Loading...
05-19-1999 ARC PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS � � AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION AGENDA May 19, 1999 - Large Conference Roam 1. 2. 3. 4. Call to Order - 7 p.m. •. . Approval of March 10, 1999 Minutes and April 14, 1999 Minutes. Unfinished and New Business: a. Discuss PART 150 Update - Contour Generation b. Crossing in .Corridor Analysis 5. Updates � 7 : a. Resolution on Reliever Airports � b. Airport Plan of Action Acknowledge Recei�t of Various Reports/Correspondence: �. b. c. d. e. f. 9� h. I . MASAC Agenda for April 30, 1999 and March 30, 1999 Minutes MASAC Technical Advisers Report for the Month of March, 1999 MASAC Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis for March 1999 MASAC Executive Summary for March 1999 MASAC Revisions to February Technical Advisers Report Airport Noise Report - April 16 and April 30, 1999 editions MASAC Operations Committee Agenda for May 14, 19�99 Eagan ARC Agenda for May 1 1, 1999 Richfield letter of April 16, 1�999 on Part 150 Funding Other Comments or Concerns. ., � 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. � ��,.iE � ��g, GO CITY OF MEND07CA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COITIe1T�.', MINNESOTA AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MARCH 10,1999 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on Wednesday, March 10, 1999 in the Ciiy Hall Large Conference Room, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. The following members were present: Beaty, Fitzer Leuman, May, Roszak and Stein. Comrnissioner Des Roches was absent. Also present was City Administrator Batchelder. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Roszak moved to approve the February 10, 1999 xninutes. Commissioner Leuman seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 PAI�T 150 UPDATE �' � Administrator Batchelder stated that Mr. Roy Fuhrmann, of MAC, and Mr. Evan - Futterman, HNTB, had provided a briefing to MASAC on the process that will be used to conduct the Part 150 Study update. He stated that the Part 150 Study Update has been begun by MAC and is expected to take 15 to 18 months before an application can be made to the Federal Aviation Administration for another Part 150 program. Batchelder stated that this Part 150 Study Update is considered MASAC's primary goal for 1999. Batchelder stated that the briefing at MASAC covered the following items: a. Part 150 Purpose and Description b. Noise Measurement and Analysis in the Part 150 Study Process c. History of MSP Part 150 Program (including 1987 and 1992 projects) d. Scope of the Currently Identified Issues e. Discussion of Additional Issues/Concerns to be Addressed in Part 150 Update f. MASAC Approval of Part 150 Work Scope g. Preliminary Schedule for the Part 150 Study Batchelder stated that MASAC had requested that each city respond within 30 days regarding the scope and schedule for the Part 150 Study. Batchelder stated the Commission should review our goals for Part 150 and respond to MASAC about additional issues and concerns that are not already included in the scope of the Part 150 Study Update. (� �� a _ �i• ,� �� � 4 :�.�h.� ■�. 0 Batchelder stated that MASAC's scheduled evaluation of the Mendota Heights/Eagan corridor will be folded into the Part 150 Study Update process and there will also be an evaluation of the Runway Use System due to the need to implement procedures for the new Runway 17-35. Batchelder stated that other operational considerations such as Non- Simultaneous Departures, Noise Abatement Departure Profiles, and Head-to-Head operations will be evaluated, as well. He stated a new Part 150 LDN 65 Noise Contour would be produced for the study update. Chair Scott Beaty stated he was concerned that MASAC's scheduled evaluation of the Mendota Heights/Eagan corridor might be "watered down" if it is included in the Part 150 Study Update process. Chair Beaty stated Mendota Heights should be on guard that the corridor analysis is not lost in the Part 150 Process. Chair Bea±y stated that the Close- In departures should be included in the scope of the analysis. Batchelder stated that Mayor Mertensotto had requested that the Cornmission consider requesting that the night time hours restricted to Stage III aircraft be rolled back from the current 10:30 p.m. to 6 a.m. time period to 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. The Commission was of a consensus that this should be part of the Part 150 request. Chair Beaty stated our guiding principle on air noise was the equitable operations of the � � airport, that all airport communities share in the benefits of close proximity to MSP and _. that ail communities should, therefore, share in the burden of air tr�c over their communities. Beaty stated the Runway Use System should be fully implemented to include up to twenty percent (20%) departures off of Runway 4/22 to relieve the buxden on the parallel runways, as called for in the Runway Use System, but never implemented. Chair Beaty also stated Runway 4/22 should be used to eliminate head-to-head operations late at night on the parallel runways. Commissioner John Roszak stated the Part 150 Study should reaffirrn the runway percentages for the new Runway 17/35 that were used in the MSP 2010 Comprehensive Plan when the Dual Track decision was made at the Legislature. Roszak stated that these same runway use percentages were used in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Runway 17/35. The Commission was of a consensus that the Runway Use System should be updated to maintain and reaffirm the runway use percentages, as described in the MSP 2010 Comprehensive Plan and the FEIS. Commissioner Joe Leuman stated that the data generated by the MSP Airport Noise/Aviation Monitoring System (ANOMS) should be used to generate the new noise contour. Chair Beaty stated the existing Runway Use System should be revised to not have the Mendota Heights/Eagan corridor as the primary, preferred route of departure. The �• __. � Commission discussed the RUS preference that is based on land use compatibility. �� ��� , ,,�,.�� � �� �. Batchelder stated that in conversations with Mayor Mertensotto they had discussed how land use compatibility is not equitable when an airport sits in the middle of a fully developed urban area and that the notion of land use compatibility from the 1980's had been destroyed by increased operations and capacities at MSP to the point that the corridor had been overrun and air traffic is now over long established residential areas of the city. Commissioner Stein stated the Part 150 Study Update should include the possible acquisition of severely impacted neighborhoods, as had the original study. The Commission discussed the use of incentives/disincentives for noisier airplanes after the implementation of the Stage III requirements on December 31, 1999. The Commission discussed higher landing fees, or sliding scale fees, for air carriers with true manufactured Stage III aircraft, as opposed to Stage III hush-kitted aircraft. The Commission also discussed Noise Abatement Departure profiles, Corridor definition and compliance issues, and Non-Simultaneous Deparh.ues. The Commission felt that the Low-Frequency Study being conducted for Richfield should have recomrnendations that encompass all airport communities. � Commissioner Greg Fitzer stated the Part 150 Study Update should consider whether �___ tower orders can be given in specific ground tracks instead of magnetic headings. Fitzer stated that this would be a benefit of the new Differential Global Positioning Satellites (DGPS) systems. Fitzer stated this would eliminate wind drift and would have the effect of keeping air traffic inside the designated corridor. The Commission feit the Study Update should consider whether the corridor can be nanowed if DGPS allows less than the currently required fifteen degrees (15 °) separation divergence. The Commission reviewed the Mendota Heights Airport Plan of Action for inclusion in possible comments on the scope of the Part 150 Study Update. The Commission directed staff to respond to MASAC by incorporating their discussion on the scope of the Part 150 Study Update into a letter. RUNWAY RECONSTRUCTION Batchelder stated that the construction scheduled for the South Parallel Runway, Runway 12R/30L was to begin on April 5, 1999 and the primary difference in traffic patterns would be the increased use of Runway 4/22, the Crosswind Runway, for trafFic that would normally use the southern parallel. NORTI�[ERN I)AKOTA COUNTY AIRPORT RELATIONS COALITION f )�� �i,%r �P`���]D � � fY� ��,.{ `'� �E� � , Batchelder stated that the Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Coalition (NDCARC) would meet on March 23, 1999 at Mendota Heights City Hall. Batchelder stated this group would begin meeting on bi-monthly basis and that its primary goals are to continue dialogue between the airport communities in Dakota County, to host an annual meeting for Airport Relations Commissions and to act jointly on important airport issues that each community agrees on. Chair Beaty stated NDCARC would be most efFective if it concentrated on something that it could achieve, as opposed to trying to react to every airport issue. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Commission acknowledged the following reports and correspondence: a. MASAC Agenda for February and January MASAC minutes b. MASAC Technical Advisors Report for January 1999 c. MA SAC Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis for January 1999 d. MASAC Complaint Summary for January 1999 e. Airport Noise Report - Feb. 5, 1999 edition f. NOISE - Legislative Update g. Capitol NOISE Newsletter h. MASAC Schedule and Roster I. Article on Airport Competition . � � • There being no filrther business, the Airport Relations Commission moved to adjourn its meeting at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kevin Batchelder City Administrator C C CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ��' ' DAKOTA COUNTY, MINI�TESOTA AIRPORT RELATIONS COlVIlVIISSION APRIL 14,1999 The regular meeting of the Mendota. Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on Wednesday, April 14, 1999, in the Lower Level Conference Room, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:25 p.m. The following members were present: Roszak and Stein. Commissioners Beaty, Des Roches, Fitzer, Leuman and May were absent. A1so present was City Administrator Batchelder. .�_.''_�1 .:-- �- 11 The minutes of Mazch 10, 1999 were not approved due to lack of a quorum. City Administrator Batchelder briefly reported on the following: Corridor Crossing Report: The Corridor Crossing Report is completed and a procedure�in place for air tra�fic controllers to practice non-simultaneous departures. The report shows a significant improvement during nighttirrie operations with fewer corridor crossings. A follow-up - request will be submitted to.MAC for the City to receive updated reports on a regular basis. �,�' _�,,� . . �� Part 150 Update Study: At the May meeting, a report will be presented to the Cornmission from MAC on the compilation of all requests pertain.ing to the Part 150 Update Study. MAC plans to complete the study within 15 to 18 months. As Mendota Heights City issues are incorporated into this study, there is some concern that they will beco�ne obscured, particularly the evaluation of the Southeast corritc�or. - Commissioner Roszak noted that the aviation activity forecasts are to be based on dual track process forecasts and the percentages are not listed. He recommended that a map be attached showing percentages for each runway, as E�iibit 1 to the document. The document. should also refer to anticipated changes described in the MSP 2010 Comprehensive Plan. MAC/City of Minneapolis Agreement: Minneapolis has signed an agreement with MAC. Staff will compare the Mendota Heights agreement to the one with Minneapolis. Language change recommendations will be reported to the Commission. � New Member: Commissioner Stein asked for an update on the process of finding a new Commission member. Administrator Batchelder stated that advertisements were placed in the Sun Current and Southwest Review. The application deadline is the end of April. It is his hope that the City Council will hold interviews May 4, so that a new appointment can be made prior to the next Commission meeting. � C C s 1 � : \ ►II \ As a quorum of inembers was not reached, agenda items were carried to the May 12, 1999 meeting. Adrninistrator Batchelder noted that he would not be able to attend the May 12 meeting. Members will be notified if the meeting date is changed. The Airport Relations Commission moved to adjourn its meeting at 7:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Deanne Gueblaoui Recording Secretary CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS '1 � To: Airport Relations Commission May 17, 1999 From: Kevin Batchelder, City Adininistrator Subject: Unfinished and New Business for April Meeting DISCUSSION Thank you for allowing the regular monthly meeting to be rescheduled from May 12, 1999 until May 19, 1999. Last month, there was not a quorum for the meeting and the March 10, 1999 minutes have been carried over for this month, as well as the April 14, 1999 minutes. This memo will cover the agenda items for Unfinished and New Business and Updates. 1. Discuss PART 150 U�date - In early April, MAC staff and HNTB hosted an Agency and City Scoping Meeting to review the draft Scope of Work for the Part 150 Study Update process. The PART 150 Update has begun and is expected to take 15 to 18 months, with the finished product an application to the FAA for another Part 150 project. This project has been identified as MASAC's primary goal for 1999. Prior to this meeting, MASAC had requested that each community draft comments on the "scope" of work that the Part 150 Process should study. With the help of the Commission, the City of Mendota Heights submitted a letter to MASAC. (Please see MASAC packet for Apri130, 1999 that includes each communities response.) The evaluation of the Mendota Heights/Eagan corridor will be folded into the Part 150 Update process and there will also be an evaluation of the Runway Use System due to the need to implement procedures for the new Runway 17-35. Other operational considerations such as Non-Simultaneous Departures, Noise Abatement Departure Profiles, and Head-to-Head operations will be evaluated, as well. The Commission should also be concerned with the development of new Noise Contours, for the sound insulation program. In May, the MASAC Operations Committee was to discuss contour generation for the Part 150 Siudy Update. (Please see Apri19, 1999 Minutes of MASAC Operations for discussion on Integrated Noise Modeling and contour generation.) The discussion in May was intended to focus on the "rounding off" of contours, as suggested during the 1996 MSP/Mayor's Mitigation Study. 2. Crossing in the Corridor - Second Studv - MAC staff presented the second six month study of the Non-Simultaneous Departure Procedures at MSP. (Each Commissioner received a bound, colored copy in their April Agenda and they have not been recopied for this meeting. If an additional copy is needed, please contact myself or Linda Shipton.) I will be prepared to discuss the findings and compare this study to the �rst six month study. ��. 1. Resolution on Reliever Air�orts - Enclosed please find a copy of the staff cover memo and the resolution that was adopted by City Council on May 4, 1999 to address a legislative issue. Mounds View and Eden Prairie were supporting legislation that would restrict MSP's ability to move general aviation over to the reliever airports, by restricting their runway lengths. This contradicts the 1996 Dual Track legislation and the Metropolitan Council's regional aviation plan. The City Council desired to support MAC's opposition to this legislation. 2. Air�ort Action Plan - Annually, in June, the Commission begins the work to update the Airport Plan of Action. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Apri130, 1999 To: Mayor and City Council From: Kevin Batchelder, City Ad ' or Subject: Consider Resolution on Reliever Airports DISCUSSION On Tuesday, Apri127, 1999, Mr. Jeff Hamiel, Executive Director of MAC, reported to the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) that current legislation is being supported by communities surrounding the region's reliever airports that would impact air tra�c at MSP International Airport. Apparently, this legislation would prevent general aviation from being moved off of MSP to the region's reliever airports. This movement of general aviation from MSP to the reliever airports was part of Dual Track Study conclusions and was one of the reasons the Legislature voted to keep MSP open in the Dual Track final decisions made in 1996. In addition to the Dual Track decisions, the Metropolitan Council's Aviation Guide Plan directs MAC to develop plans to divert the m�imum feasible number of general aviation operations from MSP to the reliever airports. The currently proposed legislation would overrule this mandate, as well. MAC has asked the MSP communities to consider a resolution opposing this legislation, as it would severely restrict their ability to move general aviation off of MSP and meet their plans for the development and operation of MSP, through their 2010 Comprehensive Plan. MAC has provided a fact sheet on this issue. (Please see attached.) Due to time restrictions this week, a resolution has not yet been prepared for Council consideration. However, a resolution will be made available on Monday for your consideration on Tuesday evening. Consider the proposed resolution that will be available Monday, and, if the Council so desires, pass a motion adopting the proposed resolution to forward to our legislative contingent. /. L Metropolitan Airports Commission Reliever Airports Legislation February 19, 1999 • In concluding the seven-year Dual Track Airport Planning Process, the 1996 Legislature determined that a new airport would not be built and directed the Metropalitan Airports Commission (MAC) to expand the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) at its present site. The Legislature and Governor determined that an expanded MSP could accommodate the region's demand for air travel through the year 2010. • As part of the Dual Track decision, the Legislature also mandated that the MAC maximize the use of the metropolitan reliever airport system. The Metropolitan Council's Aviatfon Policy Plan directs MAC to develop plans to divert the mazimum feasible number of general aviation operations from MSP to the reliever airports. Seven airports in the area have been designated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as reliever airports for MSP. The reliever airports are St. Paul Downtown, Flying Cloud, Airlake, Lake Elmo, Anoka County-Blaine, Crystal, and South St. Paul. The FAA designation applies if an airport helps to relieve airport congestion in a metropolitan area by providing general aviation users with attractive alternatives to the major scheduled passenger airport and increases access to the airports for general aviation uses. To adequately fulfill their role within a metropolitan area, reliever airports must provide facilities and services for general aviation comparable to general aviation provisions at the commercial airport they relieve, i.e., MSP. In 1997, the MAC system of airports accounted for 1.3 million aircraft operations. Nearly two-thirds of those operations occurred on the retiever airports. MSP had 491,273 operations and the reliever airport system had 729,024 operations. • Some reliever airports, including Anoka County-Blaine and Flying Cloud, will need to be expanded consistent with their designated role in the future to meet the long- term aviation needs of the region. • A.ir traffic operations at Flying Cloud Airport are expected to continue to increase as the community and surrounding areas continue to grow and prosper. The proposed runway expansion for Flying Cloud Airport will allow MAC to properly divert business and private aircraft from MSP to increase the efficiency and enhance safety of the entire airport system. The MAC is presently in the environmental impact study phase of this expansion project. • The proposed runway extensions for the Anoka County-Blaine Airport will enhance ' the use of the airport for the types of aircra$ presently using the facility and will � provide a more equitable use of the north-south and east-west runway system. Although the St. Paul Downtown Airport has the capacity to accommodate more takeoffs and landings, it does not have room to accommodate the projected need for metropolitan-area based aircraft. Presently, MAC is developing 10 additional hangar sites for corporate aircraft at St. Paul. MAC has four corporations that have already expressed an interest in these sites. After these sites are filled, St. Paul Downtown Airport will not be able to accommodate additional hangar development due to its physical constraints next to the river and downtown. + According to a 1999 Metropolitan Council economic impact study, the region's smaller general aviation airports add $1.4 billion in economic activity each year to the Twin Cities economy. They also support 4,500 jobs at the airports and in businesses as a spin oi�from general aviation activity. Planning and Environmental Review Process Required to Implement Major Projects at MAC Reliever Airports Metropolitan Council prepares the Aviation Chapter of the Metropotitan Development Guide The chapter defines the functional and operational characteristics of the reliever airports, including runway length. It also includes guidelines for acceptable ]and uses in specified aircraft noise contours. The Aviation Chapter is subject to public review and public hearrng(s) prior to adoption. 2. MAC prepares a Long-Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) for each reliever airport. The plan includes forecasts of future airport activity and needed airport projects consistent with the functional and operational characteristics in the Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide. The LTCP must address social, economic and environmental issues and compatibility with community systems. The LTCP is subject to public revrew and a public hearing prior to adoption by MAC. 3. The LTCP is submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review and approval. The LTCP is distributed to affected cities, which are invited to present comments and testimony at Metropolitan Council committee meetings prior to the Coz{ncil 's determination of consistency with the Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide. The Council can suspend the LTCP if found inconsistent and return the LTCP to MAC to be revised and resubmitted to the Council. 4. MAC prepares an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for major projects (e.g., runway extension) in the approved LTCP. MAC prepares a Scoping document specifying the issues, impacts and alternatives proposed for analysis in the EIS. The Scoping document is drstribt�ted for public and agency review and comment, and a public hearing is held. MAC responds to comments and adopts the Scoping Decision. MAC prepares a Draft EIS that discloses the social, economic and environmental impacts of each alternative, including no action, and measures that could mitigate adverse impacts. The Draft EIS is distributed for public and agency review and comment, and a public hearing is held. MAC responds to comments and prepares a Final EIS. The Final EIS is distribt�ted for public and ngency review nnd comment. MAC responds to comments and determines that the Final EIS is adequate. Any person or jurisdiction may appeal MAC 's determination within 30 days in distrrct court. 5. The Metropolitan Council notifies affected cities of changes to the airport and if there are modifications needed in their comprehensive plans to be consistent with the LTCP. The cities discuss the proposed rnodifications with the Council, update/revise their comprehensive plan, and subrnit it to the Council for approval. 6. MAC prepares a Capital Improvement Plan including the LTCP projects and submits it to the Metropolitan Council for review. The Council must approve any reliever airport project with costs over $2 million. � C a � � � � � j . ,. :�. _ �` � , > > - ; �` , . y .� ' � 1 �- ` ;`_ - ,: _ , . � ' = RUGUST 1 S, 1 ggg i; ;� AIR NOISE PLAI� OF ACTION Ft)C�TS ISSiTES 1. Noise Reduction Throuah Modified Takeoff Procedures A. Monitor the Implementation of Non-Simultaneous Procedures B. Pursue the Adoption of "Close In" vs. "Distant" Departure Procedures C. Urge the Adoption of Mandatory Nighttime Takeoff Regulations D. Implementation of Narrowed Air Tra�c Corridor E. Monitor Conformance with three mile heading procedure. 2. Heiahten Awareness of Mendota Heights Au- Noise �Concerns A. Pursue Appointment of City Resident to the Metropolitan Airports Comznission B. Advertising the MAC Air Noise Complaint Line C. Expand Distribution of Air Noise Related Information and Information about the work and effort of the City. , D. Continue to collaborate with the Northern Dakota County Airports Relations Coalition (NDCARC). E. Continue to keep abreast of other communities' issues and actions. F. Work with Metropolitan Council representatives. 3. IvISP LonQ Term Com..�rehensive Plan - A. Monitor and encourage promulQation and adoption of air noise mitiQation requirements in Mitiaation Committee's plan. ~ 4. Advocate a Nlore Eauitable Runwav Use Svstem A. Prevent construction of a third paralle] runway. (" 1 B. Work to Eliminate the Use of Head to Head Operations. C m 4. Advocate a More Ec�.uitable Runwav Use Svstem (Continued) C. Monitor Pro�ress of N/S Runway 17/35. D. Monitor Runway Use System (RUS) for conformance with MAC Policies. 5. S�ecific Noise Control Measures A. Assure conversion of Staje III quieter aircraft by federal deadline of year 2000. B. Monitor MASAC's plan to reduce ariraft engine run-up noise and aircraft ground noise during periods of departure. C. Promote the implementation of Global Positioning Satellite Technology to control departure headings in conidor. 6. Noise Reduction ThrouQh Litiaation A. Examine Feasibility of Le�al Challenge 7. Ex and eliQibilitv of Part 150 Sound Insulation Proaram in areas affected bv air noise ex�osure 8. Metropolitan 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 C� m qIR f�01SE PLAN OF ACTION Issue: Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures Goal: Implementation of Non-Simultaneous Takeoff Procedures Which Minimize Mendota Heights Air Noise Exposure Action Steps: 1. Monitor Compliance with Tower Order 2. 3. 4. 5. NSDP's - Request Cornpliance Review 1 st 6 month study Pursue Magnetic Shift Affect on 105 Degree Heading on 12R Review 2nd 6 month study Who When Staff/ Study Requested ARC Staff Study Requested ARC ARC Oct.98 StafflARC 1999 MASAC ARC Feb.99 i' � 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 , _. 