The URL can be used to link to this page

06-09-1999 ARC Packet� CITY OF MEtVDOTA HEIGHTS AIRPORT RELATtONS COMMISSION AGE1VDi4 June 9, 1999 - Large Conference Room 1. Call to Order - 7 p.m. _ . . 3. Approval of May 19, 1999 Minutes. 4. Unfinished and IVew Business: a. Discuss PART 150 Update - Analysis of Soufiheast Corridor b. Review Airport Action Plan 5. Updates a. Northwest Airlines Engine Test Cell Monitoring b. Comparisons of Technical Adviser's fieports c. Comparisons of Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis 6. Acknowledae Receiat of Various Reports/Corresnondence: a. MASAC Agenda for May 25, 1999 and April}27, 1999 Minutes b. MASAC Technical Advisers Report for the Month of April 1999 c. MASAC Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis for April 1999 d. MASAC Executive Summary for April 1999 e. Airport Noise Report - May 14, 1999 Edition f. MASAC Operations Committee Minutes from May 14, 1999 g. Wall Street Journal Article on NWA Debacle at Detroit h. Low Frequency Panel's Work Plan and Minutes I. NDCARC Agenda and Minutes 7. Other Comments or Concerns. 8. Adjourn. Auxiliary aids for disabled persons are available upon request at least 120 hours. 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. � CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA CO%Ti�lTY, iYlIi�tNESOTA AIRPORT RELATIONS CO1�Il�1ISSI0�( iV1INUTES MA.Y 19, 1999 The reaular meeting of the Mendota Hei�hts Airport Relations Commission tivas held on Tuesday, l�Iay 19, 1999, in the Lazge Conference Room at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:0� p.m. The followinQ Commissioners were present: Stein, May, Leuman, Beaty. Excused from the meetinQ were Comrnissioners Fitzer and Roszak. City Staff present were City Administrator Kevin Batchelder and Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister. iV1r. Hollister taok the minutes. iYIINUTES Commissioner May moved to approve the March 10, 1999 minutes with no revisions. Commissioner Stein seconded the motion. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Leuman moved to approve the April 14, 1999 min�tes with no revisions. Commissioner Stein seconded the motion. AYES : 4 NAYS: 0 PART 150 UPDATE - CONTOUR GEi�tERATION NIr. Batchelder directed the Commission's attention to the April 9, 1999 minutes of the NIASAC Operations Committee. N1r. Batchelder pointed out that on Paae 6; Kim Huahes of HNTB outlines the factors that �o into contour generation. Mr. Batchelder said that althouah these are the same criteria that have been used in the past, they should be more accurate notiv because of the availability of Ai'�tOyIS data. ti1r. Batchelder said that the five criteria �vere: 1. Averaae number of daily fliQhts 2. Gonect enaine types 3. Correct number of hush-kitted enQines �;` �. Usina correct around tracks -- �. Sta�?e lin��s �vith correct take off tiveights (fu11y loaded plane requires hi�?her oL.put) ' Chair Beaty said that he has learned recently from readina about this issue that the term "staQe three" has more to do with enerQy output than noise �eneration. Chair Beaty asked iVlr. Batchelder what the implications could be if the contours expand sianificantly. Mr. Batchelder said that it would probably make more homes eligible for Part 1 �0 noise mitigation and other pro�ams. Commissioner �1ay said that on the negative side, it could devalue homes within the contours. Mr. Batchelder also informed the Council that at the May 14, 1999 MASAC meetinQ, Mayor Mertensotto as the new Chair of the Committee brought up the issue of "rounding off' the noise contours. Mr. Batchelder said that the Mayor feels that the noise contour boundaries should alian where possible with obvious geoaraphical barriers such as lakes or freeways. .. Chair Beaty said that no matter how the contours are rounded off, someone will be eYcluded. Commissioner Stein said that it would be good ta prorate the cantours, so that one house �vould be 100% eligible, another house would be 7�% eligible, and another house ��ould O be 50% eliQible, rathez than the current all-or-nothin� situation. Mr. Batchelder also pointed out to the Commission the individu�l community responses to the Part 1�0 scope analysis. Mr• Batchelder said that the communities of Minneapolis, Mendota Heights; Eaaan, R:ichfield, Saint Louis Park, Bloominb on and Inver Grove HeiQhts have aIl sent responses. N1r. Batchelder said that the only response that iVlendota Heiahts has serious concerns wit�i is Eagan's response. Mr. Batchelder said that EaQan's response centered on three issues: 1. A baseline should be established for flight data 2. The runtivay use system must reaffirm the current head-to-head operations. 3. Ho�v w-ill Runway 17 be used? (Eagan wants no night fli�hts or restrictions on departure paths.) Mr. Batchelder said that Eagan's last paraQraph �vas the most debatable, regardinQ fliQhts outside the 60 D�iL. ivlr. Batchelder reminded the Commission that decibels are a logarithmic function. Mr. Batchelderina°,�SSP sdthetpreferred location ofEhe a rpoa. adopted a Resolution in 1996 support � Commissioner Stein commented that 2 �veeks ago he sativ 18 planes �vaitina for takzoff at the north parallel due to runway reconstruction. 'i i � C, CROSSING IN CORRIDOR ANALYSIS i�Ir. Batchelder directed the Commission's attention to a report in their aaenda packet indicatina that the airport had improved its operations substantially in reaards to comdor crossinQ, also known as non-simultaneous departure proceedings. NIr. Batchelder said that the report loolced at 11:00 p.m. - 6:00 a.m. and from 3 p.m. on Saturday to 1 p.m. on Sunday. Ivlr. Batchelder said that the crossing procedures increased from 36% to �7% for niahttime performance and from 17% to 27% for weekend performance. l�Ir. Batchelder said that this report shows an improvement compared to the report received last fall. N1r. Batchelder said that the FAA had given the tower controllers instructions to use this procedure as a performance standard and will continue to work with the controllers for continued improvement. Chair Beaty said that there is still room for improvement. Mr. Batchelder a�eed, sayin� that there will be periodic updates of the performance evaluations. - The Comrnission asked Mr. Batchelder to write letters to both Carl Rydeen of the FA.A and Ghad Leque of the iVIAC thankinS them for the report and conaratulating them on a good job. UPDATE ON RESOLUTION ON RELIEVER AIRI'ORTS Mr. Batchelder said that at the Apri127 meeting of the MA.C, Jef�Hamil had espressed concern that resistance from reliever airport communities was restricting MAC's ability to move Qeneral aviation to those airports. Mr. Batchelder said that the Mendota Heights Council position is that the decision not to move the airport was based in part on using reliever airports for aeneral aviation and that this need should not be thwarted by local parochial interests. iVlr. Batchelder told the Commission that the Council had passed a Resolution to that effect and had sent it to the Legislature; to the MAC, and to the communities of Eden Prairie and Moundsview. UPDATE ON AIRPORT PLAN OF ACTION ivlr. Batchelder said that the Airport Plan of Action would be updated in.June. y1r. Batchelder said that if any Commission could not find their copy of the Plan the�� should call him and ask him for a copy in advance of the June meetinQ. -, J C � ACK��tOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF VARIOUS REPORTS/CORRESPONDENCE ( The Commission acknowled�ed receipt of the following documents: IvIASAC Agenda for Apri130, 1999 and Mazch 30, 1999 Ivlinutes MASAC Technical Advisors Report for the Month of March, 1999 ivIASAC Comdor Gate Penetration Analysis for March 1999 MASAC EYecutive Summary for March 1999 MASAC Revisions to February Technical Advisors Report Airport Noise Report - April 16 and Apri130, 1999 editions MASAC Operations Committee Agenda for May 14, 1999 Eagan AR.0 Agenda for May 11, 1999 Richfield letter of April 16, 1999 on Part 150 funding. OTHER COI�riYIENTS OR CONCERNS Chair Beaty asked Mr. Batchelder to provide time comparisons of flight tracks betz.�een now and two years aQo. . � � • Motion made to adjourn by Stein and seconded by Beaty. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 The rneetinj adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectficlly Submitted, Patrick C. Hol7ister a � � L 1� . � 1 � To: Airport Relations Connmission June 4, 1999 From: Kevin Batchelder, City Administrator Subject: Unf'mished and New Business for June Meeting DISCUSSION This memo will cover the agenda items for Unfinished and New Business and Updates. 1. Discuss PART 150 U.�date - Analysis of Southeast Corridor - On June 1l, 1999, at the MASAC Operations Committee meeting, MAC staff will present their evaluation of the Mendota Heights - Eagan Corridor. This evaluation was Item #7listed as a specific issue in the Dual Track FEIS that must be addressed in the Part 150 Update Study. The evaluation of the Eagan-Mendota Heights Corridor includes the following:. � � * Identify original corridor assumptions ' * Corridor compliance � Corridor configuration � Vertical and Horizontal Departure Analysis * Use of Standard Departures (SDs) � Curved anival procedures ' � GPS augmented procedures (departure, arrival, and variable geometry) * Review simultaneous and non-simultaneous departure procedures � Review head-to-head procedures Please see attached Draft (March 26, 1999) Scope of Work for FAR Part 150 Update, in particular page 1 and 2 where the corridor issues are laid out. In addition, for the Commission's review, I have included the April 8, 19991etter to the MASAC Chair from Mendota Heights that discusses our desires for the scope of the Part 150 Study Update. (Please see attached items.) The Commission should review our Action Plan (also attached) and our scoping letter and consider any corridor issues that should be brought to the table at this time. The Commission should fully discuss this issue and provide staff with any direction for Friday's MASAC Operations Committee meeting. C 2. Review Action Plan - It is that time of year to begin reviewing the City's Airport Plan of Action for updating and presenting to City Council for adoption. Typically, the Commission has worked at the June, July and August meetings with a final draft going to City Council in August. I will be prepared to review our accomplishments against the Plan of Action at the meeting on Wednesday evening. ►y. 1. Northwest Airlines Test Cell Monitorin� - Please see attached report from MAC staff that has been a topic of discussion over the last several months. 2. Com�arisons of Technical Adviser's Re�orts and Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis - These comparisons will be available on Wednesday evening. Last month, the Commission expressed a desire to review the history of these reports in order to discover any trends in noise complaints, corridor excursions and noise levels. DRA.FT (March 26, 1999) . � , '� . ( r , �, ,, . � � � ,�' I ' �. . . i �, . , . r �. r (; ��.. , �,r ,, � � The purpose of a Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150 study is to define the noise exposure levels in and around an airport and provide noise compatibility planning to help alleviate noise impacts to the surrounding communities. This Update will be the second update completed for the Minneapolis — St. Paul International Airport (MSP). The first Part 150 was completed in 1989 and the first update was completed in 1993. Since the last Update, significant progress has been made at MSP in noise abatement, both through operational procedures and sound insulation. While these changes have been analyzed within various environmental studies, the Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) process provides a comprehensive process to focus on the ways and means to improve the future noise environment as it relates to the surrounding communities. Due to the antici- pated changes in the MSP noise environment, the Dual Track Planning Process (Dual Track) FEIS stipulated that a Part 150 Update be completed for the 2010 development plan proposed within the Dual Track. The Dual Track FEIS identified the following specific issues that must be addressed in the Part 150 Update Study: 1. Expand sound insulation program to residences within the 2005 DNL 60 — 65 noise contour. 2. Analyze low frequency noise effects on residential land uses; determine the recommended noise metric and related threshold/criterion for significant adverse interior vibratian levels that should ( ) be mitigated; and establish the appropriate mitigation measures. : _ ., 3. Investigate a prohibition on use of Stage 2 aircraft a.fter December 31, 1999. This issue is being addressed through airline lease agreement.s. 4. Consider a modification to the night hours from 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. - 6:00 a.m. and limit activity during these hours to Stage 3 aircraft. Completed in fir,st quarter 1998. 5. Consider a departure procedure for Runway 17 to avoid residential areas in Bloomington. 6. Evaluate departure procedures in the Eagan-Mendota Heights corridor. 7. Develop methods to encourage the aviation industry to promote means for further reductions in air- craft noise levels, including the accelerated phase-out of Stage 3 hushkitted aircraft. 8. Assess an increase in the number of MAC noise monitors to provide more coverage of actual unpacts in the airport vicinity -- especially areas affected by the north-south runway. Areas affected by the parallel runways may have additional microphone locations to monitor continued and growing volumes of air traffic as the airport expands. This system should be used to corrobo- rate the accuracy of the modeled contours for noise program eligibility. Note: fzve new monitors are scheduled to be installed by MAC to enhance the existing system; additional monitors will be provided at least one year prior to beginning operations on Runway 17-35 to allow for determina- tion of pre and post development conditions. 9. Establish procedures for monitoring the use of runways to ensure compliance with the runway use goals stipulated in the FEIS and ROD. 10. Consider limitations on run-up operations by time and direction. �,_ � 1 l. Consider noise abatement departure procedures for Runway 17-35 (follow on to item 6). 12. Consider preferential runway use program to include addition of Runway 17-35 and its impacts MSP FAR. part 150 Study Update Draft Workscope (March 26, 1999) associated with existing runways and existing RUS. As indicated in item 7, the Eagan-Mendota Heights Corridor, as currently defined by actual opera- tions, will be reviewed. Requests have been made to consider the following general items specifically related to the Corridor during the FAR Part 150 analysis: • Identify original corridor assumptions • Corridor compliance • Corridor configuration • Vertical and Horizontal Departure Analysis • Use of Standard Departures (SDs) s Curved arrival procedures � GPS augmented procedures (departure, arrival, and variable geometry) • Review simultaneous and non-simultaneous departure procedures • Review head to head procedures This study will follow FAR Part 150 requirements but will also include the requirements of the Dual Track Planning Process FEIS and requests for detailed analysis of the Eagan-Mendota Heights Corri- dor. The items listed previously will be addressed within the appropriate element described within this scope. The Part 150 Study will include ten major work elements. s Develop Comprehensive Part 150 Database o Develop and Implement Community Involvement Program s Prepare Existing Conditions Noise Exposure Map • Prepare Updated Fleet Mix for Forecast Year • Evaluate Existing Noise Abatement Program and Identify and Evaluate Additional Noise Abate- ment Alternatives • Identify and Evaluate Compatible Land Use Alternatives • Recommend Noise Compatibility Program • Coordinate and Include Results of Law Frequency Policy Committee • Prepare and Submit Part 150 Documentation • Prepare and Provide Summary and Informational Materials � � � . ,� �, , ,. I 1• • ;• In this element, airport and community data will be collected for use in subsequent elements. Rele- vant existing data in the form of airport records, previous studies, and community planning and.zon- ing materials will be assembled and compared to data collected in more recent studies prepared for the MAC. Additional data will be obtained through interviews and discussions as necessary to clear- ify existing conditions. The product of this study element will be a data file and documentation for use in preparing the Part 150 Update. Task l.l Collect Available Data Assemble pertinent records, reports, plans, aeronautical charts and plates, photographs, and other materials in the following areas: Draft Date: 3/26/99-2- � � MSP FAR Part 150 Study Update Draft Workscope (March 26, 1999) • airport facilities, • airport operations, � aeronautical charts, � community development and land use, • community socioeconomic data, and • meteorological data. The MAC will provide the relevant data documents in its possession that Consultant does not possess. It is recognized that Consultant has, over the years, accumulated large amounts of information on MSP and the communities that surround it. This task will serve to confirm and or update Consultant's data base with the latest information. Task 1.2 Conduct Interviews Interviews will be conducted to obtain airport and community data to supplement and update the material collected in Task 1.1. In addition, community agencies and airport users to be consulted in �ccordance with �he requirements oi Ft�R Part 150 will be ic�entified. 1.2.1. Aviation. Meetings (up to 3 consecutive days) will be conducted with airport manage- ment, air traffic control (ATC), MAC environmental department, fixed base operators (F`BOs), and airline and pilot representatives to accomplish the following: - � collect existing airport facilities and navigational aids, �, 7 • collect aircraft operational procedures and airspace utilization, • detail aircraft operations in terms of numbers, aircraft type and weight, time of day, runway use, flight profiles and tracks, • identify through LTCP efforts potential future airport facilities, operational procedures, and air- craft trends, o update runway use by aircraft type developed in earlier planning studies. 1.2.2. Fiight 'Tracks. T'he Part 150 update will consider previous flight track and profile geornetry developed in the initial Part 150 study, the Dual Track Planning Process FEIS, the Runway 422 Extension FEIS and EA. T'his information will be updated using information provided by the MAC Environmental Depariment from ANOMS. These assumptions will be summarized in a techni- cal memorandum for review, revision, and concurrence by MAC Environmental Department and FAA ATCT. 1.2.3. Community Development. During the inventory trip, Consultant will meet with land use planning agencies and conduct other interviews as necessary to accomplish the following for the areas expected to be part of the Study Area: • collect and review available data on development since the previous FAR Part 150 Study and development trends, � collect information on population density and traffic volumes, • determine generalized land use and briefly review residential construction techniques, • collect ordinances and maps relating to land development regulation, including comprehensive � � plans, zoning, subdivision regulations and building codes, • identify residential areas, noise sensitive public buildings (educational and health facilities, etc.), Draft Date: 3/26/99-3- MSP FAR Part 150 Study Update Draft Workscope (March 26, 1999) and properties on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, • evaluate the legal context for land use controls in the local jurisdictions. This task will be coordinated through the MAC Environment Department to ensure that reasonable costs are applied to information obtained from involved communities and that the Environment Department is in receipt of all materials supplied by the communities. Task 1.3 Currently Approved Noise Abatement 1Vleasures Discuss and summarize status and implementation of noise abatement measures with MAC and FAA air traffic staffs. Updated flight track and profile geometry as described under Task 1.2.2 will be used to analyze the existing noise abatement measures. Previous analysis of close-in and distant noise abatement procedures, completed for the MASAC Operations Committee, will be considered under this task. . Task 1.4 Currently Approved Land Use Measures Discuss and summarize status and implementation of land use measures with MAC and community �lanning staffs. Task 1.5 Base 1Vdapping Establish a study area boundary encompassing the 2000 DNL 60 dBA baseline noise contour, the FEIS 2005 DNL 60 dBA will also be considered in developing the base mapping as it relates to the new Runway 17-35 development. Develop a photographic base map depicting airport and jurisdic- tional boundaries at a scale which permits easy identification of streets and other geographical fea- tures. Acquire digitized USGS Quadrant and electronic land use map data, as available. Provide digitized base mapping in AutoCAD and ARCView format for further use by the MAC. ELEM[ENT 2. CONIlO�IIJNI'g'Y aIiTVVOL�IVIENT 'The community involvement element of this study is intended to achieve the following goals: • educating the community about the purpose and scope of this study, • establishing the credibility of planning assumptions, • identifying relevant community concerns and informarion sources, and • meeting the consultation requirements of FAR Part 150. The products of this element will consist of public meetings, a public hearing, and as needed MASAC Operatians Committee, MASAC, MAC P&E and the MAC full Commission briefings. Task 2.1 MASAC Operations Committee The MASAC Operations Comrnittee will be utilized on an advisory level in an effort to gather input from a well established and well represented group. 2.1.1. Prepare Briefing materials. Concise information paekets highlighting study progress will be developed for each briefing. 2•1•2• Conduct Briefings. Consultant will present briefing materials as requested. DraFt Date: 3/26/99-4- MSP FAR Part 150 Study Update Draft Workscope (March 26, 1999) Task 2.2 Public Information Meetings Consultant will assist MAC in preparing for and conducting public workshops. Appropriate handouts and presentation materials for each workshop will prepared. The public meetings will occur at strate- gic times within the study period; the first would occur fairly early in the study to detail the purpose and scope of the study, explain the Part 150 process, and provide existing conditions, the second to highlight noise abatement and land use measure alternatives to be considered, and lastly to provide recommended noise abatement and land use measures. Additional meetings may be conducted, as required. It is assumed that the workshops will use the "station" format, with boards on easels as the principal presentation rnechanism and will occur during the late afternoon and early evening hours. All presentation materials will be prepared by Consultant including sign-in sheets. It is assumed that Consultant staff inembers will attend each workshop and that MAC staff will assist in the Workshops in appropriate roles. For budgeting purposes, the Consultant will prepare large format presentation boards for each work- shop, showing such information as noise contours, flight tracks, and land uses, and text on study scope, schedule, and issues. These meetings will provide an initial orientation into the Part 150 pro- cess and will iollow with an "open house" format and Ce open to the public for up to three �ours. It �s assumed that meetings will not require room rental payment or equipment rentai and the MAC will advertise the public meetings. Consultant will provide supporting materials as described in the fol- lowing subtasks. 2.2.1. Prepare Presentation Materials. Presentation boards highlighting key study issues will be prepared. Information packets developed for the MASAC Operations Committee meetings �, ) will be adapted for the public meeting and copies provided. Briefings will be provided electronically y to the Environment Department for their use as public information. 2.2.2. Attend Meeting. Consultant will provide staff to attend each public information meetings. 2.2.3. Meeting Minutes. A brief summary of any substantive comments made at the public meeting will be prepared and circulated to the MASAC Operations Committee for the record. These minutes will become part of the Part 150 public consultation record. Task 2.3 Iaublic gIearing A public hearing will be conducted on the draft Part 150 document. It is assumed that the hearing will not require room rental payment or equipment rental. Consultant will provide supporting materi- als as described in the following subtasks. 2.3.1. Notification. Prepare legal notice of a public hearing and publish in one local paper of general circulation 30 days prior to the public hearing. By letter, inform the MASAC Operations Committee, local jurisdictions, appropriate representatives of hearing date, time and venue. 2.3.2. Prepare Presentation Materials. Presentation boards highlighting study findings and recommendations will be prepared. 2.3.3. Conduct Hearing. Conduct public hearing using the public presentation followed by '� ,„� open house format employed in the earlier meetings. Comments will be recorded by a court reporter, it is assumed that MAC will supply the court reporter. Draft Date: 3/26/99-5- MSP FA.R Part 150 Study Update Task 2.4 Comment/Responses Draft Workscope (March 26, 1999) Comments submitted at the public hearing and received on the draft Part 150 document to be released for public comment in Element 9 will be summarized and draft responses developed with MAC assis- tance. Draft comments/responses will be submitted to the MAC staff for review and revision. MAC input will be incorporated into final comments/responses, which will become part of the Part 150 pub- lic consulta.tion record. This element describes existing aircraft noise levels and non-compatible land use. Key tasks in this analysis are the evaluation of the effectiveness of cunently approved noise abatement and land use measures, development of existing noise contours, identification of ambient (non-aircraft) noise lev- els, and the identification of non-compatible land uses. 'The product of this study element will be a technical working paper summarizing existing aircraft noise and land use compatibility conditions. 'I'as� 3.� Exist��g I�ois� I.evels Develop inputs for computer noise modeling using the FAA's Integrated Noise Model, version 5.2 (INM) using operational data obtained in Element l. Maximum use will be made o ANOMS data. The recent use of intersection departures from Runway 22 will be considered. The MAC Environ- ment Department will lie requested to assist in confirming the relationship between actual and mod- eled noise levels for the base year analysis. Ambient (non-aircraft) noise levels will be identified using the existing noise monitoring system. 3.1.1. Status of Currently Approved Measures.Noise abatement measures approved in the previous Part 150 and other studies conducted for the MASAC Operations Committee and summa- rized in Element 1 will be identified and evaluated to determine the implementation status and effec- tiveness. Criteria will be established to guide this evaluation. 3.1.2. INM Inpat. Encode operational data developed in Element 1 for input into the com- puter noise model. 3.1.3. I2NL Contours. Generate DNL 60, 65, 70, and 75 contours for existing (1999/2000) conditions using the INM model. 3.1.4. Ambient Noise. Identify ambient noise levels as follows: • identify community noise sources and collect data necessary to calculate naise levels using approved methodologies, and MAC Environment Department ANOMS and noise monitoring results. The MAC Environment Department will assist in this task. • provide one figure depicting ambient noise levels in the study area • include information obtained by low frequency noise committee. Task 3.2 Non-Compatible Land Use Develop land use compatibility criteria based on federal and local guidelines. Categorize existing land use in terms of compatibility and identify land use and non-compatible land use under existing Draft Date: 3/26/99-6- � ��. MSP FAR Part 150 Study Update conditions. Draft Workscope (March 26, 1999) 3.2.1. Compatibility Criteria. Review land use compatibility with land use planning agen- cies and others as appropriate. Proposed criteria will be based on federal guidelines adjusted to reflect local guidelines, land use and zoning practices and other factors. 3.2.2. Land Use Map. Establish land use categories based on compatibility criteria and pre- pare one figure depicting land use and noise sensitive sites within the study area as identified in Ele- ment 1. 3.2.3. I�Ton-Compatible Land Use Map. Apply existing condition noise contours and com- patibility criteria to land use map. Identify non-compatible land uses. Prepare one figure depicting the existing conditions DNL contours developed in Task 3.1.3 and resulting non-compatible land use in the study area. Task 3.3 Existing conditions Working Paper Prepaze Project Binders for use during the Study. Prepare copies of brief (30-50 page) draft "Existing Condiiions" zr;lorking Paper ior inclusion in the �raject Binder s;zrlmarizing the conclusi�ns of E1e- ments l, 2, and 3 for MAC review and comment. Revisions and corrections will be incorporated in the Final Technical Report in Task 9. l. � � Forecasts of aviation activity will be based on current FAA approved Dual Track Planning Process �_ . forecasts. The most appropriate forecast scenario reflecting recent trends will be identified and use . Based on recent activity, the High Scenario Forecast included in the FEIS will likely be utilized. This element describes the procedures for detailing these forecasts. Key tasks in this element include interpolating aviation forecasts and detailing aircraft types for the base and target years. The product of this study element will be a technical working paper presenting forecast aircraft fleet mixes based on existing forecasts for use in noise modeling. Task 4.1 Update Forecasts of Avialion Activity It is assumed that the base year for the study will be 2000, using 1998-1999 actual operations, and that the five-year forecast noise exposure map year, as required by Part 150, will be based on the high scenario forecast for 2005 as defined in the FEIS for the Dual Track Planning Process. Updates to the Dual Track forecasts will be limited to updating airport activity statistics, reviewing a current fleet mix, updating a 2005 fleet mix, and updating the day/night split for noise modeling. No reexamina- tion of underlying demand factors or potential changes in service types (commuter or air carrier) will be undertaken. An estimated hourly profile of General Aviation, Air Carrier, Cargo, and other avia- tion will be developed for the design day. 4.1.1. Air Carrier Airlines/Air Cargo. Develop derivative forecasts addressing aircraft fleet mix, stage length, peak period operations, and day/night split. 4.1.2. ' � 4.1.3. RegionaUCommuter Airlines. Develop derivative operations forecasts. General Aviation. Develop derivative operations forecasts by class of aircraft. Task 4.2 Forecasts Working Paper Draft Date: 3/26/99-%- MSP FAR Part 150 Study Update Draft Workscope (March 26, 1999) Prepare copies of brief (20-30 page) draft "Forecasts" Working Paper for inclusion in the Project � Binder summarizing the conclusions of Element 4 for MAC review and comment. Revisions and cor- rections will be incorporated in the Final Technical Report in Task 9.1. �; . ;;. This element assesses currently approved noise abatement measures. Consultant will use the results of the Dual Track Planning Process FEIS, noise measurements, ARTS flight track and operational data, field observations, analyses, and other available information to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of existing noise abatement measures at the airport. To the extent feasible, Consultant will quantify the effectiveness of individual measures. Task 5.1 Future Base Case Aviation Activity Define nature of future aircraft activity using operational assumptions and previously developed fore- casts of aviation activity for use in noise modeling. The future (year 2005) base cases will be devel- oped with inclusion oi Runway 17-3� and all the assumptions for use of the runway included in the FEIS as a startirig point. Adjustments to these assumptions, if necessary, will be identified and evalu- ated. 5.1.1. Operational Assumptions. Identify the assumptions to be used to define future oper- ational situations (year 2005). Assumptions developed in Inventory and Existing Conditions Tasks will be revised to reflect anticipated conditions. Factors to be addressed include aircraft mix, stage �" , lengths (for air carrier jet aircraft), runway and flight track use, and take-off profiles. Operational assumptions for Runway 17-35 will be derived from the Dual Track Planning Process FEIS, the pre- vious Part 150 documents, and other relevant studies completed by Consulta.nt and the MAC Environ- menta.l Department. Additionally, disparity in operations between Runway 12R-30L and Runway 12L-30R will be analyzed for future recommendations in developing considerations for a new prefer- ential runway use program. 5.1.2. Review and Approval. Assumptions will be reviewed with the MAC and FA.A, revised, and finalized concurrently with the Inventory (Tasks 1.2 and 13). 5.1.3. Base Case Future Operational Situation. Develop INM input for future base case based on finalized assumptions and generate DNL 60, 65, 70, and 75 contours. Task 5.2 Update Noise Abatement Measures A central activity of the Part 150 study is the identification, analysis, and evaluation of noise abate- ment alternatives. This work builds on the Work Element 3 description of present and future noise impacts and land use incompatibilities, and on the Work Element 4. Initially, a full range of abate- ment alternatives will be identified for consideration, including use of emerging technologies (GPS augmented departure and curved approach procedures, as an example). Additionally, use of more compatible areas for concentration of departure and arrival tracks will be considered. Some abate- ment alternatives may not be relevant to the local situation; however, a brief review of all options will permit MAC and the MASAC Operations Committee to focus their attention on those strategies that are potentially most beneficial towards reducing noise. It is anticipated that multiple meetings will be ( conducted to identify and continually screen potential measures. 5.2.1. Potential New Noise Abatement M(easures. Identify new measures that have the Draft Date: 3/26/99-$- _ MSP FAR Part 150 Study Update Draft Workscope (March 26, 1999) potential to improve the cunent noise abatement program. These measures will be reviewed with MASAC. 5.2.2. Preliminary Screening. Screen the list of actions identified in Subtasks 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 and identify the best potential new measures to supplement or replace the existing noise abate- ment program. 5.2.3. Evaluate Measures. Evaluate the most promising new measures identified in Task 5.2.3. The evaluation will include consideration of: • noise impacts, • airport and aircraft operational factors, • air transportation factors, • cost factors, • economic factors, o implementation factors. Generate anpropriate future (year 2005) DNL 60, 65, 70, and 75 noise contours for the most promis- ing individual and combinations of noise abatement measures. Based on the analysis of ineasures, identify a recommended noise abatement program for discussion with MASAC and for wider public discussion. Generate a new 2005 DNL noise contour set incorpo- rating the recommended program. These contours will be the basis of future land use planning mea- sures. Task 5.3 Noise Abatement Working Paper Prepare copies of brief (30-50 page) draft "Noise Abatement" Working Paper for inclusion in the Project Binder summarizing the conclusions of Element 5 for MAC review. Revisions arid correc- tions will be incorporated in the Final Technical Report in Task 9.1. Conduct a briefing for the MASAC Operations Committee/ MASAC (in conjunction with briefing for Element 6). ELE1V�1�1T 6. LAI�TI) U5E COMI'ATT��....ITY This element assesses currently approved and potential new land use compatibility measures to be considered in the airport environs. Coordination with the Metropolitan Council will address specific refinements to currently approved measures or new measures. These refinements or new measures will be identified and evaluated to determine potential costs and benefits. A formal benefibcost analy- sis will not be conducted. 'The product of this element will be a working paper summarizing the anal- ysis of currently approved and any potential new measures. Task 6.1 Future Non-Compatible Land Use Apply the recommended future noise contours developed in Element 5 to an existing land use map adjusted to account for anticipated development. The resultant map of future compatible, non-com- patible, and vacant land will identify areas to be addressed by land use measures. ( 1 6.1.1. Future Land Use. In coordination with local land use planning groups update the " existing land use map developed in Element 3 to reflect development anticipated by the year 2005. Draft Date: 3/26/99-9- MSP FAR part 150 Study Update Draft Workscope (March 26, 1999) 6.1.2. Future Non-Compatible Land Use. Apply the following future noise contours developed in Element 5 to updated land use map. • future base case without noise abatement measures, • noise abatement measures from Element 5. Based on these contours, identify non-compatible land use for each and quantify properties, structures and population affected. Identify which structures have already received sound insulation, and which ones are in the MAC Capital Improvement Program for current year and future year funding. '�ask 6•2 Update Land LTse Measures This task will build on the review and evaluation of currently approved land use measures accom- plished in Elements 1 and 3. It will identify, evaluate, and recommend refinements to currently approved measures and identify potential new measures. 6.2.1. Refine Currently Approved IVleasures. Identify refinements which may be expected to improve performance of currently approved measures. 6•2•2• Potential New Measures. Identify land use measures previously rejected or not pre- viously considered which could augment the current land use program. 6.2.3. Preliminary Screening. Screen the list of actions identified in Subtasks 6.2.1 and 6.2.2, and eliminate those which: • were previously rejected for reasons which remain valid, • offer no appreciable noise compatibility benefits, • entail disproportionate costs in relation to the potential benefits, or • are legally or logistically not feasible. 6.2.4. Evaluate Measures. Evaluate and summarize results of the preliminary screening in tabular format for feasible refinements to current measures, feasible new land use measures, or com- binations of these, with respect to: • potential noise compatibility benefits in terms of dwelling units, population, or other appropriate measures, ° effectiveness, • costs and funding availability, • ease of implementation, and • disruption/neighborhood stability. 6.2.5. 'I�ransition from Current to New Sound Insuiation Program. Recommendations for transitioning from the current sound insulation program to an updated program based on the new 2005 noise contours and recommended land use measures will be developed. These recommendations will be discussed with MASAC, revised, and a new recommended program will be identified. T'ask 6.3 Land use Coraipatibility Working Paper Prepare copies of brief (30-50 page) draft "Land Use Compatibility" Working Paper for inclusion in �� the Project Binder summarizing the conclusions of Element 5 for MAC review. Revisions and correc- tions will be incorporated in the Final Technical Report in Task 9.1. Conduct a briefing for the Draft Date: 3/26/99-1 �- C MSP FAR Part 150 Study Update Draft Workscope (March 26, 1999) MASAC Operations Committee/ MASAC (in conjunction with briefing for Element 5). ELEN�NT 7. RECOI��IIVI[ENDATIONS This element consolidates evaluations from previous elements and identifies recommended noise abatement and land use management actions. The product of this element will be a working paper summarizing the recomrnended measures and identifying implementing actions. Task 7.1 Consolidate Noise Abatement and Land Use Measures Consolidate noise abatement and land use compatibility measures evaluated in Elements 5 and 6 and summarize noise benefits by measure. 