parkway Noise Study Report 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 PURPOSE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION This report evaluates the extent of noise effects at noise-sensitive receivers for the proposed Campus Parkway project, which includes three alignment alternatives. Merced County, in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), are evaluating alternative routes for a new expressway on the east side of the City of Merced. The area being studied for Campus Parkway extends from the Caltrans-proposed new interchange at Route 99 and Mission Avenue east of Coffee Road, to Yosemite Avenue. North of State Route 140 (SR-140), there are two alternative alignments called the Green and Yellow, and a variation of both called the Green Alternate. The three project alignment alternatives are shown in Figure 1-1. 1.2 LAND USE AND TERRAIN Land uses in the project area consist primarily of rural residential, low density residential, and agricultural. In the northern portion of the project area (north of State Route 140 (SR-140)), there are several large tracts of homes as well as individual residences separated from one another by open fields and large distances. South of SR-140, the residences are either widely separated from one another or grouped in clusters. Industrial, regional/community commercial and business park uses also exist in the southern portion of the project area. The terrain is flat within the project area. 1.3 EXISTING NOISE LEVELS (AMBIENT) Ambient noise levels were measured on December 4 and 5, 2001 at representative noise-sensitive land uses throughout the project area. The noise measurement methodology was consistent with the guidelines in the Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement (TeNS), October 1998. Short-term (less than 1-hour in duration) noise measurements were conducted at 22 sites. Initially, 23 measurement sites were planned; however permission to conduct measurements at Site 2 could not be obtained as the owner was not present during the field visits. It was determined based on observations that this area was adequately represented by other measurements sites (for example, Site 1). Two or more separate measurements were conducted at each site except at one site, where the second measurement was suspended due to unfavorable weather conditions. The short-term noise measurement data is presented in Table 1-1. The measured ambient noise levels in the project area varied from 35 dba to 66 dba L eq. Two longterm (24-hours or more in duration) noise measurements were also conducted, and utilized to estimate the diurnal noise levels at the short-term measurement sites. The long-term noise data is summarized in Table 1-2. Based upon the long-term noise data, existing peak-noise hour noise levels were estimated for each of the measurement and modeled sites. 1.4 FUTURE PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS The Caltrans computer-based noise prediction model called Sound32 with California vehicle noise (Calveno) emission level curves was utilized to estimate the future traffic noise levels. Using traffic X:\x_env\_permit\Campus_parkway\Noise Report\(rev2 June 2004) Campus Pkwy Noise Rpt.doc 6/17/2004 1-1

Campus Parkway Noise Study Report volumes, speeds, roadway alignments and cross-sections for the project, the resultant predicted project noise levels were summed with the ambient noise levels (where appropriate) and compared to existing ambient noise levels to assess the project s effects. Future predicted noise levels were computed for the 22 sites at which noise was measured, as well as seven supplementary modeled-only sites. 1.5 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS Traffic noise impacts, evaluated against Caltrans and County of Merced noise impact criteria, were estimated for 29 representative noise-sensitive receivers. Based upon Caltrans criteria, substantial noise increases (i.e., an increase of 12 dba or more above existing noise levels) would occur at up to two of the 29 representative noise-sensitive receivers Sites 3 and 5. Additionally, Caltrans/FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) levels would be approached or exceeded at up to three of the 29 representative noise-sensitive receivers Sites 1, 17 and 18. The detailed results of the noise impact assessment using Caltrans criteria are presented in Table 1-3. Based upon County of Merced noise impact criteria, noise impacts would occur at up to eight of the 29 representative noise-sensitive receivers. The detailed results of the noise impact assessment using County of Merced criteria are presented in Table 1-4. The highest number of noise impacted sites (five and eight representative receivers using Caltrans and County criteria, respectively) would occur under the Green Alignment with U.C. Projects scenario. The lowest number of noise impacts would occur under the Yellow Alignment (two and three using Caltrans and County criteria, respectively). 1.6 NOISE ABATEMENT/MITIGATION CONSIDERED (RANGE OF HEIGHTS, LENGTHS, INSERTION LOSSES AND NUMBER OF BENEFITED RECEIVERS) Noise abatement measures in the form of screen barriers (i.e., soundwalls) were considered for representative noise-sensitive uses that were predicted to experience project-related impacts. The considered noise barriers are shown in Figure 1-2. The Sound32 noise model was used to predict the performance from soundwalls ranging in height from 1.8 meters (6 feet) to 4.9 meters (16 feet). Table 1-5 presents the results of the soundwall analysis using Caltrans and County criteria. Caltrans/FHWA policy requires a soundwall to reduce traffic noise by at least 5 decibels to be considered effective ( feasible ). Tables 1-6, 1-7 and 1-8 summarize the results of the preliminary noise abatement reasonableness analyses, including the considered heights, lengths, and costs per benefited residence. None of the feasible noise barriers were found to be preliminarily reasonable to construct, based upon Caltrans reasonableness criteria. Earthen berms were evaluated for several representative sites, to determine the relative benefit provided by berms compared with soundwalls of the same height. Table 1-9 presents the results of the comparison, using Sound32, between noise levels with berms versus soundwalls. The Sound32 model indicates that berms could provide as much as 2 to 3 decibels of additional noise reduction compared with the same height soundwall. Note that any additional noise benefit is gained only with an all-berm configuration, not with a wall-berm configuration. Berms are not acceptable as a noise reduction measure for FHWA X:\x_env\_permit\Campus_parkway\Noise Report\(rev2 June 2004) Campus Pkwy Noise Rpt.doc 6/17/2004 1-2

