01-13-1999 ARC Packet� � GITY OF MENDOTA HElGHTS
� AIIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION
AGENDA
January 13, 1999, 7 p.m. - Large Conference Room
1. Call to Order - 7 p.m.
2. R o i I C a I I .�}- wh-Ya�c.� ��,,#.w. «(� �.�,a, �<<s (-�-.-�,
3. Approval of December 9, 1998 Minutes.
4. Unfinished and IVew Business:
a. Discuss/CompareThird Parallel Runway Contracts
b. Record of Decision for Runway 17/35 - Executive Summary
5. Updates
�t � � S w� � �c",'f
a. Runway 4/22 Settiement by MAC/Richfield
b. Airport Controlled Property
c. Richfield Settiement {See Airport Noise Report, Vol. 10, No. 25)
d. Guest Speaker in February - Mr. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC
6. Acknowledae Receipt of Various Reports/Corre�ondence�
a. MASAC Operations Committee agenda for December 1 1
b. MAC Planning and Environment Committee Agenda for Jan. 5, 1999
c. Airport Noise Reports - Volume 10; Numbers 22-25
d. Reliever Airport Article - Met Council Newsletter
e. NOISE Policy Statement and Legislative Alert
f. Eagan ARC Agenda for January 12, 1999
g. Eagan Letter on Temporary Noise Monitor Request
7. Other Comments or Concerns.
8. Adjourn.
Auxiliary aids for disabled persons are available upon request at least 120 haurs in advance. If a
notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to
provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City
Administration at 452-1850 with requests.
; �
C
C
CITY OF MEIVDOTA HEiGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, M1NfVESOTA
. .•�• . • � _ � . ��.
� : - • ••:
The regular meeting af the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held
on Tuesday, December 9, 1998 in the City Hall Large Conference Room, 1 101
Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. The following
members were present: Beaty, Des Roches, Roszak, Fitzer, Leuman, Stein and May.
Also present were City Administrator Kevin Batchelder and Senior Secretary Kim
Blaeser.
APPROV�lL OF MIfVUTES
Commissioner Roszak moved approval of the fVovember 12, 1998 minutes.
Commissioner Des Roches seconded the motion.
/�YES: 7
NAYS: 0
In response to a question from Commissioner Roszak, Administrator
Batchelder infiormed the Commission that he has requested the MAC fio send
any settlement documents regarding the City of Richfield's lawsuit on the
extension of Runway 4-22. �
DISCUSS N1INNEAPOLIS/NiAC THIRD
PARALLEL Ruf�WAY COiVTRACT
The Commission acknowledged receipt of a Press Release which announces
that the MAC and the City of Minneapolis have reached agreements for no
third parallel runway and suppart for north/south runway, temporary
extension.
Administrator Batchelder informed the Commission that the City of Mendota
Heights' contract runs through the year 2021. He informed the Commission
that when Mendota Heights reached agreement with the MAC, MAC officials
agreed to allow Mendota Heights to amend its contract, based on the
pravisions that the cities of Minneapolis or Eagan might agree ta with MAC.
He informed the Cammission that they should review the contract provisions
between MAC and the City of Minneapolis to determine which provisions
AIRPORT RELAT�OIVS COMMISSIOtV - DECEMBER 9, 1998 MINUTES �
might be beneficial with the City of Mendota Heights so that
recommendations may be made to the City Council and negotiations may
begin with MAC.
Commissioner Des Roches suggested that the two contracts be reviewed
side by side so that any provisions that might be beneficial can be
recommended to the City Council. She inquired if the City's legal counsel
has reviewed the Mendota Heights contract as well as the Minneapolis
contract. Batchelder stated the Mayor, Councilmember Smith and Chair
Beaty negotiated the contract with City of Minneapolis attorneys present.
The Commission briefly reviewed parts of the Minneapolis/MAC Third Parallel
Contract. It was noted that Minneapolis' concerns regarding property
acquisition and flight operations are similar to that of the City of Mendota
Heights. It was noted that the City of Mendota Heights may wish for
clarification regarding the City of Minneapolis' definition of equitable
distribution of aircraft. The Commission noted that Minneapolis would like to
see Runway 4-22 used more frequently.
The Commission felt it important to further compare these contracts at their
January meeting. Chair Beaty felt it necessary to compare the contract
further so as to compare specific highlights of the contracts, especially those
that both cities support. �
The Commission discussed the possibility of the Council opening
renegotiations with the MAC regarding Mendota Heights' contract
specifically pertaining to the year 2021 deadline.
The Commission discussed how it seems airport expansion seems to be
occurring off site. It was noted that the air freight industry is moving off the
airport property. It was discussed that at a recent Council meeting, National
Car Rental had approached the Council inquiring about the possibility of
building a parking lot and car wash near the City's public works garage.
Administrator Batchelder explai±�ed that this proposal would need a zoning
ordinance amendment. Batchelder stated that the Council feels this is an
unwanted land use in this area and that the Council did not desire airport
related land uses to located off-site in Mendota Heights.
Commissioner Des Fioches inquired about how much land is owned by the
Metropolitan Airports Commission. Batchelder responded that he would
inquire with the MAC.
�
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION - DECEMBER 9, 1998 MINUTES Z
Regarding the ground noise run-up pad, Administrator Batchelder will follow
up with Mr. Fuhrmann as to why run ups are occurring during off hours.
The Commission was of the consensus thafi they review the Minneapolis and
Mendota Heights Contracts, provision by provision, at their January meeting.
They felt it necessary to brainstorm any items not included within the
contracts. Commission Roszak suggested that a map showing affected
property owners be included within the contract.
.�,
Policy Advisory Committee -
Part 150 Program
The Commission reviewed the PAC's Part 150 Program Update. The
reviewed Section 1- Part 150 Completion Status. It was noted that at the
end of 1998-99, 4,583 homes will have been insulated totaling $102.1
million.
The Commission acknowledged that as of October 23, 1998, Mendota
Heights has 84 completed homes with 1 home under construction and 1
home in pre-construction phase.
The Commission reviewed Section 2- 1997 Homeowner Opinion Surveys
which included survey results on Reducing Exterior Aircraft Naise, Interior
Home Comfort Level, Home Activity Improvement, Major Room
Improvement, Contract Performance Rating, Homeowner Recommendations,
Is there an lncrease in Market Value due to Part 150 Modifications and
Consultant Staff Profile.
The Commission reviewed Section 3- Cost Review: Past vs. Present which
includes housing comparisons with construction costs of $15,500 per home,
$19,100 per home, $23,800 per home and $26,500 per home in each
subsequent year since 1994. This Section also included 1999 Construction
Estimates based on specific characteristics of the home.
The Commission noted that of the $36 million used for the Sound Insulation
Program, the FAA paid for $5 million and the remaining $31 million came
from Passenger Facility Charges imposed by the MAC.
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION - DECEMBER 9, 1998 MINUTES �
Runway 17-35 FEIS
The Commission acknowledged receipt of a Press Release announcing that
the MAC has received a Determination of Adequacy from the Minnesota
Environmental Quality Board for the Final Environmental Impact Statement in
the Dual Track Planning Process for Minneapolis-St. Paul International
Airport.
The Commission acknowledged that this decision will allow MAC to build a
new North-Sauth Runway and make other airport improvements.
MASAC Goals and Work Plan for 1999
The Commission reviewed the Proposed 1999 MASAC Goals and Operations
Calendar.
The Commission noted that the MASAC has separated its calendar into four
quarters.
The Commission noted that at the January 15 MASAC Operations
Committee meeting they will be discussing the development of specifications
for investigating GPS Landing system use for noise alleviation. The
Commission felt that this would be an excellent opportunity for the City to (
become more involved on how the FAA will implement GPS.
The Commission discussed the GPS system and how/when it will be
implemented at MSP. It was noted fihat all aircraft need to be fitted with a
receiver before the GPS system is implemented. It was noted that
Continental Airlines fleet has been fifited with GPS.
Commissioner Roszak moved to amend the Commission's Action Plan to
include monitoring the implementation of the GPS system at MSP and to
support the iVIAC by providing incentives to carriers who retrofit GPS
receivers on their aircrafts.
Commissioner May seconded the motion.
AYES: 7
fV�lYS: 0
The Commission was also of the consensus to support the MAC in providing
incentives to carriers in acquiring and operating factory made Stage III
aircrafts.
C
AIRPORT RELATIONS GOMMISSION - DECEMBER 9, 1998 MINUTES 4
ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF VARIOUS
REPORTS/CORRESPOfVDENCE
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC Agenda for December
1, 1998 and October 28, 1998 minutes (Includes MASAC Operations
Committee Minutes for November 13.)
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC Technical Advisor's
Report for October 1998.
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC Corridor Gate
Penetration Analysis for October 1998. The Commission noted that the
MASAC will be reviewing carrier jet departures north of the propased 095
degree corridor policy boundary. The Commission inquired about the
northern boundary occurances during rush hour. The Commission also
inquired about other runway usage.
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the Capitol Noise Newsletter with
Richfield Article.
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MSP News dated November
19, 1998.
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the Eagan ARC Agenda for
December 8, 1998.
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC Schedule for 1999
and MASAC Roster.
� � � �1�� ►IT11���
There being no further business, the Airport Relations Commission moved to
adjourn its meeting at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kimberlee K. Blaeser
Senior Secretary
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSIOIV - DECEMBER 9, 1998 MINUTES 5
'
c
C
C
P���'�.����,�.��� ����'�'� ���i�✓�I���������
P°"S 5q� Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport
r �'P t ' �Ta
F =4.�': t°� 6040 - 28th Avenue South � Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799
� k"= z Phone (612) 726-8100 m Fa�c (612) 726-5296
;t ., •. . �, a
p }� t w
o � ' * N
q �' '.. � �^'F
O' �
r t G
9� 41RPOAYy
August 20, 1997
Kevin Batchelder
City Administrator
City of Mendota Heights
1 101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights MN 55118
Dear Mr. Batchelder:
i� f1^�.�',f ��•;���1y�f !_n�{ ;!� � t� �%j ^^� '\
;� � � �-=�-�.�,:��� 1,� ; : j;, �
.�
; ;;� ��� � � ��j �
' `��` �� � ��9� �� r'
i� i ��"��_;,-.,,.,.,,, }�°' t
�����t..���
Enclosed for your review are two sample formats for showing the properties in Mendota
Heights impacted by a potential third parallel runway at MSP. The graphic shows the twe
categories of properties identified in the agreement: 1) those which would be brought into the
contours as a result of the third parallel runway, and 2> those within the contour who would
experience a 1.5 DNL increase due to operations on the third parallel runway.
Please review the attached and let me know which approach you prefer. If you ha� e
questions, feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
,,� i�
i'���� �.
��
Nigel D. Finney
Deputy Executive Director
Planning and Environment
cc: Tom Anderson, MAC
The h4etropolitan Airports Commission is an aEfirmutive action employer.
Reliever Airports: AIRLAKE � ANOKA COUN7'Y/Bi.Ai\E > CRl'STAL • FLl'ING CLOUD � LAKE ELMO � SAINT PAUL D04VNTOWN
� �, �
.� � .� �
� w'�� �.� �
� � � � � � � � � �
� v� ,�?., fn U � r'7 r� �`�
ao .. o0000
�
� �
� '
� N �
�N �
a z
�����
�a
w
Z
�
,,.�,.
V
�
�
w �„
� O
~ O
�v
�
o ``�
�e
V �
� �
O—
w.
��
O
i�-' O
`� U
a
��
z�
�
� � � � $ = �
.� � �
� T T yy
hi+� St � � j � � , is, '
� g � � � rA
�y � y � � V � � .']
� p
� J O � N N� N � �
o .,
h
W
z
•_
�
CONTRACT PERTA.INING TO LIlv1ITS
ON CONSTR.UCTION OF A
THIlZD P.AR.ALLEL RUNVVAY
I. Recitals.
1. The Minnesota Legislature,. at its 1996 session, has enacted Laws of Minnesota,
Chapter 464, Art. 3, Sec. 10 (b.ereinafter "�he Runway Statute"), which amends
Minnesota. Statutes 1994, Sec. 473.608 to require the Metropolitan Airports Commission
(hereinafter "the Commission" or "MA.C") to enter into certai.n contracts with "affected
cities."
2. The Runway Statute defines "affected city" as being any city that would
experience an increase in the area located within the 60 Ldn noise contour as a result of
operations using a third pazallel runway constructed at the Twin Cities International
Airport (hereinafter "the .Airport"). ,
3. The Commission has determined that the City of Mendota. Heights (hereinafter
"the City") is an affected city within the meaning of the Runway Stafute.
C
4. The Commission and the City have met and negotiated in good faith concerning
the terms and conditions of the contract required by fihe Runway Statute, and have arrived �"
at an a�eement (hereinafter "the Agreement") which both parties desire to set forth in
writing.
II. Definitions.
1. The term "tliird parallel runway" shall mean any runway used far the arrival or
departure of air traffic at the Airport constructed to the north of and genera.11y parallel to
the existing parallel runways kaown as 29L/11R and 29R111L.
2. Th.e term "construct" sha11 mean physical construction and actions preliminary to
construction, including land acquisition, inclusion of funds for construction in the capital
improvement program budget or solicitation of bids for performance of physical
construction nrovidec� that the term shall not include plannuig activity. The term
"construct" shall not include land acquisitions by the Commission which include as a
restr'rctive covenant in the deed of conveyance that the acquired land shall not be used for
runway purposes during the period for which this Agreement is effective, �rovided that
such restrictive covenant shall expressly run for the benefit of affected property owners
and the City.
3. The term "approval" shall mean a legally binding assent occurrin� through action
by which the city legally binds itself.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
January 11, 1999
To: Airport Relations Cornmission
From: Kevin Batchelder, City Administrator
Subject: U�nished and New Business for January Meeting
DISCUSSION
This memo will cover the items on the agenda for Unfinished and New Business and
for Updates. .
l. Discuss Minneapolis/MAC Third Parallel Runwav Contract - In November, the
MAC and the City of Minneapolis finally agreed to a contract on the Third Parallel
Runway. The Commission reviewed this contract at our December meeting and
requested a comparison, contract to contract with the IVlendota Heights contract.
(Please see attached contracts.) '
At the time that Mendota Heights reached agreement with MAC, MAC off'icials agreed
to allow Mendota Heights to amend our contract, based on the provisions that the cities
of Minneapolis or Eagan might agree to with MAC. After the Commission compares
contracts, they should determine which provisions might be beneficial to the City of
Mendota Heights so that a recommendation may be,made to our City Council and
negotiations may begin with MAC. The Commission also requested that a copy of any
draft e�ibits depicting "affected property owners" should be included. (Please see
attached August 20, 1997 letter from Nigel Finney.)
A written, point by point handout comparing the two contracts will be provided on
Wednesday evening.
2. Record of Decision on Runwav 17/35 - On Wednesday, the executive summary of this
lengthy document will be handed out for the Commission's information. No action will
be required on this issue, I just feel that the Commission should have the opporiunity to
review this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The executive summary is
60 pages in length.
3. Undates - At this point, I am still awaiting a response from airport officials regarding
any documentation of the Richfield/MAC deal on the Runway 4/22 extension issue and �
on providing a map of airport controlled property, as requested by the Commission last
month. I hope to have more information available on Wednesday evening. As far as
the Riehfield/MAC settlement on the FEIS for the Runway 17/35, please� see the
Airport Noise Report, Volume 10, Number 25 that is included in your
Acknowledgments for a written report on ttiat subject. Finally, Mr. Roy Fuhrmann has
agreed to be the guest speaker for our February 10, 1999 meeting.
d
�
4. The term "affected property owner" means any owner of real property which
property is within that part of the City which:
a) would be brought inta the 60 Ldn noise contour as a result of operations
on the third para.11el runway; or
b) is withi.n the 60 Ldn contour as detemiined without the third parallel
runway and which would experience a 1.5 or greater Ldn increase as a result of
operations on a third parallel runway.
The Commission and the City agree that a diagram which designates the area meeting
this criteria shall be developed by the Commission not later than ninety days subsequent
to execution of tYus Agzeement by the City, which diagram will be subject to the City's
review and approvaL
III Terms
l. The term of this Agreement sha11 be from the date of approval by the City to
December 31, 2020, subject to the provisions of this paragraph. On January 1 of 2021,
January 1 of 2031 and January 1 of 2041, this agreement shall be automatically renewed
for an additional ten-year term unless both the City and the Commission agree, at any
time prior to the expiration of the previous term, that the a�reement shall term.inate
without such renewal. Commencing on January l, 2021, this Agreement and any
renewals thereof may be terminated by statutory enactrnent which contains an express
finding by the Minnesota Legislaiure that, in its judgment taking inta account the welfare
of the Staie of Minnesota, there is no prudent or feasible altemative to construction of a
third parallel runway.
2. During the period for which this A�eement is effective, the Commission
promises that it shall not, without the approval of the City, construct a third parallel
runway. The Commission promises that prior to December 31, 2020, it shall nat
affirmatively advocate construction of a th�rd parallel runway, �rovided that nothing i_n
this Agreement shall prevent the Commission from responding to requests for
information and advice made by the legislative or executive branches of state
government, or iheir constituent parts or designees.
3. During the period for which this Agreement is effective, the City promises that it
shall take no action to oppose the planning and construction of a North South Runway, as
such runway is described in the .Airport's 2010 long-tern comprehensive plan, the
implementation of which is authorized by Laws of Minnesota 1996, Ch. 464, Art. 3,
Subd. 24. Without limiting the generality of the fore�oing, the City agrees:
a) its approval of this Agreement constitutes a declaration of the City
endorsing the construction of the above-described North South Runway; and
b) it shall not institute, be a garty to, financially contribute to or in any other
manner support any legisiation or legal proceedings (whether judicial,
administrative or other) which have as a goal or effect the delay or prevention of
construction of the above-described North South runway, including without
limitation, proceedings asserting rights under environmental laws or regulations.
4. It is intended by the Commission and the City that, during the period for which
this Agreement is effective, the affected property owners shall have third party
beneficiary rights to enforce this Agreement in the event that a state law changes,
supersedes or iuvalidates this Agreement or if a state law authorizes or enables the
Commission to construct a third parallel runway without approval of the City. It is
further agreed that this right of enforcement shall i.nclude that right to seek specific
enforcement and injunctive relief. Said third party beneficiary rights shall cease upon the
expiration of this agreement or its termination pursuant to paragraph IlI. l. of this
Agreement. •
5. This Agreement constitutes the entire underst.�nding of the parties here±o and shall
not be subject to any alteration, supplement or repeal except as agreed to in writing. This
Agreement shall be binding upon the parties and their successors and assigns.
6. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of any other
affected city which, by formal action, approves its terms and notifies the Commission of
said approval, nzovided that such affected city gives such notice to the Comrnission on or
before Ju1y 1, 199'1. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent the Commission and
affected cities other than the City from reaching a separate a�eement with separate .
terms.
Dated: December 23 , 1996
Dated: December � 3 �1996
METROPOLITAN AIlZI'ORTS COMl�tISSION
/� �
� l . �i�
By '�^' ti � (/ . ��1.�✓'.. i r ./1
/.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By: �-"'� � �'Gl1w� �
Its Mayor
OTC2: 201362 v06 12/12/96
Mr. Thomas Anderson, General Counse!
Metropalitan Airports Commission
6440 28th Avenue South
Minneapalis, MN 55450
Dear Mr. Anderson:
r�� � ,.:>
��,, � ��
G '� �
� � -?r- �� °
� h .�. � ��, !j� '��:�� �a .
�f Y
a�`' # '`�' y� r �X
" '` _.k " ""�
JAr� 3 � )997
� ;�_ . �� W''_� =?��-1 U'�i:E�
On December 17, 1996, the City Council of N9endota Heights approved the Contract
Pertaining to the Limits on Canstruction of a Third Parailel Runway. During the discussion
�recsc���g th9s aY�r�;ra�, tha �ity Cc�:^�il expTessed coneem alaQ��t the passi�le
interpretation of saveral sections of the contract. This letter is to serve as a statement of
mutual understand+ng regarding these particular sections and their interpretations.
First, the Nor-th South Runway is not defined in the Definitions section of the Agreement.
Section III - Terms, Paragraph 3 makes a reference to the North South Runway, as
described in the MAC's 2010 long term comprehensive plan. It is understood that this
provision refers to the plan as referenced in the MAC/Metropolitan Council Report to the
Legislature dated March 1996 regarding the Dual Track Airport Planning Process. {See
Page 5-2 and Figure 5-3.)
Second, as described in Sectian III - Terms, Paragraph 4, the third party beneficiary rights
are effective during the period for which this Agreernent is effective. This means that
through the year 2020, at the least, the third party beneficiary rights are in force and are
effective, no matter what the Legislature may or may not do. Only after the year 2020
may the Legislature terminate the Agreement, as described in Section lll - Terms,
Paragraph 1. With no action by the Legislature, the third party beneficiary rights continue
during the period for which this Agreement is effective.
Las�ly, as stateci in the definition oT "affected property awners", the diagram which
designates the area fo� affected property owners is subject to the City's review and
approval.
This letter will serve as documentation of our mutual understanding of the above
described sections of the Contract Pertaining to the Limits on Construction of a Third
Parallel Runway.
CITY OF NIENDOTA HEiGHTS ,..._ __w_METROPO��N AIRPORTS COMNilSSION
C�� ' �,�,C_..�,�
.�..( �-t�:,C-�---- i ��.1,���
Kevin Batchelder, City Administrator Thomas Anderson, General Counsel
110I Victoria Curve • Mendota Heights, MN • 55118 (612) 452-1850 • FAX 452-894�
�
,_ ,.�
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOIZTATION
� � FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
GREAT LAKES REGION
FI1lT.�L
,�' ' !� '��' ' ;i� �` �
I�/iinneapolis-St. �'aul Internat�onal 1�irport
D�al �'r��� .�.�.��� ��.�.��.��� �������
NEW RUNWAY 17/35 AND
AIIZPORT LAYOUT PLAN APPROVAL
1V1�1 !I 1 �I �ri����J� lYlll �11 d �5��1�
September 1998
FAA RECORD OF DECISiON
h15P DUAL TfL1CK AIRPORT PL.INNING PROCESS
COIiteIltS............................................................................................................................................................... 2
I. Surrunary of Decision ....................•--...............................................................................................................3
II. Introduction and Background .........................................................................................................................3
A. Intro ducti on ...................................................................................................................... .......................... 4
B. Proposed Project .........................................................................................................................................5
C. Project Background ....................................................................................................................................6
IIT. Purpose and Need for Acrion ......................................................................................................................16
A. Aviation Activity Forecasts ............................................�--.......................................................................17
B. Airport Demand/Capacity ...............:........................................................................................................19
C. Economic Considerations .........................................................................................................................20
IV. Agency Actions ..........................................................................................................................................20
V. Altematives Analysis ...................................................................................................................................21
A. Altematives Considered and Eliminated ..................................................................................................21
B. Alternarives Considered in Detail .............................................................................................................27
C. Sponsor Preferred Alternative ..................................................................................................................30
D. Environmentally Preferred Altemative ....................................................................................................31
E. Selected Alternative ..................................................................................................................................31
VI. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation ...............:.......................................................................................32
A. Suminary of Findings by Each Tmpact Category ......................................................................................32
B. MAC High Forecast Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................................. 50
VII. Public and Agency Involvement ................................................................................................................ 51
A. Environm.ental Document Preparation and Process ................................................................................. 51
B. Agency Consultation and Coordination ...................................................................................................52
C. Responses to Environmental Concems ....................................................................................................53
VIII. Related Matters ........................................................................................................................................ 54
A Federal Involvement in the Dual Track Process ....................................................................................... 54
B. Additional FA.A Participation in the Planning and Environmental Process ............................................. 54
C. Govemor's Air and Water Quality Certifications .................................................................................. 55
IX. Agency Findings .........................................................................................................................................55
X. Conditions of Approval ................................................................................................................................ 60
XI. Agency Decision and Order ........................................................................................................................61
Figures
Figure 1-2010 Lon� Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) ................................................................................... 7
Attachments
Attachment A--Comments and Responses on the FEIS and Section 4( fl Evaluation
A.I--Comments and Responses on the FEIS
A.2—Appendix to City of Richfield Comments
A.3--Comments and Responses on the Section 4(fl Evaluation
Attachment B—Federal Agency Correspondence and Wildlife Refuge Memorandum of Agreement
Attachment C—Late-Filed Comments on the FEIS and Responses
2
(S�ar�+,�atR1998;
�
FAA AECORO OF DcCISION
1. �urnm�ry o� Dccision
MSP DUAI. TRACK AIRPOPT PLANNING PROCESS
Based on a review of the Administrative Record, including the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on May 6, 1998,
and the Section 4(� Evaluation, dated May 1998, it is the final determination of the FAA to
approve, for construction and use, the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Aixport (MSP) 2010
Long Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP), identified as the "Sponsor and FAA Preferred
Alternative," and as shown in the revised Airport Layout Plan (ALP). The 2010 LTCP
includes a new north-south 8,000-ft. air carrier length runway (Runway 17/35) on the west
side of the airport, new taxiways, and associated facilities described in Section II.B. of this
Record of Decision (ROD) and in the FEIS. Implementation of the 2010 LTCP will require
FAA approvals and actions as described in Section II.A. of this ROD and in the FEIS. In
addition, the 201Q LTCP is approved as eligible for federal funding as described further in
this ROD, and as subject to further eligibility determinations. It is also determined that the
2010 LTCP is the envisonmentally preferable alternative because it promotes national
environmental policy, as expressed in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and
does this more successfully than the No Action Alternative or other alternatives considered
during the Dual Track Airport Planning Process (see also 5ections II and V of thi.s ROD). The
Metropolitan Airports Commission, as owner and operator of MSP and the project sponsor,
has agreed to terms of approval, including mitiga�ion measures, discussed below.
Projects described in Section II.B of this ROD include development of the MSP 2010 LTCP
and the 2020 Concept Plan. These plans represent two phases for the proposed development
of IvISP, and received conditional ALP approval from the PAA on Apri.125,1997. The April
1997 approval was made for plantung purposes based on curxent safety, utility, and
efficiency standards, and was conditioned on the satisfactory completion of the
environmental review process. 'This ROD unconditionally approves the ALP for the 2010
LTCP. The conditional approval of t.he MSP 2020 Concept Plan remai_ns unchanged.
In reaching this decision, the FA.A has given careful consideration to: (a) the role of MSP in
the national air transportation system, and the airport capacity/delay reduction needs,
(b) the aviatian safety and operational objectives of the project in light of the various
aeronautical factors and judgments presented, (c) the preferences of the airport owner as the
party with liability and primary responsibility to abate aircraft noise in the area surrounding
the airport, and (d) the anticipated environmental impacts of the project. The decisions of the
Minnesota State L.egislature concerning the New Airport Alternative and the development
alternatives at MSP, while not dispositive, were taken into account in defining reasonable
alternaiives.
A discussion of the leading factors considered by the agency in reaching this decision
follows.
I�. i���od�c�i�� a�� �ac����u��
The subsections below will introduce the reader to this ROD, the MSP �irport, and the
proposed action. In addition, Section II.0 describes the project background, which has
involved a complex multi-year study process. This "Dual Track Airport Plann.ing Process"
was mandated by the Mirulesota State Led slature in 1989, and required the completion of
3
(SE?7'th'3En"199d)
FAA RtCORD OF DECIS(ON
hiSP DUAL TF�1CK AIRPOflT PUNNING PROCESS
� planning studies comparing the expansion of IvISP with construction of a new replacement
airport (see Section II.0 for a more detailed project history).
i �
A. ln�roduciion
The FAA is issuing this Record of Decision (ROD) in accordance with the requirements of the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 40 CFR 1505.2 to provide:
(a) a statement of the agency's decision;
(b) identification of all alternatives considered by the agency in reaching its decision,
specifying the alternative considered to be environmentally preferable; and
(c) identification of all practicable means to avoid or minimize harm from the alternaiive
selected and adoption and summary of monitoring and enforcement program, if
applicable, for any mitigation. .
FAA Approvals
This ROD provides final approval for the federal actions necessary to support the
construction and operation of a new air carrier length runway, designated Runway 17/35, as
well as related facilities at Minneapolis-St. Paul International .Airport (MSP). The federal
actions and associated airport development are described in the Dical Track Airpori Planrcing
Process Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Section 4(fl Evaluation, dated May
1998.
Federal approval and implementation of the proposed action, as explained in detail in
Section I.E of the FEIS, also involve the following FAA Division approvals and actions. :. _. �-
o Air Traffic. The proposed action will require that the FA.A's Air Traffic I}ivision expand
the Class B airspace surrounding MSP and establish new air traffic control procedures,
consistent with the information contained in the FEIS. Related Air Traffic actions may
also involve redesign of fihe terminal radar approach control (TRACON) airspace
surrounding I�SSP.
e Airway Facilities. The Airway Facilities Division will be responsible for fihe installation,
operation, and maintenance of the aids to navigation required to support the proposed
action.
� Airports. The Airports Division will be responsible for the technical and environmenEal
approval of the ALP, administration of Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
development grants funding the project, approvals to impose Passenger Facility Charges
(PFCs) for similar purposes, and environmental approvals under NEPA.
a Flight Standards. The Flight SEandards Division will be responsible for establishing
instrument approach and departure procedures for the new runway and new or revised
instrument approach and departure procedures for the existing runways, as well as
specific aircraft and airline authorizations.
� Civil Aviation Security. The Cit�i1 Aviation Security Division will be responsible for
ensuring the integrity of the airport perimeter and secured areas of the terminal and
support facilities against intrusions; therefore, �curity provides input to the approval of
the ALP.
4
(ScPTE618EP,1995)
FAA RECORD OF DECISIDN
MSP DUAL TRACK AIFPOflT PUINNING PROCESS
Airport Description
MSP is located on 3,100 acres in the central portion of the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan
' area. The Metropolitan A.irports Commission (MAC) owns and operates MSP and six reliever
airports. The MAC was created by-the Minnesota Legislature in 1943, and reports directly to
the legislature and the Governor. MSP serves the Twin Cities with domestic and
international commercial air service. In 1990, the Mi.n.neapolis-St. Paul area population was
approximately 2.5 million people, the 16th largest metropalitan area in the country. In 1997,
MSP ivas the 13"' busiest airport in the United States and 19"' in the world in terms of
passengers, and the 10"' in both the nation and the world in terms of aircraft operations.
There were 491,300 aircraft operations (takeoffs and landings) and a total of 29.0 million
passengers using MSP in 1997.
MSP has three operational runways: fwo parallel runways oriented in a northwest-southeast
direction and one crosswind runway lying in a northeast-southwest direction (Figure 1).
Runway 12R/30L is 200 feet wide and 10,000 feet long. Parallel and north of this runway is
Runway 12L/30R, which is 150 feet wide and 8,200 feet long. Crosswind Runway 4/22 is
150 feet wide and it has been proposed by the MAC to be extended from 11,006 feet to 12,000
feet in length in the very near future. All runways are lighted and equi.pped with
navigational aids which allow aircraft arrivals and departures under both visual and
instrument landing conditions.
MSP is served by eight major ai.rlines, two international carriers, two national carriers, four
red onal airlines and nine charter carriers. It is one of 2b auports nationwide and one of 4
airports �� the North Central region designated as a large air traffic hub by the FAA.
Northw::st Airlines (NWA) is headquartered in Minneapolis-St. Paul and uses MSP as both a
major connecting hub and a destination airport. The airline was the nation's sixth largest U.S.
air carrier in terms of scheduled passenger service and fourth in revenue passengers miles in
1996. I� comprised 76.8 percent of MSP's annual enplaned passengers in 1997.
MSP currently has two passenger terminals in use, the Lindbergh Terminal and Hubert H.
Humphrey Terminal. The Lindbergh Terminal is used by passengers traveling on domestic,
regional, and international airlines while the Humphrey Terminal is predominantly used by
domestic and international rharter passengers. There are 72 loading gates,11,000 parking
spaces and a foreign trade zone on the airport, as well as a NWA maintenance base and a
variety of airport and airline support facilities and public uses.
�. Proposed Project
The MAC, the airport owner and praject sponsor, proposes to implement its 2010 Long Term
Comprehensive Plan (2010 LTCP) for MSP, which includes the major features of the
proposed federal aciion (FAA Order 5050.4A, para. 21). The principal feature of the 2010
LTCP is the construction of a new 8,000-foot north-south runway (Figure 1). Additional
development to be undertaken in carrying out the 2010 LTCP includes the following airfield
and roadway modifications:
� ta�way improvernents and a holding/deicing pad on the north end of the new runway
9 netiv holding/deiciz-ig pads for Runways 12R, 30L and 30R
s enhanced storm water detention basins
5
(SEP�!AeE° 1998)
FAA FECOROOF DECIS;ON
o expansion of the Red, Gold and Green Concourses
MSP OU�I TFv1CK AIflPORT PLiNNING PAOCESS
� new Green Concourse people mover �
e realigrunent and widening of the airport frontage road between 6b�' Street and 34"'
Avenue South
� reconstruction of the TH 77/66�' street interchange
� reconstruction/construction of maintenance, aircraft hanger and air cargo facilities
� new apron pavement
Federal approval and implementation of the 2010 LTCP will also require the FAA Division
approvals and actions noted above, in Section II.A of this ROD. Any development beyond
the 2010 LTCP is subject to further envirorunental review and separate FAA and other
agency approvals, and is not provided for by this ROD.1
C. Project �ackground
Dua! Track Airport Planning Process
Dual Track LegislaEion and Scoping Process. Findings contained in the 1988 Airport.
Adeqi�acy Study prepared by the Metropolitan Council (MC), the reb on's Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) and a cooperating agency in the preparafion of the FEIS,
indicated that because of en-crironmental and physical constraints, MSP might not be capable
of expanding to the degree necessary to meet the rea on's long-term air transportation needs.
In 1989, these findings led the Minnesota Legislature to enact the Metropolitan Airport
Pla.ruling Act (1989 IY�innesota Laws, Chapter 279). This Act provided the basis of =� ��
determining whether the long-term air transporEation needs of the Twin Ciiies metropolitan ���.
area and the state could best be met by enhancing capacity at MSP, or by developing a
replacement air carrier airport (New Airport) elsewhere within the metropolitan area. In
what came to be known as the "L1ual Track Airport Planning Process," the legislation
directed the MC and the MAC, in conjunction with the public and with cooperating federal,
state, and local agencies, to complete a series of studies and documents which would
evaluate long-range aviation alternatives to fulfill the aviation needs in the Twin Cities area
for a 30-year period. The following six planning goals were established to guide each of the
two "tracks" of the Dual Track Process and were applied throughout this process:
o Develop airport facilities to meet future aviation needs, to provide enhanced levels of air
service, and to further the economic development of the State of Mi.nnesota.
o Minimize costs to users.
o Develop the airport in a manner which is flexible and adaptable to changing canditions.
1 The MACs 2020 Concepl Pian represenls a seccnd majec phase of fhe ti1SP expansicn plan, and includes developmenl of a new passenger terminal near
the west side ot Ihe airfield. In accordance with s1ale legis�:icn dateti P�ril 2,19�fi, deve!cpment of !he new wes� leRninal would require fhe approval of the
Minnesota Sta1e Legislature. Furfher, lhe FAA wouid have ,o provide unccr,ditional acproval of zn ALP depicfing Ihe 2020 Concepl Plan. Spec�ic airpori
2ctivity levels and lhe associaled environmenlal impacts 2ra noI reason2Cly foreseeable beyond 20t�. For fhese raascns, Ihe FAA has determined Ihal
implemenlation ol the 2020 Concepl Plan wouid firsf req��ir-. !ne comple6cn and approva! of addilicnal environment2l siudies, and has condifioned the 2020
ALP approval on the oulcome of the sludies. See Section Xi—Agency De�isicn and Order. '('
� ;�
6
(S"c?icMecR1998!
FAr1 RcCOftD OF QECISION
h1SP DUAL TiL1CK AIRPORT PLANYING PROCESS
authorized the MAC to iznplement the MSP 2010 Comprehensive Plan which includes the
new Runway 17/35, new taxiways, and associated facilities. The led slation (attached to the �
FEIS in Appendix A) also requires further legislative approval prior to implementafaon of the .��
MSP 2020 Concept Plan, which includes new terminal construction and turiher facility
development.
The joint FEIS for development of MSP was prepared by the FAA and MAC, published in
May 1998, and serves as both a state and federal document prepared under NEPA and
Minnesota environmental regulations. The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB)
will review the project and render a determination of adequacy on the FEIS and proposed
project at its nexE scheduled meeting, planned for October 29,1998. An EQB adequacy
determination on the FEIS, including responses to comments, will conclude the state's
environmental compliance requirements for the proposed action. To allow sufficient time for
consideration of MAC's pending appLicalion for a Letter of Intent (LOI) in fiscal year 1998,
and to complete congressional notification, the FAA must complete this ROD before the EQB
meets in October. The FA.A may i.ssue a letter to a project sponsor to announce its intent to
obligate federal funds for an airport development project under the .Airport Improvement
Program. Letters of Intent allow project sponsors to receive reimbursement for certain
expenditures ma�le in advance of a receiving an actual federal grant. FA.A regulations
require completion of the NEPA environmental review process before an LOI can be issued.�
Accordin.g to these regulations, federal environmental work must be complete and the
project work must be imminent before an LOI can be approved.
FAA's Role in the Dual Track Process. Throughout this extensive process, the FAA has
monitored the methods and procedures used by the MAC in arxiving at a preferred
alternative. The FAA assisted in the analysis by providing gvidance and advice in various '
technical committees. This included FAA participation in more than 75 c�mmittee meetings, ��` �-
including meetings of the following b oups: the Capacity Design Team, the New Airport
Technical Committee, the MSP Technical Committee, the Technical Advisory Committee for
the LTCP, the State Advisory Council on Metropolitan Airport Plaruung, and the Surface
Transportation CommitEee.
In addition to jointly preparing the Draft and Final EISs, the FAA has independently
reviewed and evaluated all of the material presented in the scoping and envirorunental
documents, and critical portions of the material have been independently verified. At each
major milestone, the FAA retriewed the scoping and AED process to ensure coverage of a
reasonable range of alternatives. This has included the FAA's independent evaluation of
airspace madifications, which liave concluded that the existing MSP terminal airspace can be
reconfigured to accommodate the new north-south runway 8 The FAA. and the MAC also
provided for and participated in several opport-unities for public participation. These
included more than 20 public meetings held during the EIS scoping period, organized to
obtain input on specific issues related to new airport site selection and the layout of the
preferred build alternatives for both the New Airport and the MSP Alternative. T`he public
and agency involvement aspects of the process are described further in the FEIS, Section VIII
(Public and Agency Involvement) and in Section VII of this ROD.
� 59 FR 54482-54483 (Oc�ober 31, 1994)
� Airporl Capacrry Enhancement—Terminal Airspace Study, �;iinneaFofis•St. Paul /ntemational Airpor�; FAA, Augusl 1996. r
('
11
(SEPTE!d8ER1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECIS�ON
h4SP DUAI TW1CK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
Additional background information, especially in regard to project alternatives, is contained
below in Section V.
fdoise Mitigation
Overall Noise Mitigation Program. The leb slation that completed the Dual Track Airport
Pla.nning Process and selected development of Iv1SP to serve the long-term aviation needs of
the Twin Cities metropolitan area required that the MAC complete a noise mitigation plan
for MSP. This plan encompasses the 60 DNL noise contour for the airport and took into
consideration proposed runway development at the airport. It is a critical element in the
implementation of the 2010 LTCP, with the April 1996 legislation ordering no less than $185
million to be spent on noise mitigation measures. The noise mitigation plan was developed
by a Noise Mitigation Committee consisting of mayors of cities surrounding MSP, Northwest
Airlines, Metropolitan Council, and the MA.C. The plan was adopted in October 1996 by the
MAC and contains zneasures for a sound insulation program, community stabilization and
property value assurances, aircraft operations measures, and expediting the construction of
the new runway. The elements, activities, and membership associated with the plan are
reported in Appendix B of the FEIS.9
The MAC has an ongoing residential sound insulation program. Over �90 million has been
committed to sound proof 4,200 homes. The FAA has ativarded �35.6 million in grants
during the course of this program to f1u1d sound insulation measures related to the existing
airport's operations. The MAC intends to continue this effort in relation to the new runway.
Additional mitigation is planned, as described in the noise mitigation plan, since the 2005
DNL 60-65 contour does not currently reach all of the properties projected to e�erience
significant noise impacts. MAC further intends to expand this effort to the DNL 60 contour
as long as it mainta.iris a bond rating of at least an "A." Historically, general obligation bonds
and revenue bonds issued by the MAC have been rated "AAA" by Moodys, Standard &
Poor's Ratings Group (S&P), and Fitch IBCA, Tnc. (based on approximately the last 10 years).
Recently, S&P and Fitch rated MAC Series 1998 airport revenue bonds "AAA," considering a
Municipal Bond Insurance Policy issued with respect to those bonds. Further, even without
taking the insurance policy into account, S&P and Fitch rated the Series 1998 bonds "AA-"
and "A+," respectively.l° While future bond issues will be subject to new ratings, it is clear
that the MAC has historically maintained bond ratings above "A."
The FAA has concluded that federal funds elia bility for future residential sound insulation
measures due to the proposed action is generally 1'united to the DNL 65+ contour. Hozvever,
federal funds eligibility for the residential insulation program may be extended to include
the area out to the DNL 60 contour if there are applicable local standards accepted by the
FAA. For MSP, this is planned to be evaluated by the FAA through a future MAC-initiated
FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Plan.
The FEIS estimates that the proposed ac�ion would result in an increase in the number of
dwellings within the DNL 65+ contour, chanb g from 3,200 dwellings under No Action to
3,370 dwellings under the MSP Alternative (based on FEIS Tables Q-1 and Q-4). However,
9 The Noise Mftigation Committee was composed of represenlatives o( Ihe following enlities and ccmmun'rfies: MAC, City ci dAinneapolis, City o( Mendola
Heighls, City of Eagan, City of Bloomington, City of Richfiaid, City of Inver Grove Heignis, City of Bumsville, City oi SI. Paui, Me(repolilan Council, Northwes!
Airlines, and �he Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abalemenl Courcii. The commitlee met eic� �t limes beiw?en May 1396 and G�ctober 1996, ar,d a public
meeling was held in Augusl 1996 to soi'�cit input on Ihe prcposed noise mitigalion pian.
�� MAC airport revenue bond issues; June 10, 1598; �ge 67.
12
(SEo�h1°ER1?9°)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION h�SP DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PIANNiNG PROCESS
this analysis also estimates that the proposed aciion would result in a decrease in the number
of dwellings within DNL 60+ contour, changing from 15,020 dwellings under No Action to ;
12,830 dwellings under the MSP Alternative.11 In addition to how the residential noise �.
insulation program must be adjusted, the FEIS estunates that 158 households would be
relocated as part of future noise mitigation measures within the City of Bloomington (see FEIS
Figure T-4, in Appendix J).
Special Noise Mitigation Issues. Noise mitigation proposed to address the impacts of the
proposed new runway on portions of the M.innesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge
or MVNWR) and to address the impacts of low frequency noise are addressed separately,
within Section VI.A of this ROD, under the subheadings, "Noise," "Section 4(�" and
"Wildlife Refuges." These two noise issues, while part of the project background, have also
involved ongoing coordination and FA.A. policy consideration since publication of the FEIS.
T'herefore, the referenced sections with�n the body of this ROD contain updated information
on these noise mitigation issues, which are also addressed in detail within the at�ached
comments and responses on the FEIS and Section 4( fl Evaluation (Attachment A).
AtEachment A.1 includes general comments and responses, including General Responses 1
and 2, which focus on the low frequency noise issue, and General Response 7, which focuses
on the MC�T.NWR Mitigation issues. Attachment A.1 also includes responses to individual
comment letters on the FEIS, including letters from the U.S. Department of Interior (DOT), the
City of Richfield, the Friends of the Minnesota River Valley, and others who expressed
concerns about these current noise mitigation issues.
Attachment A.2 is a copy of additional information subrnitted by the City of Richfield, as an
appendix to its comment letter presented in Attachment A.1. Parts of Attachment A.2 ._
address low frequency noise issues; and this, as well as other information was considered by ;:� :�"`
the FAA and MAC in preparing responses to Richfield's FEIS comment letter. -
Attachment A.3 contains comments and responses on the Section 4(� Evaluation, which are
all generally or specifically related to the issue of noise mitigation for the I�TVNWR. Other
pertinent information on these special noise mitigation issues is also included in Attachments
B and C. Attachment B includes federal agency correspondence in relation to the U.S. EPA's
review of the FEIS, correspondence with the DOI/USFWS stating concurrence on mitigation
for the Refuge, and the sib ed Memorandum of Ab eement (MOA) which contains the
ab eed-to plan for mitigating Refuge noise impacts (specifically, Attachment B includes two
cancurrence letters from the DOI/USF'4VS, both dated September 21,199$, and the MOA,
which was signed by the DOI/USFWS on September 17,1998, and signed by the MAC and
the FAA on September 21,1998) . Attachment C contains additional FEIS comment leEters
filed aFter the June 15,1998, deadline for comments; these letters pertain primarily to low
frequency noise issues within the City of Richfield; and Attachment C also provides
responses to those comments.
Relaied Envirenmental Documen�s and Actions
Further Studies to Develop the T^lest Terminal. Continued long term development of MSP
to include the new west terminal or other sid ficant elements beyond those in the 2010
LTCP would necessitate the preparation of subsequent environmental documents.
1� The DNL 60 contour h2s been considered by lhe MAC (or imp2cl com�irisons throug��u�t the Dual Track Prccess h,�sed a� local inpul and in ,-
accordance wilh stale legislalion (Apri12, 1996), wnich r2quired Ihaf lhe noise mitigaton program censid2r noise levels down lo ONL 60. �
13
(S"c? i ch15EP,1948)
FAA RECOFlD OF DECISION 61SP DUAL TRACK AIRPQRT PLANNING PROCESS
Envirorunental reviews of the 2020 off-airport hightivay improvements would be prepared by
Mn/DOT and the Federal Highway Administration.
Other Actions. Major airports such as MSP are subject to numexous proposals for
improvement and maintenance. Some airport improvement projects do not require any
sid ficant environmental documentation when they are found by an agency to have no
potential for significant impacts--individually or cumulatively--on the environment and,
therefore, do not need any detailed envirorunental analysis.l'- Other projects have
independent utility because they do not depend on other actions or are based upon satisfying
a specific need fihat is not connected to a more comprehensive airport expansion proposal.
Therefore, a project can go forward if it is justified independently of another project, such
that it would not be unwise or irrational to proceed on one project without the other .13
The MAC has undertaken annual development projects to maintain its facilities at MSP and
to implement committed proposals contained in its ongoing Capital Improvement Program
(CIP). MAC projects, such as the Part 150 airport noise compatibility prob am, the
temporary extension of Runway 12R/30L, the extension of Runway 4/22 toward the
northeast, and the implementation of a Runway 4/22 runway use system are part of this
program. As appropriate, these past actions have been the subject of separate environmental
actions and documentation. Known cumulative impacts that might affect the 2010 LTCP
from this planned and contemplated action were included in the Dual Track FEIS based on
the information available at the time the FEIS was published.
The MAC's CII' includes a commi�nment to temporarily extend Runway 12R/30L, and to
permanently extend Runway 4/22 toward the northeast. The plan to extend Runway 4/22
- would in�rease the runway's current length from 11,006 feet to 12,000 feet for use by aircraft
� � on a perm�anent basis, to optimize nonstop B-747 service to Hong Kong with direct service,
` increasing to five flights per week from the recent average of 2.8 per week.
The proposed runway 4/22 extension to 12,000 feet is considered an action having
independent utility from that of the proposed action in this ROD and the Dual Track FEIS. It
is a phased project that first requires the temporary extension of Runway 12R/30L from
10,000 to 10,900 feet, to provide for certain operations requiring a runway length of 10,900
feet while the permanent Runway �/22 extension is under construction. As such, full
implementation of the planned runway e;ctension will occur in phases and does not depend
at all on the final disposition and prob ess on the new Runway 17/35 project authorized by
this ROD. Further, the Run�vay 4/Z� extension project is sfill in the plann.i.ng phase of
development, and an ALP depicting the proposed runway extensions in a location consistent
c�Tith safety, efficiency, and utility at MSP has not yet been finalized and submitted to the
FA.A for approval.
The FAA and the MAC recognize that Northwest Airlines (NWA) has recently announced
suspension of its current non-stop Iv�SP to Hong Kong service effective November 1,1998.1�
After this announcement, recent discussions between the MAC and NWA have not
determined if this change in service should substantially in`luence prob ess on the proposed
12 40 CFR 1500.4(p) and 1500.5(k).
13 40 CFR 1508.25
14 Source: NWA news release; August 31, 1598; NorthNesf Announcas Pzc,'fic Sys;=m Ch,anges �Tne subject news re!e2se announces Ihe suspension ot
lhe Hong Kong service, as weil as sever�l oinar service c�.�ng2s, "as p2rt of (N4VA'sj on-�oing resc4nse Io ecoromic deve!opments in ihe Pac�ic.")
14
(SEPr ;'sc R1995)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
extension oF Runway 4/22 to 12,000 feet. Therefore, the MAC is currently continuing to
proceed with the Runway 4/22 extension project. As stated above and within the FEIS, the ,
runway extension project is an action that is wholly independent of the Runway 17/35 �,
project; even so, the two projects were carefully evaluated from the standpoint of cumulative
impacts. In conclusion, a MAC decision to proceed, delay, or not proceed with the Runway
4/22 extension project will have no bearing on the new runway project aufihorized by this
ROD.
As noted above, the Runway 4/22 extension project (which includes the temporary extension
of Runway 12R/30L) does not affect the planned operation of the new north-south runway.
The potential changes in runway use resulting from extending Run.way 4/22 and the
addition of the new-north south runway would not result in cumulative impacts for air
quality, noise or wetlands. As reported in the FEIS, the known noise impacts due to the
Runway 4/22 extension would not create a significant impact (defined as a 1.5 DNL increase
in noise over any noise sensitive area located wi.thin the DNL 65 contour) at locations
surrounding the airport whirh will experience noise increases as a result of the extension.
Potential environmental consequences associated wifih these runway extensions are
incorporated into the Runway 17/35 FEIS by reference in aecordance with 40 CFR 1502.21.
T'hey are also included as cumulative imp�cts in the "Environmental Consequences" Section
of the FEIS.
If fully implemented, the precise location of the Runway 4/22 extension and Runway
Protection Zone may require minor adjustmen# for safety, efficiency, and utility reasons.
However, fihe potential shifts in location involve negligible environmental and cumulative
impacts, as noted in the above-referenced Envirorunental Assessment. As necessary, ...
appropriate additional environmental review will be completed (independenfily from this
ROD) before the FA.A takes final action concerning the runway extension project. .�` �I '
Project Naiifications
As previously noted, the FAA published a Federal Regisfer notice dated April. 2,1992 (57 FR
113�), announcing its intent to prepare an EIS and to conduct the first phase of the public
scoping process. A second notice was published on May 25,1995 (60 FR 27804) announcing
the intent to prepare an EIS and to conduct second phase scoping on the airport altematives
to meet long-term air transportation needs in the region. The scoping process concluded in
July 1995 with publication of the EIS Scoping Decision document (July 26,1995). A public
notice of availability of the DEIS �vas published in local newspapers on various dates from
December 15 to 22,1995, and in the Federal Register on December 22,1995 (61 FR 2507). The
FAA and MAC held joint public hearings on the DEIS on January 17 and 18,1996, during
which oral comments were taken. All substantive oral and written public comments on the
DEIS are responded to in Appendix I of the FEIS.
The FEIS was sib ed by the FAA on May 6,1998 and released to the public on May 15,1998.
A public notice of availability of the FEIS was published in local newspapers on May 18,
1998, and in the Federal Re� ster on May 15,1998 (63 FR 27083). Comments on the FEIS were
received and are included with responses in Attachment A of this ROD.
15
(SEP7EldBER1998)
FAA RcCORD OF DECISION
,� '� � .' � •!' _.' i �.
MSP DUAL TFHCK AIfiPORT PUNN�NG PFOCESS
The broad purpose of the Minnesota Dual Track Airport Plaruzing Process is to provide
efficient and economical movement of people and goods between the Minneapolis-St_ Paul
area and national and international markets, and help promote the orderly growth and
economic development of the region. The state's Metropolitan Airport Planning Act of 1989
also stated that the airport's actions must satisfy the air transportation needs of the re� on to
the year 2010, and there must be a concept plan that could assure that the air transportation
needs of the region are met ta the year 2020: This was accomplished by the development of
the 2010 LTCP, proposing the construction of new Runway 17/35, and the 2020 Concept Plan
for additional improvements, including a new terminal building.
Thxoughout the Dual Track study process, the FAA has performed environmental and
airspace analyses which supported and assisted the MAC to address these objectives. From
the FAA's perspective, the primary focus has been to support the state's goal of satisfyi.ng the
region's air transportaiion needs to the year 2010. Consistent with the mandated L}ual Track
process, the FAA has also participated in fihe analysis of a 2020 Concept Plan.ls
The FAA considered the purpose and need for this project in light of its statutory charter to
encourage the development of civil aeronautics and the safety of air commerce. Further,
FAA took into account the congressional declaration of policy that airport improvement
projects that increase capacity should be undertaken to the maximu.m extent feasible to
increase safety and efficiency, and to decrease delays.
More specifically, the need for the proposed MSP project stems from the findings and
-. independent conclusions by the FAA and the MAC that without substantial airfield,
��, _� terminal, and access improvements, future demand in aviation activity at MSP may not be
accommodated in an efficient and economical manner. This would result in a significantly
decreased level of service and increased user costs. These deznand and efficiency issues, arid
the proposed addition of a new runway, were analyzed independently by the NiAC and also
by a FAA Airport Capacity Desib Team, consisting of the FA.A, the IvLAC, and aviation
industry groups. The results were reported in the FAA's Capacity Enhancement Plan for MSP
completed in 1993. The plan recommends a new runway because of its annual airfield delay-
savings benefits in meeting forecast a�riation activity levels.
At the 1995 actual operations level of 465,300 total takeoffs and landings, operations already
exceeded the Baseline activity level in the Cnpacity Enhancement Plan ivhere delay savings and
operational benefits of the proposed action would be realized by making airfield
improvements. At the future activity levels cited by the A.irport Capacity Desib Team,
ranging from 530,OQ0 to 600,000 annual operations, delay savings would range from 21,000 to
44,000 hours per year—resulting in a$30 million to $63 million benefit per year. The FAA
has also completed a Terminal Airspace St��dy (August 1996) for MSP. This analysis found that
the existing MSP airspace could be reconfib ed to accommodate Run�,�ay 17/35 and that air
traffic changes could further reduce the average airspace-related delays in the range of 900 to
7,000 hours annu�lly.
� 5 The FAA has concluded that the new lerminal and olher elements cf the MkCs 2020 Ccncept Plan are reason2ble fe2!ures fo include in a lafer phase of
the airporYs development. However, lhe FAa has cor,dilioned Ihe 2020 ALP approv2l cn lne ou(come oi additional en�rircnmenlai sludies. See zlso �ection
XI—Agency Decision and Order.
16
(S�PTc!.I9EA199E)
FAA ReCORD OF DECISION
MSP QUAL TRACK AIRPORT PIANNING PROCESS
A. Aviation Acfiivi#y Fore�asts
This subsection oE the ROD discusses why the FA.A and MAC decided to supplement the ��
analysis of envirorunental consequences contained in the Draft EIS, with sensitivity analyses
using the higher aviation activity levels in the MACs "High Forecast." The Draft EIS used
the MAC 1993 Baseline Forecast. Since 1993, the MAC's Baseline Forecast has been used
extensively to develop and evaluate ihe environ.mental and financial consequences of the
2010 LTCP and ihe 2020 Concept Plan. The Baseline Forecast reaches 520,400 operations and
16.7 million enplanements by 2020. As explained in detail below, the MAC High Forecast is
representative of the FAA's 1997 Terminal Area Forecast (TAF).
The 1993 Baseline Forecast was produced through a forecast update process initiated in
October 1992 and completed in the publication: Lo�i�-Term Cornprehensive Plan, Volume 6,
Revised Activity Forecasts, December 1993. The results included the Baseline Forecast and
several alternative scenarios which took into consideration variations in economic activity
and airline industry factors. The 1993 forecasts were also developed taking into
consideration the finding of a 1993 Legislative Auditor's report16 and input from four expert
panels convened over an eight-month pexiod, inclucling input from the FAA. Based on input
received during the panel sessions, regional carrier operations were increased almost 10
percent over those used in the 1990 forecast and the hubbing ratio was significantly reduced.
A reb ession analysis, similar to the methodology commonly used for forecasting aviation
activity at other U.S. airports, was performed. The independent economic and industry
variables used in this analysis were extensive , and reflect local conditions as measured by
such agencies as the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) in the U.S. Departrnent of
Commerce, and the Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities. These efforts produced aircraft
operations and enplanement forecasts that were lower than the previously completed 1990 :� �("
forecasts. �
The MAC 1993 forecasts reflect extensive input from the primary air service provider at
Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport, NWA. N4VA has developed a long-term
strategic plan for Minneapolis. Although the details of the business plan are confidential,
NWA shared major assumptions with the MAC so thaE the plans for MSP would include
input from NWA (NWA leiter dated February 8,1995).
At the fime of the 1993 forecast, NWA projected a fleet growth of less that one percent
annually for the next five yeazs (Meeting Summary, MAC and NWA, December 17,1992).
They had eliminated plans to add new markets as a result of aircraft order cancellations.
NWA expected that, after an increase in the hubbing ratio in 1993 resulting from the netiv
connecting bank, the hubbing ratio would decrease unhl the ratio of N6VA jet to NWA jet
connecfing enplanements becomes 45 percent of total NWA jet enplanements at MSP. NWA
had anticipated that the reduced connect-ing percentage would be achieved by limiting the
annual increase in MSP available seat miles to less that 1 percent. Local oria ating
passengers would then gradually displace connecting passengers. These factors served to
lower demand vs. historical relationships (Dual Trac.k Airport Planning Process
Memorandum, meeting with North�vest Airlines June 23,1993}.
16 In a Legislative Audil conducled by the Slate of Minnes;,�a in 1993, th� melhodolcgy used by the'�1AC in for�„�sts compleled in 1990 was found to be
adequale. However, the Legislalive Audilor's report leok ezception lo �he hubbing r�io us:� by tne hiAC in previous forecas�s, completed in 1990, which
assumed fhal 58 perceni ot ail passengers were forecasf W ccnnect in the year 2000 and through th= remainder of the forecast pericd. The reporl
recomm2nded �haf MAC develop updatad forecasls ar.ti ccordinale clos2ly wilh Norhwest Airlines (�;'�'/A) regarding (he airiine's plans for MSP. (-
\
17
(S�?�61^nER19°3i
FAA RECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TRACK AIRPOflT PLINNING PRQCESS
The 1993 forecast range also included the MAC's "High Forecast," used within the FEIS to
test the sensitivity of environmental impacts to possible higher airport activity levels—up to
' 640,200 operations and 23.8 million enplanements by 2020. 'The MAC Baseline and High
Forecasts utilize more detailed local data than the FA.A's TAF, and the FAA has
ac.knowledged that the state's Dual Track legislation reguired that the MAC prepare forecasts
of activity levels through 2020. The FAA's TAF forecasts are only available thxough 2010, the
normal planning horizon beyond which airport activity levels are not reasonably foreseeable.
The TAF figures also do not take into account airport-specific capacity constraints, while the
MAC has factored this into its farecasts.
The MAC's High Forecast is based on a combination of optimistic scenarios within the
context of rapid economic growth and assumed improvements to the airport. It assumes ihat
high regional and national economic growth will increase air carrier orid ations and will
also increase national passenger activity.
As illustrated by Table l, current airport activity levels are more consistent with the MAC
High Forecast, ox with the FA.A's TAF, than they are with the Baseline Forecast. L}iffzrences
between the MAC High Forecast and the FAA TAF for the years 2000, 2005, and 2010 are
approximately 3.8, 3.6, and 9.8 percent respectively for passenger enplanements, and less
than 3.1, 3.7, and 9.1 percent respectively for aircraft operations in each of these three time
frames. T`he FAA believes these to be reasonable forecasts based on its professional
judgement and because the differences are within the accuracy of forecasting. The forecast
differences are also within the 1Q percent "rule-of-thumb" used as a matEer of practice by the
FA.A to determine whether to approve airport master plan forecasts after comparison with
the TAF. Therefore, for the purposes of the FEIS, the FAA and MAC agreed that the MAC
High Forecast is more representative of the level of future aviation activity expected at MSP
than the Baseline Forecast, and the FEIS evaluates the environmental consequences of both
Eh.e Baseline Forecast and the MAC High Forecast.
Table 1. Comparison of MAC and FAA Aviation Activity Forecasts
DEIS Forecast
(MAC Baseline Forecast) h+IAC High Forecast FAA Forecast (1997 TAF)
Year Enplanemenis Operations Enpianements Operations Enplanements Operations
1996 14,386,000 485,400
(acWal)
19g7 14,335,600 491,300
(ectua�)
2000 12,704,000 473,000 16,714,000 550,200
2005 13,895,000 484,800 18,810,000 575,000
2010 15,030,000 499,900 20,828,000 6Q3,800
2020 16.681,000 520,400 23,774,000 640,200
16,096,100 533,900
19,487,900 596,500
22,879,600 658,900
Not Available Not Available
The FAA and the MAC ab ee that current a�riation activity trends imply the possibility of
more robust growth than was expected in the Baseline Forecast, and a growth rate more
consistent with the MAC High Forecast. However, just as events may be leading to higher
activity Zevels, certain events and factors could also lead to lower activity levels or much
slower growth rate at MSP—for example:
� labor difficulties at Northwest Airlines (Nt�VA);
18
(ScPTcA16ER1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION
hiSP DUA! TR�CK AIRPORT PIANNING PRQCESS
increased maintenance costs (and FAA-imposed maintenance requirements) for the aging
NWA DC-9 fleet; and (
o significant expansion of airfield and terminal facilifies at Detroit on behalf of NWA,
which could divert connecting traffic from MSP.
Since future aviation activity levels at MSP can be influenced by these and other factors
related to regional and nafional economic growth and airline profitability, it is premature to
conclude that recent trends of increased activity represent material changes. Nevertheless,
while preparing the FEIS, the F.AA determined that it was necessary to test the higher
forecast range to determine if it triggered any significant changes for certain environmenfial
impacts or for mitigation strategies. Based on sensitivity analyses using the MAC High
Forecast, the FAA found that there are not any significantly greater impacts using these
higher activity levels. This is especially true for noise impacts, for which the worst-case year
has been determined to be 2005 due to projected changes in the M5P jet aircraft fleet 17
The MAC High Forecast was used to perform additional environmental analyses to
deternzute if any envirorimental thresholds would be exceeded. These sensitivity analyses
are reported in Appendix H of the FEIS and are summarized in Section VI.B of this ROD. The
operat-ions levels set forth in the F.A.A.'s 1993 Capacity Enhancement Plan fall within fihese
higher MAC and FAA TAF 2010 forecast levels, and the delay savings realized from a new
runway at these activity levels further establish the need for the proposed action. Overall,
the PAA concludes that the new runway will permit the airport to effecfively and safely
accommodate existing and projected forecast demand at an acceptable level of delay.
�. Airpor� Demand/Capaciiy
Total annual airport passenger traffic is expected to grow to about 30.1 million by 2010 and
annual aircraft operations are expected to increase to about 500,000 using the MAC Baseline
Forecast and to about 41.7 niillion passengers with 604,000 operations using the MAC High
Forecast. Under the No Action Alternative, it was found that the airport could only handle
about 473,500 annual operafions without excessive delays, and aviation activity demands
would outstrip available capacity. Using a baseline activity level of 420,390 aircraft
operatians, based on annual traffic levels for 1992, the Airport Capacity Design Team in its
Capacity Enhancement Plan estimated annual delays at MSP to be 3.1 minutes per operation at
that time. With future activity levels ranging from 530,000 to 600,000 annual aircraft
operations, the Team determined that if no improvements jvere made in airfield capacity the
average delay per operation wou.ld increase to 7.1 minutes per operation at the lower activity
level and 13.8 minutes per operation at fihe higher operaiions level. With a new north-south
runway, these average delays tivere estimated to decrease to levels just over 3.0 minutes per
operation at the 530,000 aircraft operations level and to 4.8 minutes at the 600,000 level. The
MAC Baseline 2020 Forecast of 520,000 operations and High Forecast of 640,000 fall within
17 fie noise analyses conducted for the Dual Track Process have consislently delermined that 20G5 shouid be e�cted to produce �he wors�-case noise
impacfs after Runway 17135 is conslrucled due lo a higner percentage of �oisier, "hushkittea' Slag� 3 aircraft in 2005. Ur,der (he MACs High Forecasl, lhe
proportion ot hushkitted Stage 3 aircraft opera�ions wili decli�e from ahout 18 percenl in2005 to 0.5 oercenl in 2G10. This reduclion in hushkitted Slage 3
operations offsets the incre2s? in overail operaiions projecled (or 2010, making 2005 the worsl-cas? year for lhe roise analyses. Further analysis of this
issue in regard lo Iorecasl sensilivity, and in response lo comments on fhe FEIS (attached to fhis ROD); has confirmed lha! (ne MAC High Forecast ot
oper2tions at 575,000 by 2005 wouid resull in an overail grealar noise impact lhan wou!d resull iror 750,000 opera,icns, if attainable, in some (ulure year f�
(wilh the relative impacts measured in terms ot the land area and populalion expos2d to various scund levels). �
19
(SEPT�h18ER1993)
FAA RECARD Of DECISION
MSP DUAL TfUCK AIRPORT PL.iN41NG PROGESS
similar ranges of activity and delay reduction as those of the Capacity Enhancement Plan,
with and without the new runway.