7.1.1. Consolidate. Consolidate in one section, for later incorporation in the Noise Compat- ibility Program (NCP), the noise abatement and land use actions evaluated as being viable in Ele- ments 5 and 6. '7,�.,z, IDrogram ��ffeciiveness and I2ecommena�a4ioras. Based on previous evaivation of the benefits of individual measures, evaluate noise compatibility benefits for single measures or combina- tions of ineasures. Those viable actions with greatest potential net benefit will be summarized and recommended, in consultation with the MAC, for inclusion in the updated NCP. Task 7.2 Implementation Plan _.. � ) Identify actions, responsibilities, costs, and revenue sources needed to implement the recommende �� program. Establish schedule for implementation of each measure, and for review and update o t e NCP. '7,2,1, Noise t�batement Actions. In coordination with FAA, airlines, airport user groups, and the MAC, identify specific implementation actions, responsibilities, costs, and funding sources relevant to the noise abatement measures recommended in Subtask 7.1.2. If appropriate, develop a chart depicting noise abatement procedures for distribution to air carrier and general aviation pilots, in consultation with the FAA. Establish a schedule for implementation. �,2,2, Land Use Compatibility Actions. In coordination with local land use planning agen- cies, FAA., and the MAC, identify specific impoe�m�enn� d n Subtask 7 1.2�b Establ sh a� chedule for sources relevant to the land use measures r implementation. 7.2.3. Task 7.3 Schedule for Review and Update. Establish a schedule for NCP review and update. NCP Working Paper Prepare copies of draft NCP Working Paper for review and comrnent and conduct a briefing (in con- junction with the briefing for Elements 5 and 6) with MAC staff on the Working Paper. Revisions and corrections will be incorporated in the Final Technical Report in Task 9. l. Draft Date: 3/26/94-1 1- MSP FAR Part 150 Study Update Draft Workscope (March 25, 1999) -. - ---- -. vv1��lYlal 1.�'/�/ The Part 150 will incorporate the results and recommendations of the Low Fre uenc _ ( mittee into the Part 150 NCP. Consultant will attend meetings concerning low frequenc �noi e m�m- gation if requested by the MAC. It is assumed that the results o f t he tas k force will be integrated into the recommended land use program in Element 7. �. � � � � � ' �, , � i� . Working Papers will be consolidated in a Final Technical Report documenting the findings and rec- ommendations of the study. A summary report highlighting key issues will be prepared for wider dis- tribution. Finally, NEM and NCP documents will be developed in accordance with the requirements of FAR Paxt 150. Task 9.1 Finai iSeports The pnmary purpose of this task is to incorporate the changes and revisions made during the course of the study in a final document. Assemble Working Papers in a draft Technical Report. This draft will be reviewed and revised prior to printing and distribution. lhe Summary Report will be drawn from materials presented in the Technical Report. 9.1.1. Technical Report. Assemble and incorporate comments/revisions to working papers in copies of the draft Technical Report for review and comment by the MAC. Revise the draft and print copies. The Final Technical Report will be available for public review and comment at the pub- lic hearing (see Task 2.3). 9.1.2 � Summary Report. Prepare a draft Summary Report for MAC review and comment. Incorporate review comments and print copies of the Summa.ry Report. 'Y'ask 9.2 Draft NEM Updaie 'I'he primary purpose of this task is to assemble materials produced in previous elements in a format consistent with the requirements of FAR Part 150. This draft will be reviewed and subsequently revised as necessary prior to submittal. 9.2.1. Format. Establish the format for the NEM update consistent with the requirements of FA.R Part 150. 9•2•2• l�raft NEM. Assemble materials from Elements 1 through 6 in accordance with the established format. Draft NEM submittal to include for the base case and future year recommended program: • maps showing runway locations, airport boundaries, public/planning jurisdictions, flight tracks, and noise zones, • maps showing noise sensitive public buildings in noise zones and properties on ar eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, ° maps showing non-compatible land uses, • tables of population in noise zones, • description of and documentation for the consultation process. C 9.2.3. Review and Comment. Distribute copies of the NEM for technical review by MAC Dr:ift Date: 3/26/99-12- MSP FAR Part 150 Study Update and FAA. Revise draft to reflect comments. Task 9.3 Draft NCP Update Draft Workscope (March 26, 1999) Assemble the noise abatement and land use compatibility recommendations developed in Elements 7 and 8 in a draft NCP Update consistent with the requirements of FAR Part 150. This draft will be reviewed and subsequently revised prior to submittal. 9.3.1. Format. Establish the format for the NCP Update consistent with the requirements of FA.R Part 150. � 9.3.2. Draft NCP. Assemble materials from Elements 7 and 8 in accordance with the estab- lished format. 9.3.3. Review and Comment. Distribute copies of the NCP for technical review by MAC and FAA. Revise draft to reflect comments. Task 9.4 FAl2 Part 150 Submittals Compile NEM and NCP documents, as revised. The draft submittal package will receive MAC review and comment. The draft will be revised and submitted to FAA. 9.4.1. Compile Part 150. Compile Part 150 submittal for MAC review and comment. _-` 9.4.2. CommentlResponse. Incorporate public comments and responses developed in Ele- �� ment 2 related to the public hearing and public review of the Final Technical Report at the public �� hearing in the draft Part 150 document. 9.4.3. vided. 9.4.4. Submittal. Part 150 Update. The submittal document will be printed and copies will be pro- FAA Comments. Assist the MAC in preparing responses to FAA comments on the , � , . , � „� . , � . . � . Consultant will prepare material that summarizes the Part 150 process and results, and that provides MAC with material for NCP publicity. 10.1 Summary Brochure Consultant will prepare copies of a four-color, glossy finish, 11 by 17 inch, single fold, summary bro- chure (i.e., four 8 by 11 inch pages). The brochure will summarize the study process, results, FAA- approved recommendations, and implementation mechanisms. Consultant will prepare the brochure after receiving the FAA record of decision on the NCP. 10.2 PowerPoint Presentation and Script ��, ) Consultant will prepare a PowerPoint presentation that summarizes the study process, results, FAA- approved recommendations, and implementation mechanisrns. The presentation will included Pow- erPoint slides, including text, graphs, diagrams, maps, and other types of illustrations, adopted from Draft Date: 3/26/99-13- MSP FAR Part 150 Study Update Draft Workscope (March 26, 1999) the Part 150 NEM and NCP. A broad range of slides will be prepared, to provide MAC with the flex- �\ ibility to prepare individualized presentations aimed at specific audiences. Consultant will also pre- pare a standard script aimed at a general audience, to accompany the slide presentation. C� Draft Date: 3/26J99-14- C �� .N.�:z + ' '� t $ ,�:. �r #�r �rZ ,�t''t ?y� ;�: :, t a x�'`f , � _` a s : _ .; ' r.. � e �' � ;. ; 5 .y. 1 ..� � .' ',;. ,' i ;S`;., hF s, " ..,.. _ �, , , , � _�'t9 } d A ! — _ , , � .. r -.. . ��" .v'. -'�`. L .S. ;Y;. } 1Y tr" ._...� ... ...............r.. , � ___..,,.,.. . -...-..F._,�.....-. ..�..... �' '�` 4 �`�.-,,n��wxt:' - ' ..as��-. � .,. e��..- ,._�..�... .,...,.....,.. ...,�,.xM,.,.... .._.,.....�....w.,.... . .. , April 8, 1999 Mayor Charles Mertensotto MASAC Chair 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN ��450 Dear Mayor Mertensotto: The City of Mendota Heights submits its commen�tst' Sound Abat ment Counc 1(MASAC). The Update, per the request of the Metropolrtan Au scope of the study update should include the followin�: . l. Eauitv of the Existin6 Runwav Use Svstem - The present runway use system is inequitable as it is predicated on the erroneous application of land use compatibility theories. 'This runway use system will need to be updated with the construction of the Runway 17-3� and this provides an opportunity to eliminate the current inequitable operation of the MSP airport. a. The RUS calls for the use of the crosswind runway, up to 20% of the time during the daytime, ta relieve the burden on the parallel runways. This has not occurred as prescribed and the result is an over-reliance on the southeast corridor. b. Head-to-Head Operations requires the divergence of departures over residential areas of Mendota Heiahts, often during the night time quiet hours. This reduces the effectiveness of the recently established non-simultaneous departure procedures. Rerouting of ind be ado �d so hat�non siinultaneoa s depa.rtures operational procedures shoul P will keep departin� tra�c in the center of the corridar. c. The priority assigned to the Southeast Corridor in the RUS is inequitable and should be re-examined. The RUS he oneuse�of the Southeast�Corridorp D uelto " as a guiding principle for prLmarY, �'Y the increase in capacity and operations at MSP, greater volumes and heavier percentages of aircraft traffic now depart and a�rive in the colridor. As a result, the air noise contours and the Metropolitan Council noise zones have expanded ; into residential areas lona considered compatible. The southeast corridor has not �-� confined aircraft to compatible land use areas, but has given license to the �"'� � 612 452-1050 - FAX 452-8�40 1�01 Victoria Curve • Mendota Heights, MN • 55118 ( ) Metropolitan Airports Commission to send ever increasin� air traffic over residential areas of Mendota Heights. Thele a to the cSomdor andt nf factfic cannot be physically or operationally conf is constantly spills over into incompatible land use areas. d. The revierv of the RUS should ��z hens ve Plan, s present d toetheeM nnesotaof runway use under the 2010 Comp State Legislature and as contained in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. 2. Review of Southeast Corridor - The original intent and ptupose of the Southeast Corridor has been overwhelmed by increases in capaciiy and air tr�c at the MSP. The Part 150 Update should address the following: a. At a minimum, aircraft operations should be maintained inside a designated southeast corridor based on ANOMS generated contours. b. Continuously utilize all available technological improvements including navigational aids, DGPS, and standard instrument departure procedures to narrow . the southeast corridor to resfirict overflights to commerciaUindustrial zoned land use areas. c. With the shift in magnetic headings, tower orders rieed to be reviewed for compliance with the comdor's original intent. d. Subject to narrowing the carridor as noted above, consider implementation of the 09� ° northern boundary recommended by the Blue Ribbon Task Force. e. The comdor is inequitably hinged to the north and the Part 150 Update should consider a more symmetrical corridor co�auration consistent with the ever increasin� operational activity at MSP. £ Alternative departure profiles should be reconsidered. Altitude analysis should be studied to determine aircraft proximity to ground levels at incremental distances for varying types of aircraft. Departure procedures should be re-evaluated as part of tlus vertical departure analysis. g. Five mile final arrival procedures should be maintained to best utilize the eYisting compatible land use areas tivithin and beyond thz e�istina Southeast corridor. Air�ort Onerations - Airport operations should be adjusted to provide for increased noise abatement opportunities including the follo�ving: a. Ni�httime restrictions should be imposed that specify only "manufactured" Sta�e III aircraft after 10 p.m. until 6 a.m. The use of incentives/disincentives should be ' � considered includinQ hiaher landinQ fees for noisier airplane types after 10 p.m. C C b. Through the use of DGPS, gc'ound track assignrnents should be used for departing and arriving aircraft instead of headings. c. A run up enclosure pad should be considered to reduce airport Qround noise. Other areas of ground noise should be identified and mitigation/abatement activities undertaken. Low frequency study issues should be applied to all airport communities, not just those in proximity of Runway 17/35. 4. Noise Measurement - ANOMS data should be used to the greatest e;ctent possible for the generation of the 2005 LDN noise contours. 5. Land Use Oaaortunities - The siudy updates should address the following: a. The acquisition of severely impacted nei�hborhoods, homes, and other incompatible land uses should remain in the updated program. b. Land use compatibility should not be overemphasized as a primary directive for departure direction. . . Land use compatibility is ineffective for an inner ciiy airport bounded by fiilly developed municipalities. �'' � c. Boundaries of eli�ibility for Part 150 Sound Insulation should not divide neighborhoods. More equitable botuidaries based on actual noise impacts need to give way to the subjective assumptions used to generate INM contours. The City of Mendota Heights thanks the lvletropolitan Airports Commission for this opportunity to make suggestions and have comments on the scope of the Part 1 �0 Study Update. We look forward to cooperating with the MAC, the FAA, and all the neighboring communities, during this process. Sincerely, CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS � ,�,c,t,,.. �4�'�`.oJl��-`�..�--- Kevin Batchelder City Administrator cc: Roy Fuhrmann, MAC Manager, A��iation \soise and Satellite Programs City Council i Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission ;. 4. Advocate a More Ec�uitable Runwav Use Svstem (Continued) C. Monitor Progress of N/S Runway 17/35. D. Monitoz Runway Use System (RUS) for conformance with MAC Policies. 5. S�ecific Noise Control Measures A. Assure conversion of Sta�e III quieter aircraft by federal deadline of year 2000. B. Monitor MASAC's plan to reduce ariraft en�ine run-up noise and aircraft ground noise durin� periods of departure. C. Promote the implementation of Global Positioning Satellite Technolo�y to control departure headings in conidor. 6. Noise Reduction ThrouQh Litiaation A. Examine Feasibility of Le�al Challen�e 7. Ex and eliaibilitv of Part 150 Sound Insulation Proaram in areas affected bv air noise ex�osure 8. Metro olitan Council Noise Zone Ma and Related Land Use Controls A. Revise Metropolitan Council land use zones and controls to the previous land use zones. c�� ; qIR N41S� PLAN OF ACTION issue: Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures Goal: Implementation of Non-Simultaneous E akosureProcedures Which Minimize Mendota Heights Air Noise p Who When Action Steps: Staff/ Study Requested �, Monitor Compliance with Tower Order qRC Staff Study Requested 2. NSDP's - Request Compliance qRC 3. Review 1 st 6 month study ARC Oct.98 Staff/ARC � 999 4. Pursue Magnetic Shift Affect on MASAC 105 Degree Heading on 12R 5. Review 2nd 6 month study ARC Feb.99 �; r�� AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION Issue: Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures Goal: Adoption of "Close-in" vs. "Distant" Takeoff Procedures to Reduce Noise Generation Over Mendota Heights. Action Steps: Who When 1. FAA begins NADPs in MPLS. Staff/ARC March 1998 2. Review NADP Procedures MASAC Ops August 1998 ARC Sept. 1998 3. Continue to pursue adoption of ARC/Staff Continuous "close-in" vs. "distant" departure procedures AIR NOISE PLAN QF ACTIDN Issue: Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures Goal: Adoption of Mandatory Nighttime Takeoff Regulations to Reduce Naise Generation Over Mendota Heights Action Steps: 1. Inquire with FAA Control Tower about current head-to-head operations 2. Demand/Advocate MSP Mandatory Rule for Stage III Only between 10:30 p.m. and 6 a.m. to replace voluntary agreements. � � 3 Who Staff CC/ARC When Completed Future MASAC Meeting C C� � AIR NaISE PLAN OF ACTION issue: Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures Goal: Impiementation of Narrowed Air Traffic Corridor which Minimizes Mendota Heights Air Noise Expasure Who When Action Steps 1. Advocate for Maintenance of 5 mile final Staff/ARC Continuous arrivais and 3 mile corridor for departures Staff/ARC 1999 2. Pursue the benefit of updating Tower MASAC orders to original intent before shift in magnetic headings 3. Presentation to Commission on GPS by Staff � 99$ MAC or other expert (Mr. Haroid Pierce) 4. Monitor Corridor Compliance and Departure Staff/ARC Continuous Excursions 5. Pursue Removal of "Hinged Corridor" and ARC . Long Term the repeal of Tower Order on South Parallel Runway l, ,1 4 , AfR NOISE PLAN �� ACTION Issue: Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures Goai: Monitor Conformance With Three Mile Heading Procedure Action SteRs: Who When �. Review Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis Staff/ARC Monthly 2. Alert MASAC and MAC About Compiiance Staff/ARC As necessary 3, Work with FAA to Achieve Corridor Staff/ARC As necessary Compliance � � 5 r � � . � � � � � • Issue: Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concerns Goal: Appointment of City Resident to the Metropolitan Airports Commission Action Steps: 1. Discuss concerns with State Senators and Reps. regarding composition of MAC. Pursue legislation to amend MAC Commissioner appointment process. 2 K3 Develop lang term strategic approach to relations with legislature. Work with the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities to educate legislators. Discuss and Compare cities affected by air noise to MAC representatives 4. Review MAC representation with Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Commission. � � 6 Who ARC/ Council I� ARC ARC/Staff When Nov./Dec. 9$ Continuous � qIR NOISE PLAN O� ACTION Issue: Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concerns Goal: Advertising the MAC Air Noise Complaint Line Action Steps: Who When 1. Advertise in Each Quarterly Newsletter Staff Each edition 2. Continue to Handout Magnets on Request Staff As requested Basis 3. Mention During Public Meetings City Council and Telecasts 4. Produce Insight 7 Segment ARC � ) 7 AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION Issue: Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concerns Goal: Expand Distribution of Air Noise Related Information and Information about the work and effort of the City Actian Steps: Who When 1. Continue to inform the community on Staff/ARC Continuous ARC projects and concerns using the City's newsletter and separate single page mailings. 2. Work with Northern Dakota County Airport Staff/ARC Continuous Relations Commission on possible Legislation for MAC representation. 3. Mail fetters and Heights Highlites ta Staff Continuous State Senators and Representatives regarding ARC issues 4. lnvite guests to monthly ARC meetings Staff Quarterly) ti.e., Mr. Hamiel, Mr. Wagoner, State elected officiais) 5. Expand coverage of air noise issues Staff � 998 by pursuing informational meetings with Council editorial staffs of major papers 6. Continue to send press releases to Staff Continuous newspapers, State Senators and Reps. �. Update and Promote air noise J�ai ��r-�� ., , ............, mitigation document. 8. Host an Annual Open House for Community Staff/ARC Annually In Winter 9. Develop Informational Brochure for Staff/ARC Display Case � � 8 t: � ; , AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION Issue: Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concerns Goal: Continue to Collaborate with the Northern Dakota County Airports Relations Coalition (NDCARC) Action Steps: �. Define Accomplishments of NDCARC 2. Provide Information to City Councii About the Benefits of Collaboration 3. Participate in Annual Joint Meeting of ARCs 4. Work to Build Trust Amongst Members and Respective Councils ( i _ 9 Who When ARC Fa111998 ARC Fa111998 ARC August 1998 ARC Continuous C �� AIR NO1SE PLAN OF ACTION Issue: Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concerns Goal: Continue to Keep Abreast of Issues and Actions of Other Airport Communities Action Steps: 1. Review Media Outlets for News Articles and Publish in Friday News 2. Participate in Annual Joint Meeting of NDCARC 3. Inform Other Communities of our Issues and Actions �., .�� 10 Who When Staff Continuous ARC Annually Staff Continuous ;=. � C - AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION Issue: Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concerns Goal: Work with Metropolitan Council Representatives Action Steps: Who When Staff Quarterly and 1. Mail Letters and Heights Highlites qs needed to District 15 Representative 2. Meet with District 15 Representative Mayor/Staff Annually to Educate and Lobby on Mendota Heights Air Noise issues 3. Resolve Land Use/Air Noise Zones Issues Council/Staff Current 4. Meet with and Educate Met Council Staffi Staff _ As needed C � AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION Issue: MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Goal: Monitor and Encourage Promulgation and Adoption of Air Noise Mitigation Requirements in Mitigation Committee's Plan Who When Action Steps: 1. Participate in MASAC Action Plan ARC/Staff Monthly to Implement MSP Mitigation Plan 2. Review MSP Mitigation Pian ARC Annually � ! 12 �� C Issue: Goal: AIR NOISE PL.AN OF ACTION Advocate a More Equitable Runway Use System Prevent Construction of Third North Parallel Runway Action Steps: 1. Monitor MAC Compliance with Contract 2. Research MAC Acquisition of Bureau of Mines property and MAC interest in off airport properties in 3rd runway area 3. Monitor E1S Process for N/S Runway 4. Renegotiate with MAC on Terms in Minneapolis/MAC contract. 5. Direct MAC on Preparation of Exhibit of Affected Properties � ) 13 Who When Staff/ARC Contin�ous Staff Current Stafif/ARC July/Aug 1998 Council/Staff Current Council/Staff Upon Completion Of MAC/Mpls Contract AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION Issue: Advocate a More Equitable Runway Use System Goal: Work to Eliminate Use of Head to Head Operations Action Steps: Who 1. Advocate Use of Crosswind Runway ARC 2. Eliminate Head-to-Head Operations ARC 3. Review 1 st Six Month Study of NSDPs ARC ' � ._ � � 14 When Oct. 1998 Oct. 1998 Oct. 1998 AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION Issue: Advocate a More Equitable Runway Use System Goal: Monitor Progress of N/S Runway 17/35 Action Steps: Who 1. Monitor E1S Process for 17/35 ARC 2. Advocate for Timely Construction of ARC New Runway 17135 � % 15 When August 1998 Continuous C� �' ; AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION Issue: Advocate a More Equitable Runway Use System Goal: Monitor Runway Use System (RUS} for Conformance with MAC Policies Action Steps: 1. Review Preferential Runway Use System 2. Request MAC to Reconfigure Preferential Runway Use System to incorporate changes in Airport with New 17/35 Runway 3. Monitor Gate Penetration Analysis for Compliance with Established Corridor Procedures � � 16 Who ARCICC ARC/CC ARC When Fall 1998 1999 Monthly C� ;> issue: Goal: AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION Specific Noise Control Measures Assure Conversion by Federal Deadline of Year 2000 Action Steps: �. Work with MAC to assure 1996 legislation to canvert to all Stage III aircraft by Year 2000 is implemented 2. Monitor Backsliding of Stage Ill Conversion 3. MASAC Consideration of Stage III compliance 4. Pursue the Adaption of an Incentives/ Penalties Program for Stage III Compliance by Airlines (, 1 17 Who Staff ARC ARC/Council ARC NDCARC When Completed Continuous ..: Periodic C � AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION Issue: Specific Noise Control Measures Goal: Monitor MASAC's Plan to ds of De arture, Runup Noise and Aircraft Ground Noise During Perio P Action Stet�s: Who When 1. Review MASAC Plan on Ground Noise Staff/ARC Fall 1998 2. Review Bluff Noise Issue ARC 1999 3. Make Recommendations To MASAC ARCICC 1999 (� � 18 C� � i AIR NOISE P�AN OF ACiION Issue: Specific Noise Control Measures Goal: Promote the Implementation of Global Positioning Satellite Technology to Control Arrival and Departure Headings in Corridor Action Steps: Who When 1. Schedule GPS Expert on ARC Agenda Staff � gg9 2. Monitor MASAC Corridor Study ARC Fall 1998 to preserve Three and Five Mile Finals on Arrival 3. Advocate During Discussion on Preferential ARC/Staff Continuous Runway Use System Revisions 4. Promote Standard Instrument Departures ARC/Staff Continuous and Final Approaches through the Use of Global Positioning Satellites (� j 1 9 C � C� � AIR NC�ISE PLAN OF ACTION Issue: Noise Reduction Through Litigation Goal: Examine Feasibility of a Legal Challenge to Current Air Noise Distribution Action Steps: 1. Continue to be kept abreast of other communities' issues and possible litigation process 2. Consider Freedom of Information Request for EIS or FONSI's on Increased Operations 3. Consider Legal Challenge Options if North/South Runway is Delayed �, ) 20 Who When Staff/ARC Continuous Staff/ARC 1999 Staff/ARC 1998/1999 C. C� ; AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION Issue: Expand Eligibility for Part 150 Sound Insulation Program in Areas Affected by Air Noise Exposure Goal: Air Noise Mitigation Through Sound Insulation Action Steps: Who When 1. Continue to monitor changes in the Ldn Staff/ARC On-going contours and monitor the Part 150 Sound Insulatian program completion process. 2. Examine the feasibility of purchase or ARC/Council 1999 acquisition through Part 150 for severely impacted areas 3. Ensure ANOMS data used for Noise Contour Staff/ARC Dec. 1998 Generation for 2005 Part 150 DNL 60 MASAC 4. Advocate for the increasad use of Staff/ARC Continuous Passenger Facility Charges (PFC's) for Council funding Part 150 programs (� ) 21 C � ,� �� AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION issue: Metropolitan Council Noise Zone Map and Related Land Use Controls Goal: Revise Met Councii Land Use Zones and Controls to the Previous Land Use Zones Action Steps: Who When �. Work with City Councif and ARC Current Planning Commission on Comprehensive Plan submission 2. Review MAC 2005 LDN Contours for ARC/CC Sept. 1998 Application to Land Use Zones 3. Consider Repeal of Sound Attenuation ARC/CC Sept. 1998 Ordinance _ * Updated August 1 1, 1998 � �� ACTIONPL.98F , , 22 C� � ��:E � � •. �� . c4 s' � t � � ' � ,i '�' i �r i � �{, �� : _ I ` ' � Section 1.1 .Purpose � � Ttris monitoring study quantitatively. analyzes the noise levels in residential areas -- of northern Eagan in an attempt to identify the impact associated with an engine runup conducted in the Northwest Airlines Engin� Test Cell Faeility. The analysis used an actual. engine runup event for an engine at a full power setting to determine ground noise impacts, if any, from engine runups being conducted within the NWA Engine Test Cell. The Metropolitan Airports Commission, (MAC) Aviation Noise Program conducted the monitoring and analysis for this study on March 16, 1999 and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, (MPCA) Noise Program, assisted with manning of one of the� monitoring stations and the monitoring methodology. � Section 1.2 Background Engine Test Cell run-ups are routine aircraft engine maintenance tests which require the operation of the aircraft engine at thrust settings between engine idle and take-off. . thrust .These -run-ups � are-�eonducte�ci within the Northwest Airlines Engine Test Cell Facility located at the southwest corner of Minnesota Highway 5 Monitoring Metric � Section 1.4 Monitoring Metric To quantify and evaluate the noise levels occurring at each of the monitoring locations, the Maximum A-weighted sound level (Lmax) was used as the monitoring metric. 'The Lmax is the greatest or maximum sound level measured on a sound level meter, during a designated time interval or event. For the purposes of this study, a one second interval was used to record the sound level monitored at each location. Section 1.5 Procediu'e The purpose of this monitoring study, was to determine the level of impact to other areas surrounding the airport from engine test cell runups being conducted in the NWA Test Cell facility. The most effective way to analyze impact was to coordinate the monitoring with the actual testing of an engine at the NWA Test Cell Facility. Staff contacted NWA maintenance personnel with the assistance of Mr. Mark Salmen, Northwest A.irline's MASAC Representarive, to coordinate the timing of the monitoring to coincide with an actual engine test. The monitoring equipment, Larson Davis 870B sound level meters, were calibrated after being set in place at each location. Each site was inanned and each individual had communication with the person located at the test cell facility. When the test cell personnel began the engine test, each individual.was notified that the engine was being run up. � � Monitoring data was collected prior to the actual engine test to develop a baseline noise level. at each monitoring location. This method quantifies .a base line noise level and any change in the ambient noise levels due to the actual conduct of an engine test activity. The monitoring site in the city of Eagan was selected by Valley V'iew Plateau area residents and Mr. Jamie Vabrugee, Assistant City Administrator, while the other locations were approved by the MASAC Operations committee to provide a pragressive account of the noise propagation to the selected area in the city of Eagan. Sectiom 1.6 Monitoring Equipment Larson Davis model 870 type 1 precision SLM's were used for this study. The microphones were Larson Davis model 2560 random incidence microphones affixed to tripods and fitted with windscreens. The exterior microphones were placed a minimum of seven meters away from any vertical reflective surfaces such as walls and fences. Correlation� of the-engine runup� noise e�rents� was per�ormed -by� synchronizing the SLM's with each other and a separate time piece, the actual engine runup test was then observed by the individual at the test cell facility and the other monitoring individuals were notified. After the monitoring was completed the data from each monitor was downloaded from the SLM's into one database and the engine runup times were identified. ( � Metropolitan Airports Commission - Norhtwest Air&ne's Engine Test Cell Monitoring Study 1999 3 � i', Northwest Airlmes Engine Test Cell Monitoring Apri130,1999 �' Section 1.7 I)ata Analysis C The following graph shows the noise levels at each of the sites with the time period of the actual runup listed at the bottom of the chart. Northw+est .Airlines Engine Test Cell Manitoring � n Q � -� � � h „ry v� O G ... t�Y � < v41 �i�'t 'O h W O. O O � f�`� � < � N'O h � C� O O � �.'1 "" ^ Q Yi ?: �'I � Cl C7 C1 Ci ci ct c'i Cl C1 Ct ffl C7 X� SC F. 4: T{ S[ 57C A R X SK A Yl Yl Y1 Y�1 �.'Mi Y�1 �'.�'1 Y�1 Y�1 h �.'�'1 ..c�» � � � ..m� � .M.. .M-� ..M. .�-� � .M-. � � .�-. .M-. .M-� � � .�.. .M.. .M. � ti � .�-. .M-� � � � .�-. � .�-. .�.. � Time of Engine Test at FnIl Pow a 13:d0 throngh 13:49 Figure 2. One second Lmax dBA Noise Levels at the four monitoring locations During the engine run-up test period, multiple aircraft overflights also occurred. Each of the repetitive peaks and valleys represent an individual aircraft overflight of the associated area. Notice however, that at 1340, the dark blue line (Test Cell Parking Lot) reflects an approximately 12 to 15 dBA rise in the baseline levels between aircraft overflights, normally associated with the background noise levels. The engine test cell activity at this location, approximately 150 feet east of the facility is clearly audible and distinguishable from other airport activity. See Figure 3 below. „ C - 4 � Metropolitan Airports Commission - Northwest Airline's Engine Test Cell Monitoring Stud 1999 � � y Data Analysis t��t plill� H�►c Tet Q�9 N�e�g- Tet � PaWrg, Irf dg�+. �4�bb�+�S �4mg!�fiq44 b�+qi+. 9+ppqbdpffi9 '4 ��'.��'.��-�¢.��'��.�� 7bedli�WeAesPdHwra� 24.Od��1'!v6 F'�gure 3. NWA Engine Test Cell Parking Lot Location. Lmax and Lmin levels from 10 second intervals. At the Fort Snelling O�'icer Club the sound of the engine test cell run-up was discemible between aircraft overflights when the adjacent traffic from Minnesota State Highway 5 diminished. However, based on the above data in Figure 2, and the individual site specific data in Figure 4 below, it is extremely difficult to conelate the start or end of the engine test cell run-up fiom other background Ievels. ,; � Figure 4. Fort Snelling Officer Club Parking LoG Lmax and Lmin levels from 10 second intervals. � � _ — Metropolitan Airports Commission - Norhtwest Airline's Engine Test Cell Monitoring Stuciy 1999 S �1 , ;, Northwest Airlines Engine Test Cell Monitoring Apri130,1949 ,�; The data from the monitoring at the location just west of the Brown Institute Parking lot � does not demonstrate any noticeable change at the start of the engine test cell run-up or at the completion of the test, as shown in Figure 2. Individuals located at this location also confirmed that there was no recognition of any engine run-up sound usually associated with the start or stop of the an engine run-up in the test cell facility. See Figure 5. I+Ilgure 5. West of Brown Institute Parking Lo�. Lmax and Lmin levels from 10 second intervals. Finally, the monitoring data at 1478 Bridgeview Avenue in Eagan, did not reveal any change in the ambient or background noise levels between aircraft overflights. This monitoring was also observed by the homeowner residing at 1478 Bridgeview Avenue. This resident also used a separate sound level meter during the test and indicated to the MAC monitoring individual that this was not the noise of concern. 6 � � � - Metropolitan Airports Commission - Northwest Airline's Engine Test Cell Monitoring Study 1999 - Weather Data Figure 6. 1478 Bridgeview Avenue, Eagan, MN. Lmax and Lmin levels from 10 second intervals: Section .. 1.8 Weather Data F'zgure 7. Weather observations during the testing period. T"ime Wind V'isibility Temperature� Ceiling - 1300 140 ° Greater than g° Celsius 25000 - at 6 knots 7 mile Overcast l� 120 ° at 8 Greater than 9° Celsius 25�0 knots 6 miles in Broken � Haze Source: Minneapolis Automated Transcribeci Information System (ATIS). 'The noise monitoring for this study was performed on March 16, 1999, from 12:30 P.M. to 2:05 P.M. The wind was coming from a magnetic compass direction of 120 to 140 degrees at 6 to 8 knots and ihe temperature was 42° F. � � Metropolitan Airports Commission - Norhtwest Airtine's Engine Test Cell llgoni#oring Sticdy I999 7 ' r ...�. a.: ... NorWwest Airlines Engine Test Cell Monitoring April 30,1999 ,, Section L9 Findings 1. The engine tested, Pratt and Whimey JT9D-7J, is a common engine used on all wide �' body aircraft in Northwest Airline's fleet, including the lazgest aircraft, the Bceing 747. The PW JT'9D-7J engine in the NWA Test Cell facility was nm-up to take-off thrust levels far aimost ten full minutes. The thrust setting was observed by Mr. Chad Leqve, of the MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Program office who was located in the test cell facility during the monitoring time period. Immediately outside of the test cell facility, the engine run-up was audible and measurable. The sound level was approximately 12 to 15 dBA above other background noise levels at the air��ort between departure operations. 2. The engine run-up could be heard at the Fort Snelling Officer Club pazking lot by the monitoring individual between other aircraft departure operations and when there was a break in the vehiculaz traffic on Minnesota State Highway 5. The monitored data does not however, show any change in the background noise levels at the beginning, during or end of the engine run-up. 3. The engine run-up was neither audible nor measurable on the monitoring equipment by the individual located west of the Brown Institute Parking Lot during the run_up operation. � 4. The engine run-up was neither audible nor measurable on the monitoring equipment by the individual located at 1478 Bridgeview Avenue, Eagan .Mirm�esota. The homeowner, Mr. Mike Sullivan, that resides at this address also stated at the March 23, 1949, Eagan Airport Relations Committee meeting that he was unable to hear the engine run-up or measure any change in the ambient levels during the engine run-up test 8 �. ' Metropolitan Airports Commission - Northwest Airline's Engine Test Cell Monitoring Study 1999 �, �, �, , '� � � ,' � . � . � � . � ' .. '; ' � � . , lll . . , ;' ' ` � ❑ IVIASAC meeting agenda, cover memo(s) and correspondence for May 25, 1999 ❑ Minutes of the April 27, 1999 MASAC meeting ❑ Minutes of the April 30, 1999 Special MASAC Operations meeting ❑ Minutes of the May 14, 1999 MASAC Operations meeting with attachments and cover memos ❑ Blank Noise Monitoring and Information Request Form ❑ Monthly Part 150 Residential Sound Insulation Program Update a April 1999 Technical Advisor's Report and Executive Summary ❑ Minutes of the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee Meetings ❑ Copy of the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee Plan of Work ❑ Copy of the Northwest Airlines Engine Test Cell Monitoring report .f-� t-e��-�" ci�.�g �b-� �o ✓�- A.0 c-�. ,(� "� � w �.� V—� d C�.�� C'ov��cv�u�''`� , v- �� ✓ �� . �. •�,� . . . .. � � ;. COUNCIL General Meetin� May 25,1999 7:30 p.m. to 9:15 p.m. 6040 28� Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota (,� 1 to Order, Roll Call proval of Minutes of Meeting April 27,1999 . Introduction of Invited Guests eceipt of Communications ;" � . Part 150 Update Progress Review �5� T Site Location Update . b Minneapolis 5traight-out Departure Procedures 7 Crossing in the Corridor Report .�A,pril 30 and May 14,1999 Operations Committee Report - Mark Salmen - 9 Report of the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee Meetings - Dick Saunders 1. R port of the MAC Commission Meeting , . Technical Advisor's Runway System Utilization Report and Complaint Summary 1! Persons Wishing to Address the Council �� 3. Items Not on the Agenda � 14. Adjournment Next Meeting: ,, June 22,1999 Scoping Comments on Draft MSP Part 150 Scope �, The following scoping comments on the Draft MSP Part 150 scope were provided by � concemed communities surrounding Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport. These comments represent items that were not found in the Draft scope of work for the Part 150 Study. Responses have to be supplied. Copies of the individual comment letters are attached. Commentor � Comment Cit of Ea an i Noise monitoring results of 1999 reconstructian/ traffic diversion should be used to validate future use of Runwa 17-35 re azdin noise im acts. 2• Include site locations for new ANOMS remote monitoring towers in southwest 3• Consider significance of ambient levels changing by nearly 45 dB with new runwa . 4• Review of flight track headings that eliminate the 100° and 160° headings. A flight management system that localizes all departures on the 170 headin should be im lemented. 5• Revisit the recommendations of the MSP Community Stabilizarion Work Group (e.g. extend the sound insulation program into the 1-mile buffer zone surroundin the 60 DNL). Cit of St. Louis Park 1• Restrict night time engine run-ups or use latest shieldin technolo . Cit of Inver Grove Hei hts i• A11 measures should be examined and � state which participant determined that the measure was unachievable or daes not meet s ecific criteria. 2• Consider implementation of a noise 3• Consider transit tax. 4• Use Minnesota metric. 5• Provide uitable disrribution of noise. Minnea olis i � Use CNEL Metric. 2• Use "2-minute" rule, arrival and departure to maintain a 2 minute interval. 3• Consider preferred runway for hush- kitted aircraft. l' � Commentor Comment Res onse 4, Limit flights on parallels as Runway . - 17-35 becomes operational as well as runwa uiet hours. g, Initiate penalties for certain noise levels usin ou ut from ANOMS results. Cit of Bloomin ton 1, Accelerate phase out of Stage 3 hush kitted aircraft. 2. Provide mitigation solurion for Bloomington homes that were deferred because the RUS was not implemented with the extensian of Runway 4-22. 3. Determine a resolution for the land use and zoning rules for state safety zones A and B. Cit of Richfield 1. Expansion of the residential sound insulation program needs to be accom lished outside of the Part 150. 2, All input for the INM maieling should be made available. 3. Clarify if low frequency analysis will be other than that specified in the agreement between Richfield and MAC and if "adverse interior vibration levels" are a pre-requisite for miti ation. 4. Departure procedures for Runway 17 should be expanded to include ' minimizing noise exposure created in Richfield, and to developing noise abatement procedures for ground operations on the same runway, including minimal use of thrust reversers and limiting departure queue lengths. ' 5, Scope should be expanded to include ' routine, multi-site monitoring of low frequency aircraft noise levels in the one-third octave bands between 25 and 80 Hz, including analysis to undertaken. (. Runway use information must not be only be monitored, but also made available to the public in manner that pernuts independent audit and verification. 