Campus Parkway Noise Study Report funding, and as such would not be eligible for federal funds as part of the project. Further consideration would require funding that aspect of the project by a non-fhwa source. The acoustical benefits of open graded asphalt concrete (OGAC) and rubberized asphalt concrete (RAC) roadway surfaces have recently been the subjects of comprehensive, long-term before and after measurement studies. The studies concluded that OGAC and RAC provide noise reduction compared with an aged asphalt concrete surface of between 4-6 dba and 4-5 dba, respectively. However, these surfaces are not recognized by FHWA as effective, and therefore are not eligible for federal transportation project funding. If non-fhwa funding is available for the project, the use of potential noise attenuating pavement types, such as open-grade asphalt, could be further considered. 1.7 AREAS WHERE ABATEMENT/MITIGATION ARE NOT FEASIBLE It would not be feasible to construct soundwalls at representative noise-sensitive receivers 1, 17 and 18 because the soundwalls would block access to driveways and local cross-streets. The necessary breaks in the walls for driveways would render the walls ineffective. At noise-sensitive receivers represented by Site 3, construction of soundwalls within the project right-of-way would not provide the minimum 5 decibels of barrier performance. The reason for the lack of barrier performance is because of the relatively large distance (approximately 800 feet) between the receiver and the considered barrier. Although feasible noise barriers could be constructed beyond the project right-of-way (i.e., adjacent to the affected noise-sensitive uses), the process is complicated and time-consuming because it would require rights-of-entry agreements, temporary construction easements and long-term maintenance agreements. Additionally, for the soundwall to be effective it would require essentially unanimous consent from the affected property owners. 1.8 CONSTRUCTION NOISE Construction activities would occur during an approximately 2-year period. Roadway construction is accomplished in several phases, resulting in intermittent periods of noise over time. Construction activities and associated noise would move along the right-of-way as construction activities proceeded. With implementation of standard noise reduction practices for roadway construction, no adverse impacts from construction noise are anticipated. X:\x_env\_permit\Campus_parkway\Noise Report\(rev2 June 2004) Campus Pkwy Noise Rpt.doc 6/17/2004 1-3

Campus Parkway Noise Study Report 2.0 N OISE I MPACT T ECHNICAL R EPORT 2.1 INTRODUCTION This report evaluates the extent of noise effects at noise-sensitive receivers for three proposed project alignments for the Campus Parkway project. The three project alternatives, each having two potential traffic volume scenarios, are analyzed for potential traffic noise impacts and mitigation opportunities in accordance with Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (October 1998) and with County of Merced noise impact guidance. To assess the noise effects on receptors located in the area of this project, the following items are covered in this report: The measurement of existing noise levels at representative receptors located in the area of the project (Section 2.6.1). The prediction of future noise levels at receptor locations (Section 2.6.3). The comparison of existing noise levels, predicted noise levels, and noise abatement criteria (Section 2.8). The evaluation of potential noise barriers and preliminary noise barrier recommendations (Section 2.8.3). The effect of construction noise (Section 2.9). Discussion of construction noise abatement (Section 2.9.1) 2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Merced County, in cooperation with Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), are evaluating alternative routes for a new expressway east of the City of Merced. The area being studied for Campus Parkway extends from the Caltrans-proposed new interchange at Route 99 and Mission Avenue east of Coffee Road, to Yosemite Avenue. North of Route 140, there are two alternative alignments called the Green and Yellow, and a variation of both called the Green Alternate. The three project alignment alternatives are shown in Figure 1-1. Campus Parkway is planned for one to three lanes in each direction, with a divided median, bike lanes, and sidewalks. For this noise analysis, a two-lane facility was assumed, consistent with the findings of the Traffic Operations Analysis (Dowling Associates, Inc. 2001). To accommodate these facilities, a rightof-way up to 46 meters (150 feet) wide is proposed. Additional right-of-way is likely to be necessary at intersections to allow for left and right turn lanes. Campus Parkway will be designed as an expressway. An expressway is a roadway that restricts access to key intersections with major cross streets. Unlike a conventional road or rural highway where properties along the right-of-way can have driveway access onto the road, an expressway does not permit adjacent parcels to install driveways or connections to the expressway between the key intersections. This X:\x_env\_permit\Campus_parkway\Noise Report\(rev2 June 2004) Campus Pkwy Noise Rpt.doc 6/17/2004 2-1

Campus Parkway Noise Study Report improves the traffic flow and capacity of the expressway as it limits the locations where drivers can enter the expressway or perform conflicting left turns. Intersections will be located at Gerard Avenue, Childs Avenue, Olive Avenue, and Yosemite Avenue (Figure 1-1). Traffic signals may be installed at these intersections. Depending on projected traffic movements, one or more left and/or right turning lanes may be included, providing storage for cars waiting to turn at these locations. The number and length of the turning lanes will require some reconstruction of the cross streets where they connect to Campus Parkway. Therefore, at these key intersections, the width of the intersecting roads may be widened to accommodate the design of the intersection and the turning lanes. Two separated grade crossing structures are necessary for Campus Parkway. At Bear Creek the planned crossing consists of an overpass over the creek and South and North Bear Creek Drives. No access connections to South or North Bear Creek Drives are planned. Sidewalks, bike paths and a divided median barrier will extend across this structure. The second grade crossing structure will be required at State Route 140, where the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad tracks run adjacent and parallel to the south side of the highway. An elevated separated grade crossing structure that spans both the highway and the tracks is required. A roadway connection, such as a short ramp, is planned to provide traffic circulation between Campus Parkway and Route 140. Because of the presence of the railroad south of Route 140, this connection must be located on the north side and would consist of a hook shaped ramp on the east side of Campus Parkway. To provide safe storage of cars heading on or off of Route 140, turning lanes would be added to Route 140 at the Campus Parkway ramp connection. Proposed Alignments Three possible alignments have been proposed for the Campus Parkway, as shown in Figure 1-1. Each alignment has a common segment that extends north from the proposed Route 99/Mission Avenue interchange, parallels the Doane and Hartley Laterals (canals), and crosses Gerard Avenue, Childs Avenue, and Route 140. North of Route 140, two alternatives (called the Green and Yellow Alignments) and a variation of the Green Alignment (called the Green Alternate Alignment) head northerly to a proposed T intersection with Yosemite Avenue. Green Alignment North of Route 140, the Green Alignment heads diagonally northwest. About 750 meters (0.5 mile) northwest of the Hartley Canal, the alignment turns due north and crosses South Bear Creek Drive, Bear Creek, North Bear Creek Drive and Olive Avenue. As it approaches Yosemite Avenue the alignment shifts to the east about 60 meters (200 feet), and ends at a T intersection. Yellow Alignment North of State Route 140, the Yellow alignment heads due north, crossing South Bear Creek Drive, Bear Creek, North Bear Creek Drive and Olive Avenue. Just north of Olive Avenue, the alignment shifts to X:\x_env\_permit\Campus_parkway\Noise Report\(rev2 June 2004) Campus Pkwy Noise Rpt.doc 6/17/2004 2-2

