2017-061 35E Noise WallsDate: August 18, 2017 Report No. 2017-061
INFORMAL STAFF REPORT
TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT:
35Express Project – Status and Establishment of Noise Walls
BACKGROUND:
The 35Express Project is a $4.4 billion transportation capacity project on Interstate 35E from
Interstate 635 in Dallas to US 380 in Denton. The project is being completed in two phases due
to funding constraints, Interim or Phase I and Ultimate, Phase II. The 28-mile Texas Department
of Transportation Project (TxDOT) has been separated into three sections; The City of Denton
falls entirely in the North Section of the 35Express Project, FM 2181 (Swisher) to US 380. AGL
is the TxDOT contractor constructing the project.
The overall project was environmentally cleared in early 2012 and construction began on Phase I
in October 2013. Phase I construction is currently scheduled to be complete in November 2017.
No schedule has been set for Phase II as funding for this project has not been identified,
however, regional transportation officials indicate construction could begin in the next five to
seven years.
DISCUSSION:
Five noise walls in Denton were recommended to be constructed as part of the Environmental
Analysis (EA). Noise Wall 1 (NW 1) is the only wall funded due to Phase I funding constraints.
NW 1 is located adjacent to the north bound lanes, north of North Texas Boulevard near the
Murchison Performing Arts Center on UNT campus. Other residential areas approved for noise
walls based on the 2012 EA include:
NW 1 – Southridge Area – Southbound lanes: Woodbrook Street to Conway Lane
NW 2 – Denia Area – Southbound lanes: Ave D to 300 feet north of Bernard Street
NW 3 – Bernard/Lindsey Area – Northbound lanes: 250 feet south of Bernard St. to Ave C
NW 4 – Greenlee/Underwood Area – Northbound lanes: 750 feet south of McCormick to Ave C
*approximate distances
Construction of the remaining noise walls are included as part of Phase II which will not begin
for approximately five to seven years. Financial constraints prohibited TxDOT from acquiring
the Phase II right of way (ROW) necessary for these walls as part of the Phase I project. Staff
has been advised the ROW for the walls could cost in the 10’s of millions of dollars and
construction of the four remaining noise walls is estimated at approximately $3.3 M.
Should the City of Denton wish to construct the remaining noise walls in advance of Phase II, it
is highly unlikely TxDOT will reimburse the City for the expense due to the logistics/constraints
of constructing the Phase II project around the barriers. Additionally, TxDOT has indicated the
environmental study may need to be readdressed as part of Phase II requiring different locations
(extensions) and different heights to attenuate noise levels established by a new EA. Other risks
may include the requirement to relocate impacted utilities in the existing right of way and
Date: August 18, 2017 Report No. 2017-061
relocation of existing on/off ramps to properly place the noise walls. Most of the remaining
noise wall segments are currently designed to be constructed between the main lanes and the
frontage roads.
Staff will place this item on the September Mobility Committee agenda for review and
discussion. Additionally, understanding the tentative November 2017 completion date of the
35Express Project, staff will work with the Public Communications Office to outline the project
as part of a news article in the October City of Denton Newsletter.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Memo to City Manager dated August 17, 2017
STAFF CONTACT:
Mark Nelson
Director of Transportation
(940) 349-7702
Mark.Nelson@cityofdenton.com
215 E. McKINNEY • DENTON, TEXAS 76201 • (940) 349-7702 • FA (940) 349-7206
TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS
“Dedicated to Quality Service”
www.cityofdenton.com
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 17, 2017
TO: Todd Hileman, City Manager
FROM: Mark Nelson, Transportation Director
SUBJECT: 35Express and Denton Corridor Noise Walls
The 35Express Project is a 28-mile, $4.4 billion transportation capacity project on Interstate 35E
from Interstate 635 in Dallas to US 380 in Denton. Due to the cost of the project, TxDOT broke
the project into two phases, Interim and Ultimate. The design, including environmental
clearance, for the project was completed in 2012 and construction was initiated on the Interim
Project ($1.4 B) in October 2013. AGL, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT)
contractor for the 35Express Project, has indicated the project will be substantially complete in
November 2017. The 28-mile 35Express Project has been separated into three sections; South
Section I-635 to Sam Rayburn, Middle Section Sam Rayburn to Swisher Road (FM 2181) and
the North Section Swisher Road to US 380. The City of Denton falls entirely in the North
Section of the 35Express Project.
The intent of this report is to provide Council background on the establishment of noise walls as
part of the 35Express North Section Project. Only one of five noise walls approved as part of the
Ultimate Project will be constructed as part of the Phase I Interim Project, Noise Wall Five near
the Murchison Performing Arts Center adjacent to the University of North Texas. This report
will also outline the feasibility of the City constructing approved noise walls in advance of the
Ultimate Project. There is currently no schedule on when the Ultimate Project will be initiated
as funding has not been identified. Regional transportation officials believe the project could be
initiated in the next five to seven years.
The design process for 35Express required TxDOT to complete an Environmental Assessment
(EA) for the project. Noise level data used for this study was based on predicted noise levels in
2035, not current noise levels. A copy of an excerpt of the EA regarding Noise (5.2.13) has been
attached for reference as Exhibit 1. The EA states that a noise wall is warranted if it is
determined to be both feasible and reasonable. The EA further states “A noise impact occurs
when either the absolute or relative criterion is met:
“Dedicated to Quality Service”
www.cityofdenton.com
Absolute criterion: the predicted noise level at a receiver approaches, equals or exceeds the noise
abatement criteria (NAC). "Approach" is defined as one dB(A) (decibel) below the NAC. For
example, a noise impact would occur at a Category B residence if the noise level is predicted to
be 66 dB(A) or above.