7. Should use Internet to disseminate stud information. g, Study should include a worst case (Maximum airport capacity) analysis regardless of the timing and economic lausibility of the scenario. Commentor Comment g� Q� 9• Specific analysis of redevelopment plans (and other land use compatibility ' cancerns)for runway sideline noise in eastern Richfield should be addressed. 10. Summary and informational materials should not be part of the Part 150 rocess. Cit of Minnea olis 1• Communities should be given the opportunity to comment on . the subjective modeling inputs rior to com letion of the NEM. 2• The practice of "squaring ofP' blocks for the sound insulation ro am should continued: 3• Communities should be reimbursed for expenses incurred to date studying the low frequency issue and the MAC should absorb future stud costs. 4� For areas where direct mitigation is impassible consideration should be given for community enhancin amenities. 5• Additional measures to reduce sleep disturbance of residents - � . from nighttime operations should be studied and developed. Reductions of both passenger and cazgo operations should be ursued. 6• Should consider 6anning hushkitted Stage 2 operations during nighttime hours followed by a schedule to completely phase out all hushkitted Stage 2 operations. Cit of Mendota Hei hts 1• The priority assigned to the Southeast Corridor in the RUS is inequitable and should be re- examined. 2• A more symmetrical corridor - configuration should be � considered for the Southeast corridor. Commentor Comment Res onse 3. Consider nighttime restriction � - that specifies only "manufactured" Stage 3 aircraft after 10 p.m. until 6 a.m. The use of incentives/disincentives should be considered including higher landing fees for noisier a' lane t es after 10 .m. 4. Equitable boundaries for the sound insulation program should give way to the subjective assum tions used in INM. ;' '�� March 30, 1999 • Mayor Charles Mertensotto, Chair Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council 6040 28�' Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 Dear Mayor Mertensotto: PATRICIA E. AWADA Mayor PAULBAKKEN BEA BLOM9UIST PE66Y A. CAR�SON SANDRA A. MASIN Council Members THOMAS HEDGES City Administrator E. J. VAN OVERBEKE City Clerk On behalf of the Eagan Airport Relations Commission, thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the Part 150 Study update being conducted by the Metropolitan Airports . Commission. We strongly support the partnered approach of the communities and the airpol-t operators and users in def ning a noise program that continues the many successful efforts to mitigate adverse noise impacts as MAC looks to grow the Minnesota economy without doing so at the expense of the airport's neighbors. The following comments incorporate past positions the City of Eagan has advocated as well as new requests that we feel should improve the future impacts our community experiences. If nothing else, our suggestions will improve the information we are able to provide our residents. We hope that MAC, MASAC, and other interested parties understand the significance-ou� decisions today will have in making Eagan and other airport-impacted communities a better place to live in the years to come. To that end, we strongly recommend the fallowing items be adopted in the Part 150 Study update: • Extensive noise monitoring must be done in areas of southwest Eagan that will be impacted during the 1999 reconstruction of Runway • 12RJ30L. The diversion of departures to Runway 22 during this period will have an enormous impact on are�s south of the Minnesota River, especially in the neighborhoods near the intersection of TH 77 and 13. The summer of 1999 will be the best opporiunity for residents in southwest Eagan to evaluate how the new noise impact of Runway 1'7/35 will affect them. Similarly, it will be the onlv opportunity for MA.0 and MASAC to utilize actual information specific to the impact area to extrapolate future noise conditions. If the City reasonably expects to share with its community what they may expect in the future, t�is information is vital. Understandably, these comments are provided only days before the tra�c diversion plan is to be implemented. This recommendation, albeit a short-term issue, has dramatic implications for the long-term and must be given the utmost priority. rvw�v��.�rN1. t,tiVltK 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55122-1897 PNONE: (651) h81-4600 FAX: (651) 681-4612 TDD: (651) 454-8535 THE LONE OAK TREE THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWfH IN OUR COMMUNITY Equai Opportunity Empioyer MAINTENANCE FACILITY 3501 COACHMAN POINT EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122 PHONE: (651) 681-4300 FAX: (651) 681-4360 TDD: (651) 454-8535 Page 2 03/30/99 • An update to the Part 150 Study needs to include site location analysis for new ANOMS remote monitoring towers in southwest Eagan. The future inter-relatedness of the ANOMS system with development of a new noise contour map will rely on the level of detail that ANOMS is capable of providing. Furthermore, the installation of these towers must be completed no later than 2002 so that at least one full year's data is collected at the pre- existing ambient noise levels. The noise baseline for southwest Eagan must be established because this is a new noise impact area. Mitigative approaches for the dramatic DNL increase likely to be experienced as a result of air traff'ic must be given full consideration. It is not enough to simply use the 60 DNL as a boundary for sound insulation or other noise attenuation programs. The Metropolitan Airports Commission must consider that an increase of nearly 15 dB (from ambient levels of roughly 45 DNL to just below 60 DNL) will equate to as much as a tripling of the noise. The Runway Use System must re-affirm the commitment of head-to-head operations in the Mendota Heights-Eagan corridor during nighttime hours. This is the best available option for minimizing the impact on residential populations surrounding the airport during normal sleep hours. Further, the RUS should strictly forbid use of Runway 17/35 during nighttime hours unless climatic conditions necessitate its use. • The Final EIS identified three flight tracks for southerly and easterly departures offRunway 17 that will have a dramatic 'rmpact on the residential populations of Eagan. As MAC and �� MASAC are well aware, the City of Eagan has zoned our community to minimize airport- incompatible land uses. We could not have foreseen at the time that a new runway would invalidate those efforts. ' The Part 150 Study update should include a review of flight track headings that eliminates the 100° and 160° headings. A flight management system that localizes all departures on the 170° heading should be implemented. Ideally, once departure tr�c has reached the Minnesota River Valley, FAA would utilize GPS to position all departures in a corridor that would over-fly Trunk Highway 77 to a gate located roughl� at the intersection of TH77 and I-35E before aliowing turnout. This "Cedar Corridor" would be for operations with ultimate destinations of 0-180° compass headings. Such use of a new corridor will minimize the number of residential properties impacted in the City of Eagan and remains consistent with zoning principles to which our community attempts to adhere. The technology is available to implement this type of precision flight management system. Speaking at the 1999 International Airport Noise Symposium, the prograrn director of the FA.A Office of Airspace Management, John Walker, said that the use of technically advanced flight management systems will provide one of the best tools to address airport noise issues. He also said communities should take the initiative in deciding where precision noise abatement flight tracks should be located rather than wait for the FAA to determine them in ; } the future as a part of the National Airspace redesign. The benefits will come much sooner to Page 3 03/30/99 those communities that take the initiative. Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport should be in the forefront of application of new technologies for noise abatement. _ {� Finally, an update to the Part 150 Study must revisit the recommendations of the MSP Community Stabilization Work Group. There are a number of provisions that have the potential for creating very positive outcomes to a negative catalyst, at least from an impacted community's perspective. E�ctending the sound insulation program into the 1-mile buffer zone sunounding the 60 DNL is one possibility that immediately comes to mind. However, there are more options than direct mitigation activity by MAC. Because Eagan is not immediately adjacent to the layout of 17/35 does not mean that the runway's impacts will not be severe. Recall that in communities far removed from the airport proper in Denver, complaints regarding new noise from DIA were numerous. By comparison, the residents of southwest Eagan will be just over 3 miles from the end of the runway and less than '/a mile outside the 60 DNL. We have the opportunity to do some good things for those folks who will experience new noise. Let's do it together. Thank you for your efforts and commitment to date. We look forward to working with you. Sincerely, �� iZ�."_ James D. Verbrugge Assistant City Administrator Copy: Thomas Hedges, City Administrator Ted Gladhill, Eagan ARC Chair Jeff Hamiel, MAC Executive Director STAFF COMMENTS OF THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS ON THE MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS (FAR) PART 150 UPDATE DRAFT SCOPE OF WORK APRIL,1999 The Staff of the Ciiy of Minneapolis is pleased to submit comments and suggestions to the Metropolitan Airports Commission relating to the scope of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150 Update. It is hoped that this update will provide policy direction and an implementation strategy for meaningful noise reduction around the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport in the coming years. In keeping with the spirit of the Part 150 process which seeks to identify the extent of a noise problem around an airport and to develop a program to mitigate that noise, the City of Minneapolis stresses that neighborhood integrity is the bedrock for Minneapolis to remain a strong City and that all plans must respect, value, and enhance this fact. 1) Accurate Noise Ex�os�re 1V�ap: A key priority for the Part 150 update is tY:e definition of a true and accurate Noise Exposure Map that does not minimize the extent or intensity of the noise problem. To this end the City of Minneapolis recommends: . that all DNL inputs be validated using current data from the ANOMS system. The City recognizes and supports the MAC's commitment to do so. l - . that the credibility of the noise modeling process in the community be enhanced by making it more apparent, with emphasis placed on highlighting the assumptions that go along with the quantitative data in the modeling process. Communities should be given the opportunity to comment on the subjective modeling inputs prior to completion of the Noise Exposure Map. . that the practice of `squaring off' blocks -declaring a whole block eligible if a contour cuts through it- continue. The City comme�ds the Part 150 program's use of that definition in the past. that a further refinement in noise contour modeling be approved to include neighborhood boundaries as a legitimate criteria for squaring off contour lines. These boundaries follow natural geographic elements and manmade barriers, and serve as a logical basis for program boundaries that should be factared into Part 150 program implementation. For example, people in south Minneapolis living between the two peaks of the DNL lines find it incomprehensible that they are not be eligible for sound insulation when neighbors a block away on either side of them are having their homes retrofitted. The same is true for people living one block south of Minnehaha Creek, which acts as a neighborhood boundary, who have difficulty f �1 part150_4 understanding and accepting that they fall outside a noise contour boundary when the rest of their neighborhood remains eligible for soundproofing. � _ � Z) Noise Mitigation to DNL 60: The Metropolitan Airports Commission's commitment to mitigate out to the 60 DNL contour (included as part in its approval of the Mayors' Noise Mitigation Report in October, 1997) should be made an integral part of the Part 150 update. The City recognizes and supports the MAC's commitment to do so. 3) Runway 17/35: The operational assumptions for use of Runway 17/35 included in the Part 150 update should reflect the commitments made to Minneapolis by the � Metropolitan Airports Commission in the `Contract Pertaining to Limits on Construction of a Third Parallel Runway,' indicating that the runway will be used to reduce noise in the City of Minneapolis. 4) Low Frequency Noise: Information and recommendations developed by the Low Frequency Noise Committee should considered in the Part 150 update, as indicated in the draft scope of work, in addition to being pursued independently. Communities should be reimbursed for expenses incurred to date studying this problem and the Metropolitan Airports Commission should absorb future study costs. 5) Land Use Compatibility: The Land Use Compatibility section of the Part 150 update must reflect the fact that significant land use conversion in the city of Minneapolis is neither feasible nor desirable. Land use compatibility conclusions and Land use � measures must reflect this reality. The City urges inclusion of remedial measures to � offset the effects of aircraft noise and help affected axeas remain attractive to both' � present and potential residents. Where direct mitigation is impossible, such as protection for people using their yard spaces and local parks, consideration should be given for community enhancing amenities, such as indoor recreation facilities, additional landscaping for the area, etc. 6) Nighttime Noise: Additional measures to reduce sleep, disruptions of residents from nighttime operations should be studied and developed. Reductions of both passenger and cargo operations should be pursued. One such measure, the use of Facility Lease and Operating Agreement provisions to limit commercial airline operations, should be made more effective and applied more widely. "Quiet hours" provisions in lease and operating agreements should include all operations between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. other than exceptions to ensure safety. 7) Hushkitted Stage 2 Operations: With the ban of Stage 2 operations at MSP after December 31, 1999 pending, the Metropolitan Airports Commission should take the lead in promoting the next logical step in aircraft noise reduction, the phasing out of hushkitted Stage 2 operations at MSP. The 2005 projected fleet mix used�in the FEIS indicates that approximately 28% of nighttime arrivals and departures and a similar � part150 4 percentage of daytime arrivals and departures will be hushkitted Stage 2 aircraft. A iirst priority should be the elimination of hushkitted Stage 2 operations during the ' nighttime hours followed by a scheduled cdmplete phase out off all hushkitted Stage 2 operations at MSP. I j The City will monitor closely the update of the Part 150 and will participate in providing information and suggestions at all appropriate times. 3 part150_4 c April 8, 1999 Mayor Charles Menensotto MASAC Ch�ir 6U�0 28t�� Avenue South Minneapoiis, iVIN 5�4�0 Dear Mayor i�lertensotto: � ' � � . • • � The City of ivlendota Heishts submits its comments on t'rie scope of the NiSr's Pan 1 �u Study Update, pzr the request of the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC). The scope of the study update should include the following: 1. Equifv of the �;,istin� RunK�av Lise Svstem - The present ninway use system is �nequitabte as ;t is predicated on the erroneous application of land use coinpatibilit;- theorics. This runway use system will need to be updated with the cortstruction of the Rur�way 17-3� and this provides an opporiunity to eliminate the c�arrent inequitable operation of the MSP airp�rt. .•- , a• The RUS calls for the use of the crasswind rur:way, up to 20% of'the time during the daytime, to relieve the burden on the paralIel ru.nways. Tius has not occurred as prescribed and the result is an over-reliance on the southeast corridor. b• Head-to-Head Operations requires the divergence of depariures over residential_ areas of Mendota Heights, often ciurin� the ni�ht time quiet hours. This reduces tne eifectivcness ui u`�� recentiy estabiished nc_i-sur�uiianeou� dcFartUre procedures. Reroutin� of inbound traffic or modification of head-to-head operational procedures should be adopted so that non-simultaneous deparhires will keep departing traffic in the center of the corridor. �• The priority assigned to the Southeast Corridor in the RUS is inequitable and should be re-examined. The RUS enoneously relies on "land use compatibility" as a g-uiding principle for primary, hea�ry use of the So��±heast Corridor. Due to the inerease in capacity and operations at MSP, greater volumes and heavier percentages of aircraft traffic now depart and arrive in the corridor.� As a result, the air nois� cor_*ours and the Metropolitan CounciI noise z�nes ha��e expanded into residentiai areas long considered compatible. The s�ut�i�ast curridor has not confined aircraft to compatible land use areas, but has given lice. se to the 1101 Victoria Curve • Mendota Heights, MN • 55118 (612) 452-1850 • FAX 452-8940 1�letropolitan Airports Commission to send ever increasina air traffic over residential areas of Mendota Heights. The ever increasinQ amotmt of traffic cannot be physically or vperationally confined to the corridor and, in fact, constantly spills over into incompatible land use areas. d. The review of the RUS should include a reaffirmation of projected percentaaes of runway use under the 2010 Comprehensive Plan, as presented to the Minnesota State Leaislature and as contained in the Final Environrnental Impact Statement. 2 Review of Southeast Corridor - The original intent and purpose of the Southeast Corridor has been overwhelmed by increases in capacity and air traffic at the MSP. The Part 150 Update should address the following: _1t .M m;,,:�y;.'_•"' irrra,Fk f�•-•F'rw..�lTlS Si :�iilrl }-�a rr�:�int�in�r�i 1T�+'r�P .., r��:t:'�;o,-1 � . . AlllJ_ 11� •.. — �• _ . a southeast corridor based on ANOMS generated contours. b. ��nti�u�us;y util'.ze all available techr��.oQical imrrovemerts ir.c:udin� navigational aids, DGPS, and standard instrument depariure procedures to narrow the southeast corridor to restrict o�erfliahts to commercial/industrial zoned land use areas. Vv ith the shift in maanetic headings, tower orders need to be reviewed for compliance with the conidor's original intent. d. Subject to narrowinQ the corridor as nated above, consider implementa�iap of the 09� ° northern boundary recomm�nded by the Blue Ribbon Task Force. e. The corridor is inequitably hinged to the north and the Part 150 Update should consider a more symmetrical corridor configurati�n consistent with the ever increasing operational activity at MSP. f. Alternative departure profiles should be reconsidered. Altitude analysis should be Stt�(�t�rj. tn riPtP*�mir? airrrafrt ��Tnxirpjty tn ?r��iyn� ]�•;�ets at ;r.cmment�i_ �listancPs for varyina types of' aircraft. Departure procedures should be re-evaluated as part of tl�is vertical departure analysis. � g. Five rnile final amval procedures should be maintained to best utilize the e:cisting compatible land use areas ti��thin and beyond the esisting Southeast corridor. Airport Operations - Airport operativns should be adjusted to provide for increased noise abatement opportunities includin� the follotiving: a. Nial�ttime restrictions shoula be imposed that speciiy only "manufactured" Staae III aircraft after 10 p.m. until 6 a.m. The use �f incentives/disincentives should be � ' considered including higher landing fees for noisier airplane types after 10 p.m. b. Through the use of DGPS, ground track assi�nments should be used for departing �` and arrivin� aircraft instead of headin�s. A run up enclosure pad should be considered to reduce airport o-rou.�d noise. Other areas of ground noise should Le identified and mitiaation/abatement activities undertaken. Low frequency study issues should be applied to alI airport communities, not just those in proximity of Runway 17/3�. 4. Noise Measurement - ANOMS data should be used to the greatest extent possible for the generation of the 2005 LDN noise contaurs. `. Land I?se O�portnnit�es - The study updates shouId address the follotivina: a. The acquisition of severely impacted n�i�hborhoods, homes, and other. incompatible land uses should remain in the updated program. b. Land use compatibility should not be averemprasized as a primary directive for departure direction. c. Land use compatibility is ineffective fflr an inrier city airport boiuided by fully developed municipalities. Boundaries of eli�ibility for Part 1� 0 Sound Insulation should not divide - �� neighborhoods. More equitable boundaries based on actual noise imp�cts need to give way to the subjective assumFtions used to generate INM contours. The City of Mendota Heichts thanks the Nletropolitan Airports Commission for this opportunity to make suggestions and have comments on the scope of the Part 1�0 Study Update. We look forward to cooperating with the MAC, the FAA, and all the neiQhboring communities, during this process. ' y r:.. . ^r�l-, CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ��. (��.�..�.�c�,��.�____ Kevin Batchelder City Administrator cc: Roy Fuhrmann, MAC Nlanaaer, �1ti•iatior� ��oise and Satei�ite Programs . City Council y Nlendota Heighls Airport Relations Commission �. MAYOR MARTIN J. KIRSCH cmr couNci� SUSAN ROSENBERG SU7I�NNE M. SANDAHL KRISTAL STOKES RUSS SUSAG City Manager's Office April 6, 1999 Mr. Roy Fuhrmann Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 — 28�' Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 Dear Mr. Fuhrmann: The City of Richfield appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed draft scope project to update the FAR Part 150 study for the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP). Richfield is pleased to submit the following comments at this time, and may provide additional comments at the meeting scheduled for April 8, 1999. Genprat Comments Richfield believes that the Part 150 update must be considerably more open to public inquiry and comments than the draft scope of work suggests. In particular, Richfield requests that the detailed information collected during the course of the update be made available for public inspection as it is accumulated, rather than after it has been analyzed and summarized by the Metropolitan Airports Commission's (MAC's) consultant. Prompt and timely access to such detailed information is requested (including specifics of noise modeling assumptions; historical flight track information; spreadsheets and databases summari�ing runway use, delay and similar operational information; airport activity assumptions and forecasts; noise monitoring information, etc.) for meaningful public participation in the Part 150 process. Richfield suggests that this information be made available via the Internet, or at least in documented digital formats upon request. In addition, Richfield believes that the Part 150 update study should provide a useful forum for planning to improve the scope and timeliness of MAC's aircraft noise complaint service. This service should routinely provide information about runway use and air traffic patterns prior to the time of complaints. Consistent with maintenance of confidentiality of individual complainants, complaint information should also be made public in a manner that permits independent statistical analyses of complaint rates, types, spatial densities, times of complaint, and other aggregate properties of complaints. Specific Comments The numbering of the following comments corresponds with that of the draft scope of work. Please clarify: 1) why MSP believes that expansion of the residential sound insulation program mandated by the Minnesota legislature "must be addressed in the Part 150 Update Study" -- this needs to be completed regardless of FAA's approval and/or money; and 2) the full specifics, all input assumptions,�and the INM version to be used to create the noise model that will be used to predict the DNL 60 noise contour that defines geographic areas eligible for sound insulation. The Urba�z Hometown 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 612.861.9700 FAX: 612.861.9749 www.u.ricMield.maus AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYEP Mr. Roy Fuhrmann April 6, 1999 Page 2 Since Richfield is particularly concerned with sideline noise from ground operations on Runway 17/35, we require assurance that the aircraft noise exposure contours to be used to identify geographic areas eligible for mitigation reflect the best available technology at the time that the naise insulation program is undertaken, not a prediction of an obsolete earlier release of INM. 2. Please clarify 1) whether the analysis of low frequency noise effects to be undertaken for the Part 150 Update encompasses any effort other than that specified in the �agreement between Richfield and MAC; and 2) MAC's understanding of whether adverse interior vibration levels" (as opposed to secondary acoustic emissions induced by airborne low frequency noise energy) are a pre-requisite for mitigation. 5. The scope of the efFort to develop noise abatement departure procedures for Runway 17 (as further described in item 11) should be expanded to include minimizing noise exposure created in Richfield, and to developing noise abatement procedures for ground operations on the same runway, including minimal use of thrust reversers and limiting departure queue lengths. . 8. The scope of this effort should be expanded to include routine, multi-site monitoring of low frequency aircraft noise levels in the one-third octave bands between 25 and 80 Hz, inclusive, as by the use of Larson-Davis Model 875 (in addition to or in place o� Model 870 noise monitors. The scope of this effort should also be expanded to ;,,, indicate the analyses to be undertaken, the uses to be made of the information collected by the new noise monitors, and the manner in which this information�will be made accessible to the public in near-real time. -��. 9. Runway use information must not only be monitored, but also made available to the public in a manner that permits independent audit and verification. Task 1.2 Clarification is requested of the par.ties to be interviewed and those with whom interviews will be conducted, and of the form in which the informa�ion collected in these interviews will be documented and made public. Task 1.2.2 The technical memorandum generated in this task should not be reviewed, revised, and agreed upon solely by "MAC Environmental Department and FAA ATCT", but also by airport vicinity communities. Richfield requests early distribution of the detailed flight track information assembled in this task, in documented computer-compatible file formats, so that the information can be independently analyzed as part of the public participation process. Task 1.2.3 Richfield requests that MAC's consultant meet with Don Brauer, Richfield's Planning Consultant, to gain a detailed understanding of Richfield's runway sideline noise-related redeyelopment plans. Mr. Roy Fuhrmann April 6, 1999 Page 3 Task 2.2 The assumed "open house" and "station" formats for public meetings may prove to be difficuit when conveying the large amounts of detailed info�mation required for independent verification and analysis of information collected in the course of the Part 150 process. As noted in Richfield's general comments, use of the Internet or other forms of public access to digital files of information is essential to informed public participation in the Part 150 process. Task 2.3 The notification and comment periods for public review of draft documents produced under the Part 150 process are insufficient unless the detailed information on which the documents have been based had been made available for public review and independent analysis during the course of their preparation. Task 3.2.1 Richfield requests clarification of the phrase "as appropriate" with respect to review of land use compatibility criteria. In what manner will federal guidelines be adjusted to reflect local decisions about land use compatibility; what "other factors" will be reviewed; how will "compatibility criteria" reflect airport activities that are compatible with existing and planned community development? Element 4. Forecasts Richfield reiterates its prior comments on the necessity for prompt and timely public access '` to aviation demand forecasting information, in a notable amount of time prior to summary presentation of such information in draft documents prepared as part of the Part 150 process: Task 4.1 The scope of this task must explicitly include conduct of a worst case (maximum airport capacity) analysis regardless of the timing and economic plausibility of the scenario. This worst case analysis should include alternatives based on foreseeable capacity enhancement measures, such as improvements in en route air traffic management, improved navigational aids, land and hold short procedures, etc. Experience with prior unreliable projections of future aviation demand and analyses of departure delays indicate that uncertainty about such matters cannot be credibly treated merely by case study and argument. A maximum capacity scenario reveals the only credible upper limit on aircraft noise impacts in communities surrounding MSP. Element 7. Recommendations Task 7.2.2 Specific analysis of redevelopment plans (and other land use compatibility concerns) developed in response to anticipated runway sideline noise in eastern Richfield is requested. Task 7.3 � Meaningful participation in the preparation of the draft Noise Compatibility Program working papers requires early and continuous distribution of preliminary drafts, and briefings to an audience that also includes community representatives. Mr. Roy Fuhrmann April 6, 1999 Page 4 Element 10. Summary and informational Materials Richfield believes that brochures and presentations prepared to provide "MAC with material for NCP publicity" purposes should not be included in the federally funded Part 150 process. Material of this sort, prepared for admitted post hoc pubiic relations purposes afte� criticai information has been collected, assumptions have been made, analyses designed and conducted, and technical reports prepared, does not further participation in meaningful decision making under Part 150. Thank you for your attention to these comments. Richfield appreciates your cooperation in acting upon our requests. Sin ere , � ' � � �� ev . Devich Acting City Manager SLD:dmw Copy: Richfield City Council Members � 03/11i99 OB:4s To:Charles Mertensotto Frorn: OUT1 Page i;Z March 10, 1999 Mr. Charles Mertensotto, MASAC Chairman 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450 Dear Chairman Mertensotto: Thank you for the opportunity to express any additional comments regarding MSP's Part 150 Study Update. 1 aligned my following comments with the handouts provided by Mr. Fuhrman: s Page 5(Land Use) 1 have a concern about the intent of this section and instead of compatible land use he�n� erected, #hP airport continues to expand as it encroaches more toward the residential. Case in point: removal of the gold course "buffer zone" and instead of building compatible land uses, installing a new runway. We need to begin establishing a stronger buffer zone of commercial, light industry and office around the airport. � r Is there a way we can limit the number of planes per hour, seeing ' s as this is a significant complaint in addition to the loudness of tiie° • planes. I think we are moving toward controlling the loudness; we need to start addressing the next level of complaints. • Strongly favor the nighttime ban on commercial flights. The way I see it, a new runway was approved to handle some increase. Repairs and runway extensions were approved to additionally handle increased traffic. We should not have to give up our needed nighttime relaxation also to handle any projected trafific increase in the next decade ... even though they are stage III compliant! We owe that the to the neighboring residents around the airport. • If there is to be a nighttime restricted hours, 1 think a 10 PM to 7 AM (11 PM to 8 am on weekends) would make more sense: children, school age and younger typically are in bed 9-10 PM getting the needed rest for school. Senior cifizens and hardworking adults also begin to "wind down" about this time too. 03/11/99 C8:4� Tn:Charles Mertensotto rrom: OUTl Page Z;'� . � - � � Why the need for nighttime run u olic ? � p p y. Can't there be a nighitime curfew for this activity? If the answer is no, then I highly recommend the latest technological shields and orientation of the shields to promote the maximum quiet benefits to the neighborhoods. • Frankly, i have never been in favor of Soundproofing homes as i see this as bandaging the probiem. It also makes the residents a prisoner of their homes because as soon as they step outdoors for a bbq, exterior maintenance or any outdoor activity, then the problem is sfill there. I have always seen two options: relocate the airport in an area AWAY from the residents (proposai kiiled) or !'e!??�ve �11d t�eloe�#e ±!-;� aff��#e� r�si�e;�#� a•�,-ay fror; t�;e ai� r�; � and maintain a strong buffer zone in its place. However, I do support this program IF it is acceptable to the current residents. However, I do think this is bad policy on the planning dept.'s part because they responding to a group of individuals instead of taking the lead in "planning " a community and ali of its residents, both commercial and residenfial. ��' ; • Investigate additional uses for the remote noise monitors after�tfie� demise of the Stage ii aircraft use on December 31, 1999. So what if we have 5 more additional monitors. Aren't the use of Stage III aircraft supposed to quiet it down sufficienti � monitors indicate confinuous violations then what enforceme t w 11 be taken? Thank you very much for the opportunity to express my thoughts and concerns. Sincerely, Manny Camilon, Jr., R.S. City of St. Louis Park ��city of bloomington, minnesota 2215 West Old Shakopee Road � Bloomington MN 55431-3096 ■(612) 948-8700■ FAX: 948-8754 • TDD: 948-8740 March 16, 1999 Charles Mertensotto, Chair MASAC 6040 - 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450 RE: Part 150 Stu�y Update The Bloomington City Council has reviewed the proposed scope of the Part 150 Study Update as presented to MASAC by HNTB. In general, we see the following iterns in the scope, or list of additional issues, as exceptionally important parts of a successful Part 150 study. • Noise exposure maps which objectively present the problem. • Develop noise abatement departure procedures for runway 17-35. • Expand the sound insulation program to residences within the 2005 DNL 60-65 contour. • Develop methods for fizrther reduction in aircraft noise levels, including accelerated phase-out of Stage 3 hush-kitted aircraft. • Modify night hours to 10:30 p.m. - 6:00 a.m. and limit activity during these hours�.to Stage 3 aircraft. (The City Council recommends this measure be further limited to newer Stage 3 aircraft, not including hush-kitted Stage 2 aircraft.] • Analyze low frequency noise effects on residential uses. • Limit run-up operations by time and direction. • Reconsider preferential runway use programs. The Bloomington City Council feels strongly that the following two items must be included in the Part 150 study scope: Develop a GPS-augmented departure procedure for runway 17-35. Propose a mitigation solution for 75 Bloomington homes where noise insulation was deferred pending outcome of the 4-22 RUS. The question of land use and zoning rules for state safety zones A and B is not an item for FAA approval. However, resolution of this issue for runway 17-35 should be accomplished in the early part of the Part 150 study process. The Bloomington City Council recognizes that the outcome of the Part 150 study will be essential in mitigating negative impacts from aircraft operations. The Metropolitan Airports � Comrnission and MASAC have an opportuniiy to accomplish significant gains through this An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunities Employer Mr. Charles Mertensotto March 16, 1999 Page Two �` , study. Incorporating the advice of affected cities will go a long way toward assuring a positive outcome. Please direct any questions about this letter to Lany Lee, Director of Community Development, 612/948-8947. He will coordinate the City of Bloomington's response to Part 150. Sincerely, V �' _ {`..-�``.".� '� Steve Bianchi Deputy Mayor /11 cc: Nigel Finney, MAC Roy Fuhrmann, MAC John Himle, MAC Jeff Hamiel, MAC {' DEAN LINDBERG Illustration and Animation 5335 39th Ave. South Minneapolis, MN 55417 Charles Mertensatto March 21, 1999 Chairman, MASAC . - 6040 28th Ave. South Minneapolis, MN 55450 Dear Charles, Thanks for the invitation of suggestions and considerations for the MSP Part 150 update. I believe it would be advisable to review Part 150 approvals published on the FAA website to develop a background inventory of items that have, or not have, been approved at various airports. Also, Baeing Corporation has a mitigation inventory available on it's web site. Reviewing and summarizing those information sources could be a time consuming, but informative effort. Perhaps we could discuss enlisting Roy Furhmann's staff for assistance with this. For the MSP Part 150 update, I'd like to haT.r� considered: I. Use of Community Noise Equivalency Level (CNEL), rather than Ldn as the metric on which noise measurement and mitigation are based. CNEL is currently used in California. II. MSP should establish a local "two minute" rule under the Part 150 Runway Use System. For departures, no less than j two minut.es between consecutive departure brake release on each MSP runway. For arrivals, a two minute separation between consecutive arrivals should be maintained as a minimum separation. III. A discussion of the feasibility of preferred runway use for Hush-Kit aircraft departures, or other appropriate shifting of noisier aircraft to runways most remote from residential areas would be appropriate. IV. Discussion of limiting flights on the parallels as 17/35 enhances airport capacity and runway use options would be appropriate. In particular, adoption of individual runway "quiet hours", when runways may be closed to traffic would be worth examining. V. Examination of financial penalties for ANOM's measured noise event overages should be considered. These are a few ideas from "off the top of my head". I'm sure you'l1 receive many more from other community MASAC representatives. Also, thank you for accepting the position of MASAC chairman. . } Sincerely, -... � Dean Lindberg Mpls. MASAC delegate Ci ty of �i�1VER CiR(�VE �E1�HTS March 22,1999 Charles Mertensotto MASAC Chairman 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 D��. ��airn�art Mzrter�s�ttc: Thank you for the opportunity to express our community's goals for the upcaming Part 150 review. Participating early in this process gives us hope that substantive results may be achieved, thus fulfilling the MASAC's often stated charter and purpose: aircraft noise abatement. The presentation by Kim Hughes and Evan Futterman of HNTB served to crystallize our understanding of the wide-ranging scope of the Part 150 program and its underlying legislative mandates. While we are prirnarily focused on the future Noise Compatibility Program, t11e historic review of the 1987 and 1991 programs brought our �� attention back to proposed measures tivhich have not been adopted as well as tk�ose fihat � have been implemented. Inver Grove Heights asks MASAC to review these measur`es with the added perspective of today's MSP traffic volume, airspace restrictions and community demographics, to determine if the road not taken now offers previously unseen benefits. Conversely, we further ask if some of the measures adopted have generated intractable unintended consequences. Under the heading "Purpose and Description" (page 3) the program requires a thorough evaluation of options which are sa.te, practicai, beneficiai, not unduly burdensome to any party and legalIy defensible. This comprehensive list of requirements places a formidable screening ahead of the review. We ask that any noise abatement proposal brought forward be evaluated, even if it may not meet all the above rnentioned requirements. It should be the duty of MASAC to research and write a review for each proposal stating which participant claimed it did not achieve or meet specific criteria. Our community raises objections to measures being called "noise abatement" that by their very nature create "winners" and "losers". If no noise is reduced by a measure, then it should be labeled a noise redistribution program, thus forcing the implementing body to acknowledge what it is doing and to prevent hiding behind a pseudo scientific {,. 