Campus Parkway Noise Study Report cross over the Bradley Lateral, and continues north, crossing Black Rascal Creek and connecting with Yosemite Avenue. Green Alternate Alignment This alignment is the same as the Green Alignment north of Yosemite Avenue and the same as the Yellow alignment south of Olive Avenue. Between Yosemite and Olive Avenues, the Green Alternate Alignment follows a northwest/southeast alignment, crossing Black Rascal Creek parallel to a highvoltage transmission line corridor. Potential Campus Parkway Extension North of Yosemite Avenue The initial concept for Campus Parkway included its connection from Yosemite Avenue north to Bellevue Road. Refined traffic analysis revealed that this segment does not resolve anticipated transportation needs until some time well beyond the project s 2025-design year horizon (traffic forecast modeling estimates that it is not needed until after the year 2040). As a result, no transportation improvements are proposed as part of the Campus Parkway north of Yosemite Avenue. However, future roadway connectivity and future growth in traffic could be served by a northern extension of the Parkway in the distant future, even though it is not proposed or funded at this time. Plans for a new University of California campus have received initial planning approvals, and an adjoining Campus Community has been proposed. These projects are evaluated in this study for potential cumulative noise impacts. The noise effects of an alignment extension on residences north of Yosemite Avenue were addressed in the U.C. Merced Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) Environmental Impact Report (URS, 2001) and the County of Merced University Community Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIP Associates, 2001). For this noise study, the three project alignment alternatives (Green, Yellow and Green Alternate) have been analyzed with and without the traffic associated with the implementation of the U.C. Campus projects. This approach is consistent with the traffic analysis conducted for the project ( Campus Parkway Traffic Operations Analysis, Merced County, California, December 5, 2001, Dowling Associates, Inc.) 2.3 FUNDAMENTALS OF TRAFFIC NOISE A number of factors affect the way the human ear perceives sound. These include the actual level of sound, the frequencies involved, the period of exposure to the noise, and the changes or fluctuations in the noise levels during exposure. Unwanted sound is called noise. The following sections discuss how noise is measured and described. 2.3.1 Decibels and Frequency, and A-Weighting Levels of noise are measured in units called decibels (db). Because the human ear cannot perceive all pitches or frequencies equally well, measured sound levels are adjusted or weighted to correspond to human hearing. This adjusted unit is known as the "A-weighted" decibel. All references to noise in this report refer to A-weighted decibel levels, abbreviated as dba. X:\x_env\_permit\Campus_parkway\Noise Report\(rev2 June 2004) Campus Pkwy Noise Rpt.doc 6/17/2004 2-3

2.3.2 Noise Descriptors Campus Parkway Noise Study Report Very few noises are constant. Most fluctuate in decibel level during short and long periods of time. One way of describing time-varying sound is to describe the fluctuating noise heard over a specific time period as if it had been a steady, unchanging sound. For this, a descriptor called the Equivalent Sound Level, L eq, is computed. L eq is the constant sound level that, for a given situation and period (e.g., 1-hour L eq, or 24-hour L eq ), conveys the same sound energy as the actual time-varying sound. To assess potential noise impacts and to determine necessary abatement measures for roadway noise, Caltrans and the FHWA use the 1-hour L eq during the peak-traffic-noise-hour period. County and City of Merced noise standards utilize the L dn noise metric. L dn, the Day-Night Average Sound Level, is a 24-hour average L eq with a 10 dba penalty added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for people s greater sensitivity to nighttime noise. 2.3.3 Perception of Noise Potential responses of persons to changes in the noise environment are usually assessed by evaluating differences between the existing and total predicted future noise environments. The following relationships of perception and response to quantifiable increases are used as a basis for assessing potential effects of traffic noise: Except in a carefully controlled laboratory condition, a change of 1 dba is very difficult to perceive. In the outside environment, a 3 dba change is considered perceptible. An increase of 5 dba is considered readily perceptible and would generally result in a change in community response. A 10 dba increase is perceived as a doubling in loudness and would likely result in a widespread community response. 2.3.4 Noise Source Characteristics (Vehicles and Roadways) Roadway noise is dependent on many factors: vehicle type and speed, number of vehicles, roadway surface and gradient, distance from the roadway to the receiver, relative location of a receptor to noise source, ground surface characteristics (whether acoustically reflective or absorptive, pavement or vegetation ), X:\x_env\_permit\Campus_parkway\Noise Report\(rev2 June 2004) Campus Pkwy Noise Rpt.doc 6/17/2004 2-4

Campus Parkway Noise Study Report meteorological factors such as wind and temperature gradients and shielding due to structures, soundwalls, hills, the edge of a roadway, and earthen berms between a receiver and the road. Generally, if vehicle speed and/or traffic volume increases, so does the noise level. However, heavy trucks typically operate at a more constant noise output than automobiles regardless of speed, as they retain a nearly constant engine revolutions per minute (rpm) level. Another difference between automobiles and trucks is the location of their noise sources. The noisiest components on most trucks are the exhaust stack and engine, while tires typically generate the greatest noise levels for cars. The location of the noise source affects the noise reduction provided by a barrier because both the height and proximity of the source and receiver with respect to the barrier's location and height are important in determining the effectiveness of the barrier. The shape and surface of the barrier will also affect the attenuation provided by the barrier. For example, an absorptive earthen berm or a hill may provide up to 3 dba greater attenuation compared to a thin, screen barrier of the same height. Roadway surface and gradient also affect the resultant noise. Surfaces vary from rough and potholed to smooth and seal-coated, and this can lead to about 3- to 4-dBA difference in generated noise level among different types of surfaces (Source: Fundamentals and Abatement of Traffic Noise, Bolt, Beranek and Newman). Primarily, the roadway gradient primarily influences noise levels for heavy truck traffic; the greatest effect is from an uphill grade, which increases noise levels. Trucks traveling up a gradient must apply substantially more power to maintain speed. Because noise levels for trucks are strongly linked with power output, the noise levels increase commensurately. This is addressed by the Sound32 noise model, with the addition of emission levels for heavy trucks on positive grades from California specific data (Calgrade). 2.4 FEDERAL AND STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES The Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (October 1998) used as guidance for this study contains Caltrans noise policies. These policies fulfill the highway noise analysis and abatement/mitigation requirements contained in the following State and Federal environmental statutes: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Title 23 United States Code of Federal Regulations, Part 772 Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise (23 CFR 772) Section 216 of the California Streets and Highways Code The FHWA stipulates procedures and criteria for noise assessment studies (23 CFR 772). It requires that noise abatement measures be considered on all major transportation projects if the project will cause a substantial increase in noise levels, or if projected noise levels approach or exceed the Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) level for activities occurring on adjacent lands. X:\x_env\_permit\Campus_parkway\Noise Report\(rev2 June 2004) Campus Pkwy Noise Rpt.doc 6/17/2004 2-5

