The URL can be used to link to this page

12-08-1999 ARC PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AIRPORT RELATIOtVS COMMISSION AGEiVDA December 8, 1999- Large Conference Room 1. Call to Order - 7 p.m. 2. Roll Cail 3. Approval of November 10, 1999 Minutes. 4. Unfinished and New Business: a. Discuss Part 150 Study Update b. Discuss Production of Airport Relations Commission Brochure c. Third Parallel Runway Contract (Available Wednesdayl 5. Updates a. Airport Noise Plan of Action b. MAC Response Letter to Friendly Hills Resident 6. Acknowledge Receipt of Various Reports/Correspondence: a. MASAC Agenda for November 30t'' and October 26th Minutes b. MASAC Technical Advisers Report for the Month of October 1999 c. MASAC Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis for October 1999 d. Airport Noise Report — November 5t'' edition e. MAC Open Houses f. SMAAC Newsletter for Fall 1999 g. MASAC Schedule for 2000 7. Other Comments or Concerns. : �.. Auxiliary aids for disabled persons are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. Ifi 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. � t Me�ropolitan Air�raff Sound Abc�tement Cour�cil (iV��4SAC) 6040 28th Avenue South • Mfnneapolis, Minnesota 55450 •(612) 72b-8141 Chairman: Mayor Charles Mertensotto Past Chairs: Robert P. Johnson, 1995-1999 Scott Bunin, 1990-1995 Walter Rockenstein, II, 1982-1990 Jan Del Calzo, 1979-1982 Stanley W. Olson, 1969-1979 Technical Advisor: Roy Fuhrmann MEETING NOTICE MASAC OPERATIONS COMIIIIITTE� The Operations Committee will meet Friday, November 12, '1999 — 9:00 a.m.* at the General Offices of the Metropolitan Airports Commission, MASAC Large Trailer 604Q 28�' Avenue South, Minneapolis. if you are unable to attend, please notify the committee secretary at 612-726-8141 with the name of your designated alternate. � i � • NEW BU'SiNESS 2005 Forecast Contour, Fleet Mix and Potential Mitigation Measures MEMBER DISTRIBUTION Mark Salmen, Chairman, NWA Bob Johnson, MBAA Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan Ron Johnson, ALPA Brian Bates, Airborne John Neison, Bloomington Dick Saunders, Minneapolis Mayor Charles Mertensotto, Mendota Heights Dick Keinz, MAC cc: Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights Charles Curry, ALPA Wiil Eginton, IGH Advisorv: Keith Thompson, FAA Ron Giaub, FAA Cindy Greene, FAA Roy Fuhrmann, MAC Chad Leqve, MAC Shane VanderVoort, MAC Jason Giesen, MAC Jennifer Sayre, NWA Mark Hinds, Richfield John Alabach, NWA Tom Worum, NWA * Lunch rvill be�provided for the iV1A.SAC Operations Committee members. If you plan to attend this meeting bnt are not a member of the committee, please notify the secretary at 612-726-8141 by Wednesday, Noveznber 10, 1999 at noon and a lunch will be ordered for you. If you do not RSVP, we cannot guarantee a lunch �vill be available. Thank you. .1VIASAC COPEI,ATIONS COMMITTEE � � �� ' � �� T0: MASAC Operations Committee I'g2�M: Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor SUB,jECT: Part 150 Update, 2005 Forecast DATE: August 4, 1999 NIASAC The Part 150 Study Update activities are now concentrated on development of the 2005 Unmitigated DNL 60 Noise Contour and the supporting information. An outline of the topics for discussion and associated issues to be presented are provided below: � A description of the forecasted 2005 fleet mix will be provided. Additionally, a detailed description of the past Dual Track High Scenario fleet mix will be described so that fleet mix changes are clearly identified. *#- The INM unmitigated 2005 input data will be described with details provided � on the following items: Dual Track assumptions for Runway 17-35; airport run- way use, and anticipated track use at a minimum. �- An illustration of the unmitigated 2005 DNL contour depicted over existing land uses will be provided. �- A listin� of recommended noise mitigation measures to be carried forward in the Part 150 alternatives analysis will be provided and briefly described. The list of ineasures will include land use and noise abatement measures and will seek the committee's concurrence for presenting these measures to the public at the ne:ct series of public meetings. The contour development will utilize actual aircraft tracking information obtained from the Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System to develop the INM tracks. HNTB and MAC staff are using aircraft arrival and departure paths and elevations from all operations to �enerate a the basis for the forecasted contour that will most accurately represent the future conditions. Staff anticipates bein� able to present to the MASAC Operations Committee, the above mentioned information for review at the re�ularly scheduled November 12, 1999 meeting. Additionally, we are scheduling three workshop meetin�s for November 30, December 1 and 2, to disseminate this information to the general public. At these mee[ings, the public will be able to review the above listed data, the 1999 validation contour, the purpose and need for the Part 150 Study Update and the Part 150 process. MAC staff will provide an update on any other issues rela[ed to the proaress of the Part 150 Study Update (l� at the November 12, 1999 re�ularly scheduled MASAC Operations Committee meetin�. `. If you have any questions, please contact me at 725-b326. city of bloomingfion, minnesofia 2215 West Old Shakopee Road • Bioomington MN 5b431-3096 •(612) 948-8700 ■ FAX: 948-8789 ■ TDD: 948-8740 November 2, 1999 Mr. Neil Clark . 5917 Grass Lake Terrace ' Minneapolis, MN 55419 Dear Mr. Clark, � Thank you for attending a meeting at the Bloomington City Hall on October 20, 1999 concerning the utilization of daily DNL data provided in the MASAC Technical Advisors Report. - ' Joining us in the meeting were Mr. Duane Hudson of the Bloomin�on Environmental Health Division and Mr. Schane Rudlang of the Bloomington Engineering Division. Nir. Glenn Strand, a MASAC member from Minneapolis, was also present. When attempting to apply statistical tools to the daily DNL ANOMS data, Bloomington staff inembers urje full consideration of the following points of information: David Moore and George McCabe, in their textbook titled Introduction to the Practice of Statistics, Second Edition, ' � observe that: "CorreIation and regression are powerful tools for measuring the association between two variables and for e�pressing the dependence of one variable on the other. These tools must be used with an awareness of their limitations." (Pg. 1'71) The variable of time used in the ANOMS regression has a very weak link to the loudness of sounds recorded at the RMT's. Correlation coefficient analysis of the time/DNL variables has generated numbers that are unsatisfactory in establishing that good correlation exists between the x andy (time/DNL) variables . The substitution of experimental theoretical values for x, related to aircraft overflights, has been more successful in generating much stronger correlation coefficients.' One could find the observation that overflights are linked strongly with noise recorded at the RMTS is overly simplistic, however, this comparison stands up to the accuracy/confidence challen�e test of conelation given in the formula provided below: r= (n)(� �7') — (� x)(�Y) �n) � (x — r) z � (.v — .v)' Notes: 1. Where "n" is the number of data pairs in the scatter diagram. 2. If the value derived from the equation is between 1 and 0.90, or, -1 and -0.90, the re�ession line is more meanin�ful than if the equatiori yields values beriveen O.S9 and —0.39. For a complete discussion of the formula � In this experiment, equivalent values for x were given as follows: 40 DNL = 10 overfliphts, 45 DNL = l i overflights, 50 DNL = 20 overflights, 55 DNL = 25 overflights, 60 DNL = 40 overflights, 6� DNL = 50 overflights, 70 DNL = 55 overfli�hts, and 75 DNL = 60 overflights. These values were selected based upon a limited number of ANOMS data sets for a RI�IT in Bloomington; they tivere used for experimental purposes only. If one �vere to estabiish more e:cact equivalencies, more research and testin� of the overfli�ht numbers �vould be � needed. At present, ihe daily count of aircraft over an RMT which actually influenced the daily DNL is not reported. It is unlcnown whether -' ANOIviS can report the aircraft count contemplated here. In addition, greater specificity regarding the day/nieht splits, arrival/departure splits, and aircraft type splits �vould be needed for summary and forecast reporting purposes. An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunities Empioyer � and related matters, see Understandable Statistics, Third Edition, Chapter 10, "Regression and Correlation", by Charles and Corrine Brase. . 