8150 BARBARA AVENUE • INVER GROVE HEIGHTS, MN 55077-3412 TELEPHONE (651) 450-2500 • CITY OFFICE FAX (651) 450-2502 • POLICE FAX (651) 450-2543 or bureaucratic screen. 'The corridor decision is a perfect example of this. For every decibel deposited efficiently,upon the selected noise alasorptive area, another, albeit somewhat lessened decibel is dropped on residents aligned with but beyond it's 3-mile stated end: Over time, this has created an unduly burdensome consequence for "losers' to benefit "winners" who enjoy a"no fly zane" overhead airspace. This review must take the responsibility to define the pararneters even if to do so opens the door to other forums of redress. We see the need for adjustments to the calculation methodology generating data for Noise Exposure Maps to consider excessive overflight disturbances, even if each of the events individually do nat pass the threshold trigger. Additionally, weighting should be added for the number of hours of overflight exposure, once again even if each overflight is only an ambient plus 10 db event. For our community, reassigning land use is not a viable option. Inver Grove Heights is topographically high and ralling, dotted with lakes and wetlands, and therefore ilot conducive to industrial park development. The existing transportation and sewer/water infrastructure have not been developed for these same geographical reasons. The long established development pattern has been low density residential now numbering 2$,000 in population. Careful review of the current FAR Part 150 program at MSP shows no noise abatement -- of any kind with the exception oF the Federally mandated Stage 3 requirements. The assignment at hand is Noise Abatement: to diminish noise, not merely the �-• �,, re dis t ri bu tion o f n o i s e. T h i s r e q u i r e s o p e r a t i o n a l c h a n ges which will not be po pular wit h t he air lines or t he airp o r t o p e r a t o r, h o w e v e r w e f i rml y believe and will insist that i.f noise is to be redistributed in any way in which the entire airspace is not equally utilized, a legal argument can be made to force operational noise mitigation without regard to cost of operation and or restrictions in total allowable operations. These adjustments in operational procedures need to be "thoroughly evaluated": Maximizing climb rates, varying route selections, variance from the air safety separation standard default of a minimum 15 degree heading difference, equitable sharing through the Runway Use System by volume and length of daily usage, requiring use of factory Stage 3 aircraft during peak operating hours and night times, adopting a noise budget that stops flights over any geographic point once a cumulative preset noise level is reached, and limiting airline operations to a prescribed level based on� total noise - generated. Other policy and fee structure options such as a transit tax on hub operations and eliminating stage operations during night time hours should be considered. As MSP strives to abide by the requirements of the 1979 Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act, Inver Grove Heights, as one of several communiti�es excluded from �� previous considerations by formulas showing "no impact", we seek consideration and equity in the distribution of noise and xeal progress on abatement of noise. By supporting the current location, favored close-in communities have an obligation t�o � open up fiheir airspace and accept their fair share of the noise they have avoided for decades. To do so otherwise is unacceptably hypocritical. If a collective decision to maintain the current no fly zones and noise dumping areas resulfs, then that decision must be stated as such and thereby allow recourse for damages through the courts. Noise metric calculations should be supplemented by another metric for average sound level when operations are occurring. To average quiet times in with noise periods distorts the disturbances. The Dnl should be weighted for frequency of disturbances (low level) which have been shown to be major source of irrit�tion in studies. Four hundreci or mor� daily amL-ier�t �ius iC �� ez%e��s shauld 's�creasz the cal��late� valtiie of each by at Ieast as much as a few ambient plus 40 db event. Perhaps every event occurring in an hour with more than 15 minutes duration (a one minute disturbance out of every four minute time period) from noise events should be weighted by 10 db and surcharged increasingiv as time of disturbance increases. This is in keeping with the Minnesota Statute mandating ear protection in environments where plus 60 db noise occurs for more than 10 minutes per hour. As MASAC undertakes this review, the scope must be sufficiently broad to satisfy the criticisms left over from the previous attempts. This wi11 set the pattern and procedures in use through 2010 so the importance of completeness can not be over emphasized. �'� We in Inver Grove Heights know first hand the frustration of previously ascribed poor , t assumptions and unprojected changes in volume over time. MASAC should explicitly state in the final report that it's goal is the equitable distribution of aircraft overflight noise and leave the door open for periodic review. 5incerely, �� Charles T^T. E�int�:! MASAC Representative City of Inver Grove Heights 1��IA.SAC OPET:A.TIONS C011�IMITTEE �O o FROM: SUBJ�CT: DATE: MASAC Chad Leqve, ANOMS Coordinator RMT Update May 17, 1999 �sAc Since the last RMT update the RMT construction contract was awarded to Morcon Contractors at the Apri128, 1999 MAC Commission meeting. Since that time the notice to proceed has been received and a pre-construction meeting took place on May 5, 1999. The rneeting focused on remaining issues to be addressed prior to project commencement. It was indicated that Lazson Davis had expressed a six to eight week manufacturing period to provide the RM'T poles, as a result, Morcon is investigating the possibility of a local manufacturer to provide the poles in a more timely manner. Although the poles may nat be available initially the infrastructure preparation will begin. Staff anticipates that the construction of the concrete bases and access runs for utilities will begin May 19, 1999. 'The construction completion dates are subject to the arrival of the poles. � The submission of building permits to the respective communities were forwarded following the notice to proceed. In addition Minneapolis Public Schools has responded with a letter of intent authorizing the RMT locations at both Ericsson Elementazy School and Anthony Middle School. Minneapolis Public Schools will draft a lease agreement at a later date when resources are available. At the May 25, 1999 MASAC meeting an RMT Update will be briefed by MAC staff. If you have any questions or comments please cantact me at 725-6328. '�� MA SAC TCD: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MASAC Cornmittee Members Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor Minneapolis Straight-Out Departure Procedures May 17, 1999 MASAC As you will recall last summer, MASAC received initial comments from respective communities concerning the proposed Straight-out Departure Procedures over Minneapolis. Over the past year, the FAA region has completed the Environmental Assessment for these procedures with the assistance from HNTB and MAC staff. Now, as part of the public comment period for the Environmental Assessment, FAA has asked MASAC to consider the EA and receive comments on the procedure until the next MASAC meedng on June 22, 1999. Any comments from communities regarding the Minneapolis Straight-out Departure Procedures can be submitted to: Metropolitan Airports Commission Attn: Mr. Roy Fuhrmann 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 on or before the June 22, 1999 MASAC meeting. This type of participation on behalf of MASAC represents the use of diverse insightful views for the purpose of noise impact reducing policy/procedure implementation. With the comments facilitated by MASAC during the next month, it is anticipatecl that the local FAA office will be able to determine a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) and then implement the procedure without further delay, analysis or comment. If you have any questions or comments please contact me at 725-6326. i C;ky �F CC1C��711 May 4, 1999 Mayor Charles Mertensotto, Chair Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council 6040 28`h Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 Dear Mayor Mertensotto: PATRICIA E. AWADA Mayor PAUL BAKKEN BEA BLOM9UIST PEGGY A. CARLSON SANDRA A. MASIN Council Members THOMAS HEDGES City Administrotor E. J. VAN OVERBEKE City Clerk At its April 12, 1999 meeting, the Eagan Airport Relations Commission (ARC) reviewed the recently released document, Crossing in the Corndor. an Operationa/ Follow-up Analysis, prepared by the MAC noise department. The ARC review of the information contained therein has reinforced the City's position regarding the value and importance of maintaining the Eagan-Mendota Heights Corridor as an effective noise mitigation tool. As you are well aware, the City of Eagan has long been a proponent of the corridor. Our cammunity has been zoned in accordance with the corridor assumptions to minimize incompatible land uses. The success of the corridor in locating airplane traffic as much as possible away from highly noise-sensitive neighborhoods has been well documented over the years. Based on this long history of effectiveness and the recent corridor review by the Eagan Airport Relations Commission, the Eagan City Council reaffirms its support of the following positions: • The Eagan-Mendota Heights Corridor must continue as a foundation of noise- sensitive operational systems at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. � The prcczdure known as crossing ir thz corridor is an effzctive noise mitigation strategy, the use of which should be maximized whenever operations permit. � Corridor operations have continued to be refined over the history of its existence, and this continual analysis for improvement must continue. We remain committed in our effarts to work cooperatively with MASAC, MAC and the surrounding communities to improve the noise environment at MSP. Thank you for your many efforts to date in this regard. �--- _ _----"""` . ' %' �`.� - C.�- v / � � � atricia Awada Mayor MUNICIPAL CENTER 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55122-1897 PHONE: (651) 681-4600 FAX: (651) 681-4612 TDD: (651) 454-8535 THE LONE OAK TREE THE SYMBOI OF STRENGTH AND 6ROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY Equal Opportunity Employer MAINTENANCE PACILITY 3501 COACHMAN POINT EAGAN, MINNE50TA 55122 PHONE: (651) 681-4300 FAX: (651) 681-4360 TDD: (651) 454-8535 . . .. .. ... ,I ';, . � �. � , 1 1 i • • . � �� • 1,' '• � 1•:. � 1 GENERAL MEETING April 27,1999 7:30 p.m. 6040 28`" Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota Call to Order Roll Call The meeting was called to order by Chairman Charles Mertensotto at 7:30 p.m. and the secretary was asked to call the roll. The following members were in attendance. Charles Mertensotto, Chair Jennifer Sayre Mark Salmen Brian Bates Brian Simonson Bob Johnson Mike Geyer T.J. Horsager Chuck Curry Dean Lindberg Dick Saunders Neil Clark Sandra Colvin Roy Glenn Strand Joe Lee Mike Cramer Leo Kurtz Kristal Stokes Mark Hinds John Nelson Charles VanGuilder Lance Staricha Jamie Verbrugge Jill Smith Kevin Batchelder Manny Camilon John Halla Advisors Roy Fuhrmann Chad Leqve Shane VanderVoort Mendota. Heights NWA NWA Airborne DHL Airways MBAA UPS Sun Country ALPA Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis Richfield Richfield Bloomington Burnsville Eagan Eagan Mendota. Heights Mendota Heights St. Louis Pazk St. Paul MAC MAC MAC Cindy Greene Visitors None 2. Approval of Minutec FAA The minutes of the March 30, 1999 meeting were approved as distributed. Chairman Mertensotto encouraged the members to review the minutes of the April 9, 1999 Operations Committee meeting. 3. Introduction of Invited Guests Receint of Communicat��ns There were no invited guests. There were no communications. 4• Update on MAC Persnectives -�xecutive Director 7effHa.miel 7effHamiel, MAC Executive Director, addressed the council on the following issues: 1• Anpointment of Charles Nichols as MAC Chair Mr• Hamiel reported that the Governor had just appointed Charles Nichols as the new MAC Chairman. Mr. Nichols is a pilot, hangar owner, and a retired educator. He has also been �, active in Reliever Airport issues since the 1980's and has been involved in the Crystal Airport Association. Mr. Hamiel went on to say that Mr. Nichols met Governor Ventura when he was ninning for Mayor and asked Mr. Nichols to serve on several local committees at that time. He said he expects the Chairman.will have some input as to who is appointed to the Commission. Mr. Hamiel noted there are 6 vacancies on the Commission including the chair. He said the Governor, if he wanted to, could reappoint the whole board. He also noted that several other commissioners have either indicated that they will be resigning or that they may Commissioner Steve Cramer is planning to leave at the end of June in order to pursue a new position. Mr. Hamiel said Mayor Sayles-Belton could represent Minneapolis herself or appoint someone in her place. Mr. Hamiel said these appointment opportunities could bring changes to the MAC over the next four years. He also said that both the Governor and Chaim�an Nichols ha.ve indicated that they do not have specific goals in mind-and thax-#hey want to examine the issues before making any changes. Mr. Hamiel said MAC sta.ff wi11 be working hard over the next several weeks to help the new chairman come up to speed on MSP issues. 2. The Low Freauencv Noise Policy Committee � Mr. Hamiel said the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee (LFNPC) was established as part of the agreernent with the City of Richfield to study low frequency noise and how it may be mitigated. He noted the cornmittee is working with a 3-mernber technical panel ma.de up of noise experts - Lou Sutherland, Sandy Fidell, and Andy Harris. Mr. Hamiel promised that the low frequency noise issue would be thoroughly investigated as plans for the north/south runway move forward. 3. The Part 150 Sound Insulation Pro�ram Mr. Hamiel encouraged MASAC members to continue to support and be involved in the Part 150 Sound Insulation Prograrn and noted the following: . He has received criticism from his peers across the na.tion for MSP's decision to insulate homes within the 65-60 Ldn contour. The Commission continues to support that decision. . It will take until about 2007 or 2008 for the whole program (out to the 60 DNL) to be completed at the current funding levels and existing construction costs. . MAC is spending a lot of money on the prograrn, particularly for larger homes. . A few commissioners have been criticai of the amount of money being spent on individual homes. . Mr: Hamiel does not expect the Governor or the new Chairman to make changes in the program, even though it is a financially heavy burden. 4. National Noise Svmnosium � Mr. Hamiel reported on his involvement with the National Noise Symposium. He said at the symposium he criticized the Raisbeck Stage III wing solution. He said there is little modification of the engine with this solution. He noted that his comments had been written up in Arrport Noise Report. He said he spoke on behalf of himself, MAC and the Airports Council International (ACI�. 5. Reliever Aimort Le�islation Although not necessarily a noise-related topic, Mr. Hamiel said he wished to speak about legislation being considered in the Minnesota Legislature that would affect the maximum length of the Reliever Airport runways. He noted the following: • There are 3 categories of airport sizes in Minnesota. - minor, intermediate and major air carrier. . The new legislation would impact the minor use airports, which include all of MAC's reliever airport system except St. Paul Downtown, which is intermediate. • The House and Senate bills call for minor use airports to be lirnited to 4,000-foot long runways rather than the 5,000-foot limit currently in place, according to the Metropolitan Council's Aviation Guide chapter. • T'he Governor has told the Commission that he rna.y veto the bill because it does not support growth in the aviation industry, unless it becornes attached to� a light rail transit, education or tax bill, which he has no choice but to sign. • The Dual Track decision (rnade af}er 7 years of deliberation) to have the airport expand at its present site was partially based on the assurance that the Reliever Airport System �, would be expanded to the fullest extent possible within the categories listed in order to i�w relieve traffic at MSP. ' Mr. Hamiel said it is in the best interest of the grea,ter metropolitan community for the Relievers to be used in this fashion. He said for the economic growth benefits of having a strong airports system, the communities need to sha.re the noise and convenience. • The system is currently inefficient. A business jet taking off from Flying Cloud Airport at times may ha,ve to take off with rninimum fuel and then land at MSP for refueling beca.use of the shorter runway length at Flying Cloud. They then have to take off from MSP for their final destination. Mr. Hamiel says this happens at more than one Reliever airport. • General Aviation (GA) aircraft are slower than commercial aircraft and can cause slow downs at MSP and can be a safety concern. s Recreational pilots are not as accustomed as commercial pilots to operate out of MSP. • Longer runways mean safer operations and do not necessarily equate to more noise. Mr. Hamiel encouraged MASAC members interested in this issue to support MAC in defeating the legislation. Mr. Hamiel also mentioned that MAC's total annual lobbying budget is $'75,000, with only 2 consultants and 1.5 staff members working on legislative issues. He said, unlike what has been said about MAC's lobbying efforts, MAC is actually ouinumbered by multiple communities and their consultants. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, noted that the Dual Tra.ck Report said that up to 50,000 operations a year should be transferred to the Reliever Airports from MSP. � _. Chairman Mertensotto asked Mr. Hamiel if the Commission promised to insulate out to the 60 Ldn because it believed it would end up shrinking close to the current 65 Ldn contour. Mr, Hamiel said the Commission had not had that in mind when it made its decision. He added that although the 1996 60 Ldn contour will most likely shrink due to the all Stage 3 fleet; a subsequent increase in operations will minimize the shrinkage and the 60 Ldn contour wi11 incorporate additional homes. Mr. Hamiel said the Commission has promised to spend a total of $513 million for insulation, which was based on the number of homes expected to be included in the 60 Ldn contour. Mr. Hamiel said MAC is committed to funding the insulation with or without federal support. Dean Lindberg, Minneapolis, asked about land use compatibility around the Reliever Airports, Mr. Hamiel said the 65 Ldn does not go off airport properiy at Flying Cloud Airport or most of the other Reliever Airports. He also noted that the airport authority is always at odds with airport neighbors because of the need to grow and get bigger. He said the airport authority has t�,o constituencies, the airport neighbors and the airport users/consumers. He said users/consumers ask for vastly different things from an airport �han the airport neighbors and the airport authority is constantly wrestling with the differences. Neil Clark, Minneapolis, asked Mr. Hamiel how much funding would be needed for insulating homes against low frequency noise. Mr. Hamiel said low frequency noise is difficult to insulate against. He said since low frequency noise propagates differently than the higher frequencies, erecting larger buildings to block the noise will probably work best. Mr. Neil disagreed. +,, Joe Lee, Minneapolis, asked Mr. Hamiel what could be done to reduce nighttime noise. Mr. Hamiel said the MAC will continue to negotiate with the airlines to use only Stage 3 aircraft during the evening hours on a voluntary basis. He said prohibiting or limiting nighttime operations is a violation of interstate commerce. He said no airport has been successful in prohibiting or limiting nig�tt�sP o�rone of theelowest leve sof nighttime operat ons compared Mr. Hamiel also noted tha with the other large airports. Leo Kurtz, Minneapolis, asked Mr. Hamiel if he thought the entire Dual Track decision would be opened up for discussion if the Reliever Airport legislation is approved. Mr. Hamiel said he believes that once the legislature realizes the irnpact of the bill(s), they won't approve it. Glenn Strand, Minneapolis, asked Mr. Hamiel if an airport could be upgraded. Mr. Hamiel said there is a Minnesota. law that prohibits an airport from being upgraded by the MAC. Mr. Strand also asked about the status of the airline lease agreements. Mr. Hamiel said the airline lease agreements are at an impasse. He said the major items have been worked out, but the deta.ils are still in negotiations. Mr. Hamiel said the airlines and the MAC are at odds over MAC's projected worthsnHe sai �sin ei1989 thela rlineslha. e been operating underaSmonth-t to wha.t the MAC estrmate month lease and that is why MAC can quickly offer gates to new airlines. Bob Johnson, MBAt�►, asked about the status of Light Rail Transit (LRT) at the airport. Mr. Hamiel said the MAC has made a commitment of $70 million to the Governor to provide, on a pro-rated basis, a tunnel under the airport, construction of a sub-station at the Lindbergh and {� '} Humphrey Ternunal, and a sub-station at the NWA employee parking lot, if it is deemed legal. - He said the FAA still has to approve using airport funds for such a project. He said the revenue diversion law prohibits airports from diverting revenue to non-airport related projects. He said MAC will continue to work at the federal level with the FAA for approvat. RMT Installation Pro�ress Review Chad Leqve, MAC Advisor, reported on the RMT insta.11ation progress to date. . The Commission is expected to award the bid for the RMT installation at the April 28, 1999 meeting. • Staff is currently involved in the permitting process with the appropriate cities. . The MAC will sign a lease agreement with the City of Minneapolis. . The low bid was $183,000, substantially below what was expected, which is probably due to the detailed set of plans. . A pre-construction meeting has been tentatively set up for May 3, 1999. • Construction should begin the end of May and be completed by early August 1999. e As with the existing RM'I's� the new RMTs will operate 24 hours per day, with data downloaded from each once a day. . C weighted da.ta gathering capabilities were not specified because the cunent ANOMS version does not recognize C-weighted da.ta.. Joe Lee, Minneapolis, asked how long the lease with the City of Minneapolis is for. Mr. Leqve said the lease will be reviewed every three years. 6• A�ril 9 1999 Onerations Committee Renort Mazk Salmeq Operations Committee Chair, briefed the council on �� Committee meeting. Mr. Salmen also noted the following: �e Apn19, 1999 Operations • The Operations Committee meeting schedule has been rnodified. There will be a special Operations Committee meeting on Friday April 30, 1999 to discuss Ground Run up Enclosure (GRE) possibilities. A GRE expert from Landrurn and Brown will give a presenta,tion on GRE insta.11ations around the world and in Chicago, • The NWA Engine Test Cell report will be reviewed at the April 30, 1999 meeting if time allows. • The May 14, 1999 Operations Committee meeting will begin at 8:30 a.rn. Old business will be discussed from 8:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. New business will be discussed from 10:00 a.m, to 12:00 p.m. 7• Re ort of the Low Fre uenc Noise Polic Cornmittee Meetin s- Dick Saunders Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, reported on the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee meetings held to date. • The committee is about halfway through their work and should have a report by August 11, 1999. • The technical panel concluded that a combination of C weighting and 25-80 Hz octa.ve bands should be used as descriptors for the study. ° The LFNPC's operating budget is $500,000, which will be split between MAC and Richfield. • A workshop is being held for committee members to better understand low frequency noise. �� It was decided that the LFNPC's work plan and minutes of ea.ch meeting should be sent to MASAC members. Re�ort of the MAC Carnm�ssion MPPrin� Chairman Mertensotto reported that the April 1999 Comrnission meeting had been rescheduled for April 28, 1999 due to the lack of a quorum. 9• Technical Advisor's Runwa S stem Utilization Re ort and Com laint Summa Chad Leqve, MAC Advisor, briefed the council on the March 1999 Technical Advisor's Report: Executive Summary, Mr. Leqve explained a memo regarding revisions to the February 1999 Technical Advisor's Report. He said certain post-processes were not performing correctly with the new ANOMS version. He said staf�has fixed the problem and the data has been changed. He noted that the comparison of February to March numbers in the March Technical Advisor's Report use the revised numbers. The percentage of Stage II and Stage III operations did not change from February. There was a predominant southeast flow. 10. Persons Wishin� to Address the Council � There were no persons wishing to address the council. 1 l. Other Items Not on the Asenda Cindy Greene, FAA, asked to speak about how the reconstruction project has affected operations at the airport. Ms. Greene explained that due to the complexity of maneuvering planes to the end of runway 04/22 for departures, the air tc�affic controllers have been using the para11e1 runways to the greatest extent possible. She said the number of operations off runway 04/22 will not be as great as expected in the month of April and probably May. She said, though, that 1u$her temperatures will force the controllers to use runway 04/22. She said this will have the effect of slowing down operations at the airport and operations will spill over later into the evening. Ms. Greene said operations ran until approximately 11:00 p.rn. last year. She said operations this year will probably run until 11:00 p.m. or possibly later. Ms. Greene also noted that Northwest Airlines hadn't separated their banks as much as they had last summer. Jennifer Sayre, Northwest Airlines, said NWA had made some accommodations to their schedule, but not to the extent of last summer. She said the marketing department felt they couldn't do the same this year. She did note, however, that all operations after 10:30 p.m. are Stage III. Mark Salrnen, NWA, stated that he continues to oppose the Stage III operations breakdown into manufactured and hushkitted aircraft. ; '7 Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said the letters received from MASAC members regarding - the Part 150 Workscope will be incorporated and a final version will be mailed to each member. Joe Lee, Minneapolis, said he felt MASAC members had done a good job writing the letters. He said the three main themes he noted were frustration, hope and a desire to cooperate for the benefit of all. Chairman Mertensotto noted that he would not be able to attend the May 2S, 1999 meeting and that 7ohn Nelson, Vice Chair, would be acting Chair. Chuck Curry, ALPA, asked if MASAC should formally endorse the present classification for reliever airports. Chairman Mertensotto said he thought it would be more persuasive if individual cities wrote letters. Jill Smith, Mendota Smith, said MASAC could simply support the assumptions of the Dual Track decision. After a brief discussion, it was decided that if individual cities wanted to support the MAC in defeating the reliever airport legislation they should do so on their own. 12. Adio_� t Chairman Mertensotto adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted. Melissa Scovronski, MASAC Secretary , � � 1 1 1 . , . -:, � � ''. � " ,� ' � 1999 Uver r�ease �"k.�� uG,=u yvur request via mail to: MASAC Secretary, 6040 28th Ave�aue S., Minneapolis, MN 55450 or fpx it to :(612) '725- 6 3 1 0. #: (Staff Contact: Date Received: Is this a Phone Or Written Request? Approved By: Approval Date: 2 Availability: toring Start Date: toring Stop Date: -----.____.._ tlnalysis Start Date: Analysis Stop Date: Compledon Date: 0 �-----�. 0 � C� � 0 � � � � � Q � 0 .-� �,y �H �+ '+'i � ..� p v � 'b '�" ,t=� C� � � Lr" � p � ° � U o � o � � � o .,�° � � V � Ci �� i�r .G v� � v� _ G b � O � �, .T.� i�„ � cd � O �A � ' � o .� _.�' � � C� .t� � � � U V � �� ,G .� as � � � � � � .°-i O � N •� "" ^. � � •�" C qq C�. � � .° c�i o Q o °' ..�' r., c� 4� td'fi M M � � � � O M � �1 �i �i' M � d�'� M M M O � � � � � O � �`�' r x � � A � 0) H c° a, a � � � O o � U � � O O O O O � p � tn � M M'^�" 00 p C 00 d' t� [`� O� M ^ 6969ifiF�T69yNgymg� �� r d- v, o� a o v, �j t,g .-� � N N N O 6�4 69 Cf3 6A Cf! � � W � O O O O � O O 0 xxxxxxx � Q� M O� M C'� N � �M-+ N v�1 O�0 � 0�0 CT � .-�d' �' � �N cn d� �ri �D t� oo O o�v�c.rna.rnc. rno�o�rna�rnc. � � � � � � � � r;, � y�:, �- . . ��; ;._.N - - �, _ / ��I t � 1 t f L 1 1 1+�' t 1! i 1( t � �� y— J ' � � � ----�.. ,� .�s«; � �.. _ � � �.� i �. : , ' . . :�� :�� a..� __=....��'"'" . .. � � � �� I..,,T _ �— ��.o -��, ��«�«�' «: . �7 f�trl'_ ��_srfrrrt7 �11�� . . ^.._--.—.t�i/ � � �t� �' .:�; .. . . '.."... .._.:. .... . .. �;, _... . .. ,. __ . . _N.. .,:.i.___, n..+.z �.s:�:.. . ;;t,z ....�t! �'�.�_-_.� y Minneapolis / St. Paul International Airport - �.. �� MONTHLY MEETING - Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council a�;,»m,: C6erl�s Mertensotln r,�� c�t�,,: John Nel9on TechnicalAdvisor: Roy Fa6rmenn Secrztory: M�ussa s�ovmasld Air6orne Ezprcss: a� aau� Air Trmispon Associa+ion: PaW McGraw ALPA: Ron Jo6nson City of Bloomingtan: Petrona Lee ve� wu� Ciry of Burnsvi(le: C6ar1� Gufkler Ciry of Fvgan: Jamle Verbrugge Ience Starlcba Ciry of Inver Grove Heighls: cn��s �man City of Mendom Heights: JW Smlth Kevfn Betc6eider Ciry of Minneopolis: Dean Ltodberg Suve Mlnn aae Lee Glenn Stre� s�a,� ca�m iwy Mlke Cramer Citv ojRichfield: Krlstal Stokes Dewn Weltzel City oJSt. Louis Park: Iinbert Adrews Crry ojSt. Paul: Jo6n Halle Ci ,ry ojSunfrsh Lake: Gleada Spiotie Delm Air lines /nc.: Larry Goe6ring DHL Airways: Brfan SWoawn Federal Express: Jo6n Sc6ussler Federal Aviation Administrarion: Ron Gleub Clndy Gnme MAC StajJ: Dtck Kelnz MBAA: Rnbert P. Jo6nson Mesabn Nonhwest Airlink: P611 Burke Metmpolirmi Airports Commirsion: Commissfooer AIWn Gasper MN Air Natinnal Guarti: Mg�or Roy J. S6etka Nonhw�sr Airlines: Merk Salmen Jenniter Seyre Slevc Holme Nancy Stoudt St Pau! Chamber ajCnmmerce: Ro1f Mfddlebn Sun CoumrvAirl'mes: Coidoo Greves United Airlines /nc.: Kevin Black � United Paree! Sen•icr: Mlke Geyer U.S. Air Force Reservc Captaln Davk! J. Gerken Metropolitan Airports Commission Declaration of Purposes 1.) Promote public welfare and national security; serve public interest, convenience, and necessity; promote air navigation and transportation, intemational, national, state, and local, in and through this state; promote the e�cient, safe, and economical handling of air commerce; assure the inclusion of this state in national and international programs of air transportation; and to those ends to develop the full poteniialities of the metropolitan area in this state as an aviation center, and to correlate that area with all aviation facilities in the entire state so as to provide for the most economical and effective use of aeronautic facilities and services in that area; 2.) Assure the residents of the metropolitan area of the minimum environmental impact from air navigation and transportation, and to that end provide for noise abatement, control of airport area land use, and other protective measures; and 3.) Promote the overall goals of the state's environmental policies and minimize the public's exposure to noise and safety hazards azound airports. Metmpolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council Statement of Purpose This corporation was formed in furtherance of the general welfare of the communities adjoining Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport - Wold-Chamberlain Field, a public airport in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, through the alleviation of the problems created by the sound of aircraft using the airport; through study and evaluation on a continuing basis of the problem and of suggestion for the alleviation of the same; through initiation, coordination and promotion of reasonable and effective procedures, control and regulations, consistent with the safe operation of the airport and of aircraft using the same; and through dissemination of information to the affected communities, their affected residents, and the users of the airport respecting the pmblem of aircraft noise nuisance and in respect to suggestions made and actions initiated and taken to alleviate the problem. Metmpolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council Representation The membership shal] include representatives appointed by agencies, corporations, associations and governmental bodies which by reason of their statutory authority and responsibility or control over the airport, or by reason of their status as airport users, have a direct interest in the operation of the airport. Such members will be called User Representatives and Public Representatives, provided that the User Representatives and Public Representarives shall at all times be equal in number. The Airport 24hour Noise Hot[ine is 726-9411. Complaints to the hotline do not result in changes in Airpon activiry, but provide a public sounding board and airport information outlet. The hotline is staffed during business hours, Monday - Friday. This report is prepared and printed in house I Chad L.eqve, ANOMS Coordinatnr Shane VanderVoort, ANOMS Technician Questions or comments may be directed to: MAC - Aviation Noise Programs Minneapolis / St. Paul International Airport 6040 28th Avenue 5outh Minneapolis, MN 55450 Tel: (612) 725-6331, Fax: (612) 725-6310 ANSP Home Page: http://www.macavsat.oc Metropolitan Airports Commission Aviation Noise Programs � � �e ts f�� Operations and Complaint Summary 1 Operations Summary - All Aircraft .....................................................................................1 MSP March Fleet Mix Percenta.ge .................................................................................. 1 Airport April Complaint Summary ......................................................................................1 April Operations Summary - FAA Airport Traffic Record .................................................1 Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport Complaini Summary 2 ComplaintSummary by City ...............................................................................................2 Availahle Time, for Runway Use 3 Tower Log Reports - All Hours ...........................................................:...............................3 Tower Log Reports - Nighttime Hours ................................................................................3 AllOperations 4 Runway Use Report April 1999 ........................ Carrier Jet Operations 5 Runway Use Report April 1999 .............................. Nighttime - All Operations 6 .......................................................4 ....................................................... s RunwayUse Report April 1999 ...........................................................................................6 Naghtt�me Car�ier Jet Operations 7 Runway Use Report April 1999............ / i � �`/ � I rF / T' i .......................................................................... � Aircraft Identi, fier and Descripiion Table 9 Runway Use --Day/Night Peraods -�.11 Operations 10 DaytimeHours ...................................................................................................................10 Community Overflaght Analysis I1 Carrier Jet Operations - All Hours .....................................................................................11 Carrier Jet Operations - Nighttime (10:30 pm - 6 am) .......................................................11 Aviarion Noise & Satellite Programs l,. ; , ; lZemote Monitoring Site Locations 12 Carrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events 13 Count of Arrival Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT .............. / � ' � � � / / � � � / � / / � i � ...................................13 Count of Deparlure Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT ................................................14 �'en Loudesi Aarcraft Noise Events Ident�fied Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identi, f ied Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identi, f ied Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identi, fied Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identi, f ied Ten Loudest Aircraft Noase Events Identi,�ed Flight Track Base Map 21 IS 16 17 l8 19 20 Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks 22 Carrier Jet Operations - April 1999 ...................................................................................22 Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks 23 Carrier Jet Operations - April 1999 ...................................................................................23 Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks 24 Carrier Jet Operations - April 1999 .................................................................................. 24 Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks 25 Carrier �et-Operations - f1pri1 � 999 .................................................................................. 25 Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events - Aircraft Ldn dB(A) Analysis of Aarcraft Noise Events - Aircraft Ldn dB(A) Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs � � '� � Metropolitan Airports Commission �'i' , 1 � 1 1 1 , ' . �, �' �' '� Operations Summary - All Aircraft Runway� ; Arrival ; ; .. , % Use Departure % Use : 04 457 2.3% 214 1.1 % 22 65 03% 2110 10.8% 12 11997 60.5% 11499 59.1 % 30 7303 36.9% 5648 29.0% MSP April Fleet Mix Percentage Note: Stage III Manufactured Aircraft encompassed 48.3% of the total 80.8%a Stage !II Utilization Airport April Complaint Summary Aiiport ; 1998 . 1999 MSP 1019 983 Airlake 0 0 Anoka 6 4 Crystal 0 3 Flying Cloud 6 6 Lake Elmo 0 0 St. Paul 4 1 Misc. 0 0 TOTAL 1035 997 ; April Operations Summary - FAA Airport TYaffic Record Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 1 Metropolitan Airports Commission Page 2 '.;11 �. ' . 1 , ' y 1 � � , . . � � � i Complaint Summary by City `� ., �at3' Arrival Departure , � Total Percentage . .. : . Anoka 3 0 3 0.3°10 Birchwood 1 1 2 0.2% Bloomington 2 14 16 1.7% Burnsville 0 8 8 0.8°Io Eagan 8 39 47 5.0% Eden Prairie 3 2 5 0.5% Edina 0 2 2 0.2% Falcon Heights 1 0 1 0.1% Golden Valley 1 0 1 0.1 % Inver Grove Heights 0 280 280 29.5% Lake Elmo 1 0 1 0.1% Maple Grove 10 0 10 l.l% Mendota. Heights 2 41 43 4.5% Minneapolis 184 255 439 46.3% Minnetonka 1 0 1 0.1 % Plymouth 5 0 5 0.5% Richfeld 0 26 26 2.7% Rosemount 0 1 1 0.1 % St. Louis Park 7 0 7 0.8% St. Paul 27 15 42 4.4% Sunfish Lake 0 9 9 1.0% Total ; 256 : � 693 .. . `:: ; 949 :;> � :' ' :100% . ;;;: Time of IDay Nature of Complaint Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Metropolitan Airports Commission Page 3 Available Time foa° Runway Use Tower Log I�eports - April 1999 All Hours 0% 7' - Note: For 5% of the time available, simultaneous departure operations occurred off the parallels and rwy 22 resulting in an overall use greater than 100%. Nighttime Hours Note: For 2% of the time available, simultaneous departure operations occurred off the parallels and rwy 22 resulting in an overall use greater than 100%. Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Metropolitan Airports Commission 29.0% b • � 1• , � �: � �; , , , • '1 Note: Per�entage of actual arrival or depanure operations, fir�m ANOMS data. "' Al'H'IV�/ RunwaY- �� Coiant Percentage APril 1998 ,- Apral 1998 - Count . Per�entage �' �1 457 2.3% 432 2.3% 12L A 6485 32.7% 4912 25.6% 12R A 5512 27.8% 3689 19.2% 22 A 65 0.3% 265 1.4% 30L A 3145 15.9% 4664 24.3% 30R A 4158 21.0% 5217 27.2% Tot�l Arr. 19822 100%_ ' 19179 `:, ,,100% � �' D 214 l.l% 215 l.l% 12L D ' b993 35.9% 4500 24.0% 12R D 4506 23.2% 2366 12.6% 22 D 2110 10.8% 5018 26.7% 30L D 2024 10.4% 1827 � 9.7% 30R D 3624 18.6% 4865 25.9% Total DeP• ` 19471 10(1% 18791 100% Page 4 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Metropolitan Airports Commission Carrier Jet Operations 12unway Use Report Aprril l� _' =Arrivall ' ` ' - April 1998 ` April 1998 � Runway. _ �p�re � _ Count. . .: � Percentage -- Count � Percentage pq. A 358 2.6% 270 2.1% 12L A 5148 36.6% 3838 29.5% 12R A 3279 23.3% 2088 16.1% 22 A 43 0.3% 213 1.6% 30L A 1865 13.3% 2554 19.6% 30R A 3366 23.9% 4038 31.1% Total Arr. ' 14059 100% 13001 100% 04. D 148 1.1 % 147 1.2% 12L D 5654 40�% 3356 26.1% 12R D 2619 18.7% 1335 10.4% 22 D 1419 10.2% 3613 28.1% 30L D 1311 9.4% 1023 � 8.0% 30R D 2809 20.1% 3364 26.2% Total Dep. 13960 140% 1283$ 100% Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 5 Metropolitan Airports Commission � . . ', 1 ' �;; . � , . �.' 