June 2, 2015 Marilyn Jordahl Larson & Peter Wasko

 2011 MnDOT Noise Policy review process  Major updates to the 2011MnDOT Noise Policy  2015 MnDOT Noise Policy implementation schedule  Questions for the Noise Policy overview  Break  2015 MnDOT Noise Policy modeling clarifications  New and updated noise modeling guidance documents  Questions

MnDOT Noise Policy Updates

Audit Recommendation # 5 - MnDOT should increase transparency in its noise barrier policy decision making. MnDOT’s Action:  Review of existing policy by Technical Advisory Committee and Policy Advisory Committee  Final Vote on draft policy by 6 elected officials and 2 citizens.  2015 Draft Noise Policy was out for public comment from Dec. 8, 2014 to Jan. 7, (Posted on the EQB Monitor, State Register and two MnDOT websites).  2015 MnDOT Noise Policy was approved by FHWA, Division Office and DC Headquarters May 12 th, 2015.

Review of 2011 MnDOT Noise Policy  Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)  Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) membership and role:  Technical experts and agency staff  Reviewed topics for policy update  Recommended and reviewed research items  Helped to develop proposed policy revisions

Noise Policy Review: Technical Advisory Committee Members VOTEAGENCYOFFICE 1Mel RoseenMnDOTEnvironmental Stewardship X2Marilyn Jordahl LarsonMnDOTEnvironmental Stewardship X3Peter WaskoMnDOTMetro District 4Lynn ClarkowskiMnDOTEnvironmental Stewardship X5Lynnette RoshellMnDOTCentral Office State Aid X6Dan EricksonMnDOTMetro District State Aid 7Laura Nehl-TruemanMnDOTCommissioner's Staff 8Steve GroverMnDOTMaterials Laboratory 9Amr JabrMnDOTEngineering Services 10Phil ForstFHWAMinnesota Division 11Melissa Kuskie (One MPCA member on each comm.)MPCAAir Assessment 12Amanda SmithMPCAAir Assessment X13Andrew Witter OR Jason OrcuttAnoka CountyMetro County 14Jason OrcuttAnoka CountyMetro County X15Jodi TeichStearns CountyOut-state County X16Mike Eastling OR Kristin AsherRichfieldMetro City 17 Kristin AsherRichfieldMetro City X18Ron WagnerOtsegoOut-state City

Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) membership and role:  Elected and community representatives and agency staff  Reviewed topics for policy update  Provided input on topics to be reviewed  Reviewed and provided comment on proposed policy changes recommended by the TAC

Noise Policy Review Policy Advisory Committee Members VOTENAMEAGENCYOFFICE 1Marilyn Jordahl LarsonMnDOTEnvironmental Stewardship 2Peter WaskoMnDOTMetro District 3Rick DaltonMnDOTMetro District 4Scott PedersonMnDOTMetro District 5Ted SchoeneckerMnDOTCentral Office State Aid 6 Claudia DumontMnDOTDistrict 3 St. Cloud 7 Amr JabrMnDOTEngineering Services 8 Erik RudeenMnDOTGovernment Affairs Office 9Phil ForstFHWAMinnesota Division 10Derrell Turner OR David ScottFHWAMinnesota Division 11David ScottFHWAMinnesota Division 12Melissa KuskieMPCA(One MPCA member on each comm.)Air Assessment 13Amanda SmithMPCAAir Assessment X14Sen. Kari Dziedzic, DMetro District (Dist. 60-Henn. Co.)MN Legislature X15Sen. David Osmek, RMetro District (Dist. 33-Henn/Wright Co.)MN Legislature X16Sen. Vicki Jensen, DOut-state District (Dist. 24-Steele Co.)MN Legislature X17Rep. Sandra Masin, DMetro District (Dist. 51-A-Dakota Co.)MN Legislature X18Rep. David Fitzsimmons, RMetro District (Dist. 30-B-Henn/Wright Co.)MN Legislature X19Rep. Mike Sundin, DOut-state District (Dist. 11-A -Carlton Co.)MN Legislature X20Cordelia Pierson OR Dick KavaneyMetro Citizen X21Dana WeberOut-state Citizen (Avon, MN)

Topics Voted On By TAC and PAC: 1. Voting results required to approve noise barrier 2. Voting points for abutting/non-abutting receptors 3.Proposed barrier design guided by MPCA or FHWA policy requirements 4. Use of visual screens 5. MnDOT Cost Effectiveness values for noise abatement 6. Voting point distribution for renter, owner, owner-occupied units

1.Voting results required to approve noise barrier  2015 Draft Noise Policy contains a new procedure for assessing public support: Majority of voting points cast will determine if the wall is built. If first solicitation achieves at least a 50% response rate of total voting points (either yes or no), the decision is based on the simple majority of voting points cast; no further solicitation is required. If not, then a second solicitation of those who did not respond is required. If 25% or greater of all possible voting points have been cast, the decision to construct/not construct is based on a simple majority of voting points cast. If less than 25% of all possible votes are cast, the wall will NOT be constructed.

2. Voting points for abutting/ non-abutting receptors  Maintain current Policy provision: double the number of voting points for abutting benefitted receptors.  Further clarification on abutting/non-abutting receptors. (Examples located on MnDOT Noise website.)

