1. Mn/DOT Noise Policy for Type I Federal-aid Projects as per 23 CFR 772 Mn/DOT Training & Conference Center May 18, 2011

2. Todays presentation will cover: Formation of the Noise Policy Review Committee Updates to 23 CFR 772 New Requirements of 23 CFR 772 Mn/DOT Noise Policy Updates Implementation Additional Resources Contact Information Questions

3. URS, Minneapolis & San Diego Offices Local Public Agencies * 2 Cities* 3 Counties Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Phil Forst, FHWA Minnesota Division Office Mn/DOT Staff * Ombudsman and Chief Counsel* State Aid Division * Operations Division* Engineering Services Division * Metro District* Environmental Stewardship (OES) Formation of the Noise Policy Review Committee

4. Updates to 23 CFR 772 Clarification of Noise Abatement Criteria Activity Categories Clarification of undeveloped land definition Refined definition of Type I project Added definition for Type III project Removed the use of TNM look-up tables for project screening

5. Clarification of Noise Abatement Criteria Activity Categories Levels are associated with interference of speech communication Compromise between levels that are desirable and achievable 4 Exterior categories and 1 interior category Additional activity descriptions for each category Updates to 23 CFR 772

6. FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria Activity Category Activity Criteria (1,2) L10(h), dBA Evaluation Location Activity Description A60ExteriorLands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary 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(3)70ExteriorResidential C(3)70ExteriorActive sport areas, amphitheaters, auditoriums, campgrounds, cemeteries, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, parks, picnic areas, place 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 D55InteriorAuditoriums, daycare 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(3)75ExteriorHotels, motels, offices, restaurants/bars, and other developed lands, properties or activities not included in A-D or F F-- Agriculture, 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 Notes (1)L10(h) shall be used for impact assessment. (2)The L10(h) Activity Criteria values are for impact determination only, and are not design standards for noise abatement measures. (3)Includes undeveloped lands permitted for this activity category.

7. Clarification of undeveloped land definition Previous definition : when the property had a final approved plat Current definition: Land is considered developed if : there is a definite commitment to develop land with an approved specific design of land use activities as evidenced by the issuance of a building permit(s ). Updates to 23 CFR 772

8. Clarification of undeveloped land definition Possible scenario: Building permit(s) being issued when the environmental document is completed, but before the date of public knowledge (ruling on NEPA document), thus requiring the additional permitted areas be included in the noise analysis of the NEPA document. Updates to 23 CFR 772

9. Refined definition of Type I project: Construction of a highway on a new location. Substantial horizontal alteration: A project that halves the distance between the traffic noise source and the closest receptor between existing and future conditions. Updates to 23 CFR 772

10. Refined definition of Type I project (contd) : Substantial vertical alteration: A project that removes shielding, therefore exposing the line-of-sight between the receptor and the traffic noise source. (Does not include adding or removing vegetation.) Updates to 23 CFR 772

11. Refined definition of Type I project (contd): Bridge replacement projects that meet the substantial vertical or horizontal alteration criteria. The addition of a through lane; includes HOV lane, contraflow lane, HOT lane, bus lane, truck climbing lane, and PDSL (priced dynamic shoulder lane). The addition of an auxiliary lane (except when its a turn lane). Updates to 23 CFR 772

12. Refined definition of Type I project (contd): Addition or relocation of interchange lanes or ramps added to a quadrant to complete an existing partial interchange. Restriping existing pavement for the purpose of a adding a through lane or an auxiliary lane. Updates to 23 CFR 772

13. If a project is determined to be a Type I, then the entire project area is a Type I, therefore noise analysis must be conducted on the entire project. Noise analysis must be conducted on all of the alternatives brought forward in the environmental document (i.e., those alternatives that make it past the considered but dismissed section of a NEPA doc. Updates to 23 CFR 772

14. Type III Project: projects that do not meet the classifications of a Type I or Type II project. Updates to 23 CFR 772

15. Removed the use of TNM look-up tables Continue to use MINNOISE Agreement with FHWA to beta test next version of TNM; capable of computing L10s and L50s May pursue like methodology Updates to 23 CFR 772

16. New Requirements of 23 CFR 772 Feasibility Analysis: Acoustic Feasibility: Must meet the transmission loss requirements NEW: One receptor/barrier must receive 5 dB(A) reduction (achieved by meeting design goal reduction) Engineering Feasibility: Constructability, safety, barrier height, topography, drainage, utilities, maintenance, etc.

17. Reasonableness Analysis: NEW: Noise reduction design goal of 7 dB(A) at one receptor/barrier Most likely to achieve; pro-mitigation Easiest to defend New Requirements of 23 CFR 772

18. Reasonableness Analysis: NEW: Solicit viewpoints of benefited owners/residents If barrier meets all feasible and reasonable requirements, the wall is proposed Point system based on proximity to roadway and if benefited receptor is the owner or resident or both Solicit only those benefited under the preferred alternative (those that receive at least a 5 dB (A) reduction) New Requirements of 23 CFR 772

19. NEW: Solicit viewpoints of benefited owners/residents (contd) Simple majority of all possible points must be against the wall for it NOT to be built (See Appendix F). Must demonstrate due diligence on contacting benefited owners/residents. Sample letter with ballot, and example point counting scenarios included in Appendix F. Must include point totals in the environmental document noise analysis if possible, otherwise in the FONSI request New Requirements of 23 CFR 772