11 . �y 11:J Note: Per�entage of actual arrival or departure operations from ANOMS data. • _ :.: - Yt�way �� " - Count .�� Percentage APa i11998 >- Apa il 1998 " - � • � - Connt Percentage; �' A 235 19.7% 167 15.2% 12L A 232 19.4% 250 22.8% 12R A 10$ 9.0% 52 4.7% 22 A 33 2.8% 93 8.5% 30L A 115 9.6% 165 15.1% 30R A 473 39.5% 370 33.7% Total Arr. 1196 ;-, 100% � 1097 '�: .,, 100% �' D 34 3.0% 56 3.7% 12L D 508 '44.5% 467 31.1% 12R D 182 16.0% 212 14.2% 22 D 119 10.4% 380 25.3% 30L D 103 9.0% 97 � 6.5% 30R D 195 17. L% 288 19.2% Total Dep. 1141 100% . : ' ,1500 � : 1Q0% , Page 6 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Metropolitan Airports Commission Nighttime Carr�er Jet t�perations Runway Use 1Zeport Apri� 1999 1.0°Io \ Note: Percentage of actual arrival or departure operations from ANOMS data. i -' ArrivaU - Count .` Percentage Apri11998 -° April 1998 Runway ._ . �p�� , , Count � Percentage pq. A 190 20.0% 149 16.1 % 12L A 218 23.0% 227 24.6% 12R A 56 5.9% 34 3.7% 22 A 21 2.2% 85 9.2% 30L A 65 6.9% 104 11.3% 30R A 398 42.0%a 324 35.1% Total Arr. 948 100% _ 923 100% � D � 1.0°Io 34 3.3% 12L D 354 51:1% - 370 35.6% 12R D 96 13.9% 86 8.3% 22 D 66 9.5% 257 24.7% 30L D 39 5.6% 57 � 5.4% 30R D 131 18.9% 236 22.7% Total Dep. 693 1Q0%, 1040 �.Qt1% Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 7 Metropolitan A.irports Commission Carr�er Jet perations by p� A ril 1999 A�,Y.r��r �.,�.. ,,�=---- _ � i� i�,i /�. �' � ,� � a , A306 A310 A319 A320 A340 B733 B734 B735 B736 B737 B738 B741 B742 B743 B744 B75-2/3 B'76-2/3 B77-2/3 BA46 CARJ DC 10 E145 F100 L101 MD 11 : � B72-1/2 B73-1/2 BA 11 DC$-5/6/7 32 3 4 3607 0 804 101 498 0 S 2 35 123 59 6 2705 2 1 1375 380 1086 220 842 96 9 1551 1653 89 187 71'79 1683 807 0 162 !710 Page 8 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs f� . � � � � � � / ,,, � �,� ,� i , Metropolitan Airports Commission t�i�craft Iden�fier and I)eseriptionTable Identifier I A306 A310 A319 A320 A340 B72-1/2 B72Q B73-1/2 B733 B734 B735 B736 B737 B738 B73Q B741 B742 B743 B744 B75-2/3 B76-2/3 B77-2J3 BAl 1 BA46 CARJ DC 10 DC8-5/6/7 DC8Q DC9 DC9Q E145 F100 L101 ,"� � MD11 i, � MD80 SF3 Aircraft Descrip�ion —_ AIlZBUS INDUSTRIES A300B4-600 AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A310 AIItBUS INDUSTRIES A319 AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A320 AIltBUS INDUSTRIES A340 BOEING 72'7-100/200 SERIES BOEING 727 HUSH KIT BOEING 737-100/200 SERIES BOEING 737-300 BOEING 737-400 BOEING 737-500 BOEING 737-600 BOEING 737-700 BOEING 737-800 BOEING 737 HUSH KIT BOEING 747-100 BOEING 747-200 BOEING 747-300 BOEING 747-400 BOEING 757-200/300 SERIES BOEING 767-200/300 SERIES BOEING 777-200/300 SERIES BRITISH AEROSPACE BAC 111 BRITISH AEROSPACE 146 (REGIONAL JET) CANADAIl2 650 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC 10 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC8-500/600/700 SERIES MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC8-70 HUSH HIT MCDQNNELLDOU.GLAS DC9 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC9 HUSH KIT EMBRAER 145 FOKKER 100 LOCKHEED TRISTAR L1011 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC 11 MCDOTtNELL DOUGLAS DC9 80-SERIES SAAB 340 (PROP) Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 9 Metropolitan Airports Cornmission �: nway �Jse - ay/Nig� t Perio s- Ail eratio eapol�s St. Paul I�aternatior�al A��o� April 1999 ltunway Name �unway Name Departures Night 34 508 182 119 103 195 _1141 Daytime I�ours Percentage ITse 1.0% 35.3% 23.6% 10.9% 10.5% 18.7% Nig�t�me I�ours Percentage Use 3.0% 44.5% 16.0% 10.4% 9.0% 17.1% 1.OQ% Percentage LTse �'0�1 IDay, : , 1.2% _ 4p2 33.6% : � 12738 : 29.0% :4 972$ 0.2% _" 2023 16.2% ' 4951 19.8% � ;.7114 - f :100%�;: � 3695f : Arrivals Percentage ' -` � Night g.Tse To�l Ptig�t 235 19.7% �: 269:. ' 232 19.4% _ . �;; 74p 108 9.0% ' , 290:, 33 2.8% ' 152 ; 115 9.6% : , 218 :_ �; 473 39.5% � - 668 , 1196 . .:,' �: '100% :: , 2337' : Page 10 Aviadon Noise & Satellite Programs Metropolitan Airports Commission Commuruty Overflight Analysis Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport April 1999 Carrier Jet Operations - All Hours Carrier Jet Operations - Nighttime (10:30pm - 6 am) • , Total Percent OverHight Area N�ber Number C�er Jet Carrier Jet � , Arrivals �P� , _ Operations Operations Over So. Minneapolis/ 274 170 444 27.1 °Io ' No. Richfield Over 50. Richfield/ 190 66 256 15.6% Bloomington Over St. Paul - 21 7 28 1.7% Highland Park Over Eagan/ 463 450 913 55.6% Mendota. Heights Total 1641 100% ' i Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Number of - Operations per 24 Hours 14.8 8.5 0.9 30.4 54.6 Page 11 Metropolitan Airports Commission � � 1 , ' , ' � . i I ' � � � 1 • ;. 1 � 1 • �; 1 i � Page 12 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Metropolitan Airports Commission Carrier Jet t�rrival l�elated Noise Eve�.t� Apr� 1999 Count of Arrival Aircraft Noise Events far Each RMT .. , : : - Events Events �T : : Events `Events City, APProximate Street Locai�on ;y65d8 >SOdB' >90dB� �100dB - . .� ; - 1 IVl�nneapolis � Xer�ces Avenue & 41st Street 6465 1�9 2 � 2 Minneapolis Fremont Avenue & 43rd Sireet 5420 941 11 � 3 Minneapolis W Elmwood Street & Belmont Avenue 5022 1710 43 � 4 Minneapolis Oakland Avenue & 49th Sireet 5527 1744 8 � g Minneapolis 12th Avenue & 58th Street 4939 3183 412 2 6 Minneapolis 25th Avenue & 57th Street 5594 4833 1253 1 '7 Richfield Wentwarth Avenue & 64th Street 2� 4 � � g Minneapolis Longfellow Avenue & 43rd Street 323 7 0 0 9 St, pa�.ii Sazatoga Street & Hartford Avenue 55 35 1 0 10 St. Paul Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street 54 34 12 0 11 St. Paul Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue 13 � � � 12 St, paul Alton Street & Rockwoat Avenue 15 3 � � � 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 31 6 � � l 14 Eagan First Street & McKee Street 4549 120 1 0 15 Mendota Heights Cullen Street & Le�cington Avenue 249 3 � � 16 Eagan Avalon Avenue & Vilas Lane 2444 950 32 � 17 Bloomington 84th Street & 4th Avenue 371 252 14 � lg Richfield 75th Street & 17th Avenue 342 155 2 0 19 Bloomington 16th Avenue & 84th Street 169 4 1 � 20 Richfield 75th Street & 3rd Avenue 5� 2 � � 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Avenue & 67th Street $3 � � � 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 2743 28 1 0 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Avenue 2177 14 1 0 24, �gan Chapel Lane & Wren Lane 4338 109 2 � Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Fage 13 Metropolitan Airports Commission , ' � � • � . � . „ � , � � , � Count of I9epartnre Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT � � �2NIT . � J A - . �. , . Ca Events Events Events Events _;'ID PP��te Stneet I.oca , _ ;� . . . .�� , ..-- . , _» �; , _. � on ;_ . ; : , - �5d� : >80dB >90c1� ` >100d� 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Avenue & 41 st Street 768 204 7 0 2 Minneapolis Fremont Avenue & 43rd Street 906 300 24 p 3 Minneapolis W Elmwood S�eet & Belmont Avenue 1829 482 45 p 4 Minneapolis Oakland Avenue & 49th Street 2136 669 ` g5 1 5 Minneapolis 12th Avenue & 58th Street 2937 1333 `�3 25 6 Minneapolis 25th Avenue & 57th Street 3876 2193 1017 �71 � Rich�eld Wentworth Avenue & 64th Sireet 1701 �Zo �s 1 g Minneapolis Longfellow Avenue & 43rd Street 1472 497 75 0 9 St. Paul Saratoga Street & Hartford Avenue 110 56 19 p 10 St. Paul Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street 155 12� 86 11 11 St. Paul Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue 121 80 2g 2 12 St. Paul Alton Street & Rockwood Avenue 53 13 3 0 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 3565 591 10 0 ( 14 Eagan First Street & McKee Street 5708 1627 162 4 15 Mendota Heights Cullen Street & Lexington Avenue q�45g �4� 34 p 16 Eagan Avalon Avenue & Vilas Lane 5373 1568 160 5 1 � Bloomington 84th Street & 4th Avenue 1138 464 90 3 18 Rich�eld 75th Street & 17th Avenue 1446 1225 �8 67 19 Bloomington 16th Avenue & 84th Street 1399 833 263 14 20 Richfield 75th Street & 3rd Avenue 1021 90 14 1 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Avenue & 67th Street 1536 21g p � 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 1894 �6 1 0 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Avenue 6083 2890 735 33 24 Eagan Chapel Lane & Wren Lane 4175 939 15 p Page 14 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten I.oudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified RMT #1: Xerazes Ave. & 41st St. Minneapolis ,. Datc Time ` �C. 'Maz � 'I'ype I.�vel 04/11/9911:40:53 B722 93.1 D 04/18/99 9:57:29 B722 92.6 D 04/18/9911:32:57 B722 91.5 D 04/06/99 9:53:03_ B722 91.4 D 04/11/99 9:55:17 B722 91.0 D 04/19/9919:54:22 B722 90.7 D 04/20/99 7:37:26 DC9Q 90.6 A 04/04/99 8:12:14 B72Q 90.1 D 04/03/9913:26:53 B722 90.0 A 04/26/9913:38:10 MD80 89.5 A RMT #3: W. Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. Minneapolis A/C- Max A/D Date Time �e �oel 04/15/99 6:46:04 B722 95.9 D 04/04/9919:48:49 B722 95.8 D 04/17/99 7:10:32 B72Q 95.7 D 04/02/9918:08:19 B72Q 95.2 D 04/03/9918:58:09 B722 95.0 A 04/15/9916:23:19 B722 94.2 D 04/16/99 9:55:51 5722 94.1 D 04/02/99 7:12:23 B72Q 93.8 D 04/15/99 5:27:45 B72Q 93.7 D 04/16/99 5:18:21 B722 93.6 D RMT #2: Fremont Ave. & 43rd St Minneapolis ;. A/C ,Maz ° ;, , " ` , , -A/D Date Time Level : , : � , �` _ 04/ 11 / 99 9:54:57 B722 95.0 D 04/18/9911:32:30 B722 95.0 D 04/05/99 23:26:27 B722 94.9 A 04/17/99 7:25:29 B72Q 94.7 D 04/05/9915:21:28 B722 94.0 A 04/ 06 / 9910:05:50 B722 93.9 D 04/19/9916:13:44 B722 93.4 D 04/10/9910:18:05 B722 92.7 A 04/05/9915:45:55 B722 92.5 A 04/05/99 23:11:20 B722 92.2 A RMT #4: Oakland Ave. & 49th S� Minneapolis Date Time �c Maz ; � >Type � Levet :: 04/02/9915:53:16 B722 100.9 D 04/06/99 9:51:58 B722 99.2 D 04/12/9916:29:53 B722 98.4 D 04/07/9911:39:32 B722 98.1 D 04/19/9916:13:21 5722 97.1 D 04/06/9910:05:11 B722 96.9 D 04/12/9913:56:15 B722 96.8 D 04/08/9915:54:20 DC9 96.3 A 04/05/9918:22:12 B73A 96.2 A 04/17/9911:31:27 B722 96.1 D Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 15 Metropolitan Airports Commission � � �' � • , 1 ' ' � . . 1 RM�' #5: 12th Ave. & 58th St. Minneapolis RMT #7: Wentworth Ave. & 64th S� Riclaf eld Date Time : , �C : Mas � TYp� . Level 04/15/99 7:51:38 B722 100.7 D 04/15/9913:43:50 B722 qg,g D 04/17/9917:18:26 B722 qg,1 D 04/17/99 7:36:57 B722 97.6 D 04/15/99 9:07:51 B722 97.2 D 04/02/99 7:18:28 B722 �6.8 D 04/02/99 7:41:45 8722 g(,g D 04/17/9916:15:30 B722 95.6 D 04/16/9914:53:18 B722 95.3 D 04/18/9910:09:19 B722 95.3 D �21VIT #6: 25th Ave. & S7th St Minneapolis D$te Tmie A/C iVlax �' . , �'9Pe Level . �: 04/11/9918:42:45 B722 108.6 D 04/17/99 20:46:57 8722 1pg,1 D 04/11/99 9:53:50 B722 107.6 D 04/18/9911:31:25 8722 1p�,2 D 04/11/99 20:34:26 B722 107.0 D 04/15/9914:19:34 SF34 107.0 D 04/02/9910:09:02 B722 107.0 D 04/12/9916:29:18 B722 106.9 D 04/06/99 7:23:17 B722 106.8 D 04/19/9911:46:15 B722 106.7 D ��' #8: I.ongfellow Ave. & 43rd S� 1Vlinneapolis Date �ime; �C Max � , . ' T3'pe Level , : 04/07/99 6:15:09 B722 97.0 D 04/11/9918:43:24 8722 q6,g D 04/11/9910:12:21 $�22 q6_� D 04/12/9917:05:52 B722 96.6 D 04/12/9913:09:09 B722 95.6 D -04/0�/-99 �18:3�:00 . B722 95.2 D 04/18/9912:19:38 B72Q 95.1 D 04/12/99 8:33:30 B72Q 95.1 D 04/11/9918:19:45 B72Q 95.0 D 04/15/9911:58:53 B722 94.9 D � ,. Page 16 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs �� Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten Louclest Aircraft Noise Events Identified RMT #9: Saratoga St. & giartford Ave. St. Paul , - A/C . �. Maz � '; ' Date T�me � e Level _ ...TYP 04/29/9915:15:11 B742 96.0 D 04/05/9915:16:42 B742 94.0 D 04/16/99 21:29:23 5742 93.6 D 04/11/99 5:01:10 B72Q 93.4 D 04/26/9915:16:37 B742 93.1 D 04/22/9915:23:03 B742 93.0 D 04/07/99 4:36:38 B722 92.9 A 04/19/99 21:33:42 B742 92.6 1� 04/23/99 21:31:12 B742 92•5 D 04/26/99 23:52:40 B742 92.4 D RMT #11: Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. St. Paul Date'Iyme A/C Max � 'Pype Level 04/ 11 / 9915:03:55 B742 102.1 D 04/09/99 9:48:03 B722 101.9 D 04/08/9915:08:57 B742 99.3 D 04/19/9915:15:54 B742 97.1 D 04/20/99 21:20:40 B742 96.0 D 04/21/9915:34:02 B743 �95.0 D 04/27/9915:37:12 B743 94.6 D 04/30/9912:27:23 DC10 94.4 D 04/22/99 5:01:30 B72Q 94.1 D 04/05/99 21:2122 B742 93.8 D 1 I RMT #10: itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. S� i'aul `;- °: A/C Max � Date,Time �,pe . . .;; Level . 04/17/9915:15:45 B742 104.4 D 04/25/99 6:16:42 B72Q 103.2 D 04/22/99 6:29:48 B72Q 103.0 D 04/05/9915:16:12 B742 102.8 D 04/16/9915:09:00 B742 102.5 D 04/15/9914:01:29 B722 101.5 D 04/20/9915:02:34 B742 101.3 D 04/10/9915:03:54 B742 101.1 D 04/17/9916:32:51 B743 100.8 D 04/17/99 21:09:57 B742 100.5 D RMT #12: Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. S� Paul Date Time A/C M� '. A/D .:. Type Level.�. . 04/22/99 6:30:07 B72Q 97.3 D 04/ 29 / 99 6:21:49 B72Q 94.1 D 04/09/9917:4622 B722 93.1 D 04/23/9914:36:15 B72Q 89.1 D 04/22/99 8:12:03 B72Q 88•7 D -04/��3/�9-1�:29:30 DC9Q 87.6 D 04/09/9913:56:56 DC9 87.6 D 04/14/99 7:01:29 BE18 87.4 D 04/15/9913:48:35 DC9 86.4 D 04/29/99 7:01:30 BE18 86.0 D Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 17 Metropolitan Airports Commission � ' ' � 4 � ' � � , :� � '.. ItMT #13: Southeast End of 1Vlohican Court 1Vlendota Heights ItMT #15: Culion St. & I.exington Ave. l�endota �Ieight� Date Time : �C. - M� �'pe .: .Level �,� 04/21/99 9:55:14 B722 97.4 1D 04/25/9911:52:07 8722 g6,0 p 04/08/99 23:42:19 B722 94.9 D 04/22/9910:06:29 B722 94.9 D 04/05/9913:06:37 B722 94.5 D 04/05/9917:07:18 B72Q 94.1 . D 04/21/99 21:40:52 B722 93.9 D 04/13/99 9:46:21 8722 93,� p 04/20/99 9:43:17 B�2Q 9g.2 D 04/Ol/9919:42:17 B722 93.2 D 12N�T #14: lst St. & 1VV�cKee St. lEagan - Date lime �C Max � � .:� - 1'ype. Level : 04/19/99 8:12:08 B722 102.9 D 04/08/99 6:29:14 B722 102.0 D 04/09/99 6:57:52 B722 101.9 D 04/03/99 7:11:48 B722 101.9 D 04/29/9916:32:18 B722 99.6 D 04/30/9919:21:59 8722 9g,4 D 04/25/9916:40:44 8�22 qg.4 D 04/30/9911:44:39 B722 98.2 D 04/03/99 8:54:17 B722 98.0 D 04/22/9914:12:48 B722 98A D 121VIT #16: Avalon Ave. & V'ilas I,ane Eagan Page 18 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs i� Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten I,oudest A�rcraft Noise Events Identi%ed RMT #17: 84th S� & 4th Ave. Bloomington ,:... �C �_ Date Time: � " .:_` � ;..Type .. Level , 04/06/9910:12:27 B722 101.6 D 04/07/99 9:30:28 B722 101.3 D 04/07/9918:01:15 B722 100.6 D 04/12/99 9:55:40 B722 99.3 D 04/12/9910:08:58 B722 99.0 D 04/11/9919:00:59 B722 98.7 D 04/07/9916:35:10 B722 98•b D 04/11/99 21:04:10 B722 9g•5 D 04/07/9911:38:31 B722 98•4 D 04/07/99 9:55:08 B722 9�.9 D RMT #19: 16th Ave. & 84th S� Bloomington A/C ' Max A/D Date Time �e Level 04/14/99 9:58:45 B722 103.2 D 04/07/9919:14:50 B722 102.5 D 04/12/99 7:36:35 DC9Q 102.1 D 04/14/99 7:20:30 B722 101.3 D 04/07/99 8:24:56 B727 101.3 D 04/07/9913:54:44 DC9 101.3 D 04/06/9914:51:13 B722 100.8 D 04/13/9918:05:43 B72Q 100.5 D 04/ 11 /9915:11:07 B732 100.4 D 04/12/9910:41:06 B722 100.3 D 1 � RMT #18: 7Sth St & 17th Ave. Richfield ,. A/C : Max , � Date Time �e .. , Level 04/08/99 9:19:02 B722 106.8 D 04/08/99 7:56:57 B72Q 105.4 D 04/05/99 6:39:18 DC9 104.9 D 04/11/9919:28:06 B722 104.6 D 04/07/99 7:30:32 B722 104.1 D 04/05/9911:30:10 DC9 104.0 D 04/12/9911:35:16 B722 103.8 D 04/05/99 8:13:05 B72Q 103.7 D 04/08/99 9:40:16 DC9 103.6 D 04/11/9919:00:33 5722 103.6 D RMT #20: 75th St. & 3rd Ave. Richfield A/C Ma� � Date Time �e , , Level ;. . _ 04/07/9916:03:02 B722 100.6 D 04/04/9916:07:15 B722 99.3 D 04/07/9919:47:45 B722 99•1 D 04/07/9915:34:55 B72Q 96.9 D 04/06/9915:52:38 B743 95.9 D _ 04/fl4/-99 -6:03:i4 B727 95.2 D 04/06/99 22:12:57 B722 92.7 D 04/07/9918:18:04 B732 92.6 D 04/11/9916:16:09 B722 92.2 D 04/07/99 21:40:10 B742 91.7 D Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 19 Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten Loudesi Aircraft IVoise Events Identifed lR.1VIT' #21: �arbara Ave. & 67th S� Inver Grove FIeights Date 1�me A/C � ' m �'9pe I:evel � 04/10/99 7:59:04 B722 88.9 D 04/24/9916:55:22 B722 88.7 D 04/20/9913:27:47 B722 88.5 D 04/27/9919:15:32 B722 88.3 D 04/13/9911:30:48 g�22 gg 2 D 04/09/99 7:32:39 B722 88.1 D 04/20/9916:57:56 B722 88.1 D 04/10/99 9:42:56 B�� 879 D 04/24/9915:17:48 B�� g� � D 04/22/9910:07:38 B722 87,6 D I�M�' #23: End of i�enndon t�ve. Meaadota Ileights iDate Time 04/21/99 9:55:05 04/22/9910:06:19 04/20/99 20:42:25 04/ 13/99 11:29:34 04/30/99 21:27:01 04/10/99 7:57:35 04/10/9917:21:09 04/09/99 21:17:14 04/20/9915:52:06 04/01 /99 11:37:27 ItlO�IT #22: Anne Marie 1�ail Inver Grove �Ieights 04/23/9915:49:51 04/15/99 22:11:00 04/06/9910:10:16 04/07/99 8:05:15 04/09/99 9:26:31 04/19/99 7:30:05 04/09/9915:46:21 04/24/9917:23:21 04/11/9919:02:26 04/25/9915:03:35 ` .A/C 'Max . : _ ; TYpe :: .: I,eeel . ; `�/D B722 92.2 D DC9 91.7 __ A DC9 91.7 A DC90 90.3 A B722 58.9 D B722 -88.9 D B722 88.3 -�. D B722 87.8 D DC9 g�,g A B722 879 D RNiT #24: Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. Eagan 04/23/9914:26:35 04/19/9910:43:52 04/07/99 8:04:00 04/24/99 8:10:24 04/29/9916:32:29 - . �04/�1/9919:08:33 04/01/99 7:09:04 04/ 10/9916:04:47 04/16/99 8:35:21 04/06/9913:55:22 Page 20 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs 0 B72Q B733 B722 B722 B722 B722 B722 SF34 DC9 �:: r l . \�•\��`� �-�� ' �"�'!� 1,+ 0`` � ` :.�.`� ►��'�"i� s�''�r�%- . . �`�� ,�`� tw ��i�� . �� .��i�''1 �1 G'Y`�►.+.��'�'-� �a�'� s� \� : ,:.'� `` "',�a` �"'�'.:iu� � �� I,Q�`'1'\ ti '•.,�i f'+. � . . ` \`` � � �� ,�. �';� ��r� Ii , I 1.. � ��. � . �" .�_ !.�"'� �^!, ��Q��T � ".i� � �� ._.i\ �■ ' �� .. � \ - - �I'�►�\. � . _ � < _.: : ..: • _ � � - - .+—�o�� : �` . ' � . � � � " � . __ �y „ --._- ,. : ,�• ' ,. ��"�`,,A..�'=_` ij � I, i i _ � � ;� � �'-e, " � � ��. \ � : . - �� e�;�.;,� ��' - � , . ��, �. ,� .._ . . _ .. , ��.. . - - � _, � , - � . �..,,,o,� :: ;�P ,:. :: , � _' _ ;�,. > __ . � , �,,,�-.-"�,,.r.�,� �\`a►� �� ...,� - _ - ' � ��`s►'�+`�'- � �� \ � = ' ''' .. • ' 1`�`-r+ \ . • , .. ,' • = •. ��:r/'/I ,v�'-"� - - tN�l►\ � ;. .� . _ , . . �- - ...-�.- : _ �, _ • . , >. _..�.,... .. �,. ..�-:. __..:.� . ; . � . :. ,-. � -; : ,:. , . . . - -- — t'> � : , . _ - - _ . - ,_ � � . , ,., � I�I�u� .�:� < ....... � ., ��%��= .��.•:� < i �„ ► � � ► :• . • ' •� i ��►�. �-i .•:.. ' . .. �v�R� � .�. �. ��``. � .� � . • . . �. . . .- . •` : .... , . _. < � ,. , .. � .. �: . . . �� - � _:` .. � • . . . „ � . .._.- ,.:. . ;.: .. ... . .. .. _ .. ... . . � <`: , �.. -.. . ,. .. �� . ' -: :, ..� ' � . . . . . S., �..` �,, . . �, . . . ..... . . .. . .. . . . ,''� � �' �. �'., . • . - � . .._ `'`...:,`�1 � I,�.'..,� ,_ . •_.. .... _ � . ;��• ... � , . . � . � �: .� "'� �`i� ♦ ... � • +• ��''\ �,� .,,, '` i��/� � \' i ,: C'•�,I� � /.�� ' - �� +%/I��. . ♦ I� ��►�e'�='�� ' � ' . •. ,�. ,� . � , .. � „ � . , � . :`��Y(`�, ' : ;. . �, ��' - � . ;, � ' . . : ,. , • .,. .�� - �.�:� •:,. � i \`,_. . \�� . , �. . �� ' • � � = � . . . �� : ^r.."�, �I� �" . . .... ..... .. .,. . . ..� . � � : ti �� / - -��` � f �,pi � I� /iA .�i - ��! ; I�� . . ��A'� �� C . �i�N . r�0 � ��, n .• `i . � ✓,��I ��1• ..: . � . �� it Q�1. ., .� � . -. . ►i-�`� M!, -� . . � ��;' . . . '�� , � . 7i $ � �/ � � ■� •� i � � � I � ��.� ':,��..�`. ( .1ri� � u, 1!1\ ii: — � - � •'i I/i► IU��.."�.�• � : � . : ��i � �I`�,AI�.,\ . i^ i �,�r� � j!��N�l�►'�`� � • . �!1 ` ` �� ' _- -- `�'%�� i:� �I ��_ _- :..._. • ' . ' � ,� - --� _ �,' ,� \� '� _ �� _ �� - !°�►:. ��-----_ �� \�;�\� ` � � :a�.'- =`r.=�7 ,.., � . - . �� '\ ` , . . . . !�I►.,�► _�`�\�\�►� �\ ...� .. . � ; ` ��'t ` _•. � ��r ti ' ' \ '� � ~\, 1 �'�..; � ` .. i ��.�� . ._ . .. . . , , ' "; _ . . , A..�`/`'''�I/.''' � �� "i / :. �,��,+. I / � �~ /i..' . . . ��1�� ` .:i i, �� ij f�� i ... � �'�� • ' �,��,�`. '•��i` '//'.�.� �� /, � , \! J� i . �`��`7/, , , = :: r�,��,:..�,.!; ,� �� . • .:�•1;� r �,j � ,,'�': y,� ��r'O '� . ,��r��►i . ��i��,��, �•;. �;,►, � ,i�/, � � �� ,� . `• �//%/,.,: - �.�� \ \ / �� . �:: i-,LI:'<ID�►i./�:Jw � ;\ ( ` , �� ^� 'j' \ � � � ; M i� -''�t� �: _� .,` � � . �`� ��p�� - ..>•�_ .��,,••r � � ��l. •. �-._.►� ',', � ,. _= - - �•��, ' _-: - . . . : .. - , .. ,; �;;; , - _ .i: � . , � � � u ��.�' • �..• �` � � . � . . �� `iU��% ��►,11 � i � � ' � . _ :nm. .a� . ..i . .. . . .�! � i�'i �� . . - - �'. ;>. � . : ..�. ., . : _ . � : .i ., �•;. .�.. � ... - :►,' : - - .. . . .. � . . � � /'. 1 �a a�� '� � � � : � � � . i-�,% `1 , � , . . I , . . ._.... .. _ . ..... . .. .. , .- �. • . . ':'. .._ . : ., . ., „ � .. , �. . .: . . • . •- n � . ' �;F ...:__ . � . ...�:. � • .. . ..,•'� ...._. •uu:•r. 'e`i\\� � .i .,,.'. . . . '.. .. . .'.��. . -�. „� � : . . _. r "` _ ;..�_ ..' _ • ... ..' .. �. :�; � I • / �air.. �.�:` _: ' . ... �.. .. -•� - ,,:.. . . . . . . ,, �,I .., . -' -. . , • . � �. , . �'�\\� . . .. �: . ... . . ... .. . . .. I `,`\\ .. . . � \�\. ' , . � \,\ , � • • ' � .. . . \� . � .. �� . .. .�. -` �� I �� . : -"� '�.1�1// �`��`� . . �• `� � ' �� „� �� . �/„ � . � ',•'��r+ .. �' •' � �� -,,,'. � �i� � . ._-i . ' • ' ' - , � . ... 1\ � �•�.. .... . .• I ♦ . .,�� i\,• .- . . ' �,�� : �� `��\� � . �� .�ti�' �\. "�\\`� � ' ` ;\�`\�.�\�r'. ' . •, • � � �,` .� ��• _ � . .::, �,.�. . �.t,' . • . ::�'` •, . ,.: . �: . , t . ' \�� ` ` �4�' � �' �:��.�' . . , �� /I`� � , :�+i'� ,\,,� ��-,�� ;��o � %'i ;,,; , ___- . , . i�+", \: \�a, ��'�� `�,i . �.= ��` �` � '� .�' �n ` i' ��'---�.�. � ��/��, � � ' •/ �� ' � 1�•��..'�1� •, �. ; .,.��-,,,.► � �� • � %.-�•� �t - = _ "On ' %�..,/;��1��` � . ,^� .. %/' � ��IA t� ^ � � �'� r,'j�'l%�;�� \., �y�,� ' .Ai �� %/��:��'�`�`\� i t"' �� i/Ir i�. � 1;' �+\'�'=� ' : ` , • � �` � q"�� \�•�� - �ar �► "� I � �''� N� ` \\`� .` ��►�„� �•/ �� ' \ � ' '' ' �. I� f:71 � / ♦ ~ � �. �.1c:. . !.`.^.`(�, . � g��": P+� �ii r ��'��, � �\\�� .�`� `+/i , ' � . A �\\ �.� .i/ .��►u. lu,�. •. �'; ':`',� '�'t�'��` \ ;.�, . ,1�.1►'`.�. �i . . Is�,::: ��,;� I'�19�\'.' :�\�� - _ _ . . ., . . ;, . ,,. ,---_. _ - _ - � �� , ; - - -_ - . _ - ,y, .,,, ; _ - - -.__ ,• -= .,,�`,,`` ,`, ` � _ . . =--.-.�.-.._��-.- , ;� __.� �._ _ _ . _ _. _ . :, - - -- - =- ,; ��_�.� -��. �..�� i� _ ' � � .. . �'�. � Ir .: �' "��, .��/� �� • �I.. i I I � ,-��:\ \ �\ • .'�i y , � � I�i�o'��'`,� .�. .1:,-�A�,�'// � � /+� �, r ��L. . /.ii�'� ' �' •�r'�••`y: _� l �., � _ „"'��ii��`��.�, � �r.� \��ro.• :�ir�...,.?.��. �_.,. ,��► ,�. v� '� � ''j►�,,��,`�.. ` : i ;; �i`--"' -'� � - �►�!"%'i+. �-.,=,, �i' pi.:..- � � � ,�:: , ` . Metropolitan Airports Commission .t�nalysis of t�ircraft Noise Events - Aircraft I..dn d. April 0� to Ap�a� 30 1999 (�> � Noise Monitor Locations 1?ate #1 ; #Z; „#3 .. #4. � #,y . r . ; , , . � #7.' . #S #9 #�.0 ;' #11 � #12 1 63.4 64.9 69.9 66.9 73.2 74.8 53.2 54.4 50.9 '57.1 51.6 40. 2 59.9 63.2 5 66•2 69.9 77.1 79.1 69.4 67.0 49.4 49.6 42,7 3g,� 3 63.3 64.5 69.1 64.7 73.2 69.5 51.3 489 50.1 57.4 50.9 4,3.6 4 60.5 61.0 66.3 64.9 73.1 74.3 66.3 62.7 57.9 59.2 41.1 * 5 67.1 71.1 68.6 70.3 73.1 76.7 56.5 56.3 54.5 60.8 53.1 47.2 6 62.7 65.0 64.9 68.5 69.9 79.9 63.9 69.8 47.1 49.5 40.7 44.9 7 58.3 61.8 61.2 66.3 67.8 78.7 59.7 69.8 65.3 68.7 45.6 44.4 8 63.2 66.9 66:7 68.4 70.6 74.8 51.1 46.1 49.0 59.4 57.5 �.7 9 62.2 65.5 65.6 68.2 69.3 73.7 53.6 49.2 55.4 63.3 61.2 54.4 10 63.6 67.1 66.9 66.9 70.0 72.6 45.9 54.9 52A 62.4 50:7 �,� 11 64.4 63.6 66.5 69.2 74.7 80.7 67.4 69.5 62.4 69.0 59.9 qg.0 12 60.4 62.7 63.1 66.8 66.8 77.8 56.6 68.0 61.1 57.2 45.9 13 62.2 �.1 37.7 �.8 �'.4 �.5 �.5 38.1 47.8 58.7 * 14 61.3 63,3 67.4 6�,2 51.7 52.5 '� '� 67.6 67.6 53.9 59.7 51.9 53.2 15 63.3 64.1 70.6 70.0 74.7 83.1 72.3 68.9 54.9 70.2 57.6 50.2 16 62.2 62.7 69.8 69.1 80.5 81.9 71.4 67.7 58.0 63.8 � 54.6 17 62.0 63.p 49.3 66.0 68.1 77.2 79.9 69.9 659 55.7 64.3 48.6 42.5 18 62.2 64.1 6E,,5 6g,� 77,p 80.4 68.4 69.4 51.1 56.3 46.5 36.5 19 62.4 64.4 66.8 6$.6 75.4 78.7 68:2 69.4 54.1 61.5 59.2 g3.2 20 64.4 65.9 66.5 (�6,g TZ,3 �3,g 4�,2 55.4 55.6 61.9 56.5 49.2 21 64.3 67.3 66.3 68.1 71.5 74.4 50.6 40.4 50.6 59.7 57.8 �:8 22 62.8 65.7 64.3 66.3 70.0 73.2 49.2 44.8 57.2 71.9 62.8 (g.1 23 60.2 64.0 63.4 65.1 69.7 71.8 49.1 49.0 56.0 60.3 50.2 5 24 56.7 60.3 61.1 62.6 67.5 70.5 3.6 � 50.2 4b.0 52.3 35.7 * 25 59.8 62.1 62.8 64.1 68.2 71.4 47.0 39.9 59.3 70.0 39.3 49.9 26 59.9 63.7 65.0 65.2 70.4 71.3 qS.2 �.9 d3.0 67.6 54.7 50.3 27 61.8 64.2 64.7 65.5 69.9 �.0 48.6 52.3 48.5 59.9 59.8 4g.1 28 59.8 63.4 64.8 65.2 70.4 72.3 48.0 47.0 45.0 57.8 56.6 47.4 29 58.7 62.4 64.0 64.3 69.6 71.8 4g.5 50.5 55.6 63.8 56,1 64.0 30 58.8 61.5 62.8 63.5 69.3 71.4 44.0 47.6 50.6 62.3 56.1 qg, � Mo. Ldn 62.2 6q..7 66.4 67.3 72.7 76.6 64.5 64.5 57.2 64.7 55.8 55.7 � Page 26 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs � � ) � � Metropolitan Airports Commission Analysis e�f Aircraft Noise Events - Aircraft I..dn d.B(A) t�pri101 to Apr� 30,1999 Noise Monitor Locations ' ;-;#13 ; #14.� #15 . #16 #17 � #18 #19 . #20, #21 #22 ,#23 #�14 - -Date . _. . ... l65.3 71.8` 66.8 76.0 63.6 62.7 50.9 42.4 61.9 62.8 75.3 68.7 2 54.4 64.6 52.8 69.7 63.3 66.1 57.9 51.1 * 61.7 56.9 65.7 3 59.4 70.4 63.4 74.0 66.9 62.9 48.5 39.5 55.0 60.0 71.3 66.2 q. 57.7 63.9 60.5 68.1 66.8 74.3 69.8 65.5 59.7 60.1 70.5 64.2 5 63.4 70.2 66.0 70.2 70.3 77.4 69.4 58.1 55.2 57.3 75.0 64.7 ( 54.8 65.1 51.2 64.8 70.7 78.6 75.8 66.2 42.3 60.7 61.5 63.5 'j 54.3 63.3 59.5 64.0 70.6 78.7 74.8 66.3 49.6 56.6 66.6 62.7 g 65.6 74.1 69.3 70.4 66.6 76.1 72.2 55.2 59.0 57.6 76.2 65.2 9 65.3 74.3 66.3 70.7 58.1 55.4 42.7 40.9 60.0 63.8 74.3 68.1 10 63.6 69.4 65.5 67.3 67.5 61.4 50.3 40.1 57.7 59.0 73.5 65.8 11 �' 64.1 42.5 67.2 71.2 76.4 72.5 61.9 40.5 59.7 59.2 62.6 12 57.2 66.1 58.9 64.5 70.3 79.0 75.8 61.3 57.4 59.7 69.4 65.0 13 64.5 67.9 66.4 67.1 67.5 78.1 74.8 57.8 60.8 61.6 74.4 65.6 14 63.3 67.9 62.9 67.5 58.6 72.7 69.9 53.9 58.7 63.0 72.3 66.2 15 '� 66.6 52.6 71.7 48.9 57.1 47.6 54.7 31.0 65.3 62.0 65.8 16 38.9 66.6 48.9 67.3 51.2 54.7 49.5 54.1 452 59.9 59.6 64.9 l � 36.9 63.3 48.8 65.2 55.7 58.8 53.6 53.4 46.7 58.5 60.9 62.8 l g 52.5 69.5 55.4 65.7 58.2 63.6 53.7 55.4 43.9 57.9 65.4 65.5 19 62•2 70.7 62.2 69.2 53.5 56.5 47.0 53.5 58.0 64.5 70.5 67.9 20 56,2 71.1 68.4 71.1 57.9 65.4 60.1 51.3 62.5 64.2 75.8 68.8 21 63.6 71.1 65.9 71.0 62.6 63.4 54.8 41.3 60.9 61.0 74.5 67.7 22 66.6 71.9 67.6 74.9 69.7 65.8 53.4 44.1 60.7 61.0 75.1 68.3 23 63.4 71.9 64.1 69.3 62.7 59.3 50.7 42.3 60.4 62.7 73.3 67.2 24 59.9 69.7 62.2 65.9 62.9 63.8 52.9 44.1 58.7 61.2 722 66.8 25 65.4 67.7 66.9 66.7 61.4 64.0 54.9 46.7 59.6 60.2 74.3 64.8 2C 66.6 70.4 65.3 68.8 61.5 63.0 57.6 49.4 60.5 62.1 74.7 67.5 2'j 62.5 68.7 64.3 68.7 64.8 61.2 50.3 38.1 58.7 59.9 72.7 65.9 28 64.8 70.0 65.3 69.0 67.0 61.7 49.3 48.3 60.8 59.4 73.5 65.4 29 63.g 71.1 67.1 69.9 59.9 59.9 50.3 40.9 59.7 61.8 74.0 68.4 30 64.1 69.9 65.5 68.7 62.0 61.5 51.3 41.3 60.1 61.5 74.5 66.7 Mo. Ldn 62.5 69.7 64.4 69.9 65.9 723 68.1 57.8 58.3 61.3 72.6 66.3 Page 27 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs *�ss than twentv-four hours of data avaifable t , �... _ ...i�._��,�•`. �S,_ � �_ . ` ._ . . . . —.. \ 4at � !. i ,::i 1 t . , f r. =—��.�.;"-�'��-'��\�\.�_``1"`►� � �: '-\ .i., `\ �ti\t t i.•:•� �;t. '. � ��1�:1� "' ` _- � ,..�.'��.,_ �.,,,�,,';� •.,, _�.. a � �t-. � �� ` � � k � a .: �� } �� i �; r t �. � ��I�� "�'�r►'\.. ` _` � �� - � � � .�� . ,� �. , �, � � � c . � �, � 5 t . �...�:�a.��—�_ � ` ' �� -�\��....� \� ` ` 1� � �I �� / +'��+ _�_''-�`=L\``\._,``:..\�,. �.`"",\\�^� . `i"�1_\�\ \ d \� � �i .3 � dtl �' fi �r._ �� . • . � � \ .+ , � �Y . _ `� .-.. ` '^�.. . � � ^:` -.,,� ,�`�y-�. \•�� \ . �� l p`� .� 4 V, l � �i�'o% y ." '�...:---�►� ' `�� \ �-�.t�`. � � \` � ' ^ . ' � � /. + �.-�-.._i ='��1� ��.-. l�\ "��.,,-��"�� `..� �.0 . y �, �� e � fp i � � 'p\��"�ri� \��\\ '��.\ "� . \t .. . t ..l �� 1 � �. i� . / .�� • '+r � \\ � 5 t . . 1 t'. " ' 1 1 �% `�r-•'- �-�=-_ . �►� �.-�+"` ` =\ �cvr- � \��., � `4� y �. . i / � r � . t /%, s �"�..,�-1��+`►�`� _ .; � � '�� ti � y . , i�E��I��.�►�"'"r�u'�`��' ,�,��.�\ �� ' , ! ,' � ' � i —��'I�:��III��..�..\\�'�.�� ` f , �' ' ., r i '•��I►' '' ;"�:�+�� Mrr.�'�'��.��i. . . �'' 1�� . � r s � .� � i ""�'��\ � T ' ' 'i -�,� ��_/"'_\��`\�1�\�\\I , x., t t , / �. : � , \\ ` �� `` ^...�`,��i� �s ;y � j �� ' �,' � �, •�hr ; ```��,� �;��;��q;� �� 'i�ti -1 .�- �r�, �� o, ��,,;� ��:�� . �,��`'.��,�11) � 7 ��4 � ,-i r �� .�� u�r f . ,� i �. 1�P1 �i'� ��'" � �� i ° �yl�� 1 �, , ` j� �'�i �� _��''�',I//�'%l�'�h i�(" ' � , ,„s�, ll� � '�'...I��'i��lr.iiNRr �t� / � ��y�, „�"-- �fli'�7 . "i��%��/�% r� � i� �/ .l � �.. ...-��r� ./'iii.ii J ` �i�""_�_'�_�. H. �'� �..,ti.' �'-wI = . . .. . i � // �� '.'.+ 1 \ j'Yr�y►. - - � , . � � r��JE / ��4 ��' �►�� _ - .. _ `i''� �,�\�; . �'-�:.. � '�' �f,�,� ` � :-, , . _ _ - �` , �L��/,,��`\,�`io�, .� �. _ �-"�r -�� i'"�"�'��*�%'''�' '` � F �►� . / � �;r- �, ., i...,,,"`'�"��!t:,;.,i!� ;, � :.-'-'�%' t► �- I� .�; - . . �. i;.�—�w�` i`i"►��• 'i/ . . . `��►�.�5..��`.`� •��/ / � . . . . �► i' iI/� � �� .��! �i// ��f�/�� ' . �`��,``'�� / � ��//I / 'f '�1�-S � ��„'� %i.. ��'�'��/il��/ :/� ' � ' f . ��_ �� / �/ •I z t . i ��f i i �. �� %ii/ �.,� : .� . , � � . � ..�..,_.+�"��ii � .� � i/ r ' � � � ��jj�� i � � � . ,t , ��, .� . , 1 "_ \` . ��j�� F�.o� -R i :./ � � � �� :�..i .. ,,71' � �'�..�T.n\. -.► .,��.i / i'' ,,, i • � � . �, r i y i s r � � ` < < � ti t �� ►�.ri�. . � �� / . � � r .,� • r / /i f Ii � i Mt�'. 1 ` 1 �. \, �t �. � \�\• ��ii �% i ' P �� .� � � , �1 �� /�� ,�� .�.: b 1iy �c�. �� / � � .� ` s � � i /"i% - i i��,,, rr/ � � � + 1 �\ 1 �� l ii �'�, i sfi . i . � � � � f i �/ , i 1 ��l � \ � ��.\ /i/ f j �. . � ✓ t��,/ /�//� i � . w` �, � � �� ✓� / � � ., / . �� j . � � �/ � ri�i ✓ \ � �� ' ti� `�� \\ � � �/%' J i t �/�� / � � / i P e t ' � � � �� !`: �. � , ...... . .. _ .. ! ..�//.!__.ir�✓,�;.:.t!...!�.!., . � �' ��\� �, �,�., Metropolitan Airports Commission Proposed North �oumdary Corridor Gate Peneiration Analysis Minneapolis - S�. P°�ul International Airport ' /� . . ,.,�, � / � � i 11 .� � 1 . . ' i 1 i, i/ i 1 1. Page 2 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Metropolitan Airports Commission 'nneapolis � S� aul International Airport , • 1 . , � � � . , , ,' � . � ' � ' ` � ' 1 . . ' i i' � , 1 � 1 1;1 ' 1; �� ' 1: 1 1 �' / i i 1. �, �EFT � a � O O 0 ..._ �r �.� o � Q � o �-- '"'� ,- ¢ 0 0 0 cv 0 0 0 -60 245 TRACKS COUNT=7 (2.9�) CROSSED P-GATE RIGHT COUNT=238 (g7.1%� ; s � SI o I c� • � � , � ----- ' � � ------------;-----------------'---------- � � � --------'------------------`--------l-- ,�c-� � � � � -------�------------ � � � ----- � o •• , ee +rI � ' ' s +° s ��1 � � � � • i �s � �i � ' i � i � � . �� •s � � i � -----------------1-----------------'----------------��----------- � ----t- � -------- ��--t � ' ---------------- ' ' • •, ..K : ; ; • : "�,�M, •� s ��So •o,��`•a • �s• �� M • •�' i ' as''" � . . •P :'� r � , � , ; , � , ' � � ' , ° ; m +_ •sv4 -----------------' �---------------------------------------------'�------'�-- m � � � • o --o------ --- -4----------------- ' � • s� � !� � j I • •. �i . 00 -4000 -2000 0 20�00 40�00 6000 DEVIATION FROM CENTER OF GATE (ff) Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 3 - Metropolitan Airports Commission , � Minneapolis - S� Paul Internationai Airport April 1999 ; 8273 ... �'otal 12L and 12R Carrier Jet Departures 6... Carrier Jet Departure - Early Turnout (0.0% (North Side Before Three Miles) 6 TRACKS CROSSED P-GATE �EFT COUNT=1 (16.7%) RIGNT CO�NT=S (83.3�) - I t i ; DEVIATION FROM CENTER OF GATE (ft) Page 4 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Metropolitan Airports Commission ' Southern ound.ary Corridor Gate eneir�,taon Analysis ; 1Vl�nneapolis - Si� Paul Inte�naiion�.l t�irpo�t � � '�� . . � �' .' � �' � �� `� � i 1 . Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 5 Metropolitan Airports Commission - Minneapolis - S� Paul International Airpo�t April 1999 �: �� 8273 ... Total 12L and 12R Carrier Jet I)epartures 108 ... Carrier Jet Departures (1.3%) South of Corridor (South of 30L Localizer) 108 TRACKS CROSSED P-GATE LEF1 CO�NT=103 (95.4%) RIGNT COUNT=5 (4.6�) � � � � i ; DEVIATION FROM CENTER OF GATE (fk) Page 6 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs = � �� Metropolitan Airports Commission ' N�inneapoli� - S� l�'aul Intern�tional Af�port � Ap��l 1999 : � .; , � � , . ., �.� .. . ' - � 1•�. � , � i , . ,, , . ; ,� . . . . 9 TRACKS CROSSED P-GRTE LEFT COUNT=3 (33.3�) RIGNT COUNT=6 (66.7�) DEVIATI4N FROM CENTER QF GATE (ff) 0 Aviarion Noise & Satellite Programs Page 7 Metropolitan Airports Commission Southern Boundary Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis 1Vlinneapolis - S� Paul International Ai�port Apri11999 0.5 %(40) Ca�riea� �et Depaa-�ures 5° South of Corridor (5° 5outh of 30I., Localizer) ; ; Page 8 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs w Q � � � � i-- r�-� �-- � ¢ 0 c� 0 N ,,, O Q O — � 0 Metropolitan Airports Commission ` I�Iinneapol�s - S� Pa�l Interna�onal Airport Apr� 1999 (a � 8273 ... Total 12I� and.12R Carrier Jet Depai-tures 3l ... Carrier Jet Departures 0.4%) 5° Sozcth oi Corridor (5° South of 30L g,ocalizer) 31 TRACKS LEFT COUNT=27 (87,1�) CROSSED P-GATE RIGNT COUNT=4 (12,9�) i . , , , , -----------------; -----------------,----------- � ------�------------------t----------------- , • ; . , , �----------------- ,. •� � • � i q � • � , � , � ' � f�' ' � � •' � I • � � � � � ;s � �-----------------� ---� -----------�------------------- ' � ________'_______ i________'___'_____L______ � � � ��'��" ,r9 0 • • • , • i , , � , , , , , � � � , ----------------•, ----------' � , T_______ �________________ ' �""""""""""�"'""" _"_"""'' ; 1 ' f�__�__�__�__�____ I � i � � n . ,. .. _ ,..... . 111 '�11 1111 DEVIATION FROM CENTER OF GATE (ff) Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 9 Metropolitan Airports Commission Minneapolis - S� Paui International Airport April 1999 �+� 8273 ... Total 12L and 12R Carrier Jet Departures 9... Carrier Jet Dep�rtures - Early �'urnout (0.1 % (South Side Before Three Miles) 9 TRACKS CROSSED P-GATE �EFT CO�NT=3 (33.3%) RIGHT CO�NT=6 (66.7�) DEVIRTION FROM CENTER OF GATE (ff � ; Page 10 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs '_.1i 1� . � � � • ��,. � � 1 1 1 . . • i 1 ; � • 1 1 ; Executive Sumrreary ! ' �'� C � Metropolitan Airports Commission MSP April Fleet 1VIix Percentage A�ril 1999 Sta�e Use Comnosition During the month of April 1999 manufactured stage III usage = 48.3%, sta.ge III usage = 32.5% and stage II usage = 19.2%. Aprid 1999 Aircr� Composition The hushkitted DC9 was the most predonunately used aircraft with 7179 operations consisting of 25.6% of the total carrier jet operations. Following the DC9 hushkitted the top three were the Airbus 320 with 3607 operations (12.9% of the total), DC9 (sta.ge In with 2710 (9.7% of the total) and the Boeing 757 with 2705 (9.7% of the total). 1999 March vs. April Complaint 5ummary A,�ril 1999 Comnlaint Ori�in Summarv MSP complaints during the month of April 1999 were highly concentrated in four cities: Minneapolis = 439, Inver Grove Heights = 280, Eagan = 47 and Mendota Heights = 43. A,�. ril 1999 Comvlaint Time of Dav Summarv T'he majority of compla.ints were received in the following time periods: 07:00-11:59 = 192, 20:00-21:59 =183, 12:00-15:59 =160 and 22:00-22:59 = 150. April 1999 Nature of Complaint Summarv The nature of the received complaints were concentrated around the following sources: excessive noise = 749, early/late = 1'74, ground noise = 34 and low flying = 10. � J Technical Advisor's Report Executive Summary Page 1 Metropolitan Airports Commission + - i�oa� C�perat�o� Reference i�gram „ „�, 04 Dep C Apxil 1999 Runvvay Use All Operation,s & C�rrier Jet Operations ( Runway : �� Ovea�aglat �ea� ' . Couait Aii , �.'ea�cen ' ,; ,,., , . ..._. � .. ; _ ,.. . �g� � Count Jet ; __ .. �. : . , _ ....�,, , _. Percentage __ ,_ <: - - ;: __ _ ;, ,:.. ... , . , �' �' So. Rich.Bloom. 457 . ' 2.3% 358 2.6% 12L Arr So. Mpls./No. Rich. 6485 32.7% 5148 36.6% 12R Arr So. Mpls./No. Rich. 5512 22 27.8% 3279 23.3% �' Stp./Highld. prk. 65 0.3% 43 0.3% 30L Arr Egn./Men. Hts. 3145 15.9% 1865 13.3% 30R Arr Egn./Men. Hts. 4158 21.0% 3366 23.9% Totai Arr. `- ' _ . 19$22 :: 100% ;: -:.14059 ;; �: .: .100% :: 04� , . DeP _. _ Stp;/Highld: prk. 214 _�.. l.-1 % 148 12L l.l% Dep Egn./Men. Hts. 6993 35.9% 5654 12R 40.5% Dep Egn./Men. Hts. 4506 23.2% 2619 22 18.7% Dep So. Rich.Bloom. 2110 10.8% 1419 30L 10.2% Dep So. Mpls./No. Rich. 2024 10.4% 1311 30R 9.4% i Dep So. Mpls./No. Rich. 3624 18.6% 2809 �� Total Dep.` 20.1% 1.9471 100% ` 13960 ' 100%° : ; Technical Advisor's Report Executive Summary Page 2 Metropolitan Airports Commission A.pril 1999 Iitighttime RunWay LTse All Operations & Ca�rier Jet Ciperatioris 04 12L 12R 22 1' 30L 30R �. - So. Rich.Bloom. So. Mpls./No. Rich. So. Mpls./No. Rich. Stp./Highld. prk. Egn.lMen. Hts. E�n./Men. Hts. Dep Stp./Highld. prk. Dep Egn./Men. Hts. Dep Egn./Men. Hts. Dep So. Rich.Bloom. Dep So. Mpls./No. Rich. Dep So. Mpls./No. Rich. Percentage I Count Jet � Percentage 235 19.7% 232 19.4% 108 9.0% 33 2.8% 115 9.6% 473 39.5% 34 508 182 [�.� � 3.0% 44.5% 16.0% 10.4% 103 9.0% 195 17.1% • 1 1 1', : 1 �, 56 5.� 21 2.2% 65 6.9% 398 42.0% 948 � :=100% 7 1.0% 354 ., 51.1% 13.9% 9.5% 5.6% 18.9% ::100%: - - -- -- _ - ------ -- - - - - j �uring April 1999 runway use for all operations showed a change in the irend of runway use favonng an increase �-in overall crosswind runway usage from March of 1999, although the bulk of the traffic was concentrated on the parallel runways. The use of the crosswind runway increased from March 1999 to April 1999 -with 6.6% more departures on runway 22 and 0.8% more departures on runway 04. Arrivals on the crosswind runway increased from March 1999 to April 1999 on runway 04 by 1.3% and showed a minimal decease on runway 22. Pazallel runway operations represented a predominate Southeast traffic flow with 30.1% more operations departing off 12L&R compared to 30L&R and 23.6°Io more operations anriving on 12L&R compared to 30L&R. Carrier jet operations showed overall corridor usage decreased slightly from March 1999 to April 1999, although the parallels still supported the bulk of the iraffic. Use of the crosswind runway increased from March 1999 to April 1999 with a 7.5% increase of departures on runway 22 and a 1.0% increase of departures on runway 04. Arrivals on the crosswind runway increased from March 1999 to April 1999 on runway 04 by 1.4% and showed a minimal decease on runway 22. Corridor operations dropped from March 1999 with 12L&R departure operations decreasing by 2.0% and 30L&R arrival operations decreasing by 1.7°Io. Overall Parallel runway use favored Southeast traffic flows with 22.7% more arrivals on 12L&R compared to 30L&R and 29.7% more depaxtures on 12L&R compared to 30L&R. ,�� ,,, �.� ......,.., ._...._.._ _.._ __-------- ---- - - The nighttirne hours (2230 - 0600)�during-April -1�999�represent•a��ubstan#ial�increase in runway 04 arrivals and an overall decrease in corridor usage compared to March 1999. The all operations runway use assessment depicts 19.7% of the arrival operations occurring on runway 04 (13.0% increase from March 1999) with 49.1% of the arrival aperations occurring in the corridor and 60.5°Io of the departure operations occurring in the corridor. The overall percent of operations over Minneapolis in April 1999 showed a slight increase from March 1999 levels. There were 5.8% more departures over Minneapolis and a 2.5% decrease in arrivals over �Minneapolis from March 1999 to April 1999, which represents a increase in overall operations over Minneapolis of 3.3%. The use f the crosswind runway over South Richfield and Bloomington increased from March 1999 to April 1999 with '., �'rival operations on runway 04 increasing by 13.0% and departures on runway 22 increasing by 1.4%. Technical Advisor's Report Executive Summary Page 3 Metropolitan Airports Commission t `r Nighttime ca.rrier jet operations were consistent with the ail operations trends. Corridor o erations were comprised of 48.9% of total arrivals and 65.0% of total departures in April 1999 representing a decrease in , arrivals by 7.0% and a decrease in departures by 4.0% in the corridor from March 1999 to April 1999. There were 28.9% of the total arrival operations and 24.5% of the total departure operations over IVlinneapolis in April 1999 representing an decrease in arrivals of 3.9% and a increase in departures of 5.6% over Minneapolis from March 1999. Z'he use of the crosswind runway increased with arrival operations on runway 04 increasing by � 12.8% from March 1999 to April 1999. April 1999 Catalvsts for the Runwav Use Configurations In addihon to wmd and weather conditions dictating the nature of the runway use at MSP, consiruction during the month of April 1999 influenced runway use for the month. I . � i i r , � ' . 1 � � � . �, , , t , ,; ; '�� : ' '' Ci ' � ` F Mont6ly Ip ` � ' ' ` APp'ro `Rimate Str�ei Locabon ) �� ! � -� Y .1 � � �� s� { 2 �� .ri'7,* t h 1 t jl : � �. It [ � '9 `� d\ , f�...��" .f:':�' `� :�'�. . . .. . � .. , ...,..:..r.,,....�.�....'...... 