Relative criterion: the predicted noise level substantially exceeds the existing noise level at a
receiver even though the predicted noise level does not approach, equal, or exceed the NAC.
“Substantially exceeds” is defined as more than 10 dB(A). For example, a noise impact would
occur at a Category B residence if the existing level is 54 dB(A) and the predicted level is 65
dB(A).”
If either case occurs, a wall is deemed “feasible” for noise abatement. Once that is determined, a
calculation is done to determine if the wall is “reasonable.”
The EA states “…before any abatement measure can be proposed for incorporation into the
project, it must be both feasible and reasonable. In order to be "feasible," the abatement measure
must be able to reduce the noise level at greater than 50% of impacted, first row receivers by at
least five dB(A); and to be "reasonable," it must not exceed the cost-effectiveness criterion of
$25,000 for each receiver that would benefit by a reduction of at least five dB(A) and the
abatement measure must be able to reduce the noise level (of) at least one impacted, first row
receiver by at least seven dB(A).” If both criteria are not met, a wall cannot be included in the
project. It is important to note that “Environmental Justice” precludes affluent communities
from “purchasing” more mitigation while less affluent communities would be left exposed to any
potential negative impacts.
It is staff’s understanding that requests have been made by residents of the Denia Neighborhood
to add noise walls in advance of the Ultimate or Phase II of the 35Express Project. This
neighborhood is generally located northwest of the 35Express corridor between Ft. Worth Drive
and North Texas Boulevard, Table 5-22 on pages 137-138 of Exhibit 2 demonstrates that noise
receivers R12, R13, R14 and R17, located in the Denia Neighborhood, meet the requirements to
establish noise walls. (Exhibit 2, demonstrates an area map showing location of noise receptors
and noise walls approved as part of Phase II of the 35Expresss Project.)
The noise wall analysis in the 2011 EA was based on traffic that will exist in the 2035 timeframe
and at the locations indicated by the ultimate schematic design based on where the main lanes
will ultimately be constructed. Since the IH 35E Interim Project does not materially change the
location of the main lanes, noise walls approved in the Ultimate Project are not required as part
of the Interim Project. The exception to this is Noise Wall 5 (NW 5 depicted in Exhibit 2). NW 5
is located north of the frontage road on north bound 35E adjacent to the Murchison Performing
Arts Center on the University of North Texas campus. Financial constraints of the Interim
Project did not allow for the acquisition of all the necessary right of way for the Ultimate Project,
“Dedicated to Quality Service”
www.cityofdenton.com
therefore the remaining noise walls will not be placed in the designed locations for the 35Express
Ultimate Project as part of the Interim or Phase I Project.
Feasibility
Staff has initiated efforts to determine the potential of establishing noise walls as part of the
current Interim Project. Specifically, can the City of Denton fund the requisite costs for
constructing noise walls along the Denia Neighborhood corridor of the 35Express Project and
seek reimbursement for these costs from TxDOT as part of the Ultimate or Phase II Project.
City of Denton transportation consultant ITS has engaged the TxDOT Dallas District to check
with TxDOT Austin Environmental Division if it is possible to build two of the four remaining
noise walls without triggering environmental justice issues. (Environmental justice could be
called to question if noise attenuation is provided for some but not all, equity.) The two walls in
question would be, NW 2 and NW 3 depicted in Exhibit 2. As of August 10, 2017, ITS has yet
to receive an answer from TxDOT on this request. If the answer is no, then all four remaining
walls in the City of Denton corridor of the North Section will have to be constructed to meet
environmental justice.
Financial
The EA estimated the cost of all five walls to be $3,020,148 in 2012. Using that cost as the
basis, and adding 3% inflation per year, the two subject walls (NW 2 and NW 4) are estimated to
cost $2,052,020. The City would also incur the cost to acquire all the necessary right of way
(ROW) for the IH 35E Ultimate Project, not just for the sound walls, but for any project related
components in the identified segment to include utility relocations and drainage enhancements.
TxDOT’s position during the Interim Project was to acquire all of the ROW needed from
individual land owners for the Ultimate Project if only a portion was needed for the Interim
Project. This was done so that impacted property owners are not subjected to the ROW process
twice.
At the time of the development of the Interim Project, the total estimated cost of ROW for the
entire 28-mile segment was in excess of $1 Billion. The northern segment of IH 35E, within
Denton city limits, would most likely be a fourth of that cost, or $250 million in 2012 dollars.
Without additional information from TxDOT, it is easily anticipated the ROW for the walls in
question, NW 2 and NW 3, would in the 10’s of millions of dollars.
This preliminary estimate is based on the fact that since 35E is an Interstate Highway, any utility
that would require relocation would be eligible for reimbursement. It is difficult to determine the
exact amount of utilities requiring relocation, but a visual inspection of the existing corridor
indicates significant utilities exist in and immediately behind the current ROW line for IH- 35E.
Utilities typically resist partial relocation of their infrastructure. In other words, the City should
expect to assume responsibility to relocate utilities outside of the limits needed for the noise
walls in question to maintain continuity of the subject utility. The City should anticipate that
utility relocations would run into the 10’s of millions of dollars as part of the proposal to
“Dedicated to Quality Service”
www.cityofdenton.com
establish noise walls as part of the Interim Project. Finally, additional funding would be needed
to relocate all impacted frontage roads as the proposed noise walls work as system, no gaps, to
abate noise.