2 AIR N(JISE PLAN �F ACTICJN Issue: Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures Goal: Adoption of Mandatory Nighttime Takeoff Regu{ations to Reduce Noise Generation Over Mendota Heights Action Steps: 1. Inquire with FAA Control Tower aboufi current head-to-head operations 2. Demand/Advocate MSP Mandatory Rule for Stage I11 Only between 10:30 p.m. and 6 a.m. to repiace voluntary agreements. j' � `� 3 Who Staff CC/ARC When Completed Future MASAC Meeting � ; AI� NOISE PLAN OF ACTION Issue: Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures Goal: Implementation of Narrowed Air Traffic Corridor which Minimizes Mendota Heights Air Noise Exposure Action Steps Who When 1. Advocate for Maintenance of 5 mile final Staff/ARC Continuous arrivais and 3 mile corridor for departures 2. Pursue the benefit of updating Tower Staff/ARC 1999 orders to original i�tent before shift MASAC in magnetic headings 3. Presentation to Commission on GPS by Staff � 998 MAC or other expert (Mr. Harold Pierce) 4. Monitor Corridor Compliance and Departure Staff/ARC Cantinuous Excursions 5. Pursue Rernoval of "Hinged Corridor" and ARC , Long Term the repeal of Tower Order on South Parallel Runway �� � 4 � AIR NOISE P�AN OF ACTION Issue: Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures Goal: Monitor Conformance With Three Mile Heading Procedure Action Steps: Who When 1. Review Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis Staff/ARC Monthly 2. Alert MASAC and MAC About Compliance Staff/ARC As necessary 3. Work with FAA to Achieve Corridor Staff/ARC As necessary Compliance � 5 AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION 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 �j Develop long 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 representafiion with Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Commission. Who ARC/ Council � ARC/Staff When Nov./Dec. 98 Continuous � AIR NOISE PLAN O� ACTfON 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 Gity Council and Telecasts " 4. Produce Insight 7 Seg�ent ARC ;- 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: """" 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 letters and Heights Highlites to Staff Continuous State Senators and Representatives regarding ARC issues 4. Invite guests to monthly ARC meetings Staff Continuous (i.e., Mr. Hamiel, Mr. Wagoner, State , (Quarterly) elected officials} 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. 7. Update and Promote air noise Staff/ARC Annually mitigation document. 8. Host an Annual Open House for Community Staff/ARC Annually In Winter 9. Develop Informational Brochure for Staff/ARC . Display Case i� ) g C AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION Issue: Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concerns Goal: Continue to Coliaborate with the Northern Dakota County Airports Relations Coalition (NDCARC) Action Steps: 1. Define Accomplishments of NDCARC 2. Provide information to City Council About the Benefits of Collaboration 3. Participate in Annual Joint Meeting af ARC's 4. Work to Build Trust Amongst Members and Respective Councils 0 Who When ARC Fa111998 ARC Fa111998 ARC August 1998 ARC Continuous � � � � ' � � • � 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 lssues and Actions Who Staff Staff When Continuous Annually Continuous C AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION Issue: Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concerns Goal: Work with Metropolitan Council Representatives Action Steps: 1. Mail Letters and Heights Highiites to District 15 Representative 2. Meet with District 15 Representative to Educate and Lobby on Mendota Heights Air Noise Issues 3. Resolve Land Use/Air Noise Zones Issues 4. Meet with and Educate Met Council Staff Who When Staff Quarterly and As needed Mayor/Staff Annually Council/Staff Current Staff As needed Issue: Goal: AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Monitor and Encourage Promulgation and Adoption of Air Noise Mitigation Requirements in Mitigation Cammittee's Plan Action Steps: 1. Participate in MASAC Action Plan to Implement MSP Mitigation Plan 2. Review MSP Mitigation Plan Who When ARC/Staff Monthly ARC Annually C Issue: Goal: AIR I�OISE PLAN 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 Continuous Staff Current Staff/ARC July/Aug 1998 Council/Staff Current Councii/Staff Upon Completion Of MAC/Mpls Contract C AIR N�ISE 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 1Nhen Oct. 1998 Oct. 1998 Oct. 1998 C � ( �l 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. Monifior EIS Process for 17/35 ARC 2. Advocate for Timely Construction of ARC New Runway 17/35 �� � 15 When August 1998 Continuous C� C AIR NOISE PL.AN OF ACTION Issue: Advocate a More Equitabie Runway Use System Goal: Monitor Runway Use System (RUS) for Conformance with MAC Policies Action Steps: 1. Review Preferentiai 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 ARC/CC ARC/CC ARC When Fall 1998 1999 Manthly C� lssue Goal: AIR N41SE PLAN OF ACTION Specific Noise Contral Measures Assure Conversion by Federal Deadline of Year 2000 Action Ste�s: 1. Work with MAC to assuFe 1,996 legisiation to convert to a!i Stage III aircrafit by Year 2000 is impfemented 2. Monitor Backsliding of Stage Ill Conversion 3. MASAC Consideration vf Stage III compliance 4. Pursue the Adoption of an incentivesl Penaities Program for Stage III Compiiance by Airlines �� � � 17 Who Staff ARC ARC/Council ARC NDCARC When Compieted Continuous ..; Periodic C � __ AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION Issue: Specific Noise Control Measures Goal: Monitor MASAC's Pian to Reduce Aircraft Runup Noise and Aircraft Ground Noise During Periods of Departure. Action Steps: 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 ARC/CC 1999 ( � ) 18 � , _�� AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION Issue: Specific Naise 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 1999 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 (� � 1 9 • � � ' � � • � Issue: Noise Reduction Through Litigation Goal: Examine Feasibility of a Legal Chailenge 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 Informatian Request for EIS or FONSI's on Increased Operations 3. Consider Lega1 Challenge Options if North/South Runway is Delayed � Who When Staff/ARC Continuous Staff/ARC 1999 Staff/ARC 199$/1999 ��. C � Issue: Goal: AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION Expand Eligibility for Part 150 Sound Insulation Program in Areas Affected by Air Noise Exposure Air Noise Mitigation Through Sound Insulation Action Steps: 1. Continue to monitor changes in the Ldn contours and monitor the Part 150 Sound Insulation program completion process. . 2. Examine the feasibility of purchase or acquisition through Part 150 for severely impacted areas Who When Staff/ARC On-going ARC/Council 1999 3. Ensure ANOMS data used for Noise Contour Staff/ARC Dec. 1998 Generation for 2005 Part 150 DNL 60 MASAC 4. Advocate for the increased use of Passenger Facility Charges (PFC's? for funding Part 150 programs � � 21 Staff/ARC Continuous Council � ) � � � � � � � � Issue: Metropolitan Council Noise Zone Map and Related Land Use Controls Goal: Revise Met Council Land Use Zones and Controls to the Previous Land Use Zones Action Ste�s: 1. Work with City Council and Planning Commission on Comprehensive Plan submission 2. Review MAC 2005 LDN Contours for Application to Land Use Zones . 3. Consider Repeal of Sound Attenuation Ordinance * Updated August 11, 1998 ACTIONPL.98F I, � 22 Wha When ARC Current ARC/CC Sept. 1998 ARC/CC Sept. 1998 r � � , � , . .,. . r . � .. . �. �. ., � . � , � , � ' ; � .; � �. , r :i I I F, � ' � ' � '�- -. ❑ MASAC meeting agenda, cover memo(s) and correspondence for April 27, 1999 0 Minutes of the March 30, 1999 MASAC meeting ❑ Minutes of the Apri19, 1999 MASAC Operations meeting with attachments and cover memos � Blank Noise Monitoring and Information Request Form ❑ Monthly Part 150 Update ❑ March 1999 Technical Advisor's Report __. . ._... � ,r: ; t , _ __ ' , _ �. . . .. � . � � - � . � �..- .� � � �. . M � 1 t 1; � ,�', , ' � {,. f,. G � •. . . . .,. ♦. / ., � , � � . � � � , � , � ; � , General Meeting Aprit 27,1999 7:30 p.m. to 9:15 p.m. 6040 28� Avenue 5outh Minneapolis, Minnesota l. Call to Order, Rolt Call 2. Approval of Minutes of Meeting March 30,1999 3. Introduction of Invited Guests Receipt of Communications �� 4. Update on MAC Perspectives - Executive Director, Jeff Hamiel 5. RMT Installation Progress Review 6. April 9,1999 Operations Committee Report - Mark Salmen 7. Report of the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee Meetings - Dick Saunders S. Report of the MAC Commission Meeting 9. Technical Advisor's Runway System Utilization Report and Complaint Summary 10. Persons Wishing to Address the Council 11. Items Not on the Agenda 12. Adjournment Next Meeting: May 25,1999 Note: A Special MASAC Operations Committee Meeting will be held on Friday, April 30,1999 at 10:00 a.m. in the MASAC room to Discuss Ground Runup , Enclosures. Y r i t t i � ;,, ANOMS MAG - ANOI''fS OFr=1Gc, CGm�4P� 28th AVENUE SOUTI-I, 1"(INNEAPOLIS OFFICE ,,- EXISTING F2f"(T SITE - Tl'PIGAL - �5th STRE_T $ I�th AVENl1E, rZ(GNFIELD ����� _ RMT �18 2 � -:;�:,�',,; � RMT �25 i�'100NSNINE PARK, 1321 JURD1' i20AD, EAC�AN p Z RMT �26 C �g� Ar2KANSAS AVENUE WEST, INVEr� Czr20VE NEIGzNTS RMT �27 ANTNONI' MIDDLE SCNOOL, 5�5� IRVINCS AVENUE SOUTN, MINNEAPDLIS RMT �28 C��o45 16th ,4VENUE SOUTN, F2IGNFIELD RMT �29 �r21CSSON ELEMENTARY SCNOOL, 4315 31st AVENUE SOUTN, 1"11NNEAPOLIS i LOC�4TION PLAN i Tlm2 �NO SGALE � -' --_ _ � TEL NUMOER FAX NUMOER s s,�, ����������� � siz-aa�-0000 MILLER ■ DUNWIDDIE ° INC. BiZ-�a�-oo�i ;,sr°+ +� 1►,t.A.�'+. _ D.�,{.m. A R C H I T E C T S ;' l�l l. 1 � 1V1 1 /'� 12� N. Tl1IRD STREET•SUtTE 10� � MINNEAPOLIS • M(NNESOTA • 55401—t857 'D* +� rADDITI�NS TO ���/� �. � �A.N.O.M.S. SYSTEM " �� DATE: 2?5.99I pRAWN BY: ppM 1"fDA No. MAC99�3 ""��„�n` d � r• \r.•i: � �: � •� / \ , �.: `#132:�": _ . , �r; � / � -- ♦ •' / (/,,, \ / \' 0 EXIST. � BUfi�'IED \ UTI�ITIES, Tl'P. /� \ POND . 31T�"�Yti!r"} / • �h :�:<�;;;�?';�r, / I �. +�'°^ � . .:��,T �, / . �_ I �,1325;� EXIST. �z:�:�;,.,:�,;:. � ��u�`T�*`;�'� PROPErZT1' ��;,��,�.�r,.' i `�,��;:�`°' / � INES, TYP. ' k rTY •; • I .;�. / � - EXIST: ;�,:., �.., :��. �'���:.. � Tr2A I L � �:,��-a� ..>K;, •.. � ''G`� -�' �' "�m� y�'���;�I��f ���. �; �. �. �'.�� � �. � ..,z�, ., : �;. � , r :�.-_;,,<:' , �& ��~' / � � t � -\ \ � j ' J¢ � ' \� �O 0 �1 � /� _ � -- R.M. i. L OG�4T I ON - S`� �i � c DET,^,iL AE 1�2 � G \ O \ -�/ • C��� . ` \ �� .�^P¢ / :�� ��iy..��;r4`� . � � � / ',��;����T�,����;,,, � � \ � � r'�` '� / \ � / .^ �Y.��ir-1 {M�, 'cM1^�: h�lw.r�F...: ' ��;t�.� \ �:�...� im' y�ui' s i dlkh '=n:�i��i,�,,,.�fl.'.^� � / � y���I�1d `'xt'(K35�L';�:",'.hH:' � � y c�nT>� irr�, '��N IPYrvH':K jl(Lf:l. �"�ry��'"� �tha �"�.�'�.�t'�r� / ,.� ,�a�;�C;ri..,���.��,�:�-x,. ,�.3�', `"��':;r�r�,, �,,��r�?��.�, ,�� :,:�:,;�� � ��.��;� � ,,� . , � �; / �J i � ` \ V._"" . 4�, '�r:. ,� ' \ � ��'������;�,�., \ �% YA' L'3t.:r_ 8.:: \ ��4��`.�1?i3,1�=%�ti: � t1 r �.''Yivq��r: 1 / )qf,��� 4y � y. ti - --'� \ ���-�� _ ----� � - ---'" , NOTE:\ - - � �/EfzIF`r �OGATION OF RMT PO�E '' � �7�,,, �`� ASSEi"iBL1� Pt210R TO DIC�GING� ,. L��r ' IUITI-4 Ar2Cl-!I`rECT. ,.:, , #1314; � � r�,, �'b�� \ `� ;� , � .,., . � - - —� _ �lT� _ _L� =L�M.T_ #� - ,,'�":;: z � P � - --� i Elm NO SCALE EAC=AN p i Z ,:� TEI.. NUMDER MILLER o DUNWIDDIE • INC. eiz-"ss"� oo�R e�Z-��,_0000 "' A R C H I T E C T S t29� N. THIRD STREET •SUITE 104 • MINNEAPOIIS • MINNESOTA • 5540t-1857_ DATc: 2?5.99 DRAWN 3Y: DDM MdA No. MAG9�03 EXISTINCx PAD MOUNT�D DAKOTA ELECTt21C TR�^N��ORMER Pi20VIDE A �r2EE STAND ING-s PEDESTAL METEr2 uNIT ADJAGENT TD p,4KOTA E�EGTRIG TR,4NSFORI'1ER AS SPEGIFIED. J�t55',",Y M.A.C. — R.M.T. .L�� +z m} +� ADDITIONS TO 9 p A.N.O.M.S. SYSTEM � 1 a? 'w;,�,=` RMT#25 � \ , . � , � ,�- EXISTING TiZAIL � --- �XISTINC� 1.U00D ' FENCE I MT �' R POLE �4SSEi"fBLY � -ll11_T-�l-. GQ.1�l.C.�'.F�E -�-,45.� - SEc DETAIL 1/�,E12� ' fi �OVIDE 2#lf� � 1�1� C�iZOU1�iD (N 3/4" NE�4V1' UJAL� SCNEDULE 8� r-�''�/C GONDU(T TO �LECTRIG 1�'fETEr2 �, �� MIN(MUM OF 24" � BELOt�J C�r�,4DE. BORE u�DE��EA-rN � EX(STINC� r20,�D. `.�",��k`���= �.;;�s,r:: � �� Pr�OYIDE 2^l� � 1#I� �5��� . � T.,, ,;�-;�,�.;.ry�,�.. ,;r�:-, �'�� , \ � G-.fizOu1�1D D I izEGT . `n.u.,nt":_ �:ac.: ��:�,M =�;�:,���':� ������� � Bl�izIAL G,48LE FfzOM �' ��4���g�°��'"� � � METEfi� TO DAKOT�4 ���l,t� �;� \ rr� � -- , ,x� � « � \ ELECTr21G ; . , �y,,� � � .�it���,,�r,f FSt' iri4.'K ��r'.. . �.55 ;F,�. +,,:. � 1 Ti�,4NSFOizMEiz AND . �a,r;:,,.,�::r;�;��;;,.' � LE�4VE 4'-�" SLACIG �i: ]'�y.4k,,. ' ����ty:�thi,lep ' . J I �C,4B�E. DAKOTA __._- E�ECTizIG TO MAKE '`� ��ONNECTION TO -- i �-r=�N D ET A I �- RM1� #2 5 '�> �_ �' '� Tfz,4NSFOfzi"1Er'z. � EI� I" = 3m'-m" EACzAN ' � � �,. Z %_. �. . ,, ' , _ r.,�::,,,: :, p1314. . .:;,,•.:�: . I :;` TEL. NUM�ER MILLER ■ DUNWIDDIE ■ I1VC. e,2 a�; oo�R cv+'=�'' �� e�z-sa�-0000 �. A R C H I T E C T S +� M.A.C. — R.M.T. 12a N. TIifRO STREET•SllITE t04 • MINNEAPDLIS • MINNESOTA • 5540t—I857 ���"S{ +� ADDITIONS TO 1 O� . DATc: 2?5Q� p�AWN BY: DDh'I MDA No. MAC99�D3 yt�.;,�„��°'. A.N.O.M.S. SYSTEM RMT#25 � � � \'�`�`.' . �C� � F� (d / �.ti . ,�:�a. , � � - —\ :r �9� � �? � I - ���� I \ � ��'.4 ' �u„�� f � � �� �S�P! ".r.Ms . "trs.,": /�J �� �I � '� i , �-C�BTN STR.EET WEST ' � ,� _ � �- , / , . �" i � \ � \ I I - i , r � � RM.T. L�OGATION - , 5EE SITE DETAIL I/AEIm4 \ \ I � ' / �\ i \ �. � � � ��-- �� W � \� �XISTIICa 11TIL(TY r"'OLE � � -� � � I � _�_ _�- - Z — • \ I } � � � Q _ _ I � � I z � i i � , ` � \ ` I I Q I � \ � i' i _ _ _ _ - - -- �-- - NOT : \ � , I� I , I. VE!�I�Y LOCATION OF RMT \ I� i � i P�210,r2 TO DIGzGINCz WITN � � \ I Ar�iGNITEGT. I I I 2, ,4�L BUILDING-5 ARE NOT 5NOt1�N ON SITE PLAN. \ � i � i , I _ � _ �— _� �- -�- - - - LONE OAK ROAD i TREET WEST . - _ --�-._ - ( - � - - - _ _ _'� SITE �LAN - i�1"fT �2� " I Eim _NO SGALE INVER GROVE Nc�C�NTS z -��.��'�TEL. NUMHER FAX NUMHER '�'5�+�,y, r [� � . siz-a��-0000 MILLER ■ DUNWIDDIE ° TI�IC. c�z-asv-oasi +`� M.A.I�'• — R.M.T• �1.�.'� A R c x r T E c T s ��� ADDITIONS TO 1 0 3 I �t } � 129 N. THIRD STREET • SUITE !04 • MWNEAPOt1S • MINNESOTA • 55407-I857 • � A. N• O. M. S.. SYSTEM RMT#26 DATc: 3:'5A9 PRAWN BY: DDM� MDA No. MAGQ9P�3 ��l"''^���� � I .- L: e �,��m+x � N . .. hTk 1 � ���. � , �:' �, a�t.,.�-q�,•,�'�� �; �` 7� � �`tl��� � � ;gi'KI'µ�., �k'", .,,� ..� ..F��:�; !�" . �... I i, , f: � i t I � PROVIDE 2"Im+�rZOUND IN 3/�" �' I HEAvl' WALL SCNEDULE Sm - r'�''VG GONDUIT TO NSP POWEi@ � POLE A 1"IINIMUM OF 2�4" BELOW . I CzRADE. ROUTE GONDUIT AND GONDUCTORS L!P NSr'� POWER i t�'-OLE AND TcRMINATE WITN ,4 y WEATHEr�NEAD. LEAVE 4'-m" I SPARE LENG-TN OF G.4c�LE FOf@ � NSP GONNcCTION. NSP TO � • I`1AKE FINAL CONNEGTfON AT � -� � POWER POLc. I � „J I ' . �\� l� , Xn � �8,_m��+ ; ,�i�_.. �; � �:, y ' � , I i R.M.T. POLE ASSEI`1BLY �v, W(TN CbNGr�ETE BASE - � LOGAT(E NEAR MOST '� NORTHLI' UTILITI' POLE `� ON TN IUEST SIpE OF ARKA�SAS AYENUE - SEE t, DETAIL 1/AE12m i • � �XISTI G- NSP POW�r'2 AND cn W PNON —P6�-*`----r Rpyt@�-- — — � ,4 3P�A�2P.IF (2P.JA.� � W� A T?-? c;�r=r�00F � LOCK,ciBLE SERVICE W DISG0�INEGT SWITCN ON } r-�'OLE ,b,T 5'-la". � c� � �I IZ � ' . � � I <[ � I . � SIT� r-�'L,4N DEl",41L - r2MT �2� I �:-'':.:;� _ ::<;: �::��;< � :. Elm I" = 3m'-C�" INVEr'� G-f20�/� NEIC=N�S 0 ... _ ' ( TEL. Nt7M8ER MILLER • DUIVWIDDIE • INC FAX NUMBER s s,,tir � .. 612-9a7-0000 fi12-997-0091 �,f1�+ , A R C H I T E C T S = +� M.A.C. — R.M.T. �� .,, _t20 N. TfftftD SCREET•SUCfE 104' • MINNEAPOLIS • MINNESOTA • 5540l-t659 � a� +� ADDITIONS TO 1 O� �.+ � A.N.O.M.S. SYSTEM �d� DATE: ? �5.g9 DRAIUN BY: DDM I"'iDA No. i"fAC9QD3 � ` . RMT#26` ��wv�`' - 5� TN STr'�EcT U1E5T _ f- � O � w � z W } Q � Z } fk 58'TN STr���T WCST PAr2KINCz LOT R.1"1.T. LOGATIDN S� ��/SF O�iL F i S I P AN - R.M.T. 7 Elm N S LE ANTNONY MIDD c SG L, M 15 NOTE: SEE SITE DETAIL I/AE1mC� � I v � / \ \\ \��� �..it�.� I _- � TEL. NUMBER FA% NUMHER `��5 '�.�,�,r � a�x-a��-0000 MILLER ■ DUIVWIDDIE • INC. oiz-sa�-oo�i + t� M.A.C'. — R.M.T. ��j AR c H IT E cT s �'�� +� ADDITIONS TO 1 0 5 129 N. THIRD STREET• SUITE 104 • MINNEAPOLIS • MlNNESOTA • 5540t-t857 T+ � li : `�.. + ��� A.N.O.M.S. SYSTE`-M RMT#27 pATE: 2�5.99 DRAUJN BY: DDM MDA No. t"tACQ9m3 �`''^ �'� _ - � --- �,� .: . F' ; i: r� i ' � =r � � � �� ',S- ' � � � 4 .. � .. �. . .. . .. 5i TN STr2EET WEST EXISTING- SIDEWALK �XISTINC� GONGRETE • STAIr2S WITN NANDRAIL R1�I.T. POLE ASSEMBLI' � WITN GONCf�ETC BASE - ScE DETAIL I/AEIZm NOTE: V�r�IFY � LOCATION OF f�.M.T. � �. POLE ASSEMBLI' PRIOR TO DIG-G-ING WITN Ar'zCNITECT � � EXISTING- NSP POWEr� POLE � � 23�-��� �--- PROviDE A ' 3mA.2P.1FC2mAJ I WEATNcR�t�00F � LOGKABL� SERVICE � DISGONNECT'SWITCH ON � PO�E AT 5'-m". I � �I � �(�-----PROVIDE 2"IP�+CzROLlND ' � IN 3/4° NE,4VY WALL � SCNEDULE S(D PVC GONDUIT TO NSP POWER �� � POLE A MINIMUM O� 24" ( BELOW G-RADE. RDUTE � GONDUIT AND CONDUCTORS UP NSP ��,_m�� POWER POLE AND �TERMINATE WITN A ' WEATHEfZHEAD LEAvE SPARE 4'-m° LENC=?N OF � CABLE FOR NS� \ CONNECT(ON. NSP TO \ MAKE FINAL � CONNEGTION AT POWEr� �� POLE. . i SITE PLAN DETAIL - r2.M.T. #27 _ . Elm I" = 3m'-m" ANTNONI' ('11pDLE SGHOOL, I"fIN� IS Te�. NUM�ER MILLER ■ DUNWIDDIE ■ INC. 612X��; oo�R �.,5-,�„� -- aiz—aa�—0000 A R C H I T E C T S • +� M.A.C. — R.M.T. lZ��N. TfiIRD SfREET•SVITE 104 • MINNEAPOLtS • MINNESOTA � 55401-l857 n� +� ADDITIONS TO DATc: 2�5.99 DRAUJN BY: DDM � MDA No. MACqgp3 ��rh�^��h�� A. N. 0.1�. S. SYSTEM f�% I ,��� , ,. r• , i I - I l� _ _ C C�th STREET EAST . �- _ 0 w � z� W' � Q S � t�.M.T. LOCATfON - 5EE SITE DETAIL. I/AE1m8 N.a. s:,. NOTE: vERIFY LOGATION OF i2MT POL.E AS5E1"fBLY PRIOR TO •��� DIGC7ING WITN ARCNITEGT. ` i SfTE PLAN - R.M.T. '�'18 Elm NO SC.4LE r21C�IFIELD ' TEL. NUMBER FAX NUMBER i5 s+„h, �' siz-sa�-0000 MILLER ■ DUNWIDDI� • INC. siz-sa�-oos� Jf'�* +� M.A.C. — R.M.T. - ARcxzTECTs +� ADDITIONS TO 12� N. THIRD STREET • SUtTE !04 • MINNEAPOLIS • MiNNESOTA � 5540t-1857 p+ t7 �., + � -�� A.N.O.M.S. SYSTEM DATE: 2:?5 Q9 DRAUJN BY: �.7. DM MDA -No. MACA9�3 �`''����� r r }- Q � z _ �� 10'� RMT#28 : � � s, < < ^^ ^. I - ::,� � , � , rt � � �,� ,�, � ` � a+ �r' — — — — — — — —� — — ,.. I — — — — - � 4)JY if/� y�{,)y� �' � , YC�V�F1T'y G� "(w Jr � � t . 11.ry 1�i.� T^i..'}S�`f 4 C1t�.. - #�.l��r iEl-^ 1 y 1 � �i{t,t,: `� .�'4"a�'��. J �"��.�y� i . ' . 4_t . � .r u rv!hi i'1Y.'..CV l.' �' I . . i t, �� S� � . ' j � � "��''� -�, � � .... i � _ 4 i �. _ � i a�:rr ' +� � � 3'S- � .; ;�u ;.� ^' } � �' ;� � r.� E: a,j ,,.,,� a a� �. r0 't:J �} . !�''"'J��.F�i:b,�s�y,Js�t�i I sf�r�1'4S�'!i��,7�3it�5j� hn � � �'i !�'�', � :��,}a+f `..'��� w;.�" �: � .N'i�iG,q7;T�0�y�`Y'� r� ... � . �� � � � p� ���. (rt ed.}- y�� 7'}�� ��i. � i���:.�' �C�i r "i"'� .��.� . �.{ � '"Ya,1R3�1W� 4 t1-xT�.rv�c�'� .... �� r �"kklN�r�,rt �F�t+l��)x�'���'�r "r.J;� _____ �S ,� �`�`� �' ,r !l-�, R �f�� � u�.,� ���.�"�''� ,�'�,t� ��k���'' ?t 'ra„'�-ac���(' H ��" � �; � . �4?t7'Y �N " yx �� � } "y�,'�'�'�.�5'`����i', ,rv� u l... � �t�T+t� ��r. . �. � 5�u1h, > 'a�i+'iS����� ,, Jt.�a�' ! a 4 F�,.F . . x� ��,�Y �{),F4` I .�x,u., � -.5- I ���1� � t 7. �St Y ..�. .�.t�l��C;'K" ;�' 1 . ,�tP' �yt :i ' `�ki:�1:���94qe"'. �, �,�; � • �` . i..� 1 y* N".%; ,.ur>;� � � 4, --•;f ri�i� �? . ��1°�':'�.a � c�; , a % il � . �fi y�4�n . . }� �a:. � `�i�� ; I . . ��IZ4��e1t.�r:n.F=I � . .^��. - - - � - ! : - - - - - '„�+ - _ - - EXISTINCz FENCE ' d`�---- ---- a ' PROVIDE A 3mA.2P.iFC2mAJ - _— —_—__-- "'� WEATNEr2PROOF LOGKABLE � C�� TN STREET EAST , IG� D1���lNEGT �zUJlZC�L _ � ON EXISTING N5P POWEr� — —' `. POLE ,4T 5'- D". ,� 1 r FZ1rf.T. POLE A55ci`1r3LY WfTN � GONCrZETE BASE - SEE DET.41L i/AE12m ,- PROVIDE 2�1m+G- OU � I '`' � - - — r� ND � �F�`�����i�`�, . IN 3/4°� NcAvl' WALL �'�'�'"�'�'L ��'�i,r��-ry+• ( „_y,rg�"S''^�iw`f' C, '�y� kv.?' i �tf �ih� r5 � � .-k1��C _�f'��`�� ' SCriCCULE� 8e� t�'-YC �� '�<,���,��;�+: ���:r����'�{�� i ( � ,�� � ,�-. `�."��`.��y �'� GONDUIT TGD N5r-�' POW�R 'f4,r�.f.�.4"�;� ;',,, ;� "�tT� t,< �'�� �'°n x� .. POLE ,4 MI IMUM OF 24" ''��#�.r,��il `T��M��'��'�.��'' �,�'��'�o�"l'(d(7�� ����, � I XS' s� P7�1 L�a �� I ���� w��A�,� ��-?�`' ! i7�� �-'�rc�- � rR' �. BELOW G- A �t-x�',� � ��"�' "���ry,reR, �a. ��� i�, , � DE. BORE s�;' ,Ta� � ;,��'�;'i-, �':. i^,�� � ,,,��. ���� UNDER DRIVEWA7'. I ° ����,��; ` ��"'�� �� ''' �a�� ,�'���. �s . ROUTc GONDUIT AND I � r4�� F�,+�' ���u��y i�-� �s�'����Y��� '.��^,�;k��.::Yir;. .�{.: y � �N 7T CONDUCTUr�S UP NSP I f�< �rr r .�.� ���; ,��I,'�,�;��Y,�v����J �: �-- POWER POLE AND ' � � "" «��r�� �t �" ��'' ' R:J�� il 4 �1 �1 TERMINATE WITN A � I ' �;�;7:,,�.�.+��i,''�;y�v:�t�, ' : ,,�:.;4a.�,;��„F�:s.r t": WEATHERNEAD—LEAVE� SPARE 4'-P�" LENG-TN OF i � GAc3 -L-� -�9�?_nlS� _ _ . CONNcGTION. NSP TO � - - - - MAKE FINAL ^ CONNECTION AT POWER ' ' POLE. � SITE P�AN DET,�,IL - R.M.T. #28 �=;;:;��- ? _ Eim I" = 3�'-m" RIGNF�ELD � 0 _ , I z TEL. NI16i➢ER MILLER ■� DUNWIDDIE � 11VC. FAX NUMBER ,5 �,,,� -- .. 612-9�7-0000 812-a37-0031 2� A A R C H I T E C T S +� M.A.C. — R.M.T. L�� 129 N. TIi1ftD STREET•SUITE I04 • M[NNEAPOUS • MMNESOTA • SS�g01—t657 �"n� +� ADDITIONS TO � � J j'S � A.N.O.M.S. SYSTEM `�'" . DATE: ?�5.99 Dr'2AWN BY: DDM MDA No. MAGA9l7�3 �'�;.,,�` RMT#28 �--�--� � 43iZD STr'ZEcT EAST f�f�1T LOGATfON cX15TING- G-YMNA5IUM i200F PAr2KINCz LOT NOTE: ScE ROOF r`�LAN DETAIL I/AEllt Z � � � � W � Z W } Q � Z N m � � :C' ��'����� .. • � C :Sy� �„ t � � f, 1 �;�i;;::' Z ` � S I T E t-�' L AN - R1"'f T#2 9 ,;;:.,, �:.: -� � EI1�D NO SGALE O � " Er�IGSSON ELEMENTARY SGNOOL �.. � -- �� ,. � TEL NUMBER FAX NUMBER 's+��„ � A �j -� eiz-s�v-0000 MILLER ■ DUNS'VIDDIE' INC. elz-aa�-oosi �,�✓°+� +� M.A.C'. — R.M.`I'. 1�.A.j ARCHITECTs � +o ADDITIONS TO 110 .{ t2a N. THIRD STREEf • SUITE 104 • MINNEA['OLtS • MINNESDTA • 55401-1657 'ci pr'� A. N. O. M. S. S Y S T E M . DATE: 2�5.99 DRAWN BY: DDM MDA No. MAC99�3 Y�'`��,A�`�` • RMT#29 � a � G-YMANSIUM ROOF � �, 15'-m"t � �� /% l I i i" � -�-3'-m"x3'-m" ROOF �..._._.. — -UJ,4L-I�� � � n�- o nt��� c�_ �....—. — .�,-.-�-,�,-.� +' +, LOGATE UJA�KWAI' TO 0- - AVOID EXISTINCz �DG-E � � +� FLASNING- AND/OR � N � GANTS � -- METAL ROZOF LADDEr2 - � SEE DETA(L I/,4E118 � RMT POLE ASSEMBLI" WITN SADDLE - 5EE DETAILS I/AEI1� AND I/AE12m 2 AE114 � �� LOWER ROOF NOTE: � I. EXISTING- G-cYl`1NA51U1"I AND LOWEr� ROOFS ARE BUI�T-uP ROOF ASSEMBL f ES, C(RGA 1981. 2. GONTRACTOR TO VERIFY AND DOCOUMENT TNE GOND(TION OF TNE EXISTINC� RDOF SYSTEMS Pi210R TO PROGEEDINGc WITN WOr2K, 3. VERIFY LOGATION OF RMT ASSEMBL.Y PRIDR TO INSTALLATION. : i PARTI,4L iZOOF PLAN - f�MT #29 ::..;;i��:� ? — aEiii vi��� = i�-m�� ::,.,. � � Er�IC550N ELEMENTAR7' SCNOOL Z� ,:• TEL NUAfHER MILLER ■ DUNWIDDIE ■ INC FAX NUMOER ,vo- ,��5,, . y''^� . 8t2-997-0000 812—a�7-0031 �iT + ~r � A („�' A R C H I T E C T S • +� M.A.C. — R.M.T. �.��; 129 N. THIRD S?REET•SUITE t0� • MINNEAPOLIS • MINNESOTA • 55401—t057 �"�a} +� ADDITIONS TO DATc: 2?5.99 DRAWN BY: DDM MDA No. t'IAG99C�3 ��w; `°fi "• �`• O• j" •�. SYSTEM 111 �� � '� ItMT�29 - ��-) Metropolitan Aircraff Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) 6040 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450 •(612) 726-8141 Chairman: Robert P. Johnson Past Chairs: Scott Bunin, 1990-1995 Waiter Rockenstein, 11, 1982-1990 Jan Del Calzo, 1979-1982 Stanley W. Olson, 1969-1979 - Technical Advisor: Roy Fuhrman April 16, 1999 Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee Co-Chairs Mr. Mike Sandahl Commissioner John Himle Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 28th Ave. South Minneapolis, MN 55450 Dear Mr. Sandahl and Mr. Himle: _�� At the March 3Q 1999 MASAC meeting, Mr. Dick Saunders and Mr. Mark Salmen were appointed as primary and alternate technical representatives to serve on the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee. Please provide MASAC's new LFNPC technical representatives with the appropriate information concerning the LFNPC's work to date and include our representatives on all future mailings. Sincerely, � ��-""""_ __-- Ro�Fuhrmann MASAC Technical Advisor � RECYCIED PAPEfl STAFF COMMENTS OF THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS ON THE MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT FEDERA.L AVIATION REGULATIONS (FAR) PART 150 UPDATE DRAFT SCOPE OF WORK APRIL,1999 The Staff of the City 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) Ace�ra+tP No:s� �'xpmse�re 1VIa�: A ke;r priority for the Part l�Q update is the 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. � . . 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 commends 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 factored 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 I ) . part150_4 . � ► � �. � � • April S. 1999 Mayor Charles Mertensotta MASAC Chair 6G�0 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, ivfl`7 ��4�0 Dear Mayor �Zertensotto: The City of ivlendota Heights submits its comments on the scope of the MSP's Part 1 �0 Study Update, pzr the request of the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound t�batement Council (MASAC). The scope of. the study update should include the following: � 1. Ec�u.ii�� of the ��istina Runwav Use Svstem - The present n�nway use syst�m is inequitable as it is predicated on the enoneous application of land use coinpati�ilit;% ,E theories. This runway use system ��vill need to be ugdated with the cor�struction oF the Runwa� 17-3� and this provides an opportu.*uty to eliminaie the c�,2rrent inequitable operation of the MSP airport. , a. The RUS ca11s for the use of the crosswind rur.way, up to 20% of the time durin� the daytime, to relieve the burden on the paraliel runways. Tfus 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 Heights, often ciurin� the nijht time quiet hours. This reduces tne eiiectivcness ui th� recently �slaoiished nai-srir�uiianeous deFar�ure procedures. Rerouting of inbound traffic or modification of head-to-head operational procedures should be adopted so that non-simultaneous departures will keep departing tra�c in the center of the comdor. c. The priority assigned to the Southeast Corridor in the RUS is inequitable and should be re-examined. The RUS erroneously relies on "land use compatibility" as a Quiding principle for primary, heavy use of the So�`:.*,heast Corridor. Due to the increase 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 noise cor�tours and the Metrapolitan Councii noise zanes ha��e expane�ed '� into residential areas long considered compatible. The south�ast corridor has not confined aircraft to compatible land use areas, but has given lice:�se to the 1101 `lictoria Cuxve • Meaadota Heights, MN • 55118 �(612) 452-1850 � FAX 452-8940 Metropolitan Airports Commission to send ever increasinQ air traffic over residential areas of Mendota Heights. The ever increasina amolmt of traffic � cannot be physically or �perationally confined to ttie corridor and, in fact, constantly spills over into incompatible land use �u-eas. d. The review of the RUS should include a re�rmation of projected percentages of runway use under the 2010 Comprehensive Plan, as presented to the Minnesota State Lesislature and as contained in the Final Environmental Impact Staternent. 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 fhe followinc: i�t ,�^»'�'.;l;.uT.�.`?�'_-Iiiy irrraft {,tr��r?tiOI1_5 �i':���l,rl �}{, rrt_?intain�r� �nc;M1P 3 Ca�o:c:" :��C� . . i' -.. .. -- -_.' .., southeast corridor based on ANOMS generated contours. b. Continuously util�e a.l� available technological_ �mprovements includipj navigational aids, DGPS, and standard instrument departure procedures to narrow the southeast corridor to iestrict overflights to commerciaUindustrial zoned land use areas. c. With the shift in maanetic headings, tower orders need to be reviewed for compliance with the corridor's original intent. ;''� d. Subject to narrowin� the corridor as noted above, consider implementation of the 09� ° northern boundary recommended 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 confiauratiun consistent with the ever increasing operational activity at MSP. f. Alternative departure profiles should be reconsidered. Altitude analysis should be SttiC�iP.C� tn �IptP*-mirP a, i,r�raft p�qXi.iTi71y t0 �r'J�?T1L� �"Ve?s st increment�l_ c3istan�Ps for varyin� 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 existing compatible land use areas within and beyond the e:�isting Southeast corridor. 