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Avenue & 41st Street (2,2 2 Minneapolis Fremont Avenue & 43rd Street 6¢,� 3 Minneapolis W Elmwood Street & Belmont Avenue 66.4 4 Minneapolis Oakland Avenue & 49th Street 67.3 5 Mian�Polis 12th Avenue & 58th Street �,� 6 Minneapolis 25th Avenue & 57th Sireet 76.6 � Richfield Wentworth Avenue & 64th Street 6¢,5 g Minneapolis Longfellow Avenue & 43rd Street 6¢,5 9 St• �� Saratoga Sireet & Hartford Avenue 5�,2 - 10 St. Paul Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street (�¢,� 11 St. Paul Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue 55.8 12 St• Paui Alton Street & Rockwood Avenue 55.7 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 62.5 14 Fagan First Street & McKee Street 69.7 15 Mendota Heights Cullen Street & Lexington Avenue (�¢,4 16 Eagan Avalon Avenue & V'ilas Lane 69.9 17 Bloomington 84th Street & 4th Avenue �,5,9 18 Richfield 75th Street & 17th Avenue �,3 19 Bloomington 16th Avenue & 84th Street (8,1 20 Richfield 'ISth Street & 3rd Avenue g�,g 21 Inver Grove Heights Bazbara Avenue & 67th Street 58.3 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 61.3 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Avenue �,g 24 Eagan Chapel Lane & Wren Lane (�,3 Technical Advisor's Report Executive Summary Pa�e 4 Metropolitan Airports Commission A..�ril 1999 RMT DNL Level Summarv , The above monthly DNL assessment per RMT site is consistent with the actual runway use for the month of April 1999. The higher DNL levels are for the most part concentrated off the ends of the parallel runways due to the frequency of parallel runway usage. The St. Paul RMT sites represent some of the lowest DNL values in the report. � A^pril 1999 Ton Ten Noise Events Per RMT Summa�r The top ten noise events and the event ranges at each RMT for April 1999 are very similar to the information collected in March 1999. The top noise events at each RMT were comprised of 91.3% departure operations and the predominate aircraft was the Boeing 727-200 with the exception of sites located in St. Paul due to the number and nature of operations over St. Paul. Technical Advisor's Report Execudve Summary Page 5 � C �\' '_, � � � . ' . � . � 1 1 , � 1 1 1 . , ' 1 ' l , � ' i 1 Executive Summary Metropolitan Airports Commission MSP April Fleet Mix Percentage A,pril I999 Stage Use Composition During the month of April 1999 manufactured sta.ge III usage = 48.3%, sta.ge III usage = 32.5% and stage II usage = 19.2%. April 1999 Aircraft Composition The hushkitted DC9 was the most predominately used aircraft with 7179 operations consisting of 25.6% of the total carrier jet operations. Following the DC9 hushkitted the top three were the Airbus 320 with 3607 operations (12.9% of the total), DC9 (sta.ge I� with 2710 (9.7% of the total) and the Boeing 757 with 2705 (9.7°Io of the total). 1999 March vs. April Complaint Summary April 1999 Com,plaint Origzn Summarv MSP complaints during the month of April 1999 were highly concentrated in four cities: Minneapolis = 439, Inver Grove Heights = 280, Eagan = 47 and Mendota. Heights = 43. April I999 Complaint Time o�,Day SummarX, The majority of complaints were received in the following time periods: 07:00-11:59 = 192, 20:00-21:59 = 183, 12:00-15:59 = 160 and 22:00-22:59 = 150. April 1999 Nature �Complaint Summar„Y The nature of the received complaints were concentrated around the following sources: excessive noise = 749, early/late = 174, ground noise = 34 and low flying = 10. Technical Advisor's Report Executive Summary Page 1 Metropolitan Airports Commission Ai ort Operations eference aagrarn ; ,,� �ii . . . ;1�� i : . • . � � � � � . .; Runway ; Depa�iuire : Over�ght Are� � Count All �: Percentage ` C�uxat J�t,, Perceai�ge 04 Arr So. Rich.Bloom. 457 2.3% 35$ 2.6% 12L Arr So. Mpls./No. Rich. 6485 32.7% 5148 36.6% 12R Arr So. Mpis./No. Rich. 5512 27.8% 3279 23.3% 22 Arr Stp./Highld. prk. 65 0.3% 43 0.3% 30L Arr Egn./Men. Hts. 3145 15.9% 1865 13.3% 30R Arr Egn./Men. Hts. 4158 21.0% 3366 23.9% Total A�: 19822 ., 10(i% -: 9.4059 ; 100% ;_ ; 04 Dep . . .._.Stp.�Hig�ld: prk. . 2i4 _ __. �:l% :' 148 l.l% 12L Dep Egn./Men. Hts. 6993 35.9% 5654 40.5% 12R Dep Egn./Men. Hts. 4506 23.2% 2619 1$.7% 22 Dep So. Rich.Bloom. 2110 10.8% 1419 10.2% 30L Dep So. Mpls./No. Rich. 2024 10.4% 1311 9.4% 30R Dep So. Mpls./No. Rich. 3624 18.6% 2809 20.1% Tmtal DeP• 19471 100% 13960 100%'' Technical Advisor's Report'Executive Summary � Page 2 Metropolitan Airports Commission April 1999 Nighttime Runw�y Use All C�perations & Carrier Jet Operations Runway ��e Over�ght Area `- Count �il Percc�ntage �ount Jet Percentage ..._,. . , _ _ __ 04 Arr So. Rich.Bloom. 235 19.7% 190 20.0% 12L An So. Mpls./No. Rich. 232 19.4% 218 23.0% 12R Arr So. Mpls./No. Rich. 108 9.0% 56 5.9% 22 Arr Stp.lHighld. prk. 33 2.$% 21 2.2% 30L Arr Egn./Men. Hts. 115 9.6% 65 6.9% 30R Arr Egn./Men. Hts. 473 39.5% 398 42.0% Total Arr: �;, �._1196 :'` '°.100% � �'.948 "- _ 100% 04 Dep Stp./Highld. prk. 34 3.0% 7 1.0% 12L Dep Egn./Men. Hts. 508 44.5% 354 51.1% 12R Dep Egn./Men. Hts. 182 16.0% 96 13.9% 22 Dep So. Rich.Bloom. 119 10.4% 66 9.5% 30L Dep So. Mpls./No. Rich. 103 9.0% 39 5.6% 30R Dep So. Mpls./No. Rich. 195 17.1% 131 18.9% Total Dep:.::;: _ ::.1141 ';. ,�; 100%. :. .. .: :' 693 , :; ; ;.100%; ;:: --- ._ _ �iring April 1999 runway use for all operations showed a change in the trend of runway use favoring an increase iri overall crosswind runway usage from March of 1999, although the bulk of the traffic was concentrated on the parallel runways. The use of the crosswind runway increased from March 1999 to April 1999 with 6.6% more departures on runway 22 and 0.8°Io more departures on runway 04. Arrivals on the crosswind runway increased from March 1999 to April 1999 on runway 04 by 1.3% and showed a minimal decease on runway 22. Parallel runway operations represented a predominate Southeast traffic flow with 30.1% more operations departing off 12L&R compared to 30L&R and 23.6% more operations arriving on 12L&R compared to 30L&R. Carrier jet operations showed overall corridor usage decreased slightly from March 1999 to April 1999, although the parallels still supported the bulk of the traffic. Use of the crosswind runway increased from March 1999 to April 1999 with a 7.5% increase of departures on runway 22 and a 1.0% increase of departures on runway 04. Arrivals on the crosswind runway increased from March 1999 to April 1999 on runway 04 by 1.4°Io and showed a minimal decease on runway 22. Corridor operations dropped from March 1999 with 12L&R depa.rture operations decreasing by 2.0% and 30L&R arrival operations decreasing by 1.7%. Overall Parallel runway use favored Southeast traffic flows with 22.7% more arrivals on 12L&R compared to 30L&R and 29.7% more departures on 12L&R compared to 30L&R. A�vril 1999 Nighttime Runwav Use Summary All O,�erations and Carrier .Tet Operations -- The nighttime hours (2230 - 0600)-du�ing�4pr�l�-�999•rep�sent-a-subs#�ial-�e�ease in runway 04 arrivals and an overall decrease in corridor usage compared to March 1999. The all operations runway use assessment depicts 19.7% of the arrival operations occurring on runway 04 (13.0% increase from March 1999) with 49.1% of the arrival operations oecurring in the corridor and 60.5% of the departure operations occumng in the corridor. The overall percent of operations over Minneapolis in April 1999 showed a slight increase from March 19991evels. There were 5.8% more deparlures over Minneapolis and a 2.5% decrease in arrivals over Minneapolis from March 1999 to Aprii 1999, which represents a increase in overall operations over Minneapolis of 3.3%. The use ".,the crosswind runway over South Richfield and Bloomington increased from March 1999 to April 1999 with t� _�ival operations on runway 04 increasing by 13.0% and departures on runway 22 increasing by 1.4%. Technical Advisor's Report Execu6ve Summary Page 3 Metropolitan Airports Commission Nighttime carrier jet operations were consistent with the all operations trends. Corridor operations were comprised of 48.9% of total arrivals and 65.0% of total departures in April 1999 representing a decrease in arrivals by 7.0% and a decrease in departures by 4.0% in the corridor from March 1999 to April 1999. Z'here were 28.9°Io of the total arrival operations and 24.5% of the total departure operations over Minneapolis in April 1999 representing an decrease in arrivals of 3.9% and a increase in departures of 5.6% over Minneapolis from t' March 1999. The use of the crosswind runway increased with arrival operations on runway 04 increasing by ' 12.8% from March 1999 to April 1999. Anril 1999 Catalvsts for the Runwav Use Confi�urations In addit�on to wmd and weather conditions dictating the nature of the runway use at MSP, construction during the month of April 1999 influenced runway use for the month. , � � � , � . . ,; � � ,� � • �R1VI'I' � -_ , , �` ' � �`• ' MOIIi�� : m � ' �rtY , App�o�ffiate Street, I.ocation ; : .5 , � .,, �, . .. .. . . .. ._ r � , �;. ..,;: 4 ��; � ��. � . ,� _ DNI. 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Avenue & 41st Street (2,2 2 Minneapolis Fremont Avenue & 43rd Sireet 64.7 3 Minneapolis W Elmwood Street & Belmont Avenue 66.4 4 Minneapolis Oakland Avenue & 49th Street 67.3 5 M��Pojis 12th Avenue & 58th Street 72.7 6 Minneapolis 25th Avenue & 57th Street 76.6 � Richfield Wentworth Avenue & 64th Street 6¢,5 g Minneapolis Longfellow Avenue & 43rd Street 6¢,5 9 St• Paui Saratoga Street & Hartford Avenue 57.2 10 St. Paui Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Sh�eet 6¢,� 11 St. Paui Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue 55.8 12 st• Paul Alton Street & Rockwood Avenue 55.7 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 62.5 14 Eagan First Street & McKee Street 69.7 15 Mendota Heights Cullen Street & Lexington Avenue 6¢,4 16 Eagan Avalon Avenue & V'ilas Lane 69.9 17 Bloomington 84th Street & 4th Avenue (a5,9 18 Richfield '75th Street & 17th Avenue �,3 19 Bloomington 16th Avenue & 84th Street (8,1 20 Richfield 75th Street & 3rd Avenue 57,8 21 Inver Grove Heights Bazbara Avenue & 67th Street 58.3 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 61.3 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Avenue 72,C 24 Eagan Chapel Lane & Wren Lane �,3 Technical Advisor's Report Executive Summary Page 4 Metropolitan Airports Commission A_„pril 1999 RMT DNL Level Summarv The above monthly DNL assessment per RMT site is consistent with the actual runway use for the month of April 1999. The higher DNL levels are for the most part cancentrated off the ends of the parallel runways due to the frequency of parallel runway usage. The St. Paul RMT sites represent some .of the lowest DNL values in the report. � A�ril 1999 Top Ten Noise Events Per RMT Summarv The top ten noise events and the event ranges at each RMT for April 1999 aze very similar to the information collected in March 1999. The top noise events at each RMT were comprised of 91.3% departure operations and the predominate aircraft was the Boeing 727-200 with the exception of sites located in St. Paul due to the number and nature of operations over St. Paul. Technical Advisor's Report Executive Summary Page 5 � '�""1.\��\�\ \'�� .."".\\ `� . - . . - \ \�\\� � � � v�. +, v i � � !/. R! �` � t ""'��' �� -� � � . � � �. \�tl � >. •. � � � � ! r�.�=—._�,,,�`. ' �� ` L � � `r�'�.., ti� �\ \ �� } Y�� ` . j� 1 . y � y . � � ' �t � d�1r . i'�--�,_'=��^,-"'�Ia��.�...� �,►„`'. ��`� "�`,'`..� \``'� ��;.� e � � i � s I s �. � i � . i . . !py � i f i =�!_�'..' ::� ..� _ �'^\��\�.` \"\-,� . �• ,` _. \, � i l . � � i � `r i �!�'-,__�w+: �. �,�„+� �-�'� ��'�� r � � 4 i � i t �� t �R, = �.=-�_ . r ��. ��`_ �`+.\•\ �` \ �� . � . t � � �__ J ; -� � —■``'—__"\� `� ��' \� � � � � ,. .. ,:� ti ! : � ;��' �. •, - -- rll��► ,�� r..—.-----_._."' �I�ri '=�i�nr.�►�\\�� \ � r tir—►��=--��--_...��►�� ; 1;;�-�"'� �`.� : t�Aw , ��S � , ► i�j ' `��.� `�,; � _ �� , . s ; �i �, � �_...,��. �� . .i , ; f : ��,' �,,, . ,,, ,` ;, ; < , ., �� , ��`�' 'i`i' � i �' ' ' . ` � ,�� , ' � i �� `,`� ♦t > .r �1►.`.�' � � �!' '`� � �'� � `� ;. i ��`�..I�i!��1 �, p�� : 1., f. 1 � 2r i' � �\l� '�� ' , � . I' ',f �� , ,� `l-� �/��I�II%,'��u � . .. �� I � S`�/�r/ /► � Jf�i '��'*i��i �//%./i�" "',s` ,r ,"fi �! ... ,i��., + , . r I�. i ,��_��., "y� -^_.I ' . jr I/� � / �►• �".:.:..� � r� / ,I, 4 i � . . . . . , �'t �,!. �� • . . � . .�►. �1�� „�` , - \ .,r' 1 ``I��.1��\ .. . . �� >� ..,. . . _ `\� � v��i'�,�i1�`\,�` �.; _ . .i— � w _ i '�� '1►�""�I'�,�� j`�� ' i.._ 4!�%��1,�� ' ��'''�" �% . �' - ,r - ��► .=�`-`- ��/'..�,., ` ---._ �.��'� ``'�f:Ai,r,�r,�-/�, � � r �' � ' . �`_i��ii�►�` •_.�/I%/ /i . �/ • � � . � � ��_!`�'_� ��i �Ii � �r .. ��'i► ��/�/i �`i i/i . . ��„r �►��:'%� �� ji ' �.._:� /.I �.+'�I�'/r . �. �.: ��. I�� ► �,��,"� /�i_ /►'��`��.�-/�ii � i . � i . ,. i y i ' r , . ` . ��"��j ' � . /- �. ' � � � �' �.': � �%-`//�/'� / / / .�� , � j ��% % � •� r ' i �. � � \ • ��.��,�//��// � �. � ' / � f ' .� d� . ' • r t �. 1 !� `tn �/,//�� /,Ir!'i � �` �` ', . 7c , ..t y, ;. A�.�/r� � . � "` i .. � •' i i i .., / : t • % � • � \ , �� 4� . 1 . � . /y �. .. � i t,Pr. � �. . t �i\ �%�"'�- i` :', , .. � , f ��,� f%j I/r�h i � \ \ �� t}t � �\ �%/�/ �� :> i r ./ i � p /� jj/ /'` �i � �/� r � ` '�'� it;.j`�� 9, 4��i ll4'L �%"ii/ ��: i ., � ' � i�.�r��/�t � /i//„ . ri � ,- `�t;., t �� ,` ,��.\��,.\ � ,✓ /� / -i '��ji / ��` %z � . // � - Ii / � � � � 1 � � u��. � i.l 1\ / :� �' / i � .�✓ %�/ji. i � :� �/��1 d i ..� �\��\.�. \�� . ! � . . . . . .. _ .... i . � _ , ./ i�: ...%�.r. ..Ial��..,! �!• . •`\.\ � � �.� �1 r � � �., Metropolitan Airports Commission � � � � . � � � � ; 1 , 1 1 1 , . � . . � � • � . , ' i � , , � � , • � � . �; � � � � � , ., , . , . �, � . � � � � 1 1 • � � 1 . i; 1 1 �/ 'i 1 i � page 2 Aviation Noise & Sateliite Programs �� C c c � w C � C � c � ^'� � ¢ c c c � � G 0 -6 Metro olitan f � p Airports Commission 'nneapolis - St� P'aul I ternational Airport i� ,, , r� � � . . ' . ;� . . � , . ' . � . � ' � . �; � � �' � � '� � � ( � � � � � � / i 1 1 . 245 TRACKS CROSSED P-GATE LEFT COUNT=7 (2,9�) RIGNT COUNT=238 (97.1�) ; . . s; . , , , , �-------- � , ------------------ ---------,---------------- -�-------l--- � , , ------�----------------- • �, i . .. •. � ' . �° �.• �a; . .� •°p� s � � � a • •4 ' � � , •• ,b j� � ' • -----------------1-----------------'----------------��---------------t-----------i--- � � , � • ----------------- ; , • r, •ii ° � 4 i, v o a '�:'9� a. e, y�, �� o• ,es p • �;�� s ar° e'O� • • • s • a� a , � � � � , � � � ; � 1 • • Mt '"""""'_""'; i • *""""_""""�"' _ """"" � � • s s� � ----�-------- �--e----4�---e------ °-��----------------- • • I "' :• � • •o : • 00 -40�00 -2000 0 20�00 40�00 �nn DEUTATION FROM CENTER OF GATE (f f) Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 3 ' Metropolitan Airports Commission Minneapolas - S� Paul International Airport April 1999 ; � �: 8273 ... Total 12L and 12R Carrier Jet Departures 6... Carrier Jet Departure - Early �.'u.rnout (0.0 °10 (North Side Be%re Three Miles) 6 TRACKS CRQSSED P-GATE �EFT COUNT=1 (16.7�) RIGNT CO�NT=5 (83.3�) �', DEVIRTION FROM CENTER OF GATE (ft Page 4 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs , �l r-� •�• •• • � , � , �; ,� � � � � � ;; � � � � � ' � , c � � , '' � . � ' ' , .' , ' a � 1 1' i �' � • � ': ,. � . i . ,_ � � � � � � '' 1 � , 1 . • . Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs �, C � Page 5 Metropolitan Airports Commission W � � p � O h— �') 1-- J "C O O O c'� C C C -6 � ; Minneapolis - S� Paul International Airport Apr�l 1999 8273 ... Tota112L and 12R Carrier Jet Departures 108 o.a Carrier Jet Departures (1.3%) South of Corridor (Sou�th of 30L Localizer) 108 TRACKS CROSSED P-GATE LEFT COUNT=103 (95,4�) RIGNT CO�NT=S (4.6�) • • s a � � � � ----`-----------'r ----�-----------------ir---------------- `-----------------`----------------- """'"_"'_' � i � � ! i • f! • � p i • � � ' e ' O • r O * •;� •• � ' � e � � � � � O �� i � � � "_""""""'_L""_�"""""' J"' _ _"' _""_' _ _ J�""""""""'i � ."---"'-�R' E-i-�'�'--'�-------'-� r ;'� •. *•. °� �•' . ° �� . , �• e O p � O � +;• • O� � � � � � ' � N � i � ' - � ""i"'_"'_"""""�"'_""""'_"' ""'-�"""' • """'"""�"""'"""""""'�""""""""' ""_" ; """' •� • -4000 -�2000 DEVIATIQN FROM CENTER OF GRTE (ff) Page 6 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs " � C C �� _ Metro olitan " P Airj.�orts Commission l�nneapolis - St� Paul Inte�na�aonal Airport _ Apr�l i999 � ., . � , . � � , . , �,�. , , . , , �,� . • �; , . �. , � �• ;• , . .. . , 9 TRACKS CRQSSED P-GATE LEFT COUNT=3 (33,3%) RIGHT COUNT=6 (66.7�) DEVIATION FROM CENTER OF GATE (ff) Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Pa�e 7 � Metropolitan Airports Commission Southern Boundary Cora-idor Gate Penetration Analysis � Minneapolis - St� Paul International Airport April 1999 0.5 %(40) Carrier Jet Departures 5° South of Corridor (5° South of 30L Localizer) ( j Page 8 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Metropolitan Airports Commission Minneapoli� � St� Paui Internat�onal :t�irpo�t April 1999 �, 8273 ... Total 12L �nd 121� Carrier Jet Depai-t�.re� 3l ... C�rrier Jet epartures (0.4 % S° South of Corridor (5° South of 30I, I.ocalizer) 31 TRACKS LEFT COUNT=27 (87.1%) CROSSED P-GATE RIGHT COUNT=4 (12.9�) co i O � � � , """"'"""'_'_i""" � � � """""'1""""""""'�'"_"""""""_' • � O � �"_'""""_""'`"""' � ' � ' � '_"""" �� i • � • � w � • � � � ' � � i•� ' � � � ' •' ' , • ' , � , , � , ;. , -----------------;---� ----,-----------------=- ------- � � � _________________L L___'__'__________ � � �'��'�' i•• A • • • ' • � 1 � 1 � � � � � ' � '__�____________�.' 1 T__�_��_�_______�_�__�__�__�_�__�__ _l___�____�_�_�__�__�� -40 _ , , , , �� ' � 'lu CENTER OF GATE (ft Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 9 Metropolitan Airports Commission �_ O O O � W C� � � F-- O —� O � � C\' �� j Minneapolis - 5� Pau1 International Airpori April 1999 8273 ... Total 12L and 12R Carrier Jet Departures 9... Carrier Jet Departures, - Early Tu.rnout (0.1 % (South Side Before Three Miles) 9 TRACKS CROSSED P-GATE LEFT COUNT=3 (33.3%) RIGHT CO�NT=6 � � ', , , ; . , , p , ----------------------------�-----.-------------------- i• . o e • i ' ' ' "'_"'""_"""�""""'"""""""""_' "_"""'_"""""'__"'r_"""'_"'_'""""""' �""'"'""" � � ' _ _�' _______________'__..______f_____._______._._________" ' ""' _""' _"'"""_"_""' i'""_ _""""""_"" _ _" , � ' t_"'_"'__""_ ""_"__""""'_""�"'_"'__"""""'_""' DEUTATION FROM CENTER OF GATE (ft� Page 10 Aviadon Noise & Satellite Programs C� �:: �., � ��. ; �, � 1 -� .. / i `�M! � A biweekiy update on litigation, reguladons, and technological develoQments Volume 11, Number $ Land Use FAA ISSUES LAND USE PLAr��IIl'�G INITIATIVES ATME]D AT IMPROVING INFOR:MATION FLOW In an effort to maximize the only power it has in terms of local land use — the. power of persuasion — the Federal Aviation Administration announced that it has developed five land use planning initiatives that can be implemented in the short- term and are aimed at providina information to the local officials who make land use plannin� and zoninQ decisions around airports- The five initiatives, expected to be implemented over the next six months, are: • To develop a land use plannin� information package that can be used by FAA regional offices and by national planning organ��tions; , � • To develop an information packa�e detailing e�cisting state laws dealing with airport land use that can be sent to state aviation organizations; • To provide a"single-point clearinghouse" for compatible land use planning information within the FAA. This will inc�ude launching by July a web site on __ land use plannin� within the FAA's O�ce of Airports: ( • To employ "rapid-response procedures" to communicate FAA policies to local ' - � communities; and • To provide "greater focus" on noise abatement in-flight procedures and emphasize consultation with airports and�communities- This will be done thou�h a • (Consinued on p. 56) Burbank NOiSE RESTRICTIONS IN PART 161 STUDY ARE NOT EXEMPTED I:t3�TDER.ANCA, FAA SAYS New noise restrictions under consideration at all-Stage 3 Burbank-Glendale- Pasadena Airport are not exempt from the requirements of the Airport Noise and Capacity Act (ANCA), the Federal Aviation Adminisuation concluded in a legal opinion issued l�1ay 13. The City of Burbank had arQued that a mandatory curfew, operationai caps, and noise buclQet rule currently being considered in a federal Part 161 study beinQ done by the Burbank airport authoriry qualified for an exemption under ANCA Section 47�2(d)(3), which permits imposition of noise restrictions aD eed to in prior interaovernmental aQreements. FA.A Administrator Jane Garvey has warned the City of Burbank that the Part 161 study supportina ne�v noise restriction on Stage 3 aircraft must meet a very hiah bar, so imposinQ the new restrictions throuQh an ANCA exemption process would have avoided that jeopardy. Burbank arQued that the interQovernmental a�reement exemption under ANCA � � represen[s "a consressional declaration ihat the provisions of the Noise Act should `_.. not apply to the implementation of a preexistin' intereovernmenta] a�reement re�ardless of whether the actual implementin� rule was in effect prior to adoption ` (Continued on p. 57) �� Nlay 14, 1999 In This Issue... Land Ilse ... FAA an- nounces five short-term land use planning initiatives aimed at providing information to local planning boards - p. 55 Burbank ... FAA issues legal opinion finding that noise restrictions under . consideration in Part lbl - study do not qualify-for an ANCA exemption -p. 55 Key West ... FAA approves Part 150 pro�am for airport but rejects proposal in it to do Part 161 study of curfew, ban on light business jets - p. 58 Airlines ... Delta an- � nounces it is selling its 727 fleet for conversion to cargo use. ACI-NA says it confirms airports' fear that hushkitted aircraft will remai.n �in opera- tion for a long time - p. 59 Noise Moni�oring ... Australian-based Lochard announces that it is acquirina the ANOMS noise and fli�ht track rnonitorin� sytem from HMMH - p. b0 Copyri�ht �O 1999 by Airport Noise Report, Ashburn, Va. 20147 Survey ... C&S unveils 1999 airport survey - p. 61 San Francisco ... Airport ajrees with need for open EIR process on relocatin� runways into Bay - p. 61 News Briefs ... - p. 62 �( Airport Noise Report chan�e in FAA Order l 050.1D, which defines how FAA compiies with the National Environmental Policy Act. The recommendations were detailed in documents released by the FAA in mid-May. implementation of the recommendations will require the panicipation of several offices within the FAA, including the Office of Environment and Eneray, O�ce of Airports, Office of the Chief CounseI, Community and Environmental Needs Division, Office of Plannina and Analysis, Office of Air Traffic, and regionaI offices. y Information Flow Can Be Improved "We feel that the information fIow can be vastly improved in terms of small zonin� boards makin� better informed decisions" on compatible land use and understanding FAA policy on it, James Erickson, director of the aaency's O�ce of Environment and Ener�y, told reporters in a scheduled interview. The federal government has no power in teruis of land use other than the power of persnasion, he said. But "there is much information out there" as well as some state statutes with disclosure requirements "that can prevent hostile situations from developin�;" he said. With the transition to an all-Stase 3 fleet, noise contours azound many airports aze expected to shrink, at least in the short-term, and the FAA. wants local zoning boards to act to prevent residential development from following the con- tours in toward the airport. ' Erickson said that the FA.A will consider chan�ng the threshold for compatible residentiai land use around airports from 65 dB DNL to 60 dB DNL as part of Iona.term land use initiatives the agency will consider at some point in the future. The FAA. will do a cost/benefit analysis to determine the cost of such a chanse, he said. The FAA has begun to form links with the American Plannin� Association, which currently has no standing committee on airport noise, "but folks are lobbying to do that," Erickson said. Other land use initiatives that will be implemented in the medium- and IonQ-term tirne frame will be announced at some point in the future by the aQency, Erickson said. While the shon-term initiatives deal with information sharing, the mid-term initiatives will deal with issues of "trainina," he said, and the long-term initiatives with the policy question of how the FAA can best direct its srant pro�ams to obtain better local land use planning. y The land use planninQ initiatives aze bein� developed by an FAA Ivlanasement Oversieht Commi[tee consisting of Erickson: Clyde Nf. DeHart, Jr., administrator of FAA's Southwest ReQion; Nancy B_ Kalinowski, manajer of the FAA's Plannins and Analvsis Division; James W. Whitlow, deputy chief counsel; and Lynne S. Pickard, manaser of the a�encv's Communitv and Environmental Needs Division. FAA last year issued a notice askinQ [he public for assistance in its developinQ land use planning inivatives. • The committee recommendations reflect that input. Text of Recommendation Following is partial text of the formal F.AA document outlinina the short-term land use plannin� initiatives, which was signed by the committee on March 31, but jvst made public: "'The FAA's Land Use Planning Ini6ative seeks to develop processes by which the agency can better influence land use planning and zoning around airports. Environ- mental impacts of aviation noise on progerties in the vicinity of airports are a continuing problem. The compatibility of land uses in the vicinity of an airport is associated, to a iarge extent, with aircraft noise impacts from the operation of the airport The Federal governmerit does not control land use. The FAA. does set forth guidelines for land use compatibil- ity to assist those resgonsible for determinin,� the acceptable and permissible land uses in the vicinity of airports. The development of new noise-sensitive land uses in the vicinity of airports continues to be a problem. The FAA estimates that noise contours around our nation's airports will continue to shrink dramatically through the year 2000 with the phaseont of Stage 2 airplanes and beyond with the retirement of noisier hushldtted Stage 3 airplanes. This contour shrinkage could encourage communities to allow more noise-sensitive land uses closer to airpons. This � initiative is exploring options as to how the FAA mighi� become more effective ih communicatina Federal policy, advertising the neerls and operational reyuirements of airports, and, ultimately, influencing land use decisions around'airports. "This initiative obtained suggestions for addressina land use compatibility from intemal reviews"and throu?h public comments to Docket No. 29231. After reviewing proposals, the project team developed preliminary recommendations for aciions that would assist local governments in meetins their long-range planninD efforts ..." Deiails of Initiatives • Initiative One: The land use information.packa�e for re�onal offices and national planning organizations would include materials for regional personnel to use in furnishing land use information at local meetin�s and durin� other opportunities. "It would reflect the FAA's aviation noise policies, the effects of the Stage 3 transition, and pertinent reference materials," the FA.A document noted. "'The information packa�e will inclvde written testimony on noise issues and planninQ, examples of spe�ches previ- ously aiven and �eneric presentations; position papers on FAA noise policies and the effects of the Staae 3 transition; sample zonin� and disclosure ordinances; and other perti- nent reference maferials, including suitable videos if available." Tiansmitfal of this information packaQe will be by memorandum from FAA headquarters to resional adminis- trators. Copies also will be forwarded by letter to national airport organizations for potential distribution to appropriate airports and planning or�anizations, the aeencv said. Airport Noise Report �. �� C �� Max 14, 1999 The Mana�ement Oversi�ht Committee noted that a � po[ential problem with this initiative is lack mf travel fundina to enable re�ional personnel to participate in local ;" � land use meetings. "Travel funding shortapes would limi[ the option's effectiveness," the committee noted. • Initiative Two; The information package for state aviation orpaniza[ions wiIl include samples of exisung state and local zonin? and disclosvre lea slation and other pertinent reference materials. Transmittal will be by letter from the FAA to the Naaonal Association of State Aviation O�ciais (NASAO) with copies to the FAA regionai o�ces. The committee also noted potential problems with this initiative. `"This recommendation requires locating and evaluating existina statutes to identify those suitable for FAA referral. Although this recommendation does not forward model ordinances endorsed by the FAA, any examples referred mi�ht be viewed as FAA-supported measures. The transmittal must be cazefully crafted to emphasize the forwarded material as merely informational: ' • Initiative Three: The FAA will set up a"single-point clearinghouse" for compatible land use plannina informa- tion. This clearinghouse "will consolidate and make available all FAA and associated guidance for ready access by federal, state, local, industry, and public users," the a?ency said. It will provide access to FAA orders, advisory circulars, reports, studies, and other related information. The clearinghouse will "provide access to aIl available compat- ible land use planning resources applicable to aviation: ' '.(�--_ This cIearinahouse will be located on an FAA web site � based in the agency's office of airports. The site�would be �� '� linked to other land use sites within and outside the federal government. • Initiative Four: The FAA will "employ rapid-response procedures to communicate FAA policies to local communi- ties: ' In order to respond to state and local requests for FAA assistance, the agency will issue a Memorandnm of Under- standzng defining "a fast-track process for FAA to convey environmental policies reQarding airport noise issues on an as-required basis: ' The apency said it would respond to requests for involvement in local land use decisions by correspondence or by direct participation from headquarters or revional offices. - • Initiative Five: The FAA plans to provide greater focus on noise abatement in-fli�ht procedures and to emphasize consultation with airports and communities on this matter. The asency plans to issue a chan�e to FAA Order 1QSO.1D to update and expand current FA.A ;uidance on complyin� with National Environmental Policy and related require- ments. This will provide a clearer understandina of the actions FAA miaht take in addressin� noise exposure, including areas outside 6� dB DNL and the area of direct airport control.� 57 Burbanl� from p. 55 of the Noise Act" (1 I, ANR, I 1). The 1977 Joint Powers Aa eement, which established the Burbank airport authority, and a 1977 settlement a�reement of a lawsuit with the City of Los Angeles both stipulate that the airport authority cannot permit any activity which results in an increase in the size of the airport's noise impact area (the �0 dB CNEL noise contour under California ]aw). The Czty of Buri�ank fears that a lar�er terminal, which the airport is tryin; to build, will resuIt in expanded noise contours, and thus argued that these 1977 agreements provide the basis for imposin� noise restrictions. But the FAA disagreed with this analysis. "The plain langua�e of the Airport Noise Act and the relevant legisla- tive history as well as a close reading of the related inter- governmental ad eements support the conclusion that the intergovernmental agreement exemption to Airport Noise Act requiremen[s does not apply to the city's desired airport noise restriciions," Ncholas G. Gazaufis, chief counsel of the FAA, told Rep. Howazd Berman (D-CA) in a May 13 •letter. The.FAA's opinion considered input from Burbank Airport, the Air Transport Association, and the National -� Business Aviation Association. Specific Evidence Required � � � , One of the main purposes af ANCA, which became � effective on Nov. 5, 1990, "is to limit uncaordin�ted restrictions on aviation and airport access," Garaufis told . Rep. Berman. "Consistent with this statutory purpose, the . FAA reasonably requu�es some specific evidence that airport noise and access restrictions were contemplated at the time. the intergovernmental a�eement is signed in order to apply the exemption from the Airport Noise Act" Parties proposing that airport noise or access restrictions are covered by the ANCA intergovernmental a�eement exemption should be able to provide written evidence that: • The restrictions were already in effect on Nov. 5, 1990; • The restrictions were specifically included in intergov- ernmental aareements sianed before Nov. 5, 1990; or • The restrictions were clearly contemplated at the time the intergovernmental agreement was siQned. None of these requirements were me[ at Burbank, the FAA chief counsel said. , "Persnasive written evidence is lackinQ to support the claim of an Airport Noise Act exemption coverin� its desired noise restrictions. There is no evidence showinQ that the airport noise•restrictions proposed by [the City of 4 Burbank] were already in effect on Nov. 1990. "Evidence is not availabie to show tha[ the city's proposed airport noise restrictions were contemplated by or tha[ they were specifically included in either of the two a�reements under discussion (the Joint Powers Asreement and the 1977 Settlement Agreement). Neither aQreemen[ requires creation of, specifically lists, mentions, or imposes any particular Airpon Noise Report �g Airport Noise Report -" k f airport restrictions. Neither a�reement contains a require- ment to impose specific noise or access restriction," the FAA chief counsel said. The Joint Powers Agreement and the 1977 Settlement AQreement do refer to California State law which prohibits the airport's impacts on nearby communities from exceeding noise standards in existence at the time the airport was established. But, Garaufis said, "this prohibition does not rise to the level of established airport noise or access restrictions." There is no evidence to show that at the time the agree- ments were signed in 19�7, the aa eement drafters contem- plated that this prohibition asainst contour. expansion would be accomplished by specific airport noise restrictions such as mandatory caps, curfews, noise budaet, and operations caps now sought by the city of Burbank, the FAA chief counsel said. . � Agreement requirements could be met by means other than the restrictions sou;ht by the city, Garaufis said, such as by land use restrictions, includina zoning, by acquiring aviDation easements, or by soundproofina. Peter Kirsch, the City of Burbank's special coansei on airport matters'said: "We are disappointed with the FAA's legal opinion and strongly disa�ee with it. We believe that the FAA. should have conciuded that an exemption to the Airport Noise and Capacity Act requirements is availabie to the City of Burbank and the Airport Authority. "Burbank has been pursuing multiple avenues to resolve the dispute over the expansion of Burbank Airport- Unfortu- nately, if the FAA's opinion stands as written, it eliminates one of the avenues for resolvin� the disgute [over the new terminal] quickly. �� "However, the most promisina developmenhwhich could lead to an eazly resolution of the airport dispufe is the recent decision by the California Court of Appeal that Burbank has the ri�ht to approve or reject the Airport Authority's plans for the expansion of the airport. We have called upon the Airporc Authority to join with us, and we remain hopeful that they will do so."� � � Key West Int'Z FAA REJECTS PART 161 STITDY INCLUDED IN PART 150 PROGF:AlVI The Federa] Aviation Administration has rejected an effort by Ivlonroe County, FL, to get federal fundina for a Part 161 study of new noise restrictions at the Key West International Airport by tyina the study to its Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program. In 1996 the FAA announced a policy chanQe to allow the costly studies required to support the imposition of new airport noise rules under the a�ency's Part 161 reQulations . to be funded throush the Airport Improvement Pro�ram. Ho�vever, to be eli�ible for AIP funding, a Part 161 study must be tied to an FAA Part 1�0 proQram in one of two ways • The Part l 61 study can be part of the scope of wor o a Part 150 study and funded as airport noise compatibility plannin�; or • The Part 161 study can be a recommended measure in a Part 150 program and approved by the FA.A as a noise project The FAA noted in its policy chanDe that a commitment to fund a Part 161 study throu�h the AIP process would not be made by the agency until it had completed its review of the Part 1�0 program. Monroe County submitted its Part 150 pro�ram to the FAA last November. The program had eight noise miti�a- tion measures, including a proposed Part 161 study of two operational measures that (1) would impose a mandatory curfew at the airgort from midnight to 6 a.m. on all aircraft operations and (2) wouid phase in a ban on the operation of non-Stage 3 business jets weighing under 75,000 pounds. The county was not propasina that the measures be imple- mented, just studied. � Land Use Measures Sufficient But the FAA concluded that the curfew and ban are not nee�ed because the land use measures it approved in Key . West's Part 150 program — sound insulation and purchase of homes, land acquisition, and compatibie zoning — will accomplish the aoal of making all the ]and use within the 65 dB DNL contour around the airport compatible. �... .. The Part 161 study proposed for Key West does not meet the criteria described in the FAA's 1996 policy statement, � which was issued in the Sept 16, 1996, Federal �Register, the a�ency said. The proposed Part 161 study "does not meet the Part 150 approval criteria of reducing non- compatible land uses be�nd achievements gained by the non-resirictive measures" that are approved in the Noise Compatibility Proa am> the FAA said. However, the a�ency added that "this disapproval for purposes of Part 150 does not preclude the airport operator from pursuin� a Part 161 analysis outside the scope of the .- Part 150 process: ' ANR was unable to contact Monroe County o�cials for their reaction to the FAA's action, but those comments will be included in the upcoming issue. Monroe County officials have been pursuino the goal of closino down both Key West and Marathon airports at niQht since 1996. The number of operations at Key West is growin� and the airport must deal with restricted airspace because of a nearby Naval air station that forces civilian aircraft to approach over residences and a hiah school. Measures Approved While it rejected operational restrictions, the FAA did. approve six proposed land use measures in the Part 1�0 Pro�ram for Key West: • Provide noise insulation in exchanse for aviQation easements — Sinale and multi-family dwellinQs located in the 6� dB DNL and hi�her noise contours as depicted in the ( \. pirport Noise Repon May_�4, 1999 � 2003 Future Condition Noise Exposure Map would be eli�ible for sound insulation with priority given to homes in .' �'e �0 dB DNL contour, followed by the 75 and 65 con- _.,urs; Sound insulation of Key West High Schaol is also approved. The county wants to achieve a 30 dB noise level reduction throuQh acoustical insuiation being incorporated into a renovation of the school. • Purchase homes, sound insulate them, and then re-sell them with avigation easements—The same homeowners as above would be eliQible for this pro�am. Avigation easements would remain valid uniil noise conditions exceeded those predicted in the 2003 Future Condition Noise Iviap. Homes in the 75 dB DNL contour would receive priority in this pro�ram; •.. • Update noise contours annually —This is needed to monitor compliance with the aviaation easement require- ments; • Rezone vacant parcels of land — Monroe Coonty will present a written request to the City of Key West to rezone two vacant parcels of land to prevent non-compatible development; • Acquire vacant parcel of land — The county will recom- mend that one vacant parcel of land be acquired to prevent non-compatible development if the City of Key West does not rezone the parcel to an airport compatible land use: . The FA.A said it would approve such action only if it can �.-he demonstrated that the property is in imminent danger of �in� deveIoped in a non-compatible way and local controls are insu�cient to prevent such development; • Establish compatible land use zonina —Monrce County will seek the cooperation of the City of Key West to . establish airport noise compatible land use zoning and public safety compliance land use zoning. FAA's approval of the overall Part 150 program for Key West International was announced in the May 21 Federal Register. Further information on the pro�ani can be obtained from Tommy J. Pickerina at the FAA's Orlando District Office; tel: (407) 812-6331.