C. Economic Considera�ions
MSP is a key economic force within the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area and a major
component of both the regional economy and the national air transportation system. The
airport has 175 flights per day to domestic cities, ll Canadian cities, and 13 European and
Asian destinations. By increasing �he number of nonstop destinations, a connecting hub
increases the frequency of service to individual cities, which decreases travel time and
increases convenience. Good air service is a major consideration in corporate location
decisions and its past and present level of air service has helped to make the Twin Cities and
other Minnesota destinations competitive as business locations. Investments in payroll and
facilities by Northwest Airlines and associated industries further benefit the economy of the
Twin Cities. Reduced travel delays due to the proposed action and the enhanced level of air
service will further the economic development of the State of Miruzesota (see the discussion
of delay reduction at the opening of Section III, above).
IV. Agency Ac�ions
The federal actions and app"rovals required to implement the airport sponsor's proposed
project include: (1) the unconditional approval of the revised Airport Layout Plan (ALP) for
the MAC 2010 LTCP; (2) environmental approval for federal funding under the Airport and
Airway Improvement Act of 1982, now referred to as Title 49 U.S. Code 47101 et seq., as
amended, and determinations under 49 USC 47106 and 47107 and under various executive
orders, (3) determination of potential eligibility for Federal grant-in-aid funds and Passenger
Facility Charge funds for airfield and landside development and environmental mitigation;
(4) replacement, relocation, and operation of navigational aids; and (5) approval to develop
and implement new air traffic control and air space management procedures consistent with
the FEIS.
For the MAC to implement the 2010 LTCP, revisions were required to the ALP, and new uses
of airspace will result. The associated safety elements of the FAA approval actions include:
� Determination of effects upon safe and efficient utilization of airspace (FAR Part 157)
� Determination of conformance iti�ith FAA desib criteria and approval of construction
plans and specifications (AIP grant assurances)
o Determination that the project is in confoxmance �vith the provisions of other applicable
Federal Aviation Regulations (FaR Parts 77 and 169)
o Review and approval of amended Airport Certification Manual (FAR Part 139)
a Establishment of a new Instrument Landing System (ILS), Runway Visual Range (RVR)
equipment, approach lighting system (ALS) and relocation of the VHF omni-directional
range station (VOR).
� Establishment of new flight procedures, includi�-�� visual and instrument procedures,
missed approach procedures, and standard instrument departure (SID) and standard
terminal arrival (STAR) procedures of ne�v rurnva�� 17/35 (FAR Part 95).
20
�c_�-�.��=Ata�;,,
FAA RECORD OF DECISION
MSP DUAI I FACK AIFPORT PLANNLtiG PROCESS
o Designation of controlled airspace and revised routings (FAR Part 71).
o Approval of amendments to the operations specifications of air carriers intending to (.
operate at MSP, which authorize specific routes, types of operations and types of aircraft
for use of the new runway (FAR Parts 121,125, and 135).
In addition, cond.itional ALP approval of the MAC 2020 Concept Plan is addressed in this
ROD. This conditional approval is restricted to the complefion, processing, and concurrence
with further environmental studies and other conditions the FAA determines in its find.ings
(see also Section XI—Agency Decision and Order).
V. Ai�erna�ives Analy►sis
While the FAA does not have the authority to control or direct actions and decisions of the
MA.0 and the Minnesota Legislature in plarutiJlg and implementing the 2010 LTCP, it does
have the authority to withhold approval of the proposed project, use of federal funding, and
oEher actions described in this ROD. Alternafives to the proposed project have been
con.sidered from this standpoint, in terms of their respective performance and resulting
environmental and other impacts. The FAA must be assured that a full array of reasonable
alternatives, including a"No Action' Alternative, has been considered and that there is no
possible, feasible, and prudent alternative to approve federal actions to support the sponsor's
and the FAA's prefened alternative.
Numerous alternatives to the proposed project were examined in the FEIS. Various
altematives were eliminated for a variety of reasons and others were selected for detailed �.
analysis of environmenEal impact on the basis of the achievement of the gaals set out in the .� .
L}ual Track Process.
A. Alterna�ives Considered and Eliminated
Scoping Decisions
The Dual Track Airport Planning Process initiated by the 19s9 passage of the Metropolitan
Airport Plannulg Act provided that the long range assessment of air transportation was to
include both airport improvements at the e�sting airport and the location and development
of a new airport. The MAC and MC were directed by the Minnesota led slature to compare
these and all other Feasible altematives to meet 2020 aviation demand. As detailed in Section
II.0 of this ROD, the scoping process for the EIS was performed in two phases. In April 1992,
a Firsi Pj�ase Scoping Report was prepared which described the Dual Track Process for
identifying the alternatives and the issues and impacts to be addressed in the EIS, including
the Altemative Environmental Document process (AED). This document outlined the plan
for the 3-year scoping/AED process, ��hich evaluated several airport development
altematives using a level-of-detail equivalent to a federal EIS and then selected preferred
configurations for both a New Airport Alternative and a MSP Expansion .Alternative for
evaluation in the Draft EIS. The EIS Scoping Decision document, compleEed in July 1995,
documents the results of that process and is the precursor to the EIS with respect to
identifying feasible alternatives and identifying issues, concerns, and impacts of alternatives
requiring detailed analysis in the EIS.
21
(SEo?!d9ER 1999)
FAA RECORD OF DECIS10h MSP Dt1Al7FACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
The FAA, as the lead federal agency, was directly responsible for federal aspects of the EIS
scoping process, including early coordination with the U.S. EPA and other agencies
� 1 concerning the proposed environmental process. During the multi-year scoping and AED
period, the MAC and the Metropolitan Council devoted substantial resources to the
treatment of alternatives for airport development at the existing airport site and at a new
airport location (see also Section II.C).
As a result of the scoping process, concepts brought forward included: the MSP expansion
alternative, the New Airport alternative, the No Action Alternative, and two additional
concepts. These additional concepts were the Remote Runway Concept and ihe
Supplemental Airport Concept. T'hese five concepts and their variations, along with other
concepts that arase during the Dual Track Process, are discussed below.
During the period when the New Airport Concepts and the MSP Expansion Concepts were
being cansidered, community and agency participation was actively solicited. As described
in Section II.0 of this ROD, the FAA participated actively throughout this pracess by
monitoring the methods and procedures used by the MAC in arriving at a preferred
alternative and through its participation on various committees. At each major milestone,
the FA.A reviewed the scoping and AED process to ensure coverage of a reasonable range of
alternatives.
�ew Airport Concepts
In 1991, the MC desib ated the search areas for consideration for a new airport as required
by the Metropolitan Airport Development Act. The three search areas �vere evaluated for the
development of a new airport usin� 2020 goals established by the MC. Because of excessive
travel time and distance, adverse impacts on various environmental categories, or other
reasons, two of fihe sites were eliminated as not meeting the MC 2020 goals. Based on siting
criteria which included airspace considerations, land requiremenfis, and environmental
impacts, and other needs, the MC designated the Search Axea to be located in Dakota County
for planning and development of a new airport. The process used by the MC in designating
the search area was approved by the Minnesota EQB and was reviewed by the FAA.
Seven potential airport sites were considered in the 115 square mile Search Area designated
by the MC. As a result of the scoping process, four of seven MC sites were eliminated from
further consideration (Sites 1, 4, 5, and 7) and three sites were selected for further study (Sites
2, 3, and 6). The sites that were eliminated had severe impacts on communities in the Search
Area, impacts on wetlands and floodways, and other environmental effects. The IviAC
ultimately selected Site 3 as its preferred choice on the basis of 65 evaluation criteria. Site 3
was lacated east of the Vermillion River and roughly bounded by 170`� Street and the City of
Hastings on the north, U.S. 61 to the east, 220`� Street on the south, and Goodwin Avenue to
the west.
The MAC completed a conceptual design for the new airport, which included variations of
three layouts basically consisting of four parallel runways and two crosswind runways, with
supporting aviation and airport facilities for commercial and military use. A fourth
alternative was developed which drew from the best elements of the three layouts and
mod.ified other aspects to address environ.mental and operational problems. The fourth
altemative, and its site location, was selected as the New Airport Alternative in 1994. The
other altematives were eliminated in the AED evaluation (Final Alternniive Enviranmet2tczl
Document, New Airport Site Selecfion Stuc�y, 1994).
22
(5=_r'TE\i"oEfl1999)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION
NiSP Expansion Concepts
MSP DUAL TFUCK AIflPOAT PtANNING PROCESS
'The Long Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) for MSP, Volume 1, Goa1s, Assumptions and ��
Methodologies incorporated metropolitan planzung goals to guide the development of the
MSP Alternative. As noted in Section III of this ROD (Purpose and Need) and in the FEIS
Section III.C1 (page III-7), these goals, aub ented by objectives, were used to identify the
best configuration for the MSP Alternative.
Initially, more than twenty concepts were reviewed for possible value in adcling capacity to
the existing MSP airport. Detailed computer simulations of the delay reductions were
completed for each concept, and each was evaluated based on a range of envirorunental
factors. An interactive planning group was formed to provide extensive input for this
evaluation. Ultimately, six MSP concepts were selected for more detailed evaluation based
on their performance characteristics, feasibility, and environmental impacts. The six
concepts were then more fully evaluated while preparing the MSP LTCP. They were also the
subject of more detailed environmental analysis. As a result of these processes, "Concept 6"
(the addition of new Runway 17/35 and, ultimately, a new west terminal) was selected as the
preferred MSP 2020 Concept Plan and the five remaining concepts were eliminated from
further considerafion.18 � '
Concepts 1 and 2 had a new 7,700-foot north-parallel runway (12/30), either with or without a
new west terminal. T'hese concepts were not retained for detailed study after the final MSP
scoping evaluation (1995) for the following reasons:
'The north-south runway in Concept 6 provides more capacity than a north parallel
runway. The 800-foot separation between the proposed north parallel runway and
Runway 12L/30R would result in heavy aircraft wake/turbulence dependence, and ;�` �
would limit usability in poor weather. The proposed north-south runway would provide ��
a delay savings of $4.6 million annually compared to the third parallel runway, when
operations reach 530,000, according to the FAA Capacity Enhltncemenf Plan. If operations
reach 600,000, there would be a delay savings of �7.1 million annually with the norfh-
south runway as cornpared to the third parallel runway.
o The north parallel runway would demolish contributing components of both the Fort
Snelling National Landmark Historic District and the Old Fort Snelling National Reo ster
Historic District19 and would require the use (i.e., acquisition for airport purposes) of a
Section 4(� 9-hale golf course and Bossen Field, a Section 4(f) park.
� The north parallel runway would displace 601 more residents compared to Concept 6,'-0
and place 440 more monthly flights at altitudes less than 500 feet over lakes near MSP
where birds conb egate (considering the MAC Baseline Forecast of 2020 operations).
18 The Draft and Final AEDs for the MSP LTCP evalualed Concepls 1, 2, 5, and 6 in detaii. Ccncepts 1 and 2 involved a north prallel runway and
concepts 5 and 6 invoived lhe pre(erred 5,000 toot Runway 17135. Concepts 3 and 4, wt�ich involv2d a sou�h paraliel runway, were also developed and
evalualed during the eariy scoping process, bul were eliminaled from iurther study in the MSP LTCP Scoping Decisicn Document (March 1994) due to
signi(icanf operalional, safety, and capacity deficiencies, as well as greater adverse r�oise impacls 2nd numerous F�hysical c:r�slr�inls.
� 9 The Fort Snelling Nalional Hisloric Landmark Dislncl is part of ihe Old Fort Sneliing Historic District. �n order to conslrucf a no�th parailei runway, af leasl
nine 19" century officers' quarters and three eniisted men's barracks would have lo b2 demolished. Fo�t Snelling is one of the mosl signiiicant historic siies
in the s(ale ot Minnesota. While damage to Nalional Regisfer properties is discouraged under Sxfion 106 ot fhe Nalionai Hisforic Preservalion Act, National
Historic Landmarks are afforded substanlialiy grealer proleclion under 5eclicn 110 of the s2me act. Avoidance of demoliten is always Ihe prefeRed
preservalion aftemalive under Sections 106, 110, and 4(�. Relcc2lion ot the affected strucfures in Ihis instance is nol a vi2bie option (or mi�igalion because
if wouid destroy lhe integrity ot the localion of Ihe sWclures and thereby compromis� the hisroric signrficance ot the lardm2rk districl.
20 The AED noise analysis showed lhal lhere would be an increase of 720 individuais aYected by 2i;craft noise in ine DNL E�+ noise conlour as a resuit ot �� �
(continued on nea� page)
23
(sEPr�ti+e�ats�s;
FAA AECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TW1CX AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
Based on these comparisons, the concepts involving a north-parallel runway were not
considered feasible and prudent alternatives for adding one new runway to the MSP airfield.
i When compared to the proposed action (the north-sauth runivay), the north-parallel
concepts would result in more extensive environmental impacts, as documented in the AEDs
and the FEIS.zl
In addition, the north-parallel runway is not a reasonable concept because it requires a
change in state legislation enacted on Apri12,1996 (see FEI5 Appendix A.14). Specifically,
Subdivision 28 of that legislation requires that the MAC enter into a contract with each
affected city agreeing to not construct a third parallel runway at MSP without approval from
the affected cities (Minneapolis, Eagan, and Mendota Heights). The contract fihat the MAC
has entered into with the City of Mendota Heights pursuant to the legislation provides that
the MAC shall not affirmatively advocate construction af a third parallel runway prior to
December 31, 2020 (Contract Pertainirig fo Limits on Construction of a Third Parallel Ricnway;
signed by MAC and the City of Mendota Heights on December 23,1996). T'he same contract
states that the MAC shall not, without the approval of the City, construct a third parallel
runway during the period for which the contract is effective (this period is at least through
December 31, 2020, but there are automatic renewal clauses through December 31, 2050).
The terms of the Mendota Heights contract also state that the City shall take no action to
oppose the planning and construction of the new north-south runway.
T'he detaiLs af similar contracts with the Cities of Minneapolis and Eagan are still being
finalized, and will address the same issues as the contract entered into by MAC and the City
of Mendota Heights.
Concepts 3 and 4 had a new 8,000-foot south-parallel runway (12/30), either with or without a
i new west terminal. These concepts are also not considered feasible and prudent and were
'� eliminated during the early AED/scoping process for the following reasons:
0 Sib ficant operational problems, safety concems, and minimal capacity expansion
compared to Concept 6 are caused by the close proximity of the Fort Snelling National
Cemetery; the cemetery boundary and tenain would require a stagger of about 5,000 feet
between the proposed runway end and exi.sti.ng Runway 12R/30L.
� Cornpared to Concept 6, the south parallel runivay would subject 10,000 more residents
to aircraft noise levels greater than DNL 60.
This combination of minimal benefit and greater em°ironmental impacts caused the FA.A and
the MAC to conclude that the south-parallel runway concepts are also not feasible and
prudent. Compared to the proposed north-south runway, the addition of a south-parallel
runway would involve higher costs, �'eater residential impacts, and more
operational/capacity constzaints.
--
the proposed north-south runway, as ccmpared �o a north F2�ilel runw2y. However, the proposed nc��th—south runway wouid a#fect 2,310 fewer people in
�he DNL 60+ contour in Eagan, Bloomingtcn, Inver Grove Heights, Mendata Heights ar.fl Ricnfieid. P�rsuanl to ezriy scoping input and the April 2, 1996,
Iegislalion, MAC considered the DNl 60 conlour for impacl �rnparisans ihroughout the Duai Track Precess, and ir�corporaled that contour into fhe MACs
noise mitiga�ion program for this project.
21 The full extent o( noise impacts on U�e Minnesota Vzliey "l2tional Wilol7? Reluge vns rct fuily acdressed in Ihe AEDs althAugh USFWS staff were
represenled on 1he Technical Advisory Commitiee. While tr= rorlh car�llel runway aitarr�tive wouhJ avoid the adverse impacls on Ihe Refuge, there is r�o
plausible altemative lo the proposed norlh-south runway, icr �ne reasons summar'¢ed in �his secticn. For more infcrm2tion, see the resFanses lo ccmments
on the FEIS and the Seclion 4(f) Evalualicn (Attachment A).
24
(Sc=��+aEa�s��!
FAA RcCORD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TFLICK AIRPORT PIANNING PROCESS
Concept 5 had the north-south runtivay and an additional passenger terminal east of the
e�sting terminal. This concept was eliminated during the final MSP scoping evaluation ''
(1995) because it would be less convenient for passenger gate access and parking, less
efficient for baggage transfer, less efficient for reb onal and international connecting
passengers, offers less flexibility for the use of gates by different types of aircraft, and would
create more conflicts in aircraft circulation. In terms of environmental impacts, this
alternative involves the same runway configuration as the proposed action—the 2010 LTCP.
Therefore, it involves similaz environmental impac�s as Concept 6(the preferred 2010 LTCP).
However, the eastern terminal included in Concept 5 would not provide sufficient benefits to
warrant its inclusion in a langer-term airport development plan.
Given future airfield/terminal demands and constraints, it was concluded that only two
locations for a terminal at MSP are feasibie; they are the location of the existing Linclbergh
Terminal and the proposed location of the new west terminal, southeast of the TH 62/77
interchange—at the site of the Original Wold Chamberlain Terminal Historic District.
Continued use of the Lindbergh Terminal under the projected airport capacity requirements
for the year 2020 will require the construcfion of additional aircraft gates.2'- It was found that
the only feasible location for tYiose gates would be the site now occupied by the historic
terminal camplex. In fact, either phase of the airport's development—involving additional
aircraft gates for the existing terminal or a new terminal—will result in unavoidable
demolition impacts within the Or o°�inal Wold Chamberlain Terminal Historic L}isfrict.
Other Concepts
High-Speed Intercity Rail. In 1991, the Minnesota Departrnent of Transportation
(Mn/DOT) performed a study of fihe implications of high-speed rail alternatives on air traffic ,- �` ��
in the Minneapolis-St. Paul, Madison, Milwaukee, and Chicago corridor. Rail technology `� �-
with operating speeds of 125,185, and 300 mph were considered. The purpose of this
altemaiive was to retain the existing MSP and divert sufficient passengers and aircraft
operaiions from air to rail service so that a new runway and terrninal facilities would not be
needed at the airport. The results of the study show that rail service wou.id not redirect
enough passengers and operations from air travel to preclude a ne�v runway and terminal at
MSP.
Remote Runway. In concept, this alternative would retain the terminal area ticketing,
baggage, and support facilities at ivSSP and new gates and runways tivould be constructed at
a remote airfield location in Dakota County. A high-speed transit link would connect the
MSP terminal with the new gates. The purpose of this alternative was to retain the ground
accessibility and exisiing development related to IviSP, while moving the airfield activity and
effects to a remoEe location.
A study of this alternative was completed in 1995.'-3 Results of the study showed that the
high-speed transit link between MSP and the remote runways would have adverse
environmental impacts (especially due to potential relocations and other social impacts) and
would disrupt service on more than 151ocal roadways. T'his proposal wou.ld also introduce
� �imited modificalions o( the exisling Lindbergh terminal, including he addifion of sa�na gz�es, are reasonahle ac�ions for Ihe short-term. However, the
FAA recognizes lhal a sign'rficant bng•Ierm mod'rficaficn/ex�nsion of fhe Lir,dbergh temir2l is noI �nsisfenl with the 2020 Concept Plan, which
recommends a new terminal. Thereiore, a significant ex;�nsion of the Lirdbergh Temirzi to serve nee�ds 6eycnd 2010 will undergo any required additional
state and federal environmental reviews and approvais. �� �
23 Tumer Collie 8 Braden, July 1995, Aemot? Runway C�rCnOf FB3�ioil'ry Sludy
25
(S�aT�:i�cRi99�;
FAA RECARD OF DECISION MSP DtJAL TRACK AIAPORT PLANNING PROCESS
adverse aircraft noise into Dakota County without relocati.rtg the economic benefits and tax
base. There were additional concerns that this split concept could eventually lead to
passenger support facilities also developing at the new airfield site, resulting in a dual airport
system. This alternative was dismissed on the basis of these and other inefficiencies, and
because the cost of this altemative was determined to be slightly greater than the New
Airport alternative_
Supplemental Airport. The objecti�Te of ttus alternative was to accommodaEe future demand
at MSP without the need for major airfield and termi.nal additions by retainu�g the ground
accessibility characteristics of MSP for most passengers without requiring extensive
additional development. Certain components that constitute aviation demand (mi]itary
operations, cargo activity, international operations, and general aviation) would be shifted to
another existing airport in the state, primarily at Rochester Internafional Airport; Rochester,
Minnesota.
In analyzing this alternative, it was deiermined that shifti.ng operations of military, cargo,
general aviation, and international operations, would have little impact on traffic levels and
airport delays at MSP because of either the small amount of activity generated by these
operators or the off-peak schedrxling of some of these operations. Increased travel time and
inconvenience in connecting large numbers of transferring international or commuter
passengers between airports reduced the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the MSP hub,
also making this an infeasible concept. None of the supplemental airport concepts would
defer Ehe need for major expansion at MSP.
Northwest Airlines Concept 6A. In January of 1996, Northwest Airlines (NWA) proposed a
�' concept for YISP expansion referred to as Concept 6A. This was a phased development
�___ program intended to address the existing to 20 year needs forecast for MSP in a cost-effective
manner. Concept 6A focused on expanding the existing Lindbergh Terminal to supply the
forecast demand for terminal acfivities, while an earlier proposed Concept 6 provided for a
replacement West Terminal.
The NWA's Concept 6A is very similar to MAC's 2010 LTCP, with similar environmental
impacts. The MSP 2020 Concept Plan differs considerably from the NWA Concept 6A plan
because of the new terminal; but both plans are based upon development phasing dependent
on demand and the MAC and NWA agree that the 2010 terminal development needs can be
met by an incremental expansion program for the Lindbergh Terminal. Needs through 2020
can possibly be met by this development as well, although development beyond 2010 is less
certain due to the inherent difficulties in forecasting activity so far into the future.'-� MAC
and NWA agree that a 2020 Concept Plan, showing the possibility of a new West Terminal
with the existing Lindbergh Terminal complex reconfigured into linear gate concourses (2020
Concept Plan), should be used as a basis for envirorunental analysis and planning. This is
because it shows the ma�mum impact of terminal development at IViSP and provides for the
development of the north-south runway and 2010 terminal expansion. If a new terminal is
justified at some point in the future, favorable completion of the planriing, airspace, and
environmental reviews will allow development to proceed based on the concurrence by all
parties, including the Minnesota Lea slature.
2a As fcolnoted previously, a signiticanf e�ansion of the L �,dbergh TeRninal Io serve needs twyor�i 2010 may require additional (ederl environmenlai
(, ' reviews and approvals.
26
(5E?7`c!d8ER1998;
MS? CUAI `I PACK AIP.PORT PLANNING PROCESS
FAA RECORD OF DECISION
B. Al�ernatives Considered in Detail
New Airpori Alternative
The MAC and MC, as the agencies desib ated by the Minnesota state leb slature as
responsible for implementation of the Dual Track Airport Pl�nning Process, identified a
search area in Dakota County and then identified alternakive locations within the search area
for a new airport. Three of the alternatives were fu11y evaluated and a specific site was
selected for a potential new airport. The airfield for the New Airport .Alternative, which was
developed from this process, was a hybrid of three earlier airfield altematives. It included
four parallel runways and two crosswind runways surrounding a centrally located Eerminal
on approximately 14,100 acxes of land. A full array of airport and airline support facilities,
and ground access needs were provided in the airport layout. T'he process for developing a
New Airport Comprehensive Plan spanned nearly six years and included four major tasks;
developing a conceptual airport layout, desib ating a search area, selecting a site in the
search area, and developing a comprehensive plan for the site. Throughout this period, the
FA.A participated actively, through representation on the New Airport Techn.ical Committee
and by evaluating airspace and safety issues to ensure that the New Airport Alternaiive was
a feasible concept. The results of the site and environmental investigations were reported in
the New Airport AED (New Airport Comprehensive Plan: Final Alternative Environmental
Document, April 1995).
IJltimately, a preferred site/layout for a New Airport Alternative was evaluated in detail
with the Draft EIS (December 1995), and it -cvas compared wifih the MSP and No Action
Alternatives. The FAA prepared the DEIS jointly ��ith the MAC, and careEully considered
the merits of both the New Airport Alternative and the MSP .Alternative, as well as
comments received on the DEIS. In March 1996, the MAC and MC made their
recommendations to the State Led lature, as required by the process, in consultation wi.th
the FAA. In comparing the MSP Alternative to the Netiv Airport Alternative, the MA.0 and
the MC highlighted several differences of environmental significance, inclucling these:
a The New Airport Alternative would result in the physical destruction of more than 6,800
acres of wildlife habitat due to the placement of airport facilities, as compared to the loss
of about 360 acres under the IvSSP Alternative.
� The Netiv Airport would invoh-e the acquisition of 17,000 acres of farmland while no
farmland would be affected by the MSP Alternative•
o The New Airport would displace 1,132 residents �4�hereas the Iv1SP Altemative tivould
displace 383 residents.
a The New Airport Alternative tivould result in major induced development impact within
an area that is mostly rural and not served by urban infrastructure. The MSP Alternative
can be served by existi.ng inh'astructure area and is more consistent with the region's
development plans.
a The average travel times for T�+��in Cities residents to the New Airport would be about 20
minutes langer than to the existing MSP Airport site.
The MAC and the MC also concluded that the MAC's High Forecast of aircraft opexations
(640,000 annual operations) can be accommodated at �iSP with the addition of the single
27
(s_�r�:+e�aiss';
FAA RECORD OF DECISION �ASP DUAL TRACK AIflPCRT PLINNING PROCESS
new runway. Following the DEIS comment period, the MAC and MC fulfilled their
statutory obligations under the original Dual Track legislation and made their
recommendation to select the MSP Expansion Alternative in the Report to the Legislature ��
(March 1996). The findings that resulted in the eliminatian of the New Airport Alternative
and the selection of the MSP .Alternative were based on the following evaluation criteria: (1)
airport operational issues, (2) ground access issues, (3) economic impacts, (4) financial issues,
(5) environmental impac�s, and (6) flexibilify issues. In April 1996, the Minnesota Legislature
considered these recommendations and the comprehensive planning documents and their
environmental effects and eliminated the New .Airport Alternative from further
consideration, which arguably eliminated the need for detailed evaluation in the FEIS.
Therefore, the New Airport Alternative is not a reasonable alternative to the extent that it
requires a change in Minnesota law.
The FAA has also concluded that the New .Airport Alternative is not a reasonable or possible,
prudent and feasible alternafive warranting detailed study in the FEIS. Even though aspects
of the New Airport Alternative could have been techni.cally feasible, the FAA finds that it did
not appear to be financially feasible. Furthermore, the FAA daes not consider the New
Airport Alternative to be prudent because of a widespread record of opposition to this
alternative. 'lfiis is based upon review and consideration of testimony at public hearings,
comments submitted in response to the DEIS, and coordination throughout the Dual Track
Process with federal, state, and local agencies. T'he FAA also considered MAC's desire for
flexibility to respond to chand g demand through expansion at MSP rather than a new
airport.
Under the Dual Track Airport Pl�n.nulg Process, the Minnesota Leb lafure, and the MAC, as
the sponsor and airport proprietor, have the fundamental role of deciding how to safisfy
aviation demand in the Twin Cities area and to determine the approach to the
implementation of their selection. The FAA reco�anizes that the selection of the MSP
Alternative by the Minnesota Leb slature as the prefened alternative was not simply the
result of technical evaluaiions and environmental impacts, but was strongly influenced by
public opinion, political negotiations, economic factors, and airline involvement. Based on
fihis, fihe FAA independently reviewed the New Airport Alternative and determined that it
was not a feasible or prudent alternative �varranting further detailed study in the FEIS as a
matter of federal law. The FAA considered as a factor bearrng on reasonableness, but not as
dispositive, the decision of the State Le� slature to reject the New AirporE Alternative.
NiSP Ex�ansion Aliernative (2010 LTCP and 2020 Concept Pian)
The MSP Expansion Alternative consists of the Long Term Comprehensive Plan for the year
2010 and the year 2020 Concept Plan. The 2010 LTCP is the first phase of the 2020 Concept
Plan and includes the construction of a new 8,000 foot north-south runway, and the
replacement of maintenance, cargo, and aircraft han�er facilities. Ground transportation
improvements would be modified to the TH 77 and 6b�' Sfreet interchange and airport
frontage road. The major feature of ihe 2020 Concept Plan, in addition to the developments
resulting from the completion of the 2010 LTCP, is a new replacement terminal building,
parking and drop-off facility on the east side of the airport, and addiiional air cargo and
maintenance facilities. T'here are substantial ground transportation access improvements,
including interchange development and road�vay widening to serve the ne�v west side
terminal in the 2020 Concept Plan. The proposed action for federal approval is fhe 2010 /"
LTCP. �
�a
{Star�naERt sse)
MSP DUAITfWCKAIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
Fr1A RECOFD OF DECISION
The complete MSP 2010 LTCP expansion alternative consists of the following elements:
• A new 8,000-foot north-south Runway 17/35 located on the west side of the airport.
Associated taxiways and a holding/deicing pad at the north end would be developed to
serve the new runway•
e Acquisition of residential property, as well as the Doubletree Grand, Sheraton and Excel
Inn hotels and other commercial properties.
� New holding and deicing pads for Runways 12R, 30L and 30R
a Enhanced storm water detention basins
� Expansion of the Red, Gold, and Green concourses in the Lindbergh Terminal
e A new people mover in the Green concourse
� The realigrunent and widening of the airport frontage road between 66�' Street and 34`h
Avenue South
� Reconstruction of TH 77 and the 66�' Street interchange
0 Relocation and construction of maintenance, aircraft hanger and air cargo facilities to
facilitate new runway development
� Consfruction of new apron paving in locations around the terminal area and on the
airfield
The proposed federal acfion also includes the FAA Division actions noted in Section II.A of =
this ROD.
The 2010 LTCP selected for MSP development and detailed environmental evaluation
offered the least significant operational, noise and environmental concerns while meeting the
purpose and need of the project. As the first phase of the 2020 Concept Plan, the 2010 LTCP
can also accommodate longer-term needs in a manner consistent with the analyses contained
in the FEIS.
The MSP Alternative was evaluated in detail in the DEIS and FEIS, and was recommended to
the Minnesota Leb slature by the MAC and the MC for development of M5P to meet the
region's needs, for both 2010 and 2020. In respondin� to the joint recommendation of the
MAC and the MC, the Minnesota leo slature passed legislahon, approved by the governor,
which found that development of a new airport is not a prudent alternadve to the expansion
of MSP. On Apri12,1996, the Le�islatuxe directed the MAC to implement the MSP 2010
LTCP.
The FAA concluded that the MACs analysis of the Iv�ISP Alternative (both the 2010 LTCP and
the 2020 Concept Plan) was reasonable and sound, and considers the new terminal and other
elements of that plan reasonable features to include in a later phase of the airport's
development. However, the FAA has conditioned the 2020 ALP approval on the outcome of
additional environmental studies (see also Section XI—Agency Decision and Order). As
noted above under the "New Airport Aternative, the FAA has also advised the MAC that
„
the April 19961ee slative directizTe did not prejudbe the analysis of alternatives in the EIS
pursuant to 40 CFR 150b.L
29
(5�?i_`.16ERi995)
FAA RECOFID OF DECISION
I�o Action Alternative
MSP QUA! TW1CK AIP.PORT PLINNING PROCESS
The No Action Alterna�ive consists of the existing airport facilities and access at MSP, and
committed projects with funding approved for construction by the MAC in its cu.rrent
Capital Improvement Program whirh are not associated with the implemenEation of a new
north-south runway. The No Aciion Alternative is the baseline envi_ronmental condition
against which the environmental impacts of other alternatives were evaluated. The
committed major projects included in this alternative are:
� Pavement rehabilitation of Runways 12/30
a Runway 12L holding/deicing pad
� Auto rental/parking expansion
• New automated underground people mover connecting parking ramps to main terminal
o A new skyway connector between the Green and Gold concourses
� Reconstruction of the HHI� Terminal
o New Sun Country hanger
e New Taxiway W
+ Increased use of Runway 4/22 runway use system
The No Action Alternative would result in operational flexibility at MSP remaining largely as
it is today. Aircraft operations would be distributed amang the runways in a similar manner
as currently occurs although the number of operations would increase. Landside needs for
surface transportation and terminal area to alleviate passenger congestion and inconvenience
would not be remedied. Under some circumstances, surface water quality affected by
aircraft deicing and fihe lack of storm water detention basins wauld worsen environmental
conditions on the airport. Air quality impacts would also worsen due to operational delays. �
A complete summary of the environmental impacts described within the FEIS is provided
within Section VI.A of this ROD, below. The FEIS also includes impact summaries within the
Executive Summary and within Appendix H—Sensitivity of Impact Cafegories to MAC High
Forecast.
Although the No Action Alternative is the least disruptive alternative in terms of
development impacts, it would fail to solve the capacity needs and delays existing at MSP.
Therefore, it disregazds the purpose and need set out in the Dual Track Airport Planiung
Process to provide for the efficient and economical movement of people and goods into and
out of the Twin Cities region. It fails to address the critical elements of the long-range goals
mandated by the Minnesota Legislature and described and analyzed in the FEIS. Both the
MAC and the FAA have independently concluded that without substantial airfield, terminal
and access improvements, future b owth in aviation activit�� at MSP will significantly
decrease the level of service and increase user costs. For these reasons, the No Action
Alternative is not supported by the FAA.
C. S�onsor Preferred Alt�rnatiye
The MAC's preferred long-term airport development alternative is the 2020 Concept Plan,
wh.ich primarily consists of a new 8000-foot north-south runway, replacement west terminal,
and associated airport facilities and roadways. This proposed alternative incorporates input
from the community, other state and federal agencies, and the FAA. This recommendation
tivas given to the Miiulesota Legislature in the sprin� of 1996 for their selection of an � ,
alternative, as ordained by the Metropolitan Airpart Planning Act of 19s9. As previously �.
30
(S=?TEMBER19c�)
FAA RECORD OF DECISlON
MSP DUA: TRACK AIRPORT PtANNING PROCESS
noted, the Miruzesota Legislature passed led slation (April 2, 1996) authorizing the MAC to
;" implement only the MSP 2010 LTCP, the first phase of the 2020 Concept Plan. The legislation
mandated that no further consideration of the New Airport .Alternative be given, and that
development of the west terminal only be allowed with further legislative approval at such
time as capacity deemed it necessary
D. Environmenially Preferred Aiternative
The environmentally preferable alternative is the alternaiive that promotes the national
environmental policy expressed in Section 101 of the NEPA. It is the alternaiive that causes
the least damage to the biolo� cal and physical environment and best protects, preserves, and
enhances historic culiural and natural resources. The FAA and MAC preferred alternative
(hereinafter "MAC Preferred Alternative ) would slightly increase the number of individuals
significantly affected by aircraft noise,
� displace approximately 227 more people, and use
approximately 1,083 more acres of the Muulesota Valley Wildlife Refuge and 33 more acres
of wetlands over the No Action Alternative. But it also would result in irnprovements in air
quality, water guality, energy consumption, and some benefit in economic activity. Water
and air quality impacts in particular would decrease as aircraft delays decrease, preventing
damage to resources that would otherwise occur without the proposed project, with
increased aviation activity. The IviAC Preferred Alternative would reduce aircraft delays and
haxmfu.l increases in carbon monoxide (CO) emissions in an area desib ated nonattainment
for CO. It would also reduce fuel usage in 2010 by 6 million gallons per year. It would
further decrease deicing associated with aircraft delays and deicing facilities would reduce
daily CBOD;discharge from deiring by 1,300 pounds per day and sia fican#ly improve
surface water quality.
There are differences in environmental effects between the build and no-build alternatives.
The MAC Prefened Alternative has beneficial transportafion improvements and fuel energy
savings, and positive air and water quality effects, which outcveigh its adverse noise,
wetland, and Seciion 4( fl impacts. Although the MAC Preferred Alternative would result in
impacts to the environment, all potentially significant adverse impacts would be ameliorated
by appropriate mitigation. The No Action Alternative might appear to be envirorunentally
preferable because it results in fewer developmental impacts. Yet, it results in significant
damage to the biological environment. Although admittedly a difficult judgement, after
balancing the value of air and water quality improvements against developmental impacts,
the FAA determined that the MAC Preferred Alternative is the environmentally preferred
altemative.
E. �elec�ed Alternative
The FAA has completed appropriate aviation technical revie�v and has concluded that the
proposed project in the MSP 2010 LTCP can be implemented and is consistent with
considerations of safety, efficiency and utility. The FAA has also considered the fact that the
sponsor's preferred alternafiive e�-aluated in the FEIS has undergone extensive public
scrutiny; thxough an involvement process that has included numerous public hearings and
25 Tne FAA uses DNL 65dBA as the standard of significance ior noise impzcts on res�er�tial iand usas in accorcarce wilh FAA ONer 5050.4A ar�d 14 CFR
Pzrt 150. The MAC preferred aitemative wouid increase by ?00 !he number of individuals a�i?cted by noise in tne DN� 65+ noise contour in 2005.
Hcvr?ver, aircraft noise a8ecls far fewer people in Ihe DNL "00-05 centour st that lime. Tr,e number cf i^dividuals experiencing DNL 60-65 in 2005 wouid
decline by approxima(eIy 5,600.
31
(SEPicld9ER1998)
FAA flECORD OF DECIS�ON MSP DUAL TfUCK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
extensive public participation, par�icipation with multiple and diverse task force and
technical committees, involvement in government agency participation at the local, state and
federal levels, and direct involvement with the Minnesota Legislature, all occurring over a
period of nearly 10 years. Additionally, the FAA has considered that MSP officials, along
with the FAA, have conducted ongoing negotiations with airport neighbors including
communities, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and others, to resolve issues
regarding impacts identified in the FEIS. Finally, the FAA has participated in and directed
the addition of environmental analyses to assure that the MSP proposed action has been
accurately and thoroughly reported.
After careful consideration of the analysis of the unpacts of altematives, and of the ability of
these alternatives to satisfy the identified purpose and need for this proposal; and after
review and consideration of the testimony at public hearings, of comments submitted in
response to the circulation of the DEIS and FEIS, and of coordination with federal, state, and
local agencies; the FAA finds the MSP 2010 LTCP identified in the Final EIS to be an
acceptable and reasonable alternative to meet the purpose and need for satisfying current
and future aviation in the Twin Cities area.
:�: , . . . �' � ` �,' �
� - .: "� .. :
The Alternative Environmental Review Process approved by the Minnesota Environmental
Quality Board (EQB) for the L?ual Track Airport Planning Process in March 1992 required the
assessment of environmental 'unpac�s of the alternatives to fihe year 2020. The issues and
impact categories analyzed in the Alternative Environmental Documents (AEDs) were
determined from the EQB-required scoping process as those wananting detailed analysis in ��
order to compare alternatives. The EQB scoping procedures allow for the elimination of
issues and impact categories if they are not relevant or so minor that they did not need to be
addressed. Overall, the environmental process addressed an increasing number of
environmental impact categories, to ultimately indude several more impact categories than
required by FAA 4rder 5050.4A. t�s a result, this process satisfied FAA requirements for
determi.ning if envirorunental consequences will result from the proposed action. The
published FEIS satisfies the reporting requirements for boEh state and federal purposes and
meets applicable state and national policy acts for evaluating environmental impacts. This
joint preparation approach has been taken to reduce duplication between state and federal
reporting requirements (40 CFR 1506.2, Minnesota EQB, 4�10.3900, Subpart 1).
A. Sut�mary of Findings by Each Impact �afiegary
This section contains a brief summary of the principal findings relative to environmental
consequences of the impact categories that have been examined. More detailed descriptions
of the evaluations for these environmental categories can be found in the FEIS, Section V.,
"Environmental Consequences."'-6
Air Quality. Criteria pollutants are those for which ambient air quality standards have been
established by the U.S. Environmental Protecizon Agency and the Minnesota Pollution
26 The subsec�ions below are presented in Ihe same crcar used in the FeiS, which �h�2s based primarily on alphabelical order. Although lhis is a difleren!
s?quence than lypically used for an FAA environme�tal s;ud/, 2nd witnin various FAA orders, all environmenlal impacl categories in FAA Orders 1050.1 D
2nd 5050.4A have been addressed, along wilh some cdd�aonal slate-raquired catecJories. inis use of a differenl order is not material and provides a (
reasonable index system for 1he readers convenience. �,
32
(��PT"cf,l°�?, i 998)
FAA RECORD OF DEGSION MSP DUAL TW1CK AIRPOR7 PLANNING PROCESS
Control Agency, and which have been identified by the FAA as potential critical pollutants
associated with airports. The two criteria pollutants that are considered critical at MSP are
' ' Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Sulfur Ilioxide (S(bZ). MSP is located within the designated CO
Non-Attainment area and is in a Maintenance Area for SO,. The on-airport sources for these
pollutants include aircraft and ground support equipment, motor vehicles, and stationary
sources such as boilers and fuel storage facilities.
Annual pollutant emissions are estimated in the FEIS for the years 2005 and 2020 for on-
airport sources using the FAA's Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS) model.
The year 2005 was accepted by the FAA and U.S. EPA since it would be the first year of
operation for the New Airport Altemative under consideration at the time. The 2005 and
2020 times were also consistent with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency emissions
inventory. The EDMS model compared the emissions levels of the total annual emissions
directly caused by the MSP proposed project to the de minimis thresholds of 100 tons per
year for CO and SO„ and also predicted pollutant concentrations for peak haur on-airport
activity for 1-hour and 8-hour increments. In addition, analysis was conducted for off-site
residential areas and highway locations.
The de minimis limit of 100 tons per year is not exceeded at MSP for the 2010 LTCP, based on
either the Baseline or High Forecast; therefore, mitigation of CO and SOZ emissions is not
required. All peak-hour concentrations are well belo`v applicable standards. The MAC and
F.AA have determined that the proposed project conforms ta the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990 and the MSP 2010 LTCP would not have adverse impacts on aix quality. The MAC
High Forecast Sensitiviiy .Analysis (FEIS Appendix H), however, indicated that miiigation
measures would be requi.red based on the High Forecast 2020 level of operations; and __
Appendix H noted that it is feasible to accomplish any required mitigation through the
conversion of ground service equipment to either natural gas fuel or electricity. The need for
such mitigation to address the 2Q20 High Forecast future can be determined later, as part of
possible environmental studies for fiirther consideration of the 2020 Concept Plan. The
Governor of Minnesota has certified that the proposed project will comply with all applicable
air quality standards in a certification letter contained in Appendix K of the FEIS.
Archaeological Resources. Investigations have been conducted within undisturbed or
minimally disturbed portions of MSP and have not identified any sites that are eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places. .As yet urudentified archaeological resources
in constructed portions of the airport or in the area �vhich could be impacted by the proposed
project will be mitigated according to a data recovery plan developed by the MAC in
consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office and subject to the approval of the
FAA.
Biotic Communities. Biotic communities, considered to be fish, vegetation and wildlife, are
subject to fecleral standards and guidelines set forth in regulations for the protection of
wetlands and threatened and enda�zgered spedes. A nuxnber of bird species use MSP and
wetland systems comprise the most si�nificant wildlife habitat on the airport and are
addressed as a separate topic in tht FEIS. Mother Lake nad been designated by the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resource's (IvfDNR) Heritage and Nongame Research Prab am as a
colonial waterbird nesting site due to its lonb term use by Forster's terns, a state special
concern species.
33
(SEPic6!ocR iy?o'�
FAr1 RECORD OF DECISION MSP OUAL TRACK AIRPORT PIANNING PFOCESS
The 2020 Concept Plan entails the placement of the NiSP west terminal in a location tivhere
construction of a number of bridge structures would be required to allow vehicular access to
the terminal. These structures would require piers into Mother Lake and the placement of
bridge deck and resulting shadow over approximafiely 12 acres of wetland vegeEation.
Preceding the terminal development, the 2010 LTCP requires placement of fill in about 11.4
acres of Mother Lake for a runway safety area and access road off the end of the new north-
south runway. Both fihe MSP 2Q10 LTCP and 2020 Concept plan would raise and stabilize
the average water levels due to additional runoff on the airport, serving to possibly improve
habitat through inEerspersion of vegetation and open water. This could improve the success
of Forster's tern nests that are initiaEed there. Wildlife using habitats around MSP could incur
noise impacts due to the redistribution of flights resulting from use of the new runway.
Due to various spatial constraints, the filling of wetlands to construct the north safety area for
the norfih-south runway is an unavoidable impact of the proposed project. Shift-ing the safety
area out of Mother Lake would require the runway to be moved soufih or shortened. The
position of the 8,000-foot runway's south end is fixed by the location of I-494. Shortening the
runway would cause operational limitations and would be inconsistent with the facility
requirements set forfih in the MSP 2010 LTCP.
Bird-Aircraft Hazard. While not listed as an impact category in FAA guidelines, in response
to comments by the USFWS, the FA.A and MA.0 included an analysis af bird hazards in the
Draft EIS. .An investigation of potential bird-aircraft hazards is prudent when siting new
aviation facilities in the vianity of bird aitractants. Based an the analysis of bird
concentrations and attractions in the vicinity of MSP, available data does not indicate a clear
distribution pattern sufficient to ascribe incidents of specific bird concentration areas and no
clear hazard distribu�ion could be determined.
In response to USF4VS questions and concerns about the FEIS, the FAA and MAC carefully
checked the bird-aircraft hazard analysis contained in the FEIS—especially in Table D-5, on
page V-33. This process included re-analyzing predicted flight profiles over bird
concentrations, resulting in the conected table, shown belo�v as Table 2.
7able 2(corrected FEIS Table D-5) — Summary of Monthly Jet Aircraft Overflights of Bird Concentration
Areas
Aititude MSP 2D20' MSP 20i0' No Action Alternative'
AGL 2010! 2420
<500 Ft.
500-2000 Ft.
>2000 Ft.
kriL GC� LML ' ML
2,080 3,150 0 ( 1,940
2,150 2,360 4,600 � 1,990
0 1,040
GCL LML ML
2,920 0 2,990
2,210 4,280 2,160
0 970 0
1 ML=Mother Lake; GCL=Gun Ciub Lake; LML=Long Meadow181acfc Dog Lake complex
Source: HNTB Analysis
GCL LML
3,750 0
3,510 0
0 2,000
�;.
�"
The analysis presented in the FEIS has been revised in the ROD, and correctly reflects the
new runvray's emphasis on operations to the south. The revised analysis shows that the
proposed action is not expected to increase operations belotiv 500 feet over bird concentration (
areas. As stated in the FEIS, the F_AA has found that 90 percent of all bird strikes occur below `
34
(SEPiEbl6Efi1998;
MSP DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PI,+,NNING PROCESS
FAA RECOAD OF DECISION
500 feet above ground level (AGL). 4Vhile the proposed action �vould lessen the numbers of
very low-altitude overflights at bird concentration areas, the potential for ongoing bird
�'' strikes exists in the vicinity of the airport, most notably at altitudes of less than 2,000 feet
AGL, and is an unavoidable impact. This is due to the distribution of bird concentrations
around MSP and the impracticabiliiy of redistributing flight operations to avoid overflying
these areas when aircraft are close to the ground in the critical arrival or departure regime of
their flight.
Construction Impacts. Constr'uction of the MSP 2010 LTCP would create some unavoidable
temporary impacts to surrounding communities such as noise, fugitive dust, traffic delays,
and water quality effects. Carbon monoxide emissions from on-airport construction is
estimated to yield a total of 20 tons per year from the combination of haul trucks, employee
trips and construction equipment. T'hese emissions are below the 100 tons per year de
minimis level. Other impacts are less discernible and would be mitigated through the use of
proper construction techniques, many of which are regulated. The design and construction
will be in accordance with applicable state and local ordinances and regulations, such as
those recommended by the Soil Conservation Service and FA.A (FAA AC 150/5370-20A:
Standards fQr Specifying Constriccfion of Airports, Item P-156, Temporary Air and Water Pollution,
5oi1 Erosion and Silfation Control). Adverse impacts during construction will be m;n;m;�ed to
the extent feasible but cannot be avoided, as is similar to the effects of similar heavy
construction projects.
Coastal Barriers. MSP is not a coastal barrier. .Analysi.s of this environmental category with
respect to the Coastal Barriers Resources Act is not required.
Coastal Zone Management Plan. MSP is not within. a coastal area as defined by the federal _
government. There is no Coastal Zone Management Program approved by the state for Lake .
Superior. Analysis of this environmental category with respect to an approved Coastal Zone
Management Program is not required.
Endangered and Threatened Species. The bald eagle is the only federally listed species
having habitat near enough to MSP to be potentially affected by the proposed project. The
bald eagle is recorded as threatened on both state and federal lists. An assessment (Bald Eagle
Biological Assessment, November 1990) relating to the nesting of bald eagles from potential
impacts of Runway 4/22 e,rpansion concluded that it was unlikely that eagle reproduction
success would be impacted from runway development. USFWS issued a"No ]eopardy"
Biological opinion in relation to that project and has confirmed that formal consultation is not
required for the MSP 2010 LTCP and 20�20 Concept Plan (USDOI letter of March 18,1996).
Forster's tern, a state listed special concern species, has historically used IvSother Lake at the
northwest corner of the airport on an intermittent basis. No mitigation measures are readily
available to directly xeplace any lost habitat from the lake although the water levels could
rise and stabilize as a result of the proposed project. This would result in more interspersion
of water and vegetation so as to innprove the quality of the remaining habitat and reduce
near drown outs.
Economic. Economic impacts include the cost of acquiring land and property and the
resulting loss of municipal revenues, as well as the costs of airport development and the
effects on jobs, sales, and tax bases. A number of analyses of these conditions were
conducted by the University of Ivlinnesota and private groups during the environmental
process and aspects of the economy �vere modeled to determine direct and indirect effects of
35
(SEPTEM6ER19?51
FIW RECORD OF DECISION
MSP DUAI TFiACK AIRPORT PIANNiNG PROCESS
the MSP proposed project. The principal findings of all of this work, as reported in the FEIS,
determined direct and indirect empioyment in the 2010 timeframe to be 35,000 workers and i'
wages to be over $1 billion. Tax capacity would be reduced by �4.b million because of �'
acquisition of residences and businesses needed to complete the proposed project.
Development costs of the MSP 2010 LTCP are estimated at $803 million in 1995 dollars. Tax
capacity for businesses removed for airport development potentially could be replaced in
other areas in proxunity to major highways. Removed residential tax base is unlikely to be
replaced because of the lack of developable land for infill construction in adjacent
communifies.
Energy Suppl� and Natural Resources. The prinnary energy and natural resource affected
by the proposed project is fuel consumption used by aircraft during flight operations, and
vehicle consumption on the reb onal highway network for airport related trips which
accou.nt £or approximately 1.5% of red onal txips. Aircraft fuel use for the 2010 LTCP is less
fihan the No Action Alternative because of airfield operating efficiencies while the vehicle
fuel consumption is higher because of the increase in air passengers accessing the Lindbergh
Terminal, with a longer average vehicle trip than would occur with the new west terminal
proposed in the 2020 Concept Plan. •
Farmland. There are no impacts to farmland or the agricultural economy from the MSP or
No Action alternatives.
Floodplains. The Minnesota River floodplain lies to the east of MSP. There is no structural
encroachment from the existing airport or the proposed alternatives in this floodplain, and
no resulting impacts.
HistoridArchitectural Resources. The 2010 LTCP includes potential effects on the following �,,
properfaes and districts listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Red ster of Historic
Places: the Original Wold-Chamberlain Terminal Historic I}istrict, the Old Fort Snelling
Historic I}istrict, Fort Snelling National Cernetery, Nokomis Knoll Resideniial Historic
District, Spruce Shadows Farm Historic I}istrict, and the Soo Line Corridor. The 2010 LTCP
would destroy portions of the Or bainal Wold-Chamberlain Terminal Historic District. The
Nokamis Knoll Residential Historic Disiri.ct is also in the DNL 65-70 noise contour and
would continue to be incompatible with noise criteria.27 C1nly the Spruce Shadows Farm is
affected by ihe 2010 LTCP DNL 65-70 contour when compared to the No Action Alternative,
and it will receive treatment in accordance with the joint Programmatic Agreement described
below. A small portion of the cemetery would have noise levels greater than DNL 70 for
either a�ternative. The Old Fort Snelling National Register Historic District does not
currently contain land uses which are incompatible cvith aircraEt noise. The Soo Line
Corridor would not be affected by the MSP alternative.
Numerous laws and re� ations address the protection of cultural resources. The federal
statute most applicable is the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470) as amended,
which contains provisions applicable to federally funded projects on listed and eligible
historic properties. The DEIS initiated formal consultation with the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation and with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and included
the National Park Service, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Federal Highway
27 fie noise impacls on Ihe Nokomis Knoll Districl are existing impacls, ard are Ihereiere being 2ddressed as part of the �,1ACs currenl residenlial noise (�
insulation program. ,
36
(SEPTEM6ER1998)
FAA RECORD OF DEGSION MSP DUAI I RACR AIRPORT PUNNING PROCE55
Administration, Minnesota Department of Transportation, IVL'uu�eapolis Heritage
; Preservation Commission, the MC and the FAA. These parties have executed a joint
�' Programmatic Agreement (FEIS, Appendix C) which takes into account the MAC Long-Term
Comprehensive Plan and makes FAA. responsible for assuring that stipulated rneasures in
the agreement are carried out. These measures include surveyi.ng the historic resources to
determine adverse effects, and developing the means to ensure maximum retention and
curation of significant resources, as well as providing noise mitigation where appropriate.
Demolition will be mitigated by documentation for the Historic American Buildings Survey,
which is maintained at the Library of Conb ess.
'The MSP 2010 LTCP irreversibly affects portions of the Original Wold-Chamberlain Terminal
historic District. The 2020 Concept Plan would demolish the entire district. These adverse
impacts are unavoidable. Sound insulation will be used to mitigate adverse noise impacts on
other historic buildings, pending the outcome of detailed architectuxal and engineering
sEudies to determine their integrity.
Induced Socioeconomic Impacts. The 2010 LTCP provides the potential for induced or
secondary effects on surrounding communities as a result of airport development. Changes
would occur in the City of Bloominb on where the Runway Protection Zone for the new
north-south runway removes existing development and where the state safety zone will call
for less dense development. Other effects and mitigation is described under the Land Use,
Noise, Surface Transportation Access, and Historical/Architeci-ural Resources parts of this
section since induced impacts also affect these categories. Approximately 420,000 square feet
of office development and over one m.i.11ion square feet of industrial development are
expected to be induced between 2005-2020 as a result of airport expansion.
Land Use Impacts. Land use adjoiivng MSP to the north in ivLi.nneapolis and to the west i.n
Richfield is predominantly residential while areas south and east are in public use for the
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, historic Fort SneLling and the National Cemetery.
Commercial land use withul the City of Bloomington, including the Mall of America, is also
found at the southwest comer of the airport. The airport site i.s bounded by major
transportation arteries on all sides. Land use effects from the 2010 LTCP do not involve
actual airfield construction on lands in the airport environs, but instead require takings to
accommodate safety areas in connection with the ne�v north-south runway. In particular,
three hotels, a power substation, two service stations, a VFW post, a warehouse, and two
office buildings (all within the City of Bloomington) ivould be acquired to provide for the
Run�vay Protection Zone at the south end o� the proposed ne�v runtivay.
Minnesota law requires city comprehensive plans to be consistent with the MC's land use
compatibility guidelines, and zoning reb ations to be consistent with the City's
comprehensive plan and Mn/DOT safety.rules. Existing and planned land use in the state
safety zones south of the proposed new north-south runway are not consistent with these
requirements. The City of Bloomington would have to amend its development regulations to
assure conformity with Mn/DOT airport zoning standards for safety zones. Land use to the
north would not be affected by the 2010 LTCP although redevelopment might occur in this
direction in the long-term futu.re. The Rich Acres Golf Course, leased to the City of Richfield
by the ivtAC, would be converted to aviation use. In addition, the displacement of 7
households and 14 businesses ben�reen the TH 77 arterial and Cedar Avenue would be
required to permit modifications to the b6`h Street interchan�e. These relocations, as well as
37
(S=pr4�a��t9Q??
FAA ftECORD OF DEqSION
MS° QUAL TFLICK AIRPORT PLANNING
proposed changes to connecting roadways, would result in some land use and land access
changes in the area west of the TH 77/66"' Street interchange.
In summary, direct land use impacts wi11 occur as a result of providing for the runway and
Runway Protection Zones, other airport facilities, and reconstructed highway facilities. In
addition, rezorung in state safety zones will be reguired. The MAC will acquire the above-
noted properties in Bloomington and Richfield for these needs and the Rich Acres Golf
Course would be eliminated. These impacts are unavoidable for the airport to implement the
2010 LTCP and provide the operational safety reguired by the FAA. The MAC and MC will
also continue to work with communities around MSP to develop noise mitigation measures,
as described in the section dealing with community stabilization in the airport's Noise
Mitigation Plan (FEIS, Appendix B).
Light Emissions Innpacts. Approach lights for the south end of the new runway in the 2010
LTCP would be located off-site to the south of the I--494 interstate highway in Bloomington.
FAA criteria requi.re that no buildings be located in the Runway Proteciion Zone where these
lights are located. As a result, they will be visible to businesses on surrouncling properties.
No approach lights are planned for the north end of the new runway and runway lights
would not be visible to surrounding properties. Lighting on the exteriors of buildings being
developed in the 2010 LTCP has not been determined, but wou.ld most likely be similar to
what exists on present buildings on the airport. Lights illumulating new roadways, and
traffic using these roads, will result in increased light emissions, as will lights used in
connection with aircraft operations. in the overall, unpacts from lighting will be muumal
frorn the 2010 LTCP. The sequenced flashingstrobe lights associated with the approach light
system to the south of the new runway has the potential for impacts on surrounding
commera al property; however, no impact on residential properties is expected. �� �,
Noise. Airport noise is one of the principal concerns associated with the 2010 LTCP. The
FAA has required a comprehensive evaluation of the potential noise impacts of the proposed
project to be conducted, and the MAC has also prepared a Noise Mitigation Plan to deal with
th.is matter. The analysis of noise in the FEIS was conducted using the FA.A.'s accepted Day-
Night Average Sound Level (DNL) metric and fihe Integrated Noise Madel to predict present
and future noise levels. FAR Part 150 land use compatibility guidelines were used to
determine incompatible land uses, except in the case of the impacted Wildlife Refuge, where
additional criteria were also considered (see the Section 4(� discussion, below). State noise
impact criteria based on the L,o metric, ��hich measures the point at which specific sound
levels are exceeded at least 10% of a specific time duration, are also used in the analysis. This
information is extensively reported in the noise section of the FEIS. Additionally, where a
particular impact category such as Section 4( fl or Historic/Architectural Resources may
experience noise effects, the information is reported in that specific environmental category.
Additional noise metrics used in the noise analysis include peak Sound Exposure Level
(SEL), Time Above (TA) measurements of various decibel levels, and Maacimum A-Weighted
Sound Level (Lm,�). These three metrics are used to identify noise impacts for specific land
use points rather than for determining overall geob aphic areas of effect.
EIS Noise Analysis Mefhods and Resrslts. A.s discussed in Section V.Q of the FEIS, the year 2005
was selected for use in the noise impact analysis. 'This is considered to be a worst-case scenario
because resulting 2005 DNL noise contours are larger than 2010 and 2020 contours due to the
aircraft fleet mix containing relatively noisy "hush-kitted" aircraft (29% of the year 2005 air C
carrier fleet). It is reasonable to anticipate that the proportion of hush �citted aircraft would
38
(S�rr�n�aGa1593;
FAr1 RECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TRACK AIRPOflT PLANNING PROCESS
decline after 2005, resulting in less noise impact—even though 2020 total average daily
operations are forecast to be 7 percent greater than 2005. Because of this, the 2010 LTCP and
' � the 2020 Concept Plan are similar from a noise impact standpoint because both the aircraft fleet
and resulting noise contours are quieter than those that would result from the 2005 fleet at
lower activity levels.
In the base year of 1994, approxirriately 42.3 square miles oF land around MSP was in the DNL
60 or greater noise contaux, with 19.7 square miles in the DNL 65 and greater contour. Over
65,000 people and 28,220 dwellings were affected by the DNL 60 contour, of which 22,000
people resided in the DNL 65 contour in 9,570 dwellings. For year 2005, the DNL 65 contour
encompasses approximately 9.7 square miles, including a population of 7,650 people in 3,370
dwellings. The DNL 60 contour had a population of 22,030 and 9,460 dwelling units. In
additian to the population and housing affected in 2005,11 noise-sensitive uses (churches,
schools, parks and a wildlife refuge) are located in the DNL 65 contour (see FEIS Table Q-5,
page V-84).
Supplementing the DNL area contours, the noise analysis includes impacts on 42 noise-
sensitive land use points in communities surrounding the aizport, using the other noise metrics
mentioned above. Thi.s resulted in most selected locations seeing significant decreases in DNL
noise levels from e�i.sting conditions, with some locations e;cperiencing noticeable increases in
DNL levels. A separate analysis was undertaken to identify noise level effects on Richfield and
south Minneapolis assoriated with ta�ding aircraft, using the L�,,,X metric. This study revealed
noise increases of differing values with one off-site increase of 12 dBA.
Low Frequency Noise Impacts. In 1997, the City of Richfield independently commissioned fwo
� � studies regarding: (1) the anticipated low �requency aircraft noise in Rich�eld due to the
operation of a proposed north-south runway at MSP; and (2) a field analysis of annoyance
due to low frequency runway sideline noise. While the former study was based on analysi s
at MSP, the latter study was based on a sample survey of residents in El Segundo, CA
exposed to sideline noise from the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). Copies of both
studies were eventually provided to the FA.A in response to the FEIS, and are attached to this
ROD (see Attachment A.2). By letter dated August 27,1998, Richfield also transmitted the
following reports:
a Final Reporf—BWI Low Frequency Noise Analysis for Allwood Neighborhood; Acoustical
Design Collaborative, LEd.; July 24,1997.
� Stz�dy of Low Freqitency Takeoff Noise nt Baltimore-Washingto�i Interr�ational Airport; Harris
Miller Miller & Hanson, Inc.; Apri11998.
e Residentral Sound Insutation at Baltimore/Washington Internationai Airport; AIP 3-24-005-39,
Engineers Report; Undated.
� Similarities in Current Lo�v-Freqicency Aircraft Noise Exposure af Baltin2ore-Washington
International Airport and E.rpected Expos�cre in Ric{tfield; BBN Technolod es (for the City of
Richfield); August 1998.
Copies of these reports are included in Attachment C.
The FAA and MAC have carefully re�-ietiiTed all of the information submitted by the City of
Richfield in regard to low hequenc�- noise issues. As noted above, this information is
39
(ScPT�1,19ER19°�)
FAA RECOflD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TW1CK AIAPORT PLANNING PROCF,SS
included in this ROD's attachments. The attachments also include several detailed responses ,
to Richfield's comments on this issue—specifically: (
Attachment A.1—This attachment includes responses to two general comments: (1) the
impacts of low frequency noise were not adequately addressed in the FEIS; and (2) the
FEIS did not provide mitigation for significant adverse impacts due to low frequency
noise (see the responses to General Comments 1 and 2). Attachment A.1 also includes
responses to all of the written comnnents on the FEIS submitted by the City of Richfield,
of which several address concerns about low frequency noise.
AtEachment A.2—This attachment is a copy of an appendix submitted by the City of
Richfield along with its FEIS comment letter. Parts of Attachment A.2 address low
frequency noise issues; and this information, as well as other information, was
considered by the FAA and MA.0 in preparing this ROD and the attached responses to
comments.
Attachment C—Attachment C contains additional comments on the FEIS filed after the
deadline for comments. This information was received from the City of Richfield or
interested Richfield parties and pertains primarily to low frequency noise issues.
Although not legally required, the FA.A. is including this attachment, including FAA
responses to their comments, in order to update readers on the status af the low
frequency noise considerations.
As noted above, the complete responses to the City of Richfield's concerns about low
frequency noise are found in Attachment A.1, and are particularly addressed in General
Responses 1 and 2, as well as within specific responses to correspondence received from �
Richfield in Attachments A.1 and C. 4Vhile the FAA and the MAC are not legally required to �`
further investigate the matter of low frequency noise impacts, nor to provide for mitigation,
the MAC has proposed and commits to immediately address the issue28 Specifically, the
MAC is willing to conduct noise studies and vibration measurements to identify the
exi.stence, if any, of perceptible vibraiion from low freguency noise. Such studies mu.st be
done in a comprehensive manner and with the involvement of all potentially affected
communities, including the City of Richfield. If supported by the studies, MAC will prepare
and implement a low frequency noise mitigation program for the affected communities as
part of an update to the MSP FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Plan. The end resu.lt of such
a mifigation program would be to offset any impacts of low frequency noise that would not
be mitigated by conventional sound insulation treatmenE pro�Tided for under the existing
Iv1SP Noise Mitigation Plan.
With the technical guidance and assistance of the FAA and others, the subsequent studies
will, among other th�ngs, undertake necessary vibration measurements in Richfield and othex
potential areas to assist in documenting the existence of perceptible vibration impacts due to
e�cisting or planned operations at IviSP. Although there is no established state or federal
standard of significance for low frequency noise and vibration, guidelines for judd g human
perception of vibration levels have been published in several different foruzns, and may be
�$ Low frequency noise has already been identified for analysis and potential mitigation in the adopted M5P Noise Miiigation
Plan {see Appendix B of the FEIS).