3. Moore and McCabe state that "even a stron� correlation does not imply a cause and effect relationship." (Pg. 173) An alternate analysis, which mi�ht hold promise is the production of a cumulative histo�am for the DNL data collected at any given RMT. Such analysis could be e:cpressed in comparative tables and would yield the following type of narrative: "Durin� March at this RMT, there tivere x number of DNL's between 75 and 80 decibels, x �' number of DNL's between 70 and 74 decibels, and so on: ' This type of histogram would allow for monthly and annual comparisons, and possibly could be employed to make informed statements about the sound levels recorded at any RMT. Regression lines are best suited to modelin� missing data within a data set. In this case, all.the data is available, no regression is necessary. Fur[her, the re�ression line mi�ht lend to incorrect e,c�apolation of a non-exister.t."trend" for unknown conditions ouuide the data set. For example, six months of downward trending from January to June does not mean that 7uly will be quieter yet at any given RMT. On this point McCabe and Moore write, "Remember the danger of e.ctrapolation, the use of a regression line to predicty at values ofx removed from the range ofx=. values used to fit the line. Most relationships remain linear only over a restricted range of x, so estrapolation can yield silly results." (P?. 174) One could observe that the linear rejression line obscures more meanin?ful data, such as the line �aph of DNL's over a certain time period, without the re�ression line applied to the data set. In closin�, consider the Brases' comments about regression lines on widely scattered data sets, data sets that are �„ strikingly similar to the ANOMS DNL data sets under review. "In some sense there is another problem which precedes that of finding the `best fitting line'. That is the problem of determining how well the points of the scatter diagram are suited for the fittin� of arry line. Certainly if the points are a very poor fit for arry line, there is little use in tryin� to fmd the `best fit' line." (Pg. 385) In plain terms, the re�ression line shown on the ANOMS data set, does not represent the widely scattered data reported for some of the RIviT sites, due to the distance of many data points to the line itself. It is this point that the Brases' are emphasizin� in the quote given above. 'Thank you for you consideration of these points. I appreciate all of the work you have done in this area and look forward to continuin� our mutual efforts to make sense of the ANOMS data. DEPARTMENT OF COIviMUTtITY DEVELOPMENT Environmental Services Division �'.�=-�a�`---^ John K. Nelson, M.A. Senior Environmental Health Specialist cc: MASAC Operations Committee Glenn Strand 1KN/bly _ (. � . . NIINUTES MASAC OJPERA.TIONS COIVIlVIITTEE October 8,1999 The meeting was held at the Meti-opolitan Airports Commission l�LASAC Large Conference Trailer and called to order at 10:00 a.m. The following members were in attendance: 1Vlembers• Mark Salmen, Chairman Dick Saunders Bob Johnson John Nelson Kevin Batchelder Bob Kirnus Dick Ke1T17 Advisorv• Roy Fuhrmann -_ �� Chad Leqve - Shane VanderVoort l�Iark Kill Cindy Green Jason Giesen Visitors• Mark Hinds Jan DelCalzo Neil Clark Larry Lee Will E�inton Glenn Strand NWA Minneapolis NLBAA Bloomington Mendota IIeights Eagan NIAC MAC MAC NIA.0 MAC FAA MAC Richfield Minneapolis Minneapolis Bloominb on Inver Grove Heights Minneapolis AGENDA Part 150 Runway 17/35 Noise Abatement Departure Procedures (see information packet "Noise Abatement Options for Runtivay 17/35) � Kim Hughes, HN'I`B, introduced the meeting's agenda. Assicnzptions Used in Dual Track EIS • Runway 17/35 is a primary departure runway to the south. • Approximately 37% of all departures at MSP wili use this runway to the south. • Approximately 17% of all arrivals will use this runway from the south. • Departures to the north were modeled for less than 0.05% of annual operations. • Runway 17/35 will not be used to or from the north as per an agreement with the City of Minneapolis. ATC will only use this nmway to or from the north due to an ovemding safety issue, weather conditions that merit it's use and temporary runway closures due to snow removal, construction or other activities at the airport. • Flight tracks have been developed for runway 17/35 in cooperation with FAA ATC to reflect controller separation and destination requirements. • Percentage use of tracks was deternzined from destination and airfield capacity requirements. Ra�nway I7 Track Development � Course Dzvergence • Successive aircraft departing from the same runway must be separated to ensure flight safety. Flight . safety is ATC's main concern. • Course divergence of 15° decreases the time between successive departures, thus increasing runway capacity while maintaining safe separation. • There must be a minimum separation of one mile and the aircraft must be airbome bettiveen successive departures with course divergence of 15° or more. When aircraft travel divergent courses, the separation between them quickly increases, even if aircraft speeds vary. � • Course divergence can only be used in a radar environment. Radar helps ensure that minimum separations are maintained. • Withaut radar, course divergence cannot be used and a minimum of three miles is needed between successive departures. This dramatically reduces runway capacity. • Using course divergence at MSP, ATC will clear an aircraft for departure when the preceding aircraft is at least 6,000 feet down the runway, has taken off and the landing gear is retracted. Ms. Hughes then displayed a diagram of runway 17/35's EIS determined flight tracks. The following headings are included in the diab am along with the. EIS determined percentage of departures for each track using that runway, both commercial and general aviation: • 100° • 165° • 175° • 190° . ?ps� • 250° • 290° IVIs. Hughes cautioned, however, that there would be dispersion along and between the tracks sho�vn on the diagram. 0 Ricnway 17NA.DP Close-in versars Distant NADP Review • Close-in procedures were developed to reduce aircraft departure noise in areas close to the airport. • Distant procedures were developed to reduce aircraft departure noise in areas further away from the airport. Currently, the close-in departure procedure is used off runways 30L and 30R, �vhile the distant departure procedure is used off the remaining runways. Close-in NADP Ms. Hu�hes briefly explained the general procedures followed by the pilot when performisig a close-in departure procedure. Ms. Hughes noted that when an aircraft's flaps and slats are not retracted, the aircraft makes a louder sound. The maximum allowable speed for an aircraft below 10,000 feet is 250 knots. In a close-in depariure procedure an aircraft reduces thrust sooner and maintains takeoff flaps longer than in a distant departure procedure, which results in a quick climb and allows the aircraft to "pop" up over communities close to the airport. After reaching 3000 feet, however, the aircraft must substantially reduce its rate of climb and accelerate to a sufficient airspeed to retract flaps and slats. For distant communities, this means the aircraft is at a lower altitude than it would be if the aircraft were performing a distant departure procedure. Distant NADP -- i�Is. Hughes briefly explained the general procedures followed by the pilot when perfornling a distant � � deparhzre