Constructability
Issues impacting the constructability of the two noise walls prior to the ultimate project relate
primarily to two areas. First, the walls are proposed to be constructed between the main lanes and
the frontage roads, placing them well-off of the proposed ROW line. The proposed locations for
the walls place them behind the existing frontage roads. Since the viability of the walls are
predicated on having no gaps, the wall segments will overlap. This will require constructing the
future frontage roads in order to maintain access to existing adjacent facilities as well as the tie-
ins for local roadways (access to neighborhoods), further increasing the cost of the project.
Second, in reviewing the approved schematic for IH 35E Ultimate, it indicates the proposed
grade of IH 35E is different than the existing grade and will need to be addressed. This may
require additional improvements such as grading and drainage infrastructure to accommodate the
noise walls prior to the ultimate construction of IH 35E.
Conclusion:
It is highly unlikely that TxDOT would agree to reimburse the City for its upfront costs on the
noise walls or any portion of the project that was not in its permanent location. It is probable that
due to constructability, TxDOT may deem it more efficient to remove the proposed walls
constructed by the City and reconstruct the entire noise wall project as originally planned. This
would make the advance placement of walls unreasonable and ineligible for reimbursement due
to cost.
Staff will continue to work with TxDOT on a formal response as to whether NW 2 and NW 4
would be authorized for construction in advance of the Ultimate Phase II Project or whether NW
1 and 3 would also be required to meet environmental justice standards. Should NW 1 and NW
3 be required, substantial costs estimates will need to be developed. Unless directed otherwise,
staff will target the September Mobility Committee for follow up on this issue.
Attachments:
1. 35 Express Noise Environmental Assessment dated August 2011
2. Figure 20, Proposed Noise Wall and Receiver Locations
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR
IH 35E NORTH SECTION
FROM: FM 2181
TO: US 380
DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS
CSJs: 0195-03-050, 0195-03-071, 0195-03-075, 0196-01-056, and 0196-01-074
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
and
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
August 2011
CSJs: 0195-03-050, -071, -075, 0196-01-056, -074 Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ ES-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 IH 35E Corridor ................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Definition Process: Funding Strategies ................................................................. 2
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ...................................................................................... 5
2.1 Description of Proposal ....................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Managed/HOV Concurrent Flow Lane (MHOV-C) Concept ............................................... 7
2.3 Need and Purpose .............................................................................................................. 9
2.3.1 Project Need .......................................................................................................... 9
2.3.2 Project Purpose.................................................................................................... 15
2.4 ROW Requirements and Utility Adjustments .................................................................... 16
2.5 Related Studies and Relevant Documents to the Proposed North Section
Improvements ................................................................................................................... 17
2.6 Logical Termini .................................................................................................................. 20
2.7 Public Involvement ............................................................................................................ 21
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING FACILITY ..................................................................................... 25
3.1 Existing Facility ................................................................................................................. 25
3.2 Surrounding Terrain and Land Use ................................................................................... 26
3.3 Traffic Projections ............................................................................................................. 27
4.0 ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................................ 29
4.1 No-Build Alternative .......................................................................................................... 29
4.2 Build Alternative ................................................................................................................ 30
5.0 POTENTIAL SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE
PROPOSED ACTIONS.................................................................................................................. 33
5.1 Natural Resources ............................................................................................................ 33
5.1.1 Lakes, Rivers, and Streams ................................................................................. 33
5.1.2 Waters of the U.S., including Wetlands ............................................................... 34
5.1.3 Floodplains ........................................................................................................... 37
5.1.4 Water Quality ....................................................................................................... 39
5.1.5 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat ............................................................................ 41
5.1.6 Threatened/Endangered Species ........................................................................ 50
5.1.7 Topography and Soils .......................................................................................... 56
5.1.8 Air Quality ............................................................................................................. 57
5.2 Community Impact Assessment ....................................................................................... 74
5.2.1 Regional and Community Growth ........................................................................ 75
5.2.2 Land Use .............................................................................................................. 77
5.2.3 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Properties ............................................................................ 78
5.2.4 Economic Impacts ................................................................................................ 80
5.2.5 Relocations and Displacements........................................................................... 81
5.2.6 Access ................................................................................................................ 103