� Airlines DELTA TO SELL 727 FLEET FOR FREIG�ITER CONVERSION In a move that concerns airport o�cials, Delta Air Lines, Inc. announced NSav 6 that it has reached asreement in principle with a unit of United Technolo�ies Corp. to sell 1 19 of its hushl:itted BoeinQ 7?7 aircraft for conversion to freishters which can continue operating for the next 10 to 20 years. j' Delta did not specify the terms of the agreement but the ��-airiine said it will sell the Pratt & Whitney 7T8D-15/15A- powered Boeins 727-200 aircrait and up to 39 associated � spare engines over the next six years. ` i'1�Iany of the ]'TSD-powered Delta 72'7s have useful lives of another 10 to 20 years of service as freighters," said Robert F. Leduc, Pratt & Whit�ey executive vice president for proarams, sales and marketin�. "The enQines we get wiIi mean that we can offer spare en�ne and parts svpport to ather JT8D operators tha[ wiil keep their costs of ownership down. This program is simply an eztension of all our efforts, such as hush kit development, to help our customers keep their economical JT8D-powered aircraft flying for years to come: ' But kerping hushkiited aircraft flyina for years to come is siron�iy opposed by airport operators. .. The Airports Council International - North America (ACI- NA) recendy called on the Federal Aviation Administration to set a phaseout date for hushkitted aircraft and other "mara nally 5tage 3" aircraft, assertina that the intent of the Airport Noise and Capacity Act was to aet rid of all aircraft � manufacturerl to meet Staae 2 noise standards by the year 2040. However, with fuel prices low, there is little incentive to �ound the planes at this poinL Airports' Fears Confirmed The Delta announcement "is really just a confirmation of our fear that we have an impending noise crisis," Richard Marchi, senior vice president for technical and environ- " mental affairs for ACINA, told ANR_ Two aspects of the _ Delta announcement aze troubling, he said.lfie first is that the sale of the 727s will occur over ihe next siz years, implyina that Delta will continue to operate the hushkitted aircraft durina that period. The second zs that the 727s are being converted to frei�iter use sa, not only will they be in operation for six more years, but ihey will continue in operation for 20 yeazs in late night service. This "is not an encouragina announcement," Marchi said, but he conceded that it is "airline economics at work and the reason we need a rethinkino of the phaseout schedule: ' " Delta's 727s are expected to operate as freiahters for 20 more years. Many were built in the 1960s, Marchi said, which gives them a 50 year life. ACI-NA officials recently spoke with FAA Administrator Jane Garvey about the need for an industry task force to address the issue of hushkitted aircraft continuing to operate for 3ong periods after the end of 1999 phaseoat date for Sta�e 2 aircraft. . "She was very supportive of the idea," Marchi told ANR. Such a task force would provide a forum for all the stake- holders in the airport noise issue to get toQether to find a workable comgromise to the probtem, he said. Ideally, he said, such a task force wouid convene in time to present its recommendations to the FAA to take to the upcomine meetin� of the International Civil Aviaaon OrQanization next year when it wil] consider increasins the strinaency of its Chapter 3(essentially StaQe 3) noise certification standards. W.A. "Kip" Smith, manaoer of Corporate Communica- Airport Noise Report 60 - Airport Noise Report tions for Delta, said the airline is gettinD rid of its 727s and replacing many of them wi[h significandy quieter 737-800s because it wants to be a good neiDhhor to communities. "Bein� a �ood neighbor is �ood business," he said. Regardina an industry task force on hushkitted aircraft, Smith cautioned that many hushkitted aircraft are being purchased by new start-up air3ines, so limiting the use of hushkitted aircraft raises the spectre of interferina with competition in a deresulated industry. Any forced retire- ment of hushkitted aircraft would most likely have si�nifi- cant financial impact on new entrant airlines and the air C�1I'�'O l IIC�UStI'y. Delta Agreement � Delta said its aircraft and en�ines will be sold as they are retired from its fleet under the airline's 727 retirement ' schedule. The aa eement which is subject to completion of definitive a?reements, will result in the laroest ever used aircraft fleet transaction in terms of number of aircraft, Delta said. ' United Technoloaies' Pratt & Whitney unit said it is working in conjunction with Republic F'wancial Corp., a 27- year-old privatety held equipment leasin� firm headguar- tered in Denver, which pians to market the aircraft after converting them into freiQhters. In addition, Pratt &. Whit- ney said it will use en�ines not required in the freighter conversion to satisfy airline requirements for low-cost, high quaiity support for TT8D-powered aircraft. Neazly 14,400 TT8Ds have been built since the early 1960s,.according to Delta, and they remain the most popular jet engine iri commercial aviation history. "This a�reement creates several advantages for Delta as we look toward the scheduled retirement of our 727 aircraft," said Warren C. Jenson, Delta's executive vice president and chief financial officer. "It provides a known buyer for these aircraft and spaze en�ines at predetermined prices and dates, enablin� us to mana�e our planned 727 phaseout. Furthermore, the transaction provides substantial incremental cash flow over the remaining scheduled operational life of Delta's 727 fleet, and it [will accrete] earninas over the same period. The a�reement enables Delta to maintain our current schedule for 727 retirements without concern for future fluctuations in the used aircraft market " Delta said that approximately 20 727-200 aircraft will be retired in calendar year 1999, with the remainder being retired from Delta's fleet throuQh 2005. "Consistent with the flexibility built into Delta's 7?'7 retirement schedule, the asreement allows Delta to accelerate or defer certain delivery dates to meec unanticipated capacity requirements. Delta's flexible fleet plan supports the airtine's strateQy for modesc capacity growth," the airline said.� Noise Monitoring • • ' i i ; , ` . � � '1 � . � ` g . • The Australian firm Lochard Ltd., a leadina supplier of airport noise and flight track monitoring systems, an- nounced May 10 that is has si�ed a three party letter of intent to acquire the ANOMS (Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System) business and associated intellectual property from Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. and Sensaz Inc. (formerly Larson-Davis) respectively. Between the date of the announcement and the end of February 2000, �il�i will continue to own and operate the ANOMS business to fvlfill its commitments to 22 U.S. customers, including Y2K up�ades. Ownership of the business is expected to transfer to Lochazd on Feb. 28, 2000. During ihe interim period, HIvIl�IH and Lochazd will collaborate to ensure that a smooth iransition of ANOMS customers and transferrina staff occurs on that date, the company said. - Martin Adams, managma director of Lochard, said that the acquisition of ANOMS business would sianificantly expand Lochard's customer base in North America and provide a better infrastructure to serve its North American customers. "We are delighted to welcome the ANOlVIS �� customers to a group of 48 of the wor3d's leading airports to create a joint group of'70 airports spanning four continents," Adams said. The AI3GiYi� acquisition will enable Lochazd to serve over 20 major airports in North America The company said it is committed to an exteasive ongoing research �and development program and intends to support ANOMS into the future, eventually combininD ihe best features from ANOMS and Lochazd's' e7cisting product "GEM�" in the next generauon of the product '• , HIVIIvII3 President Nicholas P. Miller said that this transition will serve the ANOMS clients well, ensuring their systems stay state-of-the-art for the ]ong term. "This change also permits I?[MNI�T to devote all of its resources to maintaining its leadership position in noise and vibration control consulting," he said. - HMIvi�3 acquired the ANOMS system under a licensing agreement with Larson-Davis in 1995 but has decided it is not a viable part of its business, which is primarily consult- ing. bSiller said he had two main concerns about the sale of ANOMS: that the airport clients would be served well by it and the HIvIl1�-i staff workinQ on the system would be taken care of. Lochazd's sole activity is airport noise monitoring and it will continue to improve its products, he said. Also, the H�i .f�IH staff workin� on the ANOMS system will transfer to Lochard, he added. - GEMSIite Lochard also announced that it has developed a new produce called GEMSlite that is suited for airports that do not have fuli time staffs for their noise monitorinQ systems. Airport Noise Repott � �, C � May_ 14, 1999 "GEMSiite's continuous unattended operation enables staff ; to perform other functions with the confidence that situ- ations requiring attention will be automaticaliy highlighted," �the company explained. ' GEMSIite runs on Microsoft Windows NT and uses Lochard's "revolutianary" new SmartMic noise monitors, which the company said delivers "robust hi?h precision monitorin� at a lower cost than traditional noise monitorin� terminals."0 Survey A.IRPORTS MIXED ON EF'FECT OF DEPARTUR.E PROCEDURES Airports that participated in the 1999 Noise Compatibility Survey conducted by C&S Engineers,�Inc. have mixed assessments of the effectiveness of noise abatement depar- ture procedures. . Some 34 of the 67 airports that participated in the survey have implemented noise abatement departure pmcedures. Six of those airports felt that it was the mosteffective noise abatement measure in use, w3uIe five airports felt that it was the least effective measure, according to C&S, which is based in North Syracuse, NY. Respondents to the survey also were mixed on the effectiveness of modifications to fliaht tracics. An equal number of airports (three) felt that ilight track mod�carions were both the most effective an least effective measure. A ( )likely reason for this variance in opinion is the unique '� - —' �eographical nature of individual aizport environments, C&S said, adding that ihe effectiveness of a noise abatement procedure is highly dependent on the location of noise- sensitive land uses reIative to the airport. The C&S survey was disiributed to 211 airports that have used Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement ProQram (AIl') funds for noise compatibility plannina and implementation proarams. A total of 67 airports (32 percent) responded to the survey. ' The respondents included 121arge hub airporu, 12 medium hubs, 14 small hubs, 13 non-hub airports, one commercial service airport, and 14 �eneral aviation airports. 1fie most interestina additional resulu of the survey, according to C&5, were the followinQ: • Land acquisition is considered the most effective noise mitisation measure bv a ra[io of more than two to one over the next most effective measure (residenual sound insuIa- tion); • While the majority of airports staff their pr oQrams with their own staff, the averase number of non-airports staff employed fuil-time per airporu is more than double the average for airport staff; • The total projected cost to complete the noise compati- bility pro�ram at the 28 airports that report data is $1 �2 � billion; �.__, • The most popular and effecuve means of communicatin� with the airport's neishbors is a public meetin�. 61 C&S Enaineers, Inc. provides consultin� services to airports. The firm currently is assisting more than 40 airports wiih physical and environmental plannin�, architec- tural and engineerina projects, noise miti�ation, and construction.� San Francisco Int'X , �r . / ' • � / �' �. . ' 1 ''� San Francisco International Airport said May 10 that it aa ees with the position of many environmental or�aniza- tions in the San Francisco Bay Area on the need for a complete and open environmental review of its proposal [o reconfigure its inadequately spaced runways and possibly extend runways as far as a mile into San Francisco Bay. Some 21 environmenta] organizations in the Bay Area called on the Federal Aviation Administration and the San Francisco City Planning Depariment May 4 to conduct an open environmental review of the controversial runway pmject with extensive opportunities for public participation. :'"We join the environmental organizations in their call to the FAA and�San Francisco City Planning for a comprehen- sive analysis of potential impacts to the Bay and for - thorough review of reasonable alternatives," said John L. � Martin, director of the airport. . .. On May�4, the airport commission received a summary . � feasibility study from airport staff. The study indicated that . t�:�re are n� reliable altemati :�es to runway recc:ifiguration ' if the airport is to reduce flight delays, noise impacts, and accommodate larger aircraft; and that it is technically and financially feasible to construct reconfigured runways in the Bay. The next phase for the runway project will provide for several opportunities for the stakeholder �roups and the public to pazticipate in scoping meetings. These meetings will ask the public to comment on what they think shouid be included in the environmental studies and analyses early in the process. "While the airport is a demand driven public enterprise and we are on a very ajgressive schedule, our environmen- tal process will not cut any corners in terms of thorouah analyses or extensive public participation," said Pe� Divine, deputy airport director for ai�eld development. "The Environmental Impact Report:will include analyses of runway alternatives, a no build alternative, a minimal fill of the Bay alternative, alona with analyses of how they meet project objectives." Divine is headinQ the airpart's team that will plan and constrvct the reconfiaured runways. Over the past.year the airport has been workin� with environmental groups, environmental re�ulatory agencies, the airline industry, the FAA, regional planning agencies, neiahborinc communities, and the business community to discuss the need for reconfisurina runways at the airport. The input of this �roup had a sijnificant influence on the feasibility studies, the airport said. Airport Noise RepoR 62 - Airport Noise Report � . • � � . . � . � � • � � : . � Steven R. Alverson Manager, Sacramento Office Harris Mitler Miller & Hanson ,Tohn J. Corbett, Esq. Spiegei & McDiarmid Washin�ton. DC James D. Erickson Director, Office oFEnvironment and Eneroy Federal Aviation Administration The airport said it plans to expand its public participation opportunities in the future with multiple briefings, pubiic scopina meetines, community meetings, and public hearings. In addition, the outreach effort to provide information to the public wll be expanded with mailin�s, notices, presen- tations, and a project web site.d IN BRIEF ... Grant to Louisville John C. Freytag, P.E. The FAA announced May 21 that it awarded a two Airport Improve- Direc�or, Charies M. saicer Associaces ment Program (AIP) grants Louisville Internarional Airport. A$891,790 san Francisco grant was given for rnnway construction, to acquire ]and for develop- � ment, and to provide relocation assistance. A$3,683,000 �ants was also Michael5cott Gatzke, Esq. given to the airport to acquire land for noise compatibility and relocation. Gatzke, Diilon & Baliance Carlsbad. CA Louisville is the first airport in the country to attempt to relocate an entire community away from the high noise contours around the airport. Peter J- Kirsch, Esq. Cutler & Stanfield Denver Suzanne C. McLean � Manager, Planning and Development Tucson Airport Authority John M. Meenan Senior Vice President for Industry Policy Air Transport Association Vincent E. Mestre, P.E. President. Mestre Greve Associates Newport Beach, CA Steven F. Pflaum, Esq. McDermott, Wiil & Emery Chicago Karen L. Robertson Mana�er, Noise Compatibiliry Office Dalla,s/Fort Wotth international Airport Mary L. Vigilante _ President. Synergy Consultants Seattle Lisa Lyle Waters Mana�er, Noise Abatement Pro�ra[n Palm Beach County Depattment of Airports EIS on TRACON Relocation The FAA announced May� 3 that it has released a Fnal Environmental Impact Statement for construction of a new Terminal Radar Approach Control faciliry in the Baltimore-WashinD on, UC, area. The proposed action is to consolidate four stand-alone TRACONs located at Baltimore- � Eashington International Airport, Reagan Na6onal Airport, Dulles International Airport, and the FA,A ogerated TRACON located at . Andrews Air Force Base, MD. �� , The consolidated TRACON facility will be located at a site in Northern � Virginia near Warrenton, VA. ,,z •' Further information on the project ca'n be obtained from Joseph Champley, Project Support Specialist, FAA; tel: (800) 762-9531; Email: joe.champley @faa.gov. US, French Cargo Alliance The Metropolitan Washinaton Airports Authority and France's Chateauroux airport will joindy promote all-cargo traffic between Washington Dulles International Airport and Europe, the�Airports Council International - North A.merica reported. MWAA and French authorities expect that a b�7ateral parcnership a�reed to in April will evolve o adually into a global network of airports that are oriented to cargo_� � AIRPO.RT NOISE REPORT Anne H. Kohut, Publisher Charles F. Price, Contributing Editor; Iblaria T. Pdorton, Production Editor Published 2� times a year at 43978 Urbanerest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 20147; Phone: (703) 729-4867; FA,X: (703) 729-452$. Price $549. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specifi¢ clients, is granted by Airpon Noise Report, provided that the base fee of US$1.03 per paQe per copy is paid directly to Copyri�ht Clearance Center, 27 Conaress Street, Salem, N1A 01970. USA. Copyri�ht �O 1999 by Airport Noise Repott, Ashburn, Va. 20147 �. :A � MINUTES i � � MASAC OPERATIONS COMMITTEE NYay 14, 1999 The rneeting was held at the Metropolitan Airports Commission North Star Conference Room, and called to order at 10:00 a.m. The following members were in attendance: Members• Mark Salmen, Chair Dick Saunders Bob 7ohnson Dick Keinz 7ohn Nelson Charles Mertensotto Bob Kirnus (for Jamie Verbrugge) Advisorv• Chad Leqve - MAC Shane VanderVoort - MAC Roy Fuhrmann - MAC Ron Glaub - FAA z Visitors• " Mark Hinds, Richfield Glenn Strand, Minneapolis Neil Clark, Minneapolis Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights Jan DelCalzo John Alabach, NWA Wendy Burt, MAC Public Information Officer Jennifer Sayre, NWA AGEI�tLIA INFORMATION DISSEMINATION OPTIONS . Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, reviewed MASAC's cunent internal and external communication efforts (see attachments). Wendy Burt, MAC Public Information Officer (PIO), said the Public Affairs Department has been � focused on communicating information to the public regarding the MSP 2010 Plan and its associated impacts. This includes projects such as the inbound/outbound roadway coastructioq the runway reconstruction project, parking expansion, and changes to the ternunal building. The Public Affairs Department has used a variety of inethods to disseminate informatioq including press releases, traffic sponsorships and newspaper advertisements, which will be an ongoing effort for the next several yea,rs. Ms. Burt.then briefly explained the differences between the mspairport.com Website, which has been implemented and updateci by the Public Affairs department for the general public, and the macavsat.org Website, which has been implemented and updated by the Aviation Noise Programs staff. � Ms. Burt said she and Roy ha.ve more recently been working on a plan to integrate the two Websites. She said the Noise and Community section of the website will be expanded further and that the technical information MASAC members ha.ve come to rely on on the macavsat.org site will still be available. She said once the Website is completed, the departrrient will do some publicity and possibly advertising of the new Website. � Ms: Burt then reviewed a variety of other communication methods that couid be used to communicate better with the residents regarding noise-related issues. A few of those methods could include: • News releases to the local community papers • A targeted newsletter to the public from the MAC • Submitting information to the already established city newsletters s Direct mail letters to citizens in specific parts of the community • Periodic advertising in the community and weekly newspapers Ms. Burt then reviewed some of the topics that may be included as part of this effort, including: o The Part 150 Study Update • Runway use updates as they relate to construction • How to use the Noise Complaint and Information Hotline • The new Website ' o The status of Stage II aircraft at the airport • Residential and school sound insulation program • Meeting schedules and agendas • Results of the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee Ms. Burt said she would like to establish a process for MASAC to bring additional issues to the Public Affairs Departrnent, as well. Ms. Burt said two additional ways to communicate information to the public could include a yearly MASAC report and possibly a video for cable television. Ms. Burt also noted that since MAC staff would soon be planning their budgets for ne�rt year, it would � C. ' be a good time for MASAC to decide whether it would like to step up its communication efforts. Will Egintoq Inver Grove Heights, said he felt a video for local cable would be very beneficial for his community, as well as directing information to the city newsletters. He said the City of Inver Grove Heights just recently decided to step up their efforts to communicate through local cable channels and would appreciate having a video on noise issues available. John Nelson, Bloomington, introduced himself and noted a few items for consideration. He said he had noticed that the inforn�ation on the maca.vsat.org Website hadn`t been updated as regularly as he would like and encouraged that to happen on a regular basis with the new Website. Chad Leqve, MAC Advisor, noted that a library of reports had been added to the Website a few weeks ago, whioh �an be downloaded as PDF files. He also noted that the format for the construction upda.te had recently been changed and that da.ta through May 2nd is currently available. Mr. Nelson said, given the burden already placed on the Aviation Noise Programs staff, he has been pondering the possibility of recommending to the P&E Committee that a"Communications Coordinator" be added to the staff to coordinate efforts between the Aviation Noise Programs staff and the Public Affairs department. Mr. Nelson also recommended that the Public Affairs department determine the cities' deadlines for their respective newsletters in order that information can be submitted on a timely basis. � Wendy Burt, PIO, said she thought it would be a good idea for Roy, Dick Keinz and herself to discuss the possibility of adding headcount to either of their budgets for the purpose of coordinating communication efforts. � John Nelson, Bloomington, noted that Padilla Speer Beardsley had recommended to MASAC that a report be sent to MASAC's appointing bodies, who had identified a need to be better informed. He said he felt a consistent method for communicating to these appointing bodies s'hould be considered. Mr. Nelson said increasing efforts to communicate more effectively with community residents is also very important. He said people who are not technically inclined or who do not have access to the Internet should not be left out. Mr. Nelson said the Minnesota Legislature is also an important arena in which to communicate important inforn�ation. Mark Hinds, Richfield, recommended adding an email forum list link to the Website in order to foster communication about aircraft noise issues both locally and nationwide. He said it is a rather simple and economica.l way to increase communication efforts and would involve a person batching emails together and sending them to interested parties. � Mr. Hinds also suggested that a MAC newsletter could be more specifically directed toward city policy makers, rather than the general populace. Mark Salmen, NWA, said if an email forum list link is added to the website, he would be concerned about making sure the information being disseminated was factual and not simply an opinion. 3 � Mr. Salmen also noted his support for establishing an ongoing program for using sma11 group meetings between staff, MASAC members and interested community groups to discuss important noise issues. � Charles Mertensotto, Mendota Heights, said credibility is very important to the issue of aircraft noise. He used, as an example, the minun�zl use of runwa.y 4I22 during the first month of construction. He said many people are wondering why the expected change has not occurred and noted that these types of situations create credibility problems. Wendy Burt, MAC PIO, agreed that MAC could, be doing a better job of communicating what is happening operationally at the airport. Mazk Saimeq NWA, said opera.tional changes at the airport would continue to change throughout the construction season. John Nelson, Bloomington, noting Ms. Burt's recent letter to the editor in the Sta.r Tribune, said it is important that misperceptions printed in the media continue to be corrected. Mr. Nelson also suggested that an Executive Summary of current noise issues at MSP could be made available on the Website for legislators and city council members and staff to access so that they could get information from one source rather than having to move around. within a Website. He said these people do not have the time to read through pages of information. Mr. Nelson noted, as well, that he would like to get away from using technical jargon and acronyms, as much as possible. Jan DelCalzo, Minneapolis, asked when the inte,gration of the two websites might be completed. Wendy Burt, MAC PIO, said the target date is for late June but that is a very aggressive timeline. Chad Leqve, �_„ MAC Advisor, said the integration will involve substantial efforts on behalf of the MIS, Aviation Noise Programs and the Pablic Affairs departments. �" - There was a discussion about how the iunways are currently being used and how these changes or non- changes can be communicated in an up-to-date fashion. John Nelson, Bloomington, listed a number of issues or items MASAC would like to have communicated to the public: • Meeting scheriules for MASAC and the MASAC Operations Committee � Minutes of the MASAC meetings • A list of available reports �. • MASAC's current work p1an Wendy Burt, MAC PIO, said she would put together a communications proposal for 1999 and 2000 and talk to Roy Fuhrmann-about�some internal issues before #he �next Operations meeting. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, suggested the following: 4 s The communications program should identify who the audience is and what messages should be conveyed o Establishing credibility will be important • Long and short term information needs should be considered • Making available information about the FAA's FAR Part 150 and FAR Part 161 rules • A MASAC sub-committee be formed to help formulate the final communications program and review information being posted on the Website JOHN NEILSON, BLUOIi�YINGTON, MOVEI) ANI3 BOB JOHNSON, IO�.BArS, SECONDEI) TO RECOMNIEND THAT MAC'S PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND AVIATION NOISE PROGRAM5 STAFF DEVELOP A COMMZTIVICATIONS PROPOSAL FOR DISCUSSION AT THE JUNE 11, 1999 OPERATIONS COMIVIITTEE MEETING. NR'A ENGINE TEST CELL MOIVITORING REPORT Roy Fubrrnann, Technical Advisor, briefly reviewed the NWA Engine Test Cell Monitoring request and report. , • The ma.jority of the test cell operations occur with the TT9D type engines, which are usually found in Stage III aircraft. , • Monitoring was conducted on March 16, 1999. • The Eagan Airport Relations Commission was briefed on Marc�i 24th. • The resident whose home was used as a monitoring site in Eagan concurred that there was no �' � audible sound associated with the operation of the engine test cell. Mr. Fuhrmann then reviewed the monitoring locations and explained the results at each site. Mr. Fuhrmann also showed displayecl an overhead that depicted the number and path of the flights that occuned during the monitoring time frame. He also noted that departures were to the southeast. Mr. Fuhrmann then reviewed the four findings included in the report. He noted that the engine testing was not audible at either the Brown Institute or residential locations. Mark Salmen, NWA, noted that he had the director of the engine test cell facility review the report and that he noted that normally engines aren't run more than 90 seconds at a time. He said the engine had been run for 10 minutes for the monitoring project. Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, asked how much of an effect the wind speed had on the monitoring results. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said the 6-8 lrnots wind speed would not ha.ve made much of a difference in the propagation of noise. Charles Mertensotto, Mendota Heights, said he felt the report was well written and suggested sending the report to Airport Noise Report. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, noted that the Airport Noise Repor. t usually only reports on policy issues 5 and warned that they may not publish a story on the report. CHARLES MERTENSOTTO, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MOVED AND JOHN NELSON, ` BLOOMINGTON, SECONDED TO HAVE STAFF SEND THE NORTHWEST AIRLINES ENGINE TEST CELL MONITORING REPORT TO THE AIXPORT NOISE REFORT. THE VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS. MOTION APPROVED. John Nelson, Bloomington, suggested that the report be distributed to the MASAC members and that it be appendeti to the Ground Noise Monitoring Study. Charles Mertensotto, Mendota Heights, suggested the report be distributed with the MASAC mailing and that the motion to append it to the Ground Noise Monitoring Study should be made at the full MASAC meeting. � PART ISO CONTOUR GENERAT70NDISCUSSION Roy Fuhrmanq Technical Advisor, introduced Kim Hughes, HNTB. Ms. Hughes gave a brief history of the Part 150 program at MSP. • The first Part 150 was submitted in 1987 with approval in 1990. • The first Part 150 was then revised in 1993 with approval in 1994. • The FAA has not been partial to squaring off the contour boundaries. s The FAA defines aircraft noise compatible land use, defined in Table 1 of the FAR. Part 150, as areas outside the 65 contour. • Local jurisdictions can decide that Table 1 of FAR Part 150 is not applicable to their cornmunity. s During the last upda.te to the Part 150 program, MAC changed Table 1 to include sound insulation �' for schools. �, ' • It is a misconception that the FAA will not approve mitigation for areas outside the 65 contour. • Airports can adopt a designation of non-compatible land use that is different from Table l. • The NEM contours and na.rrative must identify these areas as non-compatible and propose to mitigate. • Ms. Hughes noted that the Metropolitan Council has adopted a non-compati6le noise contour ma.p that includes areas up to 1 mile outside the projected 2005 65 Ldn contour, which is not quite as fa.r � out as the 2005 60 Ldn contour. This may present some land use planning problems for some communities. Comparisons to Other Airport Communities • MSP has significant residential impact. o Achorage's airport has only 300 homes in its 65 Lrin contour. • Tampa's airport has orily 200 hornes in its 2003 65 Ldn contour. They are proposing an insulation program for these homes, which are generally very large and expensive. • Salt Lake City's airport has only 3 homes within its 65 2002 Ldn contour, They are not proposing to insulate these homes because the homeowners do not want to be bought out. • New Orlean's airport has been legally mandated to insulate homes within the 65 Ldn contour. Their boundary definition is by block or canal. 0 C � • Denver's airport is now undertaking its master plan. In 1998 there were 10 homes in the 65 Ldn contour. Residents in the 50-55 Ldn contour aze now bringing suit against the city so they too can be insulated. o Hartford, Connecticut's airport has 100 homes in its 65 Ldn contour. Becanse the homes are isolated, the contour will most likely be definerl by adjacent roads. • Some airports, such as Dulles, have not instituted a sound insulation program beca.use they are a relatively new airport. Although, they aze experiencing pressure from developers to allow residential development. Dual Track EIS Requirements • The contour should be expanded to the 65-60 Ldn. • Insulation for Low Frequency Noise should be included. Boundary O�tions • Intersecting blocks outside fihe contour. (Easy to define, has FAA approva.l and community acceptance.) . • Natural boundaries. (streets, ma.jor highwa.ys, geographic boundaries) • There was discussion about the possibility of providing a partial insulation package to homes on the edge of the contour. It was noted that there are problems with this suggestion, both legal and with implementation. Cha.rles Mertensotto, Mendota Heights, said he supported using a natural boundary to define the � contour because the cunent system does not make sense to the residents. He said Table 1 of the FAR �_ Part 150 does not apply to MSP because the cities surrounding the airport had residential areas near the airport before it was fully developed. Y - Mark Hinds, Richfield, said redevelopment plans should be addressed in the FAR Part 150 program. Glenn Strand, Minneapolis, said he supported "softening" the contour's edge by lessening the amount of money spent on insulation for residences in those areas. He said a hard contour line is difficult for people to understand. ' Conclusions � If intersecting blocks are used for a boundary definition, it should be rounded off outside the contour. s The MSP Noise Mitigation Committee recommended (and was included in.the Fina.l Dual Track EIS) that "natural boundaries" should be considered, where possible, for defin'ing the contour boundary. • A combination of intersecting blocks and natural boundaries is an option. � MASAC and MAC will have to prove to the FAA why they should approve insulation outside the standard 6� Ldn contour. In other words, prove incompatibility. o Community members neerl to be educated on how the contours and boundaries are generated. � • Once the contours are developed, staff and the consultants will bring a proposal to the Operations Committee for comment and consideration. � / ' Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, noted that the Airport Noise Report ran a story on MSP's attempt to ban Stage II aircraft from operating at MSP after December 31, 1999 and distributed copies to those who were interested. Mark Salmeq NWA, said he would set up a special meeting for the Operations Committee members to tour both the engine test cell facility and the run up pad. Roy Fuhrman, Technical Advisor, also spoke about the Minneapolis Straight-out Departure Procedure. He said that, although the loca.l FAA Air Traffic Control Tower personnel do not have any concems about implementing the procedure, the regional office has asked that MASAC open it up for comment. He said MASAC could open it for commenf between the May MASAC meeting through the June MASAC meeting. Mr. Fuhrmum said any comments would then be forwarded to the FAA regional office for the final Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSn. _ Mr. Fuhrn�ann then explained what the procedure enta.iled. � He said two Minneapolis representatives had initially suggested the procedure, with the Operations Committee developing the final recommendation. He said the procedure asks the Air Traffic Control Tower personnel to, whenever possible, give a heading other than runway heading when departing aircraft to the northwest. He said the purpose of this procedure is to give some relief to those residents who are directly under the arrival path. ; � Ron Glaub, FAA, asked abouf why there had been a change in the . Technical .Advisor's Report regarding the reporting of Sta.ge �II and Stage III operations to include data. on the number of Stage III Hushkitted operations. He said he is concerned about how that data. is being collected. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, explained that the change was in response to a request from the MASAC members. He said the information is being collected from the FAA's ARTS data, which now has a designation for hushkitted aircraft. He said the ICAO identifier identifies hushkitted aircra.ft with a"Q," and that is how aircraft are being designated. He said he does not believe there are any implications to designating the aircraft in this mamier. It is simply for MASAC members' infomiation. He said the "hushkitted Stage III" operations da.ta includes hushkitted and re-engined aircraft. Mark Salmen, NWA, said he continues to object to the additional designation. He added that MASAC had not passed a motion to make the change to the report. John Nelson, Bloomington, noted that there is conclusive and quantifiable evidence that hushkitted aircraft are not as quietas manufactur.ed.Stage III aircra.i�: He noted,.however, that there is no dispute that hushkitterl aircraft are Stage III. He noted that it is possible that the next significant noise mitigation effort might be to accelerate phase out the hushkitted Stage III aircraft. Mark Salmeq NWA, said by designating aircraft in this manner he believes MASAC is undernvning 0 � the airiines' ,good intentions and the U.S. legislature's efforts to ensure the European Union's acceptance of hushkitted aircrafi. Glenn Strand, Minneapolis, said in order to obtain value from the data, these designations are needed, regazdless of how other entities ma.y view them. Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, said he would be interested in lrnowing the difference between how the different types of aircraft perform during departure procedures. Charles Mertensotto, Mendota Heights, noted that MASAC is not a political entity and should not be concemed with political motives. Rather, he said, MASAC should be interested in the scientific aspects of noise. The rneeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Melissa Scovronski, Committee Secretary Y m s C ;: � � ',,, r . , , � ,; .� r r r . r , r , . � ; �` . � 26 April 1999 � .►• A Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee (the "Policy Committee") was established by an agreement between the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the City of Richfield. The agreement charged the Policy Committee to conduct a comprehensive study of low frequency aircraft noise. The agreement charged the Policy Committee to convene an Expert Panel to provide technical input and information to the Policy Committee. The Policy Committee requested that the Expert Panel draft a Plan of Work containing those tasks required to provide the Policy Committee with the technical informarion that it needs to fulfill its responsibilities under the agreement. � ' : : �r�:� 11 � A Draft Work Plan was prepared by the Expert Panel as the basis for discussions with the Policy Committee on 17 February 1999. The Expert Panel met on 25 February 1999 to revise the Draf� Work Plan. This Revised Work Plan is submitted for discussion with the Policy Committee during the meeting of 3 March 1999. Revisions include refinement of individual task descriptions and development of proposed schedules for completion of tasks and presentations to the Policy Committee. As noted previously, the Expert Panel may identify further tasks as additional information becomes available.during execution of the Work Plan. �" - During the meeting of 25 February 1999 the Expert Panel completed substantive work on some tasks. The task descriptions include the results of that work (e.g., agreement that annoyance is the effect of low frequency noise that the Expert Panel is addressing). TASKS IN WORK PLAN The Work Plan proposed by the Expert Panel consists of the following nine tasks: Task 1. Review literature on audibility, noticeability, and effects of low frequency noise on individuals and cornmunities The documents to be reviewed include those listed below. Additional documents that the Expert Panel believes will improve the information base will also be reviewed. 