3. Air�ort Operations - Airport operations should be adjusted to provide for increased noise abatement opportunities including the follotiving: a. Niahttime restrictions should be imposed that speciry only "manufactured" Stage III aircraft after 10 p.m. until6 a.m. The use �f incentives/disincentives should be �'' considered including hiaher landin� fees for noisier airplane types after 10 p.m. � � b. Through the use of DGPS, around track assicrunents should be used for departing and arrivin� aircraft instead of headin�s. A run up enclosure pad should be considered to reduce airport arou,*�d noise. Other areas of ground noise should be identified and miti�ation/abatement activities undertaken. Low frequency siudy issues should be applied to all airport communities, not just those in proximity of Run�vay 17/35. Noise Measurement - ANOMS data should be used to the greatest eYtent possible for the generation of the 2005 LDN noise contours. Land LTse O._.�aortunit��s - The study updates should �:ddress the fc�llo�,7ng: a. 0 c. The acquisition of severely impacted neiahborhoods, homes, and other incompatible land uses should remain in the updated program. Land use compatibility should not be overemphasized as a primary directive for departure direction. Zand use compatibility is ineffective for an inner city airport bounded by fully developed municipalities. Boundaries of elijibility for Part 150 Sound Insulation sliould not divide neighborhoods. More equitable boundaries based on actual noise impacts need to give way to the subjective assumptions used to gener•ate INM contours. The City of Mendota Heights thanks the 1�Ietropolitan 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 neiahboring communities, durin� this process. y c;:.. . "rrlv CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ��.c.�it.- �G:.�c.�.o�Q,� Kevin Batchelder City Administrator cc Roy Fuhrmann, MAC Nlanaoer, A�•iation i�Toise and Satei.lite Programs Citv Council y Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission t ,, f '} 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 BIOMQUIST PE6GY A. CARLSON SANDRA A. MASIN Councii Members THOMAS NEDGES City Administrator E. J. VAN OVERBEKE City Cierk 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 airpon operators and users in defining a noise program that continues the many successful efforts to miti�ate 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 informatian we are able to provide our residents. We hope that MAC, MASAC, and other interested parties understand the significance our 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 strongiy recommend the following items be adopted in the Part 150 Stud}% update: • Extensive noise monitoring must be done in areas of southwest Eagan that will be impacted during the 1999 reconstruction of Runway 12R/30L. The diversion of departures to Runway 22 during this period will have an enormous impact on areas 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 opportunity for residents in southwest Eagan to evaluate how the new noise impact of Runway 17/35 will affect them. Similarly, it will be the onlv opportunity for MAC 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, this information is vital. Understandably, these comments are provided only days before the traffic 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. MUNICIPAL CENTER 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55�122-1897 PHONE: (651) 681-4600 = FAX: (651) 681-4612 TOD: (651) 454-8535 THE LONE OAK TREE THE SYMBOL OF STREN6TH AND 6ROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY Equai Opportunify Employer MAINTENANCE FACILITY 3501 COACHMAN POINT EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122 PHONE: (651) 681-4300 FAX: (651) 681-4360 TDD: (651) 454-8535 Page2 03/3U/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 traffic 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 Mendata 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 ofRunway 17/35 during nighttime hours unless climatic conditions necessitate its use. • The Final EIS identified three flight tracks for southerly and easterly departures off Runway 17 that will have a dramatic impact 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, FA.A would utilize GPS to position all departures in a corridor that would over-fly Trunk Highway 77 to a gate located roughly at the intersection of TH77 and I-35E before allowing turnout: This "Cedar Conidor" 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 program director of the FAA 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 deterrriine them in the future as a part of the National Airspace redesign. The benefits will come much sooner to {, Page 3 03/3 t)/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. Extending the sound insulation program into the 1-mile buffer zone surrounding 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 '/4 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, �'_�� �� _ , . . ,�1— _-- � James D. Verbrugge Assistant City Administrator Copy: Thomas Hedges, City Administrator Ted Gladhill, Eagan ARC Chair Jeff Hamiel, MAC Executive Director i '; RICHFIELD MAYOR MARTIN J. KIRSCH CITY COUNCIL SUSAN ROSENBERG SU7ANNE M. SANDAH� KRISTAL STOKES RUSS SUSAG City IVlanager's Office Mr. Roy Fuhrmann Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 — 28th 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. Gen�tal �ommer.�s 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 summarizing 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. TI1e Urban Hometown 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 t 612.861.9700 FAX: 612.861.9749 www.ci.tichlield.mn.us AN EOUAI OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 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 �eflect the best available technology at the time that the noise 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 ofl Model 870 noise monitors. The scope of this effort should also be expanded to i; � 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 parties to be interviewed and those with whom interviews will be conducted, and of the form in which the information 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 MACs consultant meet with Don Brauer, Richfield's Planning Consultant, to gain a detailed understanding of Richfield's runway sideline noise-related redevelopment plans. __ { Mr. Roy Fuhrmann Aprii 6, 1999 Page 3 Task 2.2 The assumed "open house" and "station" formats for public meetings may prove to be difficult when conveying the large amounts of detailed information 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 camment periods for public review of draft documents produced under the Pa�t 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 �oute 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 public relations purposes after critical 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 Gity Manager SLD:dmw Copy: Richfield City Council Members � 03i1di99 08:4� Tn;Charles Mertensotto rrorn: DUT1 Page ii� 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. I aligned my following comments with the handouts provided by Mr_ Fuhrman: • Page 5(Land Use) I have a concern about the intent of this sect��!� �n� ins+e��+ ef c�rr:�a+�b1e la^� ;.as� ��6�g e: Qc���, th� 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. • Is there a way we can limit the number of planes per hour, seeing as this is a significant complaint in addition to the loudness of the 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 1 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 trafiFc 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, I 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. '�� 03i11/99 �8:4�j .Tn:Charles Mertensotto From: OUT1 ' Page �/� fr' l • Why the need for nighttime run up policy? Can't there be a nighttime curtew 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 problem. 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 still there. I have always seen two options: relocate the airport in an area AWAY from the residents (proposal killed) or ��'ii4�'3!� 8(ii �'2�G�.i�2 iiiE? n�2C�2Ci i 2Sit�'�i �i5 ctilli'd'1� �r�rr; '�-:@ a��pQ f; and maintain a strong buffer zone in its place. However, I do support this program IF ifi 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 all of its residents, both commercial and residential. ;'�� s Investigate additional uses for the remote noise monitors after the 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 Sfiage III aircraft supposed to quiet it down sufficiently? And if the monitors indicate confinuous violations then what enforcement will 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 i', ^ ��city of bloomington, minnesota 2215 West Old Shakopee Road • Bloomingto� MN 55431-3096 ■(612) 945-8700■ FAX: 948-8754 • TDD: 948-8740 March 16, 1999 Charles Mertensotto, Chair MA.SAC 6040 - 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450 RE: Parr 15�J Stu�y Update The Bloomington City Council has reviewed the proposed scope of the Part 150 Study Update as presented to MASAG by HNTB. In ;eneral, we see the followina items in the scope, or list of additional issues, as exceptionally important parts of a successful Part 150 study. s Noise exposure maps which objectively present the problem. • Develop noise abatement departure procedures for runway 17-35. • Expand the sound insulation pzogram to residences within the 2005 DNL 60-65 contour. `' • Develop methods for further 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 preferentzal nznway 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 FA.A 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 �__ � Commission and MASAC have an opportunity to accomplish significant gains through this An Affirmative Action/Equai 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. h� Please direct any questions about this letter to Larry Lee, Director of Communiiy Development, 612/948-8947. He will coordinate the City of Bloomington's response to Part 150. Sincerely, ����, � � I\�� � � � C-�' �`i Steve Bianchi Deputy Mayor /11 cc: Nigel Finney, MAC Roy Fuhrmann, MAC John Himle, MAC Jeff Hamiel, MAC � DEAN �INDBERG Illust=ation�and Animation 5335 39th Ave. South Minneapolis, MN 55417 Charles Mertensotto Chairman, MASAC 6040 28th Ave. South Minneapolis, MN 55450 Dear Charles, March 21, 1999 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, Boeing 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 have considered: I. Use of Community Noise Equivalency Level (CNEL), rather than Ldn as the metric on whieh 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 �` 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 wauld 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 no�e 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. �F Sincerely, _ �7��.-�- Dean Lindberg Mpls. MASAC delegate March 22,1999 city of INVER GROVE �iE1GHTS Charles Mertensotto MASAC Chairman 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 Dear ��aini�an Merter�s�tto: Thank you for the opportunity to express our community's goals for the upcoming 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 primarily focused on the future Noise Compatibility Program, the historic review of the 1987 and 1991 programs brought our attention back to proposed measures tivhich have not been adopted as well as those that have been implemented. Inver Grove Heights asks MASAC to review these measures with the added perspective of today's MSP traffic volume, airspace restrictions and comrnunity demographics, to deterrnine 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 safe, practical, nenetieiai, not unduly burdensome to any party and legally 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 alI the above mentioned 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 Iabeled 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 absorptive 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 burc.�.ensome consequence for "losers" to benefit "winners" who enjoy a"no fly zone" overhead airspace. This review must take the responsibility to define the parameters even if to do so opens the c�oor 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 ir�dividually do not pass the thxeshold 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 topo� aphically high and rolling, dotted with lakes and wetlanc�s, and therefore not conducive to industrial park development. The existing transportation anc� sewer/water infrastructure have not been developed for these same geographical reasons. �The long established development pattern has been low density residential now numbering 28,000 in population. Careful review of the current FAR Part 150 program at NISP shows no noise abatement 1'' 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 redistribution of noise. This requires operational changes which will not be popular with the airlines or the airport operator, however we firmly believe and will insist that if noise is to be redistributed in any way in which the entire airspace is not equally utilized, a Iegal 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 ciifference, 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 Aviatio� Safety and Noise Abatement Act, Inver Grove Heights, as one of several communities excluded from previous considerations by formulas showing "no impact", we seek consideration and {' � equity in the distribution of noise and real progress on abatement of noise. By supporting the current location, favored close-in communities have an obligation to open up their 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 results, then that decision must be stated as such and thereby a11ow recourse for damages through the courts. Noise metric calculations shoulcl 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 slzown to be major source of irritation in studies. Four hundred or mor� da�ly asnL-iEr�t pius iC d� t�c%e�ts sha�«u ir�creasz t�e calc�alate� val�ie of each by at least 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 increasingly as time of disturbance increases. This is ?n keepina �nTit?� 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 will 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 assumptions and unprojected changes in volume over tune. MASAC should explicitly state in the final repori t11at it's goal is the equitable distribution of aircraft overflight noise and leave the door open for periodic review. Sincerely, L-'�W^,�Q �...�-��t,��� C? �=�rles T�T. F�ir.tor. MASAC Representative City of Inver Grove Heights t� {'� ; . � ` '; � �' � ' . . _� 1�'A���.11�! � f � METROPOLITAN AIl2CRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL GENERAL MEETING March 30,1999 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. Cha.rles Mertensotto Jennifer Sayre Brian Bates Brian Simonson Bob Johnson Rolf Middleton Dick Keinz T.J. Horsager Dean Lindberg Dick Saunders Neil Clark Sandra Colvin Roy Glenn Strand Kristal Stokes Mazk Hinds John Nelson Petrona Lee Charles VanGuilder Lance Staricha Jamie Verbrugge Jill Smith Kevin Batchelder Manny Camilon Will Eginton Carol McGuire Advisors Roy Fuhrmann Chad Leqve Shane VanderVoort Cindy Greene Mendota Heights NWA Airborne DHL Airways MBAA St. Paul Chamber of Commerce MAC Sun Country Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis IViinneapolis Richf'ield Richfield Bloomington Bloomington Burnsville Eagan Eagan Mendota Heights Mendota Heights St. Louis Park Inver Grove Heights St. Paul MAC MAC MAC FAA Visitors None 2. Presentation of Certificate of Appreciation Cha.irman Charles Mertensotto presented Bob Johnson, MBAA and past MASAC Chairman, with a Certificate of Appreciation for his four dedicated yea.rs as cha.ir of MASAC. 3. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the February 23; 1999 meeting were approved as distributed, except for the following change: Page 4, Item 5: "JOHN NELSON, BLOOMINGTON, MOVED... THE MOTION WAS APPROVED BYMAJORITY YOTE. MOTION CARRIED." 4. Introduction of Invited Guests Receipt of Communications There were no invited guests. Chairman Mertensotto noted that he had received a couple of letters regarding the Part 150 Study Update Draft Scope. He noted that a couple of communities have indicated they were still working on their comments and gave members until April 16`� to submit their comments to the MASAC Secreta.ry for inclusion in the neact MASAC package. + 5. MSP Construction Briefin� - Garv Warren Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, introduced Gary Warren, MAC's Director of Airside Development and explained what Mr. Warren would be speaking about. The following is a summary of Mr. Warren's presenta.tion. ➢ Mr. Warren manages airfield construction. ➢ Since the MN Legislature endorsed the MSP 2010 Plan, construction at the airport has dramatically increased. ➢ In 1998, 90 projects were bid at a cost of $250 million for both airside and landside construction. In 1999, the cost will reach approtcimately $350 million. ➢ The MSP 2010 Plan is expected to cost approximately $2 billion, with most of the construction taking place over the next 4-5 years. Summarv of the 1998 Airfield Construction Projects ➢ Reconstruction of the west end of the south parallel runway and the associated taxiways (ALPHA and Whiskey) ➢ Construction of the first deicing pad ➢ Construction of a deicing operations facility ➢ Construction of a new MAC Trades building (Landside) ➢ Temporary upgrade of the regional ternunal (Landside) { ➢ The 17/35 runway sewer construction was delayed until March 1999 due to permitting issues. Summary of the 1999 Airfield Construction Proiects ➢ Reconstruction of the east end of the south parallel runway ($21.5 million) ➢ Pavement of the aprons for the expansion of the Green Concourse ➢ Pavement of the regional airlines apron ➢ Annual apron pavement reconstruction will begin fall 1999 ➢ Runway 17/35 site preparation (3-4 more projects) to begin in July ➢ Infield apron construction for FedEx and UPS ➢ Storm sewer system for runway 17/35 ➢ Temporary (1,000 feet) extension of runway 12R30L (May need to re-bid the project depending on the Environmental Assessment process. The work will most likely be completed by 2001.) Additional Construction Pr�ects included in the 2010 Plan ➢ A number of construction projects associated with runway 4/22 will also need to be completed, including an eactension to the northeast, a rebuilding of the intersection with runway 17/35 and an underground roadway. ➢ Additional deicing pads will be constructed. ➢ Runway 17/35, planned to be completed by December 2003. ,-,, South Parallel Runway Reconstruction Proiect � �. ._ :; ➢ Taxiway ALPHA will be moved closer to the runway. ➢ The southeastern 3,400 feet of the runway will be reconstructed. ➢ Completion of taxiway Whiskey. ➢ The contractor is working nights to shorten the runway, move the lights, and repaint the thresholds in order to have the runway ready for the contractor on Apri15�'. ➢ T'he project is scheduled to be completed by Labor Day, 1999. ➢ The contractor has 105 working days to complete the project. Every day is counted, except Sundays and holidays. Good weather will be helpful. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, then briefed the council on how the runways at MSP will be used during the south para.11el runway reconstruction project. Mr. Fuhrmann... ➢ Explained how aircraft will queue onto the runways during a northwest or southeast flow. ➢ Showed how the summer traffic for 1997 compared to the actual summer traffic during 1998. ➢ Noted that the typical 1997 numbers of operations off each end of the runways was about even, with approximately 10 operations to the south off runway 4/22. ➢ Displayed the actual number of operations during the 1998 summer reconstruction period. (See attachment.) ➢ Showed that in 1999, based on SIMMOD modeling, the nurnber and co�guration of operations should be similar to 19981evels. (See atta.chment.) ➢ Displayed the typical major flight paths departing runway 4/22. � `; ➢ Displayed flight tracks for both a northwesterly and southeasterly flow from December 1- 5, 1998 and July 1-S, 1998 to show the difference in where aircraft flew during ( construction and non-construction timeframes. (See attachment.) `�,, Mr. Warren then continued his briefing. He noted: ➢ 1999 is the last year for the south parallel reconstruction project. ➢ The center area of the runway is just as old as the ends, but in order to reconstruct this area., the entire runway would have to be taken out of service. ➢ Maintenance of the existing runway surfaces is ongoing. ➢ In 1991 the center 80 feet of the south parallel runway was milled. ➢ Once the reconstruction is complete, the south parallel runway will be mainta.ined until runway 17/35 is operational. At that time, the center portion may be reconstructed. ➢ Tunnels for rnaintenance and the public will be constructed. ➢ The Glycol Operations Center will be relocated to the infield area. ➢ A reconfiguration of the 66`� Street interchange will be completed. Mr. Warren then took questions. Dea.n Lindberg, Minneapolis, asked why the FAA has delayed approval of the Crosswind Runway extension. Mr. Warren said the Environmental Assessment that was done for this project treated the project as an independent element. He said the FAA is now concerned about how the eactension correlates with the Runway Use System (RUS). He said he was not sure how the extension would affect the RUS since the number of flights will not change due to the extension. Mr. Lindberg noted that the Record of Decision (ROD) for the 2010 plan required MAC to ��Ii work with MNDot on the light rail transit and Hiawatha interchange plans and asked if MAC has begun that process. Mr. Warren said MAC has shared the airspace profile for the intersection with MNDot and staff has seen some concept plans for the interchange. Kristal Stokes, Richfield, said she represented the area adjacent to the 66`h Street interchange and asked what plans had been made for construction traffic and what the hours of operation will be. Mr. Warren said southbound construction traffic would be using that intersection and that northbound traffic will be using the 63`a Street ramp. He said MAC has met with the City of Richfield regarding the improvements to the interchange, which won't be completed until 2001. Mr. Warren said that although the current interchange configura,tion is sufficient for the south parallel reconstruction and the development of the north/south runway, it is not sufficient for the full development plans for the west side of the airport. He said the timing of these improvements have not been worked out so the current configuration will be used in the interim. Mr. Warren said the runway reconstruction is a 24-hour project but did not expect that there would be a lot of nighttime work. He said he would keep Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, updated on the reconstruction progress. Rolf Middleton, St. Paul Chamber of Cornmerce, asked how the Green Concourse expansion plans affect the Post Office, rental car companies and the regional airlines. Mr. Warren said the rental cars and the post office will ultimately be located to the east of the parking ramps. He said the regional airlines will simply shift to the east along with the expansion. Kevin Batchelder, Mendota. Heights, asked where the Light Ra.il transit station would be located. Mr. Warren said the plans call for the station to be located approximately 70 feet {� underground just east of the parking ramps. He said the station will also be convenient to the Green/Gold connector. Charles VanGuilder, Burnsville, asked how the area south of 494 will be affected by the north/south runway construction. Mr. Warren explained which buildings would have to be moved due to the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). He said the appraisals of the buildings are now being completed and demolition of the buildings would have to be completed by early 2003. Mr. Wanen also noted that the MAC had purchased Metro Office Building complex in order to accommodate the businesses in the RPZ. Manny Camilon, St. Louis Pazk, asked what the RPZ is used for. Mr. Warren said in the true sense of a runway protection zone, it is used for the possibility of an aircraft landing short. Jill Smith, Mendota Heights, asked if the land within the RPZ could be used for anything else. Mr. Wanen said permitted uses are very limited. He said some surface parking rnay be allowed, but no structures are allowed. Glenn Strand, Minneapolis, asked how the Humphrey Terminal construction fit in with the overall construction plan. Mr. Wanen displayed concept plans for the new Humphrey Terminal. Mr. Strand also asked if the North Parallel runway's mid-section was in the same condition as the South Paral]el runway and how long it would last. Mr. Warren said it was in sirnilar condition and that the airport plans to overhaul the center sections of both these runways with milling and overlaying. _ .' �E Mr. Strand also asked if the existing tunnel would remain open during the reconstruction. Mr. Wanen said it would rernain open. Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, asked if the North Parallel Runway would be reconstructed. Mr. Warren said the ends of that runway were reconstructed in the 1980's and that only the bituminous in the middle section would have to be maintained. Sandra Colvin Roy, Minneapolis, asked how long it would talce to extend runway 4/22. Mr. Wanen said the agreement with the City of Minneapolis was for it to take only one year. John Nelson, Bloomington, asked Mr. Wanen to describe the existing condition of the south para.11el runway and what the reconstruction of the runway will entail. Mr. Warren said the existing runway has 8-10" of concrete on top of the existing soil overlaid with 18-24" of bituminous pavement. He said after excavating down approximately 6 to 15 feet, depending on the soil conditions, 3 feet of crushed granular material, one foot of crushed limestone, and 20 inches of concrete will be laid down at a width of 200 feet. He said staff doesn't expect to have to reconstruct these areas again. Neil Clark, Minneapolis, asked how long the north/south runway is expected to last. Mr. Warren said the new runway will allow 25% more capacity at the airport and should last anywhere from 20-50 years, depending on the loading and how it will be used. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked if there were any specifications for the new Glycol Collection Facility ponds. Mr. Warren said plans are only preliminary. } � � Chairman Mertensotto thanked Mr. Warren for the thorough briefing and asked him to visit MASAC again. �. 6. March 12, 1999 Operations Committee Report Because Mark Satmen was not present at either the March 12, 1999 MASAC Operations Committee meeting or the MASAC meeting, Bob Johnson, MBAA, briefed the members on the meeting. Mr. Johnson reported that: ➢ The Ground Run Up Enclosure (GRE) discussion was forwarded to the ne�ct meeting. ➢ The Test Cell Monitoring planned project was discussed, with the actual testing taking place following the meeting. ➢ The discussion of Nighttime Hours took the bulk of the meeting. This subject will continue to be discussed within the structure of the Part 150 Study Update and at the Operations Committee meetings. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, reported the preliminary results of the:.test cell monitoring project. He said the project had been coordinated with Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan and was conducted on March 16`�'. Mr. Fuhrrnann then displayed a map of the monitoring locations. Mr. Fuhrmann explained that each site was manned and that staff coordinated their efForts with the personnel at the test cell facility. He also noted that the Eagan Airport Relations Committee had been briefed on the results. Mr. Fuhrmann said sta.ff and a resident of Eagan had not been able to detect any change in the noise levels when the test cell was running. ( Glenn Strand, Minneapolis, asked when the monitoring took place. Mr. Fuhrmann said the monitoring was done between 1:00 and 2:00 in the afternoon. Mr. Strand asked if the results would have been different had the monitoring taken place during the nighttime hours. Mr. Fuhrcnann said, even with a lower ambient noise level, there would not have been a noticeable difference. Chad Leqve, MAC Advisor, sa,id the people performing the monitoring also noted when the ambient noise levets were lowest and were instructed to listen closely during these times. Mr. Strand said it would have made more sense to monitor during the nighttime hours because that is the time the test cell would most likely be an annoyance. Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, said he thought the conditions during the testing were favorable and came close to approximating the conditions that would occur at night. Mr. Fuhrmann said the winds were light and favorable for monitoring at the identified receptors, the sky was relatively clear and the temperature was in the 40's. Mr: Strand said without actual nighttime measurements, he thought the question of whether or not the test cell could be heard had not been answered. Mr. Verbrugge said he believed the monitoring project proved that the test cell is not a signi�cant contributor to ground noise at the airport but that ground noise is still a major concern for the residents of Eagan. Glenn Strand, Minneapolis, asked why the monitoring had been done during the daytime hours rather than in the evening. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said, through Mr. Verbrugge, the residents were asked if there would be a benefit to monitoring during the evening hours, or if it would be appropriate to perform the monitoring during the daytime hours. Mr. Verbrugge indicated that this time of day would be acceptable. Mr. Fuhrmann said a representative of the { Minnesota Pollution Control Agency was also present and probably wouldn't have been available during the evening hours. Chairman Mertensotto asked Mr. Fuhrmann to document the monitoring project in a report. Mr. Fuhrmann said a report would be brought to the Operations Committee and to the full MASAC body. John Nelson, Bloomington, summarized how the request originated and the process that was followed to fulfill its intentions. He saic� he felt the monitoring project fulfilled the request and suggested that the matter be put to rest. Lance Staricha, Eagan, said he felt that if the test cell was a significant source of noise the monitored data would have reflected that. He also thanked the staff for their willingness to conduct the monitoring and said it was a good example of how the government process should work. 7. Low Frequency Noise Policv Committee (LFNPC) - MASAC Representation Chairman Mertensotto introduced the item and noted that the MAC Commission and the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee (LFNPC) had agreed to allow MASAC to become a technical advisor to the committee. He said the representative would be responsible for attending the meetings and reporting to MASAC. Bob Johnson, MBAA, clarified that the representative would be on the technicai panel of the LFNPC and thought whoever was appointed should have some technical background. � �M Chairman Mertensotto then called for nominations for a representative to the LFNPC. Dean Lindberg, Minneapolis, nominated Dick Saunders, Minneapolis. Jennifer Sayre, Northwest Airlines, nominated Bob Johnson, MBAA. Chairman Mertensotto then called for nominations for an alternate to the LFNPC. Bob Johnson, MBAA, nominated Mark Salmen, Northwest Airlines. A ballot vote was taken and Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, was selected as MASAC's advisory representative to the LFNPC and Mark Salmen, Northwest Airlines, was selected as the alternate representative. Technical Advisor's Runway.Svstem Utilization Report and Complaint Summarv Chad Leqve, MAC Advisor, introduced, explained and summarized the Executive Summary of the Technical Advisor's Report. Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, thanked the staff for producing the new report and said it will be helpful to him in presenting the information to residents. John Nelson, Bloomington, reminded members that the Operations Comrnittee would be discussing the issue of how information is presented to the members and encouraged members to � bring concerns or suggestions to the Operations Committee before that discussion takes place. Mr. Nelson also noted that the detailed minutes of the Operations Committee's March 12, 1999 meeting will be forwarded to the Part 150 Study Upda.te consultants for their review and for � possible implementation into the Part 150 Update. 9. Report of the MAC Commission Meeting Chairman Mertensotto reported on the March 1999 MAC Commission meeting. Chairman Mertensotto said the Commission reported on their continuing discussions with Sun Country Airlines and Nigel Finney, Deputy Executive Director of Planning and Environment, reported on the various construction projects, including changes in the inbound/outbound roadway lanes. 10. Persons Wishing to Address the Council John Larson spoke to the issue of the test cell monitoring project. He said the issue was brought up at a previous MASAC meeting in the context of nighttirne noise issues and should be considered within this context. He said the question is still unanswered as to whether or not the test cell is a significant source of nighttime noise. Jill Smith, Mendota. Heights, suggested thafi MASAC's mission statement be displayed on poster board at the meetings. Melissa Scovronski, MASAC Secretary, volunteered to do so. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, noted that future MASAC meetings will be held either off site or in a double-wide trailer in the parking lot until the renovation of the MAC's General Offices is completed. He asked members to pay attention to possible changes in meeting locations. 1 l. Other Items Not on the Agenda �'�� There were no additional items. 12. Adjournment Chairman Mertensotto adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted. Melissa Scovronski, MASAC Secretary o F � .'�' W [�, LL _ -C' N z W ',"'�"� -(" � Q ' U 'f' ., o N � t' _ _'___�. ___ "',.-.M....,,..r.-,-�. ,.._.. . ,..r. . ,.._ .,:r :-+eya:,;' � M � MAG � ". �Ru n�� °�= . t , s'"� F�g'X 41��;; � �,' � � �r � �`¢i . vy, ' . v �,,�� ' t " • ,�'�, .�.. i �„95; ��-� ��,. � C��s,. r�'�i�}: r ��'Y�'� � . .�s.k'k..a�" f ,�t c� •' '�'ot,i�, r\ r ,,,.. - '�'tity � �Sv' .��.�y , N 4f ^�' �� r � � ry `i�,i� � ' :y � ��'•• ;� ih�,�. � . x il3i J � ����. l�� � � i � '� � r � � 1a �e� � �'�� �'Flt�f , �,r;� � � t ��sj �s. � .�� �r;a. �� � � z�-; � s �, iar syt; ��'' �'�: ���r � '.� �= , �'"zr!' � j ( .,� ` � � ',,,� , �f� �.-� } �s,. � YSi� � 1� 1! 4;.,1 �} ����y � � p� � �j �•� ii�r',t�"� f. �'" t�� ^ a�' !j is �'=k'.�'� � �4 C��l�+{ ��� ,��5 1 Ir.�y "IiJ" , �, ?i t {�� � � i . �� �a � � ����`1 E,�,+ � %, � s i ��,�(t;.��,�"�, , �: �� .% $ � �t�t '�1rJ i P �`. ,, 1 .� � .s j FS'� � Y} � �T �' ,h���� �� _, i� e �,.�' us ;,; �;e t��. t j �y�_-�� }:;1 J �` )���.� 74�j' 't....�.o tr �Ilh�+^ .,R F � . � �r y } �� f ; • L N 4+ ��Y' � � � �. . �.K't Y J "`V t�7�`5��� t� i � � ! ��m t F ��� : .. rjr� 4�'''�'`� � ' � � 1`0"�;, � � � � � r � ��0�4. -Ttt� Tr� ��^' ` �� �;`- '\,t��3 .i�� I'`t. " � ;, 'i=��'��'1� '�1���4i`i'� �� F� w �r �`' :'� ��, . ; �� r y� r 9" ;q.i ` 30-' ` 10� � f a.`�� �� : � j ?� ��y' % ��,. `�y' �; �������y'���-�y'������}!``` 7 �� �-; ��� � [p �( Y �'�+.�4 �i �.-�y � r��� ,Eei �a i x"� < {� -� ,i /yr, � �� � ,�; �'�� °� �"in:w.r .:.r ir� l � v �J y. '✓ L' •� �� � �� ��� ,,:�. o' `.?�� 4'• �.�Mr- ... �.:�.'�E� 4� , .,;r'����l� '�,.n ,�� ,} v � �,a � h ���� y�iX'7,� S1�i,,�w� �j-,� n,n, : .-lt'n+N,� 'Z6 ''' �' (; �+`�� �/ /(y l(+ ,� �� y•'Yi'� (T�/ t4 �`� 1 'J� � � � -T �.Y,� ' (r� "�,� 4I.A/ . t �`t� ��. � �$�� �� {f . 1 6� G ���J. , ,'�';y 5 �$�Q;;�,',; i,,{ ,,, t�p�.ya. I Y�j' � � �"`` .y^K"J! .� / �j :1F. fl��f J" ,.�j• . i°i �'. d • �'.,. � ' � �� , % �' �'"` r �;^,� .,�. ` ; � , �� - ���5�'p�. .: �b-5�0 <�� � �; '� �� ���$ �. , . � ,.,:. :.��.,... �_ eK,��:� " f•4 .� �`'ti.�.� �?.��. �- • r�' ; ` '` ra�t�,: � ,�:. • Lt�.2':. � �:c � � Me� e , `+ ';.s� � »'�! . � / � t�+.� � '�' • y f}� � r ''� � ,r.�. 4�"�'1. 0 7 � : Nt �� /�� �! Rt 'l,.Y .'� T '1.�'r r i ji' '/'+.' �o�' f i ! ��.. Z ��,� ;F�.. ,0. �r ,�, .�, . ,����J)JN�r.��� ��J,� Y� �. �'�;t �l V ��r� '• '.�. 1 .��..�5��.. . ���,�,. � =�f s r �JO' � � .iu � } .. . �_ �� ._� ._ �� �o. � _- �..:. ` _; ,_ ' . ,; �s .: .`} f i - � 4 � f . �•. .� - . �. � . � �,�� ..; :�, ; r �. � �-. t4�: �} : - �� . �C f -..�-1 .-� � �1 � � �� ' _ , _ _ �'' '. � f � � : i �z i r r F r' � h j .� �- � � ` i �i � f� Y' �� 1 5� i' r �; C � �.� �,�� .�rN'�� �/�. 4 1 i 1 t � r. � r.4�ti�w 1 � ' j, ii� , l�� � "•,. <4 , , . r �� �' 'k �h- ��ti Ix' � � ��7 t� i� I-,II'tiL Vyy�����IIf S^ Y�� 1�. � a� i i � a ' � � G..i i._r, jj++'�.i �1 ��, r � �-� ,' �}�{�'^1^ �_���� ' � �t�i ���W ��'f �� � r � � . P r ''. � Cx . � T �{.fil..' {i �.4(T+"11 1, ' a '} �a 4. )�1� i 4�.i 1 L:� r. .�� � j r i' , ''' 1 r`{ t h t ' .. 1 v ` 1 ' T� ..l�li �� ��i� "` f iy�� i�� t��� , �• t � r.^.����ttl I . �� �Y }k�a"�#�'s � . +, �) ��! i. 1 :�- � �I-fE s � � � 4� ,�'�; � k� . ¢ _'-- GI ,i i �. a � 1y � {r,. C � * i t � tj'('' � I � r irlu yz�, e+ f �I � �r � l 11 �_ � 1� � �,��"� r � ������ � � i� '� �r r � � ,,sx'y� �T � f $�Si� 1� a ��� �i�� �'.; � r n��" �4 ' _, �' L� � -� � t 1 1� t � y� r�4 y, . C'• w ,� �. ( ; i� J, . e i � I � }� F' ., r n -' T 4! j'' i ..� } h��.� t-� h t ftr i . � r �, � �4+i f� � �c: � � � � ") i f ,� i r - • �A 1 ' � �YT }'i � • �.. E � .� �. P�� � +'��� � i� b 7 [ '. ' � � ` � S � � � f '. � CI � � Y I �. :. � ���. "� -1 � .9 r ? s• 4d , T `�� �- ' . '� z,M .� ...I' .7! t l 1 �:sa y t'r.^+`:, ;`" s„ k _4,�s�., . 4' � a �£; # '.. _ ,� � o _ ac 4 1 ' 1 " I :2t.i �'� c 1. �r� 1 C :�.�.� n�} ��� s �'. � iC. u' r ;~ } � f �� �'. r. _� 1 - -.- � 4 � r ° t N � . t i � � ��:I 3 � Y � �, r f�,� .. +z xr :� � i�.r :4 - ,;r i '` t . �. ` � k, . t :I : t my l :.� • i f ���� a, .a � t� H � ! � ..I t�-t 1 { ' � � '� � �i J{� � , � t � � t .� f ! ., -. ', � f- ! : � sn J • �. T I� $ , } i� � � � it � 1c�}.�.G'.� �J '�� a� �i, f ' ' .�+ �• i��t t .��f IILiI{'nf�� ( `�I} . 1���� � J Iq ^4.F7 �' '' `rY . �� � i fl �'L`ti���l�(t �� sA"•{ ;' ,�,,�y���I �� ` �r�, s , '' �'p t�l �i �k 1�I'kf�'��4 17 � A�Cz. ,� Ji . , . .r ... .. r ,i..._. ....�... 'i��y� :i� � tl(. i� f � . . . <un , ��.... r ',: �u...'.. 4'; s _ � � fi: ;. � � I4 ..a , � '� �:_-= . ,,., . . ,- � -.- - . � , — i,'� � < ' �,'a � , ; , r � � �� � , � � � f� = � � ,, , , � rr,� � �i �' � i ,t ��Y ,'t c ,�j' <(< I 11 , } - — i', t -�y� ��t�„ � i;'t� I "'� ^ � �. j �'il � _ f � th � � �� I i � i (��� ti .c � �' `�..'= r ? � �� � �^ � . ` > >` i i ��' � . � i�� 17�' '1� � � ��; �(� � I ( � �I I �`�� t 1 +w�' f�� � i . "° � 1 t I �u � 3,+ /_`�"� "I 4 ' �� .. i t, �,i�I��� �,� �7 '�,JI j � r� ' �.,,.Y,j' �. f.i�� �i � ` � f � ll,l, 'F iy i a v� � _�. � -' � �.� f' .l •_,,-� 4 :� � +.�. t..' ��. � � a � Y A,T` .° t . - �:� � ..- � �f ,-,� � ' i �� i� i �j7 '4i'ti("i���'' 1 ;1 a !'' , . . . . . • , � . . � t. ',��r ` � Il t .,t i ,.,.0 � .,-� r, .: -.. i . �r � �. . , ; • . . �,,: �f •., � � ,� , � j n'i, j�' - � � '; _; � � � �, �. . ;- ,;� ,�i �lt • �, �,.. - ` _ , . � .:' � r , ; ,j' � - - � ' '.., f ; . '.' , `, ' : ..:��. _ ' .. ._ .. ..... ._ .... . '" 5 ,a . .. . ' V . �. : , t.� . ... .: . .. _ , . . .:: . -. , .� ' f . � l :� �`_ 7 , - �, , J�-�J I yT j- .� � 1 d u � rl�� ,l''�'; , i 'E � � C.' . ' , .�' : ��`��� 'r� � � � � , �.__ . , . � ?' , .,: , � =, � �h ; � _ . ' �. i ,.�� _ t'� Y 7 1 � �rl���.� $ � � � 1�: l 1'�� �.i�w � �-; A. �n � � . � -' _.ri .,%! .-�.. . .. . .._. � .� ' t Ir i �`;'� �� ��� � ..i: ' .... ..._ �;- ,�''i �h':4..1.1 ` F.R. '�.�,- S !- f �_ � i :,C ,��5 • • •� , .;. �• ...., i .�: t � Y;�;,Bj ,s ♦ . � r- �� _ ,: �: � � : �: - w. i � � ��� , , ,. �q�, rt .�r� y'�xm r� ,�.: I fl 5� � i F L F'; •F � . c114v�.� 7 ',Y�Y ��t' s�{ �yE� � �,�N'i+°', e� , ` '"Ii�ti ti 1 fi �'6� i � y � `� e� a r i � . � � k Y „ 1 a � ,ir �', t+ t } '� x �, � f � . t s i�. al � t: r i� 3}�.i ?'� � l� t�rvutfiav�r ay� 1�' 7 �� T . 1�. ��, �c h�} ij ���M � rU/ i?� �n �i r���r ��, 3�,, r £� 1 I T; � r�� �' x t �� � cs M ti ai n `��' �}� {� ,� . J � f r t f i'' S� � i t �1 . t 1��s 1� .� 7Yr+ t�i�"'��1v- t��j°fs�4 �^^ �1 � �..t�� d�4"��, k. � 1 .' 41. S, '�+ �k 1 i�` �'Y� �� f�i� }^'� �'�i, iT�. � � i '.� � 4 - t i �. S '1 u � � �ti °.;,,7 � 1 i `rX'y !'i� _ . , �.�� t�,. �,z ,�.+, t �ay�;i�.� i � ��1� ��jsn �. '°, } .1 ',. t '" a� r ,�' �;; f r � � � � q� �' ��''``�N � f < � ti, ; �� f �� �` '� p�r 5 ,�� S ,1�'���r�,7,,,`•"`= � ,� ��{'�nS ��t'�i '1 �°���. T�� y � . � 7 .: r�� 3-�1�u ri"�,i�1C��4'�S����c1��"'�� � �gi��� -� a� �� � S� ��. f �y .� �} {�5�. ; s' t � ;,e ���N��� � ti �s71}��6' ,� it��{�X��e�� �:�zp < �� � � �' .� � i t f, 1 i � x"7� {���,� ,'�i j � '^ �it � Li � r t � -. � 1, � � � � � i��}� �p�yk a,�y a ita:��'t �� � �,,� z;} �� ^ �� ' i��){3�.���1j#��i��`'.'y�r�tsy I{t�i�k � j ���7u 1� �'1 ..I + {y t l(� �'-� ��� ;i S$ N��y� � (+� i� It "f „ 'Ily. �, ��Wi✓i � �� �ijG j�.��7(�� Y ' � ���'1( J i`T..1' + . JY � .� � ��''�l�'rl 1�Y �" � � Y5�' -.1� , f u "� ��t � �.. �, � rf�i l�t����f�v9it � �j „-L� t .�� C;'y, ; r '.Xe4 '4�`� {t� �� i. r � Y, �` ri�ir�*� X �a�� � � �' e � e �. , � i � � � ,.,:, ��i � '�rw� I 7 � � �"� i ��� �� � � � . �� .� { , } .� ' � y � i�V � �i''!4- �� �tr y � kr 1 �y ,� ? i i - � ` , ���` i �1�7 i��7� '� �1 y k'1„Jr b ,,� Q� !, r ! .j,� ��.�"d�- ' v(:} �` f �� / � �, � ` � ri y ` � ' ] � t k�. < a : .,, �' q � r,k f ,t,,. • '1t �, .�}, �y .s,, { � : t � �i h x� �,Oq y � i'I�,�,1 � � �Aa`Yi+ �+,� k�Yj '' � Y 'il 1# a l' i � t �r,�»i �. R-+L;� ' S ���� � �4 ° �� v7 1 ��. J (� t i � � e�f'- {e F l �,Z� _ �� ;'i .. :' ,�4 �%��%Q � �s �� 7 � '; r .r ��* }i�,� �. � -� ��t � y � �37� � fj�' .,,,,, u'. �t :� � j r�'. � � �Js.� "t /s�l����`.u'� �S�4�i' -�`} � y�pir�'q �{ S ♦ ti, ' : � } r ' � � r �'�+.� t �;�tt�µ� 7`�'y ,,• t 4 ; ,� �r - ��`�7�* .}� ,(t^ jI� r � �.� ��f � .:1 Fi ���1! z.�.�5� � "3 � '� ���{ t•�� � �.: �. L. I ;� �- � `.' , ���' . a �.ti`r , o �i� . ,�, � ;I tr � ��'�' ��� �ai n :?' . . '�,, �.+i ,:- l� 11 � '" ' : f f pt c wh: � r .: � `i �,� v��//�^� �� q}�L r r, x�a n'�3 '` ��t� ' i`Y tf � ,� � �.e � .�j .r�" <_ t4 t -k. � �✓.�1 /Q �Gi. , � ',' i f ' � i .�r`i �;w�c ��`� ..r! �� � � � � �� o J � ,� /� f �- 1 t t 't a 'lA,�, � j��lx• jby��l�5a�r� '� , .' �3� s � "7" � � ; { ,r 2 0 ; � � �^i �}',Ff � �.. Si � y. � �+. �`! S., � J� �Y W i 1 �,.,r tt r , �� i , � .' � 't y( �i� °j rt �N yft 7ir� _p .Y ; ,.p l t ����� r � T � [� �J Ih t i' � ��Si � 1 : 1 �' 4 �; ��Fh�t• �sk �i ��� ��kt.�'1y�,� I�N*"�f"� �e �,�Y 1 V . J /�� '' �.�t ( �'. { �: � t �• �,�� .{• ` : a , r � i ti.�, r r r T ��. °, � r�A" . . i; � � , i� 3:1% , ' ( � �!4 ; �r � � ` , � ` . + � £� �. �j + S / jy: �� s �� 1.,�. � � +�} a 7 ; r � i :�' �� �. n ...if� t �}� ry !a '�� }+'r r li� ,: y ..; �2 �1:� ,I ... 1�,. ' ---�,.�;. i� �� x�;�j� *� aza �� �"�',,,,,,-���--....., „� w7 ~ �i ; � 5J �. � . } hF �'i.I�M ry � r.,. Y' .. '. -� � � i �t� f1 .�, � ti r .j�� �{�,s., ��;� ' ��ti �a ,� ) ,� � � �r^r ;'"+� •aa.�`a.��l� � � 'R j � I: i ♦i � �, � � . � ��'" •'r t� v� � � { ��1_ i a��, � �q +� � ' ���.�;•' t-,� S . i.; ,� ` xr � .;� ��',i-.t,-�' 4r i , `+; �i „�' . ( F w���S 't '' ", 'i .A �r� . �;� .. � w ' � � l �+ � .�' � . �.. — - - . i�;, ; .� . ,. . ....._. _ . �. ��.:�. iln�: .�a..-,...w.....:.:....�...._�_ ;_. ., � �. . � .� � • r ;3.' k �' � ��i J y � '{t .r..?±, .. ... .. � � � ) ', 1 l t y�� '�� ►i i A '�t '�-0u��� i � � � s � tq a,�,. , 1 1 * J ':A it � �W . ` i� f . � �,; � _ 1 �•Al�., _u:�a���.' " � � i ;_, i � � �sl r � s'�. r {y,� 2 -r^'T? ' �i ti . rd4n .:.r6 (pp �- �M1 e �', 1 � �. '�"t x aC`[f = IN f} � r a�. �� +d i� � i�, . � �y �,.-.,,�`� � � rt r � j � i.. , � .. (( F�.,�1�"`�} t"��;��y� � 5.� � , Y ti i � z � '����� �� � ���� k� 4 � ' } I�' `�2 ; f� � 'VA q * � �� �q*��k{ �, :� ,qy��j t , � �. .,, ,f�� y �7� ri.i � 'E . r � �, .�� . ��4d'� � ; i � � � � l�> � t.,�f.. l_ ITM�F � . Z � (1 S' Y h �-.1 , �-�r,x '` ' a ` t ` �i�'� � � i.����n � ���� ,� r ` � 4„ ,.� 1�1, r ' � '�^--' �', ' �i�i.; :..,i J , �ri. ,� '` t +y� ��� +f.��'' .L j t � � � �i �� ,�: .� .� �'� `z � ,, � � ��,,��5 n, j; ,�' y" � YMt r, r'`` '� '"�.�' ���0 '� , ,,,y� � . �' ° � � ��yv->,��,'�-.a 1�F{';�,ay ,�'"�6., � i ��.. � bL ,/ i��. � -+ t 9 t i � .>`'*� r . ! + 'r f✓ ' 1 z},�tiC� �.!?' tn.l��•' ` i :,� �`� Y '�••,, � '�'�, � J� " � � ; . N � , "x�, i e�� t.'i � °�' �''^`y�� y. 4` ij "�i ,�� ` ,� 4�u� � K� �. � • ;f�0.3% � �� ��;'� _ ' 22 �8�%p � !.i' t ��`� � �` � . � 6, �,R . _ } � tb �) +�. � �, y 1 .''F '6. IS�� ,. .i. v fi � �'� ���� �'+' 1,6% �,�„ � ;, .�- `}�, , ,� , k,�'� �" Q':9�0 ,z,, � � �; ;�'� *' � xr � a � �; � w ��.�; ; �`�r�..�� f � � --�.�+�wu.ww..,wi � � 1 � � � ��r , 'f � �i. �� � �� i �r .� rJ . �: c � ��� ' �_ , . � . __._... .�.'... �.._.. .. ..3�.�....:....: � � � ,, � � � ' 1: 1 1 � � . _ , � � . � � 'e � . . . .. . . .. . . .. I .... . ...: .... .. . . � 2 MINUTES MASAC OPERATIONS COMMITTEE April 9, 1999 The meeting 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 - NWA - Chair Bob Johnson - MBAA Jamie Verbrugge - Eagan John Nelson - Bloomington Kevin Batchelder - Mendota Heights Dick Saunders - Minneapolis Dick Keinz-MAC Advisorv• Roy Fuhrmann - Technical Advisor Chad Leqve - MAC Advisory ) Shane VanderVoort - MAC Advisory � Cindy Greene - FAA Carl Rydeen - FAA Visitors• Mark Hinds - Richfield Jan DelCalzo Neil Clark - Minneapolis AGENDA Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked that two items be added to the agenda. He asked if sta.ff could update the corrunittee on the outcome of the bids for the RMT insta.11ations and explain the purpose behind the proposal to hire an additional noise consultant. Chairman Saimen said, given the meeting's full agenda, the items would be taken up at the end of the meeting iftime allowed. The minutes of the March 12, 1999 Operations Committee were then approved as distributed. , t _ 3 Cha.irman Satmen noted that the New Business items would be addressed in reverse order and suggested that Old Business be addressed at the May 14, 1999 meeting from 8:30 to 10:00 a.m. �'� DICK SAUNDERS,IVIINNEAPOLIS, MOVED AND JOHN NELSON, BLOOMINGTON, MOVED TO DISCUSS THE OLD BUSINESS AGENDA ITEMS AT TFIE MAY 14, 1999 OPERATION5 COMMITTEE MEETING FROM 8:30 TO 10:00 A.M. THE VOTE WAS UNAIVIMOUS. MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Salmen noted, then, that the May 14, 1g99 meeting would begin at 8:30 with the Old Business items on this meeting's agenda. Chairman Salmen also noted that a special meeting has been scheduled for March 30, 1999 at 10:00 am. for a discussion of Ground Run Up Enclosures (GREs), at which Ted Woosley of Landrum and Brown would speak about GRE installations at airports throughout the U.S. and internationally. NON-SIMULTANEDZTS CORRIDOR DEPARTUREANALYSIS Chad Leqve, MAC Advisor, briefed the members on the "Crossing in the Corridor" analysis. The following is a summary of this briefing: ➢ At the time of the last analysis, the FAA said it would attempt to improve its use of the "crossing" procedure. ➢ Staffhas provided FAA with data updates on the use of the procedure. ➢ The months of September 1998 through February 1999 were used for the data. sample. ➢ The second report was conducted in the same maYuier as the first, aside from a comparison section � a in the Summary of Findings. ➢ There was a 21% increase in crossing operations during the 2300 to 0600 timeframe compared with the previous analysis (from 36.1%to 57.1%). ➢ T'here was a 10% increase in crossing operations during the weekend timeframe of Saturday at 1500 to Sunday at 1300 compared with the previous analysis (from 17.2% to 27.2%). ➢ There was a 14.4°/a increase in crossing operations during the weekend timeframe when one local controller was on duty (from 29.3% to 43.7%). ➢ The single largest impediment to perfornung the crossing procedure during the weekend hours was the large number of operations taking place within the 0 to 2 minute and the 2 to 4 minute separation time frame. ➢ It was noted that the impact of the head-to-head procedure on the use of the crossing procedure was not analyzed in either analysis because of the difficulty in quantifying its use. Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, said he was encouraged by the increase in use of the crossing procedure and would share the results with his Airport Commission. He said the results spoke well of the FAA's and staffs efforts in this regard. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked if the number of operations taking place within the 0 to 2-minute separation time was significant. Chad Leqve, MAC Advisor, and Cindy Greene, FAA, said many operations take place within this timeframe, especially when more than one runway is considered. �r . 4 John Nelson, Bloomington, asked for clarification of how staff deternuned when an aircraft performed ` the crossing procedure. Chad Leqve, MAC Advisor, said it is based on whether or not an aircraft took the desired track off either runway. Mr. Nelson asked Mr. Batchelder if he considered the results of the second analysis beneficial to his community. Mr. Batchelder said he was pleased with the increase in the use of the crossing procedure. Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, asked Cindy Greene, FAA, if it was possible to initiate turns at three miles if the Downtown St. Paul Airport is shut down. Ms. Greene said St. Paul airport traffic does not necessarily go away when the tower is not in operation and that MSP ACTC controls St. Paul's traffic at that time. She said, however, that there is less activity during the nighttime hours and the odds are better for a 3-mile turn. Mr. Eginton said he was concerned about his community being hit with aircraft noise after the 3-mile corridor and would like to see aircraft turning as soon as possible. Ms. Greene said the air traffic controllers do issue turn orders as soon as possible after three miles, but that it takes a while for an aircraft (depending on a number of variables) to make the full 180° turn. Ms. Greene also assured Mr. Eginton that air traffic controllers will always turn an aircraft as soon as possible to reach its ultimate destination heading. Mr. Eginton emphasized that the sooner aircraft are turned, either to the north or to the south, the better it is for his community. JOHN NELSON, BLOOMINGTON, MOVED AND DICK 5AUNDERS, MINNEAPOLIS, SECONDED TO ACCEPT THE APRIL 9, 1999 "CROSSING IN THE CORRIDOR: AN OPERATIONAL FOLLOW UP ANALYSIS" REPORT, AND THAT THE STAFF SEND A LETTER TO THE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER PERSONNEL THANKING THEM FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION AND COOPERATION IN INCREA5ING THE USE OF THE CORRIDOR "CROSSING" PROCEDURE AND ENCOURAGING THEM TO CONTINUE THEIR EFFORTS IN THIS REGARD. THE VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS. MOTION : : : i�1179 Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, and John Nelson, Bloomington, commented that these results illustrated (1) a significant MASAC accomplishment and (2) that working at the "margins" of noise abatement procedures can have a positive effect. Carl Rydeen, FAA, said he had expected a larger increase in compliance and felt his controllers could perform at an even higher level. Cindy Greene, FAA, asked staff if they would perform a similar, but less in depth, analysis for the FAA in order for Mr. Rydeen to be abie to track the controllers' performance in regards to this procedure. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said staff would be happy to do so. PART I50 PROGRESS REVIEW Roy Fuhrmann, Technical �dvisor,�briefed the�members on the progress of the Part 150 Study Update. The following is a summary of this briefing: ➢ Staff met with city and state agency representatives on Thursday, April 8, 1999 conceming the scope of work. He said comments taken at the rneeting and in written form will be incorporated into , _. 5 1 the scope of work as an addendum. The project's time frame has been shortened by about 3 months. Approximately 6-7 written comments have been received. Work will move forward with the generation of a base case contour following the contour generation discussion. Reconstruction of the south parallel runway began on Apri15, 1999. Updates on the reconstruction are available on the Noise Complaint and Information Hotline at 612-'726-9411 and on the department's website at www.macavsat.orq. Chairman Salmen said a good number of Northwest's aircraft were precluded from using the south paratlel runway on Monda.y April 5�' and Tuesday, April 6`i', but that it will not represent a normal occurrence during reconstruction. PART ISO CONTOUR GENERATIONDISCUSSION Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, introduced Ms. Kim Hughes of HNTB. The following is a sumrnary of the discussion. � ➢ In 1980, FICON established DNL as the prefened metric for considering land use impacts. ➢ In 1981, the FAA adopted DNL as their single system for assessing impacts from aircraft noise. ➢ DNL is the day-night average noise level. It represents a 24-hour annual average metric. ➢ DNL penalizes nighttime operations by IOdB. (Graph) ➢ DNL 65 is the contour the FAA uses to assess compatibility. ➢ The Integrated Nase Model (INM) does not consider ambient noise levels. It only considers individual aircraft noise events and then averages them. ➢ (Input to INM diagram) �; � 9 There is no standa.rd tolerance for INM. The INM is dependent upon the quality of the inputs. ➢ The most important input is the average number of daily flights. ➢ The second most important input is the correct engine types. ➢ The third most important input is the correct number of hushkitted engines. ➢ The fourth most important input is to be sure the ground tracks are correct. ➢ The fifth most important input is the stage links to be sure the correct take-off weights are used. ➢ Further down on the list are inputs such as the average temperature at the airport. .. Aviation Activi and Operations ➢ The project will use a combination of the operational levels from ANOMS data and the number of operations the FAA generates on an annual basis at the airport. Ms. Hughes said it wil] probably combine FAA's numbers with ANOMS' fleet mix information. ➢ The base year will be 1998-1999 and begin in April 1998. The inputs will need to be normalized by taking into consideration the impact of the Northwest pilot's strike and the reconstruction of the south parallel runway. .Roy.. Fuhrmann, .Technical Adv.isor,: said it .is . important to use up to da:te information in the base case contour generation, and since there will be airfield construction from 1998 to 2003, there is no way to choose a year that does not have some disruptions. He said there simply is not a perfect 12-month year to choose from. Neil Clark, Minneapolis, asked why a three or six-month period couldn't be used. Cindy Greene, FAA, said there are` significant seasonal ; 6 changes in operations that it wouldn't be representative of a full year. Chairman Salmen said there were other airline scheduling factors that needed to be accounted for, as well. A ANOMS data will be used to determine the fleet mix, including the number of hushkitted aircraft operating at MSP. ➢ The base case contour will be a yea.r 2000 contour because the FAA requires that the contour be for the year during which it is submitted. Ms. Hughes said that although the base case contour will initially be predicated on the year April 1998 through April 1999, it will need to be changed at some point during the year 2000 to reflect the Stage II aircraft phase out. She said typically the FAA would require a sensitivity analysis if the base case contour was submitted during the year after it was generated to be sure there were no significant differences. But, in the case of the 2000 contour, there will be significant changes in the fleet mix. ➢ Currently, INM version 5.2 is being used. Yet, within the year, version 6.0 is expected to be available. Although initially version 5.2 will be used, when version 6.0 becomes available, the same inputs for version 5.2 will be input into version 6.0 so that the communities have all the benefits of the rnost recent version. Ms. Hughes said she wanted to be sure rnembers Irnew that there could be slight changes between the 5.2 contour and the 6.0 contour. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said MAC feels there is an obligation to use the most current model for contour generation. ➢ The Integrated Noise Model (INM) is a computer model that attempts to simulate the average daily annual noise level experienced at an airport. In order to do this, it uses the annual average number of daily operations and the average fleet mix to calculate the noise contours. ➢ The 1NM uses standard profiles for both arrivals and departures, as well as standard noise levels for each engine type. ➢ The INM incorporates G.A. and Milita.ry aircraft, along with commercial. ➢ The INM computer soflware is available to the public for $250 from the FAA and can be used on more than one computer. The FAA's design review group, made up of INM's larger users, meets ' annually to review proposed enhancements to the model. ➢ Obtaining up-to-date information from ea.ch airline operating at MSP will be very important. ➢ ANOMS data will be used to develop the "day-night split" because it has the most accurate information for this airport. Aircraft Performance ➢ Maxirrium take-off weights are derived from arrival and destination information, which can be obta.ined through ANOMS data. ➢ Average temperature information is obtained through the National Oceanic Atmospheric Association (NOAA). Pilot Technique ➢ The thrust level aircraft use for ta.keoffs at MSP needs to be deternuned. This information will be obtained through the air carriers. Airport Factors ➢ Information contained in the FEIS will be used to deternune future use of the North/South runway. ➢ John Nelson, Bloomington, asked Ms. Hughes to examine the information frorn the March 12, 1999 7 MASAC Operations Committee meeting regarding nighttime operations and the differences in schedu]ed versus actual operations. Ms. Hughes said, typically, the OAG schedule is used; with �'� modifications being made based on ANOMS da.ta. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said all available information will be used, including, to the greatest extent possible, information on the number of unscheduled flights arrive at MSP due to weather conditions. Chairman Salmen clarified that hushkitted aircraft are Stage III aircraft and meet Stage III aircraft guidelines. Neil Clark, Minnea.polis, asked Chairrnan Salmen where he could obtain information on huskitted aircraft noise levels. Chairman Salmen said that information is available in the FAA's Part 36 document. He said Part 36 established guidelines for aircraft to meet Stage III noise level requirements and that the hushkit manufacturers designed them to meet these guidelines or limits. He said "Stage III" is a noise level output certification established by the FAA through Part 36. Roy Fulumann, Technical Advisor, told Mr. Clark that the Part 36 document could be found at www.faa.clov. Jan DelCalzo said a frustration with the previous Part 150 update was that there was a significant change in Northwest's fleet mix one year after the contour was generated, which made the 1996 contour suspect from that point on. She asked if the FAA would approve a change in an approved contour given these types of significant changes without having to repeat the update process. Ms. Hughes said an NEM Update could be undertaken, but would still require FAA approval. Ms. -Hughes said if a significant change occurs withir► the NEM and additional homes are included in the contour a new Noise Cornpatibility Program (NCP) would have to be undertalcen. Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, asked how the high farecast for the year 2005 of 5'75,000 operations would be used. Ms. Hughes said the high forecast operational level of 575,000 operations will be used for the 2005 contour but the fleet mix used for the FEIS will be modified based on current information. - ;,, Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked if GPS capabilities will be incorporated into the Part 150 Update. Ms. Hughes said within Part 150 there is consideration for amval and departure procedures using GPS. She said the FAA, however, is more accepting of land-based navigational aids for setting up standard departures and arrivals. Ms. Hughes explained that the Part 150 document will contain three contours: a year 2000 base case contour, a 2005 contour and a 2005 abated contour, which will include all the recommendations or improvements made as part of the document. This last contour would then be used for determining eligibility for the sound insulation program. Demand Capacitv ➢ Information from the FEIS regarding the use of the North/South nuiway will be used, unless the environment changes significantly. The FAA controllers are bound to using the north/south runway in a rnanner consistent with the FEIS. At this point, local air traf�'ic and center air traffic are working out the best.way for this to happen operationa.11y. John Nelson, Bloomington, noted that the City of Bloomington has consistently opposed the turn that takes aircraft back over the city. He said the city's support of the new runway was contingent on aircraft being taken away from the heavily populated areas of central and east Bloomington. He noted, 0 however, that the FEIS did not take into account the city's objections. He said the residents of Bloomington have been told that departures from the new runway will be concentrated to the east of Cedar Avenue and that the City will do everything possible to ma.ke sure this happens. Aircraft Operations ➢ Runway Utilization: ANOMS data. will be used for determining the base case conditions. Runway utilization is determining how the runways at an airport operate on an annual average basis. Nighttime and daytime conditions, as well as air camer and general aviation operations, are broken down, which illustrates how different types of aircraft use the runways at an airport. ➢ Flight Tracks: ANOMS data will be used. ➢ Profiles: ANOMS data will be used to determine the standard profiles of the most heavily used aircraft operating at MSP. ➢ Run Ups: Run ups have not been included in the DNL calculation in the past but will be included in the present update. Possible Special Studies ➢ The INM accounts for some hushkitted aircraft, but not all. Because the communities sunounding the airport are concerned about the differences in Stage III hushkitted noise levels versus manufactured Stage III levels, the Part 150 Study Update will attempt to incorporate a study on noise levels at certain positions to confirm hushkitted engine data.. ➢ Verification of departure profiles for the major aircraft operating at the airport. ➢ Use noise monitoring data to establish ambient annual levels to validate the INM contours. � �OTHER The two items mentioned at the beginning of the meeting were added to the agenda. Roy Fuhnnann, Technical Advisor, reported that Morcon Construction was the successful bidder for the RMT insta.11ation project with a bid of $183,086. The Full Commission is expected to approve the item this month. Installation of the RMTs will occur as soon as possible after the awarding of the contract. A definite schedule will be drawn up and distributed to the communities once staff is able to meet with the contractor. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked sta.ff if they were satisfied with the altitude of the RMT at Kenny field. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said the altitude is satisfactory for both staff and the manufacturer. John Nelson, Bloomington, asked if the Inver Grove Heights location had been settled. Chad Leqve, MAC Advisor, said the RMT will be placed on Arkansas Avenue, just south of the original location identified. The IGH Noise.Abatement Council has indicated .the-location is satisfactory. Mr. Leqve said it will be located in a residential area. A Continuing Noise Consultant is being sought, on an as needed basis, to provide staff with expertise and additional analysis capabilities for the future. This consultant will be used for projects outside the �] Part 150 Study Update. Request for Qualifications (RFQ) have been sent to over 50 companies. Chairman Salmen encouraged the members to review the information on the GRE's in preparation for ` the March 30, 1999 meeting. Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, asked if it would be possible to discuss the results of the test cell monitoring project at that time due to the fact he would be unable to attend the May meeting. Chairman Salmen said the item could be included on the agenda if there is time and the committee agrees to continue the meeting. Mr. Verbrugge also reported that the Eagan Airports Council wishes to review a year's worth of logs for each of the three test cells to be certain of the types of aircraft engines being tested in each of them. Chairman Salmen asked Mr. Verbrugge to forward a written request to him. John Nelson, Bloomington, asked if any other city anticipates asking for furkher testing of the test cell facility. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, said a Minneapolis delegate has raised the possibility. Chairman Salmen said from Northwest's perspective they do not anticipate any further testing to be done and believes the testing that has already taken place is applicable to the area around the entire airport. Mr. Nelson said he does not believe the test cell is a significant source of noise compared with the other sources of noise and that the matter should be put to rest once the City of Eagan's request is fulfilled. There was a disagreement between Neil Clark, Minneapolis, and John Nelson, Bloomington, regarding the validity of the testing methods. Mr. Nelson said he believes concentrating on reducing run up noise through the possible installation of a GRE is more important. The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Melissa Scovronski, Committee Secretary m � - 1��IASAC OPEI,ATIONS C011�IMITTEE MEMORAl�TD�.TM MasAc TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MASAC Operations Committee Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor PART 150 Contour Generation March 31, 1999 In keeping with the MASAC Operations Committee schedule for 1999, at the Apri19, 1999 Operarions Committee meeting, the draft scape for the forthcoming 1VISP Part 1�0 Update will be �resented with special detail provided for the use of ANOMS data in developing the Integrated Noise Model input for generation of the DNL noise contours. Below is an oudine of the topics and associated issues to be presented: Draft Scope of Work for Part 150 Update • On April 8,1999, an informal agency scoping meeiing will be held to discuss We draft scope. The outcome of t6is meeting as well as the draft scope of work will be presented to the Operations Committee. INM Existing Conditions Noise Contour bevelopment • INM standard input will be defined. • Use of ANOMS data to develop flight �acks, determine runway/ track use and day/ night operational splits, analyze and determine arrival and departure profiles, and to verify INM standard noise curve values will be described. • Per community request, noise monitoring results will be used to establish ambient noise levels. INM Future Conditions Contour Development • An updated fleet mnr will be developed using the Dual Tlrack High Scenario operations level for We future (2005) Noise Exposure Map DNL contours. • Future runway and ri�ack nse will be developed through coordination with MSP ATCT/ MinneapoGs Center and with respect to the Dual 'hack and North/South Runway FEIS. If you have any questions or comments please contact me at 725-6326. ' I I . � ;., . �� : FR(JIVi: S�.TTB,TECT: �AT�+ : MASAC Operations Committee Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor Part 150 Study Progress Review March 30, 1999 At the April 9,. 1999 MASAC Operations Committee meeting, MAC staff will provide an update on the progress of the Part 150 Study Update. At the February 23, 1999 MAS�C meeting, the`�MASAC Chairman asked members to provide written comments concerning noise mitigation measures that should be included in the Part 150 Scope of Work. Additionally, MAC staff will meet with the local agencies and cities prior to the MASAC Operations Committee meeting to receive comments related to the Part 150 Scope of Work. Staff will provide an update on these comments and the meetings to the Operations Committee members at the April meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me at 725-6326. � t {'� 1��IASAC OPEI;ATIONS C011�IMITTEE ��• � 'TO: MASAC Operations Committee FROM: Chad Leqve, ANOMS Coordinator SUBJECT: Crossing in the Comdor Analysis DATE: March 31, 1999 MASAC Since its conception, the crossing in the corridor procedure was anticipated to consolidate as many operations as possible in the center of the Eagan - Mendota Heights I3eparture Corridor. In an efiFort to ensure the procedure was being utilized to the fullest potential, the MASAC Operations Committee underwent an operational analysis to first assess the current state of the procedure usage and then assess any changes which may occur following the first analysis. At the October 9, 1998 Operations Committee meeting the first Crossing in the Corridor Analysis was presented. The analysis data sample period spanned October 1997 to Mazch 1998. In an effort to assess '�' the operational results of the first analysis, a follow on analysis was prepared. The second analysis data sample spans September 1998 to February 1999 and is identical to the first analysis in scope, resources used and applied analytical methods facilitating the direct comparison of the most recent analysis to the previous one for the purpose of procedural use assessment. The second Crossing in the Corridor Analysis will be presented as part of the April 9, 1999 MASAC Operations Committee meeting agenda. If you have any questions or comments please contact me at 725-6328. 1�ZASAC OPEI.ATIONS COMMITTEE ,� TO: FI�OM: SiTB,TECT: DATE: � � ' � MASAC Operations Committee Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor Old Business March 30, 1999 INFORMATION DISSEMINATION OPTIONS DISCUSSION . . � At the March 12, 1999 MASAC Operations Committee meeting, the members decided to forward this item to the April meeting due to the lateness of the hour. It was suggested that members should bring written suggestions for improving the information dissemination process to the next meeting. A copy of the slides from the last MASAC Operations Committee are included for your reference. Additionally, it was suggested that Wendy Burt, MAC's Public Information Officer should also be brought into the discussion to provide guidanee and insight into other MAC publications and airport information dissemination methods proposed for the neighboring communities. , Additional discussion about this topic will be entertained at the April 9, 1999 meeting. Please bring your ideas for a stimulating discussion. If you have any questions, please contact me at 725-6326. „ UPDATE ON THE NWA TEST CELL MOIVITOIRNG On March 16, 1999, MAC staff, coordinated monitoring for the Northwest Airlines Engine Test Cell Facility with representatives from NWA, the City of Eagan, and a local resident. MAC Staff, along with the MPCA Noise Program Administrator conducted monitoring at four locations while a Pratt and Whitney JT9D-7J engine was runup to full power. All locations were manned and in contact with the individual located at the test cell facility. During the engine run-up, only the individuai located closest to the test cell was able to audibly discern the engine run-up noise versus the ambient levels. The resident located within the city of Eagan was present at the time of testing and was also unable to discern the engine run-up from the ambient levels. Staff will present a map of the four monitoring locations, associated noise level data and/or graphs and a summary of the NWA Engine Run-up Test Cell monitoring at the April 9, 1999 meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me at 725-6326. {. - MASA C NOISE MOlVITORING AND INFORMA TION REQ UEST FOIZM 1999 Over Please Please send your request via mail to: MASAC Secretary, 6040 28th Avenue S., Minneapolis, MN 55450 or f�rx it to :(612) 725-6310. For Staff Purnoses Onlv Request #: Staff Contact: Date Received: Is this a Phone Or Written Request? Approved By: Approval Date: E Availability: Start Date: Stop Date: Analysis Start Date: Analysis Stop Date: Compledon Date: � ��� {'� t' I '{ � � � � � � � � Vj f/i � � .�^ � d.�d h+Y 0 � ^ � �1 w -' ^" c�s .. c� b � � o �O � .i.+ �,�`"'.., L, N •� � o .��, ���o �� .� N p� O � � .� � O ,� �. � v' � � .D �c�3 G � � U t+, � � � U o `� p� �' � O � � .� L.''„ ^' U � � � � � � N ��.�� o� `i' 'b � .�-� > � � O � ~ .� C � ... � L •,�,, � � � � � � w � � 3 o v o d° `" ° .,.� c� w � � � � � � � � � � � � O O � O� � � N � 0000Q�o� �o 00 � h � O� �.,.� ^ -NClJ- 64b9lf3b4��6 �������� �Y O� ct v1 l'h t`� V1 ^ � 6�9 6�9 �� N�N N 6 ��s��� a 0 0 0 0 0 0 o i � Z �" � x � x � L M d' Q� �t N d' •N-� e -- N v� � o co o� - L' N M �}' �n �D t� oo C rn rn o� rn Q. o. o. c o� O� cT rn cT rn cT c f . .. . . . . _ -5.tSv � ti.:.,} . . . . � ' '-rx. . . . . . . . . . � �, .. .. .. . . . . ` . . ; . .. . . � ^,.. � . ,� . ��t ;^-� ' '" . . :. . . . . � . ' ��. '.s, � .. . . a.•�. , .. . +F` .,. . .. . . . . . � � f t ��. . . '. . �.. � .. .. . . . r .:�r^^� . ... . . . � . . , . . . . . . . . � � . .Ei� i; .. � �. . .. . . .. . . .. . . . . � .. . . .,:._r`-..�.. � . . �.. .. - . . .. � � ' .. � . . � � / .. . : � � . .. . , � � e � � i � i � � � � � � � f � � � _� . .. . � .. .. . . . . ,"�q � �n`r_,�,^���--_--.- - ' - ..-.�..�� . . . . . . . . . . - - . �. —`�i�*.'... .. . � ' . . � LsS::t:� ::;J' _ , _ � 1 i �•i �• �i . , . ... _ i ' � � : u . �A . . , > 4 .- —'� — — . ' " '� ' � �� . � -�t ..� . . . .. �, ��`�+ �+r'.��"iri��r-s.riii"i��7 nri.i � ,� ,/ <�r.Y4t�lpf�ff fiS rr'/*'1 �/liftif���rtMt� �fKii _ ''�''�'= --- =-.�rni'� ,�ii+ i� :t� `„'� : , .;:., � � � ; , �� �� }� . , -. *� . „ .;��Y � ��' � '� ' - �.� . .. __.. : '... . ... ..��:'�;:� ; :t$ . ��. . :.: : '�. . � :._ '�.'. . . �.' . � �� , �., _. : �'�. � : � v.vrc^�...Y.:.2':'+I�u..._vY^_..�:.'41 ""a.+�:....��.2:�i �'c '�i.ti. .....�_ti ��---� � Minneapolis / St. Paul International Airport MONTHLY MEETING - Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council a,�;r»,a»: Cherics Mertereotto Yce Chaimian.• Jo6n Netvon Technical Advisar. Roy Fuhrmann s«n��•: nu� s��� Air6arne Erprcss: a� aa►� Air Tnmsport Associatron: PaW MeGraw ninn: RonJohnson City ojBlaomington: Petrona I.ee Vero Wilcoi c;ty of a„n,a,du�: C6eri�s Gullder c�ry oj��»: Jemle Verbrugge [anee Stariche Ciry oflrsverGrove Heights: C6arles EginWn City ojMendam Heights: JW Smit6 Kevin Balc6elder Ciry ojMinneapolis: Dean Li�iberg Steve Mlnu Jce I:ee Gienn Strand s�a� comm iwy Mlke Cramer Ciry ojRichfield: Kr[slal Sbkes Dawn Weltul Ciry ojSt. Laurs Park: R.obert Adrnws Ciry ajSt. PauL• John Halle Ciry ojSunftsh lake: Glende Spbqa Deltn Air [ines lnc.: La�TY Goe6rinB OHL Arnvays: Brlan Simonson Federal Eapress: Jo6n Se6u�ler Fedeml Aviation Administmdon.• Ron Giaub Ctody Greene n�acsr�: Dfck Kelnz MBAA: RobeK P. Johnvon Muaba Northwest Airlink: Plili Burke Metm�(rt�m Airtwrts Commissron: Comm1$bner Alton Gasper M19J Air Na�iowl GuumL• Mqjor Roy J. Sbelka Norihwest Airlines: Mark Salmen Jenniter Seyre Sleve Hnime Nency Sbudt St. Pau( Chamber oJCommerce: soUnvaa�emo Sun CounlryAirlinrs: co�aoo c��� Unr7ed Airlines Inc.: Kevin Black Unired Pacel Service: 1liilce Ceyer U.S. Air Foree Reserve: Captein David J. Gerken Metropolitan Airports Commission Declaration of Purposes l.) Promote public welfare and narional security; serve public interest, convenience, and necessity; promote air navigation and transportation, international, narional, state, and local, in and through this state; promote the efficient, safe, and economical handling of air commerce; assure the inclusion of this state in national and international programs of air tran"sportation; and to those ends to develop the full potentialiries 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. Metropolitan 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 pmblem. and of suggestion for the alleviation of the same; through initiation, coordinarion and promotion of reasonable and effective procedures, conirol and regulations, consistent with the safe operadon of the airport and of aircraft using the same; and through disseminarion of information to the affected communities, their affected residents, and the users of the airport respecting the problem of aireraft noise nuisance and in respect to suggestions made and actions initiated and taken to alleviate the problem. Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council Representation The membership shall 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 Representatives shall at all times be equal in number. The Airport 24-hour Noise Notline is 726-9411. Complaints to the hotline do not result in changes in Airpon activity, but provide a public sounding board and airport information outlet. T'he hotline is stafFed during business hours, Monday - Friday. "1'his report is prepared and printed in house Chad Leqve, ANOMS Coordinator Shane VanderVoort, ANOMS Technician Questions or comments may be directed to: MAC - Aviation Noise Pmgrams Minneapolis / St. Paul International Airport 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 Tel: (612) 725-6331, Fax: (612) 725-6310 ANSP Home Pa�e: http://www.macavsat.or Metropolitan Airports Commission Aviation Noise Programs ,. Operations and Complaint Summary 1 OperationsSummary - All Aircraft .....................................................................................1 MSP March Fleet Mix Percenta.ge .........................................:.............................................1 Airport March Complaint Summary ....................................................................................1 March Operations Summary - FAA Airport Tr�c Record .....:.........................................1 Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport Complaint Summary 2 ComplaintSummary by City ...............................................................................................2 Available Time for I�unway Use 3 TowerLog Reports - All Hours ...........................................................................................3 Tower Log Reports - Nighttime Hours ................................................................................3 AllOperations 4 RunwayUse Report March 1999 .........................................................................................4 Carrier Jet Operations 5 RunwayUse Report March 1999 .........................................................................................5 Nighttime � All Operations 6 RunwayUse Report March 1999 .........................................................................................6 Nighttime Carrier Jet Operations 7 RunwayUse Report March 1999 .........................................................................................7 t ' '/�`' i l i' i' : Aircraft Identifier and Description Table 9 Runway Use - I�ay/Night Periods - All Uperations 10 DaytimeHours ...................................................................................................................10 Community Overflight Analysis 11 Carrier Jet Operations - All Hours .....................................................................................11 Carrier Jet Operations - Nighttime (10:30 pm - 6 am) .......................................................11 Aviadon Noise & Satellite Programs liemote Monitoring Sate Locations 12 Carrier ,Jet Arrival Related Noise Events 13 Count of Arrival Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT .....................................................13 Carrier Jet Departur°e Related Noise Events 14 Count of Departure Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT ................................................14 7'en Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identi, f ied I S Ten Loudest Aircrafi Noise Events Id'enti, f ied 16 Ten Loudest �lircraft Noase Events Identi, f ied 17 Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identi, f ied l8 Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identi, f ied 19 Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Ident%f ied 20 , Flight Track Base Map 21 Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring ►�ystem Flight Tracks 22 Carrier Jet Operations - March 1999 .................................................................................22 Airport Noise and Operations Monatoring System Flaght Tracks 23 Carrier Jet Operations - March 1999 .................................................................................23 Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flaght Tracks 24 Carrier Jet Operations - March 1999 ................................................................................ 24 Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flaght Tracks 25 Carrier Jet Operations - March 1999 ................................................................................ 25 Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events -�4.ircraft Ldn dB(A) Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events - Air°craft Ldn dB(A) Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs � 27 r' i Metropolitan Airports Commission Operations and Compla�nt �ummary March 1999 Operations Summary - All Aircraft Rutnway Arrival °10 Use Departure % Use 04 205 1.0% 62 0.3% 22 234 1.2% 813 4.2% 12 11585 58.7% 11657 60.0% 30 7706 39.1% 6890 35.5% MSP IVlarch Fleet Mix Percentage :,, _ '; Scheduled ,Scheduled ' ANi�MS ANOMS Stage 1998 1999 Count 1998 Count 1999 Stage 2 33.0% 20.9% 34.8% 21.9% Stage 3 67.0% 79.1% 65.2% 78.1% Note: Stage /11 Manufactured Aircraft encompassed 46.6% of the total 78.1% Stage III Utilization Airport March Complaint Summary Airport 1998 1999 MSP 930 1193 Airlake 0 0 Anoka 3 12 Crystal 2 2 Flying Cloud 5 13 Lake Elmo 0 0 St. Paul 0 3 Misc. i 1 TOTAL 941 1224 March Operallons Summary - FAA Aarport Traffic Record Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 1 Metropolitan Airports Commission '. 1"1 ��; ' ;, 1 ., ' 11 i 1 � , li�arch 1999 coanplaint summary by city Caty Arrfivai _ IDep Total Percentage Bloamin ton 2 10 12 1.1% Burnsville 1 0 1 0.1% Ea an 40 29 69 6.1% Eden Prairie 8 6 14 1.2% Edina 0 9 9 0.