5.2.7 Community Cohesion ......................................................................................... 103
5.2.8 Limited English Proficiency ................................................................................ 105
5.2.9 Environmental Justice (EJ) ................................................................................ 107
5.2.10 Economic Impacts of Tolling .............................................................................. 120
5.2.11 Public Facilities and Services ............................................................................ 133
5.2.12 Aesthetic Considerations ................................................................................... 134
5.2.13 Noise .................................................................................................................. 135
5.2.14 Traffic Operations............................................................................................... 140
5.2.15 Summary of Community Impact Assessment .................................................... 140
CSJs: 0195-03-050, -071, -075, 0196-01-056, -074 Page vii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Project Figures
Figure A-1 IH 35E Corridor Map
Figure A-2 Project Location Map with Project Vicinity Inset
Figure A-3 Project Location Map on Aerial Photograph
Figure A-4 Project on USGS Topographic Map
Figure A-5 Map Index for Figures A-6, A-7, and C-21
Figure A-6 Plan View of Project Design Features
Figure A-7 Project Plan View on Aerial Photograph
Figure A-8 Typical Section Index, Existing and Proposed Typical Sections
Appendix A-9 Project Area Ground Photographs
Appendix B: Natural Resources
Appendix B-1 Stream Data Forms
Appendix B-2 Wetland Determination Data Forms
Appendix B-3 TxDOT Woodlands Data Forms
Appendix B-4 Data for Areas with Fencerow Trees
Appendix B-5 TPWD Coordination Letter
Figure B-6 100 Year Floodplain in the Project ROW
Appendix C: Additional Resources/Issues (Air Quality, Community Impacts, Cultural Resources,
and Noise)
Figure C-1 Sensitive Receptors Map (South)
Figure C-2 Sensitive Receptors Map (North)
Figure C-3 Year 2009 MSAT Affected Transportation Network
Figure C-4 Year 2030 MSAT Affected Transportation Network
Figure C-5 Census Block Map
Figure C-6 Race, Ethnicity, and Low-Income Characteristics in the Project Area
Figure C-7 TSZs Utilizing the Mainlanes at Least Once a Day in the 2030 Build Scenario
Figure C-8 TSZs Utilizing the Managed Lanes at Least Once a Day in the 2030 Build Scenario
Figure C-9 TSZs Utilizing the Existing Facility at Least Once a Day in the 2030 No-Build Scenario
Figure C-10 Breakdown of EJ TSZs Utilizing the Mainlanes at Least Once a Day in the 2030 Build
Scenario
Figure C-11 Breakdown of EJ TSZs Utilizing the Managed Lanes at Least Once a Day in the 2030
Build Scenario
Figure C-12 EJ TSZs Utilizing the Mainlanes at Least Once a Day in the 2030 Build Scenario
Figure C-13 EJ TSZs Utilizing the Managed Lanes at Least Once a Day in the 2030 Build Scenario
Figure C-14 EJ TSZs Utilizing the Existing Facility at Least Once a Day in the 2030 No-Build Scenario
Appendix C-15 November 2004 Historic Resources Concurrence Letter
Appendix C-16 February 2010 Historic Resources Concurrence Letter
Appendix C-17 May 2004 Archeological Resources Concurrence Letter
Appendix C-18 Archeological Coordination – Projects that do not warrant Archeological Survey
Figure C-19 Joe Skiles Park
Appendix C-20 Proposed Noise Wall and Receiver Locations
Appendix C-21 City of Denton Future Development Monitoring
Figure C-22 DCTA A-train Regional Rail Line
Figure C-23 DCTA Denton Connect System Map
Figure C-24 DCTA University of North Texas Shuttle Routes
Environmental Assessment IH 35E North Section from FM 2181 to US 380
CSJs: 0195-03-050, -071, -075, 0196-01-056, -074 Page 135
aesthetic impacts. Additional aesthetic design concepts would be dependent on additional funding from 1
local governments, interest groups, and organizations. 2
3
5.2.13 Noise 4
5
No-Build Alternative 6
Highway traffic is the dominant source of noise in developed areas adjacent to IH 35E. The predicted 7
increase in future traffic volumes on IH 35E would likely increase future ambient noise levels. 8
9
Build Alternative 10
This analysis was accomplished in accordance with TxDOT’s (FHWA approved) Guidelines for Analysis 11
and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise. 12
13
Sound from highway traffic is generated primarily from a vehicle’s tires, engine, and exhaust. It is 14
commonly measured in decibels and is expressed as "dB." 15
16
Sound occurs over a wide range of frequencies. However, not all frequencies are detectable by the 17
human ear; therefore, an adjustment is made to the high and low frequencies to approximate the way an 18
average person hears traffic sounds. This adjustment is called A-weighting and is expressed as "dB(A)." 19
20
Also, because traffic sound levels are never constant due to the changing number, type and speed of 21
vehicles, a single value is used to represent the average or equivalent sound level and is expressed as 22
"Leq." 23
24
The traffic noise analysis typically includes the following elements: 25
• Identification of land use activity areas that might be impacted by traffic noise. 26
• Determination of existing noise levels. 27
• Prediction of future noise levels. 28
• Identification of possible noise impacts. 29
• Consideration and evaluation of measures to reduce noise impacts. 30
31
The FHWA has established the following Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) in Table 5-21 for various land 32
use activity areas that are used as one of two means to determine when a traffic noise impact would 33
occur. 34
35
IH 35E North Section from FM 2181 to US 380 Environmental Assessment
Page 136 CSJs: 0195-03-050, -071, -075, 0196-01-056, -074
TABLE 5-21. FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA 1
Activity
Category
FHWA
dB(A) Leq
TxDOT
dB(A) Leq
Description of Land Use Activity Areas
A 57
(exterior)
56
(exterior)
Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extra-ordinary significance
and serve an important public need and where the preservation of
those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its
intended purpose.
B
67
(exterior)
66
(exterior)
Residential
C 67
(exterior)
66
(exterior)
Active sport areas, amphitheaters, auditoriums, campgrounds,
cemeteries, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities,
parks, picnic areas, places of worship, playgrounds, public meeting
rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios,
recording studios, recreation areas, Section 4(f) sites, schools ,
television studios, trails, and trail crossings
D 52
(interior)
51
(interior)
Auditoriums, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities,
places of worship, public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit
institutional structures, radio studios, recording studios, schools,
and television studios
E 72
(exterior)
71
(exterior)
Hotels, motels, offices, restaurants/bars, and other developed
lands, properties, or activities not included in A-D or F.