Campus Parkway Noise Study Report FHWA NAC for various land use ratings (called activity categories) are given in Table 2-1. These noise criteria are assigned to both exterior and interior activities. Noise attenuation provided by most residential structures leads to compliance with the interior design noise level if the exterior criterion is attained (FHWA, 1995). If these criteria sound levels are predicted to be approached or exceeded during the noisiest 1-hour period, noise abatement measures must be considered and, if found to be reasonable and feasible, they must be incorporated as part of the project. Consistent with FHWA guidelines, Caltrans defines approach as a peak-noise-hour sound level of 66 dba Leq. The Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement (TeNS) establishes guidelines for construction of noise barriers along highways where sensitive receivers (e.g., residences) are located. It specifies parameters such as barrier dimensions, locations, type of barriers, and standard aesthetic treatments. Under FHWA and Caltrans policies, noise barriers should be considered for transportation improvement projects when the following criteria are met: 1) Predicted worst-case hourly-noise level is expected to approach or exceed FHWA noise abatement criteria (e.g., 67 dba Leq for residences or other Category B land uses) or increase ambient noise levels substantially. Caltrans considers an increase of 12 dba to be substantial. Under current Caltrans policy, a noise level of 66 dba is considered to be approaching the NAC of 67 dba. 2) A feasible noise barrier must provide a minimum noise reduction of 5 dba to achieve a noticeable change in noise level. This is discussed in the Noise Analysis Protocol Section 2.7. 3) A reasonable noise barrier must be cost-effective and should take into consideration the number of residences that would benefit from the barrier(s). In addition to cost of abatement and noise-related factors such as absolute noise levels and change in noise levels, many other factors are considered. These factors include: date of development along the highway, impacts of noise abatement on other resources, opinions of impacted residents, safety, social, economic, environmental, legal, and technological factors. The reasonableness evaluation process is discussed in the Noise Analysis Protocol Section 2.8. 4) The noise barrier must interrupt the line-of-sight between the noise source (traffic on the roadway, including truck stacks, which are assumed to be 3.5 meters (11.5 feet) high) and the receiver (who is assumed to be 1.5 meters (5 feet) high). 2.5 LOCAL NOISE STANDARDS The project would be constructed within the County of Merced, and within the Sphere of Influence of the City of Merced. Both the County of Merced and the City of Merced have noise standards that may be applicable to this project, as summarized below. X:\x_env\_permit\Campus_parkway\Noise Report\(rev2 June 2004) Campus Pkwy Noise Rpt.doc 6/17/2004 2-6

2.5.1 County of Merced Campus Parkway Noise Study Report Noise is addressed in Chapter IV (Noise) of the Year 2000 Merced County General Plan. Chapter IV, Section C sets forth Goals, Objectives, Policies and Implementation guidelines to assure land use compatibility with respect to noise. Among these objectives is that citizens of the County are not significantly impacted by excessive noise levels. New residential land use projects are to be located where noise will not exceed an existing or projected future exterior noise level standard of 65 dba L dn, and an interior noise level standard of 45 dba L dn. Additionally, existing residential land use areas that are or would be exposed to exterior noise levels of 65 dba L dn or greater are considered noise impacted and are to be reviewed by the County to identify possible means of reducing the noise levels. In addition to the 65 dba L dn exterior and 45 dba L dn interior noise standards, the project s noise effects were evaluated using the same standards used for the U.C. Merced LRDP EIR. The following standards of significance are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Impacts are considered significant if the implementation of the project would result in: Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinances, or applicable standards of other agencies. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. There is no County standard that quantifies a substantial increase in noise levels. For purposes of this analysis, noise impacts would be considered significant if the project resulted in: A: An increase in noise which causes the significance thresholds to be exceeded by 3 dba or more; B: An increase of 3 dba where the noise levels without the project are above the County significant thresholds (65 dba for residential and 70 dba for parks); C: An increase of 5 dba, where the noise levels without the project are 50 to 65 dba L dn for residential uses; D: An increase of 10 dba, where the noise levels without the project are less than 50 dba L dn for residential uses. It should be noted that an increase of 3 decibels is a perceptible increase and has been used as a standard in this EIR to evaluate impacts in areas where the ambient or background noise levels without the project are close to or above the County and State noise thresholds for affected land uses. Increases of 5 and 10 decibels have been used in areas where the ambient or background noise levels without the project are low or moderate. The use of this sliding scale is appropriate because where ambient/background levels are low, an increase of more than 3 decibels would be perceptible but would not cause annoyance or activity interference. In contrast, if the ambient/background noise levels are high (above 65 dba L dn in residential areas), any perceptible increase would cause an increase in annoyance, nuisance and severely limit the ability to have a conversation without raising voices. X:\x_env\_permit\Campus_parkway\Noise Report\(rev2 June 2004) Campus Pkwy Noise Rpt.doc 6/17/2004 2-7