40
(SEPTEh1BER1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION M5P DUAL TfUCK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
_. . considered.29 If supported by the studies, the MAC will prepare and implement a low
1 frequency noise mitigation program for those affected communities as part of an update to
the MSP FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Plan. The end result of such a mitigation
progzam would be to offset any impacts of low frequency noise that would not be mitigated
by conventional sound insulation treatment provided for under the existing MSP Noise
Mitigation Plan.
High Forecnst Sensitivity Analysis and Noise Impacts. As previously noted (Section III.A of thi.s
ROD) the FEIS also includes a sensitivity analysis to disclose the potential noise impacts of the
MSP 2010 LTCP and the 2020 Concept Plan based on a higher range of aviation activity
forecasts, conducted at the request of the FAA. This analysis considered the noise effects that
could occur from a forecast of higher aircraft operations in these two time frames, as described
in Section III.A of this ROD. Based upon the MAC High Forecast, no si� ficant noise impacts
were found for the proposed action. The contoi�xs resulting from the 2005 base and 2005 high
forecast scenarios are reasonably eguivalent for the DNL 65 contour, with differences mostly
occurring in areas to the south of the airport. The 202� DNL 65 contour is slightly smaller than
for the 2005 65 DNL contour at these higher forecast levels. For more information, see
Appendix H in the FEIS, including Figure H-1 (various otlier noise contour maps are also
presented within FIIS Appendix J)•�
Noise Mitigation Plan. In April 1996, the Minnesota Lea slature directed the MAC to develap a
noise mitigation plan for the proposed action of a new north-south runway. In October of that
year, the MAC adopted the plan (FEIS Appendix B), which included elements regarding sound
insulation, community stabilization, aircraft operaiional requirements, and other matkers
related to airport noise effects and improvement funding. Elements of this noise mitigation
program are underway with the noise insulation proa am being the mast evident measure in
effect. The noise mitib tion plan is the means that will be used to mitigate noise from the
proposed project (for more information about the MACs ongoing and planned noise
mitigation measures, see the discussion under "Noise Mitigation" in Section II.C. of this
ROD—ProjecE Background).
Parks and Recreation. Within fihe airport boundary, the Runway Protection Zones, and the
DNL 65+ noise contour, there are 10 parks and recreation areas. Bossen Field, Lake Nokomis,
Uiamond Lake and Todd Parks are located under the jurisdiction of the Minneapolis Park
Board and used for active and passive recreation. Taft Park and the Rich Acres Golf Couxse are
administered by the City of Richfield for active recreational activities, while the River Ridge
Playground is a small recreation area appro�mately one mile from MSP in the City of
Bloominb on. Fort Sneiling State Park is located on both sides of. the Mississippi River and
portions of the area are adjacent to tiSSP on the north and to the southwest. A nine-hole golf
course, which is a part of this park, lies within the existing DNL 65 noise contour. 'The
Mississippi National River and Recreation Area, stretch�rtg along the River and including a
portion of the Minnesota River, is mostly o�vned by other park agencies and the IyiDNR in
particular. Th� Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge (MVNWIZ} provides habitat for a
variety of wildlife and also provides wildlife recreation areas and environmental education
29 MAC could etecl lo use ihe criferia recommended by �e Acousiical Society ol America in Guide !o the Evaluation ol Human Exposure to Vibration in
Buildings (ANSI S3.29-1983) as well as research undertaken and published by Harvey Nubbard (Noise Induced House Vib2tions and Human Perception,
Noise Conlroi Engineering Journai, Sep-Oct 1982). For mcre information, ses General Raspcnse 2 in Aiiachment A.t,
A1
(S��r�.�aE»�sss)
FAA R"cCORD OF DECISION MSP DUAI TRACK AIflPORT PLANNING PROCESS
facilities south and east of MSP along much of its boundary. The Refuge is addressed in other
sections of this ROD, under "Wildli fe Refuges" and "Section 4( fl." (
Under FAA land use compatibility criteria (FAR Part 150), the MSP 2010 LTCP would not
result in noise levels for these park and recreational uses which are incompatible with federal
guidelines. Removal of the Rich Acres Golf Course and recreation complex for the proposed
project is not considered to be a taking of publicly owned park area since the use is located on
property leased from the MAC. This lease permits MAC to retake possession of the property
if it is needed for airport purposes so long as unamortized investments are compensated for as
set out in the lease. No other mitigation is required at other parks and recreation areas.
Environmental Justice. Federal agencies are required to identify and address
disproportionately high and adverse unpacts on low-income and minority populaiions as a
result of the proposed action (Executive Order 12898, Feb.11,1994). Low income in this
i.nstance consists of households having a median income below the Census Bureau's statisfical
poverty thresholds. The MAC conducted analysis to determine residents and employees who
might be displaced due to the proposed project because of development or safety reasons, or
would be located in the DNL 65 contour as a result of the new runway operations. Both
minority and income data were analyzed and the census block group level. Employment
analysis was less fine-grained due to lack of data sources and job elimination was tied to
business elimination or relocation.
From this analysi.s, it was determined that ernployment losses resulting from the 2010 LTCP
occurred across a full range of pay scales and low-income employees would not be
disproporfionately impacted, using comparisons of minorities in affected block groups
compared to minoriiy populations in affected jurisdictions. These loses occur as a result of (�
business removals located in the Runway Protection Zone for the new runway, and the
const-ruction of highway improve.ments in Richfield and the southwest corner of the aixpork.
Residential displacement would primarily occur in Bloomington and along Cedar Avenue
(Trunk Highway 77) in Richfield. Residential displacements of minority households were also
comparable between minority composition in affected block groups and minority compositions
in entire affected jurisdictions (approximately 4-5% for each). No disproporfionate effects on
low-income or minority households were determined to exist when compared to the No
Action Alternative. Displacements and relocations would meet the requirements of the
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Properiy Acquisition Policies Act of 197�.
Social. Social impacts include the disruption of established residences and businesses, and to
other pattems in the community. Impacts could include displacement or relocation of housing,
employment, or established institutions such as schools or parks. The FEIS (pages V-108 and
109) identifies 8 households to be displaced due to the direct impacts of the 2010 LTCP—from
the clearance of Runway Proteckion Zones (1 household) and highway reconstruction
(7 households). A total of 73 businesses would also be displaced by the proposed acfion,
involving an estimated 2,891 employees. The FEIS also estimates that 158 households would
be relocated as part of future noise mitigation measL:res. Community institutions that would
be displaced include the Rich Acres Golf Course and recreational complex, the A.irport Medical
Clinic, and a VFW Post.
The proposed mitigation for residents and businesses displaced by the development associated
tivith the 2010 LTCP is the use of relocation assistance provided in accordance with the Uniform ('
\.
42
(SePTEMBERt999;
FAA RcCORD QF DECISION M5P DUAI. TflACR AIFPORT PLANNING PROCESS
Act, cited above. 'The Uniform Act provides for relocation assistance for persons in affected
residences and businesses, moving costs, and payment for the actual property being affected.
Displacement of residents and businesses is an unavoidable adverse impact resulting from the
proposed project. Financial loss and displacement effects will be miiigated by the Uniform Act
and the airport sponsor as a condition of approval of this ROD.
Section 4(fl• Section 4(� of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 provides that the
Secretary shall noE approve any pro� am or project that requires the use of any publicly owned
land from a public park, recreafion area, or wildlife and waterfowl refixge of national, state or
local sib ficance, or any land. from a historic site of national, state, or local significance as
determined by officials having jurisdiction thereof unless there is no feasible and prudent
alternative to the use of the land and the program or project includes all possible plaru�ing to
minimi�e hatm.
Under section 4(�, use of land may be either physical or constructive. A constructive use
occurs where use of or adverse impacts to Section 4(� land conflicts with the normal activity
associated with the land so as to constitute a substantial i-mpais'ment of its value. In the case of
the 2010 LTCP, both the actual use and constructive use of property are involved. The FAA
has published a Section 4(f) Evalauztion (May 1998) which describes in detail why the proposed
e�ansion of MSP wi]1 result in the use of Section 4( fl resources�which include: (1) the
demolition of the Qriginal Wold-Chamberlain Terminal Historic District, located witivn the
airport boundary, (2) constructive use of the Spruce Shadows Farm Historic District, and (3)
the constructive use of some of the environmental education and wildlife recreation activiEy
areas of the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge (2v1:�'NWR)- Under Section 4(fl, all
possible planning must be implemented to minimi.ze the harm from each use.
Historic Resources. Mitigation for the demolition of the Original Wold-Chamberlain Terminal
Historic I7istrict is adclressecl in an interagency Programmutic Agreement (PA). This
agreement is signed by the FAA, the MAC and MC, the State Historzc Preservation Officer
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), with the U.S. Corps of
Engineers, the Federal Highway Administration, the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation
Commission, the National Park Service, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation all
included as concurring parties. The major elements of the mitigation program, as ab eed to
in the PA, include:
� Document the Original Wold-Chamberlain Terminal Historic I}istrict according to the
standards of the Historic American Building Sunney (HABS) and obtain HABS
concurrence on the documentation prior to alteration of the District (the HABS
documentation is to be archived in the Library o� Congress).
� Ensure that the Smithsonian Instituiion and the Minnesota Historical Society can select
elements or objects from the Orid al Wold-Chamberlain Terminal Historic District for
curation and display.
e Conduct a supplemental study of historic and architectural resources within the Area of
Potential Effect (A.I'E) in 2005, due to the planned phasing of construction.
� Evaluate the cultural resource potential of any property added to the APE, which consists
of land area within the DNL 65 contour, the expanded aixport boundaries, properties
affected by roadways directly serving the airport, properties acquired for wetland or
43
(SEPrt sa��� ssa)
FAA RECAAO OF DECISION
M5P DUAL T{L1CK AIAPOflT PLANNING PROCESS
other mitigation, and areas impacted due to airport-induced socioeconomic and land use
effects. (
� Prepare a comprehensive research design for future archaeological evaluation of those '
portions of the APE that are not accessible at this time because archaeological evidence
may exist beneath built-up and paved areas; notify the ACHP if additional resou.rces are
found.
e Conduct annual consultations with the parties involved in the PA.
� Determine and agree with the parties on appropriate mitigations if future actions result
in as-yet-unforeseen impacts on historic resources.
0 The PA stipulations are designed, in part, to address the major phases of development for
the MSP 2010 LTCP and the 2020 Concept Plan.
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge. Implementation of the MSP Alternative does not
require land acqui.sition or other direct taking of facilities within the boundaries of the
MVNWR. However, a"cons�ructive use" under Section 4( fl will occur since Ehe noise from
the proposed action will substantially impair bird-ivatching, educational activities, and
public use or enjoyment of approximately 1,083 acres of publicly owned land within the
approxinrtately 10,000-acre M�TNW]!Z.
As reflected in the FEIS and Section 4( fl Evaluation, the FAA and the MAC have participated
in detailed consultations with the USF4VS regarding the noise impacts to the MVNWR lands
resulting from the MSP Alternative. As part of fihe MVNW72 consultation process, the FAA
acknowledged that it is currently reexamining its land use compatibility criferia with respect
to aircraft overflights of national parks and wildlife refuges, and is applying site-specific
analyses based on the circumstances and using other noise impact criteria. 'This approach �!J ,
was prompted by legal rulings, which have determined fihat the recreational land use
categories in 14 CFR Part 150 may be appropriate guides to acceptable noise levels over areas
of a refuge devoted to traditional recreational uses, but bear little or no relevance to the other
role of wildlife refuge and to those who visit it to study and enjoy its wildlife. These rulings
also held that actions having only an insignificant effect on the existing use of lands
protected under Section 4(f) do not constitute a use.
For the M�rVWR, the FAA considered the following to reach a determination on substantial
impairment:
� Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) zegulations, 30 which state that there is no
constructive use when the increase in noise due to the proposed action is "barely
perceptible (3 dBA or less)," even tivhen the post-project noise levels exceed the agency's
noise abatement action levels.
a the work of the FederaJ. Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON)3� and research on the
impact of noise levels on communication;
� 23 CFR 771.135(p)(5)(iii}, 56 Federal Register 13273. l'hese regulations were used by the FAA as guidance in making lhe Refuge delermination. The
FHWA has also held that no subslanlial impairment would occur where there will t� a perceplibie increase in projected noise leveis due to Ihe proposed
action, but the post-projecf levels do nol exceed any noise abatement cnleria.
31 The FICON was compose�d of representatives from !he Fr�A, U.S. EPA, Departmenl of Interior (Naticnal Park Serv;ce), Depriment of Defense, Departmenl oi j�
Housing and Urb2n Developmenl, Departmenl of Veteran Afl2irs, 2nd the Council on Environmen�ai Quality. in August 1992, Ihe FICON issued a guidance \
(continued on next page)
44
(ScPTE618cR1998)
MSP DUAL TFUCK AIAPORT PLANNING PROCESS
FA.4 flcCORD OF DECISION
e the MVNWR's developrnent history and historical relationships to the urban environment;
and
m a technical analysis of noise impacts in the Refuge, including existing ambient noise
levels.
Further, the FAA relied solely on the site-specific circumstances and teclirucal noise impact
analysis to evaluate impacts on bird watchi_ng and similar site-specific�Refuge aciivities and
circumstances. Among the findings were these_
� h.istorical aircraft and other urban ambient noise exposure dates back to the Refuge's
establishment and, therefore, have always been part of the user's environment within
these areas (this is discussed further within the Section 4( fl Evaluation);
a current ambient noise levels monitored in the I�TVNWIZ range from 52 to 65 DNL, with
six of the eight sites experiencing noise levels of DNL 57 or above (see turther discussion
below and in Appendices 3 and 4); and
� the expected increase in noise would generally be less than 3 dBA.
These findings led the FAA. to conclude that land within �the DNL 60 contour, where a 3 dBA
increase in noise is expected, reasonably represents the area of substantial impairment for
publicly owned parcels within the M':�TNWR• FAA also determined that noise within the
DNL 60 dBA contour was fihe appropriate basis for determining s banificance and Section 4(�
substantial impairment. In making this determuzation, the FAA reco�nized that: (1) the DNL
60 noise contour may not always conform to the specific A�IVNYVIZ's public use axeas and
patterns; and (2) the determination relies on the DNL noise metric. Furthermore, the FAA
concluded that the value of mitigation measures should be equal to the fair market value of:
� avigation easements of publicly owned lands within the MSP Alternative's DNL 65
contour and inside the MVTJWR's authorized boundary; and
� avigation easements of publicly owned lands inside the Nf'�TNWIZ's authorized boundary
that are expected to experience a 3 dBA noise increase and are between t��e DiVL 60 and
DNL 65 contours resulting from the proposed action; and
a the impact due to diminished value of the Visitor Centex, a ven its connectivity with the
Bass Ponds area.
Tn the FEIS and Section 4(fl Evaluation, the FAA also determined that certain other
mitigation components, such as reasonable costs to plan mitigation, are acceptable and
committed to work with the MAC and the USFWS to further define those components.
Mitigation alternatives were identified to assure that environmental consequences tivere
fairly evaluated in the decisiorunaking process and that the project tivould include all possible
planning to minimize harm from the use of the M� resulting from the proposed action.
Since publication of the FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation, the FAA, the MAC, and the USFWS
have continued to consult about the exact amount of compensation required to replace and
realib facilities, and considered retail and exhibit space at MSP, to develop a detailed
report lhal concluded, "the lederzl noise assessmenl process ;An arxi �houlc � improved.' Tne FICO`'s recommer.ced improvemenfs were incorporated �to a
°normal process of pericdicaily reassessing present p�cecures and technie::es to ensure ��a! !he mos; c�actical and raalislic a�roaches are being used °
The FICON recommendations provide no basis for furiher ��pact determ:c2lions below Ir�e ONL 60 cnntour.
45
(Sc-iEM9ER19931
FAA RECORD OF DECISION
M5P DUAI TRACK AIRPORT PUINNING PROCESS
implementation and eniorcement af a mitigation program. For more information, see
Attachment A.1, especially General Response 7. (
In order to formalize an agreed-to mitigation approach, a Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) that specifies compensation sufficient to minimize adverse impacts to the I�TVNW]E�
has been signed by the USFWS and MAC, with the FAA as a concurring party (a copy of the
signed MOA is included in Attachment B). Completion of the MOA formalizes the plan to
provide the necessary mifigation, as proposed within the FEIS and Section 4(� Evaluation, to
replace the portion of the Refuge that would be substantially impaired by the proposed
project. Recent activities which led to the execution of the attached MOA have involved
several discussions and correspondence concerning appraisals, which are being conducted to
determine the appropriate level of mitigation to minimize harm. (Currently, the parties
expect the appraisal process to be campleted by the end of September 1998.)
The appraisals have been conducted, and the agreement reflected in the MOA has been
reached, using methodologies and following requirements which consider the types of
concerns raised by the USFWS that have a bearing on the final compensation amount. In
correspondence from USFWS to the FAA dated September 21,1998 (from Daniel M. Ashe to
Lynne Pickard—see AtEachment B), the USFWS has noted that because of fihe adequacy of
the compensation plan provided in the MOA, and the cooperative work between the
agencies, all of its previous concerns have been resolved. While noting that there are
additional details to discuss, this letter also states that the USFWS can foresee no barriers to
swift and positive resolution of all remauung compensation matters.
An additional letter from the U.S. Departrnent of Interior (DOI), dated 5eptember 21,1998
(from Willie R. Taylor ta Jane F. Garvey—see Attachment B) states that, based on the signing
of the MOA, its inclusion as part of this ROD, and pending successful negotiation of
additional compensaiion for the realigrunent of and increased costs to operate the Refuge, the
U.S. DOI concurs that the project includes all possible �laiuti.ng to m;nim;ze harm to the
MMVN4Vl�. This letter also states that, based on discussions since the USFWS filed its
comments on the FEIS, the U.S. DOI has now come to recognize the tradeoffs between the
alternatives examined during the Dual Track process and concurs with the FA.A that there
are no feasible an.d prudent alternatives to the constructive use of Refuge lands resulting
from the proposed new runway.
The accepted resolution to these concerns, as documented in the attached MOA (signed by
the USFW5 on September 17,1998, and by the MAC and the FAA on SepEember 21,1998)
includes these fwo basic points:
The mitigation Eo offset unavoidable adverse project impacts to the Refuge will be a cash
settlement paid by the MAC to USFWS, based on appraised values in conformance with
applicable standards and regulations.
In no case shall the amount of the cash settlement for real property damages to the
existing Refuge property be less than �20 million, based on an estimate of valuafion by
the appraiser.
In addition to compensation for the appraised real property value, the MOA provides for
additional funding, in an amount to be determined, to be provided to the USFWS to realign
the Refuge (e.g., new facilities, design, engineering work, and overhead tied directly to the �
alignment). It also states that additional funds, in an amount to be determined, will be
as
(SEPTEMBER1998)
MSP DUAl. TW;CK AIRPORT PIANNING PROCESS
FAA RECORD OF DECISION
provided to the USFWS to cover increased costs to operate the Refuge. For more
information, refer to the sib ed MOA, presented in Attachment B.
endin further negotiations required by the agreement)
The parties agxee that the MOA (p g
will be sufficient to provide the Refuge with replacement land of habitat quality equal ta that
which will be impacted by the project, and to provide for the construction of ponds, hiking
trails and trail markers, and other site improvements which will be necessary to replace
comparable Refuge components adversely impacted as a result of the construction and
- operation of proposed Runway 17/35. The parties to the MOA have also agreed to terms
that limit the heights of structures and objects within the affected parts of the Refuge and that
aircraft shall have the right of flight and to make noise over those areas.
Execution by MAC of the MOA and related special d ant conditions pxovide a commitment
on the part of the MAC to provide compensation in accordance with the final appraisal
standards to accomplish "all possible planning to minimize harm," consistent with the plan
and procedures recommended and set forth in the Section 4(� Evaluation.
Solid Waste Impacts. There are no significant innpacts resulting from solid waste generation.
T'he airport and tenants have various recycling programs in place and waste hauling
contracts are used for off-site removal of non-recyclable wastes.
Surface Transportation Access. Access to the MSP termiilal and airport facilities is provided
by 4-6 lane interstate highways, freeway and arterials, which surround the airport on all
sides. The primary access point is Glwnack Drive, which �s a dedicated airport entrance road
from the TH 5 freeway. A secondary access point from 34 Avenue and I--494 provides access
to airline and air cargo facilities, the Humphrey International Terminal and fixed based �;� °`.:.
) operators. Several other access points service airport and m.ilitary support facilities. .,
Improvements to the TH T7/66"' Street interchange and the realignment and widening of the
airport frontage road on the south and west side of the airport beiween b6�' Street and 34`�
Avenue South are included as part of the proposed action. The FAA, MAC , Mn/DOT,
FHWA and MC have reached consensus and )ointlY endorsed an approach for implementing
the roadway projects reguired by the 2010 LTCP and the phasing approach to carrying out
theses meas-ures (FEIS Appendix F). Implementation of the frontage road, primarily to serve
relocated air cargo and maintenance facilities, is expected to be located entirely on airport
property. Reconstruction of the interchange will require the acquisition of four residences
contairting seven residential units and 14 businesses, and the reconstruction of interchange
approaches, as part of the project. The displacements would follow the provisions of the
Uniform Act described in the Social Impacts section above, since their effects constitute
unavoidable adverse impacts as a consequence of the proposed project. MAC and Mn/DOT
are pursuing cooperative agreements with the affected jurisdictions to address funding,
design and construction of the frontage road and interchange. Implementation of the 2010
LTCP will not significantly affect traffic volumes on roadways in the vicinity of MSP.
Major Utilities. The only effect on major utilities in the airport environs is to a 115 kV power
line and substa�ion located in the Runway Protection Zone, which is incompatible with the
approach to the new north-south runway. The MA.0 has committed to putting the line
underground and relocating the substation to the office park located to the east of the RI'Z,
which will effectively mitigate this impact. No neiv major utilities are required to serve the
i 2010 LTCP.
47
(S"cPT"cM8'cRl?9�)
FAA RECOflD OF DECISION hiSP DUAI TF 1CK AIFPORT PIANNIN� PROCESS
Visual Impacts. Visual impacts associated with the 2010 LTCP involve the relocation and
addition of airport facilities on airport property. These facilities would include maintenance �
and aircraft hangers and air cargo facilities, and associated aircraft parking aprons, which are
displaced by the new north-south runway. T'hese structures would be visible from highways
and areas surrounding the airport but do not intrude on vistas in the vicinity of MSP. The
MSP development would be located on the e�cisting airport site except for the approach
lighting systezn for Runway 35 whirh would be located south of I-494 in Bloomington. This
system would have no effect on residences because the off-site location where it will be
placed is su.rrounded by commercial development.
The proposed action wouJd also involve development of a cargo area along the west side of
the airport (immediately east of Txunk Highway 77)—the area currently used as the Rich
Acres Golf course. This land is owned by the MAC and leased to the City of Richfield, with
the intent that it would u.liimaEely be used for airport development. As a result, the visual
changes associated with the cargo area's development are reasonably foreseeable and
consistent wifih the area's plan. Furthermore, these visual changes will not appreciably alter
the already urbanized character of lands atong the west side of fihe Highway 77 corridor,
which include commercial and residenfial parcels.
Wastewater. Wastewater from the projects in the 2010 LTCP will continue to discharge into
the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) interceptor and treatment system.
Volumes projected by the MSP proposed projecE would not pose capacity problems for either
the MCES conveyance or treatment systems.
WaEex Supply. E�sting water supply at MSP is provided by two sources, which include on-
site production wells and supply Erom the Minneapolis Water Works. It is likely that the (�
wells will be abandoned, �vith future demands more than doubling the current airport usage
from the Minneapolis Water Works. The present 48-inch main servicing the airport has
sufficient capacity to service the 2010 LTCP and would not impact supply sources or
distribution systems.
Surface Water Quality. Sources of potential impact on suxface water quality are primarily
storm water discharge and aircraft deicing products. MSP discharge is regulated by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MI'CA) through a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The MA.0 currently performs in-river water quality
analysis as required in its 1993 NPDES permit, primarily to determine discharge impacts into
the I�tinnesota River which is the principal outfall for discharge from the airport. The
airport's containment prob am is based on the use of plug structures in storm sewer lines
and tanker trucks to evacuate glycol impacted storm water to storage ponds on the airport
property. Diluted product can be metered into the sanitary treatment system and higher
concentrations can be captured for recycling by an outside contractor.
The MAC is ctu~rently in the process of applying for reissuance of its five-year NPDES
permit. The 2010 LTCP includes the construcfion of three dedicated deicing pads on
different ru.nways and two more pads will be built under the NPDES reissuance. Currently,
stormwater drainage is mostly captured in detention ponds on the MSP site and some of the
drainage winds up in the Mu-�nesota River. Duck Lake, the primary retention basis for storm
drainage on site, will be abandoned for construction of the new north-south runway.
Because of this and other changes in drainage patterns and detention needs, additional storm �_.
water detention facilities are needed to replace and enhance contairunent and management
48
(SEPT'c618Efl19P8;
FAA RECORD Of DECISION
MSP DUAL TfUCK AIFPORT PLANNING PROCESS
of surface water impacts and to control toxicity. The mitigation approach to accomplish
these improvements is uncertain. The Governor has provided a certification letter for
campliance with water quality standards (FEIS, Appendix K) and mitigation measures will
be completed as specified in the renewed NPDES permit.
Groundwater Quality. Historical practices and general acti�rities at MSP have resulted in
localized impacts to near-surface soils and the perched water table on the site. When impacts
have been discovered, primarily the result of errant fluid releases and spills, they have been
addressed through remediation efforts such as souxce removal and treatment. Existing
groundwater quality data indicate that environmental impacts on aquifers associated with
MSP operation have been negligible. It is not anticipated that there has been or will be
increased potential for impact on the underlying aquifers as the result of potential increases
in airport operations and activities.
Wetlands. A total of 15 wetland basins are located on the MSP site with a cumulated area of
193 acres, and ranging in size from 1� acres at Mother Lake to less than 2 acres of combined
water hazard areas on the Rich Acres Golf Course. An additional 98 acres of wetlands are
located within or immediately outside the airport ownership along the TH 62 arterial. An
extensive floadplain forested wetland is adjacent off-site in the Mutnesota River valley south
and east of the airport, and would not be impacted by the proposed project.
Because of the wide distribution of the wetlands in the north�vest portion of the MSP
property, the 2010 LTCP requires taking some of these areas to permit fihe construction of the
new north-south runway and air cargo facilifies. Eight of these impact wetland areas are
small water hazards located on the Rich Acres Golf Course. The Duck Lake and Ball Field
wetlands, totaling 20 acres, will be filled for the airfield needs, as will approxunately 11 acres
of the 142 acres in Mother Lake. In all, 33 aczes of wetlands are required for the proposed
project. No feasible or prudent alternatives exist to the taking of these we�lands to carry out
the proposed project. For this reason, mitigation has been provided for. It is antia.pated that
59 acres of replacement wetlands will be required to meet applicable reg-ul.atory replacement
prograzns admisustered by the U.S. Corp of Engineers (Clean Water Act, Secfinn 404), MA.0
(Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act,1991), and the Minnesota DNR (Minnesofa DNR Protected
Waters Program). This replacement wetland acreage �-vill be located off-site and will require a
DNR Protected Waters Permit, a Wetland Conservation Act Permit and a Corp of Engineers
404 Permit. Mifigation will be performed by the MAC as specified in the 404-Permit and the
requirements of state permitting agencies.
Wild and Scenic Rivers. There are no tivild or scenic river desib ations on or in the vicin.ity of
MSP. Analysis of this environmental category with respect to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is
not required.
Wildlife Retuges. The MVNWR is managed by the USFWS and includes the Mannesota River
floodplain from Fort Snelling State Park to areas approximately 34 miles southeast in the river
valley. In totai, the refuge includes about 9,300 acres of land, which is both publicly and
privately owned. An additiona16,900 acres of state and locally owned and managed
recreational lands are interspersed with the Ivi`;TNW[Z management units along the river. The
two refuge management areas closest to MSP are the Long Meadow Lake Unit (2,bQ0 acres)
and the Black Dog Lake Unit (1,400 aaes). There are a variety of public use areas lying wi.thin
the affected area of the airport including: the Bass Ponds, a series of old bass-rearing ponds that
are 9,600 feet from the nearest runivay at MSP and wiL be approximately 7,500 feet from the
49
(S=a��r,i6EA19?3;
FAA RECORO OF D'cCISION . MSP DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PflOCESS
new north-south runway; a Visitors Center, which includes trails and observation areas as well
as environmental education faalities and prob ams; and other traits and features for active and �
passive recreation. The hTUNWIZ supports a broad range of wildlife and 97 species of breeding `
birds. The refuge is also used by birds on a temporary basis during migration periods.
Although the 2010 LTCP does not involve the acquisition of any land in the MV.1�T4VR, more
than 4,600 additional rnonthly aircraft overflights at altitudes between 500-2,000 feet are
expected to occur over the Refuge 32 These flights would result in disturbance to Refuge users
and possible impacts to wildlife and waterfowl, although siudies of the effects of aircraft
overflights on birds and animals are inconclusive. Redistributing aircraft operations using the
north-south runway is impractical as is the rexou�i.ng of aircraft arrivals and departures, due to
the close proximity of the runway to the refuge lands. Because the adverse impacts to portions
of fihe MVNWR cannot be avoided in carryuzg out the proposed project, the environznental
process requi.red a Section 4( fl evaluation to assure that there are no prudent and feasible
alternatives to the const-ructive use of a portion of the Refuge. It also required a determutation
that the project indudes all possible planning to min,mize the harm resulting from the use.
More information about this determination, and the planned mitigation measures, is provided
above under "Section 4( fl." According to the results of t�us determination, the MAC and the
USFWS have entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), with the FAA as a concurring
party. The MOA is presented within Attachment B, and its terms and other background
information axe discussed within the "Section 4( fl" resource discussion, above. The recent
execution of the attached MOA further reinforces the determination of fihe FAA that the
project includes "'all possible planning to minim.ize harm," and demonstrates that a detailed
mi.tigation program, including compensafion, has been developed in accordance with the
mitigation plan described in the FEIS and Section 4(� Evaluation.
Design, Art and Architectural Application. The 2010 LTCP consisfs of developing horizontal
air$eld operating surfaces and redeveloping existing airport facilities. A new air cargo
complex would be located adjacent to the TH 77 highway corridor and visible from the
arterial, while the air cargo center north of I-494 in the vicinity of 24�' Avenue South would be
razed. Additional airesaft maintenance faalifies would be provided in the vicini.ty of I-494 and
34�' Avenue South. It is premature to assess the aesthetic qualities of these new facilities but
there are no outstanding qualities to the build.ings and structures being demolished, and no
adverse impact as a result of the ne�v developments.
�. MAC High Forecasfi Sensi�ivi�y �nalysis
While completing the FEIS, the FAA found that aviation activity at MSP had been tracking
more closely with the FAA's 1997 Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) and the MAC High Forecast
versus the MAC Baseline Farecast used throughout the Draft EIS. Therefore, the FAA
requested that the airport sponsor conduct sensitivity analyses of environmental categories
for the 2010 LTCP using the MAC High Forecast as the basis for possible impact
determination (FEIS, Section II, C.2.) for year 2010. The MAC's High Forecast is based on a
cambination of optimistic scenarios within the context of rapid economic growth and
assumed improvernents to the airport. It assumes that high regional and national economic
32 A tolal ot 4,600 monthiy overflights belween 500 and 2,QC0 feel was eslima�ed based on an analysis of the MACs Baseline Forecasl ot ope�ations for �
2020 and operalicnal profiles tor various aircr�ft (see Ta61e 2 ot lhis ROD, above, which is a coRaclion lo FEIS Table D-5 conceming bird-aircraft hazards).
50
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECORD OF f3ECISION
M5P DUAI TRACK AIRPOAT PtANNING PROCESS
growth will increase air carrier originations and will also increase national passenger activity,
;"" � requiring MSP to accommodate more of the Chicago connecting overflow.
Differences between the MAC High Forecast and the FAA TAF for the years 2000, 2005, and
2010 are approxisnately 3.8, 3.b, and 9.8 percent respectively for passenger enplanements, and
less than 3.1, 3.7, and 9.1 percent respectively for airrraft operations in each of these three
time frames. T'he FAA believes these to be reasonable forecasts based on its professional
judgement and because the differences are within the accuracy of foxecasting. The forecast
differences are also within the 10 percent "rule-of-thumb" used as a matter of practice by the
FAA to determine whether to approve airport master plan forecasts after comparison with
the TAF. Therefore, for the purposes of the FEIS, the FAA and MAC ab eed that the MAC
High Forecast is more representative of the level of future aviation activity expected at MSP
than the Baseline Forecast, and the FEIS evaluates the environmental conseguences of both
the Baseline Forecast and the MAC High Forecast.
Each of the specific environmental categories in the FEIS was analyzed to determine any
significant increases in impacts as a result of the higher activity levels. Based on the MAC
High Forecast, no significant increases in environmental impacts were found to result from
the 2010 LTCP. On-airport CO emissions increased by 27% in 2010 as a result of the higher
forecast level but remained less than fihe No Action .Alternative at the higher activity level.
SOX increased 24% over the lower activity, and remains higher than the No Action
Alternative when both are at the high forecast level. With respect to surface water quality,
effluent loads increase approximately 17-19%, depending on the location of the particular
watershed, as a result of going from the baseline to the high forecast for discharge of CBOD;
on an extrezne case day. Other env-ironmental categories affected by the use of the higher
forecast include additional potential for aircraft-bird hazards, increased economic and
induced socioeconomic activity, increases in aircraft and vehicle .fuel consumption of about
21%, additional solid waste generaiion, and increases in water consumption and wastewater
discharges.
Use of the MAC High Forecast for impact determination dces not result in any sid ficant
increases in effects requiring substantial and unforeseen mitigation beyond what has already
been anticipated in the MAC Baseline Forecast.
VI1. Public �nd �gencl,� 1nv�l�err��n#
A, Er�vironmer�fiai Dacument Preparation and Pracess
The process used in the preparation of environmental documents was approved by the
Minnesota EQB in 1992, and is in accordance with FA.A's Airport Environmental Handbook
(FAA Order 5050.4A). The Alternadve Environmental Review Process, which Minnesota EQB
approved, required the assessment of environmental impacts of alternatives to the year 2020
and the examination of impacts for specific envirorunental categories, based on an increasing
level of detail. Compliance with the FAA.'s Order 5050.4A establishes that the docn.unents meet
the procedural and substantive environmental requirements set fourth by the Counal on
Environmental Quality in regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of
1968, as amended. Many of these state and federal requirements are similar. These analyses
are dacunlented in search area reports for a new airport, and separate environmental
documents �vere prepared for netiv airport site selection, the ne�v airport comprehensive plan,
51
{Sr�rCr.+sEat sss;
FAA RECORD OF DECISION
MSP DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PIANNING PROCESS
and the MSP LTCP update. A joint federal-state Draft Environmental Impact Statement was
published in December 1995. The FAA and MAC completed the FEIS following findings �
issued by the MAC and the MC, and in relation to state legislation, dated Apri12,1996 (see
Section II.C). The final statement was published in May 1998. This process avoided
duplication in preparing an FELS (40 CFR 1506.2) and satisfies both federal, state and local
reporting requirements. The FAA and the MAC are cooperating under a Memorandum of
Understanding in the preparation of the FEIS.
B. Agency Consultation and Coordination
`Throughout the environmenEal prepazation process and before, the FAA has been involved
with agency cansultation and coordination at the federal, state and local levels. Federal
agencies have been consulted in addition to internal coordination with FA.A. operating
d'zvisions. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Army Corp of Engineers, Federal Highway Admi_nistrafion, and the National Park Service
have all been involved in the consultation and coordinafion process. The FAA's state agency
consultations have included the MAC, Minnesota Departments of Transportation, Historic
Preservation, Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Environmental Quality Board. Local
consultation and coordination has occuzxed with elected and appointed represenfiatives of
numerous cities and counties in the region, as well special interest groups and the public at
large.
As detailed in Section II.0 of this ROD, the F.AA's consultation and coordination process
began with joint federal-state scoping meetings in early 1992 and continued up to the
preparation of this ROD, which is a federal document in its entirety. The resulting joint
federal-state preparation of the DEIS and FEIS built upon the earlier AED evaluation and (��
selecfion process, which closely paralleled the NEPA process, as acknowledged by the U.S.
EPA in correspondence dated July 5,1995. This approach sought to avoid duplication of
effort ar�d reduce paperwork, as mandated in CEQ r bwlations (40 CFR 1500.4(n)). The U.S.
EPA also stated support for the range of build alternatives proposed to be evaluated in the
DEIS, which included ihe sponsor's preferred airfield layout (Concept 6) evaluated in the
FEIS.
The FEIS includes signatory approval of the interagency Programmatic Ao eement on Historic
Preservation (FEIS Appendix C), sib atory approval of the Consensus Approach to Sacrface
Transportation (Appendix F), and a preliminary draft of a Memorandum of Agreement
concerning noise impacts and mitigations tivithin the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife
Refuge. �
Interagency coordination activities have continued through the F.AA's preparation of this
ROD. In particular, recent and ongoing consultations have addressed concerns expressed by
the U.S. Department of Interior concerning Section 4(f} impacts on the Minnesota Valley
National Wildlife Refuge and the U.S. EPA concerning NEPA process issues. A.s noted
previously in Secnon V.B. of this ROD, the iYiAC and the USFWS have entered into a
Memorandusn of Agreement (MOA), with the FAA as a concurring party. The USFWS has
stated its concurrence with the general scope of impacts requiring mitigation, and the
mitigation compensation committed to by the MAC, as described in correspondence between
the two federal agencies. The sib ed MOA, as well as a letter from the FAA to USF'WS (dated
September 1$,1998) and two letters addressed to FA.A from the U.S. Departrnent of Interior �"
and from USFWS (both dated September 21,1998) are included �vithin Attachment B. This
52
(Se?TEtd9cR1999)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION
MSP DUAL TW1CK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
correspondence, along with the signed MOA, demonstrates that the USFWS is in concurrence
; � with the FA.A in terms of its findina that: (1) there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to
the proposed action, and (2) the proposed action, with the mitigation provided for in the
MOA, incorporates all possible planning to minimize harm to the Refuge.
A letter from the U.S. EPA, dated August 11,1998, and included in Attachment B, is evidence
of the progress made in consultations between the U.S EPA and the FAA. This recent
consultation has included discussions of the U.S. EPA's written comments on the FEIS---
included in Attachment A.1 along with responses. The EPA's comments have focused on the
rationale for selecting alternatives (summarized in Section C.II of this ROD) and the
relationship of other airport improvement actions to the MSP 2010 LTCP, in particular the
proposed extension of Runway 4/22 to 12,000 feet. Based upon the EPA's letter of August
11,1998, the FA.A concludes that it has satisfactorily resolved the U.S. EPA's concerns in
these areas. For more information, see the responses to U.S. EPA's comments on the FEIS in
Attachment A.1, including General Response 6; and see the U.S. EPA letter of August 11,
1998, in Attachment B.
C. Responses to Environmentai Concerns
Alternative Environmental Documents (AEDs) were prepared for the new airport and MSP
alternatives which evaluated the impact of these proposals on the environment. The AEDs
focused on the detailed comparison of alternatives for the�purposes of EIS scoping and
identified potential mitigation measures. Public hearings were conducted to present the
findings in the Draft AEDs, and both oral and written comments were received during
comment periods on the AED analyses. The comments and responses are contained in the
Pinal AED reports, which recommended the MSP and New Airport Alternatives for further -
study within the EIS.
Responses to scoping comments are included in the July 1995 EIS Scoping Decision document,
and were used in preparing the DEIS, published in December 1995, as previously detailed
(Section II.C). Responses to the oral and written commen�s on the DEIS are contained in the
FEIS (FEIS, Appendix I}. A Notice of Availability of the FEIS was issued in the Federal
Re� ster on May 15,1998. The FEIS was sent to federal, state, and local agencies, libraries
and interested groups and individuals. This distribution was followed by a 30-day comment
period on the document that ended on June 15,1998. The I�4AC also published local notices
of the FEIS's availability in newspapers an May 18,1998 with a comment period also ending
on June 15�'. Copies of the comment letters and responses are included as Attachment A of
this ROD.
Envirorunental concerns and comments have been dealt with in the DEIS and FEIS. In some
instances, the concerns have resulted in additional analyses, supplementing previous
analyses or methodologies, or rnaking factual corxections. In other instances, the comments
have simply been noted, usually where an opinion rather than a substantive concern has
been expressed. �
53
ij�? i c616cR i 9�3;
FAA RECORD OF DECISION
�'lll. Related Ma��ers
A. Federai lnvolvemen� in the Dual Track Process
MSP DUAL TRACK AIFPORT PtANNiNG PROCESS
The initiation of the L?ual Track Airport Planning Process began with the enactrnent of the
Metropolitan Airport Plaruzing Act approved by the Minnesota Legi.slature in 1989. The law
specified a series of activities as the planning program proceeded, and the MAC and MC
were charged with the responsibilities for completion of the program and reporting their
recommendations to the legislature.
'I'he process that was used to complete the Dual Track Process placed major emphasis on
public and agency involvement. Affected federal, state, and local agencies were all involved
in the program to varying extents. L?irect coordination with the FAA was maintained
throughout the�process. The FAA reviewed the alternate environmental review process to be
used in the Dual Track Process in 1990 and determined it to be consistent with F.AA polzcies
and reguJ.ations. The FAA formed an Airport Capacity Design Team for MSP in 1992 that
issued�a report the following year concerning delay causes and possible caparity
enhancements for MSP. The FAA and the MAC executed a Memorandum of Understanding
in 1995 to work cooperatively and jointly in complying with state and federal environmental
requirements arising in the Dual Track Process. It was agreed that the fwo parties would
jointly produce a L}raft EIS to meet both federal and state DEIS requirements, and thafi the
F.AA would be the lead agency for the Federal EIS and the MAC would be responsible for the
AEDs and the Final State EIS.
�
Throughout the Dual Track Planning Process, the FAA has monitored the methods and
procedures used by the MAC in arriving at a preferred alternative. The FAA assisted in the �
analysis by providing guidance and advice in various technical committees. In addition, the
FAA has independently reviewed and evaluated all of the material presented in the DEIS
and FEIS, and critical portions of the maferial have been independently verified. FAA
reviewed the scoping and AED process at key points to assure that a reasonable xange of
alternatives was examined.
The FAA recognizes that the selection of the MSP 2010 LTCP as the proposed action was not
simply the result of technical evaluations and environmental impac�s, but was strongly
influenced by public opin.i.on, political negoiiations, economic factors, and airline
involvement. As such, the FA.A considered its purposes and needs and the common sense
realities of the planning process in the development of alternatives. This resulted in the
preparation of a joint FEIS, which reflects considerable effort by both the FAA and the MAC
to evaluate impacts in detail and make reasonable commitments to mitiga�ion. This ROD
represents the findings of the FAA that the I}ual Track Process was thorough and reasonable.
�. Addifiional FAA Par�icipa�ion in the Plar�ning and Environmental Pracess
As stated above, the entire Dual Track Airport Plazuvng Process is now culminating through
the issuance of th.is ROD. It consfitutes a federal order and therefore allows for the
commencement of several follow-up actions. As pre�riously established, however, the FAA's
involvement in the plaruling and environmental process dates back to some of the earliest
activities, well in advance of publication of the DEI5 and FEIS.
�
54
(S�aTEld6ER199S;
RECORD OF DECISION
M$P DUAL I FUCiC AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
The FAA served on numerous committees throughout the Dual Track Process (see Section
,' � II.C) and assisted in the analysis of AED alternatives, which has been previously established
as an inteb al part of this long and detailed NEPA process. The FAA has participated
during this process through direct consultation with the MAC, and it jointly prepared the
First Phase Scoping Report, Second Phase Scoping Report, the DEIS and the FEIS.
Throughout the planning effort, the FAA reviewed the methods and procedures used by the
MA.0 and its consultants in site selertion and evaluation of new airport and MSP expansion
alternatives considered in the AED process, and assisted in their analysis. The FAA also
conducted independent airspace and airfield capacity studies for MSP.
C. Governor's Air and Wa�er Qualiiy Certifiications
The air and water quality certifications from the Governor of the State of Minnesota are
included as an attachment to the FEIS, as required for compliance with Seciion 102(2)(c) of
the NEPA and with regulations codified at 49 U.S.C. 47106(c)(1)(B), implementing Section
509(b) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982. See the FEIS Appendix K.
'� ,�; ,' - ' i: _ � --
The FAA makes the following determinations for this project, based upon appropriate
evidence set forth in the FEIS and other portions of the administrative record:
A. There has been consultation with the Secretary of Interior and Administrator of
the US EPA. (49 USC 47101(h)). No possible and prudent alternative to the project
exists and that every reasonable step has been taken to minimize the adverse effect -
on the environment [49 U.S.C. 47106 (c)(1)(C)]• .
This Record of Decision highlights the consultation with the Secretary of Interior and
Administrator of the U.S. EPA in accordance with 49 USC 47101(h). It also highlights the
alternatives and other factors cansidered by the FAA in making its decisions, as well as the
mitigation measures that have been considered for the alternative selected and made a
condition of project approvals. The north parallel runway, and other development
alternatives were deternnined not to be possible or prudent alternatives for the reasons
summarized above in Seciion V of this ROD. Therefore, approval of the proposed
improvements is in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 447106 (c)(1)(C). A wide range of alternatives
has been thoroughly analyzed and the project includes every reasonable measure to
minimize adverse effects on the environment of the airport and its environs. Mitigation
requirements are discussed in detail below, in Secrion X of fihis ROD.
B. The Governor of the State of Minnesota has certified in writing that there is
reasonable assurance that the praject will be located, designed, constructed and
operated in compliance with applicable air and water quality standards [49 U.S.C.
4710b (c)(1){B)].
By letter dated Apri124,1997 the Governor of the State of Minnesota certified that the airport
proposed project evaluated in the FEIS �rill comply with applicable air and water quality
standards, as discussed in Section VIII.0 of this Record of Decision. The FAA must have this
certification to approve grants of federal funds for projects involving IocaEion of a runway.
55
(S"c?TE1d0ERi9?$;
FAA RECORD OF DECISION
MSP DUAL TPACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
C. The project is consistent wiEh exisEing plans of public agencies authorized by
the state in which the airport is located to plan for the development of the area �
surrounding the airport [49 U.S.C. 47106 (a)(1) and F.xecutive Order 12372,
Intergovernnnental Review of Federal Programs, respectively].
The Metropolitan Council (MC) is the public agency authorized by the State of Minnesota to
plan for development of the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area. Given the MC's review
of the FEIS and its continued involvement throughout the environmental process, the FAA is
satisfied that the project is reasonably consistent with the plans of this public agency. The
MC is a cooperating agency in the preparation of the FEIS and has been involved in the Dual
Track Airport Planning Process since its inception. The MC comments on the FEIS are
included in Attachment A of this Record of Decision, and incorporate the finding that the
MSP 2010 and 2020 development plans are consistent with the aviation chapter of the
Metropolitan Developmenf Guide.
D. The interests of Ehe communzty in or near which the project may be located
have been given fair consideraEion [49 USC 47106 (b) (2)].
This deterrnination is supported by a long history of communication between the MAC and
the surrounding political jurisdicfions, documented in the FEIS and beguuu:ng at the earliest
project plarming stages when the Dual Track .Airport Planning Process was mandated by the
Minnesota Legislature. T'hrough the course of preparing numerous planning and
environmental studies, providing for committee structures and public hearings, and as a
result of the state's leb slative mandates, the participation process has remained open and
available to interested parties. 'I`he MAC has executed agreements with surrounding
communities and special interests (historic, noise, refuge, surface transportation, etc.) in ��
consideration of concerns and commitments of interested pariies regarding th.e proposed
project. Further, the MAC is curren�ly in the process of adopting contracts with affected
communities regarding the planning and development of a north pazallel runway. The
lanb age in force or proposed in these contracts� generally provides that the communities
will not oppose construction of the new nozth-south runway while the MAC agrees to not
advocaEe the construction of a north parallel runway, nor construct such a runway, for an
extended time period (the actual or proposed contract terms extend as far into the future as
2050).
Consistent with FAA commitments made to the City of Minneapolis � MSP control tower
personnel will utilize Runway 17/35 in accordance with the conditions set forth in the L}ual
Track Airport Planning Process FEIS, Appendix A, page A.3-17. Therefore, tower personnel
will utilize Runway 17/35 so fihat the runway is not used for departures to the north and
arrivals to the south, except under the fallowing limited circumstances, described on page
A.3-17 of the FEIS: (1) safety reasons; (2) weather conditions; or (3) temporary runway
closures due to snow removal, due to construction, or due to other activities at the airport.
� As slated in Sec�ion V.A of fhis ROD, the City ci 4ferdo(a reighls finalized i1s contrct •++ith the MAC cn December 23, 1996. Contracls with the Cilies o1
Minneapolis and Eagan are slill being finalized. (
� Letter from Jane F. Garvey, FAA Administr2for, to Minn?=_oolis Mayor 5naron Sayles 5e��on, dated July 15, 1998. \�
56
(ScPie�!BER19°8)
FA� RECORD Of DECi510N MS° DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
Section VIII of the FEIS, "Public and Agency Involvement," identifies the times throughout
the project where adjacent communities have had the opportunity to express views on the
� proposed airport development program.
E. Appropriate action, including the adoption of zoning laws, has or will be taken
to the extent reasonable to restrict the use of land next to or near the airport to uses
that are compatible with normal airport operations [49 USC 47107 (a)(10)].
The airport sponsor is required in every grant application to fu.rnish a statement of
compatible land use. Each grant the sponsor receives contains an assurance of compatible
land use. The MAC does not have legal authority to control land use outside the airport
boundaries. It has worked extensively with local jurisdictions in the past to develop and
implement plans and policies to ensure compatible land use in the airport environs. The
MA.0 has coordinated with local jurisdictions and advised them of i�s current and future
planned development. It has completed a FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Planiung Study,
and a Part 150 Update which involved input from the local jurisdictions. Part of the study's
recommendations include adoption of additional land use controls by the surrounding
communities to control future non-compatible development.
The Minnesota Departrnent of Transportation promulgates airport zoning standards for state
safety zones around airports. Communities around the airport have adopted zoning
standards that are consistent with these standards for the currently developed airport. A
MSP Joint Zoning Board will establish zoning regulations for areas affected by the new
runway, subject to Mn/DOT approval.
F. For this project, which will involve the displacement and relocation of a limited
_ ::.
i � number of persons, fair and reasonable relocation payments and assistance have :
- been or will be provided pursuant to the provisions in Title II of the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970, as
amended. Comparable decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings are available for
occupancy on the open markeE or will be built if necessary prior tv actual
displacement [42 USC App 4601, ihere and after].
Implementation of the proposed action requires the relocation of 8 households and 73
businesses. Of the residential use, three people in one dwelling unit would be di.splaced
because of being located in a Runway Protection Zone and approximately 16 persons would
be displaced due to highway reconstruction. The business relocation process will displace
about 2,891 workers. Of the 73 businesses to be displaced, 56 would be displaced because of
runway construction or location in the IZPZ, which involves all but 81 of the 2,891 affected
employees. In addition, the PEIS estimates that future noise mitigation measures—to be
implemented over an extended time period—tivill result in the relocation of 158 households,
or approximately 365 persons.
All land acquisition and relocation assistance will be carried out in accordance with the
provisions of Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of
197Q and Part 24 of the Reb ations of the office of the Secretary of Transportation. A local
relocation contact will be established to aid residents and businesses in their relocation
efforts. The FAA will continue to coordinate jvith the MAC concerning compatible land use
and will require the MAC to provide fair and reasonable relocation payments and assistance
payments pursuant to the pro��isions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act.
57
(ScPT�Fd�ER19°3j
FAA FiECORD OF DECISION MSP QUAL TRACX AIRPOfiT PLINNING PROCESS
G. For this project, involving new consEruction which will affect wetlands, there is
no practicable alternative to such construction. The proposed action includes all (
practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands which may result from such
use [Executive Order 11990, as amended]
The FAA finds that there is no practicable alternative to the proposed project's use of 33 acres
of the 291 acres of wetlands located on or near MSP. This is due to the proposed north-south
runway being determined as the only feasible and prudent location for siting one new
runway at MSP. The northwest quadrant of the airport, where the affected wetlands are
located, is the only remaining mostly undeveloped portion of the site, and fihere is also very
limited space available—overall—in which to accomplish airport unprovements.
The project is in compliance with Executive Order 11990, as amended. The project's
wetlands commitments include meeting mitigation specified in required permits from the
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, the Minnesota Departrnent of Natural Resources, and the
Board of Water and Soil Resources. The FAA will ensure that the airport sponsor provides
wetland mitigation as specified in these required permits. Mitigation of we�land loss will be
through replacement wetlands of 59 acres. These replacement wetlands wou.id be located
outside the vicinity of the airport.
H. The Federal Aviation Administration has given this proposal the independent
and objective evaluaEion required by the Council on Environmental Quality [40
CFR 1506.5].
As outlined in the FEIS, there was a lengthy process that led to the ultimate identification of
the preferred alternative arid appropriate znitigation measures. This process began as a �-
result of Minnesota legislative action and the FAA. provided input, advice, and expertise
throughout the planning and environmental analyses, along with administrative and legal
review of the proposed projecE. Such assistance neither compromised the objectivity of the
FEIS or hampered the FAA's ability to insure that environmental consequences were
accorded full consideration. Fram its inception, FAA has taken a strong leadership role in
the envirorunental evaluation of this proposed project and has maintained objectivity
throughout.
The decision to prepare an EIS for the proposed project was made by the FAA. From the
outset, the FAA took the lead in the scoping process, including issuance of the notice of
intent, inviting the participation of other agencies, determining the issues to be analyzed in
depth, and assigning responsibilities for inputs to the EIS. The FAA established a clear
definition of the federal actions, the alternatives, and the impacts needing detailed study, as
well as those that did not.
.Although the FAA is dependent upon the sponsor, and others for certain information and
data concerning the details of the proposed project, that data is independently evaluated by
the FAA. The FAA evaluated all substantive analyses throughout the process, including the
AEDs that preceded preparation of the EIS, and is ultimately responsible for all of the
judgements, analyses and decisions contained in the EIS. FAA contributed to all aspects of
the EIS documents, including writing, review and completion of the FEIS.
Similarly, the FAA is satisfied that it conducted an independent review of the factual
assumptions and all EIS documentation relied upon by Mn/DOT, MAC and their
C
58
(S�PTE�i8ER19°9)
MSP DUAI TRACK AIRPOR7 PIANNING PROCESS
FAA RECORD Of DECISION
consultants, and added FAA expertise through revie�v and re�zsions, as needed. Individuals
, at all levels of the FAA have devoted hundreds of hours to ensuring compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act, and other environmental measures. Accozdingly, it is
found that the independent and objective evaluation called for by the Council on
Environmental Quality has been provided.
I. The Secretary of Transportation may approve a transportation program or
project requiring the use of publicly owned land of a public park, recreation area,
or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of naiional, state, or lacal significance, or land of
an historical site of national, state, or local significance, only if:
1. There is no prudent and feasible alternative to using the land; and
2. The program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm
to the park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic
site resulting from the use [49 USC 303].
The proposed project would result in the constructive use of a portion of the Minnesota
Valley National Wildlife Refuge. Other runway altematives that were considered at MSP
also involve the use of Section 4(fl properties and other adverse impacts, and do not provide
as much airfield capacity; therefore, they are not considered feasible and prudent
alterna�ives. As detail.ed in Section V.A of this ROD, the north-parallel runway alternatives
require use of historic, park and recreational property; south-parallel runway altematives are
not operationally prudent because of significant safety issuesa' and would encroach into
historic cemetery land of national sid ficance. The Final AED for the New Airport identified
six properties with historic National Red ster eligibility. Each alternative considered under _
the Dual Track Airport Planning Process 3nvolved considerations of potential Section 4(� _
affected lands. The proposed project results an�a ��e Sectione4( fl E aluation pr par d by e
use of property rather than actual talang of 1
the FAA provides detailed discussion of the Refuge and the impacts that result to it from the
proposed project. In this Evaluation, the FAA noted the plans for mitigation included
monetary compensation to restore the functions of publicly owned lands in the MVNWR that
have substantial impairment (Section 4(� Evaluation, pages 33-34). The USFWS has stated
that it is not opposed to the expansion of MSP; but has also consistently made clear that it
cannot concur and no decision should be made until the amount of compensation has been
agreed to.
The MA.0 and the USFWS, tivith concurrence, have ab eed that MAC will pay at least �20
million to US�'WS based on valuation by a professional appraiser, as well as additional
compensation to realign and operate the MVNWR• The USFWS agrees that this provides full
compensation for impacts upon the Refuge, pending successful negotiation of the remaining
details. The agreement has been formaJized in a MOA. A copy of the signed MOA, which is
� As discussed on page ll-2 of lhe MSP LTCP Final AYc..�.:'�ve Enviror.�^ental Cccume^' , or "A�D' (February 1 ��a), the use af a south paraliel runway for
landings when the zirport is operating toward th� northwes:'h�ouid place I�nding aircrP� c'.�sz to G�e 2rea of gre2tesl wake turoulence irom deparfures on
existing Runway 30L (formeriy designated ftunway 29L). i r.er2 would als� be the pot°r.;�al for waks tu�bulence inte2cticn betvreen a n�w soufh paraliel
�j runway and existing Runway 30l as aircra�i I'n ofi on de�'��a. 7his poianlial for w2�e 'cr'oulence interaclion in close proximity Io the ground was judged in
_., the referenced AED to bs a significant salety issu?, makir; ::�e soulh parailel runway re t^Gr feasbie nor prudent.
59
(Sc' i �F,!BER1995)
Ft1A RECORD OF DECISION MSP DL1Al TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
discussed further in Section VI.A of this ROD, is included �rith�n Attachment B. The FAA
requires, as a condition of this ROD, and as a special condition in future federal grant and �
PFC funding for this project, that MAC carry out all possible planning to minimize harm to
the MVNWR in accordance with the FEIS and Section 4( fl Evaluation. Further, FAA requires
that the USFWS and MAC reach a final agreement before the FA..A approves any Federal
grant or use of passenger facility charges relative to the construction of Runway 17/35.
Construction of the proposed project also requires the demolition of portions of the Or b�-inal
Wold-Chamberlain Terminal Historic L}istrict, which is eligible for listing as a National
Historic Landmark I}istrict, and involves the constructive use of the Spruce Shadows Farm
Historic District (due to noise impacts). T'he FAA and the MAC have developed a
Programmatic Agreement that establishes appropriate procedures to be used during
construction and beyond, and which has been executed with national, state and local historic
interests concerned with this matter, including the federal Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Minneapolis
Heritage Preservation Commission.
The FAA finds that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land from these
properties to accomplish the proposed projecE. The FAA also concludes that the Sponsor has
provided an enforceable commitment to carry out, in the form of compensation based upon
additional Refuge appraisal information and negotiations, all possible planning to minimize
the harm to the use of historic properties and the MVIVWR that may result from construction
and operation of the new runway.
��. � . �; � t � : :; '� :� � , .
The approvals contained in this Record of Decision are specifically conditioned upon full
implementation for the following measures. These terms of approval will be included as
special grant conditions in future Federal airport grants to the MAC:
The mitigation measures that will be implemented are those listed in the FEIS and in this
RC7D (Section V of the FEIS and Section VI of this ROD). These are hereby adopted in
this ROD. .The key measures are:
— Compliance with applicable air quality standards in accordance with the Governor of
Minnesota's ceri-ification letter, and investigation of ineasures to reduce automobiie
use and to encourage the use of alternative fuels and aircraft ground support services
at the airport.
— Compliance with the provisions of the Prograrnrnatic Agreement regarding the
identification and mitigation of the effects of the 2010 LTCP on archaeological,
historic and architectural resources, and conformity with permits issued by agencies
having jurisdiction to insure the protection of these resources.
— Adherence to best management practices to avoid and minimize impacts during
construction of the proposed project.
��
a
— Establishment of airport zoning standards for state safety zones to restrict land use
and development in the airport environs.
�
60
(SEP7 �618ER1998)
MSP DUAL TW1CK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
�,
Fr1A RECOAD OF DECISION
- Implementation of ineasures regarding insulation, coanxnunity stabilization, airport
i operations, and runway use, set out in the MSP Noise Mitigation Program.
- Establishment of the organization and funding mechani.sms to provide relocation
assistance to displaced owners of businesses and residences in accordance with the
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970.
- Implementation of the Memorandum of Agreement between the MAC and the
U.S. Fish and Wildli.fe Service (see Attachment B) to provide all possible planning to
m;nimize harm to the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge.
- Compliance with applicable watex quality standards in accordance with the Governor
of Minnesota's certification letter.
- Compliance with environmental control measures in a curxently issued National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
These mitigation measures, which constitute all the practicable means to avoid or
minimize environmental harm for the project, are hereby adopted. The FAA will monitor
their implementation as necessary to assure that they are carried out as project
commitments.
m Project contractors will apply for and obtain appropriate permits prior to construction.
FAA grant agreements with the airport sponsor will ensure that these standard permits
are obtained prior to the commencement of construction.
� Provisions set out in a renewed NPDES permit will be adhered to and incorporated into _
development plans for the proposed project. All conditions of the NPDES perm.it are _
made conditions of the approval of this ROD.
� Pravisions of the Section 404 permit to be obtained from the U.S. Army Corp of Enb eers
will be followed to ensure compliance. All conditions of approval of the permit are made
conditions of approval of this ROD.
o Development of an erosion control plan during the design phase will be required by FAA
(FA.A Advisory Circular 150/5370-10A) prior to commencement of construction.
�1, Ag�nc� Decisi�n and Ord�r
The D-aal Track Airport Planxung Process is discussed in the Executive Summary and
Appendix A of the FEIS as well as earlier in this Record of Decision. The FEIS ackno�vledges
the extensive efforts conducted to determine the most appropriate means of ineeting future
aviation needs in the M.inneapolis-St. Paul region, and the series of scoping meetings, public
hearings, and other meetings through which residents and cornmunities surrounding the
airport were ;nvolved in bringing this process to a conclusion. The �AA's objectives have
been carefully considered in relation to the 2010 LTCP and the proposed project discussed in
the FEIS, including the purposes and needs to be served by the project, the alternative means
of achieving them, and the costs and benefits in terms of effective and responsible use of
Federal funds.
61
(SEPt�ti�aEat996)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION
MSP DUAL TFUCK AIAPORT PLINNING PROCESS
Although the No Action Alternative has fewer developmental impacts than the selected
alternative, it lacks any surface transportation improvements and consumes more fuel �
energy, has greater air and water quality impacts, and fails to meet the purposes and needs
for the project. For the reasons contained in this ROD, and supported by the detailed
evaluations in the FEIS and the state's legislative process, the FAA has determined that there
is no possible, feasible, and prudent alternative to the airport sponsor's and the FAA's
preferred alternative.
As previously noted, the FAA recognizes that the selection of the MSP Alternative by the
Minnesota Legislature as the preferred alEernative was not simply the result of technical
evaluations and environmental impacts, but was strongly influenced by public opinion,
political negotiations, economic factors, and airline involvement. Based on this, the FAA
considered as a factor, but not as dispositive, the various decisions and mandates of the
Minnesota State Legislature.
Having made th.is determination, the FAA has the choice of either approving the agency
actions that are necessary to implement the project or not approving them. Approval would
signify that applicable federal requirements relating to airport development planning have
been met, and would permit the MAC to go forward with the proposed project and receive
federal funds for eligible developmen� items. Not approving these agency actions would
prevent the MAC from proceeding tivith federally supported development in a timely
manner.
I have carefully considered the FAA's goals and objectives in relation to various aeronautical
aspects of the proposed master plan update development actions discussed in the FEIS,
including the purposes and needs to be served by this project, the alternative means of (
achieving them, the environmental 'unpacts of these alternaiives, the nutigataon necessary to
preserve and enhance the environment, and the costs and benefits of achieving these
purposes and needs in terms of efficiency and fiscally responsible expenditure of Federal
funds.
Therefore, under authority delegated to me by the Administrator of the F.A.A, I find that the
projects summarized in this ROD in Section II.B are reasonably supported, and for those
projects I therefore direct that action be taken to carry out the agency actions discussed more
fully in Section IV of this Record, including:
A. Approval under existing or future FAA criteria of project eligibility for Federal grant-in-
aid funds and/or Passenger Facility Charges, including the following elements:
1. Land Acquisition
2. Site Preparation
3. Runway, Taxiway and Runway Safety Area Construction
4. Terminal and Other Landside Development
5. Certain MAC-installed Navigational Aids
b. Environmental Mitigation
B. Unconditional approval of the revised airport layout plan (ALP) for the projects
summarized in Section II.B, which constitute the airport's 2010 Long Term
Comprehensive Plan (2010 LTCP).
s2
(SFPr!deER1993j
FAA RECOfiD OF DECIS}ON
M5P DUAI TPACX AIRPORT PtAN41tvG PROCESS
C. Confirmation of the conditional approval oE projects in the MAC 2020 Concept Plan, as
shown on the ALP last conditionally approved by the FAA on April 25,1997, and as
evaluated in the FEIS and described in 5ection II.B of this ROD—this approval being
conditioned on a requirement for further environmental processing, such that the new
terminal and other elements of the 2020 Concept Plan shall not be undertaken without
prior written environmental approvals from the FAA.�
D. Approval for the installation, relocation, operation and upgrade of navigational aids.
E. Development of air traffic control and airspace management procedures that are
consistent with operating considerations in the FEIS and designed to affect the safe and
efficient movement of air traffic to and from the proposed new ru.nway, including the
development of a system for the routing of arriving and departing traffic and the design,
establishment, and publication of standardized flight operating procedures, such as
standard instrument approach/departure procedures and run�vay utilization practices.