F -- --
Agricultural, airports, bus yards, emergency services, industrial,
logging, maintenance facilities, manufacturing, mining, rail yards,
retail facilities, shipyards, utilities (water resources, water treatment,
electrical), and warehousing.
G -- -- Undeveloped lands that are not permitted.
NOTE: primary consideration is given to exterior areas (Category A, B, C, or E) where frequent human
activity occurs. However, interior areas (Category D) are used if exterior areas are physically shielded from
the roadway, or if there is little or no human activity in exterior areas adjacent to the roadway.
2
A noise impact occurs when either the absolute or relative criterion is met: 3
4
Absolute criterion: the predicted noise level at a receiver approaches, equals or exceeds the NAC. 5
"Approach" is defined as one dB(A) below the NAC. For example, a noise impact would occur at a 6
Category B residence if the noise level is predicted to be 66 dB(A) or above. 7
8
Relative criterion: the predicted noise level substantially exceeds the existing noise level at a receiver 9
even though the predicted noise level does not approach, equal, or exceed the NAC. “Substantially 10
exceeds” is defined as more than 10 dB(A). For example, a noise impact would occur at a Category B 11
residence if the existing level is 54 dB(A) and the predicted level is 65 dB(A). 12
13
When a traffic noise impact occurs, noise abatement measures must be considered. A noise abatement 14
measure is any positive action taken to reduce the impact of traffic noise on an activity area. 15
16
Environmental Assessment IH 35E North Section from FM 2181 to US 380
CSJs: 0195-03-050, -071, -075, 0196-01-056, -074 Page 137
The FHWA traffic noise modeling software was used to calculate existing and predicted traffic noise 1
levels. The model primarily considers the number, type and speed of vehicles; highway alignment and 2
grade; cuts, fills and natural berms; surrounding terrain features; and the locations of activity areas likely 3
to be impacted by the associated traffic noise. 4
5
Existing and predicted traffic noise levels were modeled at receiver locations (Table 5-22 and Appendix 6
C, Figure C-20) that represent the land use activity areas adjacent to the proposed project that might be 7
impacted by traffic noise and potentially benefit from feasible and reasonable noise abatement. 8
9
TABLE 5-22. TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS (DB(A) LEQ)
Representative Receiver
NAC
Category
NAC
Level Existing Predicted
2030
Change
(+/-)
Noise
Impact
R1 Residential B 67 66 67 +1 Yes
R1A Residential B 67 62 64 +2 No
R2 Residential B 67 62 62 0 No
R3 Residential B 67 62 62 0 No
R3A Retail F -- -- -- -- --
R3B Medical facility D 52 47 49 +2 No
R3C Medical facility D 52 48 50 +2 No
R3D Medical facility D 52 48 50 +2 No
R3E Retail F -- -- -- -- --
R3F Medical facility D 52 44 46 +2 No
R3G Motels and Restaurant E 72 66 69 +3 No
R4 Multifamily Residential B 67 48 50 +2 No
R4A Medical facility D 52 46 48 +2 No
R5 Residential B 67 70 74 +4 Yes
R6 Residential B 67 68 72 +4 Yes
R7 Residential B 67 69 72 +3 Yes
R8 Residential B 67 71 73 +2 Yes
R8A Offices E 72 67 70 +3 No
R8B Motel E 72 68 70 +2 No
R9 Multifamily Residential B 67 61 65 +4 No
R9A Motel E 72 68 70 +2 No
R10 Multifamily Residential B 67 62 64 +2 No
R10A Medical facility D 52 47 50 +3 No
R10B Motel E 72 67 70 +3 No
R11 Residential B 67 67 74 +7 Yes
R12 Residential B 67 67 72 +5 Yes
R13 Residential B 67 65 69 +4 Yes
R13A Motel E 72 66 70 +4 No
R14 Residential B 67 61 68 +7 Yes
R15 Residential B 67 65 73 +8 Yes
IH 35E North Section from FM 2181 to US 380 Environmental Assessment
Page 138 CSJs: 0195-03-050, -071, -075, 0196-01-056, -074
TABLE 5-22. TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS (DB(A) LEQ)
Representative Receiver
NAC
Category
NAC
Level Existing Predicted
2030
Change
(+/-)
Noise
Impact
R15A Motel E 72 65 70 +5 No
R16 Residential B 67 64 70 +6 Yes
R17 Residential B 67 69 75 +6 Yes
R18 Murchison Performing Arts Center1 B&D 67/52 63/38 66/41 +3 Yes/No
R18A Active Sports Area C 67 61 64 +3 No
R19 Multifamily Residential B 67 59 64 +5 No
R20 Multifamily Residential B 67 57 65 +7 No
R20A Medical facility D 52 40 44 +4 No
Note: 1. Category B outdoor activity area used by band students
1
As indicated in Table 5-22, the proposed project would result in a traffic noise impact and the following 2
noise abatement measures were considered: traffic management, alteration of horizontal and/or vertical 3
alignments, acquisition of undeveloped property to act as a buffer zone and the construction of noise 4
barriers. 5
6
Before any abatement measure can be proposed for incorporation into the project, it must be both 7
feasible and reasonable. In order to be "feasible," the abatement measure must be able to reduce the 8
noise level at greater than 50% of impacted, first row receivers by at least five dB(A); and to be 9
"reasonable," it must not exceed the cost-effectiveness criterion of $25,000 for each receiver that would 10
benefit by a reduction of at least five dB(A) and the abatement measure must be able to reduce the noise 11
level at least one impacted, first row receiver by at least seven dB(A). 12
13