procedure. The distant procedure is standard at most airports in the country. During this procedure the aircraft accelerates quickly and uses this airspeed to gain altitude. Takeoff Profiles Ms. Hughes then displayed several takeoff profiles for both hushkitted and manufactured Stage 3 aircraft with graphs for both the distance and altitude and the distance and single event sound level for each aircraft. The "Distant NADP" depicted on the graph is the standard profile used in the InteQrated Noise Model (INM). The "Distant RT NADP" is a distant procedure using reduced thrust and is more typical of the procedures flo�vn at MSP. � Ms. Hughes noted that, compared to a hushkitted DC9, the noise level associated with an A320 is dramatically lo�ver. In other �vords, �vith the newer generation aircraft the noise levels associated with each depariure profile becomes less perceptible than hushkitted aircraft noise levels. Single Event Level (SEL) Contoatrs i�Is. Huahes then displayed SEL contours for each flight track off runway 17 at an 80 dBA level. An 80 dBA sound le�-el is similar tq the sound a motorcycle makes. The SEL noise metric is equal to the sound exposure of a single noise event compressed into one second. SEL �vas chosen for this analysis because it considers the duration of the sound event. 3 Ms. Hughes noted that a departure profile for nuiway 17/35 would need to be deternuned in order to � ___ ____produce_. both the 2005 unmitigated contour and the 2005 mitigated contour. The preceding and '' following information has been provided for that purpose. • Close-in and distant departure profile contours are depicted for both a DC9 hushed and an A320 aircraft at the 80 dBA sound level. • For each flight track, the A320 contour was substantially smaller than the DC9 hushed. • The contours show that the close-in procedure benefits communities closer in to the airport and the distant procedure benefits those farther out from the airport. Kevin Batchelder, l�Iendota Heights, asked why an SEL contour was used rather than a DNL. Ms. FIughes said the SEL contours help to deternzine NADP impacts, but that a DNL contour will be considered with the recommendations. Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, noting that the new runway would not be operational until at least 2003, asked if fleet' mix information was available for the future. He said given the dramatic difference between the hushed and manufactured Stage 3 aircraft contours, that information would be helpful. i1�Ts. Hughes said that information was being gathered and would be available at the next MA:SAC Operations Committee meeting in early November. She said the fleet would be distributed along each track accordingly. John Nelson, Bloomington, noted that at a short distance from the end of the runway a densely populated area of Blooming-ton is included in almost every one of the flight track contours. And, areas closer to the end of the runway e:cperience higher noise levels for a longer period of time than areas farther away from � the airport. �. Ms. Hughes noted that for the arrival track (straight in) contour, the A320 is actually louder than the DC9 hushkitted aircraft. She said newer generation aircraft are louder on arrival than the older generation aircraft because thrust levels are higher on arrival and thus louder. 11�Is. Hughes then introduced a possible "river track" that could be used during times of lo�v traffic levels to avoid residential areas. The river track, then, could be used as a nighttime procedure. The approximate heading for the river track is 245°. According to the population data, the river track affects fewer people than the 250° track. Ms. Hughes said this was only a cursory attempt to define a river track and that a lot more work would have to be completed in order to develop one that could be used. She said a river track proposal could be one of the noise abatement options for nighttime operations. Popa�lation Coa�nts � Ms. Hughes also displayed information on the gross population counts included for each contour. The population data was derived from the 1999 Hennepin and Dakota county dwelling unit estimates and a county-based average persons-per-household multiplier developed from the Metropolitan Council demographic information dated April 1998. The population analysis indicated that for the two most prominent aircraft at MSP (DC9 hushed and A320) the distant NADP effects the least amount of people and that ne�v technology aircraft sho�v less difference beriveen the NADPs. Ms. �Iughes then displayed the population data for each flight track's 80 SEL contour for both the DC9 and the A320. She noted a;ain the difference in popularion affected by the 250° track versus the "river track." John Nelson, Bloomington, asked if the population counts could be provided to the members. Ms. Hughes said the information could be provided. Nighttime Options Ms. Hughes outlined some of the possible options for nighttime operations off runway 17, including: � Consider a preferred nighttime departure track including a possible river track. • Consider limitations on the use of hushkitted aircraft with either the implementation of a preferred runway or a curfew. • Consider limited track dispersion (fewer tracks being used). � Consider a limitation on the use of thri.ist reversers for arriving aircraft. � Ms. Hughes noted that these are only possibilities and that the communities would be asked to make recommendations on what nighttime options should be included in the final document. Runway 17/35 NADP Discussion Chairman Salmen noted the following: The close-in and distant procedures were based on single event contours. The contours are based on full thrust procedures. The contours that will be produced for making a final decision on the NADP will be based on a miYture of full and reduced thrust takeoffs, which could change the shapes of the contours. Larry Lee, Bloominb on, asked why the river departure couldn't be used as one of the standard options. Ms. Hughes said the river track requires more accuracy and would be difficult to fly without GPS. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, noted that there will be some dispersion along each of the tracks and aircraft could fly very close to a river procedure. Cindy Greene, FAA, also said the ATC needs to provide pilots �vith a specific heading in order to maintain positive aircraft separation. With a navigational or cockpit procedure, such as the river departure, there is no positive ATC instruction to keep aircraft away from each other. Glenn Strand, I�Iinneapolis, noted that the difference in noise reduction between the close-in and distant procedures is very small and wondered whether the committee was spending too much time on the subject given this small difference. Cindy Greene, FAA, stated that even if it is true that the differences are relatively small, there is a difference and that the FAA still requires airports to desi�ate a departure procedure for each runway. She said the airport and the communities cannot simply i�ore making a decision because the differences seem sznall: Chairman Salmen said that over the past several years MASAC has had to work with small, incremental improvements in the noise environrnent because the more significant improvements had already been accomplished in the early years. He said this is one of those incremental irnprovements that can be 5 made. John Nelson, Bloominb on, asked staff what type of decision was needed from the committee at this meeting. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said staff needed to lrnow which departure procedure should be used for the generation of the 2005 unmitigated contour, which would be presented at the ne:ct meeting. He said since runway 17/35 was not operational at this point, an assurnption needs to be made regarding the specific departure procedure for inclusion in the contour model. �Ie said the final recommendation may be different than the procedure decided upon for the unmitigated contour. As a point of clarification, Kim Hughes, HNTB, noted that the unmitigated contour is the starting point at which the corrunittee can begin to make recommendations for the Part 150 update to improve the environment. The 2005 mitigated contour will be the contour that is presented to the public prior to submission to the FAA and will be based on the recommendations made by the Committee and comments from the public. Ms. Hughes also pointed out that regardless of the procedure used for the unmitigated contour, a comparison will need to be made between the two procedures using a DIVL contour analysis. A discussion then ensued regarding the benefits and differences between each NADP. Kevin Batchelder, Mendota I�eights, encouraged the committee to consider treating those with the worst noise impacts first. JOHN NELSON, BLOOI�IINGTON, MOVED AND DICK KEIl�tZ, MAC, SECONDED TO DII2ECT STAFF A��tD CONSULTANTS TO USE THE DISTANT NOISE ABATEMENT DEPAR.TURE PROCEDURE (NADP) AS THE DEFAULT PROCEDURE FOR DEPARTLTRES OFF RUNWAY 17 WHEN GENERATTi�TG THE 2005 UYlV1ITIGATED CONTOUR, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE MOTION DOES NOT RESPRESENT A�.�T ENDORSEII�IENT OF THAT PROCEDURE AS A FINAL DECISION. THE VOTE WAS ITNAIVI�i IOUS. 1VIOTTON CA,I2RZEA John Nelson, Bloomin�on, referring to the 290° track, said he supported the elimination of that track if feasible. Kim Hughes, I3N'TB, asked if he would consider a reduction in the percentage of use for that track rather than a complete elimination. Mr. Nelson then asked Cindy Greene, FA.A, whether or not the capacity of the runway could be maintained if the 290° track was eliminated. Ms. Greene said two issues were involved in changing the use of that track. One is the runway's capacity and the other is the fact that the track is included as part of the Dual Track EIS. She said if the track was eliminated or the percentage use were changed, regardless of whether or not it affected runway capacity, an environmental assessment or study may have to be completed. She said operationally, ATC does not need the full 190° of divergence off the runway, but that since the tracks were included in the Dual Track EIS, an environmental study may be necessary. She said operationally, ATC needs only 60° off the end of a runway to place four tracks 15° apart and eventually, with advanced navigational capabilities, a 10° divergence may even be considered. •:1 • : •• i • • 1 • 1 :i: ••1 • C •�1- 1 C �� THAT EACH OF THE NIITIGATION ELElVIENTS PROPOSED Pi t THE PRESENTATION BE INCLUDED FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION AI�TD THAT NONE �VII,L BE ELII�i ITvi ATED. AND THAT THIS 1VIOTION DOES NOT REPRESENT A.iV E'VDORSEMENT OF ANI' OR ALL OF THE PROPOSED ELEMENTS. THE VOTE WAS U�tA.NIVIOUS. I�IOTION CA,RI2.IED. Kim Hughes, HN'I'I3, said the ne:ct MASAC Operations meeting would entail taldng a closer look at all of the operational and land use mitigation options, including those presented at this meeting. The decisions made at this next meeting will be presented to the public at the November/December workshops. She encouraged members to come to the zneeting prepared to discuss various options for mitigation based on input from their constituents. Cindy Greene, FA.A, asked Ms. Hughes how possible environmental studies might effect the timing of the Part 150 Study Update submittal. Ms. Hughes said she felt that if environmental work were necessary it wouldn't significantly change the contour and that the core portion of the contour could continue being mitigated while the environmental work is being accomplished. She said it will need to be made clear to the public in February which mitigation measures being submitted require environmental assessments before they can be implemented. There was a discussion regarding the length and breadth of the next Operations Committee meeting and it was decided that the meeting should begin at 9:00 a.m., that lunch would be provided and that the comrnittee members would detezmine the length of the meeting. - Fzcture Teclz�tolo� � ( ) Ms. Hughes noted some possible recommendations that could be considered in the use of future technology, for instance: Developing a GPS augmented depariure procedure. Developing a GPS augmented amval procedure. Stage 4 noise specifications. E�cvironmental Corzsiderations FAA Order 1050.1D states that: Netiv or revised ATC procedures which rozctinely roa�te air tr-affic over noise sensitive areas at less tha�z 3, 000 feet AGL are sacbject to EA or EIS docatrnentatzon. Controversy over a proposed action may reqacire developrnent of czrz environmental docz�merzt. Also, the Record of Decision for the Dual Track EIS requires that a departure procedure for runway 17 be considered to avoid residential areas in Bloomington. Furthermore, moving the modeled tracks or revising track use will likely require environmental documentation and Part 150 recommendations could include completion of environmental documentation to revise the track use or tracic location for the current 290°s heading from runway 17/35. 7 Communications and Technical Advisor's Report Revisions Since the majority of the communications received were in regards to the Technical Advisor's Report revisions, they were discussed in tandem. Neil Clark, l�Iinneapolis, was asked to explain his Relative Residential Noise (I2RN) and the Daily Ldn metric. Mr. Clark noted that MASAC takes thousands of ineasurements every year and said he questioned whether or not these measurements were useful. He said it was important to him that MASAC lrnow whether or not the noise environment around the airport has improved over time. He said he was also concerned about fairness within the communities and that the RRN would illustrate which communities were bearing the brunt of the noise. Mr. Clark said his RRN metric would help MASAC learn more about whom is being impacted most by aircraft noise levels at the airport through counting residences. �Ie recommended that the RRN metric be added to the monthly reports. A discussion of Mr. Clark's RRN and Daily Ldn metrics followed. Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, said he rejected the RItN metric as valid partly because he feels the use of the runways is a political decision and because it doesn't help change the noise environment. Dick Saunders, IVlinneapolis, said if the RRN metric were to be adopted it should include the city of St. � Paul and any other cities that may be brought into the noise contours in the future. �Ie also asked how often the information would be published since he felt the results wouldn't change considerably from one month to the ne:ct. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said since the RRN metric is highly dependent on population counts and that populafiion counts do not change significantly over time, there wouldn't be much change in the results. Bob Johnson, MBAA, said he was concerned with the proliferation of information already being provided and on that basis could not support having RRN added to the monthly reports. John Nelson, Bloominb on, asked l�Ir. Clark to give a more in depth explanation of ho�v his Daily Ldn is calculated. He said in order for the staff to reproduce the metric and its results, they would need to know the methodolo�y that was used, including whether or not it waS a linear or logarithmic metric. He also noted that the Daily Ldn metric is dependent on the length of time that is being analyzed. iVlr. Clark said his metric is linear and not logarithmic. IVIr. Nelson also noted that the RRN metric illustrates what is already lrnown (i.e. that l�Iinneapolis' population is the most dense and Mendota Heights' population is least dense). Wil1 Eginton; Inver Grove Heights, reiterated his opposition to having the RRN published. saying he had concerns about the term "relative" since annoyance is not relative on an individual basis. He said the (. t 0 term "cumulative residential noise" would be more accurate. He said he is concerned about the metric being used as a political tool to decide where aircraft noise should be distributed. Glenn Strand, Minneapolis, reiterated his concem over becoming too concerned with details and missing the larger picture. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, presented staffs recommendations for continuing on with the revisions to the Technical Advisor's Reports (TAR.). (See attachment) Mr. Fuhrmann noted the following regarding the purpose and back�ound of the TAR revisions: d� There was a request from MASAC to reduce the amount of unnecessary information provided in the reports. � Review of the TAR was added to MA.SAC's 1999 work schedule. � The MASAC Operations Comrnittee reviewed the TAR during its May, July and August 1999 meetings. � � di° The MASAC Opezations Committee approved the changes and sent it to the full MASAC body for comment. � The full MA.SAC body sent the TAR. back to the Operations Committee for further review. Mr. Fuhrmann said as MASAC's technical advisor he has a responsibility and a desire to provide MASAC members with the information they find most useful, whether it is in the form of a monthly report, an annual summary or an individual request. � I3e also noted that the MAC publishes information that may be useful to MASAC members including a yearly operations report. Mr. Fuhrmann then noted and recommended the following: �° The TAR is a result of eight years of community informational requests. � Many communities depend on the historical tracldng of data for local reports and trends. d� No historically significant data should be removed from the report without the approval of the MASAC Operations Committee. �' New requests �or data must be approved by the Operations Comrriittee. � The MASAC Operations Committee and the full body of MASAC should limit their discussion to only the value of the data and not the display or presentation format. � Display and presentation format will be coordinated with NIAC staff and graphic display experts. ,� The next eight months are critical for the Part 150 Study Update process and MA.SAC's efforts should focus on these pressing issues. ,� The reporting format for the TAR can continue with all old TAR data and the newly included information until a time at �vhich the Operations Committee is able to take it up once again. BOB JOH'�i TSON, I�IBAA., NIOVED TO ADOPT, IN WHOLE, TI3E TECH�.'�1ICAL �DVISOR'S PRESENTATION AND RECONIYIENDATIONS A�.'VD THr�T NO 1�IORE CHA.i�TGES SHOULD BE NIADE TO THE TECHTtICAL ADVISOR'S REPORT i7N'TIL THE PART 150 PROCESS IS COV�LETED. THERE WAS NO SECOND. THE 1VIOTION DIED FOR L�CK OF A SECOND. �7 Glenn Strand, Minneapolis, confirmed with Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, that technical questions � could still be asked of staff on an individual basis through the Monitoring and Information Request Form. John Nelson, Bloominb on, said he would like to discuss a work plan for 2000 before a�eeing to take the matter up once the Part 150 process is complete. He said that although the Part 150 process is important, he feels the Operations Committee needs to establish a work plan for 2000 soon. He suggested that two issues be included in the work plan, including how to improve or modify the Technical Advisor's Report and how to augment the information with summary trend reports. He also reiterated his feelings about keeping the Technical Advisor's Report at the same technical level or higher rather than for general public consumption. JOHN NELSON, BLOOiVIIl�tGTON, MOVED AIVD DICK SAUNDERS, NIQVNEAPOLIS, SECONDED TO ACCEPT THE TECHNICAL ADVISOR'S REPORT AS IT IS, THAT A REV�W OF T'HE TECHNICAL ADVISOR'S REPORT BE TiYCLUDED AS PART � OF MASAC'S WORK PLAN FOR 2000 ONCE THE PART 150 PROCESS IS COMPLETED A.ND THAT MASAC COi�TiVIIT ITSELF TO ADDRESS A PROCESS FOR PUBLISHIYi G TREND ANALYSES ON A QUARTERLY OR AlvNiJAL BASIS. THE VOTE WAS TTiVANTiV10US. 1Y10TION CA�RRIED. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked about the timeframe for deciding upon a work plan for 2000. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, noted that the Operations Committee was originally set to work on the work plan at the November 1999 meeting. �, Chairman Salmen asked the members of the committee to come to the November 1999 Operations meeting with a written list of recommendations for possible inclusion into the 2000 work pIan and indicated that those recommendations would be taken up at the December meeting. He said he would like to have at least the first quarter of 2000 accounted for by then and thought at least the first half of the year would be taken up with the Part 150 process. John Nelson, Bloomin�on, said he would like to have the work plan in place by the January 2000 MASAC meeting. As part of the Part 150 process, an additional meetin; was set for January 21, 2000 along with the November 12, December 10 and January 7 meetings. The meeting �vas adjourned at 1:00 p.m. The next MASA.0 Operations Comiriittee meeting will be held on November 12, 1999 at 9:00 a.m. From 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. there will be a presentation. Lunch will be served at 12:00. The meeting will adjourn at the members'discretion. Respectfully Submitted, Melissa Scovronski, Committee Secretary m � � .f.�� ;/ '� .. � � t : � � •�. �� S �. �t � • • November 12, 1999 ■ Updated Fleet Mix for 2005 ■ Comparison of 2005 Updated Fleet Mix to FE1S High Scenario ■ History of the FAR Part 150 Program at MSP (1987 and 1991) e Measures Recommended for Analysis in this Part 150 Update `��t''. � �`�aE�,pOtlt �h i � � r' M � °'�' 11 � � � 7 • • � " `. 1 s � � . �' ` .- . FAR Part '150 Noise Compatibility Program Submittal, 9987 Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) consisted of fourteen {14) Noise Abatement measures and eight (8) Land Use measures. Twelve measures were approved, h were disapproved entirely; 3 were partially approved/ disapproved and 4 were disapproved pending submission of additional information. � NA-1 Adopt a Phased-in Noise Budget Ordinance for MSP Approved as a volunteer measure onJy; ordinance disapproved. A NA-2 Exempt the Quietest Stage 3 Aircraft from Noise Abatement Flight Tracks Disapproved. ■ NA-3 Negotiate with the Airlines a User Fee to be Levied or��E��°�'t f,, Landings by Stage 1 and Stage 2 Aircraft, with Revenues� � �"j to be Used for Noise Compatibility. o�� d �Dis pproved. � �-�.�,3 � � 1 M �'i' "1' �_J� I . �:. .. . ` ..� � s : .' ��r .. ... ,t , r _ � . � � • • e NA-4 Relocate Runway 4-22 to the South of Runway 11L-29R Approved in concept. ■ NA-5 Reduce General Aviation Activities by Providing incentives to Relocate at Other Airports Disapproved. ■ NA-6 Assign Propeller Aircraft to Runways 11 �-29R and 11 R- 29L when the PRS is in Use Disapproved. ■ NA-7 Negotiate New and Binding Agreements with the Operators for Nighttime Use; if this cannot be Achieved in 6 ' months, Regulate the Number of Nighttime Operations (11:00 ' PM to 6:00 AM) to Current Levels. ��Po�,: t Approved as a voluntary measure only; ordinance �,>�� .�'y,. disapproved. lmplemented voluntary nighttime � ' agreement. �-� � k a C ' _ � y. `>.� -� � � �' C C � t • � � �` . � � • t � « s a � ■ NA-8 Extend the Nighttime Restricted Hours to 11:00 PM to 8:00 AM on Saturday and Sunday Mornings. Approved as a volunfary measure only; ordinance disapproved pending the submission of additional information. ■ NA-9 Obtain FAA Agreement to Implement the Cedar Avenue Procedure for Aircraft Departing Runway 22. Disapproved. ■ NA-10 Tighten-up Procedures for Keeping Aircraft Departing Runways 11 L and 11 R to the "Eagan Corridor." Disapproved. ■ NA-11 Test the Use of i-494 Corridor for Aircraft Departing Runway 22. ' Disapproved. j`r,E�Po�� ' HN,'�� •' �'' '. 1 � �� • • � •• . ■ NA-12 Enforce and Optimize MAC Nighttime Run-Up Policy. Approved. ■ NA-13 Improve the Monitoring and Enforcement of All Noise Abatement Measures. Approved. � NA-14 install a Microwave Landing System at MSP. Disapproved. 1:�� T 5 History of FA� Pa�t 'i 50 F'rogram at 1111�P '1987 �. � .� , � �,.� .��.� � , ,�;;� �. .; .: ..�_�, , , . :_,. � .