F. Appropriate amendments to air carrier operations specifications.
G. Certification that implementation of the proposed project approved in this ROD is
reasonably necessary for use in air commerce pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 4�502(b).
APPROVED BY:
� � Larry H. Ladendorf
Acting i�tanager, Airporks Division
Great Lakes Rea on FAA
�\ � � ;�z� �� t�.�
�.c..,�,��c�..:
J. �
APPROVED BY: J
Cecelia Hunziker
Regional Administrator
Great Lakes Reb on FAA
RIGHT OF APPEAL
9/.�
�j%.��'�
Date
These decisions are taken pursuant to =�9 U.S.C. Subtitle VII, Parts A and B, and constitute a
Final Order of the Administrator which are subject to reviecv by the courts of appeals of the
United States in accordance with the Provisions of Section 1006 of the Federal Aviation Act of
1958, as amended, 49 U.S.C. 4b110.
36 me FAA does nol object Io the 2020 Conceol °1an Irom zn zir�oace u(ilizalion st2r,dpe�nt, exceot lor the dual crossov?r laxiway east o( Ihe future east
terminai, which has nof been approved becausa of sh2dowir.y. However, tne FAA has ccnc!uded iha! speciiic airFor, aclivity levels and Ihe associaled
environmental impacts are not reasonably lorese�able be�cr,c 2010.
63
(S"c?ic!deER1998)
C�
��-
�� ���� ��,. 4 �
�'z �`� ���� ��.. � �. �F' ��� .�
� '� X'�' { �� lx�� i � �•y f �;' �.� � � �� � 9. � '�� r:� u c.e�: � bL ' � V .
� A W. �e,._ ��: ,.r ��5 £. .?. '�_ x . � '1 �. .�..�
1�, r i! . �. � dF'la`'�i :�i��(
.
,f���.tbk ke-���r ' ti�a.�',� ..-�.'��'�p
i]Yi:iti�f;�7Si�4 ....�.w......._.....,..�._......._.,........�.+.r......_-.....,..... .............._..................,...............�.�..�_:..........�.- .........�..........-._...........-....u,_..�-...,.........
December 14, 1998
Mr. Fuhrmann, MASAC Technical Advisor
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Dear Mr. Fuhrmann:
This letter is to confirm our invitation to yourself to m.eet with the Mendota Heights' Airport
Relations Commission on Wednesday, February 10, 1999 at 7 p.m. during their regularly
scheduled meeting. The meeting will be held in the Large Conference Room at Mendota Heights
City Hall, located at 1101 Victoria Curve, just off the TH 110 and Lexington Avenue
intersection.
The Commission has expressed an eagerness to meet with you since your appointment to the
position of MA.SAC Technical Advisor. On February 10, 1998 they would like to discuss the
�' � development of specifications for investigating the use of Global Positioning Satellites (GPS), in
particular, how the use of GPS may enhance the use of the Southeast Corridor for the benefit of
our community. Other areas of interest include the review of the Non-Simultaneous Depam�re
compliance and the evaluation of the Southeast Corridor.
We look forward to meeting with you in Febniary and we will be in touch with you prior to that
date to focus on the areas that our Commission would be most interested in hearing from you.
Thank you in advance for your availability.
Sincerely,
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
� (�
��
Kevin Batchelder
City Administrator
cc: Scott Beaty, Chair - ARC
a:rW^^n.�..-�-:,...'^r�^.�z^..,.--�zrs:�:�.^^,��cxn^^ �-�---=zc.r,v^=x�^.^,r.+•^.�x:,^_:.raa�...--ni-rcxr.�,.:s:,�mss_x._co-ze:v���:fi�::v..�;:..s:�s��:��n
1101 Victoria Curve • Mendota Heights, t��IN • 55118 (651) 452-7.8�0 � FA1 452-5940
C
�
C
i��.�:� �i �.�����.Csu.� ����i�� �����������!
r,,t'S S�,ti q Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport
�`' t � 6040 - 28th Avenue South � Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799
?''�' y, � z Phone (612) 726-8100 o Fax (612) 726-5296 '� .'
0
n t � t in
O ' . �
O }
� � �
f'� 4iRapRt� GO
•
"' ` ... ♦ .•. �� '� �, . .. '• � ' ''
y� �
.; �
; � i`�..
�'�`""`�i.� '�,.' i
• � « ,y `.
(/J �.'- � � J l.. ,'� r.' .
c.r��, . - . ��� ;'; l
�,_, � J�,. :� � ;
��
6VVq
The Operations Committee will meet Fridav, December 1'i, 1998 — 10:00 a.m. at the MAC
West Terminal Building of the Metropolitan Airports Commission, North Star Room, 6301
34`h Avenue South, Niinneapolis.
If you are unable to attend, please notify the committee secretary at 726-8141 with the
name of your designated alternate.
i ,, i`�' i
� ' `. ..
OLD BUSIIVESS
1999 Goals and Objectives Discussion
NEW BUSINESS
NWA Engine Test Cell Briefing
MEMBER DISTRIBUTION
,i1Glark Salmen, Chairman, t�WA
Bob Johnson, MBAA
�,,:�@f3-�c}%fFiFs--E`d j"'dll i.3;� �,;>,,4. I.,Lr_�.��7 rvc C., w..
Ron Johnson, ALPA � �`'
Brian Bates, Airborne
�John Nelson, Bloomington
(,��Dick Saunders, Minneapolis
s�'1�Vlayor Charles Mertensotto, Mendota Heights
�.-�Dick Keinz, MAC
cc: �vin Batchelder, Mendota Heights
Charles Curry, ALPA
Will Eginton, IGH
Jennifer Sayre, NWA
�,Mark Hinds, Richfield
Advisorv:
Keith Thompson, FAA
Ron Glaub, FAA
Cindy Greene, FAA
, fRoy Fuhrmann, MAC
�had Leqve, MAC
,,,�Shane VanderVoort, MAC
The Metropolitan Airports Commission is an affirmative action employer.
Reliever Airports: AIFLAKE e ANOKA COUNTI'/BLr11SE � CR1'STAL + PLYING CLOUll e LAhG EL�fO � SAINT PAUL DO�VNTObVN
� I I, . /. .! ,.
�{[� t � ��,, ,+ • � Y.'2 , Ty 1
�� •
F�tOIVI:
�iT�JEC'I':
DA.TE:
MASAC Operations Committee
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor
MASAC & Operations Committee Work Plan for 1999
December 4, 1998
i �'. ' ��. �,
At the December l, 1998 MASAC meeting the members approved the below completed portion of the
MASAC Goals and Objectives Calendar for 1999 and forwarded a recommendation to the MASAC
Operations committee to move forth and complete the calendar for 1999. As a result, at the December
11, 1998 MASAC Operations Committee meeting, the prioritization process will continue. It is
anticipated this prioritization effort will act as a catalyst for the finalization of the MASAC Goals and
Objectives Calendar in January for approval at the January 26, 1999 MASAC meeting.
As the prioritization process continues it is important to keep in mind topics previously brought to the
Operations Committee, they are as follows:
*�-
'�-
'�-
�
�
Begin ground level/low frequency noise studies for all communities.
Begin the process of a PART 150 update.
Discuss how noise level data from ANOMS can be incorporated into PART
150 contour generation.
Seek MASAC's support for a public health study to be conducted by the
appropriate state agency to research the long-term health effects of noise on
humans, especially on senior citizens and children.
Implement the Noise Reduction Plan oudined in the 1996 Noise Mitigation
Recommendations.
'-�- Increase the credibility and value of the Noise Complaint and Information
Line.
'i� Review how information and how much information is distributed to
MASAC members.
'�- Produce a quarterly report for distribution to other bodies and to be made
available to the public.
The above information in conjunction with additional input from the Cornmittee members will aid in
the effective and suitable prioritization and completion of the MASAC Goals and Objectives Calendar
for 1999.
Proposecl 1999 IVI.��AC Goals and Objectives Calander
...._ u:__ ,.
..� . :. . . _, ...... -
.
.. . . . . . . . .. : ��,_.�_ : � . .�,_,_..:� ._ ,.._ . _. � ...�_ .. >�.t .�r .:_ ,...
January 15
January 26
February 12
February 23
March 12
March 30
April 9
Apri127
May 14
May 25
lune I 1
Finaliae Goals & Objectives for 1999
Develop Specifications for Investigating GPS
Operations Committee Landing System Use for Noise Alleviation
Determine Ground Run-up Enclosure (GRE)
Evaluation/Benefit Criteria.
MASAC Orientation Topic - Jet Engine Noise Sources
with Spectrum data. (NASA Data)
RMT Installation Update
Operations Committee Review RFP results for RMT Installation
Update on ANOMS/RMT Integration
MASAC FAA tour of the Farmington Air traffic Control
Center
Enhance Noise Information Dissemination
options. (Community Communication of
Operations Committee Construction, MAC Feedback,
and Operational Changes
Review Nighttime Hours (Stage 2, 3; 9-11 P.M.)
MASAC Receive MSP Construction Briefing(G. Warren)
Operations Committee Non-simultaneous Corridor Departure Anaiysis
MASAC
Operations Committee
MASAC
Operations Committee
Page 2
Jeff Hamiel Update on MAC
Evaluate Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor
Departure Procedures.
RMT Site Location update
Construction Update
�
C
�
N
�
�
�
'C3
�
M
:..1 � � �� � M .� • O ",'�f '.'.- �t t'.Y.I�.,x '� 4'�+ 3E�Y.'�-� rSy � i e �
1i
„ �a�����ed I)at� j � .��coffip�as� °� � � . ,? ° p�p�y g: p�a�p��p7� _ ' x
.� ... ..�. .�—� t�Y1 h� �. . . . s a- ; S..f ,�a.�i�-.•.r r ��W.�CA.A14HdYtl.B.i� � r rv .
_ �
1 S 1�99 ��y r x� ; 5.,� , t,. -� �-�- �
� ��.t � i { t -a�,. �,�r`�� .''.]�` X.�, +a 1. n s < i.L� t � � � .t �...� ,y,�.. -s.-c:�' "'. ._ � � � ?E. . r� s ,�, w
...:C �.._�+?�.., _�.. ��c.«__o .._r....5_�1�.�: .,.o.�._.....•,_,;�=,_r.1:= .:va-s:.. :._�� rV-'^��"'..,.e. .�. s%»k.._....c.:u'i�Yd�..�..�.iaY�.?� �-�'r+...Y�.?,.xt,�.ii.rr «....ou....�.�...ta-._ru-r �.w.t
June 22 MASAC Orientation Topics
July 9 Operations Committee Construction Update
July 27 MASAC
August 13 Operations Committee Construction Update
August 24 MASAC
September 10 Operations Committee Investigate incentives to carriers for Stage 3 A/C
September 2$ MASAC Stage III Compliance Review
October 8 Operations Committee
October 26 MASAC Orientation Topics
November 12 Operations Cammittee Focus Activities for Upcoming Year
November 30 MASAC Part 150 Progress Review
December 10 Operations Committee Establish Calendar for 2000
Page 3
5 ���, � _.i ' � �.,' :.1
- f f, . � T i t -�,`-� T �. 4 �5 �° e:
S ` `
; �; � s. �"'4 1' �,<fi x ' f �: •� , �4 v
n
MASAC Operations Committee
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor
Northwest Airlines Engine Test Ceil Briefing
December 4, 1998
At the December 11, 1998 MASAC Operations Committee meeting Chairman Mark Salmen of
Northwest Airlines will give a briefing about NWA's engine test cell. The briefing will provide
information on the facility specifications and composition as well as how the facility is used.
f�
C
�i�u��s
� . � ��s,�c o���,-rao�s co��nirrE�
NOVEN��ER 13, 1998
The meeting was held at the Metropolitan Airports Commission North Star Conference
Room, and called to order at 10:00 a.m.
The foilowing members were in attendance:
Members•
Mark Salmen, Chairman - NWA
Bob Johnson - MBAA
Jamie Verbrugge - Eagan
Kevin Batchelder - Mendota Heights
Dick Keinz - MAC
Ron Johnson - ALPA
Dick Saunders - Minneapolis
Advisorv:
Roy Fuhrmann - Technical Advisor
Shane VanderVoort - MAC Advisory
Visitors:
Will Eginton - Inver Grove Heights
Jan DelCalza
Mark Hinds - Richfield
James Prosser - Richfield City Manager
; r r =
R1VlT StTE UPDATE
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, updated members on the status of the additional RMT
sites.
RMT #25: This site is located in Eagan. The City of Eagan has chosen a site very near the
center of the indicated area. Staff believes the location will work, but will need to continue
discussions with the city.
�
RMT ##26: This area is located in Eagan and Inver Grove Heights. The City of Inver Grove
Heights has subrnitted a letter to staff, which includes their three most preferred sites. Two
of those sites are outside the identified location area. The third site is just slightly north of
the site chosen by the staff. Staff indicated this third site is acceptable, but the committee
would have to rnake the decision as to whether the other two sites would be acceptable.
Will Eginton, IGH, indicated that their first preference was to have it located north of the
current #21 site (outside the identified area), indicating this location would better capture
planes that were diverted to the north. He said it was possible this site is in Sunfish Lake
rather than in Inver Grove Heights. Mr. Eginton said he thought site #21 was a dead zone
that did not capture many flights. Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, asked if it was
possible to move site #21 �ather than to add another site. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical
Advisor, said it was probably possible. John Nelson, Bloomington, said he didn't
necessarily concur that site #21 was a"dead zone" because it was sited to capture both
arrivals and departures. There was also discussion regarding how highway noise might
affect the RMTs. Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, noted that there were already a
number of RMT sites located near major highways. Mr. Fuhrmann reminded members that
the area of influence for each RMT is larger than what is indicated by the identified area.
JOHN NELSON, BL.00MIIVGTON, MOVED AND BOB JOFINSON, MBAA, SECONDED,
TO REQUEST MAC STAFF MEET WITH INVER GROVE HEIGHTS REPRESENTATIVES
TO FURTHER DISCUSS THE POSITIONIlVG OF RMT SITE #26. THE VOTE WAS
UNANlMOUS. MOTION CARRIED.
RMT #27: This site is located in Minneapolis. Staff will be meeting with Steve Minn,
Minneapolis, the following Monday to discuss whether the RMT should be placed in Kenny �
Park or at Anthony Middle School. �,
RMT #28: This area is located in Richfield. The City of Richfield has requested and
received the documentation associated with how the area for the RMT site was chosen but
has not made a decision on a site.
RMT #29: This site is located in Minneapolis. The site chosen is at Erickson Elementary
School. Mr. Fuhrmann said the site could pose some challenges for a ground level
installation and may have to be placed on top of a first floor section of the school. Staff has
met with Sandra Colvin Roy and is currently setting up a meeting with school officials to
discuss how to proceed.
Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, said staff should expect to receive a request from the Eagan City
Council to place a temporary monitor west of RMT sites 16 and proposed site 25. He said
although the city believes site 25 is the best site for an additional RMT, this neighborhood
feels it would benefit from knowing what noise levels they are experiencing.
Ron Johnson, ALPA, asked if site #29 in Minneapolis (just north of the end of the north
parallel runway) would capture any flights. He said he thought the site was positioned such
that an aircrafi could not fly that direction from the end of the runway. Roy Fuhrmann,
Technical Advisor, displayed overheads showing that there were indeed flights that went
E
almost straight north and that did not intersect an RMT's "area of influence" as depicted on
the overhead.
CORRESPOIVDENCE
'9. Inver Grove Heigh4s - residenf reques4 for a iemporary noise monitor to be placed
at his home to measure noise levels.
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said his staff has been in contac� with the City of
Inver Grove Heights. He said the staff has asked the city to have the resident contact
them in regards to the purpose and objectives of his request. Mr. Fuhrmann said he
has not spoken to the resident at this time, but has a call into the city.
Will Egintan, Inver Grove Heights, said he knows who the resident is and knows why he
requested the monitor be placed at his horne. He said the resident wants to know what
the noise level is at his home.
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said staff would continue to attempt to contact the
resident and would make arrangements to place a noise monitor at his home for a
couple of days.
2. City of Rich�eld resolution #8635.
The Operations Committee discussed at length the City of Richfield's Resolution #8635,
"� which was presented at the October 27, 1998 MASAC meeting and forwarded to the
(� �)
- Operations Committee.
Chairperson Salmen introduced the item and said the resolution`s four specific requests
are items currently being dealt with at a higher level within MAC. He said he felt it
would be inappropriate for MASAC to take any action at this time pending the outcome
of the negotiations between the City of Richfield and the MAC. He then opened the
item for discussion.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, asked for a clarification and an update of the
negotiations.
Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, said he has been attending the negotiation sessions. He
said the outcome of the discussions is unsure at this point, but that beginning a low-
frequency noise study has been discussed as part of the plans. He said he felt MASAC
should be involved in the issue of low-frequency noise in some form or another.
Bob Johnson, MBAA, �said based on the most recent correspondence from the City of
Richfield to the Commission it appears the discussions are still unresolved. He said he
thought the process should be allowed to run its course, and that MASAC is not in a
position to take action at this time.
3
inappropriate and urged caution. Chairperson Salmen agreed and reiterated that
MASAC would continue to be involved in the issue.
John Nelson, Blaomington, suggested staff draft a letter to the City of Richfield
acknowledging receipt of the resolution and outlining the committee's discussion, being
sure to mention that the committee was deferring action on their request rather than
rejecting it. PVIr. Nelson also said he felt a Part 150 Update was the best vehicle for
pursuing a low frequency noise study. He said including it in a Part 150 Update would
allow for both an in depth study and for metro-wide abatement measures. He also said
he felt he didn't have enough data at this time to take action on the resolution.
Mark Hinds, Richfield, encouraged the committee members to support the resolutian, but
if they did not take action, he asked that staff begin researching how much it would cost
to avefiaul the ANOMS systern and % conduct a low frequency noise study at MSP.
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said what Mr. Hinds asked for would be time
consuming for MASAC and would -require input from each community as to what they
would want from a new system. -
John Nelson, Bloomington, said that although Mr. Hinds' suggestion was reasonable, it
was probably preliminary because it is unknown what the outcome of the negotiations
will be at this time and again urged caution.
BOB JOHNSON, MBA,4, MOVED AND DICK KEINZ, MAC, SECONDED TO HO�D THE
RESOLUiION IIV SUSPENSE, DEFERRING ACTION ON IT UNTIL SUCH TIME AS IS
APPROPRIATE AfVD TO SO NOTIFY THE CITY OF RICHFIELD IN A LETTER. THE
VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS. MOTION CRRRIED.
Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, asked what MASAC should do if the matter is litigated
between Richfield and the MAC. Chairperson Salmen said legal counse! would have to
be sought to determine the legal ramifications of MASAC taking action. John Nelson,
Bloomington, said he hoped the matter could be settled out of court, and that he would
more likely want to wait on taking action if the matter were litigated.
1999 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES D/SCUSS/OlV
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, reviewed the memo to the Operations Committee
regarding the work plan for 1999. He noted that items 10-14 are action items that staff
must complete during 1999. He said items 1-9 are items that have already been identified
as topics for consideration.
Chairperson Salmen then asked if committee members had additional items for
consideration.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, said
to include in the work plan for 1999. H
nine items already identified were more
he felt items 3 through 5 are especially important
e said, not discounting any other suggestion, the
than sufficient and would need to be prioritized
E�3
accordingiy.
Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, said the Minneapolis members had taken a two-step approach
to identifying areas for consideration. He said they first prioritized the items outlined by staff
in the memo and then identified additional items.
The following are items the Minneapolis members identified for consideration:
1. Begin ground level/low frequency noise studies for all communities. This is Minneapolis'
highest priority.
2. Begin the process of a Part 150 Update, which is also a priority.
3. Discuss how noise level data from ANOMS can be incorporated into the Part 150
contour generation.
4. Seek MASAC's support for a public health study to be conducted by the appropriate
state agency to research the long-term health effects of noise on humans, especially on
senior citizens and children.
5. Implement the Noise Redistribution Plan outlined in the 1996 Noise Mitigation
Recommendations.
6. Increase the credibility and value of the Noise Complaint and Information Line.
7. Review how information and how much information is distributed to MASAC members.
8. Produce a quarterly report for distribution ta other bodies and to be made available to
the public.
Bob Johnson, MBAA, said he thought a review of the nighttime hours should be included in
the first quarter of 1999. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, said there is popular support for this
�"� ' � initiative. He also reminded the members that the Twin Cities Airports Task Force has
--- asked that the nighttime time hours not be changed and that the original hours of 11 p.m. to
6 a.m. be reinstated.
Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked why investigating GPS for noise alleviation needed to
be addressed this coming year. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said it was important
because there is a very narrow time frame (18 months to 1 year) for decisions to be made
regarding how GPS technology will be instituted at airports. He said MASAC will have to
make some decisions this year if it wants to be involved in the final specifications. He
compared this opportunity to being asked to help develop the Noise Abatement Departure
Profiles (NADPs) when discussions about this issue were taking place over 8 years ago.
John Nelson, Bloomington, suggested the committee place the identified items into three
categories: action, research and evaluation. He said an action item is something that
advances or promotes noise abatement for either an affected community or for everyone.
An evaluation item is a review of an existing operational activity. And a research item is an
ana(ysis of the potential feasibility of making an item an action item. Mr. Nelson then
categorized the 14 items listed in the memo.
The committee then discussed and prioritized the items, focusing on solidifying the first
quarter's agenda. It was decided that the remainder of the agenda and additional items will
be discussed and finalized at the December 11, 1998 Operations Committee meeting. The
�
finalized first quarter agenda and remaining draft agenda wili be presented at the December
1, 1998 MASAC meeting.
John Nelson, Bloomington, said he thought the Operations Committee should be sure to
bring an action item to the full MASAC body at least once per quarter.
The next Operations Commiftee meeting is scheduled for December 11, 1998 at 10:00 a.m.
at the West Terminal North Star Room.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
Melissa Scovronski, Committee Secretary
�
P�,4NNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
� � John Himle, Chair
Alton Gasper, Vice Chair
Steve Cramer
Dick Long
Louis Miiler, Jr.
Darwin Reedy
Georgiann Stenerson
CONSENT
METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION
NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNIIVG AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
Tuesday, January 5, '9999
2:00 p.m.
Room 3040 Mezzanine Level
Lindbergh Terminal, Wold-Chamberlain Field
AGENDA
1. FINAL PAYMENTS - MAC CONTRACTS �
. a. 1998 Runup Pad Blast Fence — MSP (Gary Warren, Airport Engineer)
( ) b. 1997 Landside Bituminous Construction — MSP (Gary Warren, Airport Engineer)
c. Temporary Auto Retum Trailer — MSP (Dennis Kowalke, Landside Project
Manager)
d. Wetland Mitigation-Battle Creek/Beaver �ake Sites — St. Paul Downtown Airport
(Robert Vorpahl, Program Development Engineer)
e. Canal Gaie Installation — St. Paul Downtown Airport (Gary Warren, Airport
Engineer)
f. Air Traffic Control Tower Equipment — Anoka County-Blaine Airport (Gary
Warren, Airport Engineer)
g. 1997-1998 Part 150 Sound Insulation Program (Joseph Shortreed, Landside
Project Manager)
2. SEMI-FINAL PAYMENTS — MAC CONTRACTS
a. Equipment Maintenan�e Building Addition — MSP (Robert Vorpahl, Program
Development Engineer)
b. Maintenance Fueling Facility — MSP (Robert Vorpahl, Program Development
Engineer)
3. BIDS RECEIVED = MAC CONTRACTS
a. Runway 12R/30L Reconstruction/Taxiway W Construction — Segmeni
(Gary Warren, Airport Engineer)
b. Part 150 Sound Insulation Program — December Bid Cycle (Joseph
Landside Project Manager)
4. REVIEW OF UPCONIING CONSTRUCTION PROJECT BIDS
Robert J. Vorpahl, Program Development Engineer
Shortreed,
5. CHANGE MANAGEMENT POLICY REPORT
Nigei D. Finney, Deputy Executive Director — Planning and Environment
6. NOVEMBER 1998 ACTIVITY REPORT FOR METRO OFFICE PARK
Gordon P. Wennerstrom, Director — Commercial Management and Airline Affairs
7. PROJECT BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
Dennis Probst, Building Construction Manager
8. HEARING OFFICERS REPORT/FINDINGS, CONCLUSI.ONS AND ORDER — NAVAL
AIR RESERVE CENTER PROPERTY ACQUISITION
Gary Warren, Airport Engineer
Elizabeth Hoium, Attomey
9. UPDATE ON REGIONAL PARKING POLICY FORUM
Dennis Probst, Building Construction Manage�
DISCUSSIO�!
10. LRT UPDATE
Dennis Probst, Building Construction Manager
11. CONSTRUCTION COORDINAT4R CONTINUING CONSULTANT SELECTION
PROCESS � ..
Dennis Probst, Building Construction Manager
12. UNDERGROUND SPACE PLANNING - MSP
Dennis Probst, Building Construction Manager
,�' �tr /n' �! �y' �. �'��i�^ . :, zn �:i,.
� g.,
r���, � � r P� n' �� '+,�q' �. '� �' } '��1� �44�` 'k�, y�'�, �LI.S' �� �, g�• ��� ���� ? L�..-
.F� �, ix... ,4 M��� `�.�3 f ri_.., .� 1% �_... k�b.. .. �c,�_- J1.. �E
M:�.. _c�
A biweekly update on litigation, regulations, and teclinological de�•elopments
Volume 10, Number 22
Seattle-Tacoma Int'l
NIl�TT�-I CIR�UIT UPHOL7DS �'AA AP]PI20VAL
O�' MASTE�2 I'LAN INC�.,UDING 1�1EW 12U1�T4VAY
The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Nov. 24 upheld the Federal
Aviation Administration's environmentat review of deve]opment projects at
Seattle-Tacoma Internationa] Airport, including the addition of a controversial
third runway.
In a brief, five-paragraph order, issued ]ess than three weeks after hearin� oral
arsument on the case, the court found no merit in three arguments that had been
made by the five communities and a school district that have vi?orously opposed
the new runway. These ar�uments were that the FAA and the Port of Seattle had
relied on faulty forecasts to determine future activiry at Sea-Tac, that federal law
allows each of the communities to veto airport development which affects them,
and that the Clean Air Act had not been satisfied.
"The Port and the FAA won this case by investing heavily in careful plannina
and analysis," Michae] Schneiderman, of the Chir,aao law firm Hoplcins & Sutter,
which represented the Port, explained in an executive briefing to his clients.
"The quality and thoroushness of that work, and the judgments that were made at
all stages of it, produced results which were difficult for the complaining cities to
(Contin�ied on p. 1 %2)
Oakltt�ad Int'Z
JU]DGE RUI,ES EIR O�d E�PAI�ISIOI�1 PLAl�t
IS �N�.DE�UAT�; ORI�EI2S NI(�R� Al�dA,.L'YSIS
A California Superior Court judQe ruled Dec. 4 that the state Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) for the airport development program at Oakland International
Airport is inadequate and ordered that additional analysis must be conducted.
The EIR discusses an "Air Passen�er pominant Alternativz" for development
and an "Air CarRo Dominant Alternative," said ludae William E. Jensen in his
one-page ruling, but these alternatives "are not discussed nor is any explanation
given in the EIR as to the reason for their rejection as required by Section
1�126(d) of the California Environmental Quality Act" (CEQA).
He also found that the EIR "fails to make a reasonable analysis" of the cumula-
tive impac[ af future anticipated projects, such as the construction of a ne�v
runway, the e�tension of the main commercial rumvay, and the construction of a
hit7h-speed taxi�vay.
The Cities of Alameda and San Leandro, CA, the Berkele}� Keep Je[s Over the
B�ay Committee, and the Ci[izens LeaQue for Airport Safety an� Serenin� (CLASS)
filed suit in early ] 997 challenRin, the approval by the Port of Oakland and the
Port's Board of Commissioners of the Airport De��elopment Program for Oakland
International and also challen�?ing the adequacy of the state EIR.
(Coittin�ced at p. 172)
Copyright OO 1995 by Airpon Noise Rcpon. Ashhurn. �'a. 20147
�
December 18, 1998
In This Issue...
Seattle ... In a major
victory for the Port of Seattle,
a federal appeals court
upholds the EIS on the
expansion of Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport - p. 171
Oaklttnd ... A superior
court judae iinds the EIR on
plans to expand Oal;land
International inadquate;
orders more analysis - p. 771
Burbank ... Opponents of
the plar.�ed new airport
terminal lose their final
challenge to the environ-
mental analysis - p. 173
Chicago ... Illinois Su-
preme Court orders Chica�o
to release planning docu-
ments for O'Hare - p. 174
Researcla ... An Australian
academic says the Schultz
curve significantly under-
estimates annoyance to
aircraft noise - p. 17�
Noise Nlodeli�ag ... Ad-
vances in aircraft noise
modelina techniques dis-
cussed at INTER-NOISE
conference - p. 176
Los A�zgeles ... City
a�vards contract for residen-
tial soundproofin� - p. 177
... Residential soundproof-
ina pro�ram planned for Van
Nuys Airport - p. 177
��?
cutack successfullv. There have been ei�ht decisions of the
Lf.S. Courts of� Appeals in��olvinR EISs for air carrier
airports in the last 2U years. The airports and the FAA have
�vc�n them a11," he said, "primaril}� by doing their homework
carefully."
The attorne�- said that none of these EISs have been
bulletproof. "There is not enou�h time or money to do every
conceivable study that airport opponents �vant done, and no
airport could afford all of the mi[iRation that the most
demandinR airport nei�hbor wants," he said. Throunhout the
environmental process, Schneiderman said, "numerous
decisions have been made about fine points of analysis and
plannin��. The Qoal is an EIS which does a serious job of
explarin�r, revealin�, and miti;�atinR reasonably foreseeable
impacts. And the EIS must be defensible in federal court."
"As the Seattle case amply demonstrates," he said, "the
results of that effort can be a relatively routine dismissal of
even the most earnest attack."
Forecasts Upheld
The Port of Seattle and the FAA decided to redo their
ori;inal forecast of growth at Sea-Tac in IiRht of FAA's
annual national forecast data which was released just at the
EIS was ready to go to press. The communities challenaina
the EIS — Normandy Park, Des Moines, Burien, Federal
Way, and Tukwila, and the Hi�hline Schooi District — relied
on a study done by their own espert �vhich claimed that the
ne�v runway would induce entirely new traffic in addition to
that forecast because it also would serve to relieve con�es-
tion in the Seattle area.
The Ninth Circuit dismissed that attack on the forecasts in
a sin�le sen[ence, notin� that "[I]t was �vithin the a�ency's
discretion to select a testing method for determinin� airport
demand."
The communities opposed to the ne�v run�vay aiso chal-
len�7ed a decision by the FAA and the Port of Seatde to
chan��e the limits of the forecast from 2020 in the EIS to
?010 in the Supplemental EIS. "Given the evident volatility
of forecasts in liRht of sienificant chan�es in the FA.A's
national forecasts, the Port and the FAA concluded that
202U was too uncertain for usefu] forecasts," 5chneiderman
e�plained. The ci[ies ar�ued that this chan�e in the horizon
of the forecasts �vas done to avoid an anal��sis of environ-
menta) impacts in the later years. The court ruled that
"because intervenin� circumstances called into question the
2U20 model's accuracy, the [FAA] Administrator �ti�as also
entitled to rely on a prediction forecast ro the year 2010."
Clean Air Act
Rccently opponents of airport development ha��e turned [o
the Cle�in Air Ac[ (CAA) as a basis for iz�*al attacks,
Srhnei�lerm�in suid, focusin�� mainly on the procedures
requirin�_ "cont�ormity cleterminations" for ne�v projec[s. The
CAA requires that the FAA determine �rhether a proposed
uirpe�rt pr�>ject cont�orms to the approved State Impiementa-
tiein E'lan (SIP) for air c�uality and �vill not interf�ere �ti•ith the
tlirport Noise 12eport
attainment of air quality standards.
At Sea-Tac, "the FAA determined that the emissions
associated wi[h the project �vere sufficiently small that [hey
did not require mitination under the CAA — the `de minimis'
rules of the air quality regulations had been satistied,"
Schneiderman said.
The complaining cities, he noted, "arRued that the fault��
forecasts led to faul[y air quality analysis. They also
suagested that a larve project which was criticaliy importanc
to its reRion could not be considered so small as to fit within
the `de minimis' rules recardless of its actual air quality
impacts." But the Ninth Circuit ruled that."this contention
also fails because the FAA conducted extensive environ-
mental analyses, includinQ a conformity ana]ysis, and
❑Itimately found that the air emissions Ievels would be `de
minimis."'
Local Plans
The cities' final arQument to the court was that federal
aviation la�v requires airport projects to be consistent with
their ]ocal plans. Schneiderman said they had modified their
pla�s [o be inconsisten[ with the Port of Seattle's proposed
improvements. Schneiderman said that the complaining
cities did not include the city in �vhich the airport is almost
entirely loca[ed. That city did chanQe its plan to accommo-
date chanRes at Sea-Tac.
The Ninth Circuit upheld the FAA's practice of relyin� on
reaional planninQ aQency determinations for plannin�
issues, even if localycity and county plans would block
airport development. The Court he]d, "The Administrator
was a]]owed to rely on the approval of the PuQet Sound
ReQionaJ Council, the desisnated l�fetropolitan PlanninR
Organiza[ion responsible for transpor[ation plannin� in the
reQion, to satisfy [he consistency requirement. Ivloreover,
the administratiti�e record indicates that every effort �vas
made ro ensure consistency tivith planninQ efforts of local
communities."�
Oakla�id, front p. l71
The expansion plan for the airport, estima[ed to cost at
least S�00 million, calls for the reconstruction of two
existina terminals tivith the addition of 12 new aircrnft �ates,
construction of a six-story �,000-space parking garaee,
double-deckine the access terminal road�vay to provide a
second level access, construction of 17 netiv aircraft parkin«
positions, and numerous air careo projects.
Not included in the Airport De��elopment Plan, but also
planned bv the Port, is a 2,�00-foot extension of the main
commercial rumvav, a new air traffic control tower, and a
high speed exit tari�vay.
The cities and community Rroups con[end that the airport
expansion will resul[ in a si�nifican[ increase in noise.
Alameda told tt�e court the development plan will result in
an approximately ?70 percen[ increase in air passenver
rlirport tioisc }tepon
;\
•, \,
C
December ls, 199�
activit�� by ?Q 10 and a commensurate, if not �reater
increase in air car�o operations.
`Well-deserved Rebuke'
"Jud�e Jensen's decision is a well-deserved rebuke to the
Port of Oakland for t�vistin�� the environmentai review
process to piecemeal the Port's expansion plans and obscure
the existence of feasible, less environmentally harmful
alternatives," accordinQ to Alameda Deputy Ciry Attorney
David Brandt. "By focusing on the fla�vs in the.heart of the
environmental impact report (EIR) — namely, the sections
analyzing alternatives and cumulative impacts — Jud�e
Jensen has identified the very issues that, if objectively
analyzed in a revised EIR, will expose the dubious merit of
the Port's Airport Development Program."
"Up until no�v, the Port has treated CEQA as a meanin�-
less paper shuffle," Brandt said. "If the Port continues down
that path, �ve can expect to hear it characterize Jud�e
Jensen's decision as a minor setback and see it merely go
throush the motions in preparin� a revised EIR. But CEQA,
and the Court's decision, require far more. As the leais]ature
declared �vhen it enacted CEQA more than 25 years ago,
`[he ]ona-term protection of the environment ... shall be the
�uidinR criterion in p�blic decisions.' The City of Alameda
intends to ensure that the Port takes Judge Jensen's ruling to
heart and complies with the ]etter and the spirit of CEQA's
ful] environmental disclosure mandate."
Sources close to the ]awsuit observed that, in a broader
sense, the Oakland Airport litigation can be vie�ved as
another e�ample of efforts by communities opposina airport
expansion projects to rely on state, rather than federal, law.
That trend has continued of ]ate, as evidenced by the state
court ]awsuit fled earlier this fal] by Bridgeton, MO, in
connection wit the proposed expansion of Lambert-St. Louis
International Airport. While communities have sometimes
succeeded in challen�inQ airport expansion projects in state
cour[, the federal courts have never upheld a challense to an
environmental impact statemen[ reaarding a projec[ at a
major airport.
Port Comments
Steve Grossman, director of aviation for the Port of
Oakland, issued a statement on the jud�e's ruling noting that
the trial court's decision upholds tha[ "ovenvhelmine
majority of the environmental analysis of our e:cpansion
pro��ram." He said the judoe "confirmed that the EIR has
properly nnalyzed all of the impacts of the expansion
proti7ram, includin� noise, air quality, and traffic effects."
Said Grossman: "The judge requested further analysis of
two other issues. The judge asked that we expand our
discussion of two of the rejected alternati��es, one oF tivhich
caUed for more emphasis on car�o ser�•ice and one of �vhich
called for more emphasis on passenger service. The judQe
also asked for additional analysis of the cumulati��e impact
of possible fu[ure projects, none of which are included in
current expansion plans. The projects —���hich are not
173
contetnplated at this time — include construction of a new
rumvay, extension of Rumvay 1 I/29 (the main rumvay for
lar��e aircraft). and construction of a hivh-speed taxiway.
The current expansion plans are designed to enable the
airport to handle approximatel�� 13.8 million passen�*ers,
compared to the 1997 total of 9J million passengers. Plans
also call for expandinn car�o facilities to handle an antici-
pated one million tons, compared to the 700,000 tons
handled in 1997."
The Federal Aviation Administration has originally
decided to conduct a join[ statelfederal environmental
analysis of Oakland's expansion plan. B.ut after the Port and
the FAA issued a draft EIR/EIS in September 1996, the
FAA disenQa�ed from the joint environmental revie�v effort.
The Port issued its Final ETR on Dec. 4, ] 997. The FAA has
not yet issued its final EIS and tivill mostly likely wait until
the IitiQation is resolved.
The City of Alameda is represented by Steven Pt7aum of
the Chica?o office of MeDermott, Will & Emery.�
Burbank
AIRPC)RT V�INS CHA.I,LENGIE
T� NEW TERMII`dAL PROJfECT
The Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority'
announced that it has won the final challenae under state
and federal la�v to the Pnvironmenta] rPports for � project to
replace the passenaer terminal at Burbank Airport.
A three jud�e state appellate court has unanimously
uphe]d a 199� trial court approval of the state Environ-
mental Impact Report (EIR) and Supplemental EIR for the
replacement terminal project tha[ had been appealed by the
City of Los An�eles, part of which is located adjaeent to
Burbank Airport.
"Once aQain, after a ful] hearinR at trial and appellate
court Ievels, it has been shown that the Airport Authority's
environmental analysis of the terminal project was compre-
hensive, complete, and correct," said Airport Authority
President loyce Streator.
"It becomes clearer every day that it is no lon�er a tenable
position for opponents to keep this important safety project
from movin� forward. The alle�ed environmental impacts
are simply not supponed by the fac[s," she said.
In a 34-pa�e decision by Justice Patti S. Kitchin�, the
California Court of Appeal accepted the report's tindinss
that a ne�v terminal at the airport �vould cause "no si�nifi-
cant effects in terms of aircraft noise exposure." the point
most heatedly challen�ed by Los An�eles.
The court noted a separate federal appellate court decision
earlier this year which rejected ar�uments by Los AnReles
and Burbank that the terrninal would cause increased noise
impacts. That decision prevented Los An�eles from tryin��
to make the same argument in the sta[e case, the court ruled.
"This is unques[ionably a great result for the Airport
Authority," said Airport Authoritti� le�al counsel Richard
Airport Noise Kepui7
174
Simon. "No�i• every court has aRreed with us [hat the
terminal projec� will not produce increased noise."
Los An�*eles also alleged procedural mistakes and araued
that the t7ndinns of the report did not acknowiedge noise
impacts or discuss mitiQation of noise and traffic impacts.
"bVe have found no error in those findincs," Justice Kitch-
in�* said in rejectin� a1) of Los Angeles' char`es.
This is the third major court decision favorinQ the terminal
project in 1998. In February, a Superior Court rejected an
attempt by the City of Burbank to prohibit the Airport
Authority from buyin� 140 acres of Lockheed land pro-
posed as the site for the ne�v terminal. In Tviarch, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected challenQes
by Burbank and Los Angeles to the Environmental Impact
Statement for the terminal project, [he federal version of the
sta[e EIR.
The le=al issue still to be decided by the state court,
however, is whether the new terminal project is subject to
the City of Burbank' zoninQ authority. �
Cjaicago O'Hare I�zt'l
SOC HAILS� ]E�'C7LING ORDERING
RELEASE OF SECRET DOCUiYIENTS
Communities opposed to the expansion of O'Hare
Internationa] Airport hailed a Dec. 17 rulin� of the Illinois
Supreme Court ordering the City of Chica�o to turn over
more than 60,000 paQes of hitherto secret documents which
they say detail Chica;o's Master Plan for a massive
piecemeal expansion of O'Hare.
"For the last several years, Chicaao has been enQa�ed in a
deliberate cover-up of its illeaal activities," said 7ohn Geils,
chairman of the Suburban O'Hare Commission (SOC),
which represents mayors of communities rinaintr 0'Hare.
"Chica�o has tried to hide from public view and a�roid ]ega]
permittin� requirements for a massive multi-billion dollar
piecemeal expansion at O'Hare," said Geils, who is mayor
of Bensenville, IL. "Now, with the court's rulino, we
suburbs �vho are impacted by the noise, toxic air pollution,
and safety hazards at O'Hare have access to the evidence
demonstratint7 ChicaRo's ille��al ac[ivities and can move
forward in state court to enforce the state la�v now bein��
violated by Chica�o."
The Illinois Supreme Court's rulinQ stems from a la�vsuit
filed by DuPa�Te County State's Attorney 7oe Birkett,
DuPage Coun�y, the to�vns of Elmhurst, Bensenville, and
Wood Dale, and Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL), and State Senate
President Pate Philip in DuPage County Circuit Cour�.
In that suit, the plaintiffs so���ht to enforce a state s�atute
�vhich prohibits construction of any alterations of an
esistin�, airport without a permit from the State of Illinois.
The Illinois Aeronaudcs Art provides that it "shall be
unla�vful t'ar any municipalit�� or other political subditi�ision
... tu muke an`� al[era[ion ... of an existin� airport ... for
�vhich a certiticate of approval has not been issued b�• the
llepartment."
Airport Noise Re
The la�vsuit char�?ed that Chica�o last received a pennit
from the state in 1974 and since then has constructed over a
biilion dollars of projects �vithout any state permit bein�t
applied for or issued. "At the same time, the City of
ChicaRo, �vhich has similar permit requirements in its
Buildin� Code, has required city permits for everythin�
from a Starbucks coffee shop to the United and International
Terminals," Geils said.
The lawsuit further charges that Chicajo "is now enRaaed
in a new multi-bitlion dollar massive piecemeal Master Plan
expansion at O'Hare designed to brin� many hundred
thousand more fliQhts into O'Hare and that Chica�o is
trying to avoid pubiic scrutiny of this project by disclosing
only individual pieces of the overall project and not subject-
ing any of the pieces — let alone the massive overall project
— to the required permittina process and public hearinQs."
Plain Meaning of Language
"Chica�o and the State of Illinois — which has looked the
other way while billions of dollars of ille�al construction
has taken place at O'Hare without a state permit — attempt to
justify Chica�o's violations of the law by claiminQ that the
word `any' in the statute doesn't mean `any', but means
only `some' alterations require a permit," Geils said. "But
the circuit court has.already ruled that under the plain
meanins doc�ine the words of a statue must be given their
plain meanin� — and attempts by lawyers and administrative
agencies to twist the plain meaning of the statutory lan�uaae
to mean somethinQ else to avoid compliance with the plain
lansua�e of the statute is improper and itself unlawful. The
cour[ has ruled that�it the plaintiffs' can prove the facts of
their charjes, they are entitled to re(ief to enforce the
statute."
In lisht of the court's rulins on the plain meanins of the
statute and its enforceability by the court, Chicaso decided
to attempt to block enforcement of the statute by refusinQ to
produce documentary evidence �s required by numerous
court orders, Geils said. As of Dec. 17, he said, "Chicaso
had withheld in violation of the trial court's orders over
60,000 pages of secret documen[s — admittedly relevant to
Chicavo's wronsdoina — from the plaintiffs under a claim of
`deliberative process' privilege."
Chicaao asked [he state Supreme Court to create a
privilege whereby local governments and'state agencies in
Illinois could cover up evidence of wrongdoin� by stampinR
documents proving their wron�doina "deliberative process,"
Geils said. "Had ChicaQo's arQument been accepted by the
court, loca( aovernments and administrative bodies across
the state would have had a new leQal �immick to hide from
judicial trial documents tivhich proved these Lovernments
and administrative bodies had violated the law."
He thanhed the American Civil Liberties Union and the
Illinois Tria] Lawyers Associa[ion for supporting [he
litigation.
A spokesman for the City of ChicaRo said the city has
alread�� turned over more than 500,000 documents to the
Airport �uisc hepon
C
December 18, 1998
plaintiffs throu�h the discovery process and plans to soon
release the additiona140,000 documen[s it tried to shield
under the "deliberative process" privileQe. The latter
documents only retlect staff level "brainstorming" and
"nothinR that went beyond the idea staQe," he said. The
documents do not ret7ect the current capital improvement
plan for O'Hare, which contemplates an expanded termina]
concourse, eates, and roadways, but not a ne�v run�vay, he
said. � '
The City of Chicaso was trying to argue that the delibera-
tive process privilege is limited and narrow by is one that
the Illinois Freedom of Information Act recognizes, as do
the federal courts, and many states, he said. "It is a matter of
principle for us," he said, addina that "government entities
across the board are goina to be burdened by this decision."
The city is disappointed by the court's ruling, he said, and
rnay turn to the state Leaislature for he]p, but it would not
be retroactive, he noted.�
Sleep
SGHULTZ CURVE CHA�GLENGED
BY AUSTI2AI.,IAN 12ESEARCHER
B�� Charles F. Price — The prediction of the noise impact
of a proposed second airport near Sydney, Australia, on
sleep and annoyance has been sharply challenged by a
university researcher who contends, amonQ other thinQs,
that the so-called Schultz curve, the measure used to
estimate annoyance to aircraft noise, considerably under-
states the number of people likely to be hiQhly annoyed by
aircraft noise.
"The effects of noise on sleep and of changes in noise
exposure on annoyance are shown to have been seriously
understated" in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
on the project, said 7ohn L. Goldber� of the University of
Sydney's Department of Architectural and DesiQn Science.
. Usin� a 199� community sarvey and the methodoloay of
the Schultz curve, he found that 66 percent of the residents
of a neiQhborhood south of the Sydney airport were "hiQhly
annoyed" by aircraft noise, when the Schultz method would
have predicted only as many a�-8 percent would be so
affected.
Goldbers also assailed in seneral the interpretations of
current science made by some researchers, �vhich he said
have caused an understatement of sleep disturbance caused
by aircraft noise; and he scored extant study methods for
largely iQnorin� the impact of noise "on the sick. elderly,
nursinQ mothers, youn� children, and shift �vorkers �vho
sleep durin` the day."
Goldber«'s char�es were made in a paper presen[ed at
INTER-NOISE 98, the 1998 Internationaf Confer�nce on
Noise Control En�ineering, held in Christchurch. tie�v
Zealand in mid-November. He was critiquin� em�ironmental
assessment methods used to predict the noise effects of a
175
proposed ne�� Sydney airport. He said an independen[ audit
of the project's EIS by an en��ineerin� consultant had failed
to uncover what he called a"lack of scientitic integriry" in
the process; consequently, he ar�*ued, "the present system of
assessment in Australia is deficient" and he called for
appointment of a royal commission ro investi;ate major
environmental issues.
Re��nrding annoyance, Goldber�� said an EIS for a third
rumvay at Sydney — relied on by the environmental study
for the new airport - had "extensively misrepresented" the
literature on adaptation to noise to assert that any response
to increased noise exposure would be short-term; that the
reason for �reater than predicted response to noise is related
to attimde or expectation; and that "those who expect a
�vorseninG of their noise environment are more likely to
react adversely to their current noise exposure compared
with those who expect amelioration." Instead, Goldberg
contended, "an expectation of no incrense in noise exposure
does not lessen negative reactions to an increase" in noise
exposure.
The researcher said the Schultz methodoloay, modified to
account for �veishted differences, was used in the EIS on
the ne�v runway to predict annoyance in Kurnell, a neiph-
borin� community, after residents had been told to expect
no chanse in the noise environment initiaily and, over the
long term, even a lessening of noise. Instead, Goldber� said
66 percent of residents expressed themselves hijhly
annoyed, whereas the Schultz approach predicted that only
5-8 percent of residents would be hi�hly annoyed.
"This failure of steady-state prediction," said Goldbers,
suQ�ests that "unless a community can adapt without cost to
a chansed noise regime, such predictions may represent an
attenuated measure of the true response."
Goldberg said there was a"]ack of evidence" that long-
term adaptation to unexpected ne�v noise occurs, citin� the
outcome of the il]-fated Expanded East Coast Plan in the
United States implemented a decade a�o by the Federal
Aviation Administration when, in GoldberQ's words, "the
FAA considered that no problem would arise in extendin�
fliQht paths (from Newark airport) over the East Coast and
therefore did not issue an EIS. Thus, the greater than
predicted response to an increase in noise exposure �vhich
�vas observed ... cannot be explained on the basis [hat the
popula[ions expected that an increase �vould occur."
Referring to the Kurnell study, he said althouoh the pre-
dicted response would have shown adaptation, in fact "the
trend observed was the other way."
Sleep Interruption
The Sydney airport EIS used sleep interruption as indi-
cated by awakenin� as a measure of disturbance at different
peak noise levels. Goldberg contes[ed a key assumption of
the study, char��in;,z the scientitic literature does not support
the notion that awakeninRs alone are a �ood measure of
disturbance. Instead, he said, the literature su��ests a truer
measure would be awakenin�.zs plus sleep sta�e chan��e.
.�irport h0ise Report
176
The British aviation authoriry sponsored a sleep study
severa) years a�?o that used a�vakenin«, as measured by wris[
mo�•ement, as the measure of sleep disturbance. The
conclusion of that study, strongly challenged by the commu-
nities near London airports and some in the research
community, ��,�as [hat aircraft noise had sieniticantly less
impact on sleep than had previously been thouRht.
Those who prepared the Sydney airport assessment, said
Goldberg, claimed the si�nificance of sleep sta�e chanRe is
unclear. But he cited [he iindinQs of a study of next-day
peri'ormance which concluded that, even it reductions in
awakeninRs occur due to physiological adaptation, perform-
ance is affected; that "people sleep badiy" in the presence of
noise; and that de�radation of sleep quality may not be
noticed by the sleeper.
Pointins to this and other similar study findinas, Goldbern
insisted there may be "possible health implications of sleep
disturbance" and said "there is clearly no case for abandon-
in� the environmental precautionary principle."
The researcher also said the Sydney EIS "underestimated
sleep disturbance: not only by measurinQ awakenin�s alone
but also by "continin�7 consideration" only to those noise
events which occurred between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. Also,
even takinR into account standard Australian insulation and
buildin�* practices, Goldbere said peak noise levels in
communities located l0 kilometers from the landina
threshold would averaQe 71 dBA, or "at least 20 dBA
�reater than the ambient noise." He challenaed an EIS
conclusion that sleep w�ould be disturbed only once or twice
in 10 ni�hts; instead, he arQued, disturbing events �vould
ran�e from five to 24 in a sinale 24-hour period.
"It �vas claimed in the EIS that newly exposed communi-
ties are more sensitive than those previously exposed," said
Goldber� in his conclusion. It niso was claimed, he stated,
thlt this difference in sensitivity can be accounted for by a
noise level difference in the vicinitv of 8 dB. He cited
tindin�s in the literature that he said sho�ved this analysis
�vas tlawed and ar�ued that the impacts of noise on a newly
exposed community have been "seriously understated."�
Noise 1'�lodelina
ADVANCES IN NIODELING
DISCUSSED AT INTER-NOISE
Bi• Churle.c F. P�-icc� — Recent ad��ances in compu[er
moclelin�� have enabled airport officials, planners, and others
c��ncernee3 abou� the impact of aircraft noise ro przdict more
cunticiently ho�v the environment of airports influences the
propa��ation of noise, according to papers presented at
INTER-NOISE '9S. the 1995 International Conference on
Ne�ise Control En�*ineerin;T, held No��. 16-IS in
Christchurch. Ntw Zealand.
In an over��ie�v of recent de��elopments in the tield,
Nc�r��e`�ian analvs[s H. Olsen, K. Liasjo. and I. Granoien
nucccl that ne�t al�*arithms no�v permit such factors as
Az�port Noise Report
topo��raphy, surface impedance, �vind, and temperature to be
taken into account in the modelinR of aircraft noise impacts.
In addition, they pointed ou[, modelers have benun to
grapple successfully with the challen�e of addressin�� noise
source characteristics such as directivity and frequency, and
with the need "to enhance the performance ot computer
code and user interfaces."
The Norwe,ian paper explained that modelin� of aircraft
flisht tracks and profiles has improved in accuracy in recent
years — for example, by increasinQ spatial resolution to
achieve a more complete description of tra�c in an averaa-
inQ period. To predict future noise based on planned traft7c,
models also have been developed to describe dispersions
from planned fli�ht tracks, although most of these models
reflect only horizontal dispersion. Ver[ical dispersion, the
researchers said, "is normally accounted for in mode]inQ a
variation of hei�ht profiles for aircraft, accordina to �
individua] takeoff weight and aircraft fli�ht performance
parameters." A major advancement in this area, the paper
asserted, was release of the Profile Builder model from the
U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, tosether with a
comprehensive da[abase coverinn most civil aireraft. Profile
Builder is a part of the FAA's Intearated Noise Model and
can predict actual takeoff and approach profiles for individ-
ual aircraft based on takeoff weiQht, temperature, and
runway elevation. y
Upcoming Challenge
Similar broad-scale advances have not been scored in the
modelin� of noise source characteristics, reported Olsen,
Liasjo, and Ganoien. Introduction of information on
topoQraphy and meteoroloQy into the calculation process has
raised the need of controllina [he frequency dependence in
sound propatration models. "ProvidinQ ... full frequency
noise source data for all aireraft will therefore continue to be
a challenae for the cominR years," the research.ers stated.
"Liketivise," they said, "there is a strona need to add
specific directivity informntion to the noise soarce data,"
information currently available only for military aircraft.
"One step in the effort to aet better models will be to
develop direc[ivity classes that distinauish between the most
important aircraft types. A suQaestion is that these classes at
leas[ [distin4�uish] between helicopters, jet aircraft, turbo-
props, and piston en�ine aircraft."
bVith re`ard to [he modelinR of airport surroundinRs, the
Nonvenian researchers point out that traditional modelin�
has assumed horizontal and "acousticaliy soft" ground
around the airport — which }�ielded a measure called ground
attenuation — and stntic, "neutral" meteoroloaical condi-
tions. i�Iethods usina this traditional approach "rni«ht lead ro
systematic underestimation of aircraft noise emission
le��els," the paper warned, "and therefore need to be
revised."
In noise emission modeline, developmen[s have follo�ved
national needs retlectin� the requirements and metric
schemes oP individual contours. The report nated that the
Airpurt Nois� fteprnt
C�
December 18, 1995
tinal quality of computed noise contours is dependent on the
quality of grid resolution and contourin� algorithms. "A
major challenae in this tie3d," the researchers contended,
has been to define calculation resolution and contourin� "in
a way that makes the results reproducible and independent
of the coordinate system of the input data." Another
challen�e is to upgrade computer power so as to handle the
added calculations required to address topography, meteor-
olosy, and all other factors now beginning to be addressed."
NATO Addressing Topography
An international consortium of researchers found good
aQreement between measured sound exposure levels and
those predicted by a new aircraft noise model that takes into
account the efFect of topoQraphy and �round surface
properties.
The research is beina done under the auspices of the Nor[h
Atlantic Treaty Organization's Committee on Challenaes of
Modern Society (NATO/CCMS). Members of the �vorl:in�
group include the Air Force's ArmstronQ Research Labora-
tory and Wyle Labs in the United States, SINTEF DELAB
in Norway, EMPA in Switzerland, and DELTA Acoustics &
Vibration in Denmark.
"Most airport noise prediction models assume that the
terrain surrounding an airport is flat and has impedance
properties correspondinQ to short Grass," B. PlovsinQ and C.
Svane of DELTA Acoustics and Vibration reported. "This
assumption is adequate in most cases, but for airports
situated in a hilly terrain or close to acoustically hard
surfaces (such as water), it could give misleading results."
In the first phase of the NATO/CCMS study alaorithms
were developed to predict A-weiChted ground effects for
different kinds of terrain shape and for a mix of hard and
arass-covered surfaces. Those algorithms were found to be
valid for neutral weather conditions. •
The research reported at IN'I'ER-NOISE �vas done to
verify the accuracy of the new noise model. The testing was
done at Narvik Ai�eld in Norway, where nearby �vater
surfaces offered acoustically hard properties. Tests were of
simulated flishts by an F-16 aircraft. Narvik was selected,
said Plovsina and Svane, because of its "extreme topo�ra-
phy and the presence of water surfaces." Ivleasurements
were carried out over ttivo days in June 199�.4
��
CONTRA.CT AtiVARDED
JEOI2 I3OIyIE SOUI�1DPk200�'ING
The Los Anaeles Board of Airport Commissioners
anno�nced Dec. 15 that they have awarded an $83�,000
contract for residential soundprootinQ �vork near Los
Angeles In[ernational Airport to F. H. Paschen/SN Nielsen
of San[a Fe Sprinas, CA.
The contract covers sound insalation moditications on 3a
single and multifarnily residences located in the communi-
x��
ties ot� Westchester and Playa del Rey, loca[ed near the
airport.
The contract award brines the total number of homes
completed or in the process of soundproofin� construc[ion
to 567. The residences are outtitted with dual-paned
windows, solid-core doors, at[ic insulation, and other
necessary soundproofina improvements, Los Anaeles World
Airports said.
LAX's noise mitigation program includes nearly 9,000
residences in the Los An�eles communities of Westchester,
Playa del Rey, and South Los AnQeles with a recorded
Communiry Noise Equivalency Level (CNEL) of 65 dB or
higher.�
Va�7 Nuys
/ /' • 1 !' , �' i '
� ��.��, � . � , ,��:�,�
The City of Los Aneeles is in the formative stages of a
proQram to, soundproof as many as 1,000 homes near Van
Nuys Airport counterine criticism that L.A. has spent
millions of dollars to insulate homes near Los Angeles
International Airport but none for neijhbors of Van Nuys
AirpoR, considered the busiest general aviation airport in
the country. •
Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan proposed a proa am
to sound insulate homes near Van Nuys Airport three years
aso, and � conteniious Part i�0 Airport Noise �:.ompatibility
study has been underway for 10 years. .Airport neiahbors
have long complained about the slow pace of the study and
the lack of proQress on proposals to impose a curfew on
operations and a cap on jet operations to reduce noise
impact.
Los Anaeles has spent �12 million to soundproof homes
near LAX in the last two years. Some 300 homes already
have been insulated and an additional 8,600 homes will be
soundproofed.
"All of the attention and resoorces have been focused on
LAX," Ellen BaQelman, president of the Lake Balboa
Neiahborhood Association, told the Los Ajtgeles Times.
"l�teamvhile, Van Nuys Airport has been allowed to grow at
an unbridled rate. The noise has become intolerable."
Gerald Silver, president of Stop the Noise!, told the paper
that the Airport Commission needs the support of the
communities near LAX in order to �et approval of a
proposed major expansion plan for the airport. "There has
been zero effort at mitiQation, much less abatement of noise
at Van Nuys Airport," he said. "It's extremely unfair."
Los Angeles City Councilwoman Cindy Misciko�vski told
the Tinies that it is "ridiculous" and unconscionable" that the
city has been undertakinQ a noise study for 10 years and it is
still nat complete. She blamed the airport commission for
the delay.
Airport ofticials told the paper that it has taken roo long to
address the noise problem at Van Nuys, but contended that
Airport Noise Report
178
ANR EDITORIAL
ADVISORY BOARD
Steven R. Alverson
tvlana�er. Sacramento OfFice
Harriti Miller �lilter & Hanson, Inc.
.Tohn J. Corbett, Esq.
Spiegcl 3. McDiarmid
Washinston, DC
,Tames D. Erickson
Director, Office of Environment and Energy
Federa) Aviation Administration
John C. Freytag, P.E.
Director, Charles ivl. Salter Associates
San Francisco
NIichael Scott Gatzke, Esq.
Ga[zke, Dillon & Ballance
Carisbad, CA
Peter J. Kirsch, Esq.
Cutler & Stanfield
Denver
Suzanne C. lYlcLean
Manaeer, Plannins and Development
Tucson Airport Authoriry
John NI. Nleenan
Senior Vice President for Industry Policy
Air Transport Associntion
Vincent E. Nlestre, P.E.
President, Mestre Greve Associates
Newport Beach, CA
Steven F. Ptlaum, Esq.
ivtcDermott, �Vill & Emery
Chicago
Karen L. Robertson
Mnnaeer, Noise Compatibility Office
Dallas/Fort �Vorth lnternational Airpon
Mary L. Vigilante
Vresiden[, Syneray Consuitants, Inc.
SC:1[I��
Lisa Lvle b�'aters
Mana�er, Noise Abatement Pro�ram
Pahn Beach Counry DepaamenCof Airports
Airport Noise
some of the delay was caused by factors not in their control. lack Dris-
coll, executive director of the Airport Department, said he hoped the
soundproofin� program could be�in this summer and that his department
is in the process of mappin� the noise contours around the airport. At an
avera�e cost of $I5,000 per home, he said it may cost $15 miliion to
insulate all the eliQible homes near the airport. Some 1,032 homes and
2,400 people are located within the 6� dB DNL noise contour of the
airport and eligible for sound insulation, accordin� to preliminary data.
The Part I50 study at Van Nuys began in 1988, but ran into trouble
when the Federa] Aviacion Administration rejected an early plan that
estimated jet traffic would inerease by 100 percent between 1992 and
1997. The FAA deemed that projection unrealistic and indeed it was: it
turned out to be double the actual growth. The noise study also has been
delayed because airport neighbors rejected some noise mitigation
measures as not bein� su�cient and complained they were not suffi-
ciently represented on the study steerino committee.�
1 � ,
Ham Radio Operator Arrested
The Amateur Radio Relay League reported in its newsletter that a 46-
year-old electronics enQineer, apparently extremely upset about aircraft
noise over his home, was arrested by the FBI on Nov. 6 for alle�edly
interferina with radio communications between aircraft and air traffic
controllers in northern Georgia.
Kevin M. Kelley, who holds an advanced class license to operate ham
radios, was char�ed in a criminal complaint with four counts of breakina
federa] law prohibitinQ kno�vinQly interferina with the operation of a
"true liaht" or signal used at an air navigation facility.
The FBI said its case stemmed form FAA reports of "sporadic and
momentary radio frequency interference" between aircraft and air traftic
controllers. An extensive FBT investigation found that the interference
was comin� from the Hyde Park Subdivision in Cumming, GA, where
Kelly lived.4
AI�RPORT ND�SE REPOR�'
Anne H. Kohut, Publisher
Charles F. Price, Contributing Editor; Iblaria T. Norton, Production Editor
Published 2� times a year at 43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 201�7; Phone: (703) ?29-4867; FAX: (703) 729-4�28.
Price $5�9.
Au[horiza[ion to pho[ocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or persona] use of specific clien[s,
is ��ranted by Airport Noise Report, provided that the base fee of US:$1.03 per paae per copy
is paid direc[ly to Copyrinht Clearance Center, 27 Con`ress Stree[, Salem, MA 01970. USA.
Copyri�ht �O 199R by Airport Noise Fcport. r\shhum. �� a. 20147
C
C
�S* � .: ..,,r a �, . i: -! �i.. � ry � �'{� %.� �i�5� �/t� ad��`; .��� � .�n
p' " i� i.�^'�� 11�� �' f� F �X +!r,�� '�. ^���+1 �t.., � ;fi,r-..:.?' .v p-
..:�i. -�-.. .4�.
.�.`.
A biweel:ly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments
Volume 10, Number 23
Special Report
�CAO EXPECTED TO ISSLIE MOI2E STRII�IGENT
`S7CAGE 4' NOISE S'Y"ANDAItD, ERICKSON SAYS
In this special report, ANR interviews James D. Erickson, director of the Federal
Aviation Administration's Office of Environment and Eneray. He discusses a
broad ranse of topics includin� U.S. concerns about pending European Union
le;islation to bar hushkitted aircraft from Europe; his expectations that the
International Civil Aviation Organization's Committee on Aviation Environmental
Protection (CAEP) will soon set a more stringent Stage 4 noise standard; efforts by
his ofFce to issue a new noise policy that will deal more effectively with land use
compatibility issues around airports; and the success of a National Aeronautics and
Space Administration's program to develop new technoloay to reach a more
strin�ent StaQe 4 noise standard.
Q: Let's first talk about hushkitting and what's going on in Europe. You recer:tty
�/ ) tivere part of a U.S. delegation that tivent to Brussels to lobby against draf7 legisla-
' tion being considered b�� the Europea�t Union to ban c�csiikitted aircraft. Hotiv did
that effort fare?
A: I think you are aware that the European Union (EU) has been puttin� throuQh
their system a piece of legislation that is a non-addition rule for hushkitted and re-
enained airplanes. The provisions of it are such that, in our view, they put a netiv
standard in play for operation of these transport aircraft. It is our view that this is
an international business, an international industr}�, and that rejulations should be
done in a uniform manner throuah the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO). So, we really see this as a departore from a necessary single point of
standard setting for aviation.
Q: What wil! ihe EU legislation do?
A: What it will do is not permit hushkitted airplanes to be added to European
registers after April 1, 1999. So what we have in that situation is an aircraft that
meets the worJd standard and would not be permitted access to a major �vorld
market.