'I'he completion date for Task 1 is 23 April 1999. Berglund, B., Hassmen, P:, and Job, R.F.S. (1996). "Sources and effects of low-frequency noise," J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 99(5), 2985-3002. � REVISED PLAN OF WORK FOR THE EXPERT PANEL B 26 April 1999 (continued) �" Blazier, W. (1991) "Noise Control Criteria for Heating, Ventilating, and Air-Conditioning Systems," Chapter 43 of Harris, C. (ed.), 'Third Ed.ition, Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York. Broner, N. (1978). "The effects of low-frequency noise on people C a review,@ J. Sound and Vib., 58(4), 483-500. � . FAA Engineer's Report (1998) "Residential Sound Insulation at Baltimore/Washington International Airport, AIP 3-24-0005-39" Fidell, S., Silvati, L., Pearsons, K., Lind, S., and Howe, R. (1999). "Field study of the annoyance of low-frequency runway sideline noise," J. Acoust. Soc. Am., in press. H1V�1V]H Report 294090, (1996) "Development of Single Event Noise Metrics for Use in Identifying .Aircraft Operations for Possible Mitigation." Hl�� Report 293810.04, (1996) "Logan Low-Frequency Noise Study.0 HMMH Report 294'730.300/293100.09, (1998) "Study of Low Frequency Takeoff Noise at Baltimore-Washington International Airport." Hubbard, H., (1982) "Noise Induced House Vibrations and Human Perception," Naise Control Engineering Journal, Volume l9, No" 2, pp. 49=55. � Lind, S., Pearsons, K. and Fidell, S. (1997). "An Analysis of Anticipated Low Frequency Aircraft Noise in Richfield Due to Operation of a Proposed North-South Runway at MSP," BBN Report $196. � . Task Z. Identify Relevant Noise Effects and Descriptors The Expert Panel shall describe the purposes for which low frequency noise descriptors are needed and compare the utility of C-weighted and other measures of low frequency aircraft noise for these purposes. The Panel shall also identify means for converting disparate low frequency noise descriptors into comparable units, and if possible, reach agreement on a single preferred noise descriptor for present purposes. The completion date for Task 2 is 31 March 1999. During its meeting of 25 February 1999 the Expert Panel decided that it is likely that annoyance is the only effect of consequence from present or future low frequency noise in the vicinity of MSP. While the literature review (Task 1) will be relied upon to confirm or reject that thesis, the Expert Panel will begin its work focusing on issues assaciated with annoyance. %� � 2 . REVISED FLAN OF WORK FOR THE EXPERT PANEL B 26 April 1999 (continued) Task 3. Determine existing and predicted low frequency noise levels in the vicinity of MSP runways BBN and �INTNII3 have both estimated low frequency noise levels due to future operation of runway 17/35, although the two studies used different descriptors to describe the noise environments. In this task, the Expert Panel will undertake two sub-tasks: (1) determine current ambient and aircraft-related low frequency noise levels; and (2) resolve any differences between BBN and �TiiVIMH estimates of future noise levels. In the first sub-task the Expert Panel will measure and map existing low frequency noise levels in Richfield and in azeas Bloomington and Minneapolis in the vicinity of MSP. (The rneasurements will be conducted at the same time as the measurements for Tasks 5 and 6.) In the second sub-task the Expert Panel will map predicted noise levels based on existing data using the descriptor selected in Task 2. The completiori date for the second sub-task of Task 3 is 23 April 1999. Task 4. Identify criteria for acceptability of low frequency noise in residences The Expert Panel shall identify a rationale for assessing the acceptability of low frequency aircraft noise intrusions. This effort will include conduct of listening tests under controlled conditions. 'The rationale shall take into consideration the relative annoyance of overflight, departure and ground noise of aircraft operations, the prevalence of annoyance due to aircraft ground operations, and such other factors as agreed by the Expert Pan�l. The rationale shall permit inferences about the efficacy of alternate treatments for increasing low frequency noise isolation in residences, and to the extent feasible, generally resemble the rationale for mitigation of the effects of overflight noise. Four levels of noise reduction will be tested: typical (unmodified) residential construction and construction that provides 3 dB, 6 dB and 9 dB of noise reduction improvement at low frequencies. (The Expert Panel identified a 9-dB improvement in low frequency noise reduction as the practical upper limit for improvement.) The completion date for Task 4 is 4 May 1999. Task 5. Determine low frequency noise reduction provided by typical residential construction in the vicinity of MSP Few measurements of the low frequency noise reduction of typical residences in the vicinity of MSP have been made. The Expert Panel will define a program of ineasuiements to document the low frequency noise reduction of such residences. The measurements will be undertaken by the Expert Panel with the assistance of personnel of MAC and the Ciiy of Richfield. The measurements will be conducted at approximately 5 houses of each type of construction typical of the housing stock around MSP. The completion date for Task 5 is 18 June 1999. Task 6. Determine low frequency noise reduction provided by residences subsequent to treatment in the MSP Residential Sound Insulation Program 3 REVISED PLAN OF WORK FOR THE EXPERT PANEL B 26 April 1999 (continued) � This task is similar to Task 5, but is for residences that have been treated in the MSP Residential Sound Insulation Prograrn. T'he Expert Panel will define a program of ineasurements to document the low frequency noise reduction of such residences. The measurements will be undertaken by the Expert Panel or with the assistance of personnel of MAC and the City of Richfield. The measurements will be conducted at approximately 5 houses of each type. of construction typical of the housing stock around MSP. (The construction types will be the same as identified during Task 5.) The completion date for Task 6 is 18 June 1999. � Task 7. Evaluate the acceptability of low frequency noise environments in residences without and with treatment from the MSP Residential Sound Insulation Program Based on the noise reduction information from Tasks 6 and 7 and future low frequency noise levels from Task 3, the Expert Panel will estimate interior levels of low -frequency noise in residences without and with treatment frorn the MSP Residential Sound Insulation Program. The Expert Panel will compare these esfiimated levels with acceptability criteria identified. in Task 4. The . Expert Panel believes that this task will identify the need to improve the noise reduction of at least some construction types beyond the level achieved by treatment from the MSP Residential Sound Insulation Program to achieve compatibility. For that reason, it is recommended that the laboratory portion of Task 8 be undertaken as part of ttus Work Plan. The completion date for Task 7 is 16 . July 1999. � Task 8. I�etermine the,types of treatment required to improve the noise reduction and achieve compatibility of the low frequency noise environment In this task, the Expert Panel will identify construction techniques appropriate to achieve the noise reductions evaluated in Task 4(i.e., approximately 3 dB, 6 dB and 9 dB). Before use of the techniques in a rnitigarion program, the Expert Panel believes that they should be analyzed using the following rnethods: (1) testing in a laboratory environment, and (2) application to several residences in the vicinity of MSP. The Expert Panel proposes that the laboratory analysis be conducted within this work plan. However, because of the time required for field modifications and testing, the Expert Panel recommends that application to residences in the vicinity of MSP occur after completion of this Work Plan. The completion date for Task 8 is 14 May 1999. +, =: � 4 REVISED PLAN OF WORK FOR THE EXPERT PANEL B 26 April 1999 (continued) Task 9. Prepare reports to the Policy Committee documenting the work of the Expert Panel The Expert Panel will undertake a11 tasks in this Work Plan in a manner to facilita.te regular progress reports to the Policy Committee. To achieve this goal, the Expert Panel will prepare interim and final reports documenting each task. At the completion of Tasks 1 through 7, a consolidated report will be prepared. The completion date for Task 9 is 30 July 1999. SUGGESTED SCHEDULE OF PRESENTATIONS TO THE POLICY CONIlVIITTEE � The Expert Panel suggests that the results of each task be discussed at meetings with the Policy Committee shortly after completion of the individual tasks. A schedule of ineetings is listed below. Please note that the schedule of ineetings differs from the initial schedule distributed on 17 February 1999. While the nurnber of ineetings is the same, a total of $, the dates of individual meetings have been changed to fit the schedule for completion of tasks. Meetin� Date To�ic 14 April 28 April Task 2: Noise Effects and Descriptors Tasks 1 and 3: Literature Review and Predicted Levels of Low Frequency Noise 19 May Tasks 4 and 8: Criteria for Acceptabikty of Low Frequency Noise in Residences and Types of Treatrnent Required to Improve Low Frequency Noise Reduction 23 June Tasks 3, 5 and 6: Measurements of Ambient Low Frequency Noise and Low Frequency Noise Reducfion of Residences without and with Treatrnent from the MSP Residential Sound Insulation Program 21 July 11 August Task 7: The Acceptability of Low Frequency Noise Environments in Residences without and with Treatment frorn the MSP Residential Sound Insulation Progxam Task 9: Final Report D:�PROJECTS�MSP_LF�MSP_LF_SOW 3.wpd 5 Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee Thursday, February 11, 1999 � I MASAC Room MAC General Offices MINUTES The Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee meeting was called to order at 1'1:15 a.m. The following were in attendance: Members: Mike Sandahl, Richfield; John Himle, MAC; Mark Bemhardson, Bloomington; Jan Del Calzo, Minneapolis Technical Support: Nacho Diaz, Metropolitan Council; Glen Orcutt, Federal Aviation Administration Expert Panel: Andrew Harris, HMMH Others: N. Finney, T.W. Anderson, J. Unruh, R. Fuhrmann, MAC; C. Lane, Bloomington; M. Salmen, B. Johnson, MASAC; E. Groschen, Met Council; S. Dibble, Minneapolis; D. Brauer, D. Weitzel, J. Dean, Richfeld; B. Williams, R. Williams, D. Pemberton, A. Duffe, W. Duffee, J: Enger, Richfield CARE; D. Saunders, SMAAC ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES John Himle welcomed members to the initial meeting of the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee (LFNPC). Follawing introductions, Mr. Himle a�d Mike Sandahl provided background information on the agreement between the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the City of Richfield and the role of the LFNPC. Mr. Sandahl indicated that the role of the LFNPC is to provide a better definition of low frequency noise impacts and where they occur and what should be done with individual impacts. He stated that the Committee should identify a range of mitigation measures with the individual communities determining what should be done in their respective communities. a. Determination of Chair The Committee agreed that Mr. Sandahl and Mr. Himle altemate as Chair of the Committee. b. Establish Meetinq Dates and Times The Committee agreed to meet twice a month on Wednesdays at 3:00 p.m.; the next meeting will be held on February 17:�-The Committee-also-discussed allowing�-altemates to serve on the Committee. Mr. Himle suggested that either the representative or the altemate have the authority to make decisions on behalf of whomever they are representing if the Committee is voting on any issue. Mr. Sandahl also discussed a final �eport by the Committee indicating that it �should include a map of the impacted area and a list of altemative mitigation methods. Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee February 1 'I , 1999 � � Page 2 c. .MASAC Participation Request The Committee discussed a request from MASAC regarding representation on the LFNPC. Mr. Himle suggested that it would be more appropriate for them to serve as a technical representative. Mr. Sandahl stated that he agrees with Mr. Himle and the intent was not to exclude anyone from participating in this process and that MASAC should serve in the same capacity as FAA, Met Council and MPCA. IT WAS MOVED BY BERNHARDSON THAT MASAC BE ADDED TO THE LOW FREQUENCY NOISE POLICY COMMITTEE AS TECHNICAL SUPPORT. DE� CALZO SECONDED THE MOTION. John Dean, Attomey for Richfield, addressed the Committee and stated thaf any motion passed regarding representation on the LFNPC must refer the matter back to the parties who signed the original agreement fo� their approval. Mr. Sandahl suggested that these are open meetings and there is nothing preventing MASAC from sitting at the table and participating in the meetings. He suggested that the Comm'ittee proceed in that way until the matter can be discussed by MAC and the City of Richfield. - - Jan Del Calzo indicated agreement with Mr. Himle and stated that the responsibility has been passed to this body to make recommendations with a final reportJrecommendation taken to the respective bodies for final approval. She indicated support for MASAC participation as Technical Support to the Committee. � Mr. Bemhardson stated that since this Committee was derived out of the agreement beiween � the finro parties, he made the motion under the premise that both the designated representatives were in agreement, therefore .the matter did not need to be referred back to the City or MAC. He indicated that if there is concem he would make the motion contingent on either party having thirty days to abject. IT WAS MOVED BY BERNHARDSON, SECONDED BY DEL CA�ZO, TO AMEND �THE MOTION AS FOLLOWS: � THAT THE LOW FREQUENCY NOISE POLICY COMMITfEE RECOMMEND TO THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND THE METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION THAT MASAC BE ADDED AS TECHNICAL SUPPORT, SIMI�AR TO MET COUNCIL, F,AA, AND MPCA, AND CONSIDER FORMALIZING THIS ACTION AT A FUTURE MEETING. THE MOTION CARRIED. d. Expe�t Panel � Mr. Himle indicated that there -has been -some-disagreement-regarding the role of the E�ert Panel and requested that Andrew Harris, HMMH, provide the Committee with an update on this issue. Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee February 11, 1999 Page 3 Mr. Hams stated that there have been ongoing discussions with Mr. Fidell regarding the role of the E�ert Panel and they are seeking clarification regarding the role of the panel. He indicated that the ag�eement between MAG and Richfield is not explicit regarding the scope and nature of the expert panel's work. One interpretation of the agreement is that the scope and nature of the panePs work is to be determined solely by discussions with the expert panel and the LFNPC. Another interpretation of the agreement is that the expert panel may exercise independent technical judgment about the scope and nature of information that it believes the Policy Committee should consider. Mr. Sandahl stated that he feels that the Policy Committee is charged with scoping the project for the expert panel and the panel could then determine how to proceed with the project. Mr. Himle indicated agreement that the Policy Committee define the work parameters for the e�ert panel. Mr. Dean stated that the expert panel has more expertise than the Policy Committee regarding what issues should be looked at and Richfield is concemed that their ability to properly inform the Committee on those issues could be precluded if the expert panel does not set the agenda. Mr. Bemhardson stated that the expert panel is providing assistance to the Policy Committee and suggested that the Policy Committee provide the expert panel with a broad scope and direction with the expert panel defining the work program and retuming to the�Policy Committee for approval to proceed. --- Mr. Himle suggested a motion clarifying the role of the Policy Committee to define the scope of (. ) the study and requested that a proposal outlining what the expert panel feels should be defined � in the scope of work be presented at the next meeting. Mr. Himle suggested the following process: 1. The expe�t panel make a proposal to the Policy Committee related to what should be studied and how to implement the study 2. The Policy Committee would define a scope of the study 3. The expert panel would �conduct the studies, develop and, 4. Report back to the Policy Committee to consider recommendations; what the Policy Committee decides af the �FNPC. Mr. Sandahl added the following: findings and recommendations the findings, conclusions and in the end will be the final report 5. The expert panel report back to the Policy Committee frequently 6. The expert panel�give a briefing on low fre�queRcyrroise at the next meeting 7. Incorporate the process that was discussed into the charge to the expert panel. IT WAS MOVED BY BERNHARDSON, SECONDED BY SANDAHL, THAT THE POLICY COMMITTEE DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A FORMAL CHARGE TO THE EXPERT PANEL FOR APPROVAL AT THE NEKT MEETING. THE MOTION CARRIED. e Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee - February 11, 1999 � Page 4 Discussion followed regarding completion of work of the LFNPC within 100 days of the approval �. of the Richfield-MAC agreement. IT WAS MOVED BY SANDAH�, SECONDED BY BERNHARDSON, THAT THE DEADLINE FOR COMPLETION OF THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE BE CHANGED TO 100 DAYS FROM FEBRUARY 11, 1999, RATHER THAN FROM THE DAY THE AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED. THE MOTION CARRIED. IT WAS MOVED BY BERNHARDSON, SECONDED BY DE� CALZO, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. THE MOTION CARRIED. The mee#ing was adjoumed at 12:20 p.m. Y Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee Wednesday, February 17, 1999 Room 3040, Lindbergh Terminal Wold-Chamberlain Field MINUTES The Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee meeting was called to order at 3:35 p.m. The following were in attendance: Members: Mike Sandahl, Richfield; John Himle, MAC; Larry Lee, Bloomington; Jan Del Calzo, Minneapolis Technical Support: Glen Orcutt, Federal Aviation Administration; Brian Timerson, MPCA; Chauncey Case, Metropolitan Council Expert Panel: Andrew Harris, HMMH; Sanford Fidell, BBN Others: N. Finney, T.W. Anderson; J. Unruh, R. Fuhrmann, MAC; M. Salmen, MASAC; S. Harms, S. Dibble, �J. Putnam, Minneapolis; D. Brauer, D. Weitzel, J. Dean, Richfield; S. Lindgren, Richfield Chamber; A. Duffe,.W. Duffee, Richfield CARE; D. Saunders, SMAAC � MASAC PARTICIPATON REQUEST O Mike Sandahl reported that the City of Richfield has not met to discuss the request from -' MASAC for representation on the LFNPC. He anticipates that the request will be approved to accept MASAC as Technical Support at the �City Council's next meeting. John Himle indicated that the MAC approved the recommendation at their Febnaary 16'n meeting. • � • :� -• � •- � • Sandy Fidell, BBN, provided a brief overview of low frequency noise and the issues involved. It was suggested that the Expert Panel provide additional information at each of the meetings as the study proceeds. • • • .. �• .•� -. Lou Sutherland has ag�eed to serve as the third member of the expert panel. Andy Hams, HMMH, reviewed a draft Work Program for the expe�t panel which included the following nine tasks: 1. Review literature on audibility, noticeability, and effects of low frequency noise on individuals and communities. 2. Identify relevant noise effects and descriptors. 3. Determine existing and predicted low frequency noise levels in the vicinity of MSP runways. 4. Identify criteria for acceptability of low frequency noise in residences. Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee -- February 11, 1999 Page 2 �- 5. Determine low frequency noise reduction provided by typical residential �, construction in the vicinity of MSP. 6. Determine low frequency noise reduction provided by residences subsequent to treatment in the MSP Residential Sound Insu(ation Program. 7. Evaluate the acceptability of low frequency noise environments in residences without and with treatment from the MSP Residential Sound Insulation Program. 8. Determine the types of treatment required to improve the noise reduction and achieve compatibility of the low frequency noise environment. 9. Prepare reports to the Policy Committee documenting the worlc of the Expert PaneL A draft Table of Contents of the Findings of the F�cpert Panel was also reviewed. Discussion followed regarding the work program; Larry Lee questioned if the worlc program relates only to residential uses or if it includes commercial uses. Mr. Fidell responded that housing is the primary concem, however it will also look at what constnaction codes should be in place for new construction. Mr. Lee asked for clarification regarding commercial uses such as hotels that have sleeping issues and also if the residential uses are for both single and multi-family structures. Mr. Sandahl indicated that the sfudy was based on concem of low frequency noise impacts on residents in close proximity to the new runway. He stated that the focus of the study should be on residential impacts and if the expe�t panel recommends that commercial uses should be looked at this could be done once the residential part is complete. ( IT WAS MOVED BY HIM�E, SECONDED BY DEL CALZO;YTHAT THE FOCUS OF THE LOW fREQUENCY NOISE POLICY COMMIT('EE BE ON THE RESIDENTIAL IMPACTS OF LOW FREQUENCY NOISE. THE MOTION CARRIED. Discussion followed regarding the residential impacts and if the study encompasses both single and multi family structures. Mr. Sandahl suggested that the study focus on residents to the extent ttiat during review of mitigation methods the panel can let the Policy Committee know what would be applicable to multi-housing. _ Questions were raised regarding the draft Table of Contents, specifically numbers 3 and 5. It was clarified that the study will consider impacts of low frequency noise for the entire airport, not just impacts of Runway 17J35 on eastem Richfield. A revised Work Program listing subtasks and level of effort will be reviewed at the next meeting. Mr. Himle recommended that the expert panel be in consultation with the FAA as they are critical in whatever wark product is developed. The expert panel was also directed to provide the LFNPC with background information and teclinical informatian that is appropriate for their review. Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee February 11, 1999 Page 3 4. WR11i"EN CHARGE TO EXPERT PANEL A Draft Charge to the Expert Panel was provided to the Committee for review and discussion. Mr. Fidell raised concern regarding separation of responsibilities between the expert panel and the Policy Committee and does not feel that the e�cpert panel should serve at the pleasure of the LFNPC. He stated that it is important that the expert panel have the opportunity to provide not only the information that the Policy Committee requests but additional information that the expert panel deems important for the Policy Committee to cansider. Mr. Sandahl stated that there is nothing excluding them from compiling additional infoRnation that they feel the Committee should be aware of. Nigel Finney stated that his impression of previous discussion by the Committee on this issue was that the Policy Committee was responsible for making decisions and the Committee felt that they should have oversight and input into the work of the expert panel. If the expe�t panel felt that there were additional items of work that should be included or dealt with, those could put in the plan of work and brought back to the Committee for review and agreement. , IT WAS MOVED BY DE� CALZO, SECONDED BY HIMLE, TO APPROVE THE ATTACHED WRITI"EN CHARGE TO THE EXPERT PANEL. THE MOTION CARRIED. The meeting was adjoumed at 5:15 p.m. z Low Frequency fVoise Policy Committee Wednesday, March 3, 1999 Room 3040, Lindbergh Terminal Wold-Chamberlain Fieid MINUTES The �ow Frequency Noise Policy Committee meeting was called to order at 4:10 p.m. The foilowing were in attendance: Members: Technical Suppo�t: Expert Panel: Mike Sandahl, Richfield; John Himle, MAC; �.arry Lee, Bloomington; Sandy Colvin Roy, Minneapolis Glen Orcutt, Federal Aviation Administration; Brian Timerson, MPCA; Nacho Diaz, Metropolitan Council Andrew Harris, HMMH; Sanford Fidell, BBN; Louis Sutherland Others: N. Finney, T.W. Anderson, ;J. Unnah, R. Fuhrmann, MAC; M. Salmen, B. Johnson, MASAC; S. Dibble, J. Del Calzo, Minneapolis; D. Weitzel, . Rich�eld; A. Duffe, W. Duffee, J. Enger, D. Ziemer, D. Pemberton, Richfield CARE; D. Saunders, SMAAC; J. Sayre, NWA; K. Hughes, K. Duffy, P. Rothfuss, HNTB 2. APPROVA� OF MINUTES IT WAS MOVED BY SANDAHL, SECONDED BY MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 17, 1999 �OW COMMIT('EE MEETING. THE MOTION CARRIED. MASAC PARTICIPATION REQUEST HIM�E, TO APPROVE THE FR�QUENCY NOISE PO�ICY IT WAS MOVED BY SANDAHL, SECONDED BY COLVIN ROY, TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION AND THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO INCLUDE MASAC AS A NON-VOTING MEMBER IN A TECHNICAL ADVISORY CAPACITY TO THE LOW FREQUENCY NOISE POLICY COMMITTEE. THE MOTION CARRIED. 3. EXPERT PANEL REPORT John Himle introduced Louis Sutherland who will serve as the- third member of the Expert Panel. Andrew Harris provided an update on a meeting of the Expert Panel. Discussion focussed on basic issues of-L-FN;--a-revised-work-plan and schedule. He indicated that the Panel agrees that the issue of LFN is one of annoyance and not one of structural damage or impact on health. The Panel will look at methads to ideniify levels of noise that may cause annoyance. C � �. Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee March 3, 1999 Page 2 Mr. Harris reviewed the tasks outlined in the revised work plan as foilows: Task 1, literature review, will be led by Mr. Sutherland. The anticipated completion date is 4/23. Mr. Himle requested that a summary of the most signi�cant points in the literature also be provided to the LFNPC. Mr. Sandahl requested that background infoRnation on LFN be provided to the LFNPC as soon as possible. Task 2 consists of identifying the relevant noise effects and ways to describe them. Completion date is anticipated as 3/31. Task 3 looks at existing low frequency noise levels without the proposed north-south runway and predicted low frequency noise levels with the new runway. It was noted that measurements will be conducted at the same time as the measurements for tasks 5 and 6. Sandy Colvin-Roy expressed concem regarding Task 3, specifically the section related to measuring noise levels in Richfield and other areas in the vicinity of MSP selected for comparison with areas in Richfield. She iridicated that the mitigation agreement befinreen MAC and Richfield does not identify just Richfield and that her understanding is that the �FNPC would be studying the effects of LFN around the airport, not just Richfield. Discussion followed with Mike Sandahl indicating that the intent of the agreement is not to exclude Minneapolis and Bloomington, however during negotiations it was determined that sideline noise impacts from the north-south runway would mosfly occur in Richfield. He reiterated that the study will include areas in Bloomington and Minneapolis to determine all areas that will be impacted by the new runway. .y � Mr. Hams stated that the MAC has made it clear in previous discussions that whatever is going to be done regarding LFN is not to be limited in applicability to just Richfield. Mr. Harris indicated that the text for Task 3 would be revised to clarify that the intent of the study is not limited to Richfield. Tom Anderson stated the LFNPC needs to determine if it is looking at impacts related to the new runway or at impacts from use of any runway at MSP. Mr. Himle stated that his understanding is that the charge is to look at low frequency impacts, but the assumption based on initial modeling is that the primary impact is on the City of Richfield due to the proximity of the north-south runway and related sideline issues. If there are impacts to Bloomington and Minneapolis, the LFNPC will have to determine the impacts and appropriate mitigation measures. Ms. Colvin-Roy stated that she is concerned that the sampling be used not just to predict future impacts along Runway 17/35, but be useable to indicate � the impact related to other runways. She requested that a direct reference to Minneapolis and Bloomington be made in the text. Mr. Sandahl responded that if the charge becomes to study low frequency noise of all the runways he would not object as lang as there were no significant impacts to the schedule and cost of the study. . Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee March 3, 1999 Page 3 � Mr. Himle stated that the text indicates that #he study will include looking at areas in Minneapolis and Bloomington and the discussion today reiterates that. He stated that if there is some significant issue that is discovered during the initial work, he assumes that the Expert Panel would infoRn the LFNPC so a decision could be made as to whether the wo�lc program should be broadened. Task 4 consists of identifying criteria for acceptability of low frequency noise in residences: It is anticipated that #his task will be completed by 5/4. Discussion followed regarding the degree of annoyance of LFN and whether it is impacted by other relative factors (ie: overflights). Tasks 5 and 6 will determine the LFN reduction provided by typical residential construction and the LFN reduction provided by residences subsequent to treatment in the Sound Insulation Program. The completion date for both tasks is 6/18. Mr. Harris responded to a question by Ms. Colvin-Roy asking if homes in Minneapolis and Bloomington would also be sampled; he indicated that they would be included. Task 7 will determine the extent to which treated and untreated homes mitigate the predicted levels of LFN. Mr. Harris suggested that a portion of Task 8, looking at possible construction amendments, be completed as part of this task. � Task 8 will identify constnaction techniques app�opriate to achieve noise reductions. The Expert Panel suggested that they be analyzed finro ways: 1) testing in a laboratory environment and 2) application to several residences in the vicinity of MSP. Due to time � required for field modifications and testing, it was recommended that application to residences occur after.completion of the work plan. The cbmpletion date for this task if 5/14. Task 9 is the preparation of reports to the LFNPC documenting the work of the F�cpert Panel. Interim and final reports documenting each task will be prepared. The Expert Panel suggested that the results of each task be discussed at meetings with the LFNPC shortly after completion of the individual tasks and provided a revised schedule of ineetings. IT WAS MOVED BY SANDAHL, .SECONDED BY CO�VIN-ROY, TO APPROVE THE WORK PLAN AS DISCUSSED AND AMENDED. THE MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Fidell provided a brief presentation on low frequency noise. It was requested that a workshop on Low Frequency Noise be held prior to the next meeting of the LFNPC to provide more background information to the Committee. The meeting was adjoumed at 5:40 p.m. C Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee Wednesday, Aprii 14, 1999 ! � Room 3040, Lindbergh Terminal Wold-Chamberlain Field MINUTES The Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee meeting was called to order at 4:05 p.m. The following were in attendance: Members: Mike Sandahl, Richfield; John Himle, MAC; Sandy Colvin Roy, Minneapolis; Larry Lee, Bloomington Technical Support: Glen Orcutt, Federal Aviation Administration; Brian Timerson, MPCA; Nacho Diaz, Metropolitan Council; D. Saunders, M. Salmen, MASAC Expert Panel: Andrew Harris, HMMH; Sanford Fidell, BBN Others: N. Finney, J. Unruh, R. Fuhrmann, MAC; M. Salmen, B. Johnson, MASAC; S. Dibble, J. Del Calzo, City of Minneapolis; D. Weitzel, City af Richfield; J. Verbrugge, City of Eagan; J. Enger, Richfield CARE; J. Giesen, A. Altic, CEE; D. Lindberg, Minneapolis Resident � 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ( ) IT WAS MOVED BY HIMLE, SECONDED BY SANDAHL, TO APPROVE THE ' MINUTES OF THE MARCH 3, 1999 LOW FREQUENCY NOISE.PO�ICY COMMITI'EE MEETING. THE MOTION CARRIED. -� 2. CONSULTANT COST ESTIMATES Andrew Harris and Sanfo�d Fidell reviewed the consultant cost estimates for the Wor{c Program previously approved by the LFNPC. Discussion followed with Mike Sandahl asking how to proceed with the financing of the Work Program. Nigel Finney indicated that the MAC would enter into a p�ofessional services agreement with HMMH covering the entire MAC portion of the Work Program cost estimates as outlined, with a not-to- exceed cost. Richfield would enter into an agreement with BBN, and the costs associated with Lou Sutherland's participation would be split. Mr. Sandahl asked if the total cost breakdown should be split evenly by MAC and Richfield since there was a difference in the cost breakdown befinreen MAC's consultant and Richfield's consultant. John Himle responded that the agreement befinreen MAC and Richfield should be�adhered to as described-above. Discussion followed regarding the cost difference between consultants; Mr. Fidell indicated that the laboratory testing and social survey tasks are the major items causing the difference in total costs. Mr. Harris stated that the entire study benefits from the lab testing and that it may be appropriate to split those costs. � Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee Aprii 14, 1999 Page 2 Discussion foilowed regarding the methodology to be used for the social survey on �. noticeability of rattle. The LFNPC requested a copy of the questionnaire for review prior to implementation of the survey. Mr. Sandahl requested that the LFNPC members keep the survey questions confidential in order to maintain the credibility of the survey. IT WAS PVIOVED BY HIMLE, SECONDED BY LEE, TO INFORM THE EXPERT PANEL THAT THE TASK LIST AND COST ESTIMATES ARE COMP�ETE AND ACCEPTED BY THE LOW FREQUENCY NOISE POLICY COMMITTEE. THE 11AOTION CARRIED. 3. STATUS REPORT — NOISE EFFECTS AND NOISE DESCRIPTORS Mr. Harris indicated that Task 2 includes both noise effects and the way the noise effects are to be described. At previous meetings, the Expert Panel indicated that they believed that the noise effects would be focused on annoyance, which has a broader technical meaning beyond just being bothered by something. They had also indicated that they would look to see if other effects should be considered, and their.review has shown that the study need not look at effects other than annoyance. He stated that the FAA Office of Environment and Energy had indicated� some concem that the study is not looking at vibration since there is an established criteria for vibration. Discussions with FAA will confinue as the study moves forward. . Mr. Harris reviewed the various noise descriptors under consideration. These options included C-weighted, A-weighted, 25-80 Hz octave bands, G-weighted and the difference between C and A weighted noise levels. After initial review, the Expert Panel determined that the probable noise descriptors to be used a�e the levels befinreen 25 and ( 80 heriz and C-weighting. Further information will be provided to the Policy Committes at the next meeting. .. } � IT WAS MOVED BY HIMLE, SECONDED BY LEE, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. THE MOTION CARRIED. The meeting was adjoumed at 5:05 p.m. C ,-, Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee , ) Wednesday, Apri128,1999 Room 3040, Lindbergh Terminal Wold-Chamberiain Field MINUTES The Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee meeting was called to order at 3:15 p.m. The following were in attendance: Members: Mike Sandahl, Richfield; John Himle, MAC; Sandy Colvin Roy, . Minneapolis; Larry Lee, Bloomington Technical Support: Glen Orcutt, Federai Aviation Administration; Brian Timerson, MPCA; Chauncey Case, Metropolitan Council; D. Saunders, M. Salmen, MASAC Expert Panel: Andrew Harris, HMMH; Sanford Fidell, BBN; Lou Sutherland Others: N. Finney, J. Unruh, R. Fuhrmann, MAC; B. Johnson, MBAA; S. Dibble, J. . Del Calzo, City of Minneapolis; M. Hinds, D. Brauer, City of Richfield; J. Verbrugge, City of Eagan; B. Duffee, D. Ziemer, Richfield CARE; J. Sayre, Northwest Ai�lines; S. Lindgren, Richfield Chamber �-•-• � • IT WAS MOVED BY SANDAHL, SECONDED BY LEE, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 14, 1999 LOW FREQUENCY NOISE POL'ICY COMMITTEE MEETING. THE MOTION CARRIED. 2. UPDATE — NOISE DESCRIPTORS Andrew Harris, HMMH, provided an update on the various noise descriptors under consideration and reviewed preliminary data measurements taken at various points on the airport. Mr. Harris indicated that the Expert Panel has not yet come to a final conclusion regarding the appropriate metric for use in describing low frequency noise, however it is his belief that the two primary options are C-weighted noise levels or 25 to 80 Hz levels. He expects that a recommendation will be made to the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee (LFNPC) at the next meeting. 3. LITERATURE REVIEW Lau Sutherland distributed a report summarizing the literature review completed as part of the Expert Panel work effort. Mr. Sutherland provided a detailed description of the contents of the report and their implications for work of the LFNPC. Members of the Expert Panel responded to questions raised by Committee members during the course of the literature review presentation. The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m. �. C� City of SV�FI�� L.L�.�� Minnesota NORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY AIRPORT RELATIONS COALITION May 18,1999 3:OJ p.rn.. Fireside Room, St. Anne's Episcopal Church Corner of Hwy 110 and Charlton Road Sunfish Lake, NIN 3:00 p.m. l. Call to Order 2. Adoption of Agenda 3. Approve Minutes of March 23, 1999 4. Unfinished Business 1 A. MA.SAC Work Plan B. NDCARC PLu�pose Statement (DRAFT) C. NDCARC Common Issues . �. New Business 6. Future Meetings A. July 20, 1999 Eagan B. Agenda Topics/Assignments 7. Adjourn C� �, N4RTI3ERN DAKOTA COUNTY AIRPORT RELATI4NS COALITION MEETING N1INL"TES March 23, 1999 The ivlarch 23, 1999 meeting of the Northern Dakota. Cflunty Airport Relations Caalition {NDCARC) was called to order at 3:30 p.m. in ihe Large Conference Room, at Ivfendota Heights City Hall. Presiding over the meeting was Kevin Batcheldez, City Administrator of Mendota Heights with the following representatives present: Sunfish Lake: Gienda Spiotta; and Inver Grove Heights: Wiil Eginton and Joe Little. Eagan and Mendota were not represented. A�EiYDA ADtJPTION A revised agenda was adogted to note that the regular start time for the meetings is 3 p.m. on the third Tuesday of every other month. i1�iINL'TES It was nated that the minutes of May 21, 1998 and July 1b, 1998 were approved at grevious meetings_ The minutes af February 3, 1999 were revised and Will Eginton was to record the chan�es and provide a copy with the next agenda. Glenda Spiotta moved to approve the revised February 3; 1999 minutes. Will Eginton secanded the motion. AYES : 4 NAYS: o � , . �' -�*- � i - - - ' - �-1-► i_ �.. The group discussed developing a purpose statement to serve as a guiding document for NDCARC. . Will Eginton suggested that the pi:rpose statement should be dedicated to an equitable distribution of air noise. Kevin Batcheider volunteered to draft a purpose statement based on the followin� ideas: l. That the MASAC W�rk Plan identifies many of che cunent and relevant airport noise topics. This plan should be reviewed for areas in which each city can aaree that it is a"common issue" that wauld be appropriate ior concerted effores on our part. �. C NDCARC Minutes v�arch 23, 1999 Page two 2. That a list of Cammon Issues will guide th.e NDCARC's efforts. 3. That one of tbe primary purposes of the NDCARC is to function as a liaison to the individual Airport Relatians Commissions. 4. That NDCARC will take Joint Positions on the most important issues identified in the Common Issues Iist. • s .�. ' Batchelaer stated that MASAC's primary goal for 1999 would be to work on the Part 150 Study Update. Eginton stated that lus community's major objective was sound abaternent�and ta focus an how to make the noise "footprint" as small as possible. Egintan gointed out that in the original Part 150 application to the FAA all the naise abaternent activi�ies were rejected or made valuntary. Eginton stated that all the land use proposals were accepted and that this, in essence, transferred the problem, ta the communities. - Egintan suggested that the Part 150 Study Update should inciude analysis of climb � � rates, ronte selections, separation/divergence standazds, the fleet mix, and the Runway Use System. Eginton suggested that banning curved arrivals should be considered. � Eginton suggested that, as a common issue for NDC?�RC, we should request opezational changes as part of the corridor evaluation. Eginton stated that the 2005 runway use percentages used in the Duai Track Study and the FEIS should be incorporated. Batchelder stated he agreed. Batchelder stated that each community had been requested, by MASAC, to submit a letter on tne scope oi the Part l�fl Study TJpdate and tl?at perhaps a common issue list could be formutated by reviewing each of these letters for areas of agreement. There was consensns to discuss the MASAC Work Plan and NDCAR.0 common issues on the unfinished business section of the May 18 aaenda. Other aQenda iterns to be discussed include the Draft Purgose Statement. The Citv of Sunfish Lake will host the May 18, 1999 meecing at 3 p.m. Sunfish Lake will provide an agenda and notify each cornmunity of the tirne and lacation. P , " � NDCARC Minutes 1�Iarch 23, 1999 Page two ADJOt�RN _ ., . ;:.. * , .. .. ,�,1 There bein� no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kevin Batchelder � City Administrator � Mendota �eights Y