2.5.2 City of Merced Campus Parkway Noise Study Report Noise is addressed in Chapter 10 (Noise) of the Merced Vision 2015 General Plan (1993, Rev. 1996). Section 10.2 (Noise Goals, Policies and Actions) addresses noise from surface vehicles and other noise sources. Implementing Action 1.4.a in Section 10.2 requires new residential projects to meet noise level standards of 45 dba L dn for interior spaces, 60 dba L dn for the exterior or a maximum of 65 dba L dn if best available noise-reduction techniques have been incorporated into the project. Implementing Action 1.4.c directs that the normally acceptable noise levels contained in the Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines (Figure 10.6 of the General Plan) be used in reviewing non-residential projects. In Figure 10.6, noise levels below 60 dba L dn are normally acceptable for residential land uses. Based upon an inspection of the City s criteria and the noise analysis results, no noise-sensitive receivers that are within the City of Merced would be exposed to potential noise impacts from this project. All noise-sensitive land uses with a potential for project-related noise impacts are in the unincorporated County area. 2.6 STUDY METHODS AND PROCEDURES 2.6.1 Selection of Receivers and Measurement Sites As defined in the Caltrans TeNS, receivers are all of the locations of interest in the project study area. Noise measurement sites are locations in which noise levels are measured. Thus, in most cases all noise measurement sites may be considered receivers, but not all receivers are noise measurement sites. For this project, representative noise measurement sites were selected from the noise-sensitive receivers with a potential exposure to the proposed project alignments. Noise measurements were conducted at 22 sites, as shown in Figure 1-1. For this project, all of the sites were at or adjacent to residences having a front, side or rear yard showing signs of use for recreational or leisure activities (i.e., a porch swing, a swingset, patio furniture, pool, a barbecue grill, children s toys etc.). 2.6.2 Field Measurement Procedures Existing noise levels were measured on December 4 and 5, 2001 using Caltrans-approved methodology for sampling noise. This methodology was taken from the Caltrans TeNS. Brüel & Kjær Type 2231, Larson-Davis LD-824, Larson-Davis LD-820, and Metrosonics db-311 Sound Level Meters were used to sample the existing noise levels. These are Type 1 instruments as defined in the American National Standard Institute (ANSI) specification S1.4-1984. The instruments were calibrated with acoustical calibrators before and after the tests to insure that the readings were correct. A complete list of the noise measurement equipment is contained in Appendix A. In addition, all of the noise measurement instrumentation (calibrators, microphones, sound level meters) are checked and calibrated annually. The accuracy of the testing equipment used by the metrology laboratory is traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). X:\x_env\_permit\Campus_parkway\Noise Report\(rev2 June 2004) Campus Pkwy Noise Rpt.doc 6/17/2004 2-8

Campus Parkway Noise Study Report Short-term noise measurements and long-term noise measurements were conducted. The short-term noise measurements were 15 to 20 minutes in duration. Two or more separate measurements were conducted at each site except at Site 18, where the second measurement was suspended due to unfavorable weather conditions and time constraints. Site 18 was very similar to the nearby Site 17 in geometry and noise exposure, so it was determined that one measurement was adequate. Generally the two or more separate measurements occurred consecutively in time. The noise instrumentation was switched off and recalibrated between each measurement. If the resultant L eq varied by 2 decibels or more, a third noise measurement was conducted. The short-term noise data is summarized in Table 1-1, and the field notes are contained in Appendix B. Two long-term noise measurements (each 24 hours or more in duration) were conducted. One long-term measurement was conducted in the northern portion of the project area (at Site 10) and one long-term noise measurement was conducted in the southern portion of the project area (at Site21). The purpose of the long-term noise measurements was to determine the changes in noise levels within the project area throughout a typical day. This data was used during the noise analysis to estimate existing peak-noise hour levels at the representative receivers. The long-term noise data is summarized in Table 1-2, and the detailed data output is contained in Appendix C. Because the proposed project is a new roadway, the primary purpose of the noise measurements was to assess the existing ambient noise conditions. Although traffic counts and speeds were noted where appropriate, the noise measurements were not utilized to calibrate the noise model because the existing conditions are not comparable to the future conditions. Weather conditions during the survey period were calm, with clear skies. Air temperatures varied from 46 F to 52 F, with 47 to 75 percent relative humidity. Wind speed varied from 0 to 8 miles per hour (mph) during the survey period, with light breezes (1 to 3 mph) most of the time. The weather conditions were conducive to ambient noise measurements and there was no adverse effect on the measurement accuracy due to the weather. 2.6.3 Noise Prediction Method Used The Sound32 Caltrans noise prediction computer model was used to calculate the future traffic noise levels. Sound32 is a Caltrans version of the FHWA Level 1 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction computer program SNAP1.0. The FHWA and Caltrans models are based on the FHWA report, FHWA-RD-77-108, 'FHWA HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL'. These noise models are approved for use in predicting traffic noise levels in California by the FHWA. The Caltrans traffic noise prediction model used in this traffic noise analysis employs the California vehicle noise (Calveno) emission level curves to calculate the traffic noise levels. The Calveno emission level curves are reported in "Hendriks, R.W.; California Vehicle Noise Emission Levels, California Department of Transportation, Report No. FHWA/CA/TL-87/03, Final Report, January 1987". The Calveno emission level curves have been reviewed and approved by FHWA. X:\x_env\_permit\Campus_parkway\Noise Report\(rev2 June 2004) Campus Pkwy Noise Rpt.doc 6/17/2004 2-9

