Mn/DOT Noise Policy for Type I Federal-aid Projects as per 23 CFR 772 Mn/DOT Training & Conference Center May 18, 2011 Today’s 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 Formation of the Noise Policy Review Committee • 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) 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 Updates to 23 CFR 772 • 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 FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria Activity Activity Evaluation Activity Description Category Criteria (1,2) Location L10(h), dBA A 60 Exterior Lands 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) 70 Exterior Residential C(3) 70 Exterior Active 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 D 55 Interior Auditoriums, 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) 75 Exterior Hotels, 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. Updates to 23 CFR 772 • 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 • 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 • 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 • Refined definition of Type I project (cont’d): • 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 Refined definition of Type I project (cont’d): • 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 it’s a turn lane). Updates to 23 CFR 772 Refined definition of Type I project (cont’d): • 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 • 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 • Type III Project: projects that do not meet the classifications of a Type I or Type II project. Updates to 23 CFR 772 • 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” 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. New Requirements of 23 CFR 772 • 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 • 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 • NEW: Solicit viewpoints of benefited owners/residents (cont’d) • 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 NEW: Solicit viewpoints of benefited owners/residents (cont’d) • 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 NEW: Solicit viewpoints of benefited owners/residents (cont’d) • 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 • 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 Requirement of 23 CFR 772 • 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 project’s 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 Requirements of 23 CFR 772 • 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 to 23 CFR 772 • 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 of 23 CFR 772 • Third Party Funding: • Not allowed to meet feasible and/or reasonable requirements on a Type I or II project 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 Mn/DOT Noise Policy Updates Reasonableness Analysis: Cost Effectiveness (cont’d) • 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 Includes guidance on: • Selecting noise analysis locations • Field measurements • Documentation • Public involvement • Soliciting viewpoints of benefited receptors • Additional information Additional Information 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 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 started1 prior to July 13th, use old Noise Policy. 3. Start of NEPA prior to June 1, 2011: If noise analysis is started1 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. 2 July 13, 2011 : Implementation date of final Federal Rule. 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/noise • FHWA Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis & Abatement Guidance • Many more links in Appendix G of the Noise Policy Contact Information • Marilyn Jordahl Larson, Environmental Stewardship: 651-366-5801 firstname.lastname@example.org • Mel Roseen, Environmental Stewardship: 651-366-5808 email@example.com • Peter Wasko, Metro District: 651-234-7681 firstname.lastname@example.org • Gary Reihl, State Aid: 651-366-3819 email@example.com Questions???
Pages to are hidden for
"Communications Update the Minnesota Department of Transportation"Please download to view full document