Q: And this would mainly affect U.S. cargo cnrriers flying to Europe?
A: I[ has a couple of financial and economic impac[s. It affects cargo operators or
other operators of hushkitted or re-engined airplanes that �vant to operate to
Europe, but it also impac[s the hushkitting industry, which is a U.S. industry. Now,
for member coun[ries outside of the EU, this restriction on the addition of hushkit-
ted airplanes does not come into effect until April ], 2002, but then it looks back,
(Conti�ri�ecl oii p. 1 SO)
Copyright �O 1995 by Airport i�oise Fepon, Ashburn, Va. 20147
�
December 31, 19I8
In �'his .Issr�e. ..
F.AA ... In this special
report, ANR interviews
James D. Erickson, director
of the FAA's Office of
Environment and Ener�y.
He says he expects the
International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) to
adopt a signi�cantly more
stringent "Stage 4" noise
certication standard within
the next few years which
would probavly become
effective in 2003 or 2004.
However, because the current
Stage 3 aircraft will have a
useful life of around 25 years,
Stage 4 aircraft will not be
brought into the fleet in great
numbers for some time.
He also discusses recent
efforts by a U.S. delegation
to lobby against a draft
European Union regulation
that would bar hushkitted
aircraft from Europe after
April 1, 2002.
Erickson says his office
hopes to issue its updated
national noise policy by
September 1999 and will
soon issue short-term initia-
tives the FAA plans to take to
encouraae compatible ]and
use around airports in liaht of
shrinkinj contours.
180 Airpor£ Noise Report
it's retroactive, and you canno[ have any airplanes operating
after April l, 2002, [hat are hushl:itted on a non-European
register that were no[ on that country's register as of April 1,
1999. So it's a little bit complicated, a little bit different for
third countries as well. The other feature that is beine
contested somewhat is the fact that European countries can
move these aircraft around after 2002, sell them from one
country to another within the European Union. If non-
European countries do so, they lose the ability to operate
that aircraft tivithin Europe, so that's a discriminatina
feature. �
Q: How ntany hushkitted aircraft are operating in Europe
today?
A: About 4�.
Q: Ver}� fetiv.
A: A very small number.
Q: Compared to 1,000 iri the U.S?
A: Yes, by the year 2000, I expect 1,000 [hushkitted aircraft
operatina] in the U.S.
Q: Did you present a�t}� economic data i�t Ec�rope shotiving
the impact of the EU rule?
A: We presented summary economic impact data. It is our
view that the primary economic impact is in the devaluins
of hushl:itted aircraft. In other words, if I have an aircraft
that does not have access to the European market — actually
t the U.S. industry came up with these numbers — it felt that
any hushkitted airplane on averaae, could be devalued
between 10 and 20 percent, and that amounts to a billion
and a half dollars.
Q: How ma�iy U.S. hc�shkitted aircraft do yo« expect to try
to operate iri Europe?
A: The number is very small. We don't think this piece of
legislation solves any European noise is�ue. If you take a
hard look at it, it's more re]ated to trade than to solvinQ any
environmental problem. The piece that is particularly y
disturbinn is the re-enQinins. It really makes no sense from
an environmental standpoint. The restriction is on ensines
that have a by-pass ratio of less than three, and you take a
look at the fleet out there and there are several U.S. en�ines
that are rivht under three and several European enaines that
are right over three, so why is three a discriminator? I[ really
makes no sense noise-�vise.
Q: 4l�kat x�as the response of rhe Ei{ropenn's to the U.S
c(cleS�atinn'.s cu��untents?
A: Well, there �vere a variety of responses. We met with a
lot of different factions there. Most were courteous and
listened intently. Several were under the impression tha[ the
U.S. had simiiar leQislation and all they were doina was
reactin� to the U.S�legisla[ion in order to harmonize the
international standards [and they were surprised to find out
that was not the case). And we informed them that we did
not have that kind of leQislation nor had any ever been
proposed. That we in fact honor any method of complyina
with Sta�e 3 that an applicant wants to demonstrate. They
were very, very surprised.
Q: Bur tiiere tivas r:othing they said they tivoutd do i�i light of
that?
A: Well, they certainly said that they would discuss the
issue. But the feelinD is that the European process for
developin� a piece of le�islation is quite complex and this is
a very, very late sta�e in that process. There are some who
voiced the opinion before we ]eft that there is very little that
we or the European Commission could do at this point to
stop it.
Q: Whti� did yoic �o over there at such a late stage?
A: I think that we have been very active on this for over a
year and a half now, especially the aovernment. It's really
been out in front on this. I can show you lists correspon-
dence and records of ineetings we've had from a govern-
ment standpoint for a year and a haif trying to talk some
sense into our European counterparts. The industry has
become interested in this somewhat subsequent to that and a
meetins of the minds on this issue occurred here many
months a�o and we started workinQ toeether and it's gotten
to this point because it's becomina real now.
Q: Bc�t the EU legislation is expected to be adopted?
A: I thinl: the chances are qnite unlikely that we']1 be able to
dismiss it or derail it at this point: There is some possibility
we mieht be able to influence some chan�es to it.
Q: Do ti•ou think EU legislation was the result of the
Europeaii's frusrration with the outcome of the earlier
CAEP � meeting in December 1995 in that no consensus
could be reac{ted at that poi�tt to make ICAO noise stari-
dards �rtore stringe�:r despite the Europeans strong support
for st�cf? actiori?
A: The}� were quite disappointed that a ne�v noise standard
was not aoreed to at CAEP 3 and they actually have been
��orl:ins this [EU le�islation] since that time. For the first
couple of years the work was done within ECAC, which is
the European Civil Aviation Conference, and then by
ANCAT (Abatement of Nuisance Caused by Air Transport),
a subcomittee of ECAC. And then �vhen they developed a
Airpor \oise Repurt
C
December 31, 199�
proposal, the European countries decided they'd really like
to turn this inro a mandatory piece of legislation so it found
its way into the European Commission, and they modified it
somewhat, and coordinated it, and it's been a lon;, long
process, all the way since CAEP 3.
Q: The next meeting of CAEP will be 'CAEP S'. Can you
discuss ivhat tivill hnppe�t there?
A: Well, what we hope will happen is that we will have
aQreement on the next [noise] certification standard,
sometimes referred to as Stage 4. We have a noise �roup
that's worl:ing very actively to assess the current level of
technology to see what's feasible, then �ve'll Qo into a cosd
benefit analysis. I'm very hopeful we'll asree on a new
noise certification standard at CAEP �, which wil] ei[her be
held in late 2000 or early 2001.
Q: Aiid tivhat do yoas tlzink the new ICAO noise certification
sta�zdczrd will look like? How much more stringent tha�t
Stage 3?
A: I don't know, but it will be a major step. It's not aoing to
be a 2 or 3 dB chanQe. It's goinQ to be more than that.
Q: Do you think that any azrplmTes curre�itiv flying tivill be
able to meet it?
A: Yes. I'm confident there are several that could meet any
new standard put out there.
Q: Such as?
A: Well, a couple come to mind: the triple seven [Boeina
777] with the GE enaines, and the former MD-9�. I don't
know what the Boeino number is on that aircraft but it's aiso
very quiet. �
O: And this new stmidard wou[d apply to newly mmtufac-
tccred aircrafz as of a date you know notiv or is that to be
derermi�ied?
A: Typically the industry is given three years from the time
that ICAO adopts a new standard until �vhen it becomes
obligatory on the members. As yo� understand, ICAO does
not write mandatory rules; they write standards for �vhich
the 187 member states have aQreed to comply to the
maximum ex[ent that they can.
O: So the "Stage 4" ICAO standard would tnke afj'ect with
aircraft mmu�f'c�ctisred as of 2003 or 2004?
A: SomethinQ like that.
Q: And �vfiat are dte interini steps leading �tp to the CAEP S
meeti�ig?
181
A: Ivlost of the work is beina done by workin� �roup I
within CAEP. There will be twa meetinQs of the CAEP
steerinp �roup between no�v and when the full CAEP
committee meets. At those meetinas, the workin� group will
report out on their progress, repon on any difticulties,
resource problems, etc. At the second steerin� aroup
meetinQ, we should be narrowino in on what the actual
[Stage 4J proposal will look ]ike.�There may be more than
one proposal. But we will be centerins around a level and
Iool:inQ for consensus by the members to proceed forward
with a cost/benefit analysis.
Q: When will that seco�td steeri�ig committee meeting be
held?
A: It will be summertime of 2000, June perhaps.
Q: Is CAEP 5 going to set emissions stmtdards as tive[1 as
noise srandards?
A: The emissions part of the work has protrressed very
slowly. The part that seems to be moving more quickly is
the operational measures to provide emissions benefits.
[ICAO] seems to have an active program quantifyin� things;
coming up with definitions of what they want to do to
modernize the air traffic contro] system; quantification of
benefits. That seems to be movin� well. We don't at this
point have any new certification standards in the bin. As you
are aware, the CAEP 4 emission standard that was adopted
does not actually go into effect unti] the end of 2003, so we
have a period of time ri?ht now where we already have a
new standard on the horizon and the engine manufacturers
will be workin� toward it.
Q.• So comnusnities could look for sig�aifecantly quieter
aircraft coming into the fleet at some point i�i tlie futatre.
A: I[hink the bia news item for richt no�v is that people
around airports can e,cpect a lot quieter environment in a
year and a half a month from now [with the Stage 2 phase-
out]. I have a chart here that shows something remarkable.
As of December 1997, [the fleet) was 80 percent Sta�e 3.
Well, you think, `bVe're almost phased out. We only have
20 percent to Qo.' Weli, as you are aware, noise is a loga-
rithmic animal. [The chart sho�vs that] at 80 percent Staoe 3
operations, StaQe 2 airplanes are still making 67 percent of
the enerQy that is makina the noise contours around an
airport for a typical U.S�fleet mix. And it isn't until you get
to 86 percent Staoe 3 that it's 50-50. So a yenr from now
[when the Stage 2 fleet is phased out) there is goina to be a
tremendous quietin� around major airports. What will
happen if �ve succeed in developing a new Stage � noise
standard �vhich Roes into effect around 200=� is it wil) be the
standard for new airplanes that are desioned after that date,
so nothina is goin� to happen on 2004; it's when [he next
Airbus or Boein� application [for a new aircraft) comes in.
That's that standard they'll have [o meet and they �vi11 have
Airport Noisc Repon
152
to certify it before they start producing it, so there is a time
delay in it.
Q: So at wliat poi�tt do }�ou expect Stage 4 to actuall}� start
coming into u.re i�i the fleet?
A: We have never done this, but we are goin� to actually try
to put to�ether something my Chief Scientist Howard
Wesoky calls a notional chart [showinQ] when a production
requirement miQht come in, when a non-addition rule might
come in, and when a phaseou[ mi�ht come in, and we're
Qoin; to try an put that whole lineaae to�ether forphasing
out a StaQe 3[aircraft]. That end date is CoinQ to be proba-
bly something that will allow airplanes to have a useful life
of 2� years or so before they are mandatorily phased out.
But we intend to try to get some ]evel of a� eement on
puttinc that notional chart out there to set an expectation; to
be looking a little bit more to the future than we have in the
past.
Q: Now, with the phaseout of Stage 2 aircraft, j•o�c are
going to get contours shrinking. I knotiv you are i�t the
pracess of developing an updated noise polic}� to address
encroachment. What is the status of thai polic��?
A: We have two thin�s �oinQ on. We have a nelv noise
policy that's in internal FAA coordination now. It's a
difficul[ process because we have a lot of legal precedent on
our previous policy and we want to make sure we don't
unintentionaily undo any of the benefits of the previous
policy. So, it �ets quite complex. I don't expect that noise
policy to be out any time soon. It's a very complex and
resource in[ensive process to get it riQht.
Q: Whe�i do you expect the new noise polic�� to come out?
A: I'm hopeful we'll have it published this fiscal year
[before September 1999]. The other thing that's goina is a
team that I put toQether personally from ali lines of business
that is trying to answer the question, 'What is it that the
federal �overnment can do to be more effective in ]and use
plannin� and land use decisions around airports'? Ho�v can
�ve be more influential? As you know, we have no jurisdic-
tion. We have a noise policy, so we can be influential
throuvh persuasion. There is no federal preemption goin� on
in this aren, so we really have to be influential �vith the
states, many of whom now are developinG some useful
statutes, and [are beginnin� to interact] with [he ]ocal zoninQ
authorities and the airport operators to try to Qet thinas like
disclosure and avi�ation easements where you can do it into
the mix, into the thouaht process, and we're tryinQ to
expand on [hat. �
Q: Yveu• office liad plmuied to get some shorr-terni la�id aise
niensc�res oiit soon. Wil! thnt happeli?
Air�ort Noise R
A: Yes, I think we're almost ready. I had this group workina
for about a year. 1�Ve work well together. They came up with
short-term steps, and it's this idea you mentioned of the
contours shrinl:inQ and are the developers going to come
with truckloads of money and start buildins condos closer
and closer to the airport since the contour is shrinl:in�. We
don't want that [o happen because then aviation has the
opportunity to solve that same problem over aQain with
people that are now livin; closer to the airport. The �roup
ended up with some short-term actions (five of them), mid-
term actions, and some lona term actions. We're well alona
with the short-term actions. We should be able to announce
those soon.
Q: Will they be announced in the Federal Register?
A: I honestly don't know what the vehicle will be. I haven't
thought a lot about it. There wil] be a press release.
Q: Do you think there will ever be an effort within FAA to
revise the land use compatibility guidelines which set 65 dB
DNL as the threshold of compatible residential use arou�id
airports?
A: I think there has been an effort for as ]onQ as I have been
around here! V
Q: But, I mean something zhat actually happens. It certainly
would help with encroachment to move the threshhold of
compatible residentia[ use to 60 dB DNL.
A: Maybe that's somethin� I can work on in my retirement.
I don't see it chan�inQ as lons as we haven't solved the
[probiem of] si�nificant numbers of people still livin�
within the 6� [DNL] contour. We're already formally
encouragin� airports to do thin�s beyond 65, out as far as
50. I think it will happen some day.
Q: But tivouldn't it be a real aid to local governments to
have some federal gc�ideline that sets 60 dB DNL as the
threshold of reside�ttial compatible use? That's the problem
faci�:g [ocal governments. Developers cite the FAA land use
guidelines showing that 65 dB DNL is the threshold mzd it
just undercuts legallV yvhat local governnzents are tryi�tg to
do. It cenainly woaild help them.
A: I think that's a plus. The minus is that a lot of oxes would
be Qored by this, so somehow we have to aet beyond that.
O: B�it, there's no effort at tfiis point to seriousl�� look at
revising the guidelines?
A: I don't know of any. It's always in the back of our mind.
tiVhen is the riQht time to reassess that because, frankly,
people's expectations change,
Airport Noise Report
December 31, 1998
Q: In the new centur�•, dramatic increases in thc ninnbers of
aircraft operations are expected as �vell as chmTces in the
air traffcc s�•stem that co«Id spread air traffic more broad!}�
over conimunies. Are you beginni�ig to took at these issues?
A: Well, frequency is an issue. You are probably able to
articulate it better than I am because a lot of your [readersJ
deal with it day to day and are concerned about it_ Two
airplanes pass you and they are half as noisy as one — is that
worse or better? [If you are annoyed by noise] and the
frequency [of operations] is hijher, that can have an adverse
effect on you. So, sure, we're concerned about tha� I think
this new air tra�c modernization offers opportunities both
in the emissions area and the noise area. It offers you the
opportunity to disperse traffic, as one example, or to route
traffic over more environmentally-friendly locations. I have
been personally amazed when I jo joaQing, for instance — I
nre�v up alona the Potomac [River] — and it's reaIly noisy
alons the Potomac right nnderneath those airplanes. My
house is a third of a mile from the river and it's tremen-
dously quieter, so that tells me that if we can route these
airplanes over very precise areas, like rivers, highways,
railroad yards — and I don't know how much leverage there
is in this, but there's some — it will have an enormous
benefit in perceived noise [reduction]. �bviously, as we
disperse traffic and have trafFic flyina over [new areas], it's
`Not in my backyard' time for them.
���*:x
Q: Turning to a different area, is ihe ivork of the iVational
Aeronautics and Space Administration's Su6sonic Aircrafr
Noise Reduction Program going to contribute to the
developrnent of Stage 4 noise standards or rs iltat ivork
looking beyond Stage 4?
A: No, I think that's a nice fit. It's providina the technolo�y.
That projram ends at the end of 2000. There mati= be a new
pro�ram that starts up to support NASA's new Three Pillars
Program �oals, but at the end of 2000, we will close the
books on [the Subsonic Noise Reduction Program] and say
here's the technology to decrease the noise level between 7-
10 dB relative to 1992 technology.
O: And tivill NASA reach that goal?
A: I think it will be rea] close. We �vill definiteh� be
somewhere between 7-10 [dB ran�e of noise reduction]. I
think we'll be somewhere around eiaht and a half. That
would be my guess. It has been an enormously successful
endeavor. I have been associated with it, and have been very
pleased with the way it has been manaRed and the products
the}' have put out. I will be very proud of the final report.
Q: Artd hoiv is N,9SA obtai�iing the �:oise red«rtioti?
1S3
A: A lot �f it is engines, of course. Enjines are still the
noisiest thinss on [the airplane]. They are lookin�T at both
inlet issues and exhaust issues. What can you do to diffuse
an exhaust to create less turbine rumble. There are some
really neat [hinas [being done] with inlets. The simpiest
thin�, vou can ima�ine can make a tremendous difference.
Like putting a lip of the engine on the bottom, out a little
further ... than the top lip. Noises that come out of the
c�mpressor, hit [the bottom lip) and co up and are not
reflected down and it makes a tremendous difference. Also,
we are lool:ins at airframe issues .... and interface issues,
ho�v you put the engines on the airplane. There's one design
of a futuristic airplane where the inlets and exhaust for the
airplane are both on top of the fuselaae, so you autornati-
cally get.tremendous shielding for communities.
p: Can yoct go beyond Stage 4 noise standards a� are you at
die is�all now?
A: I think when we �et to a fu]] Staoe 4 fleet , the 6� DNL
contours will all be on the airports, and I think at that point
in time that noise might wel] become the second most
important environmental issue facin� aviation. It will still be
a problem, there will still be complaints, there will still be
issues to deal with. But, when we're at ful] Stage 4, I really
think that we're goin� to have a situation where noise is
tolerable and it is the second most important environmentaI
issue for aviation.
0: Emissions will be the firsi?
A: Yes.
Airport �oise Repen
184
� ANR EDITORIAL ON THE AGENDA...
� ADVISOR'Y BOARD
� Steven R. Alverson 1999
Manager, Sacramento Office
Harris Mil(er Miller £: Hanson
John J. Corbett, Esq.
Spie�el & McDiarmid
W�hine on, DC
James D. Erickson
Director, Office of Environment and Energy
Federal Aviation Administration
John C. Freytag, P.E.
Director, Charles M. Salter Associates
San Francisco
Niichael Scott Gatzke, Esq.
Gatzke, Dillon & $allance
Carlsbad, CA
Peter J. Kirsch, �sq.
Cuder & StanField
Denver
Suzanne C. iYicLean
Manager. Planning and Development
Tucson Airpon Auchoriry
John I�I. l�leenan
Senior Vice PresidentforIndusuy Policy
Air Transport Asscciation
Vincent E, l�iestre, P.E.
President, Mestre Greve Associates
Newpoa Seach, CA
Steven F. Pflaum, Esq.
McDermott, Will & Emery
Chicago
Karen L. Robertson
Manager, Noise Compatibility Office
Dallas/Fort Worth Internationa] Airport
lYlary L. Vib lante
President, Synergy Consultants, Inc.
Seatde
Lisa Lyle Waters
ivlana�er, Noise Abatement Program
Palm Beach County Department of Airports
Airpori Noise Report
`�t.
Jan. 10-1� 7gth Annual meeting of the Transportation Research
Board, Washin�ton, DC (for information, call TRB
Annual Ivieeting Information Line: (202) 334-3472;
TRB fax: (202) 334-2299 ; or visit website at
www.nas.edu/trb/meeting). '
Feb. 22-24 1999 International A irport Noise Symposium, Princess
Hotel, San Diego, CA, sponsored by the University of
California lnstitute of Transportation Studies
Technology Transfer Pro�ram; for enrollment by
phone: (510) 642-4111; by fax: (510) 642-0374;for
online registration, visit website at
wwtiv.its.berkeley, edu/techi�ansfer.
Feb 2�-26 Training Course on Version 5.1 of the Inte;rated I�toise
Modei, sponsored by Harris Miller Miller & Hanson,
Inc; to be held at the Port of San Diego's Airport
Noise O�ce in conjunction with University of Califor-
nia's Airport Noise Symposium (contact Mary Ellen
Eaaan, H.MIYSH, Inc., 15 New England Executive Park,
Burlin�ton, MA 01803; tel: (617) 229-0707; fax (617)
229-0707).
Feb 24-25 ATC (Air Traffic Control) '99 Conference, Maastricht,
The Netherlands; sponsored 7ane's Information Group
(contact 7ane's Information Group, Sentinel House, 163
Briahton Rd., Coulsdon, Currey CRS 2YH, UK; tel:
+44 (181) 700 3700; fax: -t-4� (0) 181 700 3715 or +44
(0) 173 755 7�03).
March 29-30 Washington Conference, sponsored by the American
Association of Airport Executives and the Airports
Council International - North America (contact AA.AE;
tei: (703) 824-0504; fax-on-demand: (1-800-470-
ARI''f).
AIRPORT NOISE REPORT
Anne H. Kohut, Publisher
Charles F. Price, Contributin� Editor; Maria T. Norton, Production Editor
Published 2� times a year at 43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va: 20147; Phone: (703) 729-4867; FAX: (703) 729-4528.
Price $�49.
Authorization to pho[ocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients,
is granted by Airport Noise Report, provided that the base fee of US$1.03 per paQe per copy
is paid directly to Copyriaht Clearance Center, 27 Congress Street, Salem, MA 01970. USA_
Copyright OO 1998 by Airport Noise Repon, Ashburn, Va. 20147
t �
M1i t ,� � ,,..� .p� � f ��,:a ��- � ��fi � 3�� t, ,�kr F � � �'r ��� ���r '��� ,�.�af e t.
7;
r. �.. '� c � �� � �, ,�g. �{� ` b r�,., s,. �+ �,u,.- .e",<,. r 5_ � 'D.. � t.,:
� 7� .,n�^..
A biweekly update on Iitigation, regulations, and technological developments
Volume 10, Number 24
r- _
. . �, i . . ....� �
, , , ,,i `,� �'�� � �r:i'
About 7 percent — or $1.53 billion— of the total $22.9 billion in PassenQer
Facility Charges that the Federal Aviation Administration has approved for
collection through the next 49 years by airports is being desiQnated for noise
mitigadon purposes, accordin� to data provided by the FA.A.
Last spring, FAA data indicated that about 6.3 percent — or $1.2 billion — of the
total �19 billion approved at that time for collection �vas being devoted to noise
mitigation projects (10 ANR 73).
In its recordkeeping of PFC projects, the FAA subdivides noise projects into six
different cate�ories. Followin� is the total amount for each category as well as the
percentage that cate�ory represents of the total PFCs for noise beinQ collected:
• �378,208,234 (23.9 percenc) to purchase land;
•$761,198,005 (48.1 percent) for "multi-phase" projects, which include two or
more different projects devoted to land acquisition, avigation easements, home
buyouts, sales assistance, and soundproofinQ;
• �419,333,179 (26.5 pereent) for soundproofinQ project;
•�7,041,713 (0.�4 percent) for noise monitorinQ systems;
•�7,611,367 (0.48 percent) for a"miscellaneous" cate�ory that includes noise
(Continued on p. 192)
PFCs
62 AI�2POR7CS IM]POSII�G 1'FCs TO SUPPOR'I'
NOISE MITIGATION PROJECTS, I)ATA SHOW
A total of 62 airports are now imposinQ Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) to
support airport noise mitiaation projects, according to data from the Federal
Aviation Administration.
Los Angeles International Airport, planning a major expansion, no�v leads the
pack in collectin� PFCs for noise mitiaation purposes with FAA approval to
coliect a�vhoppin� $440 mi]]ion for various noise mitigation projects.
LAX bumped Chica�o O'Hare International Airport out of the lon�-held first
place position it had claimed �vith FAA approval to collect �264,128,202 in PFCs,
mos[ly to fund i[s residential soundproofina project. Two other airports now have
F.AA approval to collect over $] 00 million in PFC revenue for noise mitigation
projects. Seattle-Tacoma Tnternational Airport has approval ro collect
� 117,� 1 1,438 for various noise mitigation projects, and Nlinneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport plans to collec[ � 11b,9=�=�,300 for various projects.
Follo�vin� is a list of additional airports that have federal approval to collect
more than � 10 million if PFCs for noise miti�ation projects:
• Las Ve�as McCarran International Airport- �a91,193,000 mostly for land;
(Continued oii p. 192)
Copyrieht �O 199S by Airport Noisc Report, Ashburn, Va. 20147
December 31, 1998
.In �'his �ssue...
PFCs ... This special issue
of ANR provides data ob-
tained from the Federal
Aviation Administration on
airports that are collecting
Passenger Facility Charges
(PFCs) to support their noise
mitigation projects.
In shows that 62 airports
are now imposing PFCs foz
noise mitigation projects with
Los Angeles International
Airport leading the pack and
planning to collect $4-40
million for various noise
mitigation projects. Chicago
O'Hare International Airport
is now second, planning to
collect $264.1 million.
Some 18 airports plan to
collect over $10 million in
PFC revenue to fund their
noise miti�ation projects.
About 7 percent — or $1.58
billion — of the total $22.9
billion in PFCs approved by
the FAA is bein� earmarked
for noise miti�ation.
Table l, showing PFCs
bein; collected for various
cate�ories of noise projects,
begins on p. 186.
Table 2, sho�vin� PFCs
bein� collected by speciiic
airports for various projects,
be�ins on p. 189.
186 Airport Nozse Report
Table 1
AIRPORT NOISE A�A3'EIYIENT PROJECTS �
FUNDED BY PASSEi�I�ER FACILITY CHARG]ES
(Projects Approved by FAt1 as of 11-30-98; listed by project type)
Aiiport tioise Report
:�
�
December 31, 1998
1s�
Airport Noisc Repon
1��
Airport Noise Report
:;�
Airport Noise. Report
December 31, 199$
Table 2
AI12PClR7C N�ISlE ABATEM�NT PiZOJECTS
�'UND�D BY PA�S�I�1GE12 FACIL�TY CI�ARGES
(Projects Approved by FAA as of 11-30-98; listed by airport)
Airport Noise Rcport
189
190
Airport Noise Report
Airport Noise P.epon
December 31, 1998
191
Airport ��oise Fepor,
19�
the expectation that bo[h Richfield and NIAC �vill ]ive up to
the provisions ofi the agreement. Clearly, it is in both of our
in[erests to work toeether rather than battle it out in the
courts. The residents of RichPield and the entire region
benefi[ from an aQreement rather than months of costly
liti�ation." �
The MAC chairman said the agreement �vill benefi[
Richfield residents by providing for noise mitivation,
commercial property re-development, transporcation
improvements, and recreational areas.
He said that MAC•already has spent a total of $12.6
million on sound insulation for more than 600 Richfield
homes. MAC has funded $2.9 million in sound insulation
for two Richfield schools and plans to insulate two more. At
the city's request, MAC acquired several residential
developments. `Vith the a;reement, the mitieation for
Richtield will exceed $100 million, he said.y
Richfield City Council I�Sember Mike Sandah] said he was
pleased that IvIAC had a�reed to seek the necessary fundinQ
for low-frequency noise miti�ation from the state LeQisla-
ture and the federal �overnment. "In exchanae for this
commitment, we have aQreed not to file a la�vsuit on the
adequacy of the Final Environmentai Impact Statement" for
the new runway, he said.
The settlement agreement bare]y passed the Richfield City
Council by a three-to-two margin. It was approved unani-
mously by the MAC.
AmonQ the provisions of the ajreement are:
• MAC accepts the state findings that low frequency noise
is a potentially siQnificant impact;
• MAC aarees to a process that will identify how to
properly miti�ate these impacts;
° MAC asrees to assist Richfield in identifyinQ resources
to implement the mitiaation plan;
� Iv1AC will miti�ate to the 60 dB DNL noise contour in
Richfield (which is beyond the 6� dB DNL contour eliQibil-
ity ]ine used by the federal government); and �
• Richfield a�rees not to sue IviAC and the A•Iinnesota
Environmental Quality Board reeardintr the EIS.
Noise experts for Richfield and for the MAC determined
that the noise impacts of lo�v frequency ground noise from a
new north-south runway �vould include over l� percent of
Richfield's housinQ stock and extend well inro South
Minneapolis.
The ne�v north-south runway, which is scheduled to besin
construction early in 1999, tivould carry from 300 to 400 �
aircraft operations per day and will be ]ocated just t�vo
blocks from residential homes in Richfield.
"Richfield's City Council has al�vays maintained that our
�.zoal is not to stop the runway — but to provide adequate
protection for our residents, Sandahl said. "�Ve are pleased
the MAC has also a�reed to protect Richfield residents from
these noise impacts and Council ]ooks forti��ard to a strong
partnership wi[h the MAC as �ve tivork ta�ether to obtain
funding ancl pu� noise miti�ation in its place."
The estirnated ne[ cos[ of $100 million needed for Ricn-
1�ield noise miti`�ation will likely need to come from se�•eral
Ai.rnort Noise R
sources that may include state, federal, and MAC funding,
airlines contributions, and Tax Inerement Finance, he said.
"It's understood that $100 million is not a small amount of
money, however, it is part of the price of keeping the airport
here. Even with $100 million in noise mitigation fundin� for
our community, i[ mal:es expansion at this airport a much
cheaper option than to build a new airport in Dakota
County," Sandahl said.
In 1996, the Minnesota Le;islature instructed MAC to end
the Dual Track Airport Plannin' Process and expand MSP
Internationai at its current location rather than to build a
new airport in a more rural location.
Low Frequency Noise Study
The Lo�v Frequency Noise Policy Committee must be
established within 20 days followintr approval of the
ajreement. It wi11 consist of inembers appointed by the
cities of Richfield, Bloomin�ton, and Minneapolis, and the
MAC. The Federal Aviation Administration , the Minnesota
Pollution Control AQency, and the Metropolitan Gouncil
will provide technica] assistance to the policy committee.
The committee will be char�ed with the followina tasks:
• Review all existina information pertaining to San
Francisco International Airport, Boston Logan Internationai
Airport, Baltimore-Washington International Airport, and
Los An�eles International Airports (al] of which have �
addressed low frequency noise impact) "and any other
published studies of the audibility and impact of low
frequency noise, not excluding impacts outside of residen-
tial settings";
• Conduct such studies as, in the opinion of the committee
are needed to address issues related to lo�v frequency noise;
• Convene an expert panel consistin� of Sanford Fidell of
BBN Systems, Inc., who has done work on low frequency
noise for the City of Richfield; Andrew Harris of Harris
Ivliller Miller & Hanson, Inc., who serves as a consultant for
the airport authority; and a third member to be named by
Fidell and Harris to provide technical input and information
to the policy committee for consideration;
• Present recommendations "regardin; the appropriate
noise metric, compatibility standards, and recommended
miti�ation programs, measures, or techniques"; and
• Prepare a report or reports documenting the policy
committee's deliberations and conclosions.
The work of the expert panel must be completed within
100 days from the date of the aQreement "unless a majority
of the policy committee deem it necessary to extend the
time period."
If the policy committee is unnble to reach meaningful
recommendations, the issues will be submitted to mediation
to be conducted by a certified mediator.�
.airport Noisc Report
,: �, .
December 31, 199S
Stttge 2 Phaseout
VENEZUEI,AN CAi2RIER
S�E�� �HA��o��' �A���'
The Venezuelan national airline Servicios Avensa
petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration Dec. 10 for a
tivaiver of up to 18 days — until Jan. ] 3, 1999 — to complete
the re-enQinin� needed to bring the third of its five aircraft
serving the United States into compliance with StaQe 3 noise
standards.
If the airline does not receive the waiver, it will have to
pul] out of service during the busy holiday season two of its
five Boein� 727-200 aircraft serving the United States,
tivhich would result in stranding 584 passen�ers daily in
either Venezuela or Miami causing them "extreme hard-
ship," Robert D. Papkin of the Washington, DC, la�v firm
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, which represenu the airline,
told the FAA in the waiver petition.
Thus far, the FAA has granted none of the requests for
waivers it has received for earlier interim phaseout dead-
lines. And the aQency currently is in a dispute with Servicios
Avensa over whether it met the last interim compliance
deadline.
As a new entrant forei�n air carrier, SERVIVENSA, as
the airline is called, is required under FAA's Part 91 rules
implementins the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990
to have at least 7� percent of its fleet operatin� in the United
States compliant with Sta�e 3 noise standards by Dec. 31,
1998.
SERVIVENSA operates only five Boeina 727-200 aircraft
in the United States. Two of these aircraft already meet
Stase 3 noise standards and a third rnust be brought into
compliance by the end of December. If this cannot be done
or the airline does not receive a waiver, it mvst remove two
of the Stage 2 aircraft presently in use in the United States
from it Operations Specifications.
The airline contended that it has a viable plan for achiev-
ins interim and final compliance with the Stage 3 noise
standards by re-enRining its aircraft. It signed an agreement
with Pratt & Whitney and BF Goodrich last summer that
�vould permit up to five of Sts B-727-200 aircraft to be re-
enained. The re-ensining work should have been done by
Dec. 1, 1998, but has been delayed, Papl:in told the FAA.
Because the re-en�inin� was to be fully financed by the
vendors, there was "extensive IeQal and financia] documen-
tation" that had to be completed before the actual �vork
could beain, he said. This delayed the commencement of a
major overhau] of the aircraft that was required by the
bankers as part of their financial commitment. Also,
unanticipa[ed delay in the shipmen[ of the enRines to
Venezuela, �vhere the re-engining work is to be done, has
pushed back the completion date, he said. The re-engininU
could be completed by Dec. 31, 1998, the interim compli-
ance c3eadline, but may take until Jan. 1�4, 1999. SER-
VIVENSA said it plans "to take every possible step" ro
complete the work necessary to make its B-727 ?00 aireraft
19�
compliant with Sta�e 3 requirements.
The airiine said it may no[ need the waiver, but if i[ does,
it ars�ed it would be in the public interest to be granted the
time extension. "It is customary for Venezuelans (both those
livina in that country and the colony living in the United
States) to travel between the two countries in vast numbers
over the year-end holiday season. This traffc is a� its peak
from mid-December until approximately the beginninQ of
the third week in January," said the airline's attorney. "At
this time, SERVIVENSA not only has sold all oF its seats
between the United States and Venezuela throu�h the
weekend of 7an. 16-17, 1999, but the passenaers who will be
travelin� on these fliChts already have their boarding
passes." These passenQers wou]d not be able to transfer to
other airlines because other carriers servin� the Miami-
Caracas market also are fully booked, Papl:in said.
He added that SERVNENSA "is aware that there is still
an open matter with the FA.A stemming from certain flights
conducted with StaQe 2 aircraft during the month of 7anuary
1997 which allegedly were contrary to the phaseout regula-
tions." The airline, he said, "believes that matter is totally
unrelated to the situation that is the subject of this petition,
and SERVIVENSA trusts that the pendency of that matter
will not prejudice in any �vay the consideration on the merits
of this petition."
The FAA announced the waiver petition in the Federal
Register on Dec. 18 and gave the public until Jan. 4, 1999,
to comment on it.
Ccmments should be sent in trip'.i�ate to the FAA Office
of the Chief Counsel, Attn: Rule Docket (AGC-200),
Petition Docket No. 29423, 800 Independence Ave, SW,
WashinQton, DC 20591. Comments also may be sent
electronically to the following internet address: 9-NPRM-
CMTS @faa.aov.
For further information, contact Terry Stubblefield (tel:
202-267-7624) or Brenda Eichelber�er (tel: 202-267-7470)
in the FAA Office of Rulemaking.
Applications for waivers for the finai StaQe 2 phaseout
compliance date of Dec. 31, 1999, must be submitted to the
FAA by 7an. l, 1999.�
Airlines
�VV� A.I�II�Ii�UNCES ORIJE�2
�'�R 125 S'TAGE 3 AIRCRAFT
Trans ti'Jorld Airlines, Inc. recently announced orders and
options for 2�0 Stage 3 aircraft, the largest aircraft order in
the airline's history, and one which will allo�v the airline to
meet the end of 1999 deadline for phasing out its Stage 2
aircraft.
In the Federal Aviation Administration's annual fleet mix
report to Congress, TWA has perennially been near the
bottom of the list in terms of the speed at which U.S. major
airlines are converting their fleets to quieter StaQe 3 aircraft.
The FAA's latest repon indicated that, as of the end of
Airport Noise RepoR
196
1997, TtiVA had a fleet comprised of only 69 percent Sta,e
; aircraft. �
TWA announced that it has siQned let[ers of intent [o
acquire 50 Boein, 717-200 (1 11-seat) aircraft for delivery
be�innin� in February 2000, allowinQ the company to retire
most of its DG9 aircraft; 50 Airbus A313 (110-seat) aircraft
for delivery beainnin� in 2003, and 25 Airbus "A320
Family" aircraft for delivery beginning in 2005. TWA said
it will continue to operate 30 leased hush-l:itted DC-9
aircraft until 2004.
In addition to the 72� firm orders, on �vhich the airline has
secured financin�, TWA has taken options on an additional
50 Boein� 717s and an additiona175 A320 Family aircraft.
The B717s will be powered by Rolls Royce engines; the
A318s by newly-desi�ned Pratt & Whitney PW6000
enaines.
"The manasement of TWA is focused on securin� and
buildina this airline's future," said Gerald L. Gitner,
chairman and chief executive officer of the company. "One
way we do this is by securina for our people the very best
tools with which they can do business. Our agreement «�ith
Airbus and BoeinQ will provide those tools and will fashion
our narrotiv-body aireraft acquisition proQram for the next
decade."
"The aircraft in these orders, when delivered, �vill com-
plete the revitalization or our narrow-body fleet that began
in 1996 with the delivery of our first 757 and continues
today. In 1999, TWA will receive 37 previously-ordered
nev� Boeing ai:c:aft ir.cluding 24::�33s; 12 75?s, ard cne
767-300 — on averaae, more than one new aircraft every 10
days. We have retired one 747 and L1011 fleets and will
have the opportunity to retire the 727 fleet as early as the
end of 1999. By the end of 1999, TWA wil] have replaced at
least 42 percent of the fleet since 1996," Gitner said.
TWA �vill be the first airline costomer for the A318 and
the P�V6000 ensine. The A318 "�aill be Airbus's ne�vest
model, incorporatin� ali of Airbus's renowned technoloQy
and powered by Pratt & Whitney's newest engine," [he y
PW6000, the airline said. 0
Noise Mo�zitori�zg
�OC%�AR.]D WINS CONTRACTS
FOR LOND�N, SW]EDISH AIRPORTS
The Aus[ralian firm Lochard Ltd. announced [ha[ it has
won contracts to replace the noise and f7iQht uack monitor-
in� systems for London's Hea[hro�v, Gatwick, and Stansted
Airports and to supply an integrated system to [rack and
monitor aircraft at 19 S�vedish airports.
The British Aviation Authorit_y contract is for the replace-
ment of the "Noise and Track Keepin� Systems" for the
three London airports. The systems to be installed a[ each
airport will use the industry's standard GEI�IS (Global
Environment Niana�ement System), contiQured to interface
���ith the existinn portable and tixed Noise IvlonitorinQ Units
at the airports, the company explained. y
Airport Noise Report
A fourth system at NATS (National Air Traffic Services)
wi11 provide a cen[ral analysis point accessin� data from al]
three airports via a hiQh-speed communications link.
The Swedish Civil Aviation Administration
(Luftfartsverket) a�varded Lochard a contract to supply a
system for Aircraft Track Ivlonitoring and Noise Modelina,
which is desiQned to connect up to 19 airports in Sweden
includinQ Stocl:holm-Arlanda, Stockholm-Bromma,
Gothenburg-Landvetter, and Ivlalmo-Sturup.
'The main purpose of the system is to collect flight tracks
in rea] time, based on radar information, and calculate the
noise impact of historical and future fliQhts usina the
Swedish noise model. y �
In addition, the company said, the system will be used to
calculate and report on air pollutants caused by aircraft as
wel] as other sources in the vicinity of the airports such as
transport vehicles, road tra�c, fuel handlinQ facilities, and
heating plants around the airports. y
I..ochard said it has installed Noise and Track MonitorinQ
Systems in 12 countries on four continents, includin� y
Amsterdam, Manchester, Zurich, Hon� Kong, Washinston,
DC, Vancouver, BC, and Sydney, Australia. Lochard said
that in Auscralia it has implemented the world's IarQest
system, monitorina eight airports in real time, networked
from one central location and processing more than 4,000
aircraft movements per day.
Recently the company was selected to supply its Globa]
Environment ManaQement System to Seattle.
San Fra�acisco, from p. I93
1, 1999; and from 8 p.m. to 7 p.m. on Oct. l, 1999.
Airport spokesman 12on Wiison described the deal struck
with the airlines as "a centlemen's a�reement," and said if
the airline "don't keep their word, their credibility wi11 be
lost" at the airport. In a letter to the San Francisco Interna-
tional AirpordCommunity Roundtable, John L. Martin,
director of the airport, said the "airline industry, in response
to community concerns, have offered their best efforts to
accelerate the phase out" of their Stage 2 operations at SFO.
Martin informed the FAA that the airport commission had
agreed to withdraw the proposed amendment to the San
Francisco Noise Abatement Re��lations and the Part lbl
study supponing the amendments in a one-paraQraph letter
sent Dec. 16 to John Pfeifer, manaQer of the aaency's
Airports District O�ce in Burlingame, CA. �
The airport's action spares the FAA from havin� to make
comment on San Francisco's Part 161 study, which had
concluded that the benefits of imposing an expanded curfew
on StaQe 2 operations at niQht outwei�hed the costs of such
a restriction by a ratio of 3.1 to I. It aiso had used a unique
calculation for determinina the benefits of the rule, which
most likely would have required FAA comment (10 ANR
1�3� _.
Any comment the FAA made on the proposed restriction
at San Francisco, which would not have affected many
Airport Noise Report
December 31, 1995
aircraft operations, may have set precedents that the agency
would have to live with later, when noise or access restric-
tions with more sisnificant impacts on operations may be
proposed throu�h the Part 161 process.
A standing committee of four FAA officials had aone
throuQh the process of reviewinQ San Francisco's Part 161
study and twice had asked the airport for extensions of the
deadline when such comrnents were due, indicatinQ perhaps
that the aQency was havin� difficulty reachina consensus on
what to say.
San Francisco's expanded ni�ht curfew was expected to
affect only 63 fights per week by United Airlines and
several cargo carriers. United was expected to have to re-
certificate five Stage 2 B747 aircraft to meet the restriction
and the cargo carriers were expected to reduce to substitute
hushkitted DC-8-63 freiahters for the DC-8-61 aircraft they
currently use until they can obtain hushkits for the -61 s. No
aircraft operations were expected to be canceled or shifted
to other nearby airports as a result of the restriction.
The proposed restriction, announced on Au�. 14, would
have amended the airport's .Airport Noise Abatement
Regulation, which currently restricts operation of StaQe 2
aircraft at SFO between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. and requires
operators to aCree to adhere to the airport's preferential
runway use program an order to operate aircraft durinQ those
hours.
The proposed restriction would have expanded the current
restriction on nighttime operations of Stage 2 aircraft by:
• Extending the restricted hour to 7 p-m. t�`u'ough 7 a.m.;
• Requiring operators to aaree to adhere to the airport's
preferential runway use prob am in order to operate aircraft
during those house; and
• Eliminating the existin� exemption from the restriction
of operations between 6 a.m. and 7 a.m. for StaQe 2 aircraft
operators that agreed to adhere to SFO's preferential runway
use program.
The rule also would have had the important effect of
barrin� any Stage 2 aircraft that might receive FAA exemp-
tions to operate beyond the Dec. 31, 1999, deadline for
phasing out Staae 2 aircraft from the commercial fleet.[�
Newm•k Int'l
NJ D�'.�EGAT�OI'� i�ECLARE�
]DJEPA�22.T�J� 7CES'�" A FAILUI2E
Netiv lersey's t�vo senators and six of its congressmen
have declared a noise abatement departure procedure tested
at Newark Internationa] Airport to be a failure and told
Federal Aviation Administration chief Iane Garve}� they
evere "deeply troubled" by the aQency's decision to conduct
an environmental assessment of the procedure.
In September, the FAA completed a six-month test of the
so-called "260 de�ree turn" depanure procedure from
Runwav 22 at Ne�vark under �vhich aireraft were directed on
a nanow 260 route over an industrial section of Ne��' Jersey
in an effort to redace noise, and increase airsafety� and
197
opera[ional efficiency.
`By all accounts, the 260 deQree turn has failed to reduce
airplane noise in residential areas of New Jersey. In some
communities, it hns resulted in more planes and more
noise," N.J. Sens. Robert Torricelli (D) and Frank Lauten-
ber, (D) told Garvey in a Dec. 1 � letter. "To proceed with
an EIS of the 260 degree turn would be an inefficient use of
ta�c payer dollars and an affron[ ro the citizens who have
been fiQhtin� for relief from airplane noise for more than a
decade," they said. .
The FAA, they said, should abandon the departure
procedure because of the following evidence:
•"Fliaht tracks for the 260 de�ree turn show that the rou[e
would serve as a shortcut, allowin� planes to turn sooner
and begin headinQ west. The purpose of havintr planes travel
south alon� the New Jersey Turnpike before headin� west,
as followed in the 260 turn, is to avoid residential areas
whi]e climbing to hi�her altitudes. The 260 dearee turn
disreQards this theory and immediately sends the planes
over residential communities";
�"Also, accordin� to the FAA, the 260 degree turn was
desianed to allow planes to climb higher and faster in order
to avoid LaGuardia traffic. However, for six months
residents below the 260 deb ee fli�ht path complained of
beins bombarded with noise from low-flying planes. From
the first day of the test, residents reported that planes were
louder, lower, and flyina over more homes, cutting a swath
of jet noise directly over some of the most densely popu-
late� areas of Ne�v ?ersey";
� Finally, they said, "the FAA's own spokesmen were
quoted this summer as sayin� that pilots did not actually
follow the 260 de�,ree turn, even after it was implemented.
Many pilots directed to fly the 260 degree turn ended up
flying several miles north of the proposed track. Thus, even
the experimenta] data used for an assessment wil] be flawed.
Further review of the 260 degree turn experiment should
cease based solely on this fact alone," the senators asserted.
Nodna tha[ the FAA is preparing to be�in a major airspace
redesion in the New York area, they urQed Garvey to not
waste "scarce rzsources to study the fundamentally flawed
260- turn," but rather to "redirect these resources into
speedinQ up the airspace redesiQn" includinQ an evaluation
of routana aircraft departing Newark over the Atlantic
Ocean ro g�in alutude and reduce noise impact.
A bipartisan Rroup of Ne�v Jersey conaressional represen-
tatives also urQed the FAA to test ocean routing. "�Ve are
appalled that the FAA still refuses to seriously consider
proposals for true oczan routinQ," said NJ Reps. $ob Franks
(R), Rodney Frelin;�huysen (R), Nlarge Roukema (R),
Michael Pappas (R), Bill Pascrell (D), Frank Pallone (D),
and Ste�'e Rothman (D). "Virtually every member of
ConQress representin� Central and Northern Ne�v 7ersey, as
well as numerous citizen's advocacy uroups, have called for
an e��aluation oi ocean routing. All the FAA's pas[ attemp[s
to reduce airplane noise — including the 260 deRree test —
have been disasters. It's time to give the citizen-driven
proposais a leai�imate examination," they [old the FAA.O
�irnort Noise Repon
19S Airport Noise Report
• , � � • .
.� �. �,�,.�.
Steven R. Alverson
Manager, Sacramento Office
Harris Miller Miller 6: Hanson
.John J. Corbett, Esq.
Spiegel & McDiarmid
Washington, DC
James D. Erickson
Director, Office of Environment and Energy
Federal Aviation Administration
John C. Freytag, P.E.
Direcror, Charies M. Salter Associates
San Francisco
Michael Scott Gatzke, Esq.
Gatzke, Dilion & Ballance
Carlsbad, CA
Peter J. Kirsch, Esq.
Cutler & Stanfield
Denver
Suzanne C. itilcLean
Manager, Planning and Development
Tucson Airpon Authority
John M. Meenan
Senior Vice PresidentforIndustry Policy
Air Transport Association
Vincent E. I1�Iestre, P.E.
President, Mestre Greve Associates
Newport Beach, CA
Steven F. Pflaum, Esq.
McDermott, �Vill & Emery
Chica�o
Karen L. Robertson
Mana�er, Noise Compatibiliry Office
Dallas/Fort Worth lnternational Airport
11�Iary L. Vigilante
President, Synergy Consu(tants
Seatde
Lisa Lyle Waters
Ivtanager, Noise Abatement Prooram
Palm Beach Counry Department of Airports
ON THE AGENDA...
1999
Jan. 10-1=� 78th Annual meetin� of the Transportation Research
Board, Washinston, DC (for information, call TRB
Annual Meetins Information Line: (202) 334-3472;
TRB fax: (202) 334-2299 ; or visit website at
www.nas. edu/trb/meeting).
Feb. 22-24 1999 International Airport Noise Symposium, Princess
Hotel, San Dieso, CA, sponsored by the University of
California lnstitute of Transportation Studies
Technoloay Transfer Proo am; for enrollment by
phone: (510) 642-4111; by fax: (510) 642-0374;for
online registration, visit website at
www.i ts. berkeley,edu/techtransfer.
Feb 2�-26 Trainina Course on Version 5.1 of the Inteorated Noise
Model, sponsored by Harris Miller Ivliller & Hanson,
Inc; to be held at the Port of San Die�o's Airport
Noise O�ce in conjunction �vith University of Califor-
nia's Airport Noise Symposium (contact Mary Ellen
Eagan, HNIMH, Inc., 15 New En�land �
Executive Park, Burlington, NIA 01803; tel: (617) 229-
0707; fax (617) 229-0707).
Feb 24-2� ATC (Air Tra�c Control) '99 Conference, Maastricht,
The Netherlands; sponsored Jane's Information Group
(contact Jane's Information Group, Sentinel House, 163
Bri�hton Rd., Coulsdon, Currey CRS 2YH, UK; tel:
+44 (1SI) 700 3700; fax: +44 (0) 181 700 3715 or +�
(0) 173 755 7�03).
NSarch 29-30 Washington Conference, sponsored by the American
Association of Airport Executives and the Airports
Council Internationai - North America (contact AAAE;
tel: (703) 824-0�04; fax-on-demand: (1-800-470-
ARPT).
AIRPORT NDISE 1ZEPORT
Anne H. Kohut, Publisher
Charles F. Price, Contributins Editor; Maria T. Norton, Production Editor
Published 2� times a year at 43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 20147; Phone: (703) 729-4367; FAX: (703) 729-4528.
Price $�49.
Authoriza[ion to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the interna] or persona] use of specific clients,
is granted by Airport Noise Report, provided that the base fee of US� 1.03 per pa�e per copy
is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, 27 Con�ress 5treet, Salem, MA 01970. USA.
CopyriRht �O 199S by Airpon Noise Report, Ashburn, Va. 201=17
12/21/98 1 i_ 2? '�`202. 639 3233_ I/0 Pd aVE ._ -�-�-� iIENDOT�i HEIGHTS._ ______., .�J 001
.� • . : . . ' _.._ . . . . ' _"_......�.�r Y TT1 TA7TTIT}iIATRA`i�ATi•
, � '`�'� r-•� + C + � � ' �
.
•
� . rr ,! r. `•�� �
� .►.� t! • � � [ :/ ' t�'�'{..
p'�� �~ .s2 a� �� �� �n�€ �' • I �
*ar ;, s� d �
� ; J ` t� ��. �ilM � y ' .
"+' �" �� �Ce �yyt?, �j. d J� fi •
'�� ' �'� ��+ � . � - .
� k� �
�i ,.,�.. �c�' �`Y y y�„, 5�j 7r1 �' ''' .�� � ��, ?�,�c' ..�i•. � ��1H.n� - � / • Y� . ♦� t�
ie- :t
FACStR/[tLE TRA�IS1tt[i1-t"A�' SHEET
�' ll i' .�__ �
R,TTEt�(TION RECtPiENT:
Ptease forward the attached to the appropriate personfs} in your firm.
To . �OiS'� I�EMBERS
Date: �ecember 21, 1998
From: DEZ�12S �iCGR�'
SCt3T�' SHRLi3S
LEGISLA�IVE & REGUIIA.TOI�Y
A,.�'�'AIRS
Phone: (202) 434-81�3
F�; (202) 639-8238
Total Pages: 6
rTncl�dlncr this
SPEC(AL t�iSiRUCTIONS OR MESS�GE: RE- lVDl�� POLECY STfi�T�V1Ei�T
AT�'ACHED iS iHE CURFiE1�T �f�ISE POLtCY STt�TE1i�F1VT VYHICH '4fllAS LAST
REV�SEQ at� 1992 11 AT iHtS Y�HAT�THE PO ICY�ST.AT,EM 1�t7" SH�ULD Qi��CE
�t,�,S UN��lt�tl�lJS[.Y -DECiD��
�,G,�(1� 8E R�'�l[SED, A�ID TH1�T ALL [�fEMBERS SHfJU�D HA�IE At�I OPPQF�TUREIiY
�'p RE'�/IE1tY �'�--iE S?'ATL��ITE1Vi'AND �itiKE SUGGEST[OniS F{}R CHANGES ti SIt�CE
!h!E �4IOULD L�KE TO R�CH CONSENSUS A�ID R1.�3IFY Af�Y CHAt�tGES AT QUR
SPRII�G i�iEETI�G t� [ViAR�H, PL�ASE REVi�W THE ST�TEIi�FliliA�iD SE�D 1�NY
�Qj1�M��11T� OR SUGGEST1Qi�iS i0 OUR WASI-iINGTON OFFECE IJ FEEL FR�E TfJ
CUNi'ACT l9S !F YQtJ H�.vE �.�Y Q��STIOI�S !/'i"HAi�K YOU.
�_�— ,,._ ff you do not receive alt pages indicated,-�[easesali �202}4-34-8 � f 3�or assistance
.. __ _ 12/21./9S.^.l.i,:27... _. '�`202.639 32a3 I�0 Pa :�VE -��i niENDOTa HEIGHTS.... [�oo?
' �r ..�.,:•�.::,-;� .,• ..,.--
���a�� l�Tft?I�� ORCYA�..F3.TIO:�T i'O i�i5�� A SQ�i3� �3�iTRQI.�LF:Y3 �IR�R�'T
, . � � - . � .
'� �,... : .. ��ZZ� N'uie�uth Sts�t; -N i� � Sui.te 4i�o � Was}�gt,o�> �-C 2CI036
.. - . Teleg�one 202-452-145? �� Faz 202 331-1 I I g �
_ . . . . . . r�
���� ���.����
�'I�75S1Q?3l
� * - � - 1 il .q f i � � f . • • � ' H N ' t 4 . T � • � S?R � � � ' �� ! ! if �t t w' :t . �r
.1 �e . •iL�
�I- a•• � f -� �� �
Ta acrompiisii thar missis�n, •i�tO�SE eu;ages iu a vaziety af a�tiotu at �e•naticmal Ie�eI�-int�ded.tn iaflueuce
�ierat Iegislativ� a� rega��ry �o.easur�.s reIa� to aupoxt aoise. Th� advr�ca�} of the orgaui�aiion �
stticti3� limued �n geueric noise issuues of aationaI scoge; gositi�as � IIever takesz ara mzzters spe�c to
givea aiigores a�{ locaiities.
�xA2nded ,+�iroarc Ca�acitv
f ' �s uu� �[r ��� f . � dt f _ • _t � • " � i • � :^�. �t ��t r ' ■ :tl R i • ' � _ � f ■ • ��! . M
i wI_'i ' t L �.`l,:i�l� . \ r � �1(IY. 11z / Y_ i • UI�Ni1l ' Nf� � �� f '� ' • / !1 �If1 .t! �
• - ■ • � � � • � �� ■ - � +' u f� • =. iat e =s . • s �:ta �[i • wa _ asql . �I � - • • u
Ri,�ht af Aimort Qr�era�rs
� asa �, �r- •t • .i�r •tat.ias, e -.�s�� n . �.c�asftr.u�a s�: �i.s . ' ���i�[-n tt
• lt .s � .n • a� :.� - q■ d1 � fi. ' �a� f � �e _ • q� � a ' ! ! • � - it d iu � � • • r I � ' • � .
�� � � ' � _.l l t�! � i. � � '� J . �• i t:� � � 1: r l�� � i l?'Ri. t f
� • f• !� 1�i;» i{ i ft■
Fe�ieraI pre-err�5an
S �s�� - ��� _ t - :�n��a� � �- �n � t• ��' s te r_ • •e:..IZ�i_ .�� �:a
t ' - t � 1� - i � . � � • r. � �,* s • • i t �t - � ' fi 7 t t s tc '
� �• f �:� . •
• �s :i •�.• r �:.r ..i �s - � ..- :..t « s y • �- ..��
_� e • • � . :� t�.
�,a us� FQ�����
.. � i�CiISE fav� Ia.ud-�se policies by juris3icrions surrounai� �irgares ti�� m;r,i�;�P or el�tcu.u�e
..: ��� aauco axi.ble deYel ment in.hi F � g
�P � �-noise ax�ac. Zand use I�mn must h�e coasideresi an impvrtauz mear�s ��
...— �.
,
. ; . - . _. . . - . . _ . -- ..._... _ . ._.`_.
_....,12/.21/98_.__ 17:.27 ...'�202 6a9 32�8...____,______I�O.�'3. ��`.�_... i-�� �ENDOT:�. HEiGHTS , 1g�003
:. of;zaia;ga�,� t�e effect af aircrafi noise_ N�LSE fumly believes Iand use pianniug Ss b�sst done a� zhe. ia�cal.
_�� Ievet. aad•S¢u�.Y sQPFnrts rhe gre-�eas,�� role of Ios�I �ui.sdictiQr� iu arcg Ia,asi�tse decisiz�ns_
NDiSE is not �i,-a�i.oa. In: fact, PIDISE has a Io�-�Iisaed mdition ef collegiaiity �rhiclz �ua�Ies the
diverse �erests composing the a�oa corirmtm.i.ty to �me tagerker and vigorc�I� debaze rhe iss� in aa
a�sphere of�tole�an.ce ar�d mumaI r�spect � �
, •. -
r- ■ �.�e _r�1r ■t-•' � .�s �- �.ei - � s�- - � a. ���i z. ►r�.�c�a.� !ll
�:.� c:.�r p . f ' f� ^I/E t I •. i r =. � � ct - . � �:;. .f� � s it � �r r- .t� �� p qt �s i
- �s- . •,.. �:i.. srr. �.i. . �r..c■ :. .. -. T� - rs. a - .�.� e.■���»� � ���
-.i:.- r.' r- • r- s os ��c: s� .��-�• .i�..u��• .iri ■�[- me�a..w � a
.��1� •tr_�s� .�• � • -
DIV�ZSG P�C113fltIqFfl'V4E1Ra RIa�LS
� _ 1tt•�i - -�s - n Y � �� i�_ e.t �it s t -a,- 'r_ - .�s� f • � - -r_ �n• a. •�r;
• t - ' 7 t� " . • � i ■ ' ►t � � � �� . � f • f i . ! . f i !. . i �� UI �! 1 ' f � � r� t a�i �� � fTJ �
' • f�„ � � tt i • t ' p[I ' r 4 t i l Y. � .ls f :�/ � - tY. i� w � � w aa iq�� ' �[ _
..• rr.. r_ ■ - .�.� -.:.r� �• . i. :•a��� a■.. '�•..- :. n - •- u.�t� � • s•
:� t It �f a � � i� - i s . c • i a� • ' � - - � � s �: • • � - I /� ' � p �. - . � • • �Y Yz - �[ t :3�, f •
artegvzies do �z carry Yo�'tng rights.
. .�-.� - .- �-.�, � s . .-. � :. .�..� �• ��- � •�:. . .. �.� . .�- �.:,_
•� ' 7 n1iF _ttt t✓_ �!� M ■ OL..
�' / ' 1 ' � { Il *'[ t J'tli t !
y " • a�pl7� f s • t a - ne � . ��c� :i a � � t • - :•a �u� �a _n i � � - �rru � .r: � ■ ut i ' ��
it i�" �s "It-L is s �t� . La �� � 4 c[:�[n• n�, � � .�, t .q�s
• � t ; . • Y !' � f . rf i�l t _ �!► . tt � ' i � � Si� \� 1� �� i / J t ' -
� t i1/H f / .i[ 1 � ��•:?� � ' !1 �� t ■ f � ' tt A � '. t i • .. i � . � 1 " . �� C/.' f '.�� '.f \ - � t . [ •
�i - '1� � t • � ' :� ti � t ' i S t • �T i .t Y ' :.� [ ' � i . , f • L.� �! f • � t 1 t '� ■ , i� • s . �
{ ■ �•. i 7 . � � ' � Y i J� i1� • ..� �! i t ' . I � � �/f I • f i ►' � . �1 G� �1
� R• t �� ' �'. f�, � t t � t i• -. a' t �• •• 1 �a �f t � J��e ■ t• 1 f t♦" � a- ' i s 7� ' t/
t � - �� -. �n e •- � • :: ts - ►��m •- �� i s- � ■: i�
�s� • s �a- � �11
�
.. 12!21!98 1 i: 28 '�,i`202 639 8:33 I!0 P� ���E ��3 �IEVDOT� HEIGHTS l�j 00-1
2.
4_
�.
�
. : , , ar
Fitght ttac� mflaitori,ag and aaise mcnimring sbouId be r�n9red by sIl commccc�i$I airports, and
wl�ere ffi�tt u-�::cl; m.ouitoriag is empIoyc�, �uc�ics iacorpo�zziug a measu�.emr.t�c c�i' �ingl�reuc rtoise
ezPQs�u'cs sboald be used, hToisc mosutursua repvrts sho�id be made reaQily aYat�able to ihe public_
Noue Footpruu
�st�. rhe pbasirig out of Stsgc 2 eqnipme�t by the �car ZCi00 ii is expe�sezi t�t�t uoTse �rmt5 2mtmd
a�p'ores ,uili conuau ovcz tt�n aczt decade. Hvwevet. aP�er t�te wrt of the cenauy rz�a �ighiy Ii�Iy
t�3ac fncreasing opei2uon5 enen. ttf qIIsetet Staie 3 azta�f' �rZt begin tn expand the foaiprints cnte
mnre_ Nt)i_5F hPlTeves m�nrr�tm;;�� shouId resist the te�cgt�fion � permiz cxpaasian of
aoncv�gat�le r�sidanti3I. Iaad uses mta �raas 'frccd up" by soasraccti�g f�ot�uicus over the aex� IO
yc�us; and s�o�ld iascead zone ihem for noiscs:uu��at�le u� �r p��e �eir devetc�menr rrghr�,
sa that wtccu iT�e fv�tp�urs �xp�d, adverse aofse icupact5 wiiL be minimize�i.
�rrrge 3 C�rtiversion Inr�arivas
Inc.e�tiYes shaaId bc matin aYai.'12b1a to �cilitate The coIlversion to an. a(i-Stage 3 fleet in ariv2nce o£
thc t�+�aitian schedul� ser 5r�it. in. ti�e ,Aitport Noise a.nd Capacity Act af 1990 aad its imp3erneui�g
iegtliatioas_ 5uc�i incerrrrves s�auld aclude :edeial. ta� credi� aud Ioau gras.ranceAs mal�ng ��,ier
fnr air ca.ffiezs m invest earlier ia S�;e 3 equEPm�zt.
S�crge 3_5
1�te PAA shoutd ecrabIish a Srzg� 3S rlerc dea�i"me. Stag-e 3.� shouId be �p,cb�imar.ely 3 tu 4 dB
qnieter �an Stage 3_ NOI�E favor$ f�dcx�Itp fun�ai rc�ch and devEinpmeac by FAA, I�"ASA, �d
other.; eimai gc ffigraving quict eugiue �.�1�� at ihe e�'liestpQss�le d� '
��� or c��
Citize�s iu �ircr¢ft noise-impaaed areas shaul�.l�s,Yc rnea��I Tqpui to aitgort m2�ter p2an�, a�rport
s�p�sion au�1 iarpr�v�eni. Frojetxs. noise mitig�tion plans, and Iand-Use glaas for .sess szuround"mg
airporc5.
{a) NOI�� Yecommeuds t��far•suy mEjor fcdc�J aain�, at an a$gorr, the•stope oi ii�e r�ir�i
e�ironmczrtat x�i.e4r be detecuuuc�l by a camm,'it� ci�2i.ied by a re�reseataz'sve of the FAA
�1 cot�sistiu� t�f represent�ives of t�e ai�port pmprietc�r �nd the gove�rnir�� bodies a�.
3- � —
`
''�
.,,12�21�93 .17:2s. .. �202 639 32�3 ._.. .._ __.___I�0 Pa ayE . .�-�-� �iENDOTa HEIGHTS [�005
��� ar�zens of atl munici�aut�es �ving�c�icuan �rithia a t�vo-m�e radius �f tfi�e prgject. Tliis
;-�'- � �ou�d i�.vo1-�e�tb�e � iu uie�ti.fy�g aiier�atiYe solutions to caPacit3` Probleuis at ��
aurset.ofth� EIS grocess, r�� rl�an sequiriag them r.� react a.��er the fact vx�y to the
a�t�ives s�I� bg r�e ape�gr, as is now the cas�..