Campus Parkway Noise Study Report The three project alignments (Green, Green Alternate and Yellow) were modeled using design data (alignments and profiles) developed by Merced County Department of Public Works. 2.7 EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT 2.7.1 Noise Sensitive Land Uses and Site Geometry Noise-sensitive land uses in the project area consist of rural residential and low density residential. In the northern portion of the project area (north of State Route 140), there are several large tracts of homes as well as scattered residences separated from one another by open fields and large distances. South of State Route 140, the residences are primarily in two configurations, either separated from one another or grouped in clusters. Other land uses in the project area include agricultural (throughout the project area) as well as industrial, regional/community commercial and business park (in the southern portion of the project area). The terrain within the project vicinity is flat. 2.8 FUTURE NOISE ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS AND CONSIDERED ABATEMENT/MITIGATION 2.8.1 Future Traffic Data Assumptions Traffic volume data from the traffic study for the project (Dowling Associates, 2001) was utilized for the noise study. The traffic volumes derived from the Dowling data are summarized in Appendix D. The designed speed limit of 45 mph was utilized for the noise modeling of Campus Parkway. Traffic vehicle mix data was provided by Dowling Associates. Six traffic volume scenarios were analyzed: Green Alignment without and with U.C. Projects, Green Alternate Alignment without and with U.C. Projects, and Yellow Alignment without and with U.C. Projects. 2.8.2 Future Noise Levels. The results of the Sound 32 noise modeling for the six modeled scenarios are shown in Tables 1-3 and 1-4. Printouts of the Sound32 input and output files are contained in Appendix E. Table 1-3 presents the data in terms of peak-noise-hour L eq (i.e., Caltrans noise impact criteria) while Table 1-4 presents the data in terms of L dn (County of Merced noise impact criteria). The relationship between L eq and L dn was determined using the results of the long-term noise measurement data. Based on that data, the L dn level for receivers in the northern portion of the project was found to be approximately one decibel lower than the peak-noise-hour, while for receivers in the southern portion of the project the L dn level was found to be approximately three decibels lower than the peak-noise-hour. Campus Parkway Project. Table 1-3 indicates that using Caltrans noise impact criteria, up to three of the 29 modeled receivers would have impacts from the project. Under the Green Alignment or the Green Alternate Alignment Project scenario, Site 1 (located adjacent to Yosemite Avenue), and Sites 17 and 18, (both located adjacent to SR-140) would exceed Caltrans Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) for Activity Category B land uses (i.e., residential). Table 1-4 shows that using County of Merced noise impact criteria, up to six of the 29 modeled receivers would have impacts from the project. For example, under the Green Alignment scenario, noise levels at sites 1, 3, 7, 12, 17 and 18 would exceed the County 65 dba L dn exterior noise standard for residential land uses and/or would result in a significant increase X:\x_env\_permit\Campus_parkway\Noise Report\(rev2 June 2004) Campus Pkwy Noise Rpt.doc 6/17/2004 2-10

Campus Parkway Noise Study Report under the criteria set forth previously in the U.C. Merced LRDP EIR. Under the Yellow Alignment, County impact criteria would be exceeded at three locations -- Sites 9, 17 and 18. Campus Parkway with U.C. Projects. Table 1-3 indicates that using Caltrans noise impact criteria, up to five of the 29 modeled receivers would have impacts from the project. Under the Green Alignment with U.C. Projects scenario, Sites 1, 17 and 18 would exceed Caltrans Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) for Activity Category B land uses. Additionally, two of the receivers (Sites 3 and 5, located west of the Green Alignment, north of Olive Avenue) would have project-related noise increases of 12 decibels or more. Table 1-4 shows that using County of Merced noise impact criteria, up to eight of the 29 modeled receivers would have impacts from the project. For example, under the Green Alignment with U.C. Project scenario, noise levels at sites 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 17 and 18 would exceed the County 65 dba L dn exterior noise standard for residential land uses and/or would result in a significant increase under the criteria set forth previously in the U.C. Merced LRDP EIR. Under the Yellow Alignment, County impact criteria would be exceeded at three locations -- Sites 9, 17 and 18. 2.8.3 Noise Abatement The Sound32 noise model was utilized to analyze the noise reduction provided by noise abatement measures. Abatement in the form of screen walls (soundwalls) were considered at representative noisesensitive receivers where the predicted future-with-project noise levels exceeded Caltrans or County of Merced noise impact criteria. Figure 1-2 shows the considered soundwall limits, and Table 1-5 presents the results of the soundwall analysis using Caltrans and County criteria. A range of soundwall heights from 1.8 meters (6 feet) to 4.9 meters (16 feet) were analyzed. Tables 1-6, 1-7 and 1-8 present the results of the preliminary noise abatement reasonableness analysis for soundwalls found to be feasible to construct. Table 1-6 shows the results using Caltrans noise impact and abatement guidelines, Table 1-7 shows the results of the analysis using County of Merced guidelines, and Table 1-8 shows the results of the analysis to satisfy both Caltrans and County guidelines. Caltrans Noise Abatement Analysis. Table 1-5(a) shows that Sites 1, 3, 5, 17 and 18 were all preliminarily considered for abatement under Caltrans Noise Abatement Criteria. The results in Table 1-5(a) show the predicted noise levels from a screen wall type barrier constructed within the project rightof-way, assuming that such a barrier is feasible to construct. In several instances a barrier would not be feasible (see Section 2.8.4). Table 1-6 contains the estimated noise abatement costs for the barriers found to be feasible. For this project, one barrier (adjacent to Site 5) was found to be feasible. County Noise Abatement Analysis. Table 1-5(b) shows that Sites 1,3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 17 and 18 were all preliminarily considered for abatement under County of Merced Noise Abatement Criteria. The results in Table 1-5(b) show the predicted noise levels from a screen wall type barrier constructed within the project right-of-way, assuming that such a barrier is feasible to construct. In several instances a barrier would not be feasible (see Section 2.8.4). Table 1-7 contains the estimated noise abatement costs for the barriers found to be feasible. For this project, 5 barriers (adjacent to Sites 5, 7, 9, 10 and 12) were preliminarily found to be feasible. X:\x_env\_permit\Campus_parkway\Noise Report\(rev2 June 2004) Campus Pkwy Noise Rpt.doc 6/17/2004 2-11