$% Inver Grove Hei hts 10 292 302 26.8% Lino Lakes 0 2 2 0.2% Mahtomedi 1 0 1 0.1 % Ma le Grove 14 9 23 2.0% Mendota Hei hts 5 41 46 4.1% Minnea olis 132 367 499 44.3% Minnetonka 40 0 40 3.5% Pl mouth 9 35 44 0.1% Richfield 0 3 3 3.9°10 Rosemount 0 9 9 0.3% South St. Paul 1 0 1 0.8% St. Louis Park 1 0 1 0.1% St. Paul 32 8 40 3.6% Sunfish Lake 1 9 10 0.9% Total 297 829 1126 100% Time of Day N�ture of Complaint lime Total Nature of Complaint �'mtal : 00:00 - 05:59 80 Excessive Noise 922 06:00 - 06:59 81 Early/Late 190 07:00 - 11:59 229 Low Flying 7 12:00 - 15:59 125 Structural Disturbance 1 16:00 - .1.9:59 _180 � .Helico�ter 0 20:00 - 21:59 221 Ground Noise 67 22:00 - 22:59 206 Engine Run-up 0 23:00 - 23:59 71 Frequency 6 Total 1193 Total 1193 Page 2 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs r Available Time for Runway Use Tower Log Reports - March 1999 All Hours 0% \ - Nigbttime Hours , Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Metropolitan Airports Commission Page 3 Metropolitan Airports Commission 35.5% c t�ll erations ' . ' ,1 1 . Note: Per�entage of actual arrtval or departure operations fmm ANOMS data. .: � ._.: MaY'�1 ��w$y �Ap vaU �ount Percentage 1998 Count �99� Fercentage 04 A 205 1.0% 316 1.6% 12L A 5746 29.1% 4162 21.2% 12R A 5839 29.6% 4435 22.6% 22 A 234 1.2% 38 0.2% 30L A 4024 20.4% 5714 29.1% 30R A 3682 18.7% 4965 25.3% Total Ara'. 19730 10Q% 19630 10Q% 04 D 62 0.3% 141 0.7% 12L D 5525 28.4% 4153 21.4% 12R D 6132 31.6% 4749 24.4% 22 D" 813 4.2% 644 3.3% 30L D 3554 18.3% 5039 25.9% 30R D 3336 .17.2% 4713 24.3% Total Dep. 19422 100% �9439 100% [vote: �vc7J data missing for U.4 days. Page 4 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Metropolitan Airports Commission Carrier Jet Operations Runway iJse Report 1Vlarch 1� i1.2 0 Ai�rivaU . _ _ ,,. _ March� Mai�h Runway �p�� Count - Percentage 1998 Count ' 1�� Percentage. 04 A 165 1.2% 225 1.6% 12L A 3921 28.0% 2772 20.2% 12R A 4321 30.$% 3209 23.3% 22 A 164 l.l% 19 0.1% 30L A 2899 20.7% 4233 30.8% 30R A 2550 18.2% 3301 24.0% Total Arr. 14020 100% 13759 100% 04 D 11 0.1% 66 0.5% 12L D 3$50 27.6% 2775 20.3% 12R D 4675 33.6% 3528 25.8% 22 D 377 2.7% 387 2.8% 30L D 2887 20.7% 4111 30.0% 30R D 2125 .15.3% 2824 20.6% Total Dep. 13925 100% 13691 100% [vote: atc[ � aata misstng Jor v.4 aays. Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 5 Metropolitan Airports Commission ', l�Tig tti e- All perat�ons _ Runvvay Use Iteport l0�arch 1�99 Note: Pe�entage of actual arrival or departure operations from ANOMS data. . . � Arrivai/ . 1Vlarch Itunway �p�� Count Perceaatage 1998� nt 1998 Pereentage 04 A 83 6.7% 61 5.4% 12L A 132 10.7% 57 5.1% 12R A 248 20.2% 184 16.4% 22 A 54 4.4% 14 1.2% 30L A 508 41.3% 638 56.9% 30R A 206 16.7% 168 15.0% Total Arr. 1231 100°% 1122 100% 04 D 24 3.2% .18 2.6% 12L D 250 32.7% 164 23.7% 12R D 266 34.8% 259 37.4% 22 D 69 9.0% 45 6.5% 30L D 97 12.7% 138 19.9% 30R` D 58 .7.6% 69 9.9% Total Dep. 764 100% 693 lOQ% �vure: nn�� aara m�ssrngror v.4 uays. Page 6 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Metropolitan Airports Commission Nighttime Carrier Jet Operations Runway LTse Report March �99 Note: Pe�entage of actual arrival or departure operations from ANOMS data. . March Runway ���� Count : Percentage March 1998 p 1998 Count p��entage 04 A 68 7.2% 49 5.1 % 12L A 118 12.4% 51 5.3% 12R A 194 20.4% 166 17.3% 22 A 39 4.1% 8 0.8% 30L A 371 39.1% 555 57.6% 30R A 159 16.$% 134 13.9% Total Arr. 949 100% 963 100°I'o 04 D 1 0.2% 2 0.4% 12L D 123 27.0% 102 21.6% 12R D 191 42.0% 179 37.8% 22 D 54 11.9% 33 7.0% 30L D 66 14.5% 109 23.0% 30R D 20 .4.4% 48 10.2% Total Dep. 45S 100% 473 100% IVOTC: HtcLJ aara mw�s�rz���r v.�r uuy�. Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 7 Metropolitan Airports Commission ' ' ' � 1 ,� , 1 � . � 1 <.� , � i 1 i A306 A310 A319 A320 A340 B733 B734 B735 B736 B737 B738 B741 B742 B743 B744 B75-2/3 B76-2/3 B77-2/3 BA46 CARJ DC 10 E145 F100 L101 MD 11 B73 DC8 52 5 9 3553 0 802 135 342 0 12 0 52 95 57 6 2363 4 0 1290 383 1232 191 819 176 10 1472 1748 80 183 B72-1/2 2342 B73-1/2 833 BA 11 2 DC8-5/6/7 157 Note: ARTS data missing for 0.4 days. Page 8 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs •� ��� , � , � ,� , �,, Identifier A306 A310 A319 A320 A340 B72-1/2 B72Q B73-1/2 B733 B734 B'735 B736 B737 B738 B73Q B'741 B742 B743 B744 B75-?J3 B76-2/3 B77-2/3 BAl l BA46 CARJ DC 10 DC8-5/6/7 DC8Q DC9 DC9Q E145 F100 L101 MD 11 MD80 SF3 Metropolitan Airports Commission Aircraft Ident�fier and DescriptionTable Aircraft nescripaoo AIIZBUS INDUSTRIES A300B4-600 AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A310 AIlZBUS INDUSTRIES A319 AIKBUS INDUSTRIES A320 AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A340 BOEING 727-100/200 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) CANADAIR 650 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC 10 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC8-500/600/700 SERIES MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC8-70 HUSH KIT • .MGDO1�tNELL.I�OUCLA� �DC9 MCDOI�INELL DOUGLAS DC9 HUSH KIT EMBRAER 145 FOKKER 100 LOCKHEED TRISTAR L1011 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DCl 1 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC9 80-SERIES SAAB 340 (PROP) Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 9 Metropolitan Airports Commission � � ' �' • � � ' 1 1' ' � "1 ' i _ � •. 11 �. � , � , • �1 . � �'�; Daytime Hours Runway I)eparturres I'ercentage Arrivals Percentage Na�e Day Use Day Use �'o�l i9ay � 3S 0.2% 122 0.7% 160 12L 5275 28.3% � 5614 30.3% ;`108$9 12R 5.866 31.4% 5591 30.2% K:11457 , 22 744 4.0% 180 1.0% ; 924 30L 3457 18.5% 3S 16 19.0% = 6973 - 30R 3278 17.6% 3476 18.8% 6754 Total ; . l$f58 . 100°10 `:..18499 ; , � 100%:.. 37157 ::. Niglattaaaae Hours Runway Departures Percentage Arrivals Percentage Name Night Use Night Use To� 1Viglat 04 24 3.2% 83 6.8% 107 12L 250 32.7% 132 10.7% 3$2 12R 266 34.$% 248 20.1% 514 22 69 9.0% 54 4.4% 123 30L 97 12.7% 508 41.3% 605 30R 58 7.6% 206 16.7% 264 Totai 764 100% 1231 100% 1995 Note: ARTS data missing for 0.4 days. Page 10 Aviation Noise & 5atellite Programs Metropolitan Airports Commission Corr�mun�ty Overflight Analysis Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport March 1999 Carrier Jet Operations - All Hours Number Number -- Total Percent Nu�ber of OverHiight Area . A� o� � p�� . Carrier Jet Carrier Jet Uperations :. -._ Opera� ions O p e r a ti o n s p e r 2 4 H o u r s Over So. Minneapolisl 8242 5012 13254 47.4% 433.1 No. Richfield Over So. Richfield/ 165 377 542 2.0% 17.7 Bloomington Over St. Paul - 164 11 175 0.6% 5.7 Highland Park Over Eagan/ 5449 8525 13974 50.0% 456.7 Mendota Heights .: Total : _ � 27945 100% ' 913.2 ;. Carrier Jet Operations - Nighttime (10:30pm - 6 am) Number Number Total Percent Number of OverBight Area A��� �p��� Carrier Jet Carrier Jet Operations Operations Operations per 24 Hours Over So. Minneapolis/ 312 86 398 28.4% 12.9 No. Richfield Over So. Richfield/ 68 54 122 8.7% 4.0 Bloomington Over St. Paul - 39 1 40 2.8% 1.3 Highland Park Over Eagan/ 530 314 844 60.1% 27.4 Mendota Heights Total 1404 100% 45.6 Note: ARTS data missing for 0.4 days. Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 11 Metropolitan Airports Commission '� ' , , � � � � �., � - . � � � ., ' 11 1 ', 1� 1• . 1 ; � � r Page 12 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs � '. Metropolitan Airports Commission Carr�er Jet �rraval lZelatecl l�oise Event� I�Iarch 1999 Count of Arrival Aircrait Noise Events for Each RMT �T Events Events Events Events ID Caty APpro�mate Street i.ocation ;,65dB >80dB >90d.B >100d� 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Avenue & 41st Street 2736 75 1 0 2 Minneapalis Fremont Avenue & 43rd Street 2201 152 0 0 3 Minneapolis W Eimwood Street & Belmont Avenue 5005 2128 43 0 4 Minneapolis Oakland Avenue & 49th Street 4428 915 4 0 5 Minneapolis 12th Avenue & 58th Street 5272 4094 465 4 6 Minneapolis 25th Avenue & 57th Street 4602 3665 539 3 7 Richfield Wentworth Avenue & 64th Street 288 6 1 0 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Avenue & 43rd 5treet 267 7 0 0 9 St. Paul Sazatoga Street & Hartford Avenue 174 121 2 � 10 St. Paul Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street 178 162 41 0 11 St. Paul Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue 30 1 1 0 12 St. Paul Alton Street & Rockwood Avenue 19 2 0 0 ,'� � 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 123 1 0 0 14 Eagan First Street & McKee Sireet 3982 130 0 0 15 Mendota Heights Cullen Street & LeJcington Avenue 300 14 0 0 16 Eagan Avalon Avenue & Vilas Lane 2977 1520 21 0 17 Bloomington 84th Street & 4th Avenue 176 70 3 0 18 Richfield 75th Street & 17th Avenue 180 44 0 0 19 Bloomington 16th Avenue & 84th Street 35 3 0 0 20 Richfield 75th Street & 3rd Avenue 8 1 0 0 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbaza Avenue & 67th Street 77 0 0 0 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 2259 23 0 0 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Avenue 1508 36 1 0 24 Eagan Chapel Lane & Wren Lane 1568 87 3 0 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 13 Metropolitan Airports Commission � � . . , � � . � . • � � • , �' � 1Vi�rch 1999 Count of IDeparture Aircraft Noise Events for Each ItMZ' �� Events Events Events Events � City Appro�a�ate Street I.ocation ' �6SdB >80dB >90dB >100ciB 1 Minneapolis Xences Avenue & 41st Street 143 31 1 0 2 Minneapolis Fremont Avenue & 43rd Street 183 42 5 p 3 Minneapoiis W Elmwood Street & Belmont Avenue 1656 389 45 0 4 Minneapolis Oakland Avenue & 49th Street 1782 540 63 p 5 Minneapolis 12th Avenue & SSth Street 3340 1612 453 32 6 Minneapolis 25th Avenue & 57th Street 3913 1686 628 108 7 Richfield Wentworth Avenue & 64th Street 2492 1033 118 p 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Avenue & 43rd Street 1378 465 50 p 9 St. Paul Saratoga Street & Hartford Avenue 20 5 1 p 10 St. Paul Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street 21 13 8 2 11 St. Paul Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue 17 9 1 p l2 St. Pau1 Alton Street & Rockwood Avenue 38 4 1 p 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 3491 629 20 0 14 Eagan First Street & McKee Street 5743 1732 191 3 15 Mendota Heights Cullen Sireet & Leacington Avenue 38Q5 918 84 0 16 Eagan Avalon Avenue & V'ilas Lane 5461 2192 445 9 17 Bloomington 84th Street & 4th Avenue 213 73 14 0 18 Richfield 75th Street & 17th Avenue 501 242 106 9 19 Bloomington 16th Avenue & 84th Street 340 134 29 1 2� Richfield 75th Street & 3rd Avenue 672 53 4 0 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Avenue & 67th Street 1610 285 5 p 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 1988 303 7 p 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Avenue 534b 2293 811 54 24 Eagan Chapel Lane & Wren Lane 1545 357 6 p Page 14 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs , Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten I.oudest A�rcraft Noise Event� Identified. RMT #1: Xeraces Ave. & 41st St. Minneapolis Date Time ; �: AJC ' Max A/D - , B'yg� I.eoel 03/12/99 7:52:35 DC9Q 91.2 A 03/03/9915:12:15 B732 90.7 D 03/28/9915:57:31 B722 89.5 D 03/OS/9913:08:17 A320 88.7 A 03/28/99 21:14:05 B722 88.5 D 03/29/9915:52:54 B722 87.6 D 03/02/99 5:26:55 BE80 87.6 D 03/28/9919:29:18 B722 87.1 D 03/29/9911:28:21 B722 86.8 D 03/28/9919:51:50 B722 86.7 D RMT #3: W. Elrnwood St. & Belmont Ave. Minneapolis Date Titt� Z� M� A/ID Levet 03/2S/99 2:13:43 B722 95.8 A 03/17/9914:15:21 B722 95.5 D 03/OS/99 8:37:53 B722 95.3 A 03/03/9911:02:48 B722 94.8 D 03/03/9913:09:21 B741 94.7 D 03/28/99 21:13:16 B722 94.6 D 03/28/9911:26:25 B72Q 94.4 D 03/04/99 22:16:52 B722 94.3 A 03/20/99 20:36:14 B722 94.2 D 03/23/9915:51:17 B722 94.0 D RMT #2: Fremont Ave. & 43rd 5t� Minneapolis - Date Time = A1C . Max AID _" �e . I.evel 03/26/9911:56:38 B722 93.5 A 03/28/99 21:20:18 B722 91.0 D 03/24/9914:57:36 SF34 90.9 D 03/28/99 20:51:31 B722 90.7 D 03/28/9919:28:52 B722 90.6 D 03/28/99 21:13:39 B722 90.5 D 03/2S/9919:51:39 B722 90.1 D 03/28/99 20:27:32 B722 89.7 D 03/29/9911:24:Q0 DC9 89.0 D 03/28/9919:22:38 B72Q 88.4 D RMT #4: Oakland Ave. & 49th S� Minneapolis Date Time ` A/C Max . : � , , - Type : . Levet : 03/03/9919:28:34 B722 98.1 D 03/25/99 9:25:09 B722 97.7 D 03/02/9911:31:52 B722 97.0 D 03/13/99 9:30:55 B722 96.8 D 03/03/9911:10:32 B722 96.7 D 03/24/99 9:26:11 B722 96.5 D 03/23/9911:35:14 B722 95.9 D 03/20/99 9:29:50 $722 95.6 D 03/02/99 9:33:01 B722 95.6 D 03/13/99 7:25:32 B722 95.4 D Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 15 Metropolitan Airports Commission '' 1 1 ,° .► , � . . � ,. • � RMT #5: 12th Ave. $z 58th St. IVginneapalis _ Date �'iu�e, . , A/C ` Max � _:, - . _1j;pe . ; Level ' 03/03/9910:27:39 B722 106.7 D 03/17/99 9:56:01 B722 105.0 D 03/09/99 7:57:44 DC9 104.6 A 03/03/9911:02:27 B722 103.7 D 03/29/9913:26:32 B722 103.7 D 03/18/9911:31:02 B722 103.6 D 03/25/99 6:58:50 B722 103.5 D 03/18/99 9:48:49 B722 103.0 D 03/03/99 8:29:12 B722 103.0 D 03/18/99 6:13:37 B722 102.5 D RNdT #6: 25th Ave. & 57th S� Minneapolis 1Datc 'Time A/C Mag ° . ` _ _ T`ype Level - A,/p) 03/25/99 9:24:32 B722 109.3 D 03/18/99 9:41:48 B722 108.2 D 03/26/9911:57:55 B722 107.9 A 03/13/99 9:30:16 B722 107.8 D 03/28/9915:56:0$ B722 107.4 D 03/20/99 6:23:26 B722 106.9 D 03/20/99 9:29:04 B722 106.4 D 03/25/99 9:38:17 B722 105.8 D 03/18/9911:33:08 B722 105.6 D 03/14/9911:11:37 B722 105.6 D �'� a RA�IT #7: Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. itichfield Date T�e A/C Mau 'i`yPe Level � 03/02/99 7:13:42 B722 98.9 D 03/20/9917:24:15 B722 98.1 D 03/18/99 6:13:59 B722 97.5 D 03/18/9913:13:51 B722 96.7 D 03/02/99 6:19:58 B72Q 96.6 D 03/24/99 7:18:40 � B722 96.2 D 03/24/9915:11:32 B722 96.0 D 03/02/9910:02:22 B722 95.8 D 03/24/99 8:29:14 B722 95.6 D 03/18/99 7:45:15 B722 95S D 121VIT #S: Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. Mi�eapolis Date Time . AJC Maz a Type I.evet : `4/ID . 03/18/9918:59:01 B722 ` 96.6 D 03/02/9913:41:53 B722 96.0 D 03/19/99 6:46:10 B722 95.3 D 03/22/9918:30:48 B722 94.9 D 03/03/99 6:14:45 8722 949 D - -03 � �Z4-�99 23:56:45 • ' B722 94.8 D 03/16/99 6:54:13 B722 94.5 D 03/20/9911:27:41 DC9 94.4 D 03/22/9913:15:58 B722 94.2 D 03/17/99 7:01:32 B72Q 93.9 D Page 16 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs ; Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten I�oude�i Aircraft I�loise Events Identified RMT #9: Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. St. Paul Datc Time . A/C Max A/D Type , : Level 03/25/9913:23:15 B742 95.5 D 03/31/99 23:00:16 B72Q 90.9 A 03/30/9916:17:19 B722 90.7 A 03/30/9914:50:11 B722 90.3 A 03/30/9913:52:14 DC10 90.0 A 03/30/9916:53:59 DC10 89.7 A 03/30/9914:47:09 B72Q 88•8 A 03/30/9916:15:42 B72Q 88.5 A 03 /31 /99 5:48:02 DC8Q 88.5 A 03/30/99 23:15:05 B72Q 88.4 A RMT #11: Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. St. Paul Date �'ime Ty� M� � Level 03/20/99 8:12:50 B722 92.5 A 03/03/9913:14:51 B742 91.2 D 03/23/9919:47:46 DC10 58.7 D 03/21/9913:21:30 B742 87.1 D 03/16/9913:10:56 B742 86.1 D 03/24/99 5:57:12 SW4 - 82.9 D 03/20/9916:49:45 DC9 82.5 D 03/16/99 7:07:20 BE80 82.3 D 03/20/9913:54:34 B742 82.3 D 03/16/99 6:10:02 B722 82.0 D RMT #10: Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin S� St. Paul Date Time � Mas AJD Level 03/20/9913:54:08 B742 102.8 D 03/16/9913:10:39 5742 101.1 D 03/25/9913:22:45 B742 99.8 D 03/21/9913:21:0$ B742 98.9 D 03/03/9913:14:33 B742 98.6 D 03/30/9915:47:08 DC9 97.0 A 03/31/99 5:30:21 DC10 96.6 A 03/30/9912:34:32 DC10 96.0 A 03/31/99 5:00:20 DC10 95.9 A 03/25/9917:38:14 DC9 95.7 D RMT #12: Alton S� & Itockwood Ave. St. Paul Date Time �e Max , , � Level ` Q3/25/9917:38:28 DC9 91.8 D 03/09/9912:34:37 BE18 87.5 D 03/16/99 6:10:20 B722 86.6 D 03/ZO/9916:50:52 B72Q 82.3 D 03/29/99 22:23:52 SF34 81.7 D - -03 �3i /�99 -15:57:47 - - -=i.,301 81.7 A 03/30/9913:14:27 SF34 81.7 D 03/31/99 21:11:01 B722 81.3 A 03/01/9913:11:35 SF34 80.6 D 03/25/9913:23:03 B742 80.2 D Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 17 Metropolitan Airports Commission . � � � , � i � � ' � �' RMT #13: Southeast End of Mohican Court 1Vlensiota �Ieights Date Tiuee . A/C �ax A� - T`ype _ Level _ 03/Ol/9917:23:35 B722 93.8 D 03/31/9911:19:43 B72Q 93.1 D 03/16/99 20:55:28 B722 93.0 D 03/31/99 6:06:09 B722 92.9 D 03/28/99 8:14:31 B722 92.4 D 03/12/9918:39:51 B722 92.1 D 03/27/9917:11:44 B722 92.0 D 03/05/99 9:29:00 B722 91.7 D 03/15/9918:54:23 B72Q 91.7 D 03/15/9911:17:52 B722 91.5 D RMT #15: Cullon S� & irexington Ave. Mendota I�eights IDate Time A✓� Maac � Type Levet 03/30/9913:30:48 B722 98.0 D 03/30/99 20:13:08 B722 97.5 D 03/30/99 21:49:33 B722 96.7 D 03/31/9912:23:15 DC9 96.6 D 03/16/99 20:40:43 B722 96.5 D 03/27/99 21:15:57 � B72Q 96.3 � D 03/29/99 20:50:45 . B722 96.1 D 03/07/99 21:21:21 B722 96.0 D 03/31/9919:10:20 B722 95.9 D 03/28/99 8:14:13 B722 95S D- RMT #14: lst St� & 1VIcKee St. Eagan Date Time AJC l�Iaae � �'pe Level 03/26/99 7:31:59 B722 101.5 D 03/31/9910:29:54 B722 101.3 D 03/27/9915:53:28 B722 100.5 D 03/06/9910:17:12 B722 99.5 D 03/07/99 9:56:37 B722 99.2 D 03/19/99 9:27:46 B722 98.9 D 03/05/9918:29:40 B722 98.3 D 03/08/9914:00:47 B722 97.7 D 03/06/99 23:55:11 B722 97.5 D 03/27/99 7:19:20 B722 97.3 D itMT #16: Avalon Ave. & �las Lane Eagan Date Time AJC Max , � Type Level 03/31/99 9:22:18 B722 104.0 D 03/28/99 6:13:12 B722 102.8 D 03/31/99 8:34:56 B722 102.7 D 03/29/9917:50:09 B722 101.5 D 03/15/9911:00:24 B722 100.5 D -•{k3/01�99-3.3:�0:03 B722 100.3 D 03/11/9913:19:06 B722 100.3 D 03/30/9911:44:04 B722 100.2 D 03/06/99 6:13:45 B722 100.1 D 03/22/9911:55:07 B722 99.6 D Page 18 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs (; 1 I� Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten Loud.est A�rcraft Noise Events Identified RMT #17: 84th St. & 4th Ave. Bloomington : Date Time A/C Mag � . _, _. . - Type Level 03/18/9913:21:38 B742 99.8 D 03/29/9913:12:20 B742 97.1 D 03/22/9913:13:22 B74Z 96.3 D 03/13/99 6:32:01 B722 95.6 D 03/20/99 7:24:31 B722 95.4 D 03/26/9913:07:42 B742 94.6 D 03/14/99 6:16:29 B72Q 94.5 D 03/18/99 23:17:15 B743 93.5 D 03/05/99 8:52:52 B722 93.4 A 03/28/99 7:26:32 B7Z2 93.0 D RMT #19: 16th Ave. & 84th S� Blaomington Date Timc - `vC � A/D _ Type Level 03/14/99 7:16:56 B722 100.2 D 03/13/99 6:21:28 B722 98.2 D 03/20/99 7:15:50 B722 97.1 D 03/14/99 7:45:05 B722 96.6 D 03/22/9914:14:54 B722 96.4 D 03/27/9913:39:47 -$742 96.0 D 03/29/99 6:07:25 B722 96.0 D 03/29/99 6:09:42 B722 95.8 D 03/30/9914:23:42 B722 95.3 D 03/20/99 7:27:02 B72Q 94.9 D RMT #18: 75th St. & 17th Ave. ltichfaeld Date lime . A/C Mag � _ _ Type Level 03/08/99 0:04:51 B722 105.7 D 03/28/99 7:26:01 B722 105.0 D 03/30/9915:53:22 B72Q 101.9 D 03/31/9913:03:31 8742 101.8 D 03/30/9914:09:32 B722 101.6 D 03/26/9913:07:15 B742 101.2 D 03/30/9913:12:52 B742 100.8 D 03/20/99 7:23:59 B722 100.8 D 03/23/9913:10:31 B742 100.3 D 03/30/9916:10:06 B722 99.9 D RMT #20: 75th St. & 3rd Ave. Richfield Date 1�me A/C M� � 1.m ; 'I'ype Level 03/01/99 6:13:06 B722 93.6 D 03/?3/9913:10:59 B742 91.7 D 03/29/99 6:28:21 B72Q 91.5 D 03/30/9913:55:52 DC9Q 90.3 D 03/30/9914:48:31 DC9Q 89.8 D - � -03��03�99- 7:0�:31 B722 88.4 D 03/08/99 5:10:34 B722 87.4 D 03/17/9913:19:54 B742 87.3 D 03/30/9915:09:36 DC9 86.6 D 03/13/99 8:55:45 DC9Q 86.6 D Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 19 Metropolitan Airports Commission , � � . . � � � � ' � �, I2MT #21: Barbara Ave. & 67th S� Inver Grove gieights IDate Ti�e . � . ..�C ' MMax �'' 1�pe II.eoel e 03/05/9913:31:22 B722 92.7 D 03/07/9911:16:55 B722 91.8 D 03/04/9917:06:52 B722 90.8 D 03/19/9914:10:20 B722 90.6 D 03/06/9913:46:27 B722 90.0 D 03/27/9913:44:49 B722 89.9 D 03/26/99 7:43:09 B722 89.8 D 03/27/9913:20:07 5722 89.8 D 03/07/9913:17:32 B722 89.6 D 03/07/9913:33:49 B722 89.5 D ItMT #23: End of Kenndon Ave. IVlendota �Ieights Date Time A/� �'� A/D 1`ype Level 03/05/99 9:28:29 B722 105.0 D 03/31/9913:17:00 B722 103.7 D 03/05/9913:30:03 B722 103.7 D 03/30/9911:13:36 B722 103.7 D 03/04/9912:05:11 B722 103.5 D 03/16/9911:46:38 B722 �103.1 D 03/07/99 21:21:11 B722 102.9 D 03/31/9911:33:59 B722 102.9 D 03/Ol/9913:18:10 B722 1029 D 03/31/9911:20:48 B722 102.9 D �21VIT #22: Arine Marie T�rail Inver Grove �Ieights A/C M� Date Time � �`ype - d.evel 03/29/99 5:12:24 B722 92.1 D 03/01/9913:21:15 B722 92.1 D 03/31/9910:30:48 B722 92A D 03/09/9914:10:06 B722 91.2 D (l3/04/99 21:28:52 B722 91.1 D 03/07/9919:01:28 B722 90.8 D 03/01/9915:22:57 B722 90.2 D 03/Q5/9912:15:59 B722 89.8 D 03/26/99 9:37:21 B722 89.4 D 03/04/9913:41:07 B722 gg,� D �1VIT #24: Chapel I�xi. & Wren i.n Eagaln Date Time - A/C Max . T9pe Level . : � .: 03/31/9910:30:15 B722 949 D 03/28/99 9:59:31 B72Q 94.8 D 03/20/9917:17:28 MD80 93.9 A 03/15/99 7:41:05 DC9Q 93.9 D 03/26/9915:40:38 B722 93.6 D --03 f 31 J�9918:11:52 - B�22 91.4 D. 03/26/9913:40:07 B722 91.2 D 03/31/9911:34:10 B722 90.7 D 03/17/99 9:37:09 E145 90.5 A 03/20/9915:34:58 A320 90.1 A Page 20 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs (' :::., �� �j ,/�%�� .., � ��'�''j�l��l..'�om,,�I .... . .-•\\`,,`� . .. :! ��! ; ,: � -.. , , ���\,`';�: , �_ ' �'�i� �a� � _ _ . �� � � ��i�. �i�� �� . . - .. . or ����\`� p�q��,��� , II / ` . . / ♦ r i I I I0� \ � q � : . .. ,. � I/ �/ �i p�1��' o�,..' � 1 � � �� . �: � • < � . �•r// � �� '� : � •- �.. .• - � _ . , . ; ; __ .. ,_ _ . ... =- . •_ , , .. � ��`,., . .. ...,�; � - - �•�►.. — i�� �: q�� �, . .;� � % � �� �� ��:i �:� .� . 'n , , �`.'�. ..'�� '�.4i� ►► � � : ,�. . ��� ���y!� : . '.:, . ; , ., '. ��._ _..,.,. � _ �� • < , _.. _ _ . , __ __ _ .., : i ,: � ✓ — . _ .. . :. ,. .. . . � . , ` .. <i ��'�14\ ��� \ . �. . . . . ���` ... �- ♦ i� . . a. . \ . \y � . . . . ,. � . - =r. \� - : • . ' ' . ` ' �.. . � .. . :. � c - • • � � _� . . _..__._._ _"...__ ':....._..._._ ,.. .._._..•. .\ .... _.:. .\\ .. '� ... �. � . � �...' , � ' ' ' ... . ... ... •,-: "`` v _ ..: -.: .... :�, . r� � .. '� . , . � . �`.\ ♦ . �. � . ' ' ��.. ^�. -_ ' ` " ` � t . _ ' . . r .'.,� . �:1� �. :_ ` r `-�.►+�..-� ._, � .I �jj�►\� ,:. ^+\ r���•�� �" _ i��,��� � . . �/// ' � . . _ �� . �i / '• ,����'"�,�i�� ,• . / ���� ." . . •: ,. i�; . ..;. _ . �� -� � _ .... /ii-f1�:t!'�..► .... .. ....� . ' ������►�`�'�I • �,''�i;'`:`,',!'. . � - �;e�� s� , .,. w ;,: � , r ,' ,� �,��`�` - ' � � , ,•,��� � �i . . � ' �'. : 8� � \ ` . �Il��..; : . .: \:��ii��i►,�'ii�1�� .:: •• ���i``j�b,��11�� � \;•; ``„��• !;� _ .. ���,,::����� ;. . ;_ �_ ._ „"-� • ;,►.�:�. _--� '11'i1 q�\'��; :, '= \Ii� ,:'��:� p � ���\��, 11, '� I , � .. � � �I �`r�(i► ���.�.��„ �� � � . . ' �:► ',1�1���'1 �.; i �• i '.�� /♦ u _ ��r � .. i i. ,• ��G1;:�4���► r. e` �/,' , . . .. . ♦./�/. �: i , . i _ " .,1• . � _ �;r�� i ,1 � � ' - . �►'•►—` � r ' ► � IIII � ' :� . ! � - _-�..� .. �� � . • .i lu, � � � \\+ � ► +�'�,.�J\ /�� r ., � � � .� i i�i' !' �, . ...._ ! • / � � � , i /I i �� i. , ir ,1���� �� � , \ �1 \; �Iir.%��iR ��� .r i't�1� � � � 1 \, . . rwi./II�� � , � � . , . � �/ .,` � /''' ..,. � I�ii��� � : ��� 1 ' � �,1 i \� n � � • i ,��'r;`` � �.�+, li�i� ry��,'il'��l �_%.•��, 1�' . ._ _ � . .. . ., � .., �i t'\r! - _ . .. . ��i;,,` � ,ij' � ' ' ,' � . .1,, �r� ' _ � � . . . . � . �r .. = - ��:^� " " - . . . . _ �. ' ` n� �_�_..,,•,,� , ,� . ` �.._ . - : .� . • � -� , - . ► � \_� .� \� � i , `` .\\ `��\��� `��� \ �i.��► `� `� . �. �� j � \, �"��'���� 1� / ;' � � S � �iiD� ii /.. - ... � i� I ����j'� Iir.,ll/►•` i,i�;� �;�,. �1��%� :- '�:.�J1'.► /"., � � ��/;/�,�`\ I/�• . ����1\\I`,� q �.',�`. / , � `����� � ,I� . � . r^„ .. � : ���� . ,� ��� ��' � '��' /►r+���,, �����` � . •r. � ,11,�� � � �II� � . ,\ i � � / ;;�, IIIIIII� . „;1� i� 1 i �..``\�� �� /��� \ / `. � � ; ��\ .� ,�� �11�� 1\; �i .. \,\\\i.`` t� �` \ . �� ` \\\\��� \ � �`1►. ��t��� � - \� , '• �`�M�P`�,�� � �: ' '`. .V�►i: r � _ ;, � _ . ;����. ,� a ,� � "a -�.: i--�i _ �, ��\ .:. � . � �v"�`�, . � �1 � �.. � _ \��.v�_ � . . `� �/ Y '... � ���. . � .`. ' // . . I � I�\ . � � I �.. � •��\� . .. :II - �\ . j11� � � �� �M/�' � . . �t ��.` ��� 11`• ,�/� � ...� �_ � ; 1 ` ' �/ � � ��. . - . ,. � . .. . .. Y� �``l'.'�����... .. M i/ • ``''���... . .. �, ... . .. � .� � .. ... � � �. -���`�� .. . . .. � . . . . . —'.�/��� ^��:'`1 �_ . � � . �e,��..�� r�l _ 1..\ �'� . . � � � . . ,-.— � . .�... :. . .�.. „ �.�. �,,. :: _ n � ,,. , . ., \�Y .r, ►���.. ti ” '' ' ' � . , -: ..� � :i . ... .. . � ����~ �: �� ��. � . - � �,. .. "�� � . . . . . ����' �� �\l�i _ . � _ . . .. � . . � . � � . � , , - :. „ , ; . ' • .. � ��� �P�N . .. . _ . , � � . .- ` . Vb► .�rtJ'��' �`; c �-�"!�►^�r,i�s�i� - _ . `` . >' � ��R►�`' ��� =,:�,Iy�� j,l � � vr:. :�►'�� �fll►�� I � - '=r�:1 \ . �► ' r► "''''�� ' '�+���` � �11►�` \�i�'�) ' . . , �t►,`�°%�•`�■v� � • . �!.�fil��� ����1i1 �, ' % .. � . . r � �.u��'I� n�. r���.��-` .. -. ' �����/ '�. ii ., � Ci►- .. , ' ,� : �^s �,,-, - _ , �_� ,� � .; _':; r.�%'-�'-''° � il�►%i'/�rl.�% 1 � :.• + : � .s�,,, � �,/��i �� ��� �j ��� ��,,; '. 1 ` 1�+�: tiA���(��/,�� / � l�`r►� � (:� � . � +�,�. l�.t��� :���.� / �. . �i��1+1, ,, � �: � �, . :���'��7:�:�►; %��I��i � � .., � . .'�,, ��' . � s'�f'�'*, �' �'� ���,�� a � � ;;, . �� �`��� °�� j�`���'I/'�1 .� i , .�� . •. �". . , . �`�r �� � ��'r�\ ' ; ;., ; . �\ /���, � �� �ii! . . � v � _.u. t ��f�i •' ` . � � � � � � "• '. ; � ull`�;� . ,. . . ,`. ..., >):!«�,Iri �i � � \ ` ��. �- �.�,'' 11 / I � � . :�► ��/ / �� . ' -����/.��/ . . . :,�I:I� ,�� . . . . -� ��'� �,. ...... .'.. ....��' . . . .' .. �i�. . � . .��, 1 . . . � ... � . . . . . 1�1 1 j4��' •� � .. . 1,`,a� �.'•,'; `'` . .. . � �,� : u � ♦ `�►�� , . � . - i ! �I /► � 11� .�� �r ,.r" / ,• . . ��io)Ii���.�A���- '�^ � � �� �/I : \�. � i .�� ..__:'���y1Dd'•.: i� _ � � w�:� i1� ,:� . _ • . . � . . i,�. _ ... . . . �1. i�.�l : . . -� • .� � d ��. ' .. _ _ : s�'�_ `� ,• . . ' Tw! w �,,�`, . . � � � � ��!� �,\�� �► : , � �. ' �: �i/� "1� ,\`► � � . '��i►A!!/�r.�►���:� :��;��;. , -- — —•--- �� ��\�.� ' %. . . . � _ _.._ -' � ' �: . �_ - _ •; ;,�-.. _ . _ _ �"` ' �►•�n..;�,.., :�= � . "`� .a.�. .� : ^!!�.�.,_ . . , = - „- • - ,� '� ur � ' . . ' ..,, , .. � � • �� � � ." .,, ' . \ v� �-�_ ��� � . ' •�. A� � �:•. -..� == . . � „ V q�.\ �71 � ��r��1i\ � \ : � � � ` \\ � =1��� '� • - - ���� ��"�i1�; r"� .. " • � ��������► ����i, I� � ;' .,, . � y J►.', r ` _ //j,! 'r`�' /' _ \��. :f J � � . ' ' ,' ��1i: .. y , ��1/:I�:�: � '� � '� i ,. � . . `n�'' : . �.. , :,.; . .� . �� , Metropolitan Airports Commission • �; � ;. , � . . . � � � � . �, . I � i i. i; Noise Monitor Locations Date #1 . #2 #3 _ #4 #5 #6 . #7 ,#8 , #9 #10 . #11 #12 1 58.7 58.1 65.8 63.8 74.0 74.1 67.2 63.2 49.0 48.8 ' 43.9 48.4 2 58.5 58.0 67.1 67.8 76.2 78.0 709 66.9 45.6 40.1 47.9 43.5 3 60.4 62.1 65.4 65.8 75.6 75.6 68.0 68.8 4b.6 56.5 52.0 35.3 4 59.0 60.6 70.0 64.5 73.8 71.5 45.6 49.0 47.2 49.2 39.2 51.7 5 49.8 54.8 69.3 64.8 73.6 70.5 47.3 44.2 46.4 51.1 50.4 48.8 6 54.7 57.6 629 61.0 67.9 68.9 42.8 40,1 43.7 38.3 48.3 41.2 7 64.3 64.7 66.6 65.7 70.8 72.8 43.9 44.5 45.1 51.6 39.6 37.6 8 63.5 61.8 69.8 67.2 73.1 73.2 57.7 58.8 45.9 48.6 49.8 42.0 9 55.1 59.6 69.5 64.3 73.1 71.2 56.3 50.3 44.5 44.5 45.8 47.0 10 53.9 55.1 65.0 62.8 70.0 69.9 52.2 48.3 49A 49.9 43.1 41.3 11 55.9 57.0 63.8 61.7 68.0 69.9 49.2 53.0 42.3 51.9 48.1 36.1 12 46.9 489 64.7 62.0 69.0 70.1 48.1 51.6 48.5 51.4 44.2 47.4 13 47.7 48.9 60.9 62.1 68.7 70.2 59.3 58.9 49.5 53.2 4�.9 41.5 14 55.7 57.0 64.1 62.4 67.2 72.0 57.0 54.0 45.2 50.0 42.0 34.6 15 55.2 57.7 64.6 62.4 68.8 70.1 46.5 49.8 52.7 58.5 46.5 48.2 16 48.4 4b.5 67A 64.5 74.2 75.3 62.3 68.5 47.4 61.7 55.4 60.2 17 50.2 49.6 65.7 67.3 76.3 77.1 69.2 68.6 46.9 41.4 45.6 44.5 1$ 55.0 54.6 67.3 68.4 77.8 78.5 73.2 69.5 39.3 45.3 51.3 42.1 19 50.7 44.9 65.7 63.0 73.0 72.9 63.0 67.3 45.8 52.2 58.0 43A 20 50.5 48.9 66.1 65.9 75.4 78.3 69.2 67.1 579 63A 55.4 47.5 21 54.3 54.2 65.2 66.8 72.2 76.9 66.8 66.1 44.3 559 45.9 * 22 47.8 44.8 65.5 67.7 73.0 77.1 67.9 66.8 52.0 55.9 449 39.1 23 49.1 55.8 66.7 69.6 73.9 56.5 70.3 679 44.8 50.9 47.9 39A 24 53.8 53.6 67.9 67.0 * * 69.9 68.7 46.1 53.3 48.9 * 25 * * 66.2 65.2 75.5 74.0 62.6 60.0 54.9 59.5 41.8 53.2 26 61.8 62.5 68.5 66.2 74.4 73.7 58.9 55.3 50.2 51.3 44.3 44.3 27 63.4 61.7 70.5 64.7 73.7 71.2 52.7 49.3 37.3 42.7 35.3 42.5 28 64.3 63.5 70.6 67.5 75.3 77.4 68.0 66.2 43.7 49.0 34.9 40.0 29 56.8 57.1 63.3 61.9 72.3 72.9 64.7 61.4 46.3 53.8 50.8 49.2 30 60.5 59.5 65.6 63.3 71.3 72.6 47.4 49.8 68.8 71.8 53.1 49.5 31 62.0 62.7 68.0 64.2 71.4 71.1 42.5 45.4 66.9 71.4 49.0 51.9 Mo. Ldn 58.3 58.5 67.0 65.5 71.2 74.3 65.6 64.1 56.8 60.8 49.8 48.6 Page 26 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs . * L.eSs than twantv_f .r 6�...