�; , s LU-1 Amend Land Use Plans to Bring Them into Conformance with Metropolitan Council's Noise Compatibility ' Guidelines. Approved. ■ LU-2 Zone for Compatible Development. Approved. ' e �U-3 Apply Zoning PerFormance Standards. Approved. ■ LU-4 Establish a Pubiic Information Program. Approved. �`��E�To��S k�� e LU-5 Revise Building Codes. �-� > Approved. s-� � '� o �oa�i ,y''� ^ ' ` . • • �' `. i ' r• . . . ■ LU-6 Acquire Developed Property in Non-compatible Use. Approved. ■ LU-7 Provide Purchase Guarantee/Soundproofing of Nomes. Approved. ■ LU-8 Soundproof Schoois. Approved. ■ LU-9 Soundproof other Public Buildings. Approved. '�� aE�..,.., I�' w �� yrj +'r. > �� l T 0 r� C_ m � f ` .� � . ' �, • i R • � FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program Submiftal, 999� ■ Noise Compatibility Program {NCP) consisted of fourteen (14) Noise Abatement measures and eight (8) Land Use measures. a Eleven (11) existing (NA-1 through NA-11) and three (3) new Noise Abatement measures (NA-12-NA-14). ■ Five (5) existing (LU-1 through LU-5) and three (3) previousiy approved, reorganized measures (�U-6 through LU-8). ■ Outright approval was granted for 13 of the specific program��E"`""' �,tij elements, approval on a voluntary basis oniy was granted for 6��. � elements and 3 where disapproved. s� � �' ° ,,» _ . �y � �'-_.�r`i .. � ; . . . ` -,� .�� ' . :- , I�- ' • .:S .,. . ...� ,. - ' �S. E: �; ; Noise Abatement Measures n NA-1 Continue the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Councii (MASAC). Approved. ■ NA-2 Voluntary Noise Budget Program. Approved as a voluntary measure. ■ NA-3 Voluntary Nighttime �imits on Flights. Approved as a voluntary measure. e NA-4 Nighttime Powerbacks. Approved as a voluntary measure. ■ NA-5 Engine Run-up Field Rule. �� Approved. ��' 0 � - r :� ry .�. 0 7 `� a; , " .. i ' . � . . ' .. Noise Abatemenf Measures ■ NA-6 Training Restriction. App�oved as a Voluntary Measure. ■ NA-7 Operating Procedures. Approved as a Voluntary Measure ■ NA-8 Noise Surcharge DifFerential and Stage 3 Credit. Approved as a Voluntary Measure. a NA-9 Runway Use System (RUS). Approved. a NA-10 Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System ��E"' (ANOMS). ^ �� Approved. ,,� 0 � _ �H '� �q. j J I , �'�� ! • . � ' ' . 1 " t i . . ' • • Noise Abatement Measures a NA-11 Noise Abatement Sensitivity Training. , Approved. ' ■ NA-12 Extend Runway 4-22 to Increase Use of RUS. ' Disapproved. ' ■ NA-13 Issue a Standard Instrument Departure (SID) Procedure ' for Runway 22 ' Disapproved. ' ■ NA-14 Freeze All Stage 3 Operations Between 11:00 PM and 6:00 AM, Then Ban Ail Stage 2 Aircraft Operations Between�aai��o�,f �hr ' 11:00 PM and 6:00 AM After June 1, 1992. Disapproved � -� :� ��e : C C �" • e ` � � ' � ! ' , t s � i Land Use Measu�es ■ LU-1 Amend Locai Land Use Plans to Bring Them into Conformance with the Metropolitan Council's Noise Compatibility Guidelines. Approved. ■ LU-2 Zone for Compatibie Development. Approved. . ■ LU-3 Appiy for Zoning Performance Standards. Approved. ■ LU-4 Establish a Public Information Program. ��,��e��s ��M, Approved. ^ � s-� � � ° �� _ >,y'��. �o.,� : ,t "� History of FAR Part 150 Program at MSP � � aa� Land Use Measures em LU-5 Revise Building Codes. Approved. � LU-6 Land Acquisition Program. Approvecl. ■ LU-7 Purchase Guarantee Program. Approved. � LU-8 Part 150 Sound Insulation Program (Residential, School and Other Pubiic Buildings). �,E*P°"'t,, �� h App�oved. M ,� k '; �� i � � �� I • • i ' ` . : 1" ', s s s . , � E : � ' ,` a t Summary Comprehensiveness has a trade-off: A large number of ineasures have been proposed and included in previous Part 150's, piacing a significant delay in obtaining approval. Measures which require restriction of operations have only been approved on a voluntary basis. Multiple alternatives will require time to study: GIS will ailow analysis of potential measures in a more efficient manner. �l�5 i::��. � � � � : � ' � • ' � s ■ Amend Local Land Use Plans to Bring Them into Conformance with Metropolitan Council's Noise Compatibility Guidelines m Zone for Compatible Development � Apply Zoning Performance Standards m Establish a Public Information Program/System ■ Revise Building Codes for New Development � Acquire Developed Property in Non-compatibie Use Areas m Property Purchase Guarantee/ Buyer's Assurance Program J' I}�'�r � �fo �aE�,�OLiS J�' a�� hJ +'T. ' °� � � � k �� a C �o s '• _ t,_ , s,_a �, , � ■ Part 150 Sound Insulation Program � Avigation Easement Acquisition ■ Far Property Disclosure Policy � Transfer of Development Rights/ Land Banking ■ Creation of Sound Buffers/Barriers Noise Abate�nent �►Iternative� Recor�mer�ded �or Analysis .m�.�,v4.1. . .:'l:^.^..¢'i: . L^C':^.! ..�^n`+'��i,!pr..,.,"?'^'f?' . T,.T.':^^Y'�3 A.!e^;.^"R'!'rC.•"�==Y:1 Departure Procedures ■ Close versus Distant NADP by Runway End ■ Eliminate reduced thrust takeoffs ■ Eliminate reduced thrust takeoffs at night � � � Noise Abat�ment Alternai�ves Recommended for Analysis �.^:�xke:'!.`^;?:�^,-"6+.ti eg'.^-,.T1s"f.n'ti.^'AF .^-.�'!b'x'�:">.�Fi�-�:?'�:.'rHr'itrs":12:}*[:r„x�,.7 Hushkits! Fleet Mix ■ Restrict hushkit aircraft ■ Restrict hushkit aircraft at night e Restrict hushkit aircraft to Mendota Heights/ Eagan Corridor ■ Restrict hushkit aircraft to Mendota Heights/ Eagan Corridor at night ■ Restrict hushkit aircraft to Runway 17-35 at night. `��E�,POLIS 1,��ti ' �� n � H�E'r� Noi�e /�baiemenfi Alternatives i�e�ommendled for Ana�ysis ."r^1!7c'"?;}-':7'�:9y_'^"`x'T � ;.*:"* .3""°'..'_`3"..'_,., t T �.:r,i_ a"t^�'i:.: n:u".., "'.'�:.=s-":d Runway Use � m Modify RUS to favor parallels and Runway 17 a Modify existing RUS to equally distribute noise (capacity sensitive) ■ Modify existing RUS to equally distribute noise at night (capacity sensitive) � Preferred night departure route from Runway 17 (river route) n Curved visual approach for Runway 35 (future) ■ Curved instrument approach for Runway 35 (GPS) E�,POLIf J ■ Reduce available departure routes from Runway 17 ��a k�"� (restrict divergence) = � �; �-� , a l M � 1 '+ � yY �` +i..---� c°�f'4 C �2 � Cornments anci Suggestior�s Pubiic tVle�tings November 30, December '� and 2, 1999 to present the 2005 Unmitigaied DNL Contour FIL'V'CBi �`�E�,�..� ��. : �� , o�. , -� o y ��Y �` T .d*G '� �3 C MSP Par� 150 2005 Annualized Runway Use Qay Operations 4 22 12L 12R 30L 30R 17 35 io�a� Arrival 0.01% 0.4�% 21.82% 14.75% 20.98% 24.�2°'0 0.01% 17.44°0' �CG°o Deoarture 0.20°/a 0.0�% 8.08% 16.02% 1524°/a 23.13% 37.27°% 0.02°'0� �00% Night Operations 4 22 12� 12P. 30L 30R 1� 35 Tota� Arrivsl 0.08% 0.47% 16.26% 13.69% 32.09% 24.27% 0.01°'0 13.13%; 100°0 De�arture 0.19% 0.0�% 9. % 3% 29.02% 13.82% 19.43% 27.7�% 0.01 %: 100% OverallOperations 4 22 12L 12R 30L 30R 17 35 Tota� Arrival 0.05% 0.05% 21.30% 15.10°/a 21.%0% 25.00% 0.05% 16.90%: 100% Deoatture 1.00% 0.05% 7.40% 16.30% 15.40% 23.30% 36.00% 0.05%: 100% Tabfe A.3-7 - Runway Use for MSP Aiternative - Average Annuat Use Runway Percentage of Departures Percentage of Arrivals 4 12L 12R 17 22 30L 30R 35 To`�1 1.0 percent 7.4 p�rcent 10.3 percent 36.o p�rc�nt i�ss than 0.05 percent 15.4 percant 23.3 percent less than 0.05 percent 100.00 percent Source: HNTB Analysis �: less than 0.0� perc4nt 21.3 percent 15.1 percent i�ss `�han 0.05 p�rcent less than 0.05 perc�nt 21.7 percent 2�.0 perc�nt 16.9 percent 100.0 percent 11/11/99 4:54 PM � C. . NIINNEAPOLIS - ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIR1'ORT 2 FJEDER.AL AVIATION REGULATIONS (FAR) PART 150 UPDATE • Part 1 SO Soacnd Insaclation Program �EYTStIIt� NC�' l�ieaszcre). This measure proposes to alleviate the impact of aircraft noise by providing indoor environments where normal activities can be enjoyed without interruption. The progrann funds the soundproofing of existing private homes andlor public use facilities to achieve an interior noise level reduction. • Dedication of Avigation Easements (Proposed l►�teastcre). This measure would require the dedication of avigation easements perrnitting aircraft overflights to the MAC as a condition of buildin� permits for specified noise-sensitive land uses in noise impacted areas. • Fair Property Dzsclosure Policy (Proposed