3.Proposed barrier design guided by MPCA or FHWA policy requirements  Must adhere to applicable State and/or Federal noise standards  Wording covers any legislative action on Minn Statute Use of visual screens  No obligation to provide a visual, non-acoustical screen for benefitted receptors that have rejected reasonable and feasible noise abatement.

5.MnDOT Cost Effectiveness values for noise abatement  Keep $43,500/benefitted receptor (based on historical costs)  Provides greatest opportunity for MN residents to consider reasonable and feasible noise abatement  Greater opportunity for MnDOT to comply with MN State Noise Standards 6.Voting point distribution for resident, owner, owner-occupied units  Current voting distribution is appropriate; Policy unchanged

Other Notable Noise Policy Changes/Updates:  Assigning receptors to trails increased to 1 receptor/200’ of frontage (2015 Noise Policy Appendix B)  Reminder to provide material in alternate formats & languages (2015 MnDOT Noise Policy Appendix F)  Updated examples of resident/owner point assignments (2015 Noise Policy Appendix F)  Updated sample solicitation envelope, ballot and brochure (2015 Noise Policy Appendix G)

 Noise glossary  FAQs  Environmental document flow charts  Worst noise hour  Finding of fact example  Abutting vs. non-abutting examples

 Assigning receptors in cemeteries  Determining worst noise hour  How to analyze reflective noise

Implementation is triggered by the start of the NEPA process: 1. Start of NEPA on or after June 15 th, 2015: use the 2015 Noise Policy 2.Start of NEPA prior to June 15 th, 2015: If noise analysis is started 1 prior to July 15 th, 2015 use the 2011 Noise Policy 3.Start of NEPA prior to June 15 th, 2015: If noise analysis has not been started 1 by July 15 th, use the 2015 Noise Policy 1 ”start of noise analysis” is indicated by the completion of a least one noise model run, i.e., impact analysis

For: 2015 MnDOT Noise Policy Implementation Schedule Noise Modeling Resources Contact Information MnDOT Noise Website:

Questions? Thank You!

2015 MnDOT Noise Policy Modeling Clarifications & Guidance

Multiple lanes with similar speeds and vehicles may be grouped in a single roadway at centerline. No “flat earth” models.

2015 MnDOT Noise Policy Section 3.7: Determining Noise Analysis Limits Beyond Project Termini 1.Don’t assume noise impacts are the same as project construction limits. 2.Extend modeling limits a minimum 500’ or logical termini >500’ from end of physical construction. 3.If impacts 1 exists, extend modeling to 1000’. 4.If impacts 1 still exist as a result of the project, contact MnDOT noise staff for further guidance. 5.Mapped receptors and narrative should clearly explain the choice of modeling termini. 1. Impact: experiencing a 5 dBA (or greater) increase, or approaching/exceeding applicable NAC for future build vs. future no- build as a result of the project.

 If noise level increase from reflection is ≥3dBA (L 10 ) under either of the following: 1. W/H ratio of the width between facing parallel barriers or retaining walls to average height of barriers or walls is ≤ 10’. 2. Receptors have a direct line of site from a noise sensitive area of frequent human use to a barrier or retaining wall on the opposite side of the highway.

If proven reflection, MnDOT standard practice is to provide an acoustically absorptive surface with a minimum noise reduction coefficient (NRC) of 0.80.

 When MN State Noise Standards apply: ◦ L10 and L50 must be considered to determine impacts ◦ Only L10 evaluated for abatement for both daytime and nighttime conditions  When Federal NAC apply: ◦ Only L10 and single worst noise hour is required for both impact and abatement

1. Remains $43,500/benefitted receptor 2. Habitable ground floor units facing project roadway and receive a 5 dBA reduction are included in the CE calculations.

‣ Flowchart has been developed to simplify the decision process; needs to be updated to reflect the new voting process.

 See MnDOT’s noise website for an example construction noise write-up: 

 Includes a list of topics to be addressed in a noise study report (detailed in Appendix E)  NOTE: Receptor street addresses shall NOT be included in documents that go out for public review, posting or at public meetings.

 Activity Category C: ◦ Assign one receptor for every 100’ of frontage for all Category C uses except for trails. ◦ Assign one receptor for every 200’ of trail. ◦ One receptor for each formalized gathering facility at a cemetery; if no such area, place receptor within the property that represents worst expected traffic noise condition.

Tables should provide the following information:

 Updated mailing envelope example:

Project Name: ________________________________________________________ Owner __ ___Resident _____ Owner/Resident______ Name _______________________ Address _______________________ City State _______________________ Please mark with an “X” one of boxes below: By submitting this ballot, the voter acknowledges that this vote represents the owner’s selection or the consensus selection of the owners or all of the residents. Yes, I want the noise barrier No, I do not want the noise barrier Updated ballot example:

‣New solicitation “brochure” example:

 Updated examples of voting documentation:

Additional Updated Guidance Documents Noise glossary FAQs Environmental document flow charts Worst noise hour Finding of fact example Abutting vs. non-abutting scenarios Additional examples of resident/owner point assignment

Questions? Thank You!