Communications Update the Minnesota Department of Transportation by Xy5ibUm0

VIEWS: 13 PAGES: 35

									   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 marilyn.jordahl@state.mn.us
• Mel Roseen, Environmental Stewardship:
  651-366-5808 melvin.roseen@state.mn.us
• Peter Wasko, Metro District:
  651-234-7681 peter.wasko@state.mn.us
• Gary Reihl, State Aid:
  651-366-3819 gary.reihl@state.mn.us
Questions???

								
To top