?,
�.
�
t/ �`;
� s � � s u . • � • r � i - u . � � it �� - Ci r • - • a.� ts n -.� � �� : a� -
-J � � ■ �'► � " �i � ' G� t! :.t R � t t � � � 1 :1 � ' � �pe t[ !� � : f �rli� �� H t/if t /� w. �
- 1t. a . f t •7 1 - � � " � s iM • a - � • * - � �t� R ' 1 se • t � s � a � . � • . � _ �
-r !i �a:� �' f ' 7'i �i t f• f� ��! • f i� t� i i 1�•
r� a . � :a et - a. � : s� � , � i • - .� .. . � • u - .� �� u nn � � t � ' . TJ17 � se .
t. 1 i' i� ►t tt[fl :�.if �II L" 1!
Rerraio� of PFc's zo Pan ISU Plarrs
i1► �rs� a. _m��a �- - .� ■• �se • �� �, � i• - '.�ae•:. ift..•:.. ��
• �t t. _t � � s �. a •• .�zr � -s,-.c � ■a-� s ' s � as ui •,�n:+tt
� t � � �� f f w� � • �s � • it - s • � �.� ' .i � ' > »HI • �� s . r c+t 1 f • �t�
s " t t � ' {� . � f • �. � E • . I � ' � i t e a ' 1 f ' i • - t .t/ :if
ii ��• � � i' � f f 1 t i• � uu� tt [�.. t T i� - w : •� �t rt ..�11 • n-• t'- t . s t � -�:.�F i
l. i ' z _ t f � �G I ' � i !R f 1 � I �f � ' �� • D� � � • . � i ' . f ' � � ' � .1■
I f�C:II t� ::� lt a:1 n u - �t ' R a di f � w. � • f� f� / U:��a - :�. f •• �• �a r �� -
• ' i� /� " ..� it :t • Tp1 :O . � �1 ' ' �� ' S[ �� / � � G� � � ' cfflE ![ ' .. � :qt ' t '
• � �. - -■ :._ � - :rt. s ,- .■ -
FAA. Srud,� of,�f' .
a`i �•r� -.*irrr-ir r.� "J. w �' �! t u- r- � r�a..• r.er. �_.- ��i-
1 ` .i :�f � � ' / � { ' (� ` 1 t ' j ' 'w i! • ! - t If • t1! .7� � t • � � `�t! t :.� � �
[� ' 1 � �G� L.. .I ►: � � ' 17 ' � . i t 7 • t • �!t :� S .ftts �� • �+1 ! � �! ' .a ■ t w
�., r' �♦ �• i y.• � ■ ct .. u i� . ■.- f � � � .■-_n rs• •.tr. •_ • •� --� � . '
� 4 - t ' �- i . N i -1 " ` � ' l 1 . ' t � ' �� O 1 . � � • . � �i � • p � � � � ' :tf i _ � • �
r'=fI[• •j:�}![[b- •..1.1 !/' 1• - ■♦ • -
Inr.reas� Fe.d.�raZ Ftcrtding
�M at' � c�a - • .�r •ta.� t •�:+ ta� �• - � is .rua.is�
�e _a�� u• �i �- �• • u :.� u.s .�r rt � nt tt� a u- • r c.t:r _ •� _e •��
:•} i ��.a�fl• [- t.� �t t• " til '.�t• � f1�Jfl�w � tc.. .� ♦�.1 �� � �w
�
__12�21/98__ 17.:29 ___ _�202. 639 32a8 .. _.._. . ___ I/0 Pa :�vE _._ 3-�-� IIENDOTa HEIGHT5,. _ _ C�oos �
{ . . .
- fun�ls, � w�eu�tbey are a�*az7aI�Ie, for insulazion and removaI. bt:z not fa: repIace.meat af uoncomgai�le.
.. � �oIIsi� u�tsts. Ye� �n� sdme� siates and. �nder c�u fedetal Iw�%�g Prc�,g�'�, ��re are� z�����', jei�s �
� � • • . ,g; equ�x'am:. �
�� auy�Iow=�come housing ��o remav�ct be r�pia�t%, and �rher� suctc �ret�ia-emems are iu efiect
tiiey� i�pos� a gceat ��1 �burcieQ, ou p��ang]uz"�c�nn�_ �he �.A.�i..shorald. r..�ec providc.
fimds f�or�x�pia�ent or�obt�a feder�l�arul s-ta�e exeagtions ?Ur nnits r�move3 a5 paxt�vf a�noise��
� , ..Fni b�ion, gmgam. � � �, � �
IU. �"roc�es j'or ��ning Ffighrs�
r-+r, t �:�� �. � ay�n• sta ��� i�- �r� �...� �� �r_u��
'-� (1� 1 � - ar ! t :.i�
r:..' �.. 1� c- i _� «n-- � =.a r•._ • - •� �- i •.� t �u:�� s
.i � -
� f 1 � ti tf t �• •• �![ Kt ' • M' f f ' !! _t'{ � l f • �� �
�dopeed: P%vembes, 1992.
�
, ._...._�..,
12/16/93 1VED 15:39 Fal 202 639 3233
�
I
[� ool
,��� � �� .�. u �� . ..,;� a1 �
�_ � w�- �. : :
�,� �= -
s.t�,:� . •.� t _ i i�,�' x:tE '' : '`�'n,=�,v`� ���r �" I � • � �
• ;
- a .
� �' ��; 45 f b�f .
• . , .: .� :. � . , � .,�i;: ,^
�{` � �
•-� � ' `�� '�i,.. �' � ��i;� s ;s;4 x "`', F .n '�-' � �r n � : � . c� . _ r.
� '� �,x ' -. � a ..
; � • � � fs1i�:: �_ �� _., ..• . -
�
,,
� - — �--
FACSIMILE TRANSMI'T('AL' SHEET
•: u►t_� = � :
ATiENTION RECiPIENT;
Please forward the attached to the appropriate person{s} in your firm.
To : NOIS� 1�LEM8ER8
Date: Decembe= 16, 1998
From: DEN1a2S MCGR�
S�OTT SHRUP�i
LEGISLATIVE & REGULATORY
AFFAIRS
Phone: (202) 434-8163
Fax: (202) 639-8238
Total �Pages : 3
(Zncluding this page}
• . . - � . � : ►� • : _ - - • _----. � � . : � ►
,
- ---
T'yO0.lGt-i7 �(�U llnitaHi BE INTERESTED !1� TNE ATTACHED �iRTIG�E FRON9 A
RECEIVT ED1iIC?N OF THE BNA DA1LY REP�ORT F0�? E�CECUTI�ES REGARDING THE
F�A, REAUiHOR1Z�.Ttt�iV ,AND �4l/��►TtON T'RUST FUND il PLEASE CO�TACT US 6F
YOU NA'�E At�Y QUESTIONS OR hiE�D ADDITIONIIL INFOR1�d1AT10N /I THtiNK 'YOU.
If you do not receive all pages indicated, p�lease call (202)434-8163 for assistance. �— -
12/16/93 {VED 15:�0 Fal 202 639 8238
�
REGt�LqTION, LAW & EC�NOMICS
A Departute From Agreed Upon Standatds, At issue is a
regulation ttiat will prevent as-0f Apri! 1,.1999 any plane
fitied with noise mufflers to ba transferred to�.EU, regis-
rers, The Commission fears that the rriare ;than .1,000
commercial,planes in the United States tliat �eet only
tli�.most strict noise'standards because they have been
fitted' with mufflers will swamg the EU �maike[. They
said the muffler-fitted planes are not as.quief.as newly
manufactured ones_ ' , ,
The iJnited States claims that not only do the
muffler-fitted planes compix with .the mo5t stiict inter-
nationally approued noise standards but that by. ,taking
riie�sures ta bIock tHei'r tiansfer, the EU 'is �crippling
their resate value in other inarkets. �
,�"The U.S. remairis. deeply concerned ttiat this pro-
posed regula'tion reflects a conscious decision to depart
from internationally agreed noise stan�ards and repre-
sents a challenge to the International Civil Aviation
Agreement Organization," said Davic� Traynham, an
FAA official, who led the U.S. delegation, at a Dec. 10
press conference. "The EU is in effect putting forward a
proposed new standard."
The Commission claims that muffler-fitted jets vio-
late the spirit if not .the letter of the newer, stricter in-
ternational standards. '
"Retrofitted aircraft produce, for comparable rypes
of aircraft, much more noise than genuine Chapter 3
(the latest standard} aircraft," said Commission
Spokeswoman Sarah Lambert.• "As a consequence oE
their noise characteristics, retrafitted aircraft increase
the noise contaurs around airports where they are op-
erated_" ,
Oddly enough, Airbus .Industrie, which� Americans
claim will be the beneficiary of the EU law, has sided
with the United States and has calted on the Commis-
sion to revise the proposal.
"The global nature of the aerospace industry re-
quires global so�utions, and I believe that the Commis-
sion's policy should be based on setting new noise and
emissions standards through the ICAO," said Noel
Forgeard, �he managing director at.Airbus Industrie, in
a letter to the Commission. "Unilateral actions at the re-
gional level may compromise this activity and may ap-
pear as a trade barrier, which will risk potential damage
to the European industry, either directly or through re-
taliatory measures,"
'' .A Commission official told BNA that the EU execa-
tive body believes the� U_S_ government had exerted
ressure on Airbus to lobby against the EU regulations.
' BY JOE KIRWIN
�T`ransportation � �
Ho�s�, Senate �e�gh�ng Plans '
% �'e��e lJp,Aviation Dol�ars
fter Congress reached a❑ irapasse over aviation
legislation this falt, House and Senate aides now
are bacls at work developing bills to reauthoriae
Federal Aviation Administration programs that are ex-
pec[ed to be unveiled early next year.
�But the �process of developing the tegislation is going
slowly, aides said, as different yroposals_to.change the
budgetary treatment� and financing of FAA..progr�ms
are being analyzed_ With opposition likely {rorrt budget
�A�IY REPOR7 FOR EXECUTIVES tSSN 0148�8155
(No.238j A•35
hawks and others in Congress as well as the airline, in-
dustry, the House Transponatian and Irifras'tciicture �
Committee and the Senafe Comme"rce Committee 'are ,
weighing tlie� plarts' car�fuliy, ttiey said' ai a' Dec. 10
meeCing of'the National Conference of 'Scate Legisla-
tures. ' ' ' " •'
�Similar discussions'about how to•free up more funds
for the nation's aviation programs are being held��in the
Glinton �admi�nistrafion� wtiere officials� said they' also
are faced with making sdme decisions soon on• the
FAA'S'financing. •The ad�ni�istration's proposa'1 will be
reflected in President Ctinton's budget sent to Capitol
Hitl• early� next year. .. � .
�' �il of the discussions appear to• be•affected �by law-
maliers' dec9sion�:this �year to create new bui3getary
"firewalls" ta segregate highway and transit programs
�and thereby increase surface transportation spending.
Aides to House Transportation Committee Chairman
Bud Shuster (R-Pa.} and �Senate Commerce Committee
Chairman John McCain (R-P.riz:} said those changes
will influence haw lawmakers approach aviation financ-
ing refotTri next year. �'� � • .
"We wane to do the same thing for aviation in•the up-
coming year as we did for highways this year," David
Schaffer, counsal to the House A�+iation Subcom�mittee,
told the NCSL's Energy and TransportaCion Commit[ee.
"Our goal this year is to free up [Aviation Trust FundJ
money and make sure that it can be spent."
While last year McCain pushed an agenda that em-
phasized increased competition, the Senate committee
also is gearing ug for the discussion over what aide Ann
Choiniere called "aviation budget reform." '
"The debate wil( include [taking] the trust fund off �'/ �
budget a5 well as cransitioning perhaps to some rype of
user fee-based system," Choiniere, counset to the Avia-
tion Subcommittee, rold the NCSL panel.
NCSL Seeks to 'Free t1p' Aviation Fands. For its part,
the NCSL is planning to adopt a revised policy Dec. 11
supporting congressional efforts to develop a• "mecha-
nism" that guarantees annuat Aviation Trust Fund rev-
enue is spent each year for its intended purpose. The
policy was unanimously backed by the Energy and
Transportation Committee at its Dec_ 10 meering.
`•`Aviation programs financed by trust fund revenue
should be classified as 'mandatory' spending. and oper-
ate as a'pay-as-you-go' program," the NCSL policy
stated, "The current spending caps and categorization
�imposed on domestic discretionary programs, are caus-
ing arbitrary funding reductions in important stace avia-
tion prvgrams."
The NCSL will join other state organizations that
have backed'the: creation of some type of new,�buc�get-
ary device to free up funds For aviation. The National
Goverriors' Association,' among others, has endorsed
the proposal_
According to Schaffer, there is a roughly $4 billion
uncommitted balance in the Avzation Trust Fund, and
Som,e $l0.bi11ion in revenues coming in annually from
uarious aviation excise taxes,.However, pressure not to
use the various resources, he said, is expected to cause
the balance to�grow to more than $30 billion in the next C
several years__ , .
Schaffer said Shuster's commirtee wouid 'prefer to
Yake the Aviation Trust Fund off budget. However, he
said, the panel.beiieves it can achieve ttie same goal of
freeirig up the monies by`creating a new budgetacy fire-
A-36 . ( No. 238)
�vall' Chat mirrors what was made for highways in [he
Transportation Equiry Act for the 21st�Century.
"If we achieve the firewall and the [increased] fund-
ing, then I don't think we will worry, in the end, about
the mechanism," Schaffer said. '
"We really don't care what you call .it as long as it
works," he added. �
Choiniere said the Co�merce Committee may pco-
pose a modified version � of the financing plafl intco-
duced last year. That plan relied on new fees to help fi-
nance the aviation system. ' '
$ut while agreeing with Schaffer that the precise
mechanism is Iess important that achieving the goal of
betcer financing FAA programs, Choiniere said there
are stili many issues to� resolve, including what happens
under a x�ew plan to the FAA's appropriation .drawn
from the General Fund. •
"The quesrion remains, u+hat happens to that if you
go to some new budget Creatment," she said.
General Fund Money (ssue Discuss�d. I.ouise Maillett,
the FAA's deputy assistant adminisirator for policy,
planning, and international affairs, said normally some
�Z billion of the FAA's annual budget is drawn from the
General Fund.•The general fund paymenr for the FAA,
she tdld the NCSL committee, is based on the fact that
Zhe federal government is a heavy user of the air traffic
control system, including the military.
Choiniere said FAA programs such as that for airport
improvement grants may.not be adequately funded if
the Aviation Trust Fund'is made the sole cneans for �i-
nancing FAR. Increased costs for FAA personnel and
� eguipment may take priority, she said.
"It's unclear whether the highway m�del of taking
the trust fund off budget is enough to make sure the in-
frastructure or capital programs will be [adequately]
funded, given the rising costs at the FAA," Cho�ntere
said.
� Schaffer said the House Transpoitation .Committee
does�not believe the FAA shouid have to give'up that
General Fund money in order to get more of the rev-
enues in the Aviation Trust Fund.
While highways does not receive Gene'ral Fund
maney, mass transit's continued need for the fund's
suppori was iecognized by lawmakers when it finalized
TEA 21�s firewalls, Schaffer said. The "�FA-21 firewall
for transit, he said, guarahtees transit a cert�in level of
kioth Highway Trust Fund and General Fund'money.'
''Th'ere's no reason �we cari't do the' same fot' avia-
tion," Schaffer said. ' � -'
In adopting its poiicy on tHe F$A reauthorization; the
NCSL commi[tee agreed•to.include neW 1'sngitage that
sp'ecifi,cally backs a continuation of a General Fuqd con-
tribution. Arnong other th;ngs, state Iawmakers said'the
federal government's heavy use of the system justified
the funding. ' . • �
Adtt�InisEration Weighs Mia of {lptions. Mail�ett said the
adminisci�ation's ciiscussions about its own FAA'plan
� have ac�Cnowledged the widesptead belief ihat some
type oP 5pecial budget treatment is necessary for aYia-
,: `� tion programs. However, she andicated that the admin-
ist'ration will not propose the type of budgetary flrewal]
being discussed`an�Capi[ol H311: ' '
�"Fhe adrriinistration will propo'se irtcreasing spending
on FAA programs, Maillett said. But'it is�looking at a
REGULATION, LAW & ECQNOMICS
mix of financing tools, from an increase in the passen-
ger faciliry' charge to new user fees, she s�id. :�
"We're trying to deterpnine what is the right mix,"
Maillett said. --
• For infrastructure development, Mailiett said the
FAA wants to continue the Airport lmprovement Pro-
gram as well as raise extra funds. The agency, �he said,
is weighing whether to propose an increase in the PFC
to help larger airports while shifting some of the AIP
entitlement funds to medium and smaller airports.
But the agency aiso continues to befieve'that a user
fee system makes the most sense for the Ft�A, Maillett
said. While that proposal was opposed by the airline in-
dustry last year, Maillett said the agency has not aban-
doned the idea of having users of the aviation system
bear the cost of �its upkeep.
BY NANCY OGNANOVICH
Chemicats .
.�
Technical De�aels Ne�ded �o Impl��e�
HPV Testin� Focus of Dec�reaber Workshop
he technical details chemical makers will need to
know in order to participace in the upcoming vol-
untary chemical testing program sre the focus of a
Dec. 16•17 workshop in Washington, T7,C.
The Environmental Protection Agency-sponsored
workshop, which is expected to be the first of several
workshops about EPA's Chemical Right-to-Know Pro-
gram; will focus on the technical issues as'sociated with
participating in the voluntary chemical testing program
called the High Production Volume ChalIenge Program_
William Sanders, director of EPA's Oliice of Pollu-
tion Prevention and Toxics, told BNA Dec. 10 that the
Chemical Right-to-Know Program is the mast important
program in OPPT. "There is so much informatiofi that
is needed about chemical safety," he �said. The HP�J
Challenge Program and workshop are key events for
this program, he addet3.
The HPV Challenge Prograrn is desigrted ta obtain a
ba5ic se[ of health and en�ironmental effects testing on
all 2,800 industriai ehemicals produced at more than 1
million pounds in 1990. In early October, a two-track
regUlatory and voluntary program was launched "to
etose the gap in the public's right to know" about poten-
tially harmful chemicals. " • '
� The goal of the workshop is to provide interested
parties and potential program garticipants with an op-
portunity to presen� rheir individual views concerning a
number of technical issues, aceording to •EPA. •.The
views and discussion at the workshop wi11 guide the de-
v2lopment of the HPV Challenge �Program, the agency
said. . � •
Four topics will be� addressed•at�the workshop in'a
format that will start with presentations, followed by a
public comment period for pre-registered carrimenters
only,� and rhen questions from the audience, 'according
to EPA. ' '. '' ' . , , .
'I'he four tapics for the u✓orksh�ap are: data acleqpary
and test glans; chemical categories; infarmation man-
. agem�eht; aad misceilaneous issues, such as interna-
fional matters, closed sy'stem� intermediates, chemicals
•ftiat are'no longer•HPV, and s[ructiire-activiry relation-
ships.
COPYRIGH7'D 1998 BY THE BUREAU OF NATIONAI AFFAIRS, INC., WASHINGTON, p-C
I
,
DER I5SN Q148-8155
., ., ., � ., . cz: _r T F- • (+ T rt's.tl
4a/oT/7T
V'�''�Y� �a�.��,� ,
�,., ;,, �.
AGENDA � ��
. : ..,. -�i
CITY OF IEAGAN ��`'`, V� °�
EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION `s > '`
EAGAN, MINNESOTA � ' ��
EAGAN CITY COUNCIL CHAIVIBERS
JANUARY 12,1999
7:00 P.M.
I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA
II. APPROVAL OF MINU7CES
III. VISITORS TO BE HEARD
IV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Request for Temporary Noise Monitor
B. Position Regarding Waivers for Stage II Phase-Out Requirement
C. MA.0 Funding of Sound Insulation Outside 65 DNL
D. Test Cell Run-Ins
V. STAFF REPORT
A. North/South Runway Update
B. Resident Concerns
C. New .ANOMS Tower
D. Legislative
VI. INFORMATIVE
VII. NEXT MEETING
A. Regular Commission Meeting — Tuesday, February 9 at 7:00 p.m.
VIII. ADJOURNl�J[ENT
Azcxiliary aids for persons with disabilities tivill be providerl t�pon advarzce notice of at least 96 hours.
If a notice of less than 96 hours is receivecl, the City of Eagan tivill atternpt to provide sz�c1T aid.
� ,? y � :v��
i � "�� �
30 November, 1998
Mr. Jeff Hamiel, Executive Director
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28`h Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Dear Jeff:
TNOMAS EGAN
Mayor
PATRICIA AWADA
BEA BLOM9UIST
SANDRA A. MASIN
THEODORE WACHTER
Councii Members
THOMAS HEDGES
Cfty Adminisirator
E. J. VAN OVERBEKE
City Cierk
The Eagan City Council, at the recommendation of the Airport Relations Commission,
recently approved a request to have the Metropolitan Airports Commission place a
temporary noise monitor in the Valiey View Piateau neighborhood of Eagan.
There are severai Tactors tnai warrant the colleciion oT noise data in this area:
The Valley View Plateau's unique topography and its proximity to the airport may
expose it to leveis of noise that are not accurately modeled by standard naise
modeling techniques.
The area is among the most ciose-in neighborhoods to the airport that is not
currently served by an ANOMS tower.
The importance of the Eagan/Mendota Heights corridor to the future of the operation
of the airport suggests that the residential areas adjacent to it be adequately served
in terms of noise mitigation and noise measurement opportunities.
These factors aii take on heightened significance in light of the November 12, 1998,
letter from FAA Program Manager Gordon Nelson denying your request of May 22,
1998, to include Valley View Plateau as an eligibie item for AIP/PFC funding. Piacing a
temporary noise monitor in this neighborhood shouid provide valuable information for an
update to the Part 150 study.
Understanding that the coilection of reliable information requires an extended period of
time, the City Council and Airport Relations Commission recommend the temporary
noise monitor be located in the Valley View Plateau for a period of no fewer than 60
days. Thank you for your efforts to help the Eagan community address this significant
issue.
Sincerely,
---���..�- ...
.._ :,�-,..s.�.--- .��'=------�"�--,�---_....
Jamie Verbrugge
Assistant City Administrator
�� CC: Roy Fuhrmann, Noise Programs Manager
MUNICIPAL CENTER
3830 PII.OT KNOB ROAD
EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122-1897
PHONE: (612) 681-4600
FAX: (612) 681-4G12
TDD: (612) 454-8535
TNE LONE OAK 1REE
THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY
Equai Opporfunity Employer
MAINTENAlY�.t rri�..��u �
3501 COACHMAN POINT
EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122
PHONE: (812) 681-4:,00
FAX: (bl2) 681-4..'i�0
TDD: (612) 454-8535
C�
� , '� , ; c �, � ' � �, , i ';
�, � ♦ , .
, , � � , � ' i �
I'' - i ' � � i
. . 1
C] Agenda fs�r the December l, 1998 MASAC meeting
� Minutes of the October 27, 1998 MASAC meeting with attachments
❑ Copies of MASAC correspondence not included in the Operations
Committee package
❑ Blank Noise Monitoring and Information Request Form
❑ MASAC 1998 Year in Review memo
❑ MASAC & Operations Committee Work Plan for 1999 memo
0 Part 150 Program Progress Review memo
0 EIS Process Review memo
❑ Minutes of the November 13, 1998 MASAC Operations meeting with
attachments and cover memos -
❑ Monthly Part 150 Update
0 October 1998 Technical Advisor's Report
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
AGENDA
METROPO�ITAN AIRCRAFT SOUtVD ABATEMENT
COUNCIL
Generai Meeting
December 1, 1998
7:30 p.m. to 9:15 p.m.
6040 28T" Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Call to Order, Roil Cail
Approval of \inutes of Meeting October 27, 1998
Introduction of Invited Guests
Receipt of Communications
Technical Advisor's Runway System Utilization Report and
Complaint Summary
MASAC 1998 - A Year In Review
1� Quarter 1999 Goals and Objectives
Part 150 Program Progress Review (Steve Vecchi)
EIS Procedure Process (Glen Orcutt, FAA)
November 13, 1998 Operations Committee Report - Mark Salmen
Report of the MAC Commission Meeting - Bob Johnson
Persons Wishing to Address the Council
Items Not on the Agenda
Adjournment
Next Meeting:
January 26, 1998
t ..
l.
�rruTEs
METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL
GENERAL MEETING
October 27, 1998
7:30 p.m.
6040 28`� Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Call to Order Roll Call
The meeting was called to order by Chairn�an Bob Johnson at �:30 p.m. and the secretary was asked to call
the roll. The following members were in attendance.
Bob Johnson
Mark Salmen
Jennifer Sayre
Chuck Curry
Brian Simonson
Rolf Middleton
Dick Keinz
Dean Lindberg
Joe Lee
Glenn Strand
Dick Saunders
Leo Kurtz
Nathae Richardson
Mike Cramer
Neil Clark
Kristal Stokes
Dawn Weitzel
Mark Hinds
John Nelson
Tom Peterson
Lance Staricha
Charles Van Guilder
Jill Smith
Kevin Batche]der
Robert Andrews
Will Eginton
Brad Digre
John Halla
Advisors
MBAA
NWA
NWA
ALPA
DHL Airways
St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce
MAC
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Richfield
Richfield
Richfield
Bloomington
Eagan
Eagan
Burnsviille
Mendota Heights
Mendota Heights
St. Louis Park
Inver Grove Heights
Su�fish Lake
St. Paul
Roy Fuhrmann MAC
, } Chad Leqve MAC
Cindy Greene FAf1
0
3.
4.
October 27, 1998
Visitors
Keith Thompson
Carl Rydeen
John M. Enger
Gene Franchetz
Approval of Minutes
FAA
FAA
Richfield
Dakota County
The minutes of the September 22, 1998 meeting were approved as distributed.
Introduction of invited guests
Receipt of Communications
Cindy Greene, FAA, introduced Keith Thompson as the new MSP Tower Manager: Ms. Greene said Mr.
Thompson has had previous experience in Minnesota. at MSP and Flying Cloud and has most recently been
working in Orlanda
The following communications were received:
A letter from the City of St. Paul was received designating John Halla as the new St. Paul representative to
MASAC. Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Halla to introduce himself. Mr. Halla said he was a mernber of •
the Macalester/Groveland district council and its Airport Noise Committee. He said the committee's �,
principal concerns are the long-haul aircraft overflights, the early morning ground noise, and night flights.
A letter from Joe Little, liaison to Inver Grove Heights' Aircrafi Noise Abatement Commission, was
received on the behalf of an IGH resident who is requesting that a noise monitor be placed at his home.
Chairman Johnson forwarded this request to the stafffor evaluation.
The City of Richfield presented a resolution to the Chairman which asked that "mitigation measures be
developed for protection against low frequency noise," that the remote monitoring sites be used to measure
C-weighted noise levels, as well as A-weighted, and that the impacts of low frequency (ground) noise be
studied and mitigated on the same level as high frequency (overflight) noise. Chairman Johnson said the
resolution would be addressed under agenda item number 9.
Technical Advisor's Runwa S stem Utilization Re ort and Com laint Summa
Roy Fuhrmann, 'I'echnical Advisor, did not brief the September 1998 Technical Advisor's Report in the
usual manner because of the lengthy agenda but solicited questions about the report from members.
John Nelson, Bloomington, asked how many days of the Northwest Airline's pilot's strike were included in t
he report. Jennifer Sayre, NWA, said 19 da.ys of operations in September were impacted.
0
October 27, 1998
, 5. InformationalItems
a) Revised Aircraft Run-up Field Rule
Chairman Johnson reported that the Operations Committee had studied this issue extensively and
anticipated that a vote could be taken at the meeting.
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, briefed the members on the changes the Operations Committee had
made to the existing Aircraft Engine Run-up Field Rule. He said the field rule governs run-up
activities on the field and was last updated in 1992. He said two changes were made to the field rule:
1. The start time for restricted run-up hours was changed from 11:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. to reflect the
change in nighttime (quiet) hours at MSP.
2. Item number 4 was changed, which addresses the prefened heading for an aircraft during a nui-up,
to more accurately reflect current conditions and the needs of the newer high-bypass engines.
Dawn Weitzel, Richfield, asked if the field rule covered only run-ups in the run-up pad. Mr. Fuhrmann
said item number 4 addressed run-ups in the run-up pad, but included information about when a run-up
ma.y be performed outside the pad.
Glenn Strand, Minneapolis, said he was concerned about making a decision on preferred aircraft
headings for run-ups when no noise monitoring data e�cists for run-ups perforrned at MSP. He said he
was concerned with making decisions based on tests not performed for the conditions at MSP.
1 Mr. Fuhrmann explained the testing that has been done included many different types of engines that
can be found on commercial aircraft, as well as on military aircraft. He also noted that; although the
300° heading is preferred to conta.in a majority of the noise on airport property, this heading cannot be
dictated for all aircraft under all wind conditions.
Mr. Fuhrmann also reminded members that an average of 4.7 run-ups are performed each day with
50% of those at idle power. He said, even at full thrust, the monitoring study found that the noise
generated from a run-up during the day is masked by the noise associated with arrival and departure
operations.
There was a question as to whether run-ups are allowed during the nighttime hours. Mr. Fuhrmann
explained currently that run-ups are prohibited between 12 midnight and 5:00 a.m. and are restricted
between 11:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. and between 5:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. The changes to the field rule
call for a change in the restricted hours. He said what some people might perceive as a run-up is
usual�y noise that is associated with runway operations.
Lance Staricha, Eagan, asked if there is a field rule that covers "test cell" procedures and whether or
not they can be .done..at .night. . He said. there had .been a.number-of cornplaints from Eagan residents
regarding run-up noise. Mr. Fuhrmann said he was unaware of any nighttime test cell activity on the
field.
Dawn Weitzel, Richfield, asked how air carriers receive authorization for a run-up. Charles Van
Guilder, Burnsville, said he had worked at the airport as a mechanic for many years and explained the
3
October 27, 1998
procedure for getting authorization for a run-up. He said permission to perform a run-up during the `,
restricted time period is obtained by MAC's Airside Operations department. He said a mechanic is not
allowed to simply take an aircraft out for a run-up without getting pernussion first. Mr. Fuhtmann
said permission is only granted during the shoulder hour time periods for specific, documented reasons,
such as an early scheduled departure or an emergency situation.
Glenn Strand, Minneapolis, said he would like more data to support the fact tha.t run-ups aren`t taking
place during prohibited times and that there are documented reasons for run-ups during the shoulder
hours. Mr. Fuhrmann noted some of this information is included in the Ground Noise Morutoring
Technical Study, but that he could provide this type of information. He also reminded members that
the Opera.tions Committee has examined the issue of the Aircraft Engine Run-up Field Rule
extensively.
Tom Peterson, Eagan, commented that the field rule does not address the "24 hour operation of
Northwest Airline's test cell." There was a brief discussion regarding the test cell. Mr. Fuhrmann said
there is no field rule to govern the use of it. Mark Salmen, NWA, said he would bring information
regarding Northwest Airline's test cell operations to the next Opera.tions Committee meeting.
Mr. Salmen also reminded members that manufacturers of aircraft engines have specific requirements
for engine run-ups that are not based on theory.
Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, asked how run-up noise compared with noise generated from a
departure. Mr. Fuhrmann referred members to the Ground Noise Monitoring Siudy. He said
cumulatively, noise from run-ups is not as loud as departure operations. Yet, the noise level generated '
by a run-up and the noise level generated by a departure are similar in loudness when taken ��•.
individually.
Kristal Stokes, Richfield, described the type of noise she hears at her home two blocks west of Cedar
Avenue as a noise that starts and stops many times in a row. She said she assumed this type of noise
was caused by engine run-ups. Chuck Curry, ALpA, said she may be experiencing noise associated
with taxiing airplanes. He said when a number of aircraft are lined up for departure, the pilots have to
use "breakaway thrust" to move forward in line. Charles VanGuilder, Burnsville, said a run-up could
be responsible for that t}�pe of noise, as well, because sometimes each of ` the engines is run up
separately.
Rolf Middleton, St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce, restated the Uperations Committee's motion.
He said he felt the motion was an improvement in reducing noise from run-ups by expanding the
restricted hours for a run-up.
John Nelson, Bloamington, encouraged the public members to support the Operations Committee's
motion, noted the extensiveness and length of time the Committee spent researching the issue, and
assured members .that the commiitee would continue to �r�esearcl� thE ��ossibility of constructing a noise
attenuating run-up pen.
Lance Staricha, Eagan, said he thought the field rule should indicate that it covers run-ups perfonmed
by aircraft-mounted engines to distinguish them from Northwest Airlines' test cell operations.
4
October 27, 1998
ROLF MIDDLETON, ST. PAUL AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, MOTIONED AND
GLENN STRAND, MINNEAPOLIS, SECONDED, TO ACCEPT THE OPERATIONS
COMMITTEE'S DRAFT CHANGES TO MSP'S AIRCRAFT ENGINE RUN-UP FIELD
RULE AND THAT IT BE FORWARDED TO THE PLAIVNING AND ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE FOR APPROVAL BY THE METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION.
b) Noise Abatement Depariure Profiles
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, briefed the Noise Abatement Departure Profile Trend Analysis
Report, which the Operations Committee had directed staff to produce. Mr. Fuhrmann said the
objective of the analysis was to identify whether or not the close-in departure profile had been
implemented by the airlines for departures off runways 30L and 30R, as was directed by the
Commission, through MASAC, this year.
After briefly reviewing the history and the operational procedures for NADPs, Mr. Fuhrmann
displayed overheads that explained how staff conducted the analysis. (See attachments.) Mr.
Fuhrmann said the analysis showed that the airlines ha.ve changed to the close-in departure profile for
departures off runways 30L and 30R. He said this implementation resulted in an average increase of
400 feet in altitude.
Tom Peterson, Eagan, asked if there was a specific reason for choosing the four aircraft used in the
analysis. Mr. Fuhrmann said there were a number of reasons for choosing the four aircraft, such as(1)
they represent a majority of the aircraft operations at the airport, (2) they are the same aircraft used in
-, the initial NADP ana.lysis, (3) they represent both Stage II and Stage III aircraft and (4) there are too
I many types of aircraft to analyze all of them.
Glenn Strand, Minneapolis, asked if a person on the ground would be able to perceive a decibel level
reduction due to the increase in altitude and how much that would be. Mr: Fuhrmann said John
Nelson, Bloomington, had asked that question at an Operations Committee meeting. He said staff was
unable to deternune a correlation between decibel level reductions and the implementation of the close-
in NADP for runways 30L and 30R. He said, in a controlled environment, one could calculate the
effect by having two identical aircraft fly the iwo procedures and measuring the dif�'erence. Mr.
Fuhrmann said there might be a one decibel level difference, but that the human ear can only perceive a
3 decibel level change or higher.
John Nelson, Bloomington, pointed out that the 400-foot increase in altitude was an average and did
not account for the aircraft that were flying at much higher altitudes tha.n the average, especially on the
straight-out departures. He said he felt it was worth implementing the close-in NADP because it was a
step toward improvement, even if it was difficult to quantify an improvement in some areas in noise
reduction on the ground.
Mr. Fuhrmarm noted.fhat, althongh �he .wark being_done-now-(such..as the close-in NADP and the
straight-out departure procedure) is incremental, the combined net effect is greater than the effect of
one. He also noted that the FAA tower noticed the altitude differences right away with the
implementation of the close-in procedure.
Joe Lee, Minneapolis, reported that he had noticed a perceptible improvement in noise levels at his
5
October 27, 1998
home, which is on the southwest corner of Lake Calhoun.
A discussion ensued regarding identifying the benefits of analyzing a new procedure before spending a
large amount of time on it, how the FAA analyzes new procedures before issuing Advisory Circulars,
the problems with and costs of independently testing procedures, and concerns about communicating
technical information to community members.
c) Crossing in the Corridor
Chad Leqve, MAC, briefed the Crossing in the Comdor Report. He explained that the report was the
result of a request from the City of Mendota. Heights to examine if, when and how often the "crossing"
procedure was being used in the comdor.
Mr. Leqve said the scope of the study, which was approved by the Operations Committee, consisted of
a 6-month data sample from November 199'7 through March 1998. The study focused on the 11:00
p.m. to 6:00 a.m. time period for weekdays and for weekends from 3:00 p.m. on Saturda.y to 1:00 p.m.
on Sunday.
Mr. Leqve said the report identifies when the crossing procedure actually occurred and assessed the
operational feasibility variables. These variables included an assumption that during the nighttime
hours of l 1 p.m. to 6 a.m. there would be only one local controller on duty. He said the FAA said this
was a reasonable assumption to make. For the weekend hours, staff worked with the FAA to identify
those times when there was only one local controller on duty. _
t
Mr. Leqve said, using ANOMS, it was possible to detem�ine that at least a two-minute time period
between departures, off of either one or two runways, was needed in order to perform the crossing
,procedure. He noted that the report also included a letter from the FAA that detailed the variables that
were needed in order to perform the crossing procedure. He said the weather was also a factor and that
information on the weather during this time period was included.
Neil Clark, Minneapolis, asked why the crossing procedure was beneficial. Mr. Leqve showed how the
crossing procedure maximizes the use of the center of the industrial comdor.
Mr. L,eqve then briefed the report's findings. The two major findings were tha.t:
l. During the weekend hours there are not many opportunities to perform the crossing procedure due
to the prevalence of departures in the 0-2 and 2-4 minute time frames.
2. During nighttime hours there is probably room for improvement in the use of the procedure.
Mr. Leqve reported that Carl Rydeen of the FAA had invited himself and Roy Fuhrmann, Technical
Advisor, to a meeting at the control tower in orrler to -discuss the findings and to discuss how the
controllers could improve the rate at which the crossing procedure is performed. Mr. Leqve said sta.ff
planned to communicate with the tower on a regular basis and that a follow up analysis would be
performed in 6 months.
Mr. Leqve then introduced Mr. Carl Rydeen.
0
October 27, 1998
Mr. Rydeen introduced himself as the Tower Operations Manager. He said after reviewing the report,
he decided the controllers could do a better job of performing the procedure. He then met with both the
supervisors and the controllers themselves to re-brief them on the procedure and to reiterate the
importance of performing the procedure whenever possible. He said he felt the controllers weren't
disregarding the procedure, but that they had not been adequately made aware of the procedure. He
said he thought there would be an immediate improvement.
Mr. Rydeen also noted that aircraft are not given a heading of 105° or 118° but that a ground track of
105° and 118° is what is called for. He said maintauung a ground track is not an exact science because
of the wind variable and cautioned there would not be 100% compliance, but expected that the
controllers would do better.
Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, said he would like to see the corridor used in this manner more
often; if possible. Mr. Leqve said there were a number of interests that needed to be considered when
considering changes in corridor procedures, noting that the FAA's number one priority is safety. Mr.
Eginton said that was why he hoped advanced technology, such as GPS, could help in this endeavor.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, reminded members that the Eagan and Mendota Heights Blue
Ribbon Task Force in past years had many lengthy discussions regarding operations in the corridor.
He said the crossing procedure was a recommendation that grew out of the 1992 Blue Ribbon Task
Force as something that could be done to benefit both communities. He said the procedure was finally
implemented about 5 years afier the recommendation. He said Mendota Heights appreciated MAC
- staf�s work and the FAA's attitude and response to the findings and looked forward to working with
i them. He said this is an example of how MASAC can function.
There was a discussion as to whether the crossing procedure can be perFormed at any other time of day.
Chad Leqve, MAC, said because non-simultaneous conditions do not occur very often during the day,
the ability of the FAA to perform the procedure during this time is severely hampered. He said the
report only looked at the time period when it was most operationally feasible.
6. October 9 1998 Operations Committee Report - Mark Salmen
Mark Salmen, Operations Committee Chairperson, briefed the council on the October 9'� Operations
Committee meeting. The following items were discussed:
. Aircra.ft Engine Run-up Field Rule
. The NADP Analysis
. The Crossing in the Comdor Report
. An RMT Site Update
e Correspondence
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, updated the council on the status of the new RMT sites. He said staff
has visited the two sites Minneapolis identified. He said both are at schools and staff was in the process of
setting up meetings with city and school representatives to discuss the procedures for moving forward. He
said Chad Leqve, MAC, had also met with Inver Grove Heights and Eagan members to discuss the two
sites to the southeast. He also noted that the City of Richfield has not yet identified a location for their
0
October 27, 1998
additional RMT site. ;'
l
Chairperson Salmen said the Opera.tions Committee reviewed two items of correspondence. The first was a
request from the City of Richfield regarding the adequacy of the Ground Noise Monitoring Technical
Study. He reported that the Committee discussed the City's request and deternuned that the study had
fulfilled its objectives. The Committee also reviewed a letter .from the City of Richfield regarding
undertaking a low-frequency noise study and incorporating the C-weighted noise scale into the ANOMS
system. Cha.irperson Salmen said the Operations Committee would take it under consideration when
detennining the work scope for the next year.
The next Operations Committee meeting is scheduled for Frida.y, November 13, 1998 at 10:00 a.m. in the
North Star Conference Room of the West Terminal.
Dawn Weitzel, Richfield, said she was upset after reading the minutes of the Operations Committee
meeting and had some concems. She said she thought a Richfield representative should have been present
for the discussion. She requested in the future that a Richfield representative be included in any Operations
Committee meeting that involved issues impacting Richfield. _
Ms. Weitzel said if a Richfield representative had been present, they could have responded to some of the
comments that were made.
Ms. Weitzel explained that the City of Richfield felt the issue of 1ow-frequency noise impacts should not be
taken lightly and urged the council to take up the issue.
Chairperson Salmen said the issue was not a Richfield issue only and that the purpose of the study in �,�
question was to report on the sources of ground noise at the airport and was not intended to be a ground
noise study. He also said that the committee felt it was improper for Richfield representatives to take a
study that wasn't yet out of committee to an outside consultant. He also noted that the dates of the
Operations Committee meetings are announced at each prior MASAC meeting and also noted in the
rninutes. Chairman Salmen encouraged anyone with suggestions about what should be studied over the next
year to bring them to the next Operations Committee meeting.
7. Renort of the MAC Commission Meeti�
Chairman Johnson reported on the October 19, 1998 Commission meeting. He said the Commission
discussed the following items:
1. Commissioner Himle and Commissioner Cramer reported that the City of Richfield and the MAC were
continuing the process of negotiating a mitigation agreement.
2. A number of commissioners are becoming concerned with the costs associated with the Part 150
program and other noise mitigation programs. He noted that the average cost of insulating a home has
increased to $32,000 in 1998 and is expected to be approximately $3$,000 next year.
3. The committee voted to approve the planned eactension of runway 04/22 and temporary extension of
12R despite Northwest Airlines' discontinuation of some of their Asian flights.
4. The committee also received a congressional update. It was reported that congress gave only a 6-
month e�ctension to the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) fund, which provides funding for the Part
150 program. The Dept. of Transportation bill also received a 6-month eactension.
�'.
- October 27, 1998
5. The Navy property at MSP will be transferred to the MAC and the Navy will be moving to the other
side of the field.
8. Persons Wishing to Address the Council
There were no persons wishing to address the council.
9. Other Items Not on the A e�nda
Ciry of Richfield Resolution: Chairman Johnson noted that the resolution would be passed along to the
Operations Committee.
Kristal Stokes, Richfield, addressed the council. She said the City of Richfield hoped MASAC members
would support the resolution, noting that other cities would be affected by ground level noise from the new
runway.
i l . Adj,ournment
Chairman Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted.
Melissa Scovronski, MASAC Secretary
',
0
r' "
�
`'�pt11 ���y' .
J'F 'G
a
e ■
:.{. �,�
i
'o'��-+��r� � c + .
.' : /� /� / ��:� _.� , �` ,r��� ,� .
'
., ../ .�� / .�:� ,�.� ' .'. . ., .:� I � �:. / ..� ,. /
, � � � i :� i � �
� • � 1 : '
1 . � : ' I�
, , � , ; ,. ,. , . . .
. . .
. ,� , � � .. ,. , , . , ., .
l�o Cha-n e ... D�s�ant�0i� �ill �nds
�- g
♦ WRT 65 DNL - 10,439 Residential Single-Family Parcels
+ WRT 60 DI�TL - 30,510 Residential Single-Family Parcels
/��; � � r r : ' � � � � � � � -
� /
, -. _..
---- --------- .
---- . --.----- ---- �-
� - ,...�, �, ..
� - -- �------ _.__ . . . .. , ....::: .... : :._
. . . - �-- ------ .. - - ---
� � - . _. . - -- - --
, , , . � . _ ., . . .t . ,. � . . ;
: . . ,,,_ , : _
. �„
. . , . .. . , ,
. . � ti::
� - , ,. ; . �� . -
t + t,
. . ,;
_ �
, . -
. .
• � . .
. .
� , _ ,..
. • . .. . .
. _. .
. , � �•_
.
� . . _ . . :: ; , .. i
. . . . , .. ,
; � , . . :.,, ;
• �
E, _, , , , . . ` : � � .: .. _ _
,l .. w:'. . •. � . � .
; � _ � . �}� D�stant:�P�ocedure s,� .
� � � � �_ :�
� Close In Procedure � � �s= .�: � : � -
; � � � � _.
.
_
; ._ . � ._ .. t ' - � .! � „�*••�, __ '�r '
, . .
. • .
' . . �:,���e.�i�� t a
i . �� •�� �� �fJ�, � _' ��� ��� .
x J �
; � . . . � �1. K`•. f 1 { ',-•'� t � • .
. a ..
� ` ,i �- +�'.
�� 7- ��x+.t °' �1 �.~t\ � .'�� ` � .��.
y .. �`-y`..�l.v..�7i�'•t+w � r� +. .., . .. . ..
.
.
i ' ;�„ •�. -."T S`$+: � — � � ':`r. .
. ' •. " 1
. . '' � f ..
�
• • � P
. , r��.� . ,, f i `.' , �.,
. f.y:� . rr,� , ' -�
� ��
, �' �: ,� � � ..
` T }_ '` �� •• ` as'�`�' �''# Distant Procedu
:-
_
+ , f
; �F �_ ���: re
. . �
. . .
. . . . .- ,
� �. k'.. � . �
.. ; . � � � . �. �i.. '. � � : '�� �i� `t .. . . ^ •
� . y ��. • ' .
i � O Y c ... � �.:.. ��. ....� }. 1 � .. ' : � . . .
.� _ ' I�^ � � .
' Distant P�oce�ure� � � � ��. � '
�, ��..,..
� . ..r.
; ..,� ,.. _ . ����
. � — _ _. .____ . . � _ : � �.az� � :, ;�`''` �
.
. .� � .,
( � � . �i . ..�� )•... � � �! .. . . .. �. .
! . �'� . •. � . . i . ' _ '�.'..""�-�M..LrN-.w..
y . �� - .., x . �
� " . :,. ..� :
.._
; , � �► .� • (
� � �v_ .
: _
. - A �
•.
. . . -
.'" . _ . � .. , �, ' .� ' ' ' : .
, ... � _ -, . .�' ��
; � �� r�r � . � _ .t
. . • .
rY � • � . ,�'i .
� ..V. ' . . � . . .�
� H � � : ;� ,,,�y ., w
: , . :`
,.. . ��� � � � �;
� �,�
+ ._:: � .
dtopgun/fianfrJMASACMADP/P&E un�.,r.oA
`'�c�n �.,yr
i
� + �i �
e a
0
o} � }.
i
o' ��}�� �� � 40 �
. , :
� � � � /` � , ' /` / / , / /
, � � � � , � �
1 '
��'�:�
�- Benefits "Close-In" Noise Sensitive Communities
;�� ��� . �., .
III � ' • . . �
� . �
;. . � � . . . � .
.
800 - 1000 ft AGL �---�►- I�etraci Flaps
Reduce '.�hrust
(Later... and Not as Much)
Noise Abatement De�erture profiie (N,app� ,�n�lysis
ur�way 30L � 30R C1ose-In Procedurai Analysis for the C9 .
June 1997
t
ktunwav 30L & 30R Totai DC9 DeD �trai�ht_put TatP
909 Total DC9 Departures
T oFt_rn..... n..�_ ����� �s .. .
!V iRACKS CROSiiD ?-CAiE
0 1Eii COUHf_14 ({e.I;) iICH( i3OUMi_IS jS:.J;;
,
� �
� �
-17 � ] t 0 0
iJ�00
9E'tiAUON fHpY :;.Yt[� p( „AiE (N!
Note: Center of Gcue is I.ocated S Mile.r fiom the Airporr
30 of 317 (9.5%) Penetrated the Gate at or
Above 4000 ft. MSL
�in1�F TL...�. !"�_�_ i�ti �A r: .. .
�y ot 4l� (9.1 %) Penetrated the Gate at or 22 of 164 (13.4%) Penetrated the Gate at or
Above 4000 ft. MSL Above 4000 ft. MSL
. _
�..._.--- -� � - - -
Noise Abatement Lkparture Profile (NADP) rinaiysis
�� � Runway 30L � 30It Close-In Procedural Analysis for the DC9
,� June 1998
� �
Runway 30L & 30R Total DC9 Dep. Straight-Out Gate
{��} 1230 Total DC9 Departures
�.
T _Ca rR._� !'�.�t.. !'10L'O TT_��_�_\
366 of 540 (67.8%) Penetrated the Gate at or
Above 40Q0 ft. MSL
Right-Tlurn Gate (315° HeadinpJ
� ___ i
t
i
� _.......�."__ _"_� � �'__ _—___...__y�_....._..�_.
� ,;�l� �^;�.� t
...
. �
:
�1:i �. ' : i. t
R .. . :
� . . .
.: ;
_ ....'-"'-'-._...._.�.. • . .iL-'--' ...............�....._......___...._.
o : : :
o'-'..._"_-....._...i..._.""'_'-"---;.�_�__...._.....i�__......_...-_-"
i
2fl � •
��'} 20 of 124 (16.1%) Penetrated the Gate at or 323 of 566 (57.1%) Penetrated the Gate at or
`-'� Above 4000 ft. MSL Above 4000 ft. MSL
Aviation Noise & Satellite Pro�rams PaQe 7
_
�'
i
:. ?.. -
�.=;. t �-. � _ k
-� ;,�� ,�.�-f . , .:�: ° .
, . ����...::�-. .:� ..� .., ;
� Y ��r. -'�`-- ��.., � �
�.�i � '�r, �";�
� ���,(�3`Y � ���:��,a.",��.7��+��;�;`"r£=-�' �.�9,
��� `��.�c-:i,��?'i'S—nft�'i��:-�.:V�.'...+'hi .i'4'•. a,.'Ji1.:��: �. �
y
.�s;'�y L��q� � .. '
•,•t'�x• •"' �t��i p'�� !
.��� t y`I���C.h,��p ��
a ����`M : •,
-;�,.:�,.�,.�
;:�`.�;;�%�'�
.
� "� ' •,t. j �k` ` ,,�.Q`;Yr�'�,,-" ``�. a ^ . �
�.�r ��. t.; ��;
il�t. � 2i ''1" ..: i: 11't.i.?�..:i:'a.1',:7,:..�'�j
� c�i��;r.;.�'.��.1.:=`: •b.�.,.;�:
_ y:. `..�� '°F,,;y�;:.w7.•'dLt�•'!.i:1Yer:Y.y
ary�. �% .,.�J-�t� a
�� ,�'"��1+��R`_,n��ij°�;M,,i:C..: Y� H
, � i�r�_' �•��X Y
" � . ��. ��+ �f x:l�ii"Jai�Mk�
s r.
5, ';�;��A'��;�,;,E;.i���,;..,,�*,� ,
.. - �ti �• };.,,�1;°j,�%�` r J
'��� ' ;;(�.:;. �;a �=z ,
' =�°' ��; •=(`�ti'�'�*:�t;; r'��- r:'t�;._ ., � �
. j�e: a_,7a; (� -7 �: • :' »; _� 'i, b i t�
il�. ll. �:IM��::Lt:.:- ::'•:..r4_�i.r�T!tlr'�"' .
�. 'r�,:;:^ :t'' '• )%.�. �(� :
;=2•�, .,�a'i'kY�:t;Firtt, �sr�*��.��t '��.�'�i��tit , ; '
-
�
� 1
9 9
_ , ,� .
� � ` i �;
._. � . . �� � r ..... : .. � � 'Jy ..�'.
� � '. � ' '� � �: {•'� ;�
. . . . .. . . _ � • '�'.
� '
. .. . . . . . . . .-. ;
....... . . . . � `:-. . . . , ...' �; "�` .�.
. . � . . � . . : . . ... .. . . . �. . '.:. i l �.
, �. . . .� � . . k74sz 7 i ��'-•'9t'Sy}�tT^ �� ��� � �. ♦csw+� '�
.�.� �� ` � � 'r =,�~,3��'iF='���`��'+' � �
� �
� � ' s j e i �E+.�.$� t�i � •;4 a7i > ; . �,
" � :� t .��. .. r� t'4 L a��`T- ���.. ��+��v �'� �..
� . �{ � >� A. • y �'� S� � '���i ��y � .
.. . . . � _. -�y + s �� . c � 7 �: �':- �:Y4.�-�� e�^ '�`�f �3FTI ,j �: x �._�'_e.J. �
_._- __ .._..- __ . ..._ � _ ._.._ _,
- - ��� �• _� .' ��.. .... . . . a..v �
. ' � .. . �:a: .,. t .. ... , . - . . C`!:<, .
. .. .: . . .. , . - �< '_.. PP' ..
r_. �;
:^
r.-`-� �
., .
c+� ,
. �. '
:' � � ' ` ;�_t� r ���,vns^.*---'��?�t—�,�r--� �
� r { Fr + y ri�
� ' � � 1� �a %..�c te -w�1i ''l 1 � 5. '`�," a� �, � :
. . . . E ?r1.Y r'..t r
� ' . . " . . . .. . � t .. . ��. �� � �- � �rC�L� -t�. ��}.�4+� � �� 4. �' F i {, ���� .
� � . � I .. � t .!.' •({ 1� rAe`3� A T t7. t •
�r.! � r. �: � t l'-� +�`+s 2'� �' ,7� � � , C'-
.c�. '' ri
: � � r�-�- � _
C ;,�.� � _ .
�,. � Gl
� �
!� �'`''�
. � . �" i�---� �..s -- '�'r^u f n c�t c'�ss.r{i�i;��^-i"f��"'t1�1F?��`+�.p i
. � � rn +�., � � t � Y }.3 .7 .`l��^� '�tt(i�+'f�� !� k',�,+i�'i�yh�, ,, � t . �:� �"� ...
� ' { t � +� .I,4� �= i f �T3'��u�'���F''�q+' a�'i�+ H �'S�' . �'�!
, � . . . � � � s << � � � afa.r£it� t ($, ali� 1 ���,,h�''�? t� ? � �l�1 ; , � �Ji �:
.. . . . ,� f` � r ..! 5r t"[ s+i"'.'i.� "!'�W��. r.�tW:T.i 1 � � �..c- �
� � � � . r �tl � .. i. Y.:�� �'i •� h�1'L� t I.�. �
• . _
� ..: ,�...�. . .. �r �r.. ..,. �. ' .:.: �. �
_ .l.� • lfi '-�+' ��
_ .. . . . . . ,
_ t-- '; . �
� � � �.. . � � . �. � `. �rr'i�� � . � , r�
. . . . ... �� . .
' . .: . _�. :. •� ' ` . . .
.
. . .. .. �. .. . , ., . �.
. . . . . . � . � i
.. . , -� . .. . . .. '
. . . .. � .. . . . .
� � .. '. .. .. . . . � .
_""....'��" _����_____ � "'_'__ _ '_�'�'_ �_"_'__._ _� ___'_.. �.�... __ ::" "'"" __"_�"�.���__"._ .. ��, �_ . ..�� _ �
.:.... ..... ' »�'� "" ' I. � _.;
. . . . � .. � � . . . .. ... . �. .,. � . .' � . . . � . . .�� � ��� ���' ..' �� �:
. � . � � � � . . . . � � :� �
, ... .� .. . .. .
i �� ' f, .!� �i ��t �.�• t�"� .1t�'�,fc���rk�„'yP;�i .0 ��a�?� ��.�u i`riti �
. , � . }� 1 L{� Cyt
. ,. q�i��(' i'i ` i k t&S�"���lxt�f`�`�f�.�^��,.�Zy�i'!���'x t•V�9 �37i� � �
.� + i $t s E r�� i �j •�.��♦4} j�.{� fj` i. �.���iy,.�s Jr}•
� . ., �1 .;L .��,ja, 5z .f .Y �i��y��y��qY �X� • Sli� }Hy'f
4 `�+ �y
.�
� . . �..�.`j� f �..`.,k. .,�E!-, �rkt f'3Y,. i.L�,..iy�S�+ .,f1?1'. :t: •h?'��'��,�"d', � � �.
.. . , o• . , , ..., . . • . .. „
�.... ....�' .. �. _ , �. . ,
... .. � i .�� . . ,:
�,, A �
;...., .
; �� � s
n
�, ' '
•
' �^ �, � �.,^_a �+ �
^ � ;� � ^�
� � �_ +:� �
: v"7 '�' ` c*7 ' C'� � ` , . ,—{ ` � . ''
� {��J� ►�a1.�..LT.1.'I�'' •
;�;
.
— .
r
�`��i�
.-- ___�. �--
,
_..
.,
....
� ..
� -
,
�_�
: �.
. ., �
.
,. �;.,,,
;
�i�►., ;; '�
„ � r � �► ' � I
�.' .�---- ; .
.���. :. - _ ..
_
- � �r ,�.
�, . .,,�, __
� _ � � �� ,,•,�, `
`�
�� E . .. `
r
,�' '�'� ' �
.
��� � � � � ' .
.. .
� � � T -
_ �r► � � , � , _:
� ,I , �
% ,��' r � ' � :_
y � �•`�i ,
,., . / �. ��
� • �, i ,
== �:�.�� i
_� ..--- � ,
� '� '� ;�j •�� ` � .
♦.� � • .�.�.
�
�``��..�►:
r� '^, �, :::.. �
. -,. �
:...��� �� �/"� �� \,
�" � ( ' � , _ -- . � . ,I::�.:.�
/ ' i ,,� ` ' ' �- .. �.�. � : .
T �� �� �� �
. � ' -� /
. _
.� .
. „� ,.
. �� �_ � .
.:
, , `�.�,
� -
-
� .
..
._
.
�� �
`'���
��� .
'�i ��_
. ,
•
November 12, 1998
Bob Johnson
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
6040 28`h Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Dear Bob:
TNOMAS EGAN
Mayor
PATRIGIA AWADA
BEA BLOM9UIST
SANDRA A. MASIN
THEODORE WACHTER
Councfl Members
TNOMAS HEDGES
Ciiy Adminishator
E. J. VAN OVERBEKE
City Cierk
With the City of Eagan's hiring of Jamie Verbrugge as its Assistant City Administrator, I
will be stepping back from my consulting duties on behalf of the City in the area of
airport relations. As such, I have also forwarded to the City my resignation as one of its
MASAC representatives. I would anticipate that you will receive notice of the
appointment of a replacement in the near future.
While I was not able to attend the October MASAC meeting nor.will I be able to attend
the December one due to scheduling conflicts, I have noted the January meeting date on
my calendar as an opportunity to stop by and say good-bye. I am not placing any undue
signiiicance on that occasion, but I have worked with so many people in this area for so
long, that some closure is appropriate.
I would like to thank everyone involved in the airport issue for their efforts on behalf of
their various communities, agencies and companies in attempting to develop good
solutions in a very difficult issue area. I wish you all the best of lucic and I will see you in
January.
Sincerely,
n Hohenstein
mis
MUNICIPA� CENTER
3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD
EAGAN, MINNE50TA 55122-1897
PHONE: (612) 681-4f�00
FAX: (612) 681-4612
TDD: (612) 454-8535
THE LONE OAK TREE
THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY
Equal Opportunity Employer
MAINTENANCE FACILITY
3501 COACHMAN POINT
EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122
PHONE: (612) 681-4300
FAX: (612) 681-4360
TDD: (612) 454-8535
From: Kevin BatcMidar City o1'Mendota Hdyhfs Fan: 452�8940 Voico: 452-1650 To: Mdltsa Scovrwiskl
To:
F� #:
Re:
Date:
Pages:
Discussion
Melissa Scovronski
725-63 I 0
M/�SAC Meeting
Nover7iber� I �3, I 99l3
I, including this cover sheet.
Pay� i of t Wodn�sday, Nov�m6�r 18, 1998 3:3T:31 PPA
CSI I
This �nerlio is to inforrn you that Mer�dota Heights will be represented E�y Mr . George
May and Mr: Ellsworth Stein at the December I, I 998 rneeting of MASAC, Mr. May and Mr.
Stein are both members of the City's Airport Relatiau Commission. This meeting conflicts with
the City of Mendota Heights' regularly scheduled City Coundl meeting, therefore, Mayor
Mertensotto, Councilmember )ill Smith and myself are unavailable to attend tl�e MASAC
tneeting. Would you please inforrn Mr. (�obert Joht�sa7, Cf}air, al�out our appointed delegates
for tl�e Decerr�l.�er I, 199$ rneetii�g?
Fram the desk of...
Kevin B�chelder
City Putrninistrator
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Vctoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
452-1850
Fa�t: 452-8940
�
� a
_ MASA C NOISE M0IVITORING AND INFORMA TION REO UEST FORM
1998
Date: On whose behalf are you requesting:
Name: Yourself
Address: City Council
Mayor
Citizen
Phone: Organization
Other
Is this a one-time request: Yes or No
Beginning Ending
If no, what is the ezpected time frame for this request? � to
Which of the following best describes the nature of your request: (Circle all that apply)
- Ground Noise Overflights Run-Ups Contours Part 1 S0 Other
Over Please
1
Please indicate the 19981VIASAC objectives supported by this this request:
❑ To provide information to the MAC in their efforts to communicate changes in operations, due to construction
to the surrounding communities.
� Evaluate departure compliance through the Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor and make any necessary
changes to the relevant procedures.
� Review the ANOMS system and noise monitors, and evaluate the need and placement of additional remote
monitoring towers. Also, evaluate remote monitoring capabilities.
� Request Air Tra�c Control personnel to make a presentation on how MSP operations are conducted.
❑ Look at providing incentives to carriers in acquiring and operating factory-made Stage Ill aircraft.
❑ Investigate how GPS and other NA I�Aids could help a/leviate aircraft noise.
❑ Review the NADPs and compliance.
❑ Continue discussion of Part I SO contour generaiion.
Please se�d your request v�a fnail to: NIASAC Secretary, 6040 28th Avenue S.,
lifin�eapolis,l6lN 55450 or fax it to :(612) 725-6310.
#:
I Staff Contact:
'Date Received:
Is this a Phone Or Written Request?
Approved By:
Approval Date:
Availability:
Monitoring Stari Date:
Monitoring Stop Date:
Analysis Start Date:
Analysis Stop Date:
Completion Date:
2
�.
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
MASAC Committee Members
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor
MASAC 1998 Year in Review
November 20, 1998
MASAC
Staff will present a short recap of the activities, goals and items of concern identified in the Padilla
Speer Beardsley report by MASAC members. Additionally, staff will briefly review each of the major
items of accomplishment throughout the year.
MASAC has made significant progress toward accomplishing the goals set forth at the beginning of the
year. Each member should recognize the groups ability to focus on the items of importance and the
attainment of these goals. It truly has been a challenging and rewarding year.
If you have any questions or comments please contact me at 725-6326.
�M
�o:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
MASAC
MASAC Committee Members
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor
MASAC & Operations Committee Work Plan for 1999
November 20, 1998
At the November 13, 1998 MASAC Operations Committee meeting the committee members
finalized the first quarter activities for 1999 and developed a DRAFT schedule for the upcoming
year. There was considerable discussion about the timing of activities to meet other operational
constraints and some of the activities have been carefully shuffled to meet these concerns. The
Operations Committee will continue their prioritization process in December and finalize the
schedule in January for approval at the January 26, 1999, MASAC meeting.
Proposed 1999 MASAC Goals and Objectives Calander
�: - .._ �.::fr. '�.�._" :"�>... ':S� �f....«':..:...a...s ��:... ..."�. '......' �:'_it .:�U�.�aY.i'.-.nrrrtu'��v.i.�.�r1'i.:S"..x.4
Projected. Date �' x �lccomplishing , �` ` -: =.�
_ :1999 � 1 �1 _.:p$ `! � : �_ ' ,.� �` 3 � � Reqnirements -
.
: . ; , rt3' 1
. .. �._ .:. : �..��. ;.��•'? ....._ .�-.t ....:�_ ._�� . . \.r�,�. �_._.;.:� -- s.._x�:�:t Y.., _ _
a � �
�
. .. . . . . .. . . ; �. �' � � � . . .:: .: . ..�- �
Finalize Goals & Objectives for 1999
Develop Specifications for Investigating GPS
January 15 Operations Committee Landing System Use for Noise Alleviation
Determine Ground Run-up Enclosure (GRE)
Evaluation/Benefit Criteria.
January 26 MASAC Orientation Topic - Jet Engine Noise Sources
with Spectrum data. (NASA Data)
RMT Installation Update
February 12 Operations Committee Review RFP results for RMT Installation
Update-on �NC�MS/RMT Integration
February 23 MASAC FAA tour of the Farmington Air traffic Control
Center
�, �ected Da�te � Accoi�plish. - � � � �` � 2y'�:�3 . - -
.y ; � y.. ' �c ,. t..,t � � . . ..��� � ..r'�.�-� .'�5 Aeq�IHLL6Siii1� " �:.
v �, �. �
... ;r�.k n } Y . . ` ,y � �..,';c-�. �-nt`� � � mi eay�.r.-a� , �' �, ..., _ .
