June 2, 2015

Marilyn Jordahl Larson & Peter Wasko

2011 MnDOT Noise Policy review process Major updates to the 2011MnDOT Noise Policy2015 MnDOT Noise Policy implementation scheduleQuestions for the Noise Policy overview

Break

2015 MnDOT Noise Policy modeling clarificationsNew and updated noise modeling guidance documentsQuestions

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, 2015. (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 12th, 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 VOTE AGENCY OFFICE

1 Mel Roseen MnDOT Environmental Stewardship

X 2 Marilyn Jordahl Larson MnDOT Environmental Stewardship

X 3 Peter Wasko MnDOT Metro District

4 Lynn Clarkowski MnDOT Environmental Stewardship

X 5 Lynnette Roshell MnDOT Central Office State Aid

X 6 Dan Erickson MnDOT Metro District State Aid

7 Laura Nehl-Trueman MnDOT Commissioner's Staff

8 Steve Grover MnDOT Materials Laboratory

9 Amr Jabr MnDOT Engineering Services

10 Phil Forst FHWA Minnesota Division

11Melissa Kuskie (One MPCA member on each comm.) MPCA Air Assessment

12 Amanda Smith MPCA Air Assessment

X 13 Andrew Witter OR Jason Orcutt Anoka County Metro County

14 Jason Orcutt Anoka County Metro County

X 15 Jodi Teich Stearns County Out-state County

X 16 Mike Eastling OR Kristin Asher Richfield Metro City

17 Kristin Asher Richfield Metro City

X 18 Ron Wagner Otsego Out-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

VOTE NAME AGENCY OFFICE

1 Marilyn Jordahl Larson MnDOT Environmental Stewardship

2 Peter Wasko MnDOT Metro District

3 Rick Dalton MnDOT Metro District

4 Scott Pederson MnDOT Metro District

5 Ted Schoenecker MnDOT Central Office State Aid

6 Claudia Dumont MnDOT District 3 St. Cloud

7 Amr Jabr MnDOT Engineering Services

8 Erik Rudeen MnDOT Government Affairs Office

9 Phil Forst FHWA Minnesota Division

10 Derrell Turner OR David Scott FHWA Minnesota Division

11 David Scott FHWA Minnesota Division

12 Melissa Kuskie MPCA(One MPCA member on each comm.) Air Assessment

13 Amanda Smith MPCA Air Assessment

X 14 Sen. Kari Dziedzic, D Metro District (Dist. 60-Henn. Co.) MN Legislature

X 15 Sen. David Osmek, R Metro District (Dist. 33-Henn/Wright Co.) MN Legislature

X 16 Sen. Vicki Jensen, D Out-state District (Dist. 24-Steele Co.) MN Legislature

X 17 Rep. Sandra Masin, D Metro District (Dist. 51-A-Dakota Co.) MN Legislature

X 18 Rep. David Fitzsimmons, R Metro District (Dist. 30-B-Henn/Wright Co.) MN Legislature

X 19 Rep. Mike Sundin, D Out-state District (Dist. 11-A -Carlton Co.) MN Legislature

X 20 Cordelia Pierson OR Dick Kavaney Metro Citizen

X 21 Dana Weber Out-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 116.07

4. 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 15th, 2015: use the 2015 Noise Policy

2.Start of NEPA prior to June 15th, 2015: If noise analysis is started1 prior to July 15th, 2015 use the 2011 Noise Policy

3.Start of NEPA prior to June 15th, 2015: If noise analysis has not been started1 by July 15th, 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:

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/environment/noise

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 impacts1 exists, extend modeling to 1000’.4.If impacts1 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 (L10) 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.

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:

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/environment/noise

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.

TABLE “X” WORST HOURLY TRAFFIC NOISE SUMMARY

Receptor

ID

Monitored L ev e l (d B A )

Modeled Level (dBA) by Time Period 9:00-10:00 AM 3:00-4:00 PM PM Peak Hour

L 10 L 50 L 10 L 50 L 10 L 50 L 10 L50 35 63.0 60.0 64.9 62.5 64.1 61.8 62.2 60.1 46 63.0 60.5 63.3 61.5 62.6 60.9 61.0 59.9 52 70.3 68.0 69.6 67.0 68.8 66.4 67.2 65.1 57 57.5 55.3 59.9 58.1 59.1 57.4 57.1 55.6 66 60.0 56.0 63.9 61.7 63.7 61.4 61.9 59.8 78 70.5 68.0 72.1 69.0 71.2 68.3 69.9 67.0

Bold numbers are above State daytime standards for residential land uses. Underline numbers approach or exceed Federal noise abatement criteria B (NAC B)

Receptor ID or name

Monitored/Measured Noise Levels in L10 and L50 when MN State Noise Standards apply or just L10 when only Federal Standards apply.

Modeled Existing Noise Levels in L10 and L50 when MN State Noise Standards apply or just L10 when only Federal Standards apply.

Modeled Future No-Build Levels in L10 and L50 when MN State Noise Standards apply or just L10 when only Federal Standards apply.

Difference between Modeled Existing and Future No-build.

Modeled Future Build Noise Levels in L10 and L50 when MN State Noise Standards apply or just L10 when only Federal Standards apply.

Difference between Modeled Existing and Future Build (used for FHWA impact criterion only)

Tables should provide the following information:

Example Modeled Noise Results Table

Table 3. I-90 Lane Additions, Noise Model Results: Daytime Levels Receptor ID

Monitored 2010

Modeled Existing

2010

Modeled No Build

2030

Difference between Existing

2010 and No build 2030

Modeled Build 2030

Difference between

Existing 2010 and Build 2030

L10 L50 L10 L50 L10 L50 L10 L50 L10 L50 L10 L50 NSA B: I-90 WB Main to Elm

B-1 (R) 62.0 61.0 63.0 62.0 1.0 1.0 64.0 63.0 2.0 2.0 B-2 (R) 62.0 61.0 63.0 61.0 64.0 62.0 1.0 1.0 65.0 63.0 2.0 2.0 B-3 (R) 69.0 67.0 70.0 68.0 1.0 1.0 71.0 69.0 2.0 2.0

Bold Numbers are above State Standards, Italized numbers approach or exceed FHWA NAC. (R) designates residential

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:

AB

CD

EF

SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES

DUPLEX

PROJECT HIGHWAY

LOCAL ROAD

PROPOSED NOISE ABATEMENT

Sample Noise Sensitive Area (NSA) for Viewpoint counting example Vote Tally Table for Benefited Viewpoint Counting Example

Benefited Receptor ID

Owner or Resident

Barrier Abutter?

In favor of Abatement?

Points Available

Points for

Points against

A Owner Yes Yes 4 4 A Resident Yes No 2 2 B Owner/Res. Yes Yes 6 6 C Owner/Res. Yes Yes 6 6 D Owner Yes No 4 4 D Resident Yes Yes 2* E Owner/Res. No No 3 3 F Owner No No 2 2 F Resident No Yes 1 1

Total 30 17 11 Percentage (93% of total possible points received) 61% 39%

* Unit D was vacant at the time of the vote, so 30 points possible, 28 received.

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!