� „f.t...., _.._s_ae i. ; , Metropolitan Airports Commission . � . � . . . . 1 1 i ' . . IVlarch 01 to liRarch 31,1999 Noise Monitor Locations ������������� 0 " . � •, .� � .� � . . . � �� � � �� . � . . � '' � '' � ': : . � ��� . • : . .� . ���� ' ' � � ' ����� ' : . � � ' ' � "� ��� '�. .. � � � � :. � " ��� .� : . � � � � '� ��� � ' i �� " .. . . . � �' � � . . � .� � '. '� "� � '� � '� �� ' ' � .. � �, , ������� � ' ' � �� � . � .� . . � � �' � , . ,• � .� ' • '� • , � ' ���� � ' � � � ���� � •' � ' �� ' ' � � � � ' � ��� . � ��� . : �• �. �� � ' . . � . . �. � '��� . � . � � • � ��� ' ' ��� ' i, ' . � .. � .: ���� � � � � � � � '�� ' � ' �� : • .. . : � ���� . . ��.�: .: � '� 'i �.'�'��� ��������� � � � . . � ' � : � . . ,. .•. .. .. :• .� , • �� .� � • � � ' � • � ��� . � � , . . . . � ., . � .. .: •:� �� .• .���.,• .�� � �•� ,. .::������E-�!� .' ■� •• •� � �- � . . :- �� .,: .: :' ■� ,. . . . . . ��� � � ��� ., . , ■� � • iil�o • � ' � ' � �i �• ��� ��� •� ��� ' -� • ,: . : �1�0 �� • � • , . .. • � � : ., �i � � ���� �.. ... ..�-. ..�,,,�••�L� : : : . • ��� , . .. �� • � • � � ��.. ... .. .:: .. ..�•� �.:�•�. �.., .• .::�•���i���•��� ■�••• "� .:•�•����•• •��••� , , � • � - . , � ., . . . . � � � , ��i� Aviation Noise & Sateilite Programs Page 27 * Less than twenty four haurs of data available ' " ..��r � .�•---.. - � �+� � � �,"�.�.�iY"�``"" \ \\\!�r. z��-., . - ` 1 � � Y ' 1 � ' �.�--.•ii '�"'�...r.� �,----._ ...,=--,.. '�..,\\�. }t. ti� � ...� 4 f „ �i��'i_� �� `�`y-`.��'..\\ � `�y�� .� ti � �t . , -i �! . -���r`.,,,_ �_" ,.s..� -��.�►��"�...'-�.�, „�`'„�.` .\�'�••� '�.. . 1.. r� i�-, � :. j ` �"� •-=-' � =*.,_.,"=— = '� `\� \ . .t i - � . �r f . � .. ,,,�� I � :—_-.,'` � ��,,,r..� ����� `�,,,,`�„"+ -..,\"`� w � i � r �.•�-=--"���`. �.�'� ='►� `� r'-._�..`"�`\�..`.,,,,�a ; . � t �t . � . � ' t i ���� �~�...""""�11��.,� � i %� � � "r�„ .,w��` ` \� x� f r; � r i �. � d � ,�/�'\� � � � � , i � � y.�.i , S�� � � � �+ ' � ! � �� �� � ' � �' S'� ' r i� ! .► 1 �, . . � f 4 r, .' � ��'��'� I�J 1��� � ' ' � s� �r' �d;�,�{P i 1 f i�l / ' I r`i i� � i+ c r "i , '�� � ;�/�//+ � �� . � +'a � � � � �,i � � i �� �, y i: i�' � A �i �i�i 1► . .l .t� � / �� %'. � % � � I r ��l r�� "/,� � � �'.�`�..�/`�� �/���r� / . 5 ;,; ' , �� / � . . . � . ' i/ IQi�. � :��'� � �'s.. / ,.� . i ���-� ���..c. :f r,': �,.- �` `���I,r. � \ . : _ �' � `�' .'�'�'J/ � ``; ' , . _ ,� � --+ �;�� . � �� �� ��!'��� i��: � . . � .. '�`_"�.,�._, ' '�`��•r►�,�' ,����,i�� . . ,; '''_�,""'".,:_,'� ��'�1�:.4'.'�' �"' � `� ,. �`�` -_.'�,-�►1:.��`\ j�/ �ri rr_�'t:.... I.%`"\'►;����� � i/ ��� � . ��'\ �����_'^' ..�""n� .: �'-,�"�r�f%i/ r � . . � � . � �► I '-�'�..- i// "���+'���,..� ���"` � r� %/ ... . �"'� �,�.- ��= � ' ! 1; � "'�'�_" `�""�'r`'J"`�"��~�' �; .� ,. . i�;►� �r'�„�!+,�'��� i/�, � '� � . .. ._�-_""�� ►./`,.''_�-ir��'�!� i.ri� � �' � � . ~ ��_.'�.�'�",.--=--� i-/f �'� i . . � .. ,,.�- i� I.i v,r � . �7S/",.../^ . �/_./�"��-� r � : . . i �.-��/�,-// / ��'1/I�. �-/ � .� , ��//��� ^' � � /:,r,. ��, � � , ���/J/r� �� / �� .f: . }3 1 \ ��♦ % /� �' % 'i . "r . ,. ; ' � � � �/ ���/ /, j-� � /� , �' �✓� � ..;! .. � � 1 a. t� �. � �. � J / � r .3 � . if ��� � �t i �,� �t ii% �:� �/�r' ! . /i ./'�8��..�f%�r��t. tx����� .�i..`\.', /i 1'i .i . ' � ��, .r' i F s i! i � � .i�i � . t w ' i!� >/j � � ,t • ...v f,.J' . y�. i� � s/i%� i -t�� �� ��t\l�l� 14� `Nt'�,. ✓ � % 'Y� '¢ % / �// � � ' / i� f . � //� ril� I w� � �� \ 1��� �\; i .: � !r � �, ��, di/..� ✓n�� � )� r�' l � �-1 � �` \ \� �' % . .. . . . . . _ 'r .. • -.r_ . J'_ i�Y s/�. .o�/ �. ,...� .,,a . , \ � . t�. a. _ _ i w � 0 O � � � � �— c 0 0 0 N O O O Metropolitan Airports Commission • � � � r � • � � � ' 1 i 1l�arch 1999 �; . • � . . �.� . . � . , � . . . . . ,.� . '/� � . ,/ 1 � 1 1 1 ' 1 �� � 1 1 i �/ i 1 1. 427 TRRCKS CROSSED P-GATE LEFT CO�NT=423 (99.1�) RIGHT CO�NT=4 (0.9�) , ; ,. • . i. • , , , , , , , , , , , ----------------}----" ------�-----,-----------------�----------------- t-----------------�----------------- •.i .! . ? ,•. . ; �• • s • ; e . . � . • 1� s �• � • • � � � � ••�'�' �, • °• M s ' � w� �o � ------------- N^�4--m--�--� '------------------------------------------------------�----------------- w p �i�� •• •o � • ' ' • t •• • � ! • °s♦ • 9 � ' ' a '°°ro • ' • �� � � ! e • �� �� • • � � � � � � + � :�• ; � � 1 p � � ""__'_""' ' � • � i ?`,�y:+�a+------;�-------"---------�------------------1-----------------; ----------------- i'�;• •; »;• q "'� . •. ;m I � DEVIRTION FROM CENTER OF GATE (fl) Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 3 ' Metropolitan Airports Commission 1Vlinneapolis - 5t� Paul International Airport March 1999 8525 .o. Total 12I, and 12R Carrier Jet I)epartures 0... Carrier Jet Departure - Early Turnout (0.0% (North Side Before Three 1Vliles) DEVIATION FROM CENTER OF GATE (ft) Page 4 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs •�. .. • i '` i1 1. � 11 . ' �' ' � 1 � , ., � 1 �. ' . 1 . ' 1,i 1Vlarch 1999 I �', .� , . . 1��. � i � � �� � � I �. •, Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 5 ' Metropolitan Airports Commission Minneapolis - S� Paul International Airport March 1999 i �_ �_ 8525 ... Total 12L and 12R Ca.rrier Jet Departures 48 ... Carrier Jet Depa.rtures (0.6 % ) South of Corridor (South of 30L Localizer) 48 TRACKS CROSSED P-GATE LEFT COUNT=48 (100.0�) RIGHT COUNT=O (0.0�) �� -6 DEUTATION FROM CENTER OF GATE (ft) Page 6 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs � � : �; I�_ � 0 � a � Metropolitan Airports Corc�missio� _. IVlinneapolis - Si. Paul Internationai t�ir ort i lO�Iaa�ch 1999 • , , . . i•�. . . � . . � ' ' � ' � ' � 1 i', . , , �; �. �. � . . . 1 TRACKS CROSSED P-GATE LEFT COUNT=O (0.0�) RIGNT COUNT=1 (100.0�) �� _ 4� DEVIATION FROM CENTER OF GATE (ff � Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 7 � �; . Metropolitan Airports Commission 5outhern Boundary Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis Minneapolis - S� Paul International Airport March 1999 0.0 %(4) Carrier Jet Departures 5° South of Corridor (5° 5outh of 30L Localizer) Page 8 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs = �: Metropolitan Airports Commissia� IVl�nneapol�s - St� Paul Internaiional �irport . �, � 1l�Iarch 1999 F' � . . � � , . . �.� , . . • • ��,,: . ���, ' � �, � � �; .• � ; � � �` � , . 3 TRACKS CROSSED P-GpTE LEFT COUNT=3 (100.0�) RIGNT COUNT=O (0.0�) -4 DEVIATION FROM CENTER QF GATE (ff) � Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 9 ; Metropolitan Airports Commission �� -6 Minneapolis - S� Paul International Airport March 1999 8525 ... Tota112L and 121� Carrier Jet Departures l... Carrier Jet Departures - Early Turnout (0.0 % (South Side Before Three Miles) 1 TRACKS CROSSED P-GATE �EFT CO�NT=O (0.0%) RIGHT C4�NT=1 (100.0�) � s II � � � � � � , � � � { ' � � I � ' ---------�----------------- � -------------' ----------------r-----------------,-------- �---- �----------------- I � I , � � � � '-----------------' ----------- ________________T_._______________�__'_____________..�_________.________i �_..___ � � � i � � _""""_ _ _"'.1' _ _""' _""""1 _ _"""""""' _ _"""_ _ _ _""' _ J_"""' _""""' L _ _"""' _ _ _""" S►l1IlIll ' ' ' DEUTATION FROM CENTER OF GA1E (ff) Page 10 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs ' '1 � f',• .� �, i Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport March 1999 Technical Advisor's Report Executive Summa�y t f ,. 4 r Metropolitan Airports Commission MSP March Fleet Mix Percentage ` : ANOMS ' ': ANOMS Stage Count ' Count Feb99 Mar99 Stage 2 21.9% 21.9% Sta.ge 3 78.1% 78.1% March 1999 Sta�e Use Composition During the month of March 1999 manufactured stage III usage = 46.6°Io, stage III usage = 31.5% and sta.ge II usage = 21.9%. March 1999 Aircra,,ft Composition The hushkitted DC9 was the most predominately used aircraft with 6784 operations consisting of 24.3% of the total carrier jet operations. Following the DC9 hushkitted the top three were the Airbus 320 with 3553 operations (12.7% of the total), DC9 (stage In with 2756 (9.9% of the total) and the Boeing 757 with 2363 (8.5% of the total). 1999 February vs. March Complaint Summary , ;Airport Feb99 `:.�::Mar99 :. MSP 829 1193 Airlake 0 0 Anoka 13 12 Crystal 1 2 Flying Cloud 9 13 Lake Elmo 0 0 St. Paul 4 3 Misc. 1 1 ' TO'TAL _ 8S7 > ;' - 1224 � ` ' March 1999 Complaint Origin Summarx MSP complaints during the month of March 1999 were highly concentrated in four cities: Minneapolis = 499, Inver Grove Heights = 302, Eagan = 69 and Mendota. Heights = 46. March 1999 Complaint Time of Dav Summary The majority of complaints were received in the following time periods: 07:00-11:59 = 229, 20:00-21:59 = 221, 22:00-22:59 = 206 and 16:00-19:59 = 180. March 1999 Nature of Complaint Summarx The nature of the received complaints were concentrated around the following sources: excessive noise = 922, early/late = 190, ground noise = 67 and low flying = 7. Technical Advisor's Report Executive Summary Page 1 i � Airport Operations Metropolitan Airports Commission Reference Diagram 04 Dep March 1999 Runway Use All Operations & Carrier Jet Operations Runway A��� OverHiight Area Count All Percentage Count Jet Percentage Departure . � . 04 Arr So. Rich.Bloom. 205 1.0% 165 1.2% 12L Arr So. Mpls./No. Rich. 5746 29.1% 3921 28.0% 12R Arr So. Mpls./No. Rich. 5$39 29.6% 4321 30.8% 22 Arr Stp./Highld. prk. 234 1.2% 164 l.l% 30L Arr Egn./Men. Hts. 4024 20.4% 2899 20.7% 30R Arr Egn./Men. Hts. 3682 18.7% 2550 18.2% Total Arr. 19730 100% 14020 10(1% 04 Dep � Stp"./Elighld. prk. 62 D:3% 11 0.1% 12L Dep Egn./Men. Hts. 5525 28.4% 3850 27.6% 12R Dep Egn./Men. Hts. 6132 31.6% 4675 33.6% 22 Dep So. Rich.Bloom. 813 4.2% 377 2.7% ;' � 30L Dep So. Mpls./No. Rich. 3554 18.3% 2887 20.7% `"`� 30R Dep So. Mpls./No. Rich. 3336 17.2% 2125 15.3% Total Dep. 19422 100°10 13925 100% Technical Advisor's Report Executive Summary Page 2 ,'_ � �I ' Metropolitan Airports Commission Ma.rch 1999 Nightiime Runway Use All Operations 8z Carrier Jet Operations , ; ArrivaU , Runway OverHig�t Area Count All ' Percentage Count Jet Percentage Departure _ 04 Arr So. Rich.Bloom. 83 6.7% 68 7.2% 12L Arr So. Mpls./No. Rich. 132 10.7% 118 12.4% 12R Arr So. Mpls./No. Rich. 248 20.2% 194 20.4% 22 Arr Stp./Highld. prk. 54 4.4% 39 4:1% 30L Arr Egn./Men. Hts. 508 41.3% 371 39.1% 30R Arr Egn./Men. Hts. 206 16.7% 1S9 16.8% Total Arr.`;; -'1231. : . . ; :100%a : ` 949 100% . � : 04 Dep Stp./Highld. prk. 24 3.2% 1 0.2% 12L Dep Egn./Men. Hts. 250 32.7% 123 27.0% 12R Dep Egn./Men. Hts. 266 34.8% 191 42.0% 22 Dep So. Rich.Bloom. 69 9.0% 54 11.9% 30L Dep So. Mpls./No. Rich. 97 12.7% 66 14.5% 30R Dep So. Mpis./No. Rich. 58 '7.6% 20 4.4% �Total Dep:=- �,.�-�64 ;; ._ .._ : 100°1a _ :�: ,-:. 455. . ; 100% ' )uring March 1999 runway use for all operations showed a change in the trend of runway use favoring an increase in Southeast traffic flow from February of 1999. The use of the crosswind runway was virtually unchanged with a sma11 increase in runway 22 arrivals and departures from February 1999 to March 1999. Parallel runway operations represented a predominate Southeast traffic flow with 24.5% more operations departing off 12L&R compared to 30L&R and 19.6% more operations arriving on 12L&R compared to 30L&R. Carrier jet operations showed over all corridor usage remained virtually the same from February 1999 to March 1999 with 12L&R departure operations increasing by 9.6% and 30L&R arrival operations decreasing by 10.5%. Parallel runway use favored Southeast traffic flows with 19.9% more arrivals on 12L&R compared to 30L&R and 25.2% more depariures on 12L&R compared to 30L&R. The crosswind runway usage remained virtually unchanged from February 1999 to March 1999. March 1999 Nighttime Runwav Use Summarv All Operalions and Carrier .Tet Operations The nighttime hours (2230 - 0600) during March 1999 represents a period of extensive corridor usage. The all operations runway use assessment depicts 58.0% of the arrival operations occurred in the corridor and 67.5% of the departure operations occurred in the corridor. The over all operations over Minneapolis in March 1999 showed a slight reduction from February 19991evels. There were 15.1% fewer departures and a 7.8% increase in arrivals over Minneapolis from February 1999 to March 1999, which represents a decrease in over all operations over Minneapolis of 7.3%. The use vf the crosswind runwaywas -increased from ��ebruary 1999 to March 1999 with departure operations on runway 22 representing the largest increase from 3.3°Io in February 1999 to 9.0% in March 1999. Nighttime carrier jet operatians were consistent with the all operations trends. Corridor operations were comprised of 55.9% of tota.l arrivals and 69.0°Io of total departures in March 1999 representing an increase in departures in the corridor of 8.6% from February 1999 to March 1999. There were 32.8% of the total arrival ;' perations and 18.9% of the total departure operations over Minneapolis in March 1999 representing an increase '' -.�ri arrivals of 8.4% and a decrease in departures of 18.4°Io over Minneapolis from February 1999 to March 1999. The use of the crosswind runway increased from February 1999 to March 1999 with departure operations on runway 22 representing the largest increase from 2.3% in February 1999 to 11.9% in March 1999. Technical Advisor's Report Executive Summary Page 3 �'� Metropolitan Airports Commission March 1999 Catalvsts for the Runway Use Confi�urations As is usually the case, wind and weather conditions dictated the nature of the runway use at MSP during the month of March 1999. March 1999 Aircraft Noise Generated Monthly DNL Levels Per RMT , y - �T city � ° ,Approanmate street Location Monthl :ID;, , , , ; _.; � :, , _,.. ... 1 Minneapolis Xences Avenue & 41st Street 58.3 2 Minneapolis Fremont Avenue & 43rd Street 58.5 3 Minneapolis W Elmwood Street & Belmont Avenue 67.0 4 Minneapolis Oakland Avenue & 49th Street 65.5 5 Minneapolis 12th Avenue & 58th Street 71.2 6 Minneapolis 25th Avenue & 57th Street 74.3 7 Richfield Wentworth Avenue & 64th Street 65.6 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Avenue & 43rd Street 64.1 9 St. Paul Saratoga Street & Hartfard Avenue 56.8 10 St. Paul Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street 60.8 11 St. Paul Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue 49.8 12 St. Paut Alton Street & Rockwood Avenue 48.6 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 62.7 14 Eagan First Street & McKee Street 69.4 15 Mendota Heights Cullen Sireet & Lexington Avenue 65.4 16 Eagan Avalon Avenue & V'ilas Lane 71.7 17 Bloomington 84th Street & 4th Avenue 60.6 18 Richfield 75th Street & 17th Avenue 65.6 19 Bloomington 16th Avenue & 84th Street 62.0 20 Richfield 75th Street & 3rd Avenue 55.7 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Avenue & 67th Street 59.4 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 61.5 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Avenue 72.7 24 Fagan Chapel Lane & Wren Lane 62.2 March 1999 RMT DNL Level Summarv The above monthly DNL assessment per RMT site is consistent with the actual runway use for the month of March 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. Technical Advisor's Report Executive Summary Page 4 I 'j 'i Metropolitan Airports Commission March 1999 Top Ten Noise Events Per RMT Summarl The top ten noise events and the event ranges at each RMT for March 1999 are very similar to the information collected in February 1999. The top noise events at each RMT were comprised of 88.3% departure operations and the predominate aircraft was the Boeing 727-2Q0 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��IASAC ��� �� ��7� � '� �� I 'T'O: MASAC FROM: Chad Leqve, ANOMS Coordinator SUB�jECT: February 1999 Technical Advisor's Report Revisions DATE: April 19, 1999 r��y As you will recall, the beginning of Februazy 1999 marked the installation of ANOMS version 6.3 at Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport. The acquisition of the new version represents a myriad of increased analytical capability as well as the need for up front system integration and program customization. T'he February 1999 Technical Advisor's Report was compiled utilizing the new version of ANOMS. Shortly foilowing the March 30, 1999 MASAC rneeting it was discovered that a critical post- processing function within the new ANOMS was preforming inadequately. The system was i performing improper post-processing functions while at the same time these errors were not being noted in the system log files which are used to ensure the program is functioning properly. MAC staff discovered and diagnosed the problem via an in-depth program and database intenogation traditionally not necessary for such an issue. The result of the malfunction was inaccurate carrier jet counts in the February 1999 Technical Advisor's Report. Attached are corrected copies of the various sections out of the February 1999 Technical Advisor's Report that were affected. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. T'he above ANOMS system issue has been addressed and corrected. We look forward to a whole new level of analytical capabilities resulting from the new version of ANOMS at MSP. If you have any questions or comments please contact me at 725-6328. �M �e 4 . � � � � � , , • 1 i • • ., .� � 1 1 i • , ` i i �' 1 1 Revisions Metropolitan Airports Commission Operations and Complaint Summary February 1999 Operations Summary - All Aircraft Runway Arrival `% Use Departure °10 Use 04 218 1.3% 44 0.3% 22 48 0.3% 412 2.5% 12 8239 49.4% 8252 50.5% 30 8170 49.0% 7632 46.7% MSP February Fleet Mix Percentage Note: Stage III Manufactured Aircrafi encompassed 46.4% of the total 78.1 % Stage Ill Util ization Airport February Camplaint Summary Airport � 1998 , : 1999 , MSP 586 829 Airlake 0 0 Anoka 5 13 Crystal 0 1 Flying Cloud 9 9 Lake Elmo 1 0 St. Paul 2 4 Misc. 2 1 TOTAL 734 857 February Operations Summary -�AA Airport Traffic Record Aviation Noise & Sakellite Programs Page 1 ; a Metropolitan Airports Commission Carrier Jet Operations Runway Use Report February'1999 i1.6 0 _ - . February R Rwiway `` ArrrivaU. - �Count _._ �Percentage" --February . .: 1998 ; Departure - 1998 Count Percentage 04 A 166 1.4% 137 1.1% 12L A 271 S 23.3% 3091 25.4% 12R A 2990 25.6% 3651 30.0% 22 A 32 0.3% 71 0.6% 30L A 3122 26.7% 2858 23.5% 30R A 2657 22.7% 2359 19.4% Total Arr. 11685 100% 12167 100% 04 D 6 0.1% . 9 0.1% 12L D 2755 23.9% 3146 25.9% 12R D 3191 27.7% 3985 32.9% 22 D 127 l.l% 368 3.0% 30L D 3156 27.4% 2618 21.6% 30R D 2290 19.8% 1999 16.5% Total Dep. 11525 100% 12125 10Q% Note: Att"LJ data missing for "l.Z days. Aviadon Noise & Satellite Programs Page 5 '� 1 Nighttime Carrier Jet Operations Runway Use IZeport Fe Metropolitan Airports Commission �0.4% -� � ` February ; Runwa � ArrivaU � � Count - � ` Percen e February . ; .199$ y Lleparture : � 1998 Count p . ..: _ . . . ; ::: ercentage 04 A 63 7.6% 75 9.4% 12L A 84 10.1% 46 5.8% 12R A 118 14.3% 124 15.6% 22 A 22 2.7% 49 6.2% 30L A 402 48.6% 386 48.6% 30R A 138 16.7% 114 14.4% Total Arr. 827 1ti0% 794 100% ; 04 D 0 0.0% _. 1 0.3% 12L D 91 21.0% 92 28.0% 12R D 171 39.4% 149 45.3% 22 D 10 2.3% 46 14.0% 30L D 116 26.7% 31 9.4% 30R D 46 10.6% 10 3.0% Total Dep. 434 100%d _ 329 '' �' � 100% Note: ARTS data missing for 2.2 days. Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 7 � Metrc`�olitan Airports Commission 78. l % Stage III 21.9% Stage II ', Carrier Jet Operations by Type �ebruary 1999 : : B72-1/2 B73-1/2 BAl 1 DC8-5/6/7 DC9 Total Page 8 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs o. �% o.o% o.i�o i2.s% o.o% 3.2% 0.4% 1.4% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1 % 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 8.9% 0.0% 0.0% 4.2% 1.5% 4.2% 0.8 % 2.9% 0.5% 0.0% 5.1% 5.7% 0.2% 0.6% 25.2% 8.8% 3.2% 0.0% 0.5% 9.4% 100% 46.4% Manufactured Stage III 31.7% Stage III 21.9% Stage li Metropolitan Airports Commission Community Overflight Analysis Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport February 1999 � Carrier Jet Operations - All Hours Carrier Jet Operations - Nighttime (10:30pm - 6 am) �: ,. : ; . � _ `:: .: : ; ;,P__ _ be f . Number .; Number Total ereent Num r o � 'OverfLght Area � Carrier Jet Carrier Jet Op� tions � Arrivais ;� Depai�ur+es , 0 � - - , � . . : : : pera ons ;,Operations per Hours Over So. Minneapolis/ 202 162 364 28.9% 13.7 No. Richfield Over So. Richfieldl 63 10 73 5.8°Io 2.7 Bloomington Over St. Paul - 22 0 22 1.7°Io 0.8 Highland Park Over Eagan/ 540 262 802 63.6% 30.2 Mendota Heights � ;;. ; Tota1 ; � '> _: _: : ... , 1261 : 100% "` 47.4 Note: ARTS data missing for 2.2 days. Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 11 � �. � � �� � � �� � �PP+ �s sq�Hr Min.neapolis-Saint Paul International Airport �2� � t °� 6040 - 28th Avenue South e Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799 m o PhOn@ (612) 726-8100 0 Fax (612) 726-5296 o � � ° t� ro �„�c,;.Y, . -. . � � � � � ,.F o� �9 t Go �'Q�RPO�t� . MEETING NOTICE 6VIASAC OPERAi'iONS COiViiVlfiiEE The Operations Committee will meet Friday, Mav 14, 1999 — 8:30 a.m. at the MAC West Terminal Building of the Metropolitan Airpo�ts Commission, North Star Room, 6301 34tn Avenue South, Minneapolis. If you are unable to attend, please notify the committee secretary at 612-726-8141 with the name of your designated altemate. /01GE�iD/4 8:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. OLD BUSINESS Information Dissemination Options Discussion Engine Test Cell Results 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. NEW BUSINESS Part 150 Contour Boundary Development Part 150 Update Progress Review MEMBER DISTRIBUTION Mark Salmen, Chairman, NWA Bob Johnson, MBAA Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan Ron Johnson, A�PA Brian Bates, Airbome John Nelson, Bloomington Dick Saunders, Minneapolis Mayor Charles Mertensotto, Mendota Heights Dick Keinz, MAC cc: Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights Charles Curry, ALPA Will Eginton, IGH Jennifer Sayre, NWA Mark Hinds, Richfield Advisorv: Keith Thompson, FAA Ron Glaub, FAA Cindy Greene, FAA Roy Fuhrmann, MAC Chad l.eqve, MAC Shane VanderVoort, MAC The Mefropolitan tiirports Commission is an affirmative action employer. Reliever Airports: AIRLAKE o ANOKA COUN'1'Y/BLAINE . CRYSTAL e FLYING CLOUD o LAKE ELMO a SAINT PAUL DOWNTOWN _ ; 1��IA5AC OPERATIONS C011�ITTEE ��� 1VIEl�O�:A.l�TI)LTll� �s�c TOo MASAC Operations Committee FROM: Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor SUB,rECT: Old Business DATE: May 6, 1999 INFORMATION DISSEMINATION OPTIONS DISCUSSION At the March 12, 1999 MASAC Operations Committee meeting, the members decided to forward this item to the April meeting due to the duration of the meeting. At the April 9, 1999 meeting, the Operations Committee members moved to conduct a special meeting on May 14, 1999, at 8:30 A.M. to address old business, prior to the regularly scheduled meeting. Again, please recall that the MASAC ' : chairman suggested that members should bring written suggesfrons for improving the information dissemination process to this meeting. A copy of the slides from the last MASAC Operations � Committee are included far your reference. Additionally, it was suggested that Wendy Burt, MAC's Public Information Officer should also be brought into the discussion to provide guidance and insight into other MAC publications'and airport information dissemination methods proposed for the neighboring communities. Additional discussion about this topic will be entertained at the May 14, 1999 meeting. Piease bring your ideas for a stimulating discussion. If you have any questions, please contact me at 725-6326. UPDATE ON THE NWA TEST CELL MOlVITOI1tNG On March 16, 1999, MAC staff, coordinated monitoring for the Northwest Airlines Engine Test Cell Facility with representatives from NWA, the City of Eagan, and a local resident. MAC Staff, along with the MPCA Noise Program Administrator conducted monitoring at four locations while a Pratt and Whitney J'I'9D-7J engine was runup to full power. All locations were manned and in contact with the individuallocated at the test cell facility. Included with this mailing is staff's report of the monitoring completed for the Northwest Airlines Engine Test Cell facility. At the May 14, 1999 special meeting, staff will review the report and answer questions for Operations Committee meznbers: If you have any questions, please contact me at 725-6326. �/ ( :,, � , i � i'. i j: i j' . 7 1 i , �: ,,, ; �' �;- ; 4��1.��..`. i_ ;::- •: �.:_-; i�:.; f''� �' :'. ��... , , c. ��;: �` :': '` ��al6e�y Q*J` f ya t � � p 1 f *=e W �P _ �Nin {�p Y�� MEt a � � � � .i � � `�O: MASAC Operations Committee FROM: Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor SUBJECT: Part 150 Contour Boundary Development DATE: May 6, 1999 �� At the May 14, 1999 meeting, Kim Hughes, HNTB, will lead a discussion of the future Contour Boundazy to be used for the Part 150 Study Update. This contour will also be used to continue the sound insulation program at MSP. To facilitate this discussion, an outline of the topics and associated issues to be presented are provided: Lessons Learned l. 19$9 Part 150 ( � •The original boundary assurnptions for the sound insulation program submitted -� to FAA will be defined. The boundary approved by FAA will be defined. 2. 1993 Part 150 Update •The boundary assumptions for the sound insulation program submitted to FAA will be defined. The time-frame and boundary approved by FAA will identified. FAA requirements for inclusion within a sound insulation program 3. within DNL 65 dBA contour 4. property significantly impacted by noise 1VIN Legislative requirements for residential sound insulation program at MSP 5. within DNL 60 dBA contour 6. low frequency noise impacts should be mitigated 7. seek approval from FAA to develop neighborhood and "natural boundaries" If you have any questions or comments please contact me at '725-6326 , ,�i� � +,' �� �� : �''+ ROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MASAC Operations Committee Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor Part 150 Study Progress Review May 6, 1999 � At the May 14, 1999 MASAC Operations Committee meeting, MAC staff will provide an update on the progress of the Part 150 Study Update. This month's discussion will examine the Part 150 Contour Boundary detemunation. As you may recall from the 1992 Part 150 Update, establishing a contour boundary that adequately reflects the community and airport perspectives for noise mitigation areas created issues for the FAA. The Operations Cornmittee will fully examine the 1989 Part 150 Study original boundary assumptions as well as review the 1992 Part150 Update issues. MAC staff will provide an update on any other ,- ) issues related to the progress of the Part 150 Study Update at the May 14, 1999 regularly scheduled � ___ Operations Committee meeting. If you have any questions; please contact me at 725-6326. � 1��IASAC C�PEI;ATIONS C011�IMITTEE �o: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: 1'� 1 MASAC Operations Committee Chad Leqve, ANOMS Coordinator RMT Update May 6, 1999 � Since the last RMT update the RMT construction contract was awarded to Morcon Contractors at the Apri128, 1999 MAC Commission meeting and a per-consiruction meeting took place on May 5, 1999. The meeting focused on remaining issues to be addressed prior to project commencement. All parties are awaiting a notice to proceed, which is pending on the completion of the review of insurance requirements on behalf of Morcon. In addition to the notice to proceed it was indicated that Larson Davis had expressed a six week manufacturing period to provide the RMT poles. After fi.