Traffic management: control devices could be used to reduce the speed of the traffic; however, the minor 14
benefit of one dB(A) per five mph reduction in speed does not outweigh the associated increase in 15
congestion and air pollution. Other measures such as time or use restrictions for certain vehicles are 16
prohibited on state highways. 17
18
Alteration of horizontal and/or vertical alignments: any alteration of the existing alignment would displace 19
existing businesses and residences, require additional ROW and not be cost effective/reasonable. 20
21
Buffer zone: the acquisition of undeveloped property to act as a buffer zone is designed to avoid rather 22
than abate traffic noise impacts and, therefore, is not feasible. 23
24
Noise barriers: this is the most commonly used noise abatement measure. Noise barriers were evaluated 25
for each of the impacted receiver locations with the following results: 26
27
Environmental Assessment IH 35E North Section from FM 2181 to US 380
CSJs: 0195-03-050, -071, -075, 0196-01-056, -074 Page 139
A noise barrier would not be feasible and reasonable for the following impacted receiver and, therefore, is 1
not proposed for incorporation into the project. 2
3
R1: This receiver represents one residence with a driveway facing the roadway. A continuous noise 4
barrier would restrict access to this residence. Gaps in a noise barrier would satisfy access requirements 5
but the resulting non-continuous barrier segments would not be sufficient to achieve the minimum, 6
feasible reduction of five dB(A). 7
8
Five noise barriers would be feasible and reasonable for the following impacted receivers and, therefore, 9
are proposed for incorporation into the proposed project (see Table 5-23 and Appendix C, Figure C-20). 10
The total cost of the barriers would be $3,020,148 for a total of $17,870 per benefited receiver. 11
12
TABLE 5-23. PROPOSED NOISE WALLS
Noise
Wall(NW)
Number
Approximate Location Impacted
Receivers
# of
Benefited
Receivers
Length
(feet)
Height
(feet)
NW1 Pennsylvania Drive to Conway Lane along
southbound (SB) ER and the mainlanes (ML). 1,417 14
Woodbrook Drive to Pennsylvania Drive along SB
ER and ML. 1,467 14
NW1 Total R5 – R8 26 2,884 14
NW2 From North Texas Boulevard to 70 feet north of
Underwood Street along SB ER to SB ML 635 16
From 120 feet north of Underwood Street to 130 feet
north of Lindsey along the SB ER and SB ML.
803 14
1,890 18
From 200 feet north of Lindsey Drive to
approximately 500 feet north of Bernard Street along
ML.
903 10
NW2 Total
R12 – R14,
and R17 43 4,231 10 – 18
NW3 Approximately 500 feet west of Fort Worth Drive to
approximately 400 feet west of Lindsey Street along
the northbound (NB) ER.
726 18
From 200 feet north of Lindsey Street to 500 feet
south of Lindsey along the SB ML. 320 18
NW3 Total R11 26 1,046 18
NW4 From approximately 600 feet southeast of Greenlee
Street to Collier Street along the NB ML and exit
ramp
1,580 18
From Avenue C to 100 feet south of Collier Street
along the NB ML 618 10
NW4 Total
R15 and
R16 24 2,198 10 – 18
NW5 From Avenue D to Eagle Drive along the NB
frontage road near the ROW. R18 501 899 12
Note: 1. Outdoor activity area of Murchison Performing Arts Center. An estimated 50 band students
typically use the activity area during the day.
IH 35E North Section from FM 2181 to US 380 Environmental Assessment
Page 140 CSJs: 0195-03-050, -071, -075, 0196-01-056, -074
1
Any subsequent project design changes might require a reevaluation of this preliminary noise barrier 2
proposal. The final decision to construct the proposed noise barriers would not be made until completion 3
of the project design, utility evaluation, and polling of adjacent property owners. 4
5
To avoid noise impacts that may result from future development of properties adjacent to the project, local 6
officials responsible for land use control programs should ensure, to the maximum extent possible, no 7
new activities are planned or constructed along or within the predicted (2030) noise impact contours 8
shown in Table 5-24. 9
10
TABLE 5-24. NOISE CONTOURS
Land Use Impact Contour Distance from ROW (feet)
NAC category B & C 66 dB(A) 400
11
Noise associated with the construction of the project is difficult to predict. Heavy machinery, the major 12
source of noise in construction, is constantly moving in unpredictable patterns. However, construction 13
normally occurs during daylight hours when occasional loud noises are more tolerable. None of the 14
receivers is expected to be exposed to construction noise for a long duration; therefore, any extended 15
disruption of normal activities is not expected. Provisions would be included in the plans and 16
specifications that require the contractor to make every reasonable effort to minimize construction noise 17
through abatement measures such as work-hour controls and proper maintenance of muffler systems. 18
19
A copy of this traffic noise analysis will be available to local officials. On the date of approval of this 20
document (Date of Public Knowledge), FHWA and TxDOT are no longer responsible for providing noise 21
abatement for new development adjacent to the project. 22
23
5.2.14 Traffic Operations 24
25
No-Build Alternative and Build Alternative 26