_�; r �£..:�s`dir:a�.r`.�''.c.,-,.i ._.a........L..._ =2...fi...'ti.:�r�:.s.-':t�xr��s"-.�ist:si��_.ea'�'�+�r-:'�-i,i X� ,.1 �. u. :... n. �`z"- .. � � . .
CZ" �,acts.o+_.� .,�,r'r,�X'!t�_,., .'�::i-...k:..v�-�;.�:k-� _>-4.v�;c�.:�c-_._.'tik.f ,x:<>_F.a�..��:�^=.::
d,�"'j Enhance Noise Information Dissemination
� options. (Community Communication of
March 12 Operations Committee Construction, MAC Feedback,
�
(y and Operational Changes
� Review Nighttime Hours (Stage 2, 3; 9-11 P.M.)
.—a
March 30 MASAC Receive MSP Construction Briefing(G. Warren)
April 9 Operations Committee Non-simultaneous Corridor Departure Analysis
Apri127 MASAC Jeff Hamiel Update on MAC
�
N
� May 14 Operations Committee Evaluate Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor
� Departure Procedures.
a
� May 25 � MASAC ��
� � RMT Site Location update
N
June 11 Operations Committee Construction Update
June 22 MASAC Orientation Topics
July 9 Operations Committee Construction Update
�
�
� July 27 MASAC
�
d
� August 13 Operations Committee Construction Update
M
August 24 MASAC
�,.
Page 2
'
Projected Date i �`Accomplishing � �� ��` � _ "-. -. ` '
� fi ���-� � � � � Requirements
�� 1999 , �` W f .��--,��--s-
r k �� :5-� � S',i v' . "� 1 F'^.t u-e �'r.a��'�b'h �. �_�� '^ _ _",,.. �.,. 1" �-F.�- ... �-L x=�... � i � � .-t a � ' _ -
.-3-.....,. �.��.�. ..z_ �.s..._ .t�s,��rd?�.n�_ .,�-?��_ -
September 10 Operations Committee Investigate incentives to carriers for Stage 3 A/C
September 28 MASAC Stage III Compliance Review
October 8 Operations Committee
October 26 MASAC Orientation Topics
November 12 Operations Committee Focus Activities for Upcoming Year
November 30 MASAC Part 150 Progress Review
December 10 Operations Committee Establish Calendar for 2000
Page 3
MASAC
MEMOIZANDUM �sAc
�o:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
MASAC Committee Members
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor
Part 150 Program Progress Review
November 20, 1998
Steve Vecchi, MAC's Part 150 Program Manager, will review the cunent status of the Minneapolis-St.
Paul International Airport's Part 150 Program. MSP's sound insulation program continues to be the
most extensive program in the nation. The update will cover the progress to date in the various
communities and the anticipated challenges that are facing the Policy Advisory Committee as the
program matures.
Mr. Vecchi will provide additional information for a detailed discussion concerning the Part 15p
Program at the December 1, 1998 meeting.
'}
� I I
TO: MASAC Committee Members
FROM: Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor
SUB�ECT: Environmental Impact Statement Process Review
DATE: November 20, 1998
MASAC
The issue of airport development is a multi-dimensional topic encompassing the functions of planning,
assessment, funding and agency coordination. A large part of airport capital improvements is the
assessment of environmental consequences resulting from the development of an airport.
In July 1998, Glen Orcutt, FAA and Mark Ryan, MAC Planner, briefed the MASAC Operations
Committee on the processes associated with the development of an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). The briefing covered the steps associated with the various agencies, the review
procedures and the information covered in the EIS.
At the December MASAC meeting, a presentation will be given by Glen Orcutt (FAA Program
Manager) and Mark Ryan (MAC Airport Development) regarding the state and federal Environmental
Impact Statement process as it relates to airport development.
If you have any questions or comments please contact me at 725-6326.
� � �, _� � �
� - ..•
. .
The meeting was held at the Metropolitan Airports Commission North Star Conference
Room, and cailed to order at 10:00 a.m.
The following members were in attendance:
Members•
Mark Salmen, Chairman - NWA
Bob Johnson - MBAA
Jamie Verbrugge - Eagan
Kevin Batchelder - Mendota Heights
Dick Keinz - MAC
Ron Johnson - ALPA
Dick Saunders - Minneapolis
Advisory�
Roy Fuhrmann - Technical Advisor
; �
Shane VanderVoort - MAC Advisory
Visitors:
Will Eginton - Inver Grove Heights
Jan DelCalzo
Mark Hinds - Richfield
James Prosser - Richfield City Manager
; }
. � .
RMT S/TE UPDATE
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, updated members on the status of the additional RMT
sites.
RMT #25: This site is located in Eagan. The City of Eagan has chosen a site very near the
center of the indicated area. Staff believes the location will work, but will need to continue
discussions with the city.
1
RMT #26: This area is located in Eagan and Inver Grove Heights. The City of Inver Grove
Heights has submitted a letter to staff, which includes their three most preferred sites. Two �
of those sites are outside the identi�ed location area. The third site is just slightly north of
the site chosen by the staff. Staff indicated this third site is acceptable, but the committee
would have to make the decision as to whether the other two sites would be acceptable.
Will Eginton, IGH, indicated that their first preference was to have it located north of the
current #2.1 site (outside the identified area), indicating this location would better capture
planes that were diverted to the north. He said it was possible this site is in Sunfish Lake
rather than in Inver Grove Heights. Mr. Eginton said he thought site #21 was a dead zone
that did not capture many flights. Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, asked if it was
possible to move site #21 rather than to add another site. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical
Advisor, said it was probably possible. John Nelson, Bloomington, said he didn't
necessarily concur that site #21 was a"dead zone" because it was sited to capture both
arrivals and departures. There was also discussion regarding how highway noise might
affect the RMTs. Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, noted that there were already a
number of RMT sites located near major highways. Mr. Fuhrmann reminded members that
the area of influence for each RMT is larger than what is indicated by the identified a�ea.
JOHN NELSON, BLOOMINGTON, MOVED APVD BOB JOHNSON, MBAA, SECONDED,
TO REQUEST MAC ST'AFF MEET WITH INVER GROVE HEIGHTS REPRESENTATIVES
TO FURTHER DISCUSS THE POSITIONING OF RMT SITE #26. THE VOTE WAS
UNANIMOUS. MOTION CARRIED.
RMT #27: This site is located in Minneapolis. Staff will be meeting with Steve ilAinn,
Minneapolis, the following Monday to discuss whether the RMT should be placed in Kenny
Pa�k or at Anthony Middle School. �
RNfT #28: This area is located in Richfield. The City of Richfield has requested and
received the documentation associated with how the area for the RMT site was chosen but
has not made a decision on a site.
RMT #29: This site is located in Minneapolis. The site chosen is at Erickson Elementary
School. Mr. Fuhrmann said the site could pose some challenges for a ground level
installation and may have to be placed on top of a first floor section of the school. Staff has
met with Sandra Colvin Roy and is currently setting up a meeting with schaol officials to
discuss how to proceed.
Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, said staff should expect to receive a request from the Eagan City
Council to place a temporary monitor west of RMT sites 16 and proposed site 25. He said
although the city believes site 25 is the best site for an additional RMT, this neighborhood
feels it would benefit from knowing what noise levels they are experiencing.
Ron Johnson, ALPA, asked if site #29 in fillinneapolis (just north ofi the end of the north
parallel runway) would capture any flights. He said he thought the site was positioned such
that an aircraft could not fly that direction from the end of the runway. Roy Fuhrmann,
Technical Advisor, displayed ovefieads showing that there were indeed flights that went
2
almost straight north and that did not intersect an RMTs "area of influence" as depicted on
the overhead.
CORRESPONDENCE
1. Inver Grove Heights - resident request for a temporary noise monitor to be placed
at his home to measure noise levels.
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said his staff has been in contact with the City of
Inver Grove Heights. He said the staff has asked the city to have the resident contact
them in regards to the purpose and objectives of his request. Mr. Fuhrmann said he
has not spoken to the resident at this time, but has a call into the city.
Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, said he knows who the resident is and knows why he
requested the monitor be placed at his home. He said the resident wants to know what
the noise level is at his home.
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said staff would continue to attempt to contact the
resident and would make arrangements to place a noise monitor at his home for a
couple of days.
2. City of Richfield resolution #8635.
,, The Operations Committee discussed at length the City of Richfield's Resolution #8635,
� which was presented at the October 27, 1998 MASAC meeting and forwarded to the
Operations Committee.
i '�
Chairperson Salmen introduced the item and said the resolution's four specific requests
are items currently being dealt with at a higher level within MAC. He said he felt it
would be inappropriate for MASAC to take any action at this time pending the outcome
of the negotiations befinreen the City of Richfield and the MAC. He then opened the
item for discussion.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, asked for a clarification and an update of the
negotiations.
Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, said he has been attending the negotiation sessions. He
said the outcome of the discussions is unsure at this point, but that beginning a low-
frequency noise study has been discussed as part of the plans. He said he felt MASAC
should be involved in the issue of low-frequency noise in some form or another.
Bob Johnson, MBAA; said based t�r� the-most �recent• correspondence from the City of
Richfield to the Commission it appears the discussions are still unresolved. He said he
thought the process should be allowed to run its course, and that MASAC is not in a
position to take action at this time.
3
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, noted that one of the concems that has been
discussed within PVIASAC is the fact that MASAC has been bypassed in regards to ��
some important noise issues in the past. He said this should be kept in mind as
iUTASAC continues involvement in the issue of low-frequency noise and at some point it
will need to be discussed at the MASAC IeveL
Jamie Verbnagge, Eagan, said MASAC should be concemed with all types of noise and
didn't believe monitoring for low-frequency noise needed to be attached to a low-
frequency noise study. He asked Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, if it the ANOMS
system could monitor low frequency noise.
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said the resolution called for the permanent
monitoring of both A and C weighted values. He said in order to accomplish this, it
would take a complete rewriting of the ANOMS software and a restructuring of the
RMTs. He said he thought it would cost approximately $.5 to $1 million for a new
system that could integrate both A and C weighted scales. He said this would be a
time-consuming process, but thought it would have to be tied to the North/South
Runway RMT project. He noted that, although there have been a couple of low-
frequency noise studies at other airports in the U.S., he is not aware of any other airport
that monitors low-frequency noise on a regular basis. He said, as far as he knows,
there is no ANOMS software package available that monitors low-frequency noise.
John Nelson, Bloomington, distributed copies of three documents, which he asked be
made part of the official minutes of the meeting. The three documents are:
1. Pages 40 and 41 of the FAA's Record of Decision for the MSP Dual Track Airport ��
Planning Process dated September 1998, which address the issue of low-frequency
noise.
2. Page 2 of the MSP Noise Mitigation Committee's �eport - specifically item number 8.
3. A copy of an article that ran in the Bloomington Sun-Current Newspaper on
Wednesday, November 11, 1998 - MAC, Richfield prepare for potential runway
suit. � � � �
After reading pertinent portions of the FAA's Record of Decision, Mr. Nelson noted that:
1. The MAC has committed itself to "immediately address" the issue of low-frequency
noise by conducting comprehensive noise and vibration studies.
2. "If supported by the studies, MAC will prepare and implement a low frequency noise
mitigation program for the affected communities as part of an update to the MSP
FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Plan.°
Mr. Nelson then read item #8 of the MSP Noise Mitigation Committee's INSULATION
recommendations; which reads:
MAC should develop noise impact models which reflect the impact of
ground level noise on residential properties. Mitigation for low frequency
noise should be developed after consultation with independent noise
4
�' `
mitigation experts.
The newspaper article, he said, couldn't be confirmed as completely accurate, but he
thought it was important to share.
Mr. Nelson said considering comments he has heard from both Kurt Johnson of the
Metropolitan Council and from Commissioner Himle, he thought the negotiations have
reached an impasse, but that there have been sincere attempts by both parties to
reconvene discussions.
Mr. Nelson then reviewed the four suggestions for action to be taken by MASAC. He
noted that suggestion number one and two were similar but that the fi�st suggestion is
mitigation measures be developed for law frequency noise and the second is that those
measures be applied to residents who a�e affected by this type of noise.
He said the third suggestion, as staff has explained, poses some complex problems. He
said suggestion number four, which asked that low frequency noise be studied and
mitigated on the same level as high frequency noise, was agreeable.
Mr: Nelson said he felt it was important to consider carefully the fact that a sitting
commissioner for both the MAC and the Met Council were in negotiations with the
p�incipal city. He said he feels MASAC is an advisory body to MAC and that MASAC
should take its direction from the MAC. Mr. Nelson said it would probably be more
damaging to MASAC to supersede the negotiations at this time.
Mr. Nelson suggested the Operations Committee direct staff to prepare a letter to the city
of Richfield that alerts the city of the committee's decision to hold the documents for
further review and discussion pending the outcome of the various venues in which this
matter is being discussed. He said he felt there was time to delay making a decision
because the new runway will not be completed for a number of years. He also said he
was hopeful that the participants in the negotiations would be able to come to an
agreement without litigation. He also suggested that, as the Record of Decision
indicated, that the matter be incorporated into a FAR Part 150 Update.
James Prosser, City of Richfield City Manager, then addressed the committee.
Mr. Prosser encouraged
recommendations that are
supporting comments:
the committee xo act specifically and favorably to the
incorporated in the resolution. He then made the following
The issues Richfield is negotiating with the MAC are limited. He said, for instance,
that the City of Richfield is asking that the EIS address the low-frequency naise
impacts from �#he current � runway on ftichfield -itself, -and -not on Bloomington or
Minneapolis.
. Mr. Prosser suggested since MASAC is an advisory body to MAC, MASAC should
5
advise the MAC that the issue of low frequency noise is an important issue and �
should be addressed for all impacted communities. �,
Mr. Prosser said he felt it was important to note that the City of Richfield feels the
MAC has shown an "absolute unwillingness" towards Richfield's efforts to have this
issue addressed for a number of years. He said in 1991 Richfield identi�ed low
frequency noise as a concem as�part of MAC's planning for the future of MSP, but it
was not considered at that time. Mr. Prosser also noted that in 1996 the MSP Noise
Mitigation Committee recommended that low frequency noise impacts be measured
and mitigated, which was sent to the legislature and was agreed to by MAC.
. Mr. Prosser said the resolution's recommendations/suggestions were reasonable
and practicable. He noted that in late 1997 Harris, Miller, Miller anc! Hanson (HMMH)
undertook work for MAC on the issue of low frequency noise at MSP. He said their
work included a map of the low frequency noise contours and recommendations for
impact criteria. He said the third step would have been to identify potential
measures for mitigating low frequency noise impacts, which was not completed.
. Mr. Prosser then displayed finro maps, produced by HMMH, that show the potentially
impacted areas associated with the new runway (see attachment). The maps show
the 90(dBC) through 80 (dBC) contours for both hush-kitted and manufactured
Stage III aircraft.
. Mr. Prosser said negotiations between the MAC and Richfield only address the
impacts to Richfield for the new runway and reiterated that low-frequency noise is an (°
issue that affects other communities, as well. He said MASAC should address this
issue because it affects more than one community.
Mr. Prosser then answered questions from the committee members.
Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked how the City of Richfield requested and obtained the
documents associated with the HMMH study. Mr. Prosser said the city requested them
under the Govemment Data Privacy Act.
John Nelson, Bloomington, asked Mr. Prosser if he could make a suggestion as to how
the committee could proceed given the fact that if MASAC were to apply pressure to the
Commission, as he suggested, MASAC cor�ld be looked upon as "insubordinate." Mr.
Nelson said he was concerned with the timing of the proposal because of the ongoing
negotiations. Mr. Nelson specifically asked how Mr. Prosser viewed MASAC's
relationship with MAC.
Mr. Prosser said he feels MASAC is an advisory committee responsible for advising the
commission through "unfiltered" information and recommendations. He said MASAC
should let the Commission be concemed with the politics of the situation. He said he
didn't feel taking action on the resolution would interfere in the negotiations between the
city and MAC. He said adopting the resolution simply lets the Commission know how
MASAC views the issue of low frequency noise impacts.
0
John Nelson, Bloomington, then asked Mr. Prosser how he viewed the Commission's
pledge to "immediately address" low frequency noise issues included in the Record of
Decision. Mr. Prosser said he had a problem with the credibility of the statement
because he feels if the Commission wanted to address the issue, they could have
continued the HMMH study. He said he doesn't feel there is an 'brganizational or
institutional" commitment to address the issue.
John Nelson, Bloomington, asked Mr. Prosser what he thought about the suggestion that
the issue be addressed in a FAR Part 150 Update. Mr. Prosser said he felt there were a
couple of problems with incorporating a low frequency mitigation plan into the Pa�t 150
Update. He said a Part 150 Update would only take into consideration current
conditions, and that Part 150 funds will be spread even thinner if low frequency noise
mitigation measures are included in it.
Mr. Prosser also said the MAC has stated that low frequency noise is not an impact that
needs to be mitigated.
John Nelson, Bloomington, asked if Mr. Prosser would support MASAC recommending to
the MAC that a low frequency noise study be incorporated into a Part 150 Update. Mr.
Prosser said the city wouldn't oppose that action, but prefers low frequency mitigation
measures be treated separately in order not to have to compete for limited Part 150
funds.
,-, Bob Johnson, MBAA, said he didn't feel MASAC should be involved any more than it has
�t to at this point, considering the negotiations currently taking place between the MAC and
the City of Richfield.
Mr. Prosser said MASAC shouldn't "walk away" from the issue simply because it may
cause problems for MAC or for MASAC. He said he thought the MAC hadn't completed
the HMMH low frequency study because they knew it was going to pose a funding
problem.
Dick Keinz, MAC, reminded the committee members they had only heard the city's
interpretation and had not had the benefit of hearing from the Commission. He said only
the negotiators have all the information and advised them to proceed with caution on this
issue. _
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, reminded the committee that there are currently
resolutions from other cities that have been pushed into next year and that need to be
addressed. He said a number of issues have already been identified for the next year,
with some that could spill over into the following year. He also reminded committee
members that only oae airport has beer� approved-by the FAA #o �#und low frequency
mitigation measures. He said they received this funding through their Pa�t 150 Study.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, said, although MASAC could not ignore Richfield's
request and should be involved in the issue at some point, he feels the timing is
7
inappropriate and urged caution. Chairperson Salmen agreed and reite�ated that
MASAC would continue to be involved in the issue. s�
John Nelson, Bloomington, suggested staff draft a letter to the City of Richfield
acknowledging receipt of the resolution and outlining the committee's discussion, being
sure to mention that the committee was deferring action on their request rather than
rejecting it. Nlr. Nelson also said he felt a Part 150 Update was the best vehicle for .
pursuing a low frequency noise study. He said including it in a Part 150 Update would
allow for both an in depth study and for metrawide abatement measures. He also said
he felt he didn't have enough data at this time to take action on the resolution.
Mark Hinds, Richfield, encouraged the committee members to support the resolution, but
if they did not take action, he asked that staff begin researching how much it would cost
to ovefiaul the ANOMS system and to conduct a low frequency noise study at MSP.
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said what iVlr. Hinds asked for would be time
consuming for MASAC and would require input from each community as to what they
would want from a new system.
John Nelson, Bloomington, said that although Mr. Hinds' suggestion was reasonable, it
was probably preliminary because it is unknown what the outcome of the negotiations
will be at this time and again urged caution.
BOB JOHNSON, MBAA, MOVED AND DICK KEIIVZ, MAC, SECONDED TO HOLD THE
RESOLUTION IN SUSPEIVSE, DEFERRING ACTIOIV ON IT UNTIL SUCH TIME AS IS �'
APPROPRIATE AND TO SO NOTIFY THE CITY OF RICHFIELD IN A LETTER. THE
VOTE WAS UFVANIMOUS. MOTION CARRIED.
Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, asked what MASAC should do if the matter is litigated
between Richfield and the MAC. Chairperson Salmen said legal counsel would have to
be sought to determine the legal ramifications of MASAC taking action. John Nelson,
Bloomington, said he hoped the matter could be settled out of court, and that he would
more likely want to wait on taking action if the matter were litigated.
1999 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES DISCUSSION
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, reviewed �the memo to the Operations Committee
regarding the work plan for 1999. He noted that items 10-14 are action items that staff
must complete during 1999. He said items 1-9 are items that have already been identified
as topics for consideration.
Chairperson Salmen then asked if committee members had additional items for
consideration.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, said he felt items 3 through 5 are especially important
to include in the work plan for 1999. He said, not discounting any other suggestion, the
nine items already identified were more than sufficient and would need to be prioritized
!'�
r:�
accordingiy.
Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, said the Minneapolis members had taken a iwo-step approach
ta identifying areas for consideration. He said they first prioritized the items outlined by staff
in the memo and then identified additional items.
The following are items the Minneapolis members identi�ed for consideration:
1. Begin ground level/low frequency noise studies for all communities. This is Minneapolis'
highest priority.
2. Begin the process of a Part 150 Update, which is also a priority.
3. Discuss how noise level data from ANOMS can be incorporated into the Part 150
contour generation.
4. Seek MASAC's support for a public heatth study to be conducted by the appropriate
state agency to research the long-term health effects of noise on humans, especially on
senior citizens and children.
5. Implement the Noise Redistribution Plan outlined in the 1996 Noise Mitigation
Recommendations.
6. Increase the credibility and value of the Noise Complaint and Information Line.
7. Review how information and how much information is distributed to MASAC members.
8. Produce a qua�terly report for distribution to other bodies and to be made available to
the public.
Bob Johnson, MBAA, said he thought a review of the nighttime hours should be included in
the first quarter of 1999. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, said there is popular support for this
f initiative. He also �eminded the members that the Twin Cities Airports Task Force has
asked that the nighttime time hours not be changed and that the original hours of 11 p.m. to
6 a.m. be reinstated.
'I
Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked why investigating GPS for noise alleviation needed to
be addressed this coming year. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said it was important
because there is a very narrow time frame (18 months to 1 year) for decisions to be made
regarding how GPS technology will be instituted at airports. He said MASAC will have to
make some decisions this year if it wants to be involved in the final specifications. He
compared this opportunity to being asked to help develop the Noise Abatement Departure
Profiles (NADPs) when discussions about this issue were taking place over 8 years ago.
John Nelson, Bloomington, suggested the committee place the identified items into three
categories: action, research and evaluatian. He said an action item is something that
advances or promotes noise abatement for either an affected community or for everyone.
An evaluation item is a review of an existing operational activity. And a research item is an
analysis of the potential feasibility of making an item an action item. Mr. Nelson then
categorized the 14 items disted in the rrtemo.
The committee then discussed and prioritized the items, focusing on solidifying the first
quarter's agenda. It was decided that the remainder of the agenda and additional items will
be discussed and finalized at the December 11, 1998 Operations Committee meeting. The
�
finalized first qua�ter agenda and remaining draft agenda will be presented at the December
1, 1998 MASAC meeting. �
John Nelson, Bloomington, said he thought the Operations Committee shouid be sure to
bring an action item to the full MASAC body at least once per quarter.
The next Operations Committee meeting is scheduled for December 11, 1998 at 10:00 a.m.
at the West Terminal North Star Room.
The meeting was adjoumed at 12:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
Melissa Scovronski, Committee Secretary
10
1��IA.SAC OPEI.A.TIONS COMMITTEE
�o:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
MASAC Operations Committee
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor
RMT Update
November 5, 1998
MAC staff has visited four potential sites for additional RMT installations scheduled for 1999. On
November 2, 1999, staff ineet with Councilwomen Sandra Colvin Roy, Minneapolis, to discuss the
Ericsson Elementary School placement. Future meetings are being scheduled to work out additional
issues. A meeting with Councilman Steve Minn is also scheduled for November 16, 1999 to discuss
the Anthony Middle SchooUKinney Park location.
Two potential site locations to the southeast of the airport have been identified as well. Eagan city staff
has selected a location just south of LeMay Lake in a park, and MAC staff was asked to identify the
i location for site 26. At this time a location by Argenta Trail, in Inver Grove Heights, appears to best
suit the criteria set forth by the Operations Committee for RMT placement.
Staff will provide additional information, as well as detailed site maps at the November 13, 1998
meeting.
November 4;1998
Ci ty Of
INVER GROVE
Chad E. Leqve
ANOMS Coordinator
Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs
Metropolitan Airports Commission
604� 2Rth et�e�,�Q South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Dear Mr. Leqve:
NEIGI�TS
Thank you for contacting us regarding the site of the a�iditional noise monitor for the
northern part of Inver Grove Heights. Our Aircraft Noise Abatement Commission met
to c.�iiscuss potential sites for the rnonitor. Following a briefing by Will E;inton on the
discussions with Eagan, we reviewed our objectives and c�etermined that the circle
center site you prefer does not fulfill our need to accurately monitor the overflights
using the 105 degree heading.
As you know, we believe the "no fly zone" south of the centerline extension of runway
12R forces, by FAA regulations, all southeast flights from the north parallel runway 12L
to divert 15 degrees. This puts hundreds of flights per aay on the exact same flight path
because no flight can be routed south of 105 debrees. The existing RMT sites ao not
adequately monitor the noise from these constant overflights, nor does your favored
site.
The sites we prefer are: 1) 6350 Argenta by the cellular phone tower
2) 6550 South Robert Trail by the cellular phone tower
3) 60th Street, west of Robert Street
f',
8150 BARBARA AVENUE • INVER GROVE HEIGHTS, MN 55077-3412
TELEPHONE (651) 450-2500 • CITY OFFICE FAX (651) 450-2502 � POLICE FAX (651) 450-2543
j �1
1��IA.SAC OPEI.ATIONS C�1��IMITTEE
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
MASAC Operations Committee
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor
Conespondence
November 5, 1998
At the October MASAC meeting, Joe Litde, Inver Grove Heights ANAC Staff Liaison, submitted a
request by Mr. Fred Krueger to have MAC conduct noise monitoring at his residence. Mr. Krueger
lives approximately 8.5 miles southeast of Runway 12R, just south of the centerline. Staff has spoken
to Mr. Little about Mr. Krueger's request and has asked Mr. Krueger to contact MAC staff to discuss
the purpose of the monitoring. As of this date, staff has not received a call from Mr. Krueger.
The closest ANOMS RMT to Mr. Krueger's residence is site 22, approximately 1.5 miles from his
address. Staff will attempt to contact Mr. Krueger before the operations meeting to gather additional
background to his request.
, 10/12/98 'ltON 17:20 FA1 612 4a0 2502 IN�'ER GRO�'E HTS CITi° H.aL (�(�ol
To:
Fax #:
Subject:
Date:
Pages:
��� �'r�n�md$#�1
C1TY OF INVER GROVE HEIGHTS
MASAC Secretary
725-6310
Request for placemei�t of an aircraft noise manitor
October 12, 1998
3, including cover sheet
Message: Enclosed is a copy of the MASAC Noise Monitoring and fnformafion
Request Form. �isted on the form is the name and address of an (nver
Grove Heights resident, Fred Krueger, who wishes to have a noise
monitoring device placed at his home. In the case that the address is not
legible on the request form, it is as follows
Mr. Fred Krueger
2513 96�' Street East
Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota 55077
Please keep me updated an the status of Mr. Krueger's request. If you
need any additiona{ information, please contact me at the number or
address listed below.
Sincerely,
Joe Little
Staff Liaison
Aircraft Noise Abatement Commission
Ciry af Inver Grove Heights
8150 Barbara Avenue
Inver Grove Heights, MN 550'77
612-450-2569
Fax: 612-450-2502
10/12/98 DfON 17:20 FA1 612 450 2502 _ IN1'ER GROVE AT5 CITI HAL
. . � � �• . � �, . � ,, � �.
,,�
.
Date: �� - On whmse behalf arc you requesting:
Name: r FF L ourseif
IAddress: -r-,�,��n,�,��� ,,�r� �"�r �: City Cauncil
���`�.a�AA2A � � �i/ i Mayor
�.atV�2 G �v���- ,���ts MN Citizen
Phone: U� fj- ��,,(r l 5507`� Orgauuzation
Other
Is this a an+e-tiraie request: Ye ar No
Heginning
[f reo, va�bat is the ra�eeted tirne fr��e for this sequ�i?
to
Endin�
Which o9' the follo�ving best describes the o�ture of your request: (Cercic sll th�t apply)
•----- �-�--5-�----
3round 1Voise Overflights Run-Ups Contours Part 150 Other
.---
PLEA,SE WRITE DUT YfIUR REO�IEST HERE.4ND/OR ATTACHA.NYLETTERS UPt
FORMAz RFcnr.r�T,n�r.c
r
r�
55C5� �
()ver Please
�
f
�100�
t
10/12/98 �liON 17:20 _F.9�1 612 450 2502 IN1'ER GRO�'E HTS CITT HAL
Please indicate the 1998 MASAC objectives sup¢o�ed by this this requesi:
�)
�To provide information to the MAC in ti+eir tJforts to commvnicate changes in operations d�e to cons�trucrion
to the surraernding communities. .
.,�Evclaate deporture compliance through the Eagan/Mendola Heights Corridor and make any necessary
cbanges ta the retevortt proced�rres.
,�Review the ANO�lS system arrd noise �nonitor.� w+d evaJuate the need arrd placement of additional remote
monitoring towers. Also, evaluate renratie nronitoring capabi�ities
❑ Request riir Tra�c Contro! personnel to �rrake o preserttatioa an how MSP operotions are conducted.
❑ Look at providing incentives to carriers rn acqu��rn$ oNd operating factory-mvde S�age III aircraft.
❑ Irrvestigate how GPS vnd other NAV Aids could help apev►ate aircraft aoise.
❑ Review the N.QDPs and compliance.
Q Cantinue discussion ojPart ISO conlourgeneraha�-
Please send your request via r»�il to: MA►SA� Secretary, 6040 28th Aveaue S.,
Minneapolis, MN SS�50 or faac it to :(612} 925-6310.
#:
Staff Contact:
Date Received:
Is this a Phone
���� Approvea 9y:
� pppmval Dat�:
Oc Wriaen RequestT
Availability:
toring Start Date:
,tor'►ng Stop Date:
ysis Start I7ate:
ysis Stop Date:
�Compietion Date:
�-------._,
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss
� )
CITY OF RICHFIELD )
I, Thomas P. Ferber, being the duly qualified and acting clerk of the City of
Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that the foregaing is a true
and exact copy of
Resolution No. 8635
�l
and that the same is on file and on record in my office.
Given under my hand and seal
this 2�th day of October , �ggg.
- �
Thomas P. Ferber
City Clerk
City of Richfield
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION IVO. 8635
- • � - �
_�.�
. , . .,
• � ' - , � • � • - • . •
� •' • -' w • �.
�,..
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) was
formally incorporated in 1969 with the goal of reducing aircraft noise, as well as
increasing public knowiedge and awareness of the issue; and
VNHEREAS, MASAC is responsible for the study and evaluation of existing noise
abatement policies and the proposal and initiation of new programs, thus requiring that
all council members be well informed on a wide range of noise abatement procedures
and plans; and
WHEREAS, the current levels of ground level noise (its major component being
low frequency noise) account for over half the complaints the City receives on a
monthly basis; and
WHEREA►S, Richfield has repeatedly requested that MASAC address impacts of
low frequency noise on communities; and
VI/HEREAS, studies have proven that construction of a new North-South Runway
located two blocks away from dense residential development will have a significant
adverse low frequency noise impact on Richfield; and �
WHEREAS, this runway will be located closer to residential property than any
runway recently constructed in the United States; and
WHEREAS, several independent studies support the need for rnitigation of low
frequency noise; and
lNHEREAS, studies have demonstrated that low frequency noise produces
levels of annoyance which require mitigation; and
WHEREAS, the Baltimore-Washington International Airport has included
mitigation of moderate levels of low f�equency noise impacts into its Sound Insulation
Program; and
WHEREAS, at high levels of impact low frequency noise cannot be mitigated
using noise insulation methods currently utilized for protection against overflight noise.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE ITRESOLVED by the City Council af the City of
- Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
� 1. Mitigation measures be developed for protection against low frequency noise.
2. That residents are provided protection against impacts of low frequency (ground)
noise.
3. That the remote monitoring sites in neighboring communities measure C-
weighted, as well as A-weighted noise scales and are included with monthly
informational reports.
4. That low frequency (ground) noise impacts are studied and mitigated on the
same level as high frequency (overFlight) noise.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 26th day of October,
..;
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
1Date:
Name:
Address:
1'hone:
f'';
On whose behalf are you requesting:
Yourself
City Council t/�
Mayor
Citizen
Organization
Other
[s this a one-time request: Yes or No
[f no, what is the eapected time frarese for thes request? �� —�
r �-���.
Which of the followin best descr' ��5�
g ibes the nature of your reques#: (Circle all that apply)
3ro d Noi e Overflights Run-Ups Contours Part 150 Other
PLEA.SE WRITE OUT YOUR RE UEST HERE AND/OR ATTACHANYLETTERS OR
r.�n�..� .,......� �.------
r�
�
P
i
��
� Over 1D[ease
�
FAA RECo� oF D�'tsbn MSP DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PIANNING PROCESS
included in th.is ROD's a�tachments. The attachments also include several detailed responses
to Richrield's co�ments on thi.s issue--spe:iEically:
AttachmenE �.1—This attachment includes responses to two general comments: (1) the
impact.s of l��v frequency noise were not adeguately addressed in the FEIS; and (2) the
FEIS did no� prot-ide mitigation for sign.ificant adverse impacts due to low frequency
noise (see th� respon_es to General Comments l and 2). Attachment A.1 also includes
responses to all of the written comments on the FEIS submitted by the City of Richfield,
of �ti�hich se�-=ra1 address concerns about low frequency noise.
At�achmeni :�.2—Thu attachment is a copy of an appendix submitted by the City of
Richfield ala:�g s4�ith i� FEIS comment Ietter. Parts of Attachment A.2 address low
frequency noise issue�; and this information, as well as other information, was
considered'c�• the FA� and M.�C in preparing this ROD and the attached responses to
co�ments.
• Aftachment C—Atfa�.il.ment C contains add.itional comments on the FEIS filed after the
deadline for commen�. This information was received from the City of Richfield or
interested Ri:hfield parties and perta.ins primarily to low• frequen� noise issues.
Although no� Iegally :equired, the FAA is including fihis attachment, including F_4.�.
responses to �heir comments, in order to update readets on the status of the low
frequency noise consideraiions.
As no�d above, the com�lete responses to the City of Richfield's concerns about low
frequency noise a.re found in AtEachment A.l, and are particularly addressed in General
E� Resporues 1 and 2, as well as within specific responses to correspondence received from
�� Richtield in At-�chments A.l and C. While the FA.A and the MAC aze not legally required to
fiuther invesfigztz the matter of low frequency noise impacts, nor to provide for mitigaiion,
the MAC has proposed and commits to immediately address the issue?$ Specifically, the
MAC is willing :o canduct noise studies and vibration measurements to identify the
existence, if an�-, oE perceptible vibration �om low fxequency naise. Surh studies must be
done in a comp:�hensive maruler and with the involvement of all potentially affected
communities, in�.luding �e City of Richfield. If supported by the studies, MAC will prepare
and implement a locv fre�uency noise mitigation program for the affected communities as
part of an updaw to the'�iSP FAR Part 1�0 Noise Compatibility Plan. The end result of such
a mitigaiion pra� am would be to offset any impacts of low frequency noise that would not
be miti�ated b}° �omrentional sound insulation treatment pro�zded for under the existing
NISP I�oise'_vli�_ation P�n.
With tne techniWl g-uidance and assistance of the FAA and others, the subsequent studies
will, among ott�u things, undertake necessary ��ibration measurements in Richfield and other
poten�al areas :a assist i�-► documentino the existence of perceptible vibration impacts due to
existing or plazL �ed opera�ions at'vISP. Although there is no established state or federal
standard of si�+_acance ��r low frequency noise and vibration, guidelines for judging human
perception of ��,ration le�-els have been published in several different forums, and may be
f ) 28 Low fr=quency no:� has alrea_y been iderttitied for analysis and potential mitigation in the adopted MSP Noise Mitigation
�` _.., ' Plan (se> Appendix ° �`the rclS`:.
44
(S?TEM�at 499)
` '_
i'
� v
� �
;
.� --`"
,� 4
Q �?
S y
�" a
d �.t^
.� –
2 �
FAA RECORD OF QECiSION
MSP OUAi. TRACK AIRPOR7 PLANNING PROCESS
considered.29 If supported by the studies, the MAC will prepare and 'unplement a low
frequency noise mitigation program for those affected communities as p a r t o f a n u p d a t e t o �
t he M SP FAR Part 150 Noise Com p atibili t y P l a n. T he en d res u lt o f such a mitigation
program would be to offset any impacts of low frequency noise that would not be mitigated
by conventional sound insulation treatment provided for under the existing MSP Noise
Mitigation Plan.
High Forecast Sensitivity Analysis and Noise Impacts. As previously noted (Section III.A of this
ROD) the FEIS also includes a sensitivity analysis to cii.sclose the potential noise impacts of the
MSP 2010 LTQ' and the 2020 Concept Plan based on a higher range of aviation activity
forecasts, conducted at the request of the FA.A. This analysis considered the noise effects that
could occur from a forecast of higher aircraft operations in these iwo time frames, as described
in Section III.A of this ROD. Based upon fihe MAC High Forecast, no significant noise impacts
were found for the proposed action. The contours resulting from the 2005 base and 2005 high
forecast scenarios are reasonably equivalent for the DNL 65 contour, with differences mostly
occurring in azeas to the south of the airport. The 2020 DNL 65 contour is slightly smaller than
for the 2005 65 DNL contoui� at these higher forecast leveLs. For more information, see
APP��iC H in the FEIS, induding F baure H-1 (various other noise contour maps aze also
presented within FEIS Appendix j),
Noise Mitigation Plnn. In April 1996, the Minnesota Legislature directed the MAC to develop a
noise mitigatian plan for the proposed action of a new north-south runway. In October of that
yeaz, the MAC adopted the plan (FEIS Appendix B), which included elements regazding sound
insulation, community stabilizaiion, aircraft operational requirements, and other matters
related to airport noise effects and improvement funding. Elements of this noise mitigation �
program aze underway with the noise insulation program being the most evident measure in
effect. The noise mifigaiion plan is the means that will be used to mitigate noise from the
proposed project (for more information about the MAC's ongoing and planned noise
mitigation measures, see the discussion under "Noise Mitigation" in Section II.C. of this
ROI}--Project Background).
Parks and Recreation. Within the airport boundary, the Runway Protection Zones, and the
DNL 65+ noise contour, there are 10 parks and recreation areas. Bossen Field, Lake Nokomis,
L?iamond Lake and Todd Parks aze located under the jurisdiction of the Minneapolis Park
Board and used for active and passive recreation. Taft Park and the Rich Acres Golf Course are
ad.mutistered by the City oE Richfield for active recreational aciivities, while the River Ridge
Playground is a small rerreafion azea approximately one mile from MSP in the City of
Bloomington. Fort Snelling State Park is located on both sides of the Mississippi River and
portions of the area are adjacent to MSP on the north and to the southwest. A nine-hole golf
course, which is a pazt of this pazk, lies within the existing DNL, 65 noise cantour. The
Mississippi National River and Recreation Area, stretching along the River and including a
portion of the Minnesbta River, is mostly owned by other park age�cies and the MDNR in
particular. The Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge (MVNWIZ) provides habitat for a
variety of wildlife and also provides wildlife recreation areas and environmental education
z9 MAC could elect to use �he cnteria recommended by Ihe Acousucai Sociery of America in Gu'rde lo the Evaluation o( Human E�osure to Vbration in �
Buildings (ANSI S3.29-1983) as weli as research undertaken and published by Harvey Hubbard (Norse Induced House Vib2lions and Numan Percepfion,
Noise Control Engineering Jouma�, Sep-0cf t 982). For more intoRnation, see General Response 2 in Attachment A.1.
41
(SEPTEM8ER1998)
On October 28, 1996, the Metr.opolitan Air.ports Commission approved the following noise
mitigation program for Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport;
INSULATION
2
3
The residential sound insulation program for the a�ea encompassed by the
1996 DNL 65 contour be compieted on the currently approved schedule;
The program be expanded after completion of the current prcaram to
incorporate the area encompassed by the 2005 60 ON�;
The 2005 6Q DNL contour be based on the most accura�e projection of
traffic leveis and use of appropriate ANOMS data;
4. MAC and affected comr;�unities seek approvat from FAA to develop
neighborhood and "naturai boundaries" that refiect current conditions at the
oute� edge of the expanded contour to the maximum Qxtent possible;
5. Prioritization of the expanded program should be to initiate single-family
homes upon completion of the currentiy approved schzdule, and beoin work
on the foliov��inc �ewly eligible d��ie!(ings/ouildinqs, beginning vrith th� hiahes�
noise exposure levels, in accordance �viih a schedule agr�ed upon~ �ritn
each affected city — muitiTamily dwellings, nursing homes, church�s witn
regular weekday daycare/nursery schooi types of oper�tions;
o. The proararn ce �unded by a combina;ion o� PFC rev;,����s, ai�;i�� ;�e�,
internally generat�d funds, and federal aid, witn esiirnat�d total and anr�.:Gl
costs as summarized below; to the extent 'tnat MAC canrot `urd this
expanded program in a reasonable period of time, suppo� �rom the State or
Minnesota should be sought. In no case shouid unr�imbursed �inancizi
impar,ts faii on ariected residznts or their locai governments.
7. The tvietropolitan Airpo�s Commission commit io Tunding iis carnmuritv
baszd noise abatement program on an accelerated basis beyond its currart
level oi 525.5 million annually.
8. MAC shou(d develop noise impact models which reflect the impact of ground
level noise on residential properties. Miiigation for low frequency noise
should be developed after consultation with independent noise mitigation
experts.
Completion of the sound insu!ation program is contingent upon the MAC
maintaining a bond rating of at least A.
COMMUNITY STA8ILIZATION
The Metropo.litan Airports Commission shoui�i participate with aftected communities
to identify and quantify any impacts the airport may have on. declining property
values and/or other negative consequences on neighborhoods near the airport. To
the extent that negative consequences can be quantified, a Working Group should
prepare recommendations to MAC for consideration by the Minnesota Legislature.
Community stabilization measures considered should include, but not be limited to,
the measures described in the Metropolitan Council-MAC Community Protection
Report. The measures inciude purchase and property value guarantees and
housing repiacement to complernent the tax credit and revitalization a�ea legislation
adopted in 1996.
A Workng Group should be convened including representatives from MAC, Met
Council, Nocthwest Airlines, affected communities and legislative staff. The
s
M
T
,
.0 -.�.. � � ,.�i G •v � y „m � • m „� C • y y � y�
� m ''"' � a�"i C 7 . .0 -.. � � . , y y O ,.0 �y � ,Z
� y � � � F � � �
�
O � �v •� � O U ia C� � 'ia ^� �� i.�. +�. C � � � O
v � � U � 00 ��i 4! � O��+i � d � � O .Cl O] �u
.0 a � '� ��+.+ [ Fr � � '� F y tA .n � �p� �'�
L'. � y , .0 � >
y� U"C! .i�: y�,u m`i y C U v 0i
m o.^.,, �[o�t/��•�o wpu°
� ,v^Ui i.�i �`i qf m y�' q� � .'C � .Q ^�! � � � � ^ U Cp.
O^O •Cj (� y G� C � � p U W:,, S�' y� y cyC �>
+''°t^�co°j3U�;� •^mCQs°..�'>o oC1��Z
C[i � �.'��,-C.�c;t p"�p�.e�1 � ��.�u•^ Gc4 L�r y y'W�,C
�....... F.•^Q'i(� C.'^ R! >..:.,�" °1 y v 4S
� y a ai � o �.� � ^o ° � 4°. .� � R. � (� � .
J. � O.� F v C^+ �. C q� .i' �� G C7 .G.� �� O�'" .
�2+�: 3 .c''3 °' `� o > �� � �� c°�>,n a �
Wma.m,GE-+�.��Ua�i_"'occ�G•'"3W ".��a�i
3��c�w
� � � '-� a�i a V � � C � � " > cn �' � U � E. Q' ' ^ °�'
af cc 4n a�i :u � � � �G F� •a�i �i � .h�s ^C '� q 3 ,�
. . d +-� CC ... ►-1 U1
;G G•,� O � +� U �i C� '�"� � Q1 +� y� � ..
y� � m m. pti .� � udi• c a C.�C p�C ^ �� o a
„°'o''�m�� °.,;~'a�c at� -�y> ��
o a°' �,m� c� a m�Cj"':� a� � o�, c
o c. cti
R � o.. � � 'd 'u j:a � .O � � � ap1 � v. ;u^ N a' (�
�. o d•.�'. ^o o �'� �.� � V on'�' C s�.� � o U U
c? c1 a� ... +� "t7 �
H .�,� ".� � � '�S � d � �.' ,� � � i.w "'�7 .�'' q� z � r" �
.p m c�.i � � a � � � o !� � �" � ;u ' y :«i 'S
� �„o d,� � � °� c°� � �.0 � �°, o � C o ��
"�y '�'.� 01 ",� i+ � ��....�.+ �+-�'v �^ v C ��..a
� O � j.� .r.. ~ � .0 L�". 4{ �'C.a q a 4 � -T1 '�" > � .�-. p
C.. �� U m I y �... �... y tV.� O„�G � L" ' C� O
�:o ����' . m d n'm m 3�'°.�" m� �C.t� c�,
Q'i .� bD�Sy "O TJ � .u"� 4! O y `^"C � � ,'�7 'f..' � .4: CC 0I .� }-�i
e� `� c. o c m�'8 '❑ o: r°.. �[ 3 c. o�� 3�^�...
�» a� 0 y m p� v�� d 3�� ,� ,b � m„b � 0 cn
�[ F��� FE.`�y�y�^�'� � A y.�.°�i•�l: � v�,�
: c�ia..`��°��„ �^m ��a�ia„[Ca[i�+��,?E-�
� at ..,. '��' �� c. 3 s°',' � �.� o
m i
''"' .0 . : 7 +�.a '[ � .� i`�. ' °� '� 'o af � � y :' U y U .ou
°�..Um.'"��'d ���o��.°'t� . a�im ,
�� o.u.0 m �c::. m � �rn v� . � ��
"h o.. : .c � a ti a� cn � . .
� A � � -�"' y � .ti . u +-� p � .G i.. C >i a°'i 'L7 ,a; G:' .
w. y �O � C � � .� � �: "O ~pr� C.• � O � .^� � c"�" CC CC .0
F y � � � � y • � 'ci p V � •... � � � y
ao
�;n �.�� ac� o`�a i U.a tia,b>'° ��.o:[ o
d G � � imi `� � ~ �. :� � '�'� � 4� �"' U � ..�a "C7 � "J' V� •:.
0,�� ,7 4' ��y. V �h0
O ��Ur�y I�ryw �.,y:. �' C
^y y „G p, m.'^ v: '' � � ;;.,:a. � � °� y r.a�. .� .�;
� 3U�;� a.�' o'� m"'`� �.c°'.-aCi o�°�� C c�n .
�o .a •� ° � m q :� [ � �. a.3 � � g, > Q� � ,ti � .`s^ �a c,
'L1 ..Vr ,C',� L• p f��. c0 •� � �61 aa •�+ C" � a3 ,�"�' � 4: d. � _�
�'�o..��aas � ��d����>,"�w3'°�a�
� � C� , m o �n � ai o , s� � � w C �• � 'S o .° ai ti �
� �, ^ m.,_, a� �� o U •o � H n
(�' �.� C� ��� q �['� N C a o o�;U•-, o a� .
q � o ~ .�: i.�'i 7 � °1 �" � � "O 'Cf � � �' � � � � h0
.:4 ^, "� .' G1 y "�
at o a 'o v �..�� 3 a°� U fs cc � 3.n .S G w 3�
C
�
V
� o
o �;
��
H�
�a'
_
�
Y ''c.
�o
m
Ac
m �
pO vdI '�'�'�" ..4u D���� C�� U.0 ,� C y U
�G'.,aV.G �' G v F�i �^pU.0 : �'a' �O ��
'� .•� � '� ^�t o c . � ;-. Q � .. ^cy � ,.� 3 `� �
•� � p, o m . tw� "� �u .c � aC' � �y o � � r°.
• Q " � 1 O G p7 . ��+ .'�' y 4.r'
r' 'N �� L3. C. TS 0 y � O.�'i TJ y ti
O. O. LO � R. ' C. c� m� G," C�1 i. Cl �''-' .0 O y N
U p�� t„�j R.. „{[� y�"j..Cy�C ?4p�t+ �''''.L�^O:u
+��u W'O 1." '+'�a- I"' .G O pj.� � OJ V^� G�.0 y
C) DO •.0 ' Si GO 0 Q.•.. td 4I bA�+ GL O?� O' �
�� �N G.:. o��� vCj � a,� aa� o•� a
, m o m m
� �" � � 'C7 y +� � � Q � + �" Rt � N O ir a C3'
.0 +' � a� N�' C a! Oa'. o J�',,, "�''" m ho 3 a}i � ai °v F"
c� �.�l'r h!1 ",� �•tl0 4f. I.. p�:u C. �,.� ,� a
C� o"' m� m'a �� °' a,-- '� � o•r; a,,,� �
� w.°;cu�a�.,�Um.�.°:���,..,�,�a...,-w
� • ,�, . � � i" a� ' � y � RS � � '.s7 tn O �., � O.
E" ^ � � ,O .0 '4-�'' Cf � � � �' +�' � N C
W. p � ''� � Qi y 'Lf y '^" �'+, � 0 [—� TJ � 3 � .�
o CJ � � o . � G > ^> >., v o . � c.w_. � v �
�I�
� � �.�
c°� F:, c°� A
m � p a�
d 0 O •...
.0 Lr �y t.'
+. � .�. �
y Q+ d �
� 31•^y n"J
dr:ay N
�
��`�y
4
O6" �"'� 6.0
� � -o b
C cC • r. y C
o�3�ro
° o o � �
� �^o ao
o a,,, •.. at G:a
� O r' 'G t�
�yT�y.%
i.~i .G R! � .J�
c�'aoaso
3'��m
oti0'"_' ti
�cct a�
D � b0.�
: � � � m
d �
0 0 � at
� U � p
p � '(.�' q
,.,, `� c .p' •
� �.�a "C) �
ro' O RI N
_- � � FYi [
3���
?, �'' �
.ti� ti � m
��no:r" ^C7 y
F�i t�1 �' � i.+
m � � d
� y � O
a� �
>
��
6�1 �i
��•a.
� O
'� �
�
O p d
p y U
4
�'+ y G
3� �
y O
V
� d W
C%1 m d
� ��
� a�
'a" U � .
�> U .
hA,x �
c��
ro
o � '�
o •� �
q [� a�i
�, � x
p � �
m
C:. ya� � .
� F-r U
U � °p �'
G >
uj �' � ."
fy � U '.'�
!:C `� 'C1 �
^� ''% �C+� O
� U F V
"� �•C�. d
.'���o
a cyU v
�.a ,L: C :
y r_ y;� �
O
��'��a`
"'� U a�i m .0
� ¢ � !:� C
� �
aQp � �^.
y
.0
.°:p�����'
,C� .5,,�' co � p .�
❑ ^.� �U �
�a� 3 �a
o�rnQ ° [
4. ,..,, , 41
'�, � +`1 R1 iS. U
c A a� >" � ?,
.������,
���a
O f: � p � �
aa :� 'v � �,
' F� t�.� .:� O F
cn � c..
+a y,,,�,� p • O tU U �
. .0 c�. a � . � > � -�
tV � o .0 '; . , ;''' (J� � .
. ' tS1
. �^w qUj •�,.- ., � � •� :, -
:.�^v > : : m�. a� •� .
G "O c�d C7 '. � 'iy m ' . .
. 'L1 0 .0 � '' . a � � ..
�a� .t c�
G
� � o � '� ,.: Q '�,� :
~.a, °' � ,� ' y m �
p � qr�"� :..�� ,�..� :;
� ..
� �• � � h ,.,' � ...� �;
'. a � o �°n ai
:' � ti ^� °' � :'�.C� °°� '60 . '
o y '" � ,a . �aa .� �y p
d'.
. p �" �� � � � � � � '
� yy �,y � � �'�y Q � y � �.
�
�� � �: v�J 'CJ . a: � i3� Q �u . �
� 6�l a�i d G ', .. � hq � ,=E � �
�",�.0 A.'�O i; "�.G.�,�z O � '
. � tj •m � .�C o ,ti p. � ai
� o.., o A, d � ��^ci q.0 �n a
o pp c. • � +a d o
. . �����•�•,�C"�.0 'T�r.�i'�'�'�oa�i>
. � .'.� •cC 6i ^Cf O . ' RJ .�4" .r � N .0 Q �
p%� a�iW o.C�''�+�:= p� L.
. � "" t�.' "d N .t'^ � � Cd "'� W .+-� � C. .
�� �:. o.., �, y o• q� ac.i pn �° v�i
rn ..� � ,. � �: •:•. � ... R� �+ •R,�, c�
�cc.3g,� �as.�.�c.oc.�a�d
��O C m�'�y' . A^C(;�y � t�ny cC.
r,
.0 cd ' � t�. O b -� � � d �' � � .0
Q ' � '`� 4. T1 � r„i
a� �
: ��� .°�� •a�.o.��� a�
� .°.� � U .� ^ � •� T7 y � .u. � �Y
c' p, C ' .0 � 6 . � � �^ cd � � Cp �
� a �m "FGa � aa ���o �'� �Ts
�M
Dack•-
Nigel Finney has confunmed that next week is fine for the beainning of the work at
MSP. An MAC employee will help with the tower. You should ca11 Roy Furhman
( 612-'725-6326) to set things up. If you are unable to reach him directly, call Dick
Keinz (612= 726-8134) and tell him your needs. Dick will pass the word on to Roy
who will take it further. �
Attached are the proposal I sent to Nigel and the worksheet that I used to build up
costs. The budget for the measurements and analysis is $67,000. Let's talk about
the proaram as soon as possible. Nigel will let me know.��'vvhether we will do
this d.irectly with MAC or throu�h HNTB. I will then set up a'o'�ber j/'
Anay
27 October 1997
� ���
:• r �
� � ��
-� -
���
��
'1
Z_.�26 -s'z��
��
. � ' • ARRlS ILLE
' 15 New Engtand Executive Paiic
Buriington, MA 01803
Tel. (617) 229-0�0�
Fax (61'� 22g-7939
� � :, rr�,,o��'-�(�"
�-�8��3:��-
Mr. Nigel Finney
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
�-�
� ( 2 - ��� _� �� �
�
Original by U.S. Mail, Copy by FAX ($ pages�
SLTBTECT: Proposal Concerning AgSp Lo�,t, Frequency Noise
P97-20140
Dear Nige2:
As I anticipated in my memorandum of 9 October 1997, we have p�pared a proposal to
consider potential unpacts of low frequency noise at MSp, mitigation of those impacts.and
potential noise impacts at Iocations on or near the extended centerline of the new runvva3�,
such as the VT'C properry. 'This letter presents the proposed scope of work and estunated
costs for the work. This proposal taices the 9 October 1997 memorandum as its point of
departure and provides additionaI detail about the proposed approach. It addresses four sets
of issues: (1) predictsd levels of low frequency noise in Richfield due to construction and
.
use r�f runway 17-35; (2) appropriate irnpact criteria for low frequency noise; (3)
identifica.tion of potentiai measures to mitigate impacts of low frequency nozce; and (4)
potential noise impacts on properties on or near the extended centerline of runway 1?-35,
such as the VTC propeny.
TAS� DESCRIPTIONS
Task 1: Deternune Locations of Low Frequency Contours at MSP —
For the reasons described in the 9 October 1997 memorandum
develop contours of low frequency noise for runways at MSP. � The� Mntours will be based
on measurements of aircraft depar�g from runc�,ay 11R-29L. The measurements will be
of single-event levels at seven locations on or_near MSP. The proposed locations are
shown on tfie atrached figure taken from BBN report No. 8196. They are marked ��1," "4,"
"A," `B," "C," and "D." Two new locations will be at distancaes from the runway simiiar to
BBN sites 1 and 4. ' A" is between gBN locations l.and 4. `B" will be about as far to the
south of the runway as BBN location 4 is to the north of it "C" and "D" will be about
5,000 feet abea,m the runway at about the same ciist,ances.fram the.t�shold as sites "q"
and "1 ". These locations will define the redvction in noise level with increasitig dist��
The final location will be "E". Its location is to he analogous to "D" on the opposite side of
the runway. Comparisons of levels at "D" and "E" will allow us to estimate wind effects
on the measurements.
i'�
111
n�
1�'ii1"`"`�:�� T:t�='�I`�
11118�����1 �"'�'�'' xtnE
�11I1,�8��1'l � �'?.:�I ��.
I����' '���'.��8�6c�i�,��1[�Gt�iO
►.�...L.r.' ,rtd-�R'�,.'��tl/ � ��GE=�
►�r.■. ''�'.:.n..�rr •.te� �t���� `'��
������� 1����� �����►�CIE ��
u��u� :���� �� r��►�es�t � ,
IIIIIIt ��&�I:CE����� �
111 /1 1 g�..�IQ! : ICL•A�E�CIQ►i
.T�1 �f°�"�, 6►E1 �►:S�`+[GCC►Ef�i�11
I/I/il .' , //��'ICEC�n.�r� EC'iGIH16
11111/ � ����i�lEt�1�El�A61'�1�1t
E!�
����n .> ��o � ;�;�I�eCGEQCitl�i
���m - - �.� ��t ` �ie�cE�p, ton
111lL' � ' ....�10111:E�81 �;{1►1 �i�i�ITi
���iiii��ieeeie��cieoiiii
11i
1
E!?'�,,,,�`"."�QEA • 1►[Ilili�ll�1���1►\ •-^'��
oc(,�`�Ea@1 %� '���ilI�II111//1/1► .i � ��
"���,b�6i1 �� •�lil1�11lIl/lltill.. 111.. w
� :t''°• �: � dlltli►lil�I.i�!t1!C1!!7 . ` "� �
�
�Gr� �c i � ��<��AIet111::;.Yiit`a:L�1'.��:� `f � E�
��E��, �. � � �'t;,�,�t��ne��-.�: ��i �... \ �� �,,,
�Cr[� � �, � � ^��E.�i6lL'b�'tl�iitliQllltt r � �
�rC��a;��� G��-: `"���°�;�"��� �Q�'��� t� tli�f__:
�rs
��� .�:�. '1rf: r� � „� `` i� ,E �. �fl- � �' � �: r
'r^ .w'i.Cjj,"� .� ., _„r�;'7�,�J•��� 4�"ii
�..,, ic�` ..�.�+""mtic 'c-..+a,-�� '►.
[L �,,
-''��I� t�.. u,� J • -{[/-:�+, � ��
E�� ` �`� .• ` N ;F,'.�� � • ..,'s` . : � .,,_
�`. �� � r : ' •...:� , t ���� � '` - , ��`' ��
C��'�/c. � : �' .: .-'°�-�-,� '� �,�� � • ��
;���EL�� : �-•� �����' }
{cy���c�: � .- � ���
� .�LL� ��� � - '�.'`�",�' �'
��►ie►�it'�� ��``�-�/� ��`�.
CE��6�d\,�6� �. �.� `� �: -�',�S f .; .:. , �'�,��"� ��
g�i81016�� . J�
,-
66�1 �j6�t1�1 i': � . , -s,,!' �,
�11t�1/! I�. ' -
�. � ...._.� � f :
�`l111;° ` • ` . � � - • =' ,� rr R .
ierEll����1 . . �, . � 1. � � '
�QOn tn� : ' x. �' � � � <. , s .^ �..; i.:
IEoi�i�► � � � . ? � , �� � ..• �
�i���1 m � � �' ' },� � �� � ; �<<: f �`.'�,`,,�;�� „�.� '
..
.
ioto���o; , �• � . ,.
.
� ` . ► �.
. .,
�°�IIIPi6� �{� ..: �- � �"ti �..�i � �
, :: ,
� .•L ''�mne..._ _ .
���an�.;;. �....,�- < . �. ...-_ —'=;.-
--
, _ ,��,� .
_....._—
.
�-
. .
�I�1/�S � ' ��� ��� `�
_
��..
. . . . ..
11 ""S� ��� • -, �:� " ��
1��.1� i' � �, � �.�.� !. � . .
� �u�� �.��� : ; � � . /,0
�����������,: ���:. . ,�
nr■n.���•.�,�":��_' '�'�t %� _ ,�
r���r�Y�v�CI �L,,;,�' y+'�"1�iL:..�?IE
neu�E�ge �
� ��e����r.
��e��: T � � �� � ��E� ti.:;E�
�����ote��e �� f: • ,1cts�;:cFr�
II/IIIi/Iitr� '� L'�',�a8E1@Ef:��
"'11/111�1 ' •� 16� IE
�IIIIIIII '`—`� / '888 , �� �
IIII/I/I�L' i � �.re$pE�ll�¢ ;
����� Ir�ofi6l�EEII:szClel
W/ �'�86BL�IEBDttiI
All�l� 'T .06�FC �.t,alCrn1��
•
����6���%• ,�:'�;'���4AN
i"CC�C'�E�.� '� � `rr���E
gCEC.G`. n , F
-.Fe-���k`o;�,.�• �,. •L��ri
nCt::: i` 1• i;Li �
� �'���� l�i.�c ; .•,
� r.• � .
3@� ;?"'""'"i vJ:'� =
�n�F, �., -�•i� .,�-'�� ni.
_ __��
.._�••. __.....4.�,�a_,� ...._ . ,.,._..•.
_. ��r.--�-�. � . ---- —.
; � .e:E,Z� � `� �
'� ����:�� ��5.�^ � � � ��'���
� .
, .
. .
:� :`i C��E' �
.
..
.
I� _ ,
�� .: � �em�,-c��i -�1.�� .. � : .. . : -: �',� � �
'LI�EE61QB8!'i61�F6i°t "�': �'�,�' � � ��•' _. ��:
�i61686��ae��►.��� F ,, . ,� � . : ..
. : , :: ; .� �
Gla&GBE�AE►`6 0►'tS 1�; •-'� � - �� ,� 1
��s:�oEea�,��P►�I� ��. ". � .. -�, .�:� ' ., , . .:.,��
�IEBIC�l1►il�� �' . � �� t • J �_�-. ,E ': Jf �
°IBIfli'ea�Il�►'i��' ( � • 1t�� �•;: •�`•; - '" ��• fi' - , .
. � ,
�r�irie�cnn ,�e�' : �,. � 4,. ,� . . �-. . .
��e��:�6��r,��a�r� � ".�� . , . ��. , `-_ .-.:�j� :;' �� -:;�,,,"5�;
�li►,61���illittl:! � '' ' -'� ''
��a��i�llIQBOQ�ICi:l1 � ` u�� : � _ , ' . '� _ .:r. -�1,, `.
= �,> : -i a�t; �
'@C�QI cr��ai0tild�3 � `': , �, .� ,.�,��v
,
@�Q� `�1� � ,�.`.• •• ' `-'
, � . , a rs�;, ..
��+�f��/11�1►��`Tic� _ ���.
Itll�o�� '�1i1, �� � � �
..
�leiiill,�i,�■��,���� aTt� , r�_'
:
�� ,
��
.,,
�;%'� ' .
1
��6I�c���.�111�1l�1�11111/1 U11///II��VIt
;�E���is `��1l1/11�111111I ��' 11�'�I
li�:o°E6ICB�:!'��1I1111111/1�1!1 ./�` ! 1 m �
1/.:.`.� C�ECE:6�drie� ��p." "�+��"`—= 11tU�/�1//11�` `
:1�l�l� �fi�'6��� ���"c�'!�A �►'itil///tllll��/�
:.;•.J�� �.-,��ti�.���€cceor!� � �,��� ::m�������
;� �..-���'� ���Ccc��F��d�661�!% , �i�►��=nm�����
•�'% '�., iEGEGL•�.'r-���a.Q� ■ ■ .
-�-.,,� . l�en►���rn�.��.�1.
I�p =` �%��! �Es�.,�1�t���C4r'..�/ � �- , �� �..+sidi�ii �Yriifr'i:i'ri�
`►�i ...; r,n • , a i /s l- .��� � � --�—
►ill11111�111l11�l19� �� T 4t-;��6i ?'£EG�;'. �,,,_,f f c���!'61l�Ilfiet����/II � '.. �� .`.�1�•
tn��e�o����on:ann�IBd��i , ;��,��Egc�e����.:, ;: :�C�F�1C��@6Ci�lItt11/11 M' � �
1/1111111/01/1p�/IIIIIIBiI ' z �' , , "�Ct � Eo; �.: ` ` r��+npp d �' o-�.
�� - ��=.< < -► ����� ��6���� _;_� �«< L���B��!11[t �. ���� __ -
�I.11111/�liill�iilillt/if� � �� . _ ` , .
�"�Ii�j 1/1/ ! �nn�111� � o� ' "'�FCBk�� ?'_.�_'"G�`�,,,,. �� ::� ." �- =�-"�►;•. �',:;;r
1,��1��,11/� �'.�i�'ir'C ;��l�C�C9E��•c►'.:,; =' f .'''�-::;;.tr`' `' -.1�"`� �,
�"'�1 �`\,•�����Q.'Ji �11[�ClaiAESF°p�i:%;�:fLL:.��.. i�:;�1S:ay�l�� "�ti ' •-�♦ \... �
�rliJ`�`���!/.���ZE�:u,�`,J,�Q�I�C`IL1l�.. ,`�. �:.Ltti.�'.�i.., - ��R'�
,� � e � � .:. w,-�. � � '''��
ri�ITn� '�i:....�r. .i�. a .. cwE;:iir•. .