Campus Parkway Noise Study Report Combined Caltrans and County Noise Abatement Analysis. Table 1-8 indicates that in order to construct soundwalls that would be feasible and would meet Caltrans and County criteria, the cost per benefited residence would vary from $56,000 per residence (for Site 7) to $1,039,360 per residence (for Site 5). A preliminary reasonableness determination was made based upon the lowest cost per benefited residence (Site 7). Using the methodology outlined in the Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, the base Caltrans allowance of $17,000 per benefited residence was adjusted for absolute noise levels, Build versus Existing noise levels, achievable noise reduction and estimated construction date of the residence. A modified reasonableness allowance per benefited residence of $33,000.00 was estimated. Based on this allowance, none of the considered soundwalls found to be feasible would be reasonable to construct under Caltrans reasonableness criteria. 2.8.4 Areas where abatement/mitigation is not feasible Barriers would not be feasible to construct at Site 1 (located along Yosemite Avenue) and Sites 17 and 18 (located along SR-140) because the construction of such barriers would interfere with access to the driveways and local cross-streets which provide the sole access to the affected properties. Creating breaks or gaps in the soundwalls would reduce the noise reduction performance of the walls, rendering them ineffective. At Site 3 (located west of the Green Alignment, north of Olive Avenue), a barrier constructed within the project right-of-way would not provide the minimum 5 decibels of noise reduction necessary to be considered feasible. As Table 1-5(a) shows, the most that a 4.9-meter (16-foot) high soundwall would provide is 4 decibels of noise reduction compared with the existing peak-noise-hour case. The reason for the relatively poor barrier performance is the large distance (approximately 244 meters or 800 feet) between the receiver and the barrier. Thus a barrier would not be feasible to construct for Site 3 within the project right-of-way. 2.8.5 Alternative Barrier Locations At locations such as Site 3 where a barrier located within the proposed right-of-way would not perform well because of the large distance to the receiver, the effect of constructing a barrier adjacent to the noisesensitive receivers was analyzed. The Sound32 noise model indicates that a 122-meter (400-foot) long, 3.66-meter (12-foot) high soundwall constructed at or near the residential property line of Site 3 would provide the minimum 5 decibels of noise reduction necessary to be considered feasible under Caltrans criteria. While it is possible to construct soundwalls on private property, the process is complicated, timeconsuming and requires essentially unanimous consent of the affected property owners. Rights of Entry, Temporary Construction Easements and long-term maintenance agreements are generally required for construction of this type of sound barrier on private property. 2.8.6 Berms versus Soundwalls Berms are generally accepted as providing more noise reduction for a given overall height than soundwalls. The exact mechanism or reason for this difference is still being studied. The general consensus in the noise control community (including Caltrans) is that the rounded top of the berm causes the noise to diffract differently than the relatively sharp and abrupt top of a masonry wall. The Sound32 X:\x_env\_permit\Campus_parkway\Noise Report\(rev2 June 2004) Campus Pkwy Noise Rpt.doc 6/17/2004 2-12

Campus Parkway Noise Study Report noise model is programmed to give a higher level of noise reduction to an earthen berm type barrier compared to a masonry barrier. To determine the acoustical benefit that could be expected for this project by construction of berms instead of soundwalls, several representative sites were selected and modeled with soundwalls and then berms. The results are presented in Table 1-9. The modeling indicates that berms would reduce traffic noise levels by an additional 2 to 3 decibels compared to soundwalls of the same height. Note, however, that any additional acoustical benefit provided by berms is generally believed to be nullified when a wall atop a berm combination is utilized. Berms are not recognized as an acceptable noise abatement measure by FHWA, and hence are not eligible for federal transportation funding; use of berms could be further considered if that portion of the project is funded by a non-fhwa source. 2.8.7 Reduced Noise Pavement Surfaces For many years the traffic noise assessment and control literature has contained numerous references to nonstandard pavement surfaces that in some manner and to some degree have the ability to reduce the generation of highway traffic noise. Until recently, however, validation of such acoustical benefits has been somewhat lacking. The two most common types of pavement that are believed to possess the reduced noise characteristics are open graded asphalt concrete and rubberized asphalt. The non-acoustic properties of these two pavements are well documented and Caltrans has standard specifications for each type (e.g., ARHM-GG, Asphalt Rubber Hot Mix, Gap Graded). The acoustical benefits of an open graded pavement surface were recently the subject of a comprehensive, long-term study funded by Caltrans (I-80 Davis OGAC Pavement Noise Study. Illingworth and Rodkin). The results of that study indicate that noise levels 9 to 35 months following the road work have decreased by 4 to 6 dba compared with the measured baseline conditions (aged asphalt concrete without the open grade asphalt concrete overlay). Similarly, the Sacramento County Department of Environmental Review and Assessment commissioned a study of the effects of rubberized asphalt concrete (RAC) on arterial traffic noise. A 16-month post overlay assessment of a RAC project demonstrated a 4 to 5 dba L eq decrease in noise levels. However, these surfaces are not recognized by FHWA as acceptable, and therefore are not eligible for federal transportation project funding. If non-fhwa funding is available for the project, the use of pavement types, such as open-grade asphalt, could be further considered and that portion of the project would require the use of a non-fhwa source of funds. 2.9 CONSTRUCTION NOISE Noise produced by construction equipment required to build this project would occur with varying intensity and duration during eight basic phases of construction. These construction phases will occur over an estimated 2-year period. Table 2-2 is a typical "flow chart" that shows a rough approximation of the time required for each construction phase. Because of the different phases of construction, no single location will experience a long-term period of construction noise. A rough approximation of the construction noise level for various pieces of construction equipment are shown in Table 2-3 Construction Equipment Noise Ranges. Table 2-3 shows the range of noise emissions from various types of construction equipment at a distance of 15 meters (50 feet). Noise levels generated by construction equipment (or by any point source ) decrease at a rate of approximately 6 dba per X:\x_env\_permit\Campus_parkway\Noise Report\(rev2 June 2004) Campus Pkwy Noise Rpt.doc 6/17/2004 2-13

Campus Parkway Noise Study Report doubling of distance away from the source (Diehl, 1973). Therefore, at a distance of 30 meters or 100 feet the noise levels will be about 6 dba lower than at the 15 meter reference distance. Similarly, at a distance of 30 meters (200 feet) the noise levels would be approximately 12 dba lower than at the 15 meter reference distance. Typically, construction noise will occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. 2.9.1 Construction Noise Control To avoid unnecessary annoyance from construction noise, the following construction noise control measures should be implemented: 1. Minimize nighttime and weekend work. 2. Place maintenance yards, batch plants, haul roads, and other construction-oriented operations in locations that would be the least disruptive to the community. 3. Hold community meetings to explain to the area residents about the construction work, time involved, and the control measures to be taken to reduce the impact of the construction work. 4. Avoid pile driving at night and on weekends. 5. Use of portable noise screens to provide shielding for jack hammering or other similar type activities when work is close to noise-sensitive areas. 6. Compliance with Standard Specifications 7-1.01I (July 1999) "Sound Control Requirements. - The contractor shall comply with all local sound control and noise level rules, regulations and ordinances which apply to any work performed pursuant to the contract. Each internal combustion engine, used for any purpose on the job or related to the job, shall be equipped with a muffler of a type recommended by the manufacturer. No internal combustion engine shall be operated on the project without said muffler". X:\x_env\_permit\Campus_parkway\Noise Report\(rev2 June 2004) Campus Pkwy Noise Rpt.doc 6/17/2004 2-14