As described in Section 2.3.1, a traffic operations analysis performed for the proposed project design 27
year (2030) determined that LOS would improve under the proposed Build Alternative as compared to the 28
No-Build Alternative (see Table 2-6). That is, mainlane LOS was predicted to be at LOS F for the No-29
Build Alternative and LOS B/C/D or E for the Build Alternative. Further, operation of the proposed MHOV-30
C lanes was predicted at LOS A, the highest quality of service. Implementation of the No-Build 31
Alternative would result in increased congestion and poor traffic flow. 32
33
5.2.15 Summary of Community Impact Assessment 34
The following is a summary of the community impact assessment for the proposed project: 35
Environmental Assessment IH 35E North Section from FM 2181 to US 380
CSJs: 0195-03-050, -071, -075, 0196-01-056, -074 Page 275
9.0 MITIGATION AND MONITORING COMMITMENTS 1
2
All project-specific commitments and conditions of approval, including resource agency permitting 3
compliance and monitoring requirements, would be incorporated in the project plan for the proposed IH 4
35E project. These project-specific commitments and conditions for approval, as further described below, 5
may vary depending on the project’s final design and construction. Mitigation monitoring would be 6
conducted by TxDOT and other federal, state, and local agencies to ensure compliance. 7
8
9.1 Waters of the U.S., including Wetlands 9
The placement of temporary and permanent dredge or fill material into each of the jurisdictional waters of 10
the U.S., including wetlands, would meet the criteria for a NWP 14 under Section 404 of the CWA. A 11
NWP 14 PCN is required for five of the eleven water features (Sites W-2, W-6, W-9, W-10, and W-11) due 12
to permanent fill exceeding the threshold of 0.10 acre; also, at Site W-6, there are impacts to a 13
jurisdictional wetland. See Section 5.1.2 and Appendix A, Figure A-4 for water crossing details and 14
locations. Details about wetland mitigation and the permitting of the various crossings are anticipated to 15
be addressed as part of the PCN review and approval process. Compensatory mitigation for Section 404 16
impacts would be coordinated with USACE and performed in accordance with the terms of USACE NWP 17
14 approval. 18
19
9.2 Water Quality 20
The proposed project would disturb more than one acre; therefore, TxDOT compliance is required with 21
the TCEQ TPDES General Permit for Construction Activity. The proposed project would also disturb 22
more than five acres; therefore, a Notice of Intent would be filed to comply with TCEQ stating that TxDOT 23
would have a SW3P in place during construction of the proposed project. In addition, TCEQ guidelines 24
for the proposed project require completion of the Tier I (Small Projects) Checklist (TCEQ-20228, revised 25
12/29/2006), which requires at least one BMP from the Section 401 BMPs for Tier I Projects published by 26
the TCEQ on April 12, 2004 (Section 5.1.4). 27
28
9.3 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat/Threatened or Endangered Species 29
In accordance with TPWD (see Appendix B-5), of the habitats given consideration for non-regulatory 30
mitigation during project planning by the TxDOT-TPWD MOA (see Section 5.1.5), mitigation is 31
anticipated for six sites (approximately 1.20 acres) of riparian forest and 18 sites (approximately 4.25 32
acres) of upland forest (and associated large trees), for a total of 5.45 acres. Non-regulatory mitigation 33
would take place at LLELA and be through fee payment. During construction, TxDOT would minimize the 34
amount of wildlife habitat disturbed. Existing vegetation, especially native trees, would be preserved 35
wherever practicable. 36
37
Environmental Assessment IH 35E North Section from FM 2181 to US 380
CSJs: 0195-03-050, -071, -075, 0196-01-056, -074 Page 277
9.5 Noise 1
Traffic noise impacts would occur from the construction and operation of the proposed project. Five noise 2
barriers were determined to be both feasible and reasonable as to mitigate for anticipated traffic noise 3
impacts. Appendix C, Figure C-20 shows the proposed noise walls. There are 169 receivers that would 4
benefit from the proposed noise barriers. The final decision to construct the proposed noise barriers 5
would be made upon completion of the project design and utility evaluation, as well as through public 6
involvement efforts (i.e., noise workshops). Such noise workshops would determine if the noise walls are 7
desired and, if so, assist in their aesthetic design. Any subsequent project design changes may require a 8
reevaluation of this proposal. 9
10
9.6 Archeological Resources 11
If evidence of archeological deposits is encountered during construction, work in the immediate area 12
would cease and TxDOT archeological staff would be contacted to initiate accidental discovery 13
procedures under the provisions of the Programmatic Agreement between TxDOT, THC, FHWA, and the 14
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the MOU between TxDOT and the THC. 15
16
9.7 Hazardous Wastes/Substances 17
As detailed in Section 5.4.1, 24 sites with a high risk of hazardous materials were identified within one 18