Measure). This measure incorporates of aircraft noise information in sales documents for existing and new residential development. This technique would require the disclosure of aircrafi noise levels by property owners and their agents. • Transfer Of Development Rights (Proposed Il�Ieasure). This measure involves the purchase of an interest in privately-owned land wh.ich permits the MA.0 to prohibit — any and all uses of the land which could be adversely impacted by aircraft noise. Development potential would be transferred from properties within aircraft noise zones to designated receiving areas outside of the noise zones. o Creation Of Sozcnd Bi�ers/Bczrrzers (Proposed �Yleasure). This measure consists of the combined use of sound barrier walls and/or berms and natural landscaping to reduce noise from aircraft-related noise for the communities surrounding NISP. • Land Banking (Proposed Mettsacre). This measure involves the fee-simple purchase of privately-owned, vacant land by a local public agency to prevent non-compatible land use development and to hold such property for later public use not necessarily related to aviation. NIINNEAPOLIS - ST. PAU� INTERI"�tAT�ONAL AIRPORT 1 FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIOiV S(FAR) PART 150 UPDATE � The items below represent the proposed land use measures recommended for consideration in the Part 1�0 Update. • Amend Local Land Use Plans To Bring Them Into Conformartce With NletropolitarY Coaincil's Noise Compatibility Guidelines (Existing Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) 1bleasure). This measure involves the coordination of the NLqC, the Metropolitan Council (MC), and the local communities to revise land use plans and policies to be consistent with the noise compatibility guidelines set forth in the Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide. s Zotae For Cornpatible Development (Existing NCP .1t�Ieasrcre). This measure involves the coordination of MAC, MC, and the local communities to review the eYisting zoning policies in the Airport Noise Zones and to rezone, if necessary, to ensure consistency with the Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide. • Apply Zoning Performance Stanc�ards (Existin� NCP 1�Ieasicre). This measure involves.requests by the MAC and the MC for affected local jurisdictions to adopt ordinances based on the Model Ordinance for Aircraft Noise Attenuation. — s Establish A Public Information Prob am/System (Existin� NCP Measure). This � measure proposes to develop and distribute information conceming aircraft noise and Noise Compatibility Program elements in a variety of digital and non-digital formats. • Revise Bacilding Code (Existzrag NCP 1t�Ieasacre). This measure supports the effort to modify the state and local Building Codes to require specified interior noise level reduction for construction in the aircraft noise zones at MSP. • Acqziire Developed Property In Noncompatible Use (Existittg NCP 11�Ieaszcre). This measure proposes that at the initiative of the jurisdiction in which the noncompatible land uses lie, the MAC �vould acquire property developed in noncompatible use, then clear and either keep the land vacant as a buffer, sell it for redevelopment in a specified compatible use, or use it for airport purposes. • Property Pairchase Guc�rantee (Exzstirzg NCP 1tileasure). This measure is implemented after the property o�vner has made a bona fide effort to sell the property at fair market value: The acquired property would converted to compatible use or insulated and returned to use to residential use with appropriate easements. C � ; _ � • ' • , -' . � I • .. M1 . I I � 1 1 . � � ♦ :�_ '� = � ,� ,� ��.� r` _ � , i �H ��i1TB� �� Pp 0 l 1 S S9i �` � -� �� A �� 9 -y G a lr �� , z 0 0 ! �� 9ti � �. 9�RPORTS G o� C � � MSP Part 150 2005 Unmitigated Contour INM Methodology The methodology used to develop the 2005 unmitigated contour is similar to the methodology used to develop the 1999 validation contour. The two primary changes are to fleet mix and runway use. Fleet Mix The annual operations are projected to increase from 1395 daily operations in 1999 to 1575 daily operations in 2005. The new 2005 fleet mix is significantly different from the fleet mix used in the development of the 2005 FEIS contour. Although the new fleet mix contains the same number of operations, it also contains more DC-9 hushkit operations, more 737-200 hushkit operations, and substantially increased regional jet operations. There are a total of 316 additional jet operations in the new fleet mix, including an additional 14.7 jet night operations. Considering the night penalty, this yields an additional 448 jet operations. Runway Use Projected runway use for the MSP with the addition of Runway 17-35 was developed in the FEIS through coordination with the FAA and ATC. The annual runway use incorporates the different flows and procedures projected to be in use at the Airport with _ the addition of the new runway in 2005. ;' � The FEIS runway use was divided proportionally among the operational categories used in the 1999 validation contour, and the proportion of aircraft in each operational category in the new 2005 fleet mix. This ensures that INM incorporates the runway and track use trends in use by cargo, passenger, and general aviation aircraft at day and night. It also ensures that the overall runway use in the model matches that developed in the FEIS. Net Changes in Contour The 2005 unmitigated contour is larger than the 2005 FEIS contour. This is for several reasons, including: o The new fleet mix is "noisier" than the FEIS fleet mix. It contains more hushkit aircraft. It also contains substantially more regional jet operations, which are generally noisier than then turboprop aircraft they replaced. • The latest versions of INM allow for more accurate modeling of takeoff profiles. This includes close and distant noise abatement departure procedures, as well as reduced thrust takeoffs. o The data gathered by ANO�1S greatly improves the accuracy of the takeoff profiles, fleet mix, and runway and track use trends modeled in INM. This data is used extensively in the Part 150 Update, but was not available for the FEIS. Future Actions The runway and track use data used in the 2005 unmitigated contour was developed using 1999 ANOMS data. At the end of this year, when operational data for the entire year is available, the 2000 baseline contour will be developed. Data from the summer 1997 months will also be used to supplement the non-construction runway and track use data. The 2005 unmitigated contour will also be updated to incorporate this new data. N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \° \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C OMOth�- V'Mrh.(�i-NO(OC:�OOOOOI�COI�M(�.00O��N�OOrO V'�-t�;th� y;�00NCVN�-s=�-OOf�O�'rOONCOOGOt�-CV <-COOOOC-OOi-OOOOrOs-N(O L L r Qi ai a O Ci'O�M(OOOOO�OC700NCONNOr�-Optt�Lf�N(�.Ot-OCOci'NOOLnCO V;'�Y��O)'�� it� O tp CV CO O CO f� O CV M O M CV f� O CV O O O C7 r(p (p O O O d' C7 CV O O O � C7 r � CO lf') CV �'�. t6 V' C'7 C� N � N � s- I� N M N V' N t!� r' � N r C7 N N C7 O'��. O� `� � N �' H N i C � I�OOOtf) V'r-NONOO�r-NO(flO00t�r-M�NO(Oc0 V'COO�OON�-rtN�-o').-I'i �� cV O� f�- V' CV CV M�- CO �- O CO Ch O(O a0 O O O o0 ci� 'V' tt') tf> O CO CV t� O.- O O O O ��- C7 cV (D I r- �- N O � � p C�00)C*)OM�CO�-�P�Or�pNtt�O�-s-r'chN�lC)Or7'NNCOC700 V��r-�-�l'NCO F- CVOtV t!')�f'dOtf�M��-CV OCD W 1�-Of`7000NC7fV Otf)O��-(O•-oDOO�000c'7Mf0 O N M r �- N O CD �' N � C7 � M N N N N M O� � � r � N � I�OONM�Y'OLn�-OCOOtni-O)rs- Or�}'(�.Mci'r}' OOOON<-' �Of`71�t�Nh-I.C) CVOchfD�00ic7tc'i�-COCOGO�-c'70CD Ci000c+'ia�� tc�CV(O~-tei OOOOc+")r-� (6 N i- �- �- s- tn Ch r c- fD N c- N �- r- �- <- �- tf') O T � N tt�00�-d'Mrl��t�-f�OCOch'V'00 OOtt�tho00�ch C��CO�i'O �-001�(O�-�t �=00cii�1'CV �-��-OOr7'OCV 000�- OOtV o7C�OCV O�-ch00 0000�0� } � L Z Q NOO�-�r-O>00(O��OI�O�tt��-� O�-O)d;�tC)r rl'�NODc- I�-NI�OCOI��- CVOtt�CVCfl�i`-�- V'Or-OMOC+�OU) OOf�I�tOt�c7 V'OC'rJOt.C> OOOOr-h-0 p c- �- r- tn Crl �- �- lt� i- � c- �- �- r- r l.C) N N � � h.00Nc�r1'O��-OCOO�•-(A��- O�-r7'i�-M V'd' OOcON�- cOc�I�-I�Nt�u� CVOc+1CO�O�c�t1)�-C�O(O�-MOCD OOOOM�tY) tf)CV (D�-� OOOOMt��- RS N �- �<- r Ln C� �r �- CD N � N <- t- r� c� �- I.f) O `- F— � c000rn.