Campus Parkway Noise Study Report 3.0 R EFERENCES Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc. 1973. Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise. U.S. Department of Transportation Contract Number DOT-FH-11-7976, Office of Environmental Policy, Federal Highway Administration. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Central California Environmental Technical Branch. June 7, 2000. Noise Study Report, Route 99/ Mission Avenue Interchange. File Mer-99-PM 10.6 12.8, EA 10-363100. Fresno, CA. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Department of Public Works, Road Division. June, 2001. Project Study Report, on Route 140 from 0.2 km West of Santa Fe Avenue to Kibby Road. File 10-Mer-140-KP 60.4-62.3 (PM 37.5 39.2). Merced, CA. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). October, 1998. Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction and Reconstruction Projects. Environmental Program, Environmental Engineering - Noise, Air Quality and Hazardous Waste Management Office. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). October, 1998. Technical Noise Supplement (TeNS), A Technical Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Environmental Program, Environmental Engineering - Noise, Air Quality and Hazardous Waste Management Office. Sacramento, CA. California, State of,. 1988. California Noise Insulation Standards, State Building Code, Part 2, Title 24, CCR, Appendix Chapter 35 Sound Transmission Control. California Department of Health Services, Sacramento, CA. Diehl, George M., ed. 1973. Machinery Acoustics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, NY Dowling Associates, Inc. December 5, 2001. Campus Parkway Traffic Operations Analysis, Merced County, California. Oakland, CA EIP Associates. August 2001. County of Merced University Community Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. Oakland, CA Harris, Cyril M., ed. 1991. Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control. Third Edition. McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York, NY. Hassall, J.R. and K. Zaveri. 1988. Acoustic Noise Measurements. Fifth Edition. Brüel and Kjær Instruments, Inc. Copenhagen, Denmark. Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. September 17, 2001. I-80 Davis OGAC Pavement Noise Study. Petaluma, CA. Merced, County of. 2000. Merced County Year 2000 General Plan, Chapter IV Noise. X:\x_env\_permit\Campus_parkway\Noise Report\(rev2 June 2004) Campus Pkwy Noise Rpt.doc 6/17/2004 3-1

Campus Parkway Noise Study Report Peterson, A.P.G. and E. Gross, Jr. 1972. Handbook of Noise Measurement. Seventh Edition. General Radio Company. Concord, MA. Rubberized Asphalt Concrete Technology Center. 2000. A Study on the Effectiveness of Rubberized Asphalt in Reducing Traffic Noise Levels. Los Angeles, CA. URS Corporation. 2001. U.C. Merced Long-Range Development Plan Environmental Impact Report. Oakland, CA. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environmental July 1982. 23 CFR Part 772: Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise Final Rule. Federal Register, Vol. 47, Number 131. Washington, DC U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environmental Policy, Noise and Air Analysis Division (FHWA HEP-41). June 1995. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement. Washington, DC U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances. (Prepared under contract by Bolt, et.al., Bolt, Beranek & Newman, DC X:\x_env\_permit\Campus_parkway\Noise Report\(rev2 June 2004) Campus Pkwy Noise Rpt.doc 6/17/2004 3-2

Campus Parkway Noise Study Report A PPENDIX A - NOISE M EASUREMENT E QUIPMENT U SED The following instruments were used to conduct the field noise measurements: Sound Level Meters - Brüel & Kjær Digital Precision Integrating Type 2231, Serial Number 1413404. - Larson Davis Model 824, Serial Number 824A1143. Community Noise Analyzers (for long-term noise measurements) Larson Davis Model 820, serial number 0775. Metrosonics db-311 Sound Analyzer, Serial Number 1074. Acoustical Calibrators - Brüel & Kjær Acoustical Calibrator Type 4231 (94 dba SPL @ 1000 Hz), Serial Number 1850301; Larson Davis Model Cal 200 (94 dba SPL @ 1000 Hz). Serial Number 2794. Psychometric Instruments - VWR-NIST Digital Hygrometer/Thermometer Serial Number L209017; Sims Digital, Anemometer Model DIC, Serial Number 95022. Traffic Counts - Sportline 4-digit hand counter X:\x_env\_permit\Campus_parkway\Noise Report\(rev2 June 2004) Campus Pkwy Noise Rpt.doc/ project No 4/1/2005 A-1

Yosemite Avenue 1 3 Olive Avenue 5 6 4 30M 7 8 9 10 11 14 15 13 12 29M 28M 16 27M 17 19 18 Highway 140 20 26M 21 Childs Avenue Legend 1 27M Gerard Avenue 25M 22 Measured and Modeled Site Modeled-Only Site at St e Alignment Alternatives Common Alignment Green Alignment Green Alternate Alignment Yellow Alignment e ut Ro N 99 23 Campus Parkway Project Merced County, CA 24M 1000 0 1000 Feet 200 0 200 400 Meters NOISE MEASUREMENT AND MODELING LOCATIONS Figure 1-1 File path: G:\Campus_parkway\jan_2002

1 Yosemite Avenue 3 Olive Avenue 5 6 4 30M 7 8 9 10 11 14 15 13 12 29M 28M 27M Highway 140 16 17 18 19 20 26M 21 Childs Avenue Gerard Avenue 1 27M 25M 22 Legend Measured and Modeled Site Modeled-Only Site Alignment Alternatives Common Alignment Green Alignment Green Alternate Alignment Yellow Alignment Noise Barriers Considered As Abatement e at St N ut Ro e 1000 99 23 Campus Parkway Project Merced County, CA 0 1000 Feet 200 0 200 400 Meters 24M CONSIDERED NOISE BARRIERS Figure 1-2 File path: G:\Campus_parkway\jan_2002