mile of the proposed project. During the ROW negotiation and acquisition process, further inquiry into the 19
existing and previous ownership and uses of each property would be performed. Further assessment 20
and investigations would be postponed until right-of-entry can be obtained in later stages of project 21
development. If identified and confirmed, any hazardous material issues would be addressed during the 22
ROW negotiation, acquisition, or eminent domain process prior to construction. Appropriate subsurface 23
investigations and soils and/or groundwater management plans for activities within these areas would be 24
developed. Special provisions or contingency language would be included in the project’s Plans, 25
Specifications, and Estimates to address hazardous materials and/or petroleum contamination according 26
to applicable state, federal, and local regulations per TxDOT Standard Specifications. 27
28
9.8 Aesthetic Considerations 29
Aesthetic design guidelines are being developed for IH 35E mainlanes and cross street bridges. 30
Aesthetic treatments for structural components (retaining walls, bridges, etc.) and landscaping would be 31
incorporated into the proposed project during final design, and stakeholder input would be considered 32
during this design process to minimize the potential for aesthetic impacts. Additional aesthetic design 33
concepts would be dependent on additional funding from local governments, interest groups, and 34
organizations. 35
Continued in Panel BABMeadowview Dr.Meadowview Dr.Project Design StartIH 35ER1R1R2R3CSJs: 0195-03-050, -071, -075; 0196-01-056, -074R1A 0 250’ 500’ 750’ 1000’Continued on Next SheetBCorinth Pkwy.Corinth Pkwy.Figure C-20 (Sheet 1 of 7)Proposed Noise Wall and Receiver LocationsIH 35E from FM 2181 to US 380, Denton County, TXC-20Legend Noise receiver (see Table 5-22 of EA)Frontage roadsGeneral purpose lanesManaged lanesLocal streetsBridgesRampsNoise wall (see Table 5-23 of EA)Source/Date of Aerial Photograph: Landiscor/Oct 2007Existing right-of-way Proposed new right-of-way Note: See Figure A-5 for an index of map sheets.R3BR3A
CSJs: 0195-03-050, -071, -075; 0196-01-056, -074Continued in Panel BABPost Oak Dr.Post Oak Dr.IH 35ER3CC-210 250’ 500’ 750’ 1000’Continued on Next SheetBIH 35EFigure C-20 (Sheet 2 of 7)Proposed Noise Wall and Receiver LocationsIH 35E from FM 2181 to US 380, Denton County, TXC-20Legend Noise receiver (see Table 5-22 of EA)Frontage roadsGeneral purpose lanesManaged lanesLocal streetsBridgesRampsNoise wall (see Table 5-23 of EA)Source/Date of Aerial Photograph: Landiscor/Oct 2007Existing right-of-way Proposed new right-of-way Note: See Figure A-5 for an index of map sheets.
CSJs: 0195-03-050, -071, -075; 0196-01-056, -074Continued in Panel BABMayhill Rd.Mayhill Rd.Wind River Ln.Wind River Ln.IH 35ER3DR3ER3F0 250’ 500’ 750’ 1000’BContinued on Next SheetBrinker Rd.Brinker Rd.IH 35EFigure C-20 (Sheet 3 of 7)Proposed Noise Wall and Receiver LocationsIH 35E from FM 2181 to US 380, Denton County, TXR4C-20Legend Noise receiver (see Table 5-22 of EA)Frontage roadsGeneral purpose lanesManaged lanesLocal streetsBridgesRampsNoise wall (see Table 5-23 of EA)Source/Date of Aerial Photograph: Landiscor/Oct 2007Existing right-of-way Proposed new right-of-way Note: See Figure A-5 for an index of map sheets.R3GR4A
CSJs: 0195-03-050, -071, -075; 0196-01-056, -074Continued in Panel BABPennsylvania Dr.Pennsylvania Dr.IH 35EJoe Skiles ParkR6R5R8R7R9NW 1R8AR8BR9AR10A0 250’ 500’ 750’ 1000’Continued on Next SheetBIH 35EFigure C-20 (Sheet 4 of 7)Proposed Noise Wall and Receiver LocationsIH 35E from FM 2181 to US 380, Denton County, TXR10C-20Legend Noise receiver (see Table 5-22 of EA)Frontage roadsGeneral purpose lanesManaged lanesLocal streetsBridgesRampsNoise wall (see Table 5-23 of EA)Source/Date of Aerial Photograph: Landiscor/Oct 2007Existing right-of-way Proposed new right-of-way Note: See Figure A-5 for an index of map sheets.
CSJs: 0195-03-050, -071, -075; 0196-01-056, -074Continued in Panel BABR14R11R12R13NW 4NW 2NW 2NW 3Pedestrian BridgeR10BR13A0 250’ 500’ 750’ 1000’Continued on Next SheetBFigure C-20 (Sheet 5 of 7)Proposed Noise Wall and Receiver LocationsIH 35E from FM 2181 to US 380, Denton County, TXR16R17R15R14Gibson CircleNW 4NW 5BridgeC-20Legend Noise receiver (see Table 5-22 of EA)Frontage roadsGeneral purpose lanesManaged lanesLocal streetsBridgesRampsNoise wall (see Table 5-23 of EA)Source/Date of Aerial Photograph: Landiscor/Oct 2007Existing right-of-way Proposed new right-of-way Note: See Figure A-5 for an index of map sheets.R15AR18
Continued on Next SheetCSJs: 0195-03-050, -071, -075; 0196-01-056, -074R18A 0 250’ 500’ 750’ 1000’Continued from Last SheetFigure C-20 (Sheet 6 of 7)Proposed Noise Wall and Receiver LocationsIH 35E from FM 2181 to US 380, Denton County, TXR19C-20Legend Noise receiver (see Table 5-22 of EA)Frontage roadsGeneral purpose lanesManaged lanesLocal streetsBridgesRampsNoise wall (see Table 5-23 of EA)Source/Date of Aerial Photograph: Landiscor/Oct 2007Existing right-of-way Proposed new right-of-way Note: See Figure A-5 for an index of map sheets.
CSJs: 0195-03-050, -071, -075; 0196-01-056, -074Continued in Panel BABIH 35R20R20A