�rther discussion the Larson Davis representative felt the company could provided the needed materials in a more expedient manner and was going to follow up on the issue. Although the poles may not be available initially the infrastructure preparation will begin. It was indicated that the consiruction of the concrete bases and access runs for utilities could begin the week of May 17-21, 1999. The construction commencement dates are subject to the final notice to proceed. The submission af building permits to the respective communities will be conductecl following the notice to proceed, in addition Minneapolis Facilities has responded authorizing the RMT locations at both Ericsson Elementary School and Anthony Middle School. At the May 14, 1999 MASAC Operations Committee meeting an RMT Update will be briefed. If you ha�e any questions or comments please contact me at 725-6328. � C MINUTES �� ' MASAC OPERATIONS COMMITTEE April 9, 1999 T'he meeting 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 - NWA - Chair Bob Johnson - MBAA Ja.mie Verbrugge - Eagan John Nelson - Bloomington _ Kevin Batchelder - Mendota Heights Dick Saunders - Minneapolis Dick Keinz-MAC Advisorv• ' Roy Fuhrmann - Technical Advisor Chad Leqve - MAC Advisory � l ) Shane VanderVoort - MAC Advisory Cindy Greene - FAA Carl Rydeen - FAA Visitors• Mark Hinds - Richfield Jan DelCalzo Neil Clark - Minneapolis AGENDA Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked that two items be added to the agenda. He asked if staff could update the committee on the outcome of the bids for the RMT installations and explain the purpose behind the proposal to hire an additional noise consultant. Chairman Salmen said, given the meeting's full agenda, the 'rtems would be taken up at the end of the meeting if time allowed. The minutes' of the March 12, 1999 Operations Committee were then approved as distributed. 1 Chairman Salmen noted that the New Business items would be addressed in reverse order and suggested that Old Business be addressed at the May 14, 1999 meeting from 8:30 to 10:00 a.m. ( \ DICK 5AUNDERS, MINNEAPOLIS, MOVED AND JOHN NELSON, BLOOMI1vGTON, MOVED TO DISCUSS THE OLD BUSINESS AGENDA ITEMS AT THE MAY 14,1999 OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING FROM 8:30 TO 10:00 A.M. THE VOTE WAS UNANIMOU5. MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Salmen noted, then, that the May 14, 1999 meeting would begin at 8:30 with the Old Business items on this meeting's agenda. Chairman Salmen also noted that a special meeting has been scheduled for March 30, 1999 at 10:00 am. for a discussion of Ground Run Up Enclosures (GREs), at which Ted Woosley of Landrum and Brown would speak about GRE installations at airports throughout the U.S. and internationally. NON-SIMULTANEOUS CORRIDOR DEPARTURE ANALYSIS Chad Leqve, MAC Advisor, briefed the members on the "Crossing in the Comdor" analysis. The following is a summary of this briefing: ➢ At the time of the last analysis, the FAA said it would attempt to improve its use of the "crossing" procedure. ➢ Staff has provided FAA with data updates on the use of the procedure. ➢ The months of September 1998 through February 1999 were used for the data sample. ➢ The second report was conducted in the same manner as the first, aside from a comparison section in the Summary of Findings. ➢ There was a 21% increase in crossing operations during the 2300 to 0600 timeframe compared with the previous analysis (from 36.1%to 5�.1%). ➢ There was a 10% increase in crossing operations during the weekend timeframe of Saturday at 1500 to Sunda.y at 1300 compared with the previous analysis (from 17.2% to 27.2%). ➢ There was a 14.4% increase in crossing operations during the weekend timeframe when one local controller was on duty (from 29.3 % to 43.7%). ➢ The single largest impediment to performing the crossing procedure during the weekend hours was the large number of operations taking place within the 0 to 2 minute and the 2 to 4 minute separaxion time frame. A It was noted that the impact of the head-to-head procedure on the use of the crossing procedure was not analyzed in either analysis because of the difficulty in quantifying its use. Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, said he was encouraged by the increase in use of the crossing procedure and would share the results with his Airport Commission. He said the results spoke well of the FAA's and staffs efforts in this regard. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked if the number of operations taking place within the 0 to 2-minute separation time was significant. Chad Leqve, MAC. Advisor, and Cindy Greene, FAA, said many operations take place within this timeframe, especially when more than one runway is considered. � John Nelson, Bloomington, asked for clarification of how staff determined when an aircraft performed the crossing procedure. Chad Leqve, MAC Advisor, said it is based on whether or not an aircraft took the desired track off either runway. Mr. Nelson asked Mr. Batchelder if he considered the results of the second analysis beneficial to his community. Mr. Batchelder said he was pleased with the increase in the use of the crossing procedure. Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, asked Cindy Greene, FAA, if it was possible to initiate turns at three miles if the Downtown St. Paul Airport is shut down. Ms. Greene said St. Paul airport traffic does not necessarily go away when the tower is not in operation and that MSP ACTC controls St. Paul's traffic at that time. She said, however, that there is less activity during the nighttime hours and the odds are better for a 3-mile turn. Mr. Eginton said he was concerned about his community being hit with aircraft noise ai�er the 3-mile corridor and would like to see aircraft turning as soon as possible. Ms. Greene said the air traffic controllers do issue tum orders as soon as possible after three miles, but that it takes a while for an aircraft (depending on a number of variables) to make the full 180° turn. Ms. Greene also assured 1VIr. Eginton that air traffic controllers will always turn an aircraft as soon as possible to reach its ultimate destination heading. Mr. Eginton emphasized that the sooner aircraft are turned, either to the north or to the south, the better it is for his community. JOHN NELSON, BLOOMINGTON, MOVED AND DICK SAUNDERS, MINNEAPOLIS, SECONDED TO ACCEPT THE APRIL 9, 1999 "CROSSING IN THE CORRIDOR: AN OPERATIONAL FOLLOW UP ANALYSIS" REPORT, AND THAT THE STAFF SEND A LETTER TO THE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER PERSONNEL THANKING THEM FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION AND COOPERATION IN INCREASING THE USE OF THE CORRIDOR "CROSSING" PROCEDURE AND ENCOURAGING `THEM TO CONTINUE THEIR EFFORTS IN THIS REGARD. THE VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS. MOTION CARRIED. Kevin Batchelder, Mendota. Heights, and John Nelson, Bloomington, commented that these results illustrated (1) a significant MASAC accomplishment and (2) that working at the "margins" of noise abatement procedures can have a positive effect. Carl Rydeen, FAA, said he had expected a larger increase in compliance and felt his controllers could perform at an even higher level. Cindy Greene, FAA, asked staff if they would perform a similar, but less in depth, analysis for the FAA in order for Mr. Rydeen to be able to track the controllers' performance in regards to this procedure. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said staffwould be happy to do so. PART 150 PROGRESS REVIEW Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, briefed the mernbers on the progress of the Part 150 Study Update. The following is a summary of this briefing: ➢ Staf� met with city and state agency representatives on Thursday, April 8, 1999 concerning the ' scope of work. He said comments taken at the meeting and in written form will be incorporated into __ � 3 � the scope of work as an addendum. The project's time frame has been shortened by about 3 months. Approximately 6-7 written comments have been received. Work will move forward with the generation of a base case contour following the contour generation discussion. Reconstruction of the south parallel runway began on April 5, 1999. are available on the Noise Complaint and Infortnation Hotline department's website at www.maCavsat.orq. Updates on the reconstruction at 612-'726-9411 and on the Chairman Salmen said a good number of Northwest's aircraft were precluded from using the south parallel runway on Monday April 5�' and Tuesday, Apnl 6"', but that it will not represent a normal occunence during reconstruction. PART I50 CONTOUR GENERATIONDISCUSSION Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, introduced Ms. Kim Hughes of HNTB. The following is a summary of the discussion. ➢ In 1980, FICON established DNL as the preferred metric for considering land use impacts. ➢ In 1981, the FAA adopted DNL as their single system for assessing impacts from aircraft noise. ➢ DNL is the day-night average noise level. It represents a 24-hour annual average metric. ➢ DNL penalizes nighttime operations by IOdB. (Graph) ➢ DNL 65 is the contour the FAA uses to assess compatibility. ➢ The Integrated Noise Model (INM) does not consider ambient noise levels. It only considers individual aircraft noise events and then averages them. ➢ (Input to I��tM diagram) ➢ There is no standard tolerance for INM. The INM is dependent upon the quality of the inputs. ➢ The most important input is the average number of daily flights. ➢ The second most impartant input is the conect engine types. ➢ The third most important input is the correct number of hushkitted engines. ➢'The fourth most important input is to be sure the ground tracks are conect. ➢ The fifth most important input is the stage links to be sure the conect take-off weights are used. ➢ Further down on the list are inputs such as the average temperature at the airport. Aviation Activi and Operations ➢ The project will use a combination of the operational levels from ANOMS data and the number of operations the FAA generates on an aiuival basis at the airport. Ms. Hughes said it will probably combine FAA's numbers with ANOMS' fleet mix information. ➢ The base year will be 1998-1999 and begin in April 1998. The inputs will need to be normalized by taking into consideration the impact of the Northwest pilot's strike and the reconstruction of the south parallel runway. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said it is important to use up to date information in the base case contour generation, and since there will be airfield construction from 1998 to 2003, there is no way to choose a year that does not have some disruptions. He said there simply is not a perfect 12-month year to choose from. Neil Clark, Minneapolis, asked why a three or six-month period couldn't be used. Cindy Greene, FAA, said there are significant seasonal 4 C changes in operations that it wouldn't be representative of a full year. Chairman Salmen said there were other airline scheduling factors that needed to be accounted for, as well. ➢ ANOMS data. will be used to determine the fleet mix, including the number of hushkitted aircraft operating at MSP. ➢ The base case contour will be a year 2000 contour because the FAA requires that the contour be for the year during which it is submitted. Ms. Hughes said that although the base case contour will initially be predicated on the year April 1998 through April 1999, it will need to be changed at some point during the year 2000 to reflect the Stage II aircraft phase out. She said typically the FAA would require a sensitivity analysis if the base case contour was submitted during the year after it was generated to be sure there were no significant differences. But, in the case of the 2000 contour, there will be significant changes in the fleet mix. ➢ Cunently, 1NM version 5.2 is being used. Yet, within the year, version 6.0 is expected to be available. Although initially version 5.2 will be used, when version 6.0 becomes available, the same inputs for version 5.2 will be input into version 6.0 so that the communities have all the benefits of the most recent version. Ms. Hughes said she wanted to be sure members Irnew that there could be slight changes between the 5.2 contour and the 6.0 contour. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said MAC feels there is an obligation to use the most cunent model for contour generation. ➢ The Integrated Noise Model (INM) is a computer model that attempts to simulate the average daily annual noise level experienced at an airport. In order to do this, it uses the annual average number of daily operations and the average fleet mix to calculate the noise contours. ➢ The INM uses standard profiles for both arrivals and departures, as well as standard noise levels for each engine type. ➢ The INM incorporates G:A. and Milita.ry aircraft, along with commercial. ➢ The INM computer software is available to the public for $250 from the FAA and can be used on more than one computer. The FAA's design review group, rnade up of INM's larger users, meets annually to review proposed enhancements to the model. ➢ Obtaining up-to-date information from each airline operating at MSP will be very important. ➢ ANOMS data will be used to develop the "day-night split" because it has the most accurate information for this airport. Aircraft Performance ➢ Maximum take-off weights are derived from arrival and destination information, which can be obta.ined through ANOMS data.. ➢ Average temperature information is obtained through the National Oceanic Atmospheric Association (NOAA). Pilot Technique ➢ The thrust level aircraft use for takeoffs at MSP needs to be deternuned. 'This information will be obtained through the air camers. Air�port Factors ➢ Iriformation contained in the FEIS will be used to deternune future use of the North/South runway. i ➢ John Nelson, Bloomington, asked Ms. Hughes to examine the information from the March 12, 1999 i -- --- � �� ��} ���. ; 5 MASAC Operations Committee meeting regarding nighttime opera.tions and the difFerences in scheduled versus actual opera.tions. Ms. Hughes said, typically, the OAG schedule is used, with modifications being made based on ANOMS data. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said all available information will be used, including, to the greatest e�ctent possibte, information on the number of unscheduled flights arrive at MSP due to weather conditions. Chairman Salmen clarified that�hushkitted aircraft are Stage III aircraft and meet Stage III aircraft guidelines. Neil Clark, Minneapolis, asked Chairman Salmen where he could obta.in information on huskitted aircraft noise levels. Chairman Salmen said that information is available in the FAA's Part 36 document. He said Part 36 established guidelines for aircraft to meet Stage III noise level requirements and that the hushkit manufacturers designed them to meet these guidelines or limits. He said "Stage III" is a noise level output certification established by the FAA through Part 36. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, told Mr. Clark that the Part 36 document could be found at www.faa.qov. Jan DelCalzo said a frustration with the previous Part 150 update was that there was a significant change in Northwest's fleet mix one year after the contour was generated, which made the 1996 contour suspect from that point on. She asked if the FAA would approve a change in an approved contour given these types of significant changes without having to repeat the update process. Ms. Hughes said an NEM Update could be undertaken, but would still require FAA approval. Ms. Hughes said if a significant change occurs within the NEM and additional homes are included in the contour a new Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) would have to be undertaken. Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, asked how the high forecast for the year 2005 of 575,000 operations would be used. Ms. Hughes said the high forecast operational level of 575,000 operations wil] be used for the 2005 contour but the fleet mix used for the FEIS will be modified based on current information. �, Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked if GPS capabilities will be incorporated into the Part 150 Update. Ms. Hughes said within Part 150 there is consideration for arrival and departure procedures using GPS. She said the FAA, however, is more accepting of land-based navigational aids for setting up standard departures and arrivals. Ms. Hughes explained that the Part 150 document will conta.in three contours: a year 2000 base case contour, a 2005 contour and a 2005 abated contour, which will include all the recommendations or improvements made as part of the document. This last contour would then be used far deternuning eligibility for the sound insulation program. Demand Capacitv ➢ Information from the FEIS regarding the use of the North/South runway will be used, unless the environment changes significantly. The FAA controllers are bound to using the north/south runway in a manner consistent with the FEIS. At this point, local air traffic and center air traffic are working out the best way for this to happen operationally. John Nelson, Bloomington, noted that the City of Bloomington has consistently opposed the turn that takes aircraft back over the city. He said the city's support of the new runway was contingent on aircraft being taken away from the heavily populated areas of central and east Bloomington. He noted, � 6 ` however, that the FEIS did not take into account the city's objections. He said the residents of � Bloomington have been told that depariures from the new runway will be concentrated to the east of Cedar Avenue and that the City will do everything possible to malce sure this happens. Aircraft Operations ➢ Runway Utilizaxion: ANOMS da.ta will be used for deterniining the base case conditions. Runway utilization is deternuning how the runways at an airport operate on an annual average basis. Nighttime and daytime conditions, as well as air carrier and general aviation operations, are broken down, which illustrates how different types of aircraft use the runways at an airport. ➢ Flight Tracks: ANOMS data will be used. ➢ Profiles: ANOMS data will be used to deternune the standard profiles of the most heavily used aircraft operating at MSP. ➢ Run Ups: Run ups have not been included in the DNL calculation in the past but will be included in the present update. Possible Special Studies ➢ The INM accounts for some hushkitted aircraft,. but not all. Because the communities surrounding the airport are concerned about the differences in Stage III hushkitted noise levels versus manufactured Stage III levels, the Part 1S0 Study Update will attempt to incorporate a study on noise levels at certain positions to confirm hushkitted engine data.. ➢ Verification of departure profiles for the major aircraft operating at the airport. ➢ Use noise monitoring data to establish ambient annual levels to validate the INM contours. / ' The two items mentioned at the beginning of the meeting were added to the agenda. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, reported that Morcon Construction was the successful bidder for the RMT installation project with a bid of $183,086. The Full Commission is expected to approve the item this month. Installation of the RMTs will occur as soon as possible after the awarding of the contract. A definite schedule will be drawn up and distributed to the communities once staf� is able to rneet with the contractor. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked staff if they were satisfied with the altitude of the RMT at Kenny field. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said the altitude is satisfactory for both staff and the manufacturer. John Nelson, Bloomington, asked if the Inver Grove Heights location had been settled. Chad Leqve, MAC Advisor, said the RMT will be placed on Arkansas Avenue, just south of the original location identified. The IGH Noise Abatement Council has indicated the location is satisfactory. Mr. Leqve said it will be located in a residential area. A Continuing Noise Consultant is being sought, on an as needed basis, to provide staff with expertise and additional analysis capabilities for the future. This consultant will be used for projects outside the � Part 150 Study Update. Request for Qualifications (RFQ) have been sent to over 50 companies. Chairman Salmen encouraged the members to review the information on the GRE's in preparation for the March 30, 1999 meeting. Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, asked if it would be possible to discuss the results of the test cell monitoring project at that time due to the fact he would be unable to attend the May meeting. Chairman Salmen said the item could be included on the agenda if there is time and the committee agrees to continue the meeting. Mr. Verbrugge also reported that the Eagan Airports Council wishes to review a year's worth of logs for ea.ch of the three test cells to be certain of the types of aircraft engines being tested in each of them. Chairman Salmen asked Mr. Verbrugge to forward a written request to him. John Nelson, Bloomington, asked if any other city anticipates asking for furkher testing of the test cell facility. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, said a Minneapolis delegate has raised the possibility: Chairman Salmen said from Northwest's perspective they do not anticipate any further testing to be done and believes the testing that has already taken place is applicable to the area around the entire airport. Mr. Nelson said he does not believe the test cell is a significant source of noise compared with the other sources of noise and that the matter should be put to rest once the City of Eagan's request is fulfilled. There was a disagreement between Neil Clark, Minneapolis, and John Nelson, Bloomington, regarding the validity of the testing methods. Mr. Nelson said he believes concentrating on reducing run up noise through the possible insta.11ation of a GRE is more important. 'The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 p.rn Respectfully submitted: Melissa Scovronski, Committee Secretary (� $ C AGENDA REGULAR MEETING EAGAN AIl2PORT I2ELATIONS COMMISSION EAGAN, MINNESOTA EAGAN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MAY 11, 1999 7:00 P.M. I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 11 �' � : : � ' 1 IV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Develop Timeline for 1999 Goals V. NEW BUSINESS A. Resolution of Support for MA.0 Noise Ordinance VI. STAFF REPORT A. MASAC Update B. Legislative Update C. Ground Run-up Enclosure D. City Services Open House VII. INFORMATIVE VIII. FUTURE MEETING AND AGENDA A. Next Commission Meeting — 7:00 p.m. Tuesday, June�B B. Negt MA.SAC Meeting — 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, May 25 C. Negt MASAC Operations Committee Meeting — 8:30 a.m. Friday, May 14 IX. ADJOURNMENT Auxiliary aids for persons with disabiliries will be provided upon advance notice of at least 96 hours. _ If a notice of less than 96 hours is received, the City of Eagan will attempt to provide such aid. ti� } _ �AAYOR MARTIN J. KIRSCH �� cou�ce�. SUSAN ROSENBERG SUTANNE M. SANDAHI. KRISTAI STOKES . ' AUSS SUSAG 6700 Portiand Avenue • Richfield, IVIN 55423-2599 April 16, 1999 Mr. Roy Fuhrmann Supervisor Aviation Noise Programs Metropolitan Airpo�ts Commission 6040 - 2�th A���tae Gg��l� Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799 Subject: MSP Part 150 Study Dear Mr. Fuhrmann: .�e...�.�d,.u�.rs.ym:,�,�, �;��„��� 1 am writing in connection with MSP's stated intention to include residential sound insulation to the 60 DNL contour as an element of its Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) in the cuRent MSP Part 150 Study. As Dawn Weitzei discussed at the April 8 meeting conceming the Part 150 Study, Richfield's understanding is that FAA policy conceming federal funding of sound insulation projects is based on 65 DNL and that the FAA has never approved sound insulation to the 60 DNL contour in any Pa�t 150 Study. Under the circumstances� we question the necessity and advisability of including in the NCP an element that the FAA will almost certainiy rejecf. Our concern about including sound insulation to the 60 DN� contour in the NCP is heightened by assertions that, due to the prohibition against diversion of airport revenue, FAA disapp�oval of that element of the NCP would preclude MAC from using its own funds for that purpose. It is our understanding that even though the FAA would not designate federal money for mitigation out to a 60 DNL, the N1AC would be funding the expansion of the �Qun� ir�sul�#��� pr��ram �,�it�in �ts o�ran op�ratirg budg�t. N9AC ie�enu�s ca� �rE used to soundproof Momes within the 60 DNL contour because the intent is to mitigate environmental impacts associated with operation of MSP. The FAA's 65 DNL standard is a reflection of federal funding constraints, among other things, but is expressly not intended to preclude state and local govemments from establishing their own threshold of significant impacts. An exampte of this is reflected in the Minnesota legislature's requirement that, before constructing the North-South Runway, MAC "shall develop a prog�am to mitigate noise in those parts of the metropolitan area that are located outside the 1996 65 Ldn contour but will be located within the 65 �dn contour as established after the new runway is in ope�ation." Minn. Stat. 473.661, subd. 4(d). Mo�eover, the legislature has required MAC to fund the necessary mitigation: "[T]he commission shall reserve in its annual budget, until noise mitigation measures are completed, an amount of money necessary to implement this noise mitigation program in the newly impacted areas." Id. The Clrbnn Hometou•n Telephone (612) 861-9700 • Fax (612) 861-9749 wouw r� nchM1ek! mn.us AN EOUAI OPPORTUNITY EMPlOYER Roy Fuhcmann Apri116,1999 . Page 2 ,. Piease advise if MAC disagrees with any aspect of our understanding of the airpart's obiigation to mitigate noise impacts from the new runway to the 60 DNL contour. the lack of any �eed for FAA approval to praceed with that mitigation, and the fact that disapprovai of any such sound insulation element in an NCP by the FAA would not affect MAC's legal ability and responsibility to compiete such mitigation. Assuming that we share the same understanding of these issues, if MAC insists on retaining residential soundproofing to the 60 DNL contour as an element of the NCP, we urge that element to state that such soundproofing wouid be implemented by MAC with or without federai funds. Then if, as expected, the FAA declines to make thafi element eligibie for federai funding, its denial should not state or impiy that MAC funding of that mitigation is precluded. Thank you for your consideration of Richfield's concems. Sincerely, � � . Martin J. Kirsch Mayor _ " MJK:dmw � Copy: Richfieid City Councii Members MASAC Community Representatives Glen Orcutt, FAA