:
i ttnt��� �,�--. �ci �6ie _��Et����Gr��;� � : .�� � ��
it'i1111111 1�.��_ �I�ia�1�9�1 ! . � @._`�L�C.` � ., �:�: f"�'.'�" � \
F>11///IIlO � ' L'E.'s'�lP�E����i�ll:� �E•:.::�. :�, .. ..�"���,
� P . � . .I�:
���o�n �e � p,1�.�f�i : �� �EOGElQE16���feQi1lE1�E�� � � � , . -.: �..�� . : , ��,'�,. �
1�1 �7�t �� •-���� f�61 'r.`t�i@���I�I�E6E��i:iLtE6�E6 `� -. ,i - � ; . ` � : ' ��"��
1/111/11/1 ,�� � �� alC�.[ee��� �t�Q1Il�oQoOOC� !@tt r ; ;� . � . ,�
it11t11111, % �E1.18iHt�011/1lLE/Ii11e191iE 1� � .•. � - � �,,.�, `� �:.'..:Y " f `^�
11111111' , �'��1�I�iiQlt1�111t11�11t11�� � : : '�. ,'�c�;,,�;� b{:{ : ;,�'' ,
�t1111111 •- •.� 61 I/11it It11�n�11►,1.1� � �: , f1 4 :.y � ' � r �, . ti ~
t/11111lL' � ' � ....�86111:f881;;{7tl�Gir�Qe�r: II6 `�� : ` `�a ' '� .-;�,� ;5;
1/1 �r�1111181�11:11�11o1i�d�tsr�01�►,1� ��6� ; ' � , >�, �:,� � .. �:�. ..�, � :�:,,
i�l���'C1ii1 r.. II�i1o11111d11�a1E1![�El� ! : �`�.• �a ; ., � �� :��;�� �'-: i �
■n11t�j;11�1R���oau�nt�emaen �tu�i,eo �' ;� . �.� '�
�'t����� �I11QIeve�ii 11/��1�61�mo..�,���n� .� �-��- �� ��; F,'.J'
.!.j—�11��a ��.'�"i�iYQ�j,�i�i�.���i.����.i I�• - � �r�
� . .. _ "
_ �' —.. � •� 1/ ) • : . .• � � ��,.,�.-
��=�%�6�����1���1�►1 ��tr� . -----.�� . _ ;:.-
. �'
���� • - IIIIII�1 _ e '..a�.� ; L ` � � , : , �
■!.,,� ..��1111 111�11/1/11/�� � 't�Iti 1' .i, :..�i:' �
l'+���:��,iiiiii:::�ii�tlll//1��e...����11111��`���'��� . _.,. , _ �
nunn��o������ � 11
iiii�ll������J��� �'�
1�:
���
.
„. ; . �..z..�;
..^ _
�� t _---��,�, \R� �
,r� :�-- - ��
- � - �f
� _ �
d� . .
�{L�.. , _. = :x _ ;
y�L�� 1 :.. � � .. • ... � `
.• ..
Q�C:� .., '�.�/ ' � - - �'�`'
� ,_ ..
� �..�� ... --� �'''���� 1
�F��,t .;�` _ . ` -
��� ,., ..
.
-
A�a %`�� � l� �� � �,�
_ �i � _ 1 '` � � ' J. .
. ::� .,�,,a
��I,� - �: . r. --
��. it .yy: � f •• t :
��� � 1t �� - � w w i' .•'
7: `” ;,1, ,"".. ' �,,,,.{
. _�� .'.
1/J �" �t, � , `: .����; r ,�5^
.-u � .. �,, .
1 .�
�' ! � u ' � .i; �,,�� � , �
;O ��; �� . ..�.�%%!��':-- �.`i`, _.
�
Nigel Finney 17 October 1997 paoe �
We need to identify levels from Stage 2 aircraft and from Stage 3 aircraft since their lov��
frequency characteristics differ. We want to have at least 1Q0 good measured values at
each location for each stage of aircraft Based on the current level of operaaons at MSP,
we estimate that we might be able to obtain ttus number of values during two days of
measurements. Adverse weather conditions might reduce the number of values we can
obtain on any day and increase the required measurement period At the outside, obtaining
these data should rec�uire no more than four days. For this reason, we have estimated costs
of data acquisition based on a range of two to four days of ineasurements.
To undertake the measurements, we will need to have three people working together. One
of the people will be an observer in the ATC tower who will keep an accu.rate log of
aperations on runway 11R-29L and any other operations that might conflict with the noise
measurements. (We will need to have access to the tower for observations.) The second
person will be a backup observer. The third person wilI tend the noise monitors. Whi1e
two of the people should be �-IMIvII3 employees, the backup observer could be from the
MAC staff. We have estimated costs for this work with two HM;NiI3 personnel and also
with ttu�ee.
Subsequent to the measurements, fi'MIvflflEi personnel will anaiyze the noise measurements
and develop contours of low frequency noise based on the measured data. The contour
v�lues wil c�rrespond to the values recommended duri.ng Tas12. While the primary
purpose of the low frequency noise analysis is to evaluate potential iznpacts of low
frequency noise from ogeration of runway I7-35, the contours will apply equally to other
runways at MSP. HMM�I will prepare contours for all runways now.at MSP as well as for
nmway 1?-35. Since the contours for Stage 3 aircraft will differ from those for Sta.ge 2
aircraft, it will be necessary to consider how to apply the contours. Specifically, we will
recommend when to use the Stage 2 contours and when to use the Stage 3 contours. We
propose that the contaurs determined during Task 1 be presented in a meeting at MSP. The
technical work can be described in a brief technical rnemorandum or, more fully in a more
formal report. We have estimated costs for both forms of reporting.
Task 2: Recommended Impact Criteria for Low Frequency Noise —
As I said in the 9 October 1997 memorandum, it appears that it is appropriate to consider
the onset of potential impacts on residentia� oroperties as a C-weighted level of 80 dB.
(This level, originall, established for SFO, is cotifu•med by the BWI information.) We
propose that HMMH document fully the reasons for the proposed 'unpact criterion. We
have estimated the level of effort and costs..to pr,epare a deta;led report
Tas� 3: Identifj� Potential Measures to Mitigate Impacts of Low Frequency Noise on
Residential Properties —
The purpose of this tas�: is to identify potential measures to mitigate the impaet of low
I frequenc�� noise on residential properties. �iMM�I will evaluate a range of potential
1/i/1,1/Ul
�
.--
• . .
. � �
I7 October 2997
measures, ranginD from modifications of sound insulation methods to use of barriers. The
area aver which measures will required wiIl be identified during Tasks 1 and 2. The
product of this task v�,ill be a set of basic recommendadons for consideration. It does not
include detailed desi�n recommendation, such as design of a barrier.
Task 4: Assess Potercrial Noise Impacts on Propenies on or near the Extended Centerline
of Runway 17-35 —
While the noise contour analysis that has been deveioped for the EIS describes noise
exposure on land uses surroundina MSP in terms of the yeariy average value of DNL, there
are some land uses that may be particulariy sensirive to noise-induced vibration. It is
appropriate to estimate the levels of noise-induceci vibradon at locations such as the VTC
property. In this task, F;[.Mi�gi Proposes to estimat�e Zeyels of noise induced vibration at the
VTC property and at other similariy situated and similaziy vibration-sensitive pro rties
that you identify. The leveis of vibration will be estimated {�m the noise meas ments
proposed in Task l. We propose a visit to the properties as pan of this task. We have
estimated the level of effort io undertake this �,ork and prepate a technical memorandum
presenting the results of our analysis.
COST ESTIMATES
We have estimated the level of effort and costs to complete the four tasks, The estimates
aze based on our standard consulting rates and are by task.
Task l. Dererncirce Locanpns of�w Frequency Contours at MSP — As noted above, we
have estimated the level of costs for this task with several aiternatives. For each
alterna�ve we have esdmated a measurement period of at least two days, but not
more than four dayS, The estimated costs are as follows.
T�k �'1� � HIv1MH staff and a brief technical report .
Task with 2 F�vIM�-I staff and a detailed technical report
Task with 3 FQvIl��EI stafi' a�d a brief techrucal report
�
Task with 3�IlvIlv�I staff and a detaiied technical report ......
$39,500 - $56,3Q0
$50,000 - $67,000 �'
$42,500 - $61,000
$53,000 - $71,300
Task 2. Recommended lmpact Criteria for J,ow Frequency Noise – Esfimated cost
$8,500.
Tas� 3. Idenrify Potentia! Measures to Miti ate 1
Residential Properties — Estimated cost�la,�tOpQ.��w Frequency Noise on
Task 4. Assess Potential Noise Impacts on Properties on or near the Fxtended Centerline
of Runwa�� 17-35 -- Estimated cost $12,00p.
�,
,.� HARRts M�LLER M'LLER & HA�vsotv �NC.
_ ,
Nigel Finney I� October 1997 Page 4
These costs aze based on our understanding of the issues and the level of effort required to
accomplish the work involved. I trust that this proposal is responsive to your needs. We
are prepazed to begin on the work as soon as you request us to do so.
Although I shall be at the ANOMS User Group meetings in Oakland on the 20`�and 21 � I
will plan to call you on the 20'� to review this proposal.
M
Sincerely,
FL4RRIS MILLr.R MIL.L�:,R & HANSON INC.
Andrew 5.
Chairman
Atzachment: Fi�ure showing measurement locations
c:��azi.wrD
�
HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC.
15 New England Executive Park
Buriington, MA 01803
Tel. (781) 229-0707
Fax (761) 229 7939
EmailforAndrew.5. Harris aharrisC�?hmmh.com
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Nigel Finney
cc: Roy Fuhrmann
Andrew S. Harris
SUBJECT: Initial Presentation of Low Frequency Noise contours
Minneapolis-St, Paul Intemational Airport
Low Frequency Noise Study
HM1VII3 No. 295340
DATE: 14 January 1998
Introduction
� The MAC and Richfield have discussed potential impacts of low frequency noise from
;' ) operation of a new runway,l7-35, at MSP. In the absence of adequate information on the
- levels of low frequency from MSP operations, H��IMH pmposed to measure noise from
existing operadons and develop noise contours based on those measurements. Because the
level of low frequency noise is best represented by the "C" weighting netwark on a sound
level meter, measurements were conducted with C weighting.l As proposed, FIlVIlVII�
began development of low frequency noise contours for operations at MSP by measuring
levels of noise from operations on 12R-30L during the period from 5 November 1997
through 7 November 1997, tY►ree days. Two FIlvIlviFI staff inembers were assisted during
the measurement program by .staff from the MSP noise offioe. After completion of the
measurement task, HMMH evaluated the measured noise leveLs and developed contours
showing C-weighted noise contours in the range from $0 dB to 95 dB. In this
memorandum we present the contours developed during this study for your initial review.
Contours are presented for three groups of aircraft: (1) stage 2 aircraft; (2) new-technology
Stage 3 aircraft; and (3) older-tectL ology Stage 3 aircraft FIlviMH recommend; 'fiat the
MAC base its analysis of potential low frequency impacts of runway 17-35 at MSP on the
80-d.BC contour from older-technology Stage 3 aircraft.
' During work on a separate task under this project, HM[Ngi determined that it will
recommend that the MAC consider a C-weighted level of 80 dB �as the ttu�eshold
� ' for low frequency impact on residential land use. (This other work will be
reported separately.)
1/U1,9/Ui, "
ARRIS ILLER ILLER & ANSON INC.
Initial Presentation of Low Frec
Noise contours
P
Description of Measurements
HMMH measured noise from aircraft operations at seven locations. Figure 1 shows the
measurement locations. The specific locations of ineasurements differ somewhat from the
location initially anticipated. However, the measurement locations met the goals for a
range of distances and an opportunity to determ�ne K,�d ���� on noise propagation.
A.nother goal of the measurement program was to obtain 100 measurements of Stage 2
aircraft operations and 100 measurements of Stage 3 aircraft operations with data at ail
seven locations for each operation. Operations �,�,ere on runway 12R for all measurements.
The three_day measurement period yielded measurements at all seven locations and there
were more than 100 operations by each stage of aircr�ft, However, a combination of
interfering noise from operations on parallel runway 12L and temperature-related
measurement problems at certain me��ment sites rednced tlie numbers of good da�
points at some sites. The number of good data points R,as {� �
to draw noise contours arid have confidence in the accura�y o�e �n o� ��t ���MH
During the measurements, HMaViH measured
assess the influence of wind on the measuremen�� T� W� �S•�le �� �t �'�'e couid
higher during dowav�,ir�d �ndiaons and �port neighborhaods te�d to experience levels are
downwind conditions freqnentty. M��ments were avaiiable during do��d
conditions at all locations. '
Measurement Results
Based on the measurements, HMM]K observed that the noise characteristics of aircraft
departures at MSP fall into three gx.ouPs. �e �t grOuP is Stage 2 aircraft (i.e., B727 and
DC9 aircraft). The,se aze the noisiest aiircraft at MSP. The second group is new-technalo
Stage 3 aircraft (i,e,, g'737_300 and B757 aircraft). These are the quietest aircraft at �
The tturd group is older-technolo S MSP.
NID80 aircraft . �' �e 3 atrcrafrt (i.e., hushkitied DC-9, DC10 and
) This last group is quieter than the Stage 2 aircraft but not a s quiet as t he
new-tec h n o logy Stage 3 aircraft, While all ti�.� g�.oups of aircraft are now pnesent in lazge
numbers at MSP, FAR part 91 mand�� �t the Stage 2 aircraft will disappear by the ear
2�00, prior to construction and use of runway 17-35. y
Noise Contours
�gures 2 through 4 show C-weighted noise contours from operation of runway 17-35 for
the three groups of aircraft identified above. Note that the contours have shapes similaz to
other single-event noise contours. The distance from the runway to ttie contour depends on
the noise produced by the aircraf� and �e �� elevation angie, 'I'he contours aze not
Parallel to the runway. Since the Stage 2 ai�.�� should be out of the fleet when runway
17-35 becomes operationai, we reco
mmend that the IViqC identify poten�� io�, �uency
impacts on residential areas by usi�g �e 80 d�C contour for older-technolcig3, Stage 3
aircraft. Figure 5 shows the recommended older technology Stage 4 80 dBC contour in
�ARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC.
Initial Presentation of Low Frequency Noise contours pa�e 3
r
`� comparison with the 80 dBC contours for Stage 2 aircraft and new-technology Stage 3
- aircraft. It also shows the BBN low frequency 75 dB maximum contour. While we aze
confident that the 80 dBC criterion is appropriate and that our noise contours accurately
show the 80 dBC contour location, we are not able to evaluate the BBN recommendadon or
how BBN developed the low frequency 75 dB maximum contour.
BBN's report does not describe iully how they went from their measurements to the low
frequency 75 dB maximum contour. From our knowledge of aircraft noise, we do not
believe that a low frequency '75 dB contour would be parallel to the runway. As an aircraft
accelerates, the level of low frequency noise generated by the engine decreases. Further, as
an aircraft leaves the ground and begins flight, the noise propagation environment to distant
locations improves. These two physical conditions cause contours ta get closer to the
runway as an aircraft accelerates and further from the ivnway as the plan begins actual
flight The contour eventually closes as the aircraft gets farther above the ground We
could probably get BBN to explain how they developed this particulaz contour. However,
we would like to have you review this memo before we try. .
A further point of consideration is potential differences in mitigation measures for the 80
dBC criterion and BBN's low frequency criterion. The BBN criterion is for frequencies at
or below 100 Hz. Tfie 80 dBC criterion covers a broader range of frequencies. Whi.le the
• 80 dBC criterion contour tends to cover a lazger area than the low frequ�ncy 75 dB contour,
-- it is probably easier to reduce the C-weighted level than it is to reduce levels at frequencies
{�_,� at or below 100 Hz. We have information on sound insulation improvements reladve to C-
weighted noise. We will need to see what information we can 5nd on sound insulation
improvements relative to noise levels at frequencies at or below 100 Hz.
Requested Action
Please review this memo and consider the implications of-application of the two criteria for
low frequency noise: 8Q d.BC and low frequency 75 dB maximum. I will plan to call you
on Friday, 16 January 1998 to review this issue.
D:W.DM\Adm-9'7�ad97-140.wpd
}
. :
-=�: 7 �
� .�„_ �.�.t��"�.r - -
':�Y/ � ��` =�.� \:
� ,-�
�, � - _ � ;
�;1 _ a. _ •
..
. :
P�:.:::-::,' �.:� ��-: . ��
;.�•r,` =�-�_ _— :c..•;;��
,;,� ,,, ; ,
` r � 'ti.- � , - 'i
- , ts '!��' � . . . '-iw'.-:: S'^. ' ::; . -
�l�f- ;C r �.r.K _.-.::�yy
I�i
i
.� r ► ` 1
II �G�����oi��i�`� . t _" _
G?
-,� s
s, s
�;;�; `� -'�,. ����--ao,,�=
����' � _� �R +�
-__ ' :�'- .� . . 'ti-�:' } '�!
�- -_ - - ��� �
� -'_-. --` ��
� - '"" � �!�`�
��� � '` rr.`�.` �� _�! ��,���
-_ - x-• x .� :•.,r;::'�': �
;: r, '' :s'4.:<�':r,, ;:-:: �'-'`
y ' ..t�;r:•_:� ; 4 'ti.,t.-:
� �_� �-: �,. '� '�u �' < ,. �..
`'-�,, :. . �:l.~�'^ Ji :---^"` . �..::
. ��. �:�:--'"�. -.r .��s
....�..
l� , t.�nrn�.�iii��i.
,�ea�aru����.:�:�.
� �:�oe�care����a�nn��i
1��b.� •ngnr••wa �� ����')
:l�::. E� �A
fA�$��i°:t='�L�.._ �6;i�.
� ■`�—•' ;; t; ''','.,
:--,��,,,:�,:�;.� ' -
3
�•-- rM{ �"� �- •.
'� ^ `
� . `�'.',l� _. ,_ . . .
,._. Y _ ti. _ _ : -
�1//11►EI18`c� � -.[/ � �.,-:.:�.
i��mr►nwcci���� �� :����` , : � :t �j -
im����� �m�►�` ��. � -� .: . L . -
f/I/�I/111 Itli1jEe3 ��, ,` _: ;,�s,.-�. ; , :
'IIII//1/1�///�� , . ` : >„
•' "� a j'::
��d�.�����t� ' ; �1 ::.I --,, /
II/�nd11/i1�1�{ `? '� ��'� " _'�''
cir����tr:t�����tf 5:::���� �''�`'-... � ..:'f�-=".:%�
.�
�
HARRss M�LLER
15 New Engiand Executive Park
Burlington, MA 01803
Tei. (781) 229-0707
Fax (781) 229-7939
,
• ' • �'
�V1ILLER & HANSON INC.
To: Andy Harris
HMMH
From: Eugene M. Reindei
Date: January 21, 1998
Subject: Updated MSP Low Freq. Contours
Reference: HMMH Job No. 295340.01
Andy,
Here is the package of exhibits you requested for the MSP Low Frequency Noise Report.
Please notice that the five figures of the preliminary report aze included and have been
updated as I noticed a few errors when I was putting Table 2 together and describing the
development of the contours. The errors found were: 1) The energy averaged values
associated with the measurement sites were incorrect (some were average values, not
energy average values), and 2) The directivity of the C-Lmax was not consistant in the
database determining the contours (some calculations were for a directivity of 130 degrees
and others were 140 degrees;130 degrees is correct).
Number one above is obviously a major contributor to the contour defi=utions and therefore
the contours changed. As you will notice, this correction had the effect of moving the 80
dBC contours out a bit and producing a lazger disparity from the BBN criterion 75 dB low
frequency contour.
I have plots that show how closely the contours match the measured data; even better than
before with the corrected information. Take a dose look at the figures and the other
e�ibits you requested and if any questions ar concerns arise, please get together with me
to discuss them.
I should have caught these errors earlier than now and feel bad that we almost gave the
client bad information. I am confident in these new contours since they match with the
measured data so closely.
� Table 1. Summa of Downwind Measurements �
Aircraft Noise Stage -
Number of Downwind Measurements by Site
G/E q C
Stage 2 73 F 8 D
57 58 71
'Old Technolog�' Stage 3 � � 44 66
15 15 19
'New Technology' Stage 3 28 16 � 8
31 17 � 39
20 28
Table 2 Summa of Gwei hted Lmax Level Measurements
Aircraft Noise Stege Atrcraft �
.. . Energy qveeeged C-welghted Lmau Levels by Site
Stage 2 � A .. : �'�• C�;.`
DC9 98.9 94.7 �' F g D
�.5 �.7 99.8
727 101.1 y pp.5 86.8
89.0 98.1 100.0 88.2
737-200 97.5 95.2
85.7 92.8 93.7 83.4
Ali Stage 2 99.4 98.5
°Oid Technology' Stage 3 �'s �'•9 ��6 87.1
MD80 98.0 95.8
DC10 �.5 92.4 94.9 gq.1
962 93.0 89.9
83.0 92.2 82.3
747 901.3 gg.y
Aii Stage 3'OT° 88.4 96.1 96.4 86.6
'New Technol �'8 ��4 86.1 932
ogy' Stage 3 �,� g4,7
84.5
A300 90.1 88.1 8QA 882 89.9 83.3
�.7 87.1 86.5
737-30p 88.3 �.8 89.9 79.4
� 87.3 79.9 �,
. F100 85.7 WA ` 76.9
932 90.4 81.0 87.9 892
BAE146 862 82.4 81.1
All Stage 3'NT'° n.6 ��.9 $7.8 82.1
94.3 A8.0 80.0 86.8 89.3 81.4
C-weighted Lmax Contour I)etermination
for
MSP Proposed North-South l�unway
The contours were drawn using the energy average of the measured data in Table 2 for each aircraft type
(noise stage). It was deternuned that the C-weighted Lmax level (C-Lmax) was measured when the
aircraft was down the runway past the measurernent site at an average directivity from the aircraft of 130
degrees during downwind conditions. The four measurement sites along the 1500 ft, sideline were utilized
to determine the change in C-Lma�c as the aircraft progressed down the runway. A third-order polynomial
fit of the energy average C-Lmax at each site for each noise stage of aircraft was developed in order to
produce an equation to describe the offset (from the level measured at site A; the reference level) measured
along the ninway.
The next step in developing the contours was to nse the energy average measurements at the further out
sites C and D(approximately 4500' sideline) compared to the measurements at sites A and B respectively
to determine the propagation of the C-Lmax levels. Here we assumed that the level drops 3 dBC as the
distance doubles or 201og(distance) along with some air absorption per 1000 feet of distancc. Using the
reference levels at sites A and B, the pmpagations at C and D were deternnined. This process showed that
the air absorption ccefficient changed as the airccaft became airbome; most aircraft wer� still on the
ground when the GLmax level was measured at site C and airborne at site D. Therefor�, the air
absorption coefficients used for developing the contours depended on the distance down the runway of the
aircraft. .. . �
The contours were generated by developing a spreadsheet with a matrix of locations sideline to the runway
in a densiry of 100 ft sqnare sections. The matrix started 500 ft. sideline to the runway and proceeded out
to 10,000 ft and started 8500 ft behind the start of the runway and extended to 1000 ft beyond the runway.
Each 100 ft square section of the matrix generated a C-Lmax level by determining the air�craft location
when the C-Lmax would be measure� at that sxtion of the matrix (130 degree directivity assumed) which
detemzined the distance from the aircraft (r) and the position of the aircraft along the distance vector r
intersecting with the 1500' sideline, assigning an offset from the leve] measured at site A using the
polynomial equation, assigning an air absorption ccefficient (a), and solving the following equation:
C-Imcrx� = Reference Level (Site A) - Offset Level,� - 20�1og[r�/I900'J - a(x)�*[r�/1000'J
where
1900 ft is the distance from Site A to the aincraft when the GLma�c occurs and
1000 ft is required since the air absorption coefficients are per 1000 ft of distance.
The above process generatad the curves sideline and offset by 130 degrees to the runway. This process
also showed where the curves began to curve in toward the ruway center�iae�behind the runway. The 100
dBC Lmax curve was able to be closed on runway centerlir►e since it was so close to the runway. The �� ••
other curves were closed behind the runway by assuming a 3 dBC reduction in level per doubling of
distance (201og (r)). To extend the contou� beyond the end of the runway, the INMS.Ia program was
utilized to produce A-weighted Lmax curves for four different aircraft types (DC9, MD80, 757, and 747-
200). These A•weighted Lmax curves were then used to determine the shape of the contours beyond the
` end of the ruway to bring the cnrves in toward the runway centerline.
.i .
�
�
1
/
I�
�Z
/
1
.:; ,
'�. ����e^iL��
��a� T'Gt.:. t 4'
:��� Ili.���;��: _
.--.�, , .-
'..: ,!..�'_....?sa
�
�
�`�� �'��
'�s R� �
. �� e�.�� ��
� {� �
. . ,�
. ,
. �
. '`';..'�,,,/
��r
��, ...
� i l. .f
- - • �� :� .
c�� , �. .,
�
� ` . , ' � • �,
. ly ;, � ''y. ; ,
�� � '{' '�-C;> �i".�
' � ' • .�i
1 �,i�''� � '=, �
.�.-- -
�f ,
� . .
= ...r-�-� ��---__ �'�- .
i
I� �
�
�
� �rd�i
��
. � � .,
,i��� ��; ����
/11������i �� 9
/ `�i������� ; � ' � s
'�1l� E ��/.��
��r � � a
� � � .._
�� _ • --'`����
I '� �
,
- - —..`�--._ ._ , � ��
:1 �:�' ��
��'
,�
. a�
���
' �' `_'-,��
• �
.
��
. �
� ��
��
♦ • • —
� ■
�d/�
..��R�1
E��,�������
i��ii����'��
�e����� �
l���1 _ -�e
�������t�'..
��������';
� _ �' � �
..,--
.
.
.
.
- � �
,- ��
:�, . �
��
'' MSP Proposed
North-South �Z.unway .
Lmax �dBC) Contours
"Olde�- �echnoloby" ;�� �
�, Stabe 3 Alrcraf� ��� ;�'� �
�;S'. ::t�":.
.;;��..� �C
.�t. • "�:�.
,,`�� ` ., :.
: y.s r�� -�`..:` t,(��/ /'� i�- {� 1
•'t , �;a:i'� � +Y'� .',;% O ( l.l L.J � )
":i.�' :4i.MY�! .1,
:it.
"F�:`�t':' ;l�v
+•{ �
`���, :.';�feiiyl?:f4:� .:� �\�
���S�r'� �
.iJ.` . `.}S: �•' — � �. ' \
~':,� �5,�� �� d �,i, •'^�Y'r � \`\ .
:�;�: ,: �,,.
. ..., ....�.F�Pt _ .. . �, � \
Aj N � ' 7 �
+�y�e7�'�r� .. . n' �' :
� F� t
•ti:i4 � t�''' � e�•-•�� �
• %.iy��'..;: '• a.
::r`4 ,."+h'TJ�;y�f�': •.
.i:'',�:;5•.'� (. i%
i � �`t.::f<q.;'
..�rt;��:'
����X, �
,�
,,:
��.
' \\ ' ' � , / r�
;i •
. ' . . . , ', ' i
�� �
;
__ �___ ` � -__: _ _
I /_
� ;�.; ; � , � , ; � � � , ' � , ' � ' LA�� NC�KOMIS 1 . . _r =-�-
�� Il} i� i � I � � i � � ,�.. ..-..r ',��� 1� \ '''�----
� � � �- � �. ( I 'r',Y: Y _ _..
I I r I �� � 1;.� _�, I I l-�'�`�� T � 1'.a . -- 1'��,i�
I �, . 1 l ' `' t ' . - '�` " � -
,�� � � : � 3 5 i1V �.�.� .; � , � �
�:� -1;;� _ ;����� � � � , , � , .�_
r► �-�. �-�- �� � - . �
� � � `�`�_._ - J; �/� ` t�,T'r i -i-r-� ���`! r r � � � � , '� ' '- ( w~1 \ .� �(.�.� � l/ -
ii( l � , # �' � ti
� i " / ' - ;=; ,
� i DIAMC�ND L1�k; .E � � �-i-� � ��, �- � ' �� �
� � � t , �-C � , /; ._, � �:Y .
; ; i � �. (, //{1 , , _� :-1
'� - -� � ! - _I t� �-'� � � ' i '....� `_` �/ ; ' � I � ••4S . �-1
� i �\ -�--- -,��—� � �I
i�- - }-�;_f .�_: i ,�.� -�'-:-I i ' �� ,:, t J , , TI-�.=1:_..
;�.,, �.. _ i�� �� �- ( _� � �i i� .�� �;� -�,
; � ( +.� r �r I ; �� i j . - �� : � ' \ • �. ,,( �--:_.
r-r--+! l._ �-} � Y; �'� � .__.
i ,/' � �� � J I_ �.._'� ,:t;' �1 . �- �� �._ . �
-!---r �--t • � � -L . : : �, ; '`4' , . " C�: . �
1 � ) �' `• �/%J . _' � _� T �k� h� F p�, � •. • J . � f � . ' � '
/, , t —�. � ! '- - 1 i �.'c15 " t ...C'�^ r.�� , * 9 p dB . . . . � _
�,-;--; �-,-EI 1 62 ,� R ; ; : , ; �, ,F�� �:_;,; .�� � r � c) -
'�_ ' .�i �" � I .I I (_ _ � j_) ' �~ L�.✓�,��y. I i Y ! '" _i � .
--� � f h ` � �•�, /' �
� �j�? � �-{ '_ � ��" , '�.
' " 1�� i '~ 1'' (�� � \. (
� ' I�I�iT � '� I i"�- i,_�� �:�� . "� -1-;-- -� . �" %
;� � � ^� : _ �� � � �: i «.. i ''��.1/ % / `\�
� - i.;_�. � ( � ! � � `,Sn. J �1;: �\` r• "�/"'� '�\' . \�
� • � -.-i ]�- � --�'. � I � ! � ( I � ( : �9 "' i � `
i ' `!�- -' • �� ( '. t S , .,� � .
i ' �S i %
'�=
�� :,��-� � 1 �;!_�_l � , 84(dB��k � �,� �-- �: .:�� :.,. :
�_;_I_,_,�' -��'-i : � � i � : � �
, � i � .�. � ,-,- -� � ! -'- ��_;_:11 � i ; : . � �U � I . . .
� � 3�5 W -T���_� �I_' _, : ; -, , � ; , ; . j � , �� ; ';� ; : 4�� �: �; , . .
, � ;� -� -' �i ' � ; -j ;- , t-' - , s�, :
� r , • r-i--,- 5 . .
i I � , � � �... i �-� -' ��-- �; - �—j—!-- ( � ' '"" � A�' � � �
-�►,-���.,1.�1LI�: ,_,�-� � �=.�t � ' :1�.:� ::� .�. _, Proposed � .
_� �.; �- .i �,.� . , r� � r� , , � ,' � ._ � � ::` ���. � Y,.t .
I —L' � � �� "�Y11j �� � ��S .���� �
' � `�� _ - � 494 _� � !_ _ __�_ _ -:t. :,� � = Y � ;��:. � Ul� VV�.y
,�� = , -- -- � ;-� ;
�. ;. �-- -T ;- : �;,� � �w.. : ,....,
��_ �Y�)T:. i �. . ... :��� __ � : .
� _,•-� - - -;;�- r fR,,; ;�:;� �� ��. � � � 111�.X C� � c C \(ry {
�;Ti (_i r � i �' '�' � � ._ �_! � -, .�--; � ;';�; `�'r� �';=`, � �n.��U-�' r
�% I ( I I, �. -t I I J�'?: * t, � �✓ #
� �•— •i-L-�- � -.� w �._i . �. .t-._ � . I-'� ��'� ��i. "i'v�+'-t '.+,�,, i � � f
��� _�;i�;�;i;� , , ? '- 1;�-j� :s� �F���: '� »
_�-- ; ; , . . ; , �- ,_ Ne n
,�, , � , � ;�;�-; � ; � � ; , -a , , ; .:��::: �, �,� ��s�. w Tech ology ;= _.
. � -� � � � , . � , , ,, -� ,� _ - : , � :
� ; � ,-; ; , � � � , �,, ; ;--�;-;- ?4 �, -- Sia e 3 ' • . _
_� ,_. ; , , . _ r . ,� y �J�G g A�r aft --
�. -, : '� � � ; ; ; r� - - -- . - .: ��.� ;:r,�:,:. c�
, i ; i t ; i � I ; ..i , , , � , ; �;�. _ ;:;;r��:,;:.
ji i�I� � i �ij-O� '_ j:. ' , ... ,,;r ; r ,��`1 : • ...
��� r���-���i• - ii . ` '; �.. r• ; ' '} ...
� j- � � : �.t r � t .� , �
I �.' I � '_� j_� _ � � .�1 i t. �+e G rti j
.a_ � � �' ( I � �•( �- --1 •t • � � r . -� , j.' . ..}rs�> �.q 3+�' ,' .
1 � I I � ' ( �. �:�� . 1 f ' / �
'- Li. .- �` �� � i � ! ' - I ( � I_�.� �. I i I_ _ I � � ( �' � � � ' {�.� ,t� L�y� �u a' . . . f: / - - - -'.i.
--- - - ` I � '� i ' � . 1 : .- ` t � s - � �
j � f f' , i i i � � i . � ��t�
� � i i i � t� � �. s', 4 s i� I
i . _ '� ,%� I ' ! i r_ . . � �,} ; �. � • ;
. . , \ .'1' - f _ .' . •,/ ,r 4 i • --
- - , _ �; , , . - . i , , �::��..... ,; F-- �
' 1 I 1 �.S�ii� ;�:i�.`4i�w,",:,:i t
OLD SHAKOPEE � :�� : . ; . �;�.,::.,,:.:;:,:' ., , '_:.
.1 {A .
%.
� �; �'' ♦ A � , i . .i _. . , �*, i��4.���. , _ . `1 ( ..
. L�� �., �.�.f�.� I . . . 1- � . ' . . � ' ` �i � �'� � ` \� � '
-�, ,. , �;� . ,. , � �_ � .
ii � 'I i � • ' . , � �iN;.i:.:' ,�.• ' . . ,
,-I.. " �_�'� I ( � . : ; . . . . . . . i � : : �1 � • -- . �', - -- -� ! �
��� � ,d!..; . �.� l _ � �
i ; . ''' � ! I (.• : . . __ �. ` i ._ �. ..': � ' �� ; ' �
i . . i � � � !
� ' � i � ' .'..� i �' -'�.� r� /
.. . . • � . � � � i , ` i
� . . . . � _ . . .� .,. . , - � ..
� • �
� ' � • . i � . • '� . . i
• . � . � .. � . . . . ' . . � . .. ' .
1��IA.SAC OPEI:ATIONS C011�IMITTEE
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
MASAC Operations Committee
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor
MASAC & Operations Committee Work Plan for 1999
November 5, 1998
MASAC Goals and Objectives
MASAC
The following table lists the proposed dates for the MASAC Operations Committee and the
MASAC meetings for 1999. Additionally, staff has added specific discussion items for various
meeting dates that may be of interest. Finally, the following list of activities have already been
identified during 1998 as topics for consideration and actions that must be completed during
1999:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Develop specifications for Investigating GPS Landing System Use for Noise Alleviation
Review Nighttime Hours
Non-simultaneous Corridor Departure Analysis
Evaluate departure compliance through the Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor and make
any necessary changes to the relevant procedures.
Evaluate and investigate the benefits of a Ground Run-up Enclosure
FAA tour of the Farnungton Air traffic Control center
Continue Part 150 contour generation review.
Providing incentives to carriers in acquiring and operating factory made Stage III aircraft.
Provide feedback to the MAC in their efforts to communicate changes in operations, due to
construction schedules, to the surrounding communities
Staff will also coordinate the following activities throughout 1999:
10. Installation and upgrade of ANOMS to version 6.3 (Our current version is 4.2).
11. Write Request for Proposal (RFP) for the installation of five additional RMTs
12. Coordinate and supervise the installation of the RMTs and the integration of these sites
into ANOMS.
13. Complete Year 2000 compliancy for all Aviation Noise Program applications.
14. Enhance noise hotline information dissemination options and publish various
construction updates via the Internet.
Many of the staff items must be completed during 1999 for obvious year 2000 compliancy. The
installation of additional RMTs and the upgrades to ANOMS will require staff to dedicate
considerable time to the process for a successful installation process.
�
�
�
cct
�
d
'd
�
N
Please come prepared to consider the above items as well as other issues that will help MASAC
focus on the overall reduction of noise at MSP. j'�
Proposed 1999 MASAC Goals and Objectives Calar�der
.- �� ;
�v. ,e�... _. y 1 - 1 ,'�Y� , . .i� i . .. . - ..
/►�a�gg� 1�O�+ y
,. ^,-^^Yi�`�+-'�,., t.�t'r' 'a"�`'t�Mri�i/iaY�ila �t t N�T; ,•��'4,t^�''�'t , . 4 _ ,
sr-_r.Yf.� -�r `?fr t$"�aav [ ��,r ��-�
� �. �` z�-��.� � �. �� r�-�-.���� �, s���k .� ��� Re �a� ea�e�ts
�`'i-�c ',� �,'�'v .�y ,�,,�.{, ,.,.s � � � k�l. n .t—�Lyt rt..n'�.�' - _
: � z: �� �'�-i'r4'`'�.� �ay�'��.�.��( �,� -as'i'� -r.aeX"�^`'7 � �
. _ � ..�y� �'„�.:} ¢'.t.,�; �':� T rr�A`.fi r„_�.'.,,. '.� ''u- t X.�"rs}�-, ��. '„'�'�'�- 7- . .
.. .. .i `3 . 'b;v :.;r ._ r.•i�� 1+-FJ'�Ph y�i".hx' h ' ....._,.L � • �
� ...... . �_ s.: ^ 4�G ,. �.."''., � ! �/��-,..;.. Y� . �.. _ : � . .
Janu 15 Gaa1s & Objectives for 1999
�' Operations Committee Develop specifications for Investigating GPS
Landing System Use for Noise Alleviation
January 26 MASAC Orientation Topic - Jet Engine Noise Sources
February 12
February 23
March 12
March 30
April 9
April 27
May 14
Operations Committee
MASAC
Operations Committee
MASAC
RMT Installation Update
FAA tour of the Farmington Air traffc Control
Center
Receive MSP Construction Briefing(G. Warren)
Operations Committee I Non-simultaneous Corridor Departure Analysis
MASAC
Operations Committee
Jeff Hamiel Update on MAC
May 25 MASAC _RMT.Site.Location update
June 11 Operations Committee Construction Update
June 22 MASAC Orientation Topics
Page 2
l
cG ... . � �r . i ��., :.c+. � , L � ; .
Projected Date - Accomplisshwg =�� �_L ''y � �C -
n h-� ' K# L' CL i. �x.�F �����',�1.m� �t RV�{8�����W
� ; � 1999 = �-- � K = �r,�k�y � �.� a �.� ��; , � n � �
.l�y .�t .i�ft . T�� %.,M.. --... �;i:�-�.,`�3 � �r.C.���..,4 t>�"r^'eE�i S `xw �M�+i�S�, k"+�. V .., 1 � . ..
... .,, fi .�. .. . .. .ti.:.. .c . i :_a•,. r �• �;..o � .. .. _ ... � S�'n—�-z -�- i... �� -•�.,n tnt �rt k:t .1 :�,"r�
July 9 Operations Committee . Construcrion Update
July 2'7 MASAC
August 13 Operations Committee Construction Update
August 24 MASAC
September 10 Operations Committee
September 28 MASAC Stage III Compliance Review
October 8 Operations Comrnittee
October 26 MASAC Orientation Topics
November 12 Operations Committee Focus Activities for Upcoming Year
November 30 MASAC Part 150 Progress Review
December 10 Operations Committee Establish Calendar for 2000
Page 3
1"
I �
� a�
..
� �
0
� fJ!
O y G�
.y �J �
� � �
� �
�
O L'. � .i�
� .0 � O
� �
o � � a
.� _ �
�s `� o
� � V o
� � �
b � � O
O � C� �
� � � �
� . r. y ..O
,., � _
� � O �
p� 0� CU.)
L
� � G �
`� o � .�
"" U
U °• �. =
Q� .�-� .�. tCS
� � � �
V �� N
� � � �
�'v,.b �
~ � C
f�'j � �
N p cn
L � �
a � �,, �
� � �
� � ao
O �
c�., C ...
4. o � 3
o -- � o
y r° � —
¢��w
o a o
� � ^�
�
� N �
� h'iy �
O ''� N
M
o a o o a �
V1 � M M� � �
00
00 C' n ti O� r.-�
N N
C!9 69 69 69 69 6,Nq
� � � � � � �
er o. �t v� P• �• �p
� � O C� O O �
t�3 64 69 69 69
� � v
E H E E� E �
0
� � Z = � Z �
M e7' Q� d' 0� O�
^ N v'1 00 � 00 '�f
.� �
�
.a
N M e}' v'� �p h [�
O� O� O� O� O� O� o
Q� O� Q� O� GT O� �
METROPOLITAIV AIRCRAFT SOUND A�ATEMENT COUNCIL
Chairman: Bob Johnson (1-28-9�
First Vice Chair: John Nelson, Bloomington
Second Vice Chair: Mark Salmen, NWA
USER REPRES�NTATION REPRESENTATIVE ALTERNATE
Airborne Express Brian B'ates Michael Anderson
Airb�rne Express Airborne. Express
2120 MTC Road 8°30 Boone Ave. No.
Minneapo�is, MN 55450 = Golden Valley, MN 55427
(612)726-1564 (612)541-4834
Delta. Air Lines Inc.
DHL Worldwide Express
l )
Federal Express
Mesaba Northwest Airlink
Latry Gcehring
� Supervisor Airport
Delta Air Lines, Inc.
MSP International Airport
St. Paul, MN 551 l l
(612) 725-4936 (B)
(612) 892-0599 (I-�
Brian Simonson
2906 N. 2°d Street
Minneapolis, MN 55411
(612) 521-1261
Dan DeBord
Federal Express
7301 26th Ave. So.
Minneapolis, MN 5�450
(612) 794-3110
Phil Burke
Mesaba Northwest Airlink
7501 26th Avenue South
Miru�eapolis, MN 5�450
(612) 726-5151
.
Roster Updated: 10-22-98
Rich Kidwell
Station Manager
Delta Air Lines, Inc.
MSP International A.irport
St. Paul, MN 55111
(612) 725-4979 (B)
(612) 431-2976 (�
Robert Maddiex
1066 Gemini Road
Eagan, MN 55121
(651) 681-0119
Tom Rheineck
Federal Express
7301 26�' Avenue S.
Minnea.polis, MN 55450
C
�
�
United Pazcel Service
i
Northwest Airlines Inc.
Michael Geyer
UPS
7451 26th Ave. So.
Minneapolis, MN 55450
(612) �26-5657
Jennifer Sayre
Director State Affairs and Airport Access
NWA, In'c. - Dept. Al 120
5101 North�vest Drive
St. Paul, MN 55 1 1 1-3034
(612)726-6963(B) _
(612) 726-7947 FAX
Mark J. Salmen
�1gr., Airport Operations
Northwest Airlines
Dept. N7310
5101 Northwest Drive
St. Paul, MN 55111-3034
(612} 727-4019 (B)
(612) 72�-7654 FAX
Nancy Stoudt
Airport Analyst
Northwest Airlines
5101 Northwest Drive, Dept. N7310
St. Paul, MN 55111-3034
(612)726-4687(B)
(612) 727-7654 FAX
Steve Holme
Director, Customer Service - Ground MSP
Northwest Airlines
5101 Northwest Drive, Dept. D5��0
St. Paul, MN 55111-3034
(612)726-2541(B)
(612) 727-4688 FAX
2
Jane Freeman
UPS
7451 26`� Avenue So.
Minneapolis, MN 55450
�
j 3un Country Airlines
TWA Inc.
United Airlines Inc.
�
1 ___.,)
. ; USAirways Inc.
Minnesota Business A.ircraft
Association (MBAA)
Air Line Pilots
Association (ALPA)
Gordon Graves
VP Maintenance & Engineering
Sun Country Airlines
2520 Pilot Knob Road
Mendota. Heights, MN 55120
(651) 681-3900 Ext. 3806
� �:.
,
.. . `�� ♦
� ;
,` `A�
� �\ � \.
'. �V .
\
Kevin Black
United Airlines, Inc.
P.O. Box 66100 — WHQSY
Chicago, IL 60666
(847)700-7603
(847)700-7269
Larry E. Yandle
US Airways, Inc.
MSP International A.irport
St. Paul, MN 55111
(612) 726-5374
Robert P. Johnson �
8824 18th Ave. So.
Bloomington, MN 55425
(612)854-8032
Ron D. Johnson
2030 Royale Drive
Eagan, MN 55122
(651) 686-6724 (I-�
3
T.J. Horsager
Manager, Engineering
Sun Country Airlines
2520 Pilot Knob Road
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
(651) 681-3900 E�ct. 381�
.� �_
„
.�`
.Y �,`�,�-,� .►
,.G
.
1, j� \
\.,? i� � ' • � •
1, �~ t •
� � �
Dwight Kirk
Customer Service Manager
United Airlines Inc.
MSP International Airport
St.Paul, IVIN 55111
(612) 726-5084
Lee Nocon
USAirways Inc.
MSP International Airport
St.Paul, MN 55111
(612) 726-53'74
Phil Stringer
1382 Cherry Hill Road
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
(65l)552-0926 ,
Charles W. Curry Jr.
10135 Waterfront Drive
Woodbury, MN 55129
{65i) �30-9948 (�
i
Metropolitan Airports
Commission (MAC)
Grea.ter Minneapolis
Chamber of Commerce
St. Paul Area. ,.
Chamber of Commerce
�
Dick Keinz
Director of Environment
MAC
6040 28th Ave. So.
Minneapolis, MN 55450
(612) 726-� 134
a
k�
John Smithi�+Director of Transportation
General Mii�s, _
One Gener d.
55426
( -7951 (B)
(61 ) 540-4937 FAX
Rolf Middleton
1406 Edgecumbe Road
St. Paul, MN 55105
(651) 690-1590 (�
�
Nigel Finney
Depuiy Executive Director
Planning & Environment
MAC
6040 28th Ave. So.
Minneapolis, MN 5�450
(612) 726-81&7
PUBLIC REPRESENTATION I2EPRESENTATIVE ALTERNATE
City of Minnea.polis Steve Minn Nathae Richardson
350 South 5�' Street 4920 4`� Avenue S.
Room 307 Minneapolis, MN 55409
Minneapolis, MN 55415 (612) 824-8557 (f�
(612)673-2213(B) (612)341-6291(B)
(612) 925-9505 (I�
City of St. Paul
Jce Lee �
3815 Abbot� Ave. So.
Muuieapolis, MN 55410
(612) 926-��08
Sandra Colvin Roy
350�South 5�' Street
.Room 307
Minneapolis, MN 55415
(612)673-2212(B)
(612) 722-2274 (Ei)
Glenn Strand
515 E. Minnehaha Parkway
Minneapolis, MN 55419
(612)824-1941(H & B)
Dean Lindberg
5335 39�' Avenue S.
Minneapolis, MN 55417
(612)823-1977(H & B)
Mike Cramer
5407 26�' Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55417
John Halla
1872 Wellesley Avenue
St. Paul, MN �5105-1615
(6� 1) 699-0955 (E�
(612) 348-9689 (�
Dick Saunders
5610 Clinton Avenue S.
Minneapolis, MN 55419
: (612) 861-1061 (I-�
(612) 869-1501 (B)
Neil Clark
5417 Grass Lake Terrace
" Minneapolis, MN 55419
(612) 869-0891 (I�
(612) 869-5614 (B)
Leo C. Kurtz
4916 1 l�' Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN �5417
Carol Ann McGuire
610 Warwick
St. Paul, MN 55116-154C
{fi5 i ) 699-7143 (�
�r �
i City of Richfield
City of Bloomington
Kristal Stokes
6700 Portland Ave.
Richfield, MN 55.423-2598
(612) 861-9700
Dawn Weitzel
6700 Portland Ave.
Richfiel+d, MN 55423-2598
(612)`861-9�00
` �,
Petrona. Lee
Manager Environmental Services
Cit}c. of Bloomington
2215 W. Old Shakopee Road
,Bloomington, MN 55431
(612) 948-8970 / 948-8949 FAX
. Vern Wilcox, Councilmember
City of Bloomington
5900 1 lth Ave. So.
Bloomington, MN 55420
(612) 673-6657 (B)
(612) 854-1425 (�
City of Mendota Heights
Jill Smith
62� Hampshire Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
(651) 688-7444 (I-�
(6� 1) 452-1850 (B)
Kevin Batchelder
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
(6�1) 452-1850 (B)
Ft1X (651) 4�2-5940
3
Michael Sandahl
7601 Bryant Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
Mark Hinds
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, IviN 55423
(612) 861-9708 .
�
John K. Nelson
Sr. Env. Health Specialist
City of Bloomington
22�15 W. Old Shakopee Road
Bloomington, MN 5�431
(612) 948-8972 / 948-8949 FAX
Steve Bianchi
9641 Morris Circle
Bloomington, MN 55437
(612) 835-1741 (I�
(612) 830-7078 (B)
�' Mayor Charles Mertensotto
2371 Rogers Avenue
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
,, (651) 454-3394 (�
(651) 452-1850 (B)
Scott Beaty
800 Haveriview Court
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
(651) 452-9028 (B)
City of Ea.gan
City of Burnsville
Bob Kirmis (temp)
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
(651) 681-4600 (B)
�� Lance Staricha
3895 Newtown Court
Eagan, MN 55123
(651) 686-6208 (I�
.
I-
Charles Van Guilder
209 Valley High Road
Bumsville, MN 55337
(612) 890-2�49 (I-�
City of Inver Grove Heights
City of St. Louis Park
City of Sunfish Lake
Mr. Charles W. Eginton
1-0_High Road
Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077
(651) 552-1010 (I�
Robert Andrews
2324 Parklands Road
St. Louis Park; MN 55416
(612)332-8405-B
(612)922-8530-H
Glenda D. Spiotta, City Administrator
Citv of Sunfish Lake
% 1164 Merrifield Court
Shakopee, MN 55379
(612) 445-4024
FAX (6 I 2) 445-b 143
.
7
Jane Vanderpcel
960 Savannah Road
Eagan, MN 5 5123
�
Craig Peters
13824 York Avenue S.
Burnsville, MN 55337
(6.12) 895-1585 (II)
(612) 361-8590 (B)
Rue Shibata
6190 S. Robert Trail
Inver Grove Heights, MN �5077
(651) 687-3036 (B)
(651) 455-9325 (I-�
Manny Camilon
City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
St. Louis Park, MN 5�416
(612) 924-2589
Brad Digre
Northwest Associated Consultant
5775 Wayzata Blvd, Suite 5�5
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
(612)595-9636(B)
FAX (612) 595-9837
Air Transport
Association (ATA)
Federal Aviation Administration
��)
FAA
— Minnesota Air National
� � Guard
�
U.S. Air Force Reserve
Metropolitan Airports
Commission (MAC)
ARASAC ADVIS(iRS
Paul McGraw, Director
Air Transport Association
1301 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20004-1'707
(202) 626-4000
TowerManager
FAA-MSP �ontrol Tower
6311 34th Ave. So.
Minneapolis, MN 55450
(612) 713-4b00
Inspector Ronald G1aub
FAA — NWA CMO
- 2901 Metro Drive, Suite 500
Bloomington, MN 55425-1559
(612) 814-4323
Major Roy J. Shetka
109 Tactical Airlift Squad
MSP International Airport
St. Paul, MN 55111
(612) 725-5679
Captain David J. Gerken
Asst. Operations Officer
96 TAS/DOV
Minneapolis-St.Paul IAP
Minnea.polis, MN 55450
(612) 725-5561
Commissioner Alton Gasper
3M/Ind.Chemical Products Div
236-2A-01, 3M Center
St. Paul, MN 5��44-1000
(6�1) �33-6153
(651) 825-6652 (�-i)
8
Tom Browne
Air Transport Assaciation
1301 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20004-1707
(202) 626-4100
Cindy Greene
Tower Support Manager
FAA - MSP Control Tower
6311 34th Ave. So.
Minneapolis, MN 55450
(612) 713-4010
Major Wallace W. Farris
934 OG/CC
760 Military Highway
Minneapolis, MN 55450
(612)725-5557
Comrrussioner Steve Cramer
Project for Pride & Living
2516 Chicago Ave. So.
Minneapotis, MM 55404
(612) 874-8511 (B)
I
S I.CI.Ll
Roy Fuhnnann
MASAC Technical Advisor
Aviation Noise Prograrns Manager
6040 28th Ave. So.
Minneapolis, MN 55450
(612)�25-6326
FAX �25-6310
�
Chad�Legve
ANOMS S�P ecialist
6040 28�' Avenue So.
Minneapolis, MN 55450
(612)725-6328
FAX 725-6310
Melissa Scovronski
MASAC Secreta.ry
MAC Environment Dept.
6040 28th Ave. So.
Minneapolis, MN 55450
(612) 726-8141
FAX 725-6310
Shane VanderVoort
ANOMS Technician
6040 28�' Avenue So.
Minneapolis, MN 55450
(612)725-6329
FAX 725-6310
METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL
MEMBERSHIP ROSTER
Chairman: Bob Johnson (1-28-9'n
First Vice Chair: John Nelson, Bloomington
Second Vice Chair: Mark Salmen, NWA
USER REPRESENTATION REPRESENTATIVE ALTERNATE
Airborne Express Brian Bates Michael Anderson
Airborne Express Airborne Express
2120 MTC Road 830 Boone Ave. No.
Minneapolis, MN 55450 Golden Valley, MN 55427
(612) 726-1564 (612) 541-4834
Delta Air Lines Inc.
,DHL Worldwide Express
1
Federal Express
Mesaba Northwest Airlink
Larry Goehring
Supervisor Airport
Delta Air Lines, Ina
MSP International Airport
St. Paul, MN 55111
(612) 725-4936 (B)
(612) 892-0599 (I-�
Brian Simonson
2906 N. 2°a Street
Minneapolis, MN 55411
(612) 521-1261
Dan DeBord
Federal Express
7301 26th Ave. So.
Minneapolis, MN 55450
(612) 794-3110
Phil Burke
Mesaba Northwest Airlink
7501 26th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
(612)726-5151
Roster Updated: 10-22-98
I
Rich Kidwell
Station Manager
Delta Air Lines, Inc.
MSP International Airport
St. Paul, MN 55111
(612) 725-4979 (B)
(612) 431-2976 (I�
Robert Maddiex
1066 Gemini Road
Eagan, MN 55121
(651) 681-0119
Tom Rheineck
Federal Express
7301 26�' Avenue S.
Minneapolis, MN 55450
United Parcel Service
Northwest Airlines Inc.
Michael Geyer
UPS
7451 26th Ave. So.
Minneapolis, MN 55450
(612) 726-5657
Jennifer Sayre
Director Sta.te Affairs and Airport Access
NWA, Inc. - Dept. A1120
5101 Northwest Drive
St. Paul, MN 55111-3034
(612) 726-6963 (B)
(612) �26-'7947 FAX
Mark J. Salmen
Mgr., Airport Operations
Northwest Airlines
Dept. N'7310
5101 Northwest Drive
St. Paul, MN 55111-3034
(612)727-4019(B)
(612) 727-7654 FAX
Nancy Stoudt
Airport Analyst
Northwest Airlines
5101 Northwest Drive, Dept. N'7310
St. Paul, MN 55111-3034
(612)726-4687(B)
(612) 727-7654 FAX
Steve Holme
Director, Customer Service - Ground MSP
Northwest Airlines
5101 Northwest Drive, Dept. DS550
St. Paul, MN 55111-3034
(612)726-2541(B)
(612) 727-4688 FAX
�
Jane Freeman
UPS
7451 26�' Avenue So.
Minneapolis, MN 55450
{�
�" .
2 �
_
3un Country Airlines
Gordon Graves
VP Maintenance & Engineering
Sun Country Airlines
2520 Pilot Knob Road
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
(651) 681-3900 Ext. 3806
TWA Inc.
o �
�
��
�
United Airlines Inc.
'� }
USAirways Inc.
Minnesota. Business Aircraft
Association (MBAA)
Air Line Pilots
Association (ALPA)
Kevin Black
United Airlines, Inc.
P.O. Box 66100 — WHQSY
Chicago, IL 60666
(847) 700-7603
(847) 700-7269
Larry E. Yandle
US Ainvays, Inc.
MSP International Airport
St. Paul, MN 55111
(612) 726-5374
Robert P. Johnson
8824 18th Ave. So.
Bloomington, MN
(612)854-8032
T.J. Horsager
Manager, Engineering
Sun Country Airlines
2520 Pilot Knob Road
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
(651) 681-3900 Ext. 3817
�. .-
� �., ���
. ��,�=� ''
, , j; ,;;,:.
;���� .� �• • � •
i �� �
• . .�
Dwight Kirk
Customer Service Manager
United Airlines Inc.
MSP International Airport
St.Paul, MN 55111
(612) 726-5084
Lee Nocon
USAirways Inc.
MSP International Airport
St.Paul, MN 55111
(612) 726-5374
Phil Stringer
1382 Cherry Hill Road
55425 Mendota Heights, MN 5511$
(651) 552-0926
Ron D. Johnson
2�30 Royale Drive
Eagan, MN 55122
(651) 686-6724 (I-�
Charles W. Curry Jr.
10135 Waterfront Drive
Woodbury, MN 55129
{65-i) 730-9948 (�
Metropolitan Airports
Commission (MAC)
Greater Minneapolis
Chamber of Commerce
St. Paul Area
Chamber of Commerce
Dick Keinz
Director of Environment
MAC
6040 28th Ave. So.
Minneapolis, MN 55450
(612) 726-8134
John Smith, Director of Transportation
Genera.l Mil�,
One Gener �d.
55426
( -7951(B)
(61 ) 540-493'7 FAX
Rolf Middleton
1406 Edgecumbe Road
St. Paul, MN 55105
(651) 690-1590 (�
4
Nigel Finney
Deputy Executive Director
Planning & Environment
MAC
6040 28th Ave. So.
Minneapolis, MN 55450
(612) 726-8187
PUBLIC REPRESENTATION REPRESENTATIVE ALTERNATE
City of Minneapolis Steve Minn Nathae Richardson
350 South 5�' Street 4920 4�' Avenue S.
Room 307 Minneapolis, MN 55409
Minnea.polis, MN 55415 (612) 824-8557 (I-�
(612) 6'73-2213 (B) (612) 341-6291 (B)
(612) 925-9505 (F�
City of St. Paul
Joe Lee
3815 Abbott Ave: So:
Minneapolis, MN 55410
(612)926-8908
Sandra Colvin Roy
350 South 5`� Street
Room 307
Minneapolis, MN 55415
(612) 673-2212 (B)
(612) 722-2274 (I�
Glenn Strand
515 E. Minnehaha Parkway
Minneapolis, MN 55419
(612)824-1941(H & B)
Dean Lindberg
5335 39�' Avenue S.
Minneapolis, MN 55417
(612)823-1977(H & B)
Mike Cramer
5407 26�' Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55417
John Halla
18�2 Wellesley Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55105-1615
(651) 699-0955 (I-�
(612) 348-9689 (VV)
Dick Saunders
5610 Clinton Avenue S.
Minneapolis, MN 55419
(612) 861-1061 (I�
(612)869-1501(B)
Neil Clark
5917 Grass Lake Terrace
Minneapolis, MN 55419
(612) 869-0891 (I-�
(612) 869-5614 (B)
Leo C. Kurtz
4916 11�' Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55417
Carol Ann McGuire
610 Warwick
St. Paul, MN 55116-1540
-(fi5 i ) 699-7143 (f-n
City of Richfield
City of Bloornington
City of Mendota Heights
Kristal Stokes
6700 Portland Ave.
Richfield, MN 55423-2598
(612) 861-9700
Dawn Weitzel
6700 Porttand Ave.
Richfield, MN 55423-2598
(612) 861-9700
Petrona Lee
Manager Environmental Services
City of Bloomington
2215 W. Old Shakopee Road
Bloomington, MN 55431
(612) 948-89�0 / 948-8949 FAX
Vern Wilcox, Councilmember
City of Bloomington
8900 l lth Ave. So.
Bloomington, MN 55420
(612) 673-6657 (B)
(612) 854-1425 (�
Jill Smith
625 Hampshire Drive
Mendota. Heights, MN 55120
(651) 688-7444 (I-�
(651) 452-1850 (B)
Kevin Batchelder
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
(651) 452-1850 (B)
Ff1X (651) 452-8940
Michael Sandahl
7601 Bryant Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
Mark Hinds
6'700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
(612) 861-9708
John K. Nelson
Sr. Env. Health Specialist
City of Bloomington
2215 W. Old Shakopee Road
Bloomington, MN 55431
(612) 948-8972 / 948-8949 FAX
Steve Bianchi
9641 Morris Circle
Bloomington, MN 55437
(612) 835-1741 (�
(612) 830-7078 (B)
Mayor Charles Mertensotto
23'71 Rogers Avenue
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
(651) 454-3394 (I�
(651) 452-1850 (B)
Scott Beaty
800 Havenview Court
Mendota. Heights, MN 55120
(651) 452-9028 (B)
City of Eagan
City of Burnsville
City of Inver Grove Heights
City of St. Louis Park
City of Sunfish Lake
Bob Kirnus (temp)
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Fagan, MN 55122
(651) 681-4600 (B)
Lance Staricha
3895 Newtown Court
Eagan, MN 55123
(651) 686-6208 (�
Charles Van Guilder
209 Valley High Road
Burnsville, MN 55337
(612) 890-2349 (I-n
Mr. Charles W. Eginton
10 High Road
Inver Grove Heights, MN
(651) 552-1010 (I�
Jane Vanderpcel
960 Savannah Road
Eagan, MN 55123
Craig Peters
13824 York Avenue S.
Burnsville, MN 55337
(612) 895-1585 (I-n
(612)361-8590(B)
Rue Shibata.
6190 S. Robert Trail
55077 Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077
(651) 687-3036 (B)
(651) 455-9325 (f�
Robert Andrews
2324 Parklands Road
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
(612)332-8405-B
(612)922-8530-H
Glenda D. Spiotta, City Administrator
City of Sunfish Lake
% 1164 Merrifield Court
Shakopee, MN 55379
(612) 445-4024
FAX (612) 445-6 ( 43
Manny Camilon
City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
(612) 924-2589
Brad Digre
Northwest Associated Consultant
5775 Wayzata Blvd, Suite 555
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
(612)595-9636(B)
FAX (612) 595-9837
Air Transport
Association (ATA)
Federal Aviation Administration
��)
MASAC ADVISORS
Paul McGraw, Director
Air Transport Association
1301 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20004-1707
(202) 626-4000
Tower Manager
FAA-MSP Control Tower
6311 34th Ave. So.
Minneapolis, MN 55450
(612)'713-4000
F� Inspector Ronald Glaub
FAA — NWA CMO
2901 Metro Drive, Suite 500
Bloomington, MN 55425-1559
(612) 814-4323
Minnesota Air National
Guard
U.S. Air Force Reserve
Metropolitan Airports
Commission (MAC)
Major Roy J. Shetka
109 Tactical Airlift Squad
MSP International Airport
St. Paul, MN 55111
(612) 725-5679
Capta.in David J. Gerken
Asst. Opera.tions Officer
96 TAS/DOV
Minneapolis-St.Paul IAP
Minneapolis, MN 55450
(612) 725-5561
Commissioner Alton Gasper
3M/Ind.Chemical Products Div.
236-2A-Ol, 3M Center
St. Paul, MN 55�44-1000
(651) 733-6153
(651) 825-6652 (F�
8
r �
�
Tom Browne
Air Transport Association
1301 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20004-1707
(202) 626-4100
Cindy Greene
Tower Support Manager
FAA - MSP Controi Tower
6311 34th Ave. So.
Minneapolis, MN 55450
(612) 713-4010
Major Wallace W. Farris
934 OG/CC
760 Military Highway
Minneapolis, MN 55450
(612) 725-555'7
Commissioner Steve Cramer
Project for Pride & Living
2516 Chicago Ave. So.
�Vlinneapolis, MM 55404
(612) 874-8511 (B)
Staff
f
;
Roy Fuhnnann
MASAC Technical Advisor
Aviation Noise Programs Manager
6040 28th Ave. So.
Minneapolis, MN 55450
(612)725-6326
FAX 725-6310
Chad Leqve
ANOMS Specialist
6040 28�' Avenue So.
Minneapolis, MN 55450
(612)725-6328
FAX 725-6310
Melissa Scovronski
MASAC Secretary
MAC Environment Dept.
6040 28th Ave. So.
Minneapolis, MN 55450
(612) 726-8141
FAX '725-6310
Shane VanderVoort
ANOMS Technician
6040 28�' Avenue So.
Minneapolis, MN 55450
(612)725-6329
FAX 725-6310
March 23, 1999
April27, 1999
June 22, 1999
.,.
August 24, 1999
September 28, 1999
October 26, 1999
December 7, 1999
r'
� 1
f�'� /.!,.,��:e�.,, ' .
(
/ '' `�`y
� !�� ,�' ''.
,�� ,
AGENDA ,:J<./� � , �,'�� �
CITY OF EAGAN �w.� " , °��� _
� ��� �, , �„
EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION "° �'�� ��'
b ��., .
EAGAN, iV�NNESOTA •L'',o��
��
���
EAGAN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
DECElVIBEIt 8,1998
7:00 P.M.
I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA
II. APP�O VAL Ol�, li7ZNU'�"E�
III. VISITORS TO BE HEARD
IV. UNFINISHED SUSINESS
A. Request for Temporary Noise Monitor
B. Position Regarding Waivers for Stage II Phase-Out Requirement
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. 1999 Work Program
VI. STAFF REPORT
A. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor
B. MASAC Update
C. North/South Runway Update
D. Part 150 Update
E. Legislative
VII. INFORMATIVE
VIII. NEXT MEETING
A. Regular Commission Meeting — Tuesday, January 12 at 7:00 p.m.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities will be provided upon advance notice of at least 96 hours.
If a notice of less than 96 hours is received, the City of Eagan will attempt to provide such aid.