20. NEW: Solicit viewpoints of benefited owners/residents (contd) Benefited, directly abutting the highway (first row): Property owner receives 4 points, resident receives 2 points Property owner/resident receives 6 points Benefited, non-abutting (second row and beyond): Property owner receives 2 points, resident receives 1 point Property owner/resident receives 3 points Property with common land ownership: Home is occupied by owner/resident; receives 6 points Property is owned by the Association; receives 4 points See Example in Appendix F New Requirements of 23 CFR 772

21. NEW: Solicit viewpoints of benefited owners/residents (contd) Manufactured home parks: Weighted the same as property owner and residents for direct abutters and second row and beyond Multi-family residential buildings: Only those benefited have a vote according to the same point system Activity Categories C & E: Placement of non-residential receptors Unique variations of scenarios; see Appendix B for guidance Must be reviewed by Mn/DOT noise staff Only yes or no votes; no split votes Non-benefiting receptors do not receive points Simple majority of all possible points must be against the wall for it NOT to be built (See Appendix F). New Requirements of 23 CFR 772

23. Seasonal Traffic Variation: In areas where there is substantial seasonal traffic volume variation for the entire season (weekdays, May-October) over the AADT, use the seasonal traffic volumes for the noise analysis Usually represents a worst case scenario Seasonal adjustment factors are available through the Traffic Office website: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/traffic/data/docs/Data%20Screening%20and%20Recounts.pdf Consult with Mn/DOT noise staff New Requirements of 23 CFR 772

24. Must include a Statement of Likelihood which contains: A summary of preliminary location and physical description of noise abatement measures determined feasible and reasonable in the preliminary analysis. Clearly indicate that the final recommendations on the construction of abatement is determined during the completion of the projects final design. If proposed abatement measure is determined to be withdrawn based on final design, that a public involvement process will take place to inform owners/residents and stakeholder agencies. New Requirement of 23 CFR 772

25. Simplified Process: Preliminary design; complete noise analysis NEPA document completed Public comment period FONSI request (includes the point totals, etc.) Final Design If changes have occurred, contact FHWA New Requirements of 23 CFR 772

26. IF impacts or abatement are modified: Possible re-evaluation, re-solicitation of owners/residents, etc. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: Wait to conduct noise analysis until you have as much preliminary design information as possible to lessen the possibility of having to start over! New Requirements to 23 CFR 772

27. Third Party Funding: Not allowed to meet feasible and/or reasonable requirements on a Type I or II project New Requirements of 23 CFR 772

28. Mn/DOT Noise Policy Updates Reasonableness Analysis: Cost Effectiveness OLD: $3250/dB reduction/residence NEW: $43,500/benefited receptor Based on 5 years historical data Updated every 5 years; next update in 2016 Much simpler; easier to explain

29. Reasonableness Analysis: Cost Effectiveness (contd) Project-wide averaging will not be utilized Each potential noise barrier will have to meet the reasonable and feasible requirements on its own. Mn/DOT Noise Policy Updates

30. Includes guidance on: Selecting noise analysis locations Field measurements Documentation Public involvement Soliciting viewpoints of benefited receptors Additional information Mn/DOT Noise Policy Updates

31. Appendix A: FHWA Noise Standard - 23 CFR 772 Appendix B: Selection & Use of Noise Analysis Locations Appendix C: Guidance & Procedures for Field Noise Measurements Appendix D: Guidance on Traffic Noise Analysis Documentation Appendix E: Guidance on Public Involvement Related to Noise Studies Appendix F: Guidance for Evaluating Viewpoints of Benefited Receptors Appendix G: References & Links to Additional Policy, Guidance & Standards Additional Information

32. Implementation Implementation is triggered by the start of the NEPA process 1. Start of NEPA on or after June 1, 2011: Use the new Noise Policy. 2. Start of NEPA prior to June 1, 2011: If noise analysis is started 1 prior to July 13 th, use old Noise Policy. 3. Start of NEPA prior to June 1, 2011: If noise analysis is started 1 after July 13, 2011, use the new Noise Policy. 1 Start of noise analysis is indicated by the completion of at least one noise model run: i.e., there is (or is not) a feasible noise abatement measure for those impacted receptors that also meets the $3250/dB/residence cost effectiveness threshold. 2July 13, 2011 : Implementation date of final Federal Rule.

33. Additional Resources Highway Project Development Process Manual updated to reflect the new Noise Policy (work in progress) OES Website: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/environment/noisehttp://www.dot.state.mn.us/environment/noise FHWA Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis & Abatement Guidance Many more links in Appendix G of the Noise Policy

34. Marilyn Jordahl Larson, Environmental Stewardship: 651-366-5801 marilyn.jordahl@state.mn.usmarilyn.jordahl@state.mn.us Mel Roseen, Environmental Stewardship: 651-366-5808 melvin.roseen@state.mn.usmelvin.roseen@state.mn.us Peter Wasko, Metro District: 651-234-7681 peter.wasko@state.mn.uspeter.wasko@state.mn.us Gary Reihl, State Aid: 651-366-3819 gary.reihl@state.mn.usgary.reihl@state.mn.us Contact Information

35. Questions???