-.-o�nco.-coo.-oo�roco aoc�co�norn oc�->oocvrn .-�c��n�.ncvr� �LNONCV CV�-�"r-00(00 V'NOOI� OCOtOc!'1�-�N Ot=MO�- OOrO�CV�7' p, Z d � d'OON�NOOt1)�'V'O V'c7tl)�tp OON�I� d"�i' Oh-OON (�N�Y�-N�f� OCOoOMt�-O)cOCV d'OOCOfVtOc'�(Oc0 COCO�hU��c'�CV tnOM.-M OG�COr�(O ro � r- �- a- tC) Cr1 tL� �- T �- �- �- �- V' � K � N N N L f> � � V ro �COOO�C`')rCUJC'INrt'NM��OQr'O ��«�O W W �- .-cp(,�� n �o.-NNc7Mnc�7rY V'u�t0 V'Uc71� V'O<CQ��UC�rl.OfnCnC��pQQ��=M a.�(7MMi�t�l�l�t�1`t�f�l�<CW.-�v��n�rnQc�c)U==.-.-QQ=-cn�-w W �- �QQdQmmmmmmmmmmmUUC�C�UUC)�o�� W u.C�C�C7C�=��-i�� rn� rn� �� o � • � � \ O O O r C7 lf) ti t! ) � � � � T � � � M r N � ti � h�- m N � Z cM = ti ti ti � I`- rn � � � N � m 0 H i C N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \° \ \ \' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \° \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C ON^'r'rr.�--�'(�.NtC)f�-f�(Or'00041`OO�Oth(Or0(�r- V'N��I�OOf�-tn�(h0 y;F,,000�OGi00�—OOtf�O V'OOOOOOOtn.—�—OCOCDOCO00�—Oc�GOOr-O�hNI� V �� i � i i i� i i i i � � i i L V d d a 0 ONt[')tf)00000(�CO�00� V'NNOOr�-CO�-O)<U�N<-00� V'NO)d'f�C0�=D0l�ln(`�7 �chs-d'�-t-OCpf�CV OOtOrM�-OOCV i-OON ��ch0�--'vCV Ov0000fOvV'��- �- � v.�... N �� r' v .r.. ��.. f3� r�- �� c7 v N CO M�- y � N � C O � t�. Mc7tf)d'tnrl'OUNtt)tf)Or=��=�'OCOCO001`ChCOO�OtOIf)OOtO�N V�'I�rOr1'd�C'70 QL.-.-r!'OOOOC`')00 V'v(DOOONvOO�fi�1'Oc�,'V'000 V'0�-0NOOv�COCVCO O. `� N`� � `- � � �. � �Z � 0 ~ CDt!)O�COChN00Nt=tf)�rth�Nl�-Nr-r�COC7COI�N�1'tnCD06t*)f`�Or-tC)Otp00Nth � r- O Ci v O O tCi ch ch a�O CD Oi CO � 0 0 0i O CO Ci tO C7 0i CV O d' Oi 0 0�- aD � CU 0 0 � v f� c"i u� p y N v N v �p � v o� .- .- c0 a�0 � N rt N, v M rn t f) O� Ch I� t1) 'V' O tY) �i' ch M«� t(� t�- N r- � 6� O•- ch � O N I� �= O�� N�- O N c'� M O(n �Y h ��- tn i� O v O ch CrJ �- d' tf',1 v CO O O O CO v O O CO f� O'ci' I� i� t!') O N�- tt'> �� O O c*1 v CV I`- O... � � V Cr� ``i r!' � '�i' 'V' r" .... .N... .�.. .�.i � H N(DChrl'.-r!'tAh V'NOti)cD�chOc71�OONtnO(OCO.=(� V'tt�cf'0.=1� V'Of�-r.=�- =00�OOOOrtpOvOCV v00�1'OOOG�tf�N000000CV OOOCOOC)NO�O Z h.c'70i=COOt(�N1��=c'70f�rJ'��-cONOr-tt�00 V �=0 V'�- V'��-�tl��NMaOMi� �-tc�cU� VOCV ��- V,',cOvC�70tOOv�00t(')CDt()I��--V'O�Ot.C)OCV OOGvO)i� � "-� C'� �"' �-- �, C� V' .�.. .�I'.. � �N... .�.. .N.r � � � tf')O)Ml�tf�r1'OU� V.Mt+�tntpl�N�-r'�O�--ML!)ONt��=Ot.f)�N�-�NChCr1�=tT'V't`- ��- �ri r: o�o ri �.- v;vv� o 0 o co vo ci � r� ci �t vvui o v.= � o vo o vvvT o v � � CO I�- N 00 C� O C7 Lt� i= C7 O(O �- O r- O f� � O O tA OJ CD d' N� O r t*) N C� �'= I� C� i- d' C") � N ;�•-GOtf)OOOO�OOvO V'�-00•-OOCO�'CV �OC�vOONOt-OvOOCVOvN ... � Z �=N�-OOCht�OtC)ON� V'I�Mrd0000rt'I�ChNC�NOrf'NONOOinONf`hintn OvcN,�COtnON��- V'M�f'�N�OOv�COO�rf'd't[)�M�t()Oy�TOvOfOOMv� 0 v � � U C N L yd..� �F. 0 K �� w `�° d � .l. Q � � O co 0 o d c*� v�n d cv cv c� �'n o Q� o �� o�i U U`n �� tWi) m r�. � d¢(� 0= c� o�NNthchc7c7 q'��ncDvUc*�r.�oQQ v�o > o c*�c�o��tir.r��r,�r�r-Q W �.- �n�nrnQC.)UUSZ�-�-QQ=—U1.-u.luJ u- QQQC[]C�LOCOL�mLY1mCOm�']UC�C�U(>UU��OW LLU� U� C�C.�SJ_IJ��UJ rn� rn� �� o � • � � 0 O O � N i O � N ti O N � i � O � m � � ai Z N = s- � ca 1�- rn � � � 0 F- (; r t I' MSP Part 150 2005 Annualized Runway Use Day Operations 4 22 12L 12R 30L 30R 17 35 Tota� Arrival 0.01% 0.46% 21.82% 14.75% 20.98% 24.52% 0.01% 17.44%� 100% Deoarture 0.20% 0.05% 8.08% 16.02% 15.24% 23.13% 37.27% 0.02%: 100% Night Arriva Deaar ons 4 22 12L 12R 30L 30R 17 35 Total 0.08% 0.47% 16.26% 13.69% 32.09% 24.27% 0.01 % 13.13%: 100% n'19%, (1 �5% 9_73% ?9 Cl�% 13_82% 19.43% 27.75% 0.01°/a: 100% OverailOperations 4 22 12L 12R 30L 30R 17 35 Totai A►'rival 0.05% 0.05% 21.30% 15.10% 21.70% 25.00% 0.05% 16.90%; 100% Departure 1.00% 0.05% 7.40% 16.30% 15.40% 23.30% 36.60% 0.05%: 100% Table A.3-7 - Runway Use for MSP Aiternative - Average Annual Use Runway Percentage of Departures Percentage of Arrivals ! � 4 1.0 percent less than 0.05 percent 121. 7.4 percent 21.3 percent 12R 16.3 percent 15.1 percent 17 36.6 percent less than 0.05 percent 22 less than 0.05 percent less than 0.05 percent 301. 15.4 percent 21.7 percent 30R . . 23.3 percent 25.0 percent 35 less than 0.05 percent 16.9 percent Totai 100.00 percent 100.0 percent Source: HNTB Analysis 11/11/99 HNTB 4:54 PM r�� GA/Military - Jet GA/Military - Props Northwest Passenger Regional - Jets Rcninnal _ Ti �rhnnr cargo GA/Military - Jet GA/Military - Props Northwest Passenger Regional - Jets Raninnal _ Ti irhnnr GA/Military - Jet GA/Military - Props Northwest Passenger Regional - Jets Raninnal _ Ti irhnnn GA/Military - Jet GAlMilitary - Props Northwest Passenger Regional - Jets Raninnal _ Ti �rhnnn 0.01 % 0.00°/a 0.01 % 0.01 % 0.02% 0.00% 0.01 % 0.08% 0.26% 0.10% 0.09% 0.08°/a 0.26% 0.1% 0.10% 0.02% 0.1 % 0.1% 0.1% 0_0% 0.13°/a 0.15% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% MSP Part 150 Runway Use 22 12L 12R 30L 3UI-t 0.56% 11.03% 24.26% 31.93% 13.77% 0.53% 27.27% 10.54% 15.86% 28.82% 0.40% 27.67% 9.85% 14.61 % 30.58% 0.34% 2022% 16.09% 22.67% 23.08% 0.68% 22.47% 13.95% 20.42% 25.02% 0.53% 27.27% 10.54% 15.86% 28.82% 0.40% 27.67% 9.85% 14.61 % 30.58% 0.28% 0.02% 0.08% 0.02% 0.05% 0.02% 0.08% '1 / :�� 0.01% 18.44% 0.01% 16.97% 0.01% 16.87% 0.01% 17.57% 0.01% 17.43% 0.01% 16.97% 0.01 % 16.87°/a 9.70% 13.99% 14.80% 24.01 % 37.38% 0.02% 9.85% 11.10% 5.56% 36.86% 36.27% 0.02% 8.25% 16.17% 17.38% 20.73% 37.33% 0.02% 6.74% 19.10% 17.60% 18.95% 37.46% 0.02% 9.70% 13.99% 14.80% 24.01 % 37.38% 0.02% 9.85% 11.10% 5.56% 36.86% 3627% 0.02% 0.7% 4.2% 11.4% 53.6% 16.4% 0.44% 16.42% 11.93% 22.78% 35.50% 0.19% 36.11 % 5.48% 6.66% 39.91 % 0.2% 17.2% 16.8% 30.3% 22.1 % 0.7% 12.8% 12.8% 35.9% 24.4% 0.4% 16.4% 11.9% � 22.8% 35.5% 0.2% ' 36.1 % 5.5% 6.7% 39.9% Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 17 35 Total 0.0% 13.6%: ioo.00�ia 0.01% 12.83%: �oo.00°ia 0.01% 11.62%: �oo.00��o 0.0% 13.3%� �oo.00�ia 0.0% 13.2%•': �oo.00°ia 0.0% 12.8%; �oo.00% 0.0% 11.6%: �oo.00��o 0.1% 3.5% 43.7% 19.1% 5.1% Z/./% 0.09% 8.87% 31.18% 14.90% 16.47% 28.36% 0.04% 14.01 % 18.22% 5.30% 34.54% 27.74% 0.0% 11.0% 27.3% 14.6% 19.6% 27.5% 0.1% 8.2% 31.6% 15.4% 16.6% 28.1% 0.1 % 8.9% 31.2% 14.9% 16.5% 28.4% 0.0% 14.0% 18.2% 5.3% 34.5% 27.7% 0.01 % 0.01 % 0.0% 0.0°/a 0.0°/a 0.0% Totai 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 11/10/99 HNTB 11:38 AM MSP Part 150 Track Use - Day Track Cargo Northwest Passenger Regionai - Jet ReP o�nai - GPJMiI - Jet GA/Mil - Props Average Runway 4 A 8.3% 12.Sh 20.0% 20.0% 7.7% 20.0% 7.7% 4.0% 8 8.3;6 50.0 % 20.0 % 20.0% 7.7 % 20.0% 7.7% 16.0°6 C 25.0% 12.5% 20.0% 20.0% 46.2% 20.0% 46.2°� 36.0% D 50.0 � 12.5 % 20.0 % 20.0 % 30.0 % 20.0 % 30.8% 40.0% B C D E F G H Total inwa A B C 0 E F G H I J K B C D E F G 8 C D E F G H I 1.6% 4.4% 6.7% 4.8% 11.8% 4.8% 11.8% 7.9% 38.7% 5.9% 10.1°/a 4.8% 24.1°/a 4.8°/a 24.1% 17.4% 9.7% 3.4% 17.4%a 4.8% 132°/a 4.8% 13.2% 10.9 % 1.6% 15.3% 3.4% 4.8% 1.5% 4.8% 1.5% 5.3% 1.6% 9.9% 0.7% 28.6% 0,9%a 28.6°/a 0.9% 3.9% 1.6% 7.4% 0.7% 14.3% 0.3% 14.3% 0.3% 2.6% 30.6 % 39.9% 36.2 % 23.8 % 9.7% 23.8%a 9.7% 25.0% 14.5% 13.8% 24.8% 14.3% 38.5% 14.3 % 38.5% 27.0% iooai �aa.ai too.oi tao.oi �oo.o;s too.oi �oo.ai ioo.o°s 2.Oh 0.6% 1.7% 0.6% 1.5% 0.6% 1.5% 1.0% 2.0% 1.1 % 12.9% 0.9% 5.9% 0.9% 5.9% 4.1% 2.0°k 18.3 % 4.7% 1.0% 3.4% 1.0 % 3.4% 11.2% 2.0% 13.6% 1.3% 5.7% 18.7% 5.7% 18.7% 12.6% 12.0% 1.2% 0.1 % 6.0 % 9.5% 6.0% 9.5% 3.6°h 54.0% 1.9%a 0.5% 13.0% 16.3 % 13.0% 16.3% 6.5% 4.0 % 13.9°h 1.2 % 53.1 % 29.8% 53.1 % 29.8 % 18.8 % 2.0°� 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 7.6 % 0.6 % 7.6°h 2.5% 8.0% 22.3% 30.6% 4.7% 0.3% 4.7% 0.3% 32.9°�6 8.0% 22.3% 30.6% 4.7% 0.3% 4.7% 0.3% 0.0% 2.0% 2.3% 6.9% 6.0% 1.8% 6.0% 1.8% 3.7°� 2.0% 1.8°/a 8.9% 3.9% 4.7 % 3.9% 4.7% 3.8% �oo.o°s �oo.oi too.oi �oo.oi �oo.o� tao.oi �oo.oi tao.oi 0.5% 10.8% 11.4% 102% 13.6% 10.2% 13.6% 11.1% 9.9% 26.4% 29.9% 18.2% 31.1% 182% 31.1% 27.2% 0.5% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 02% 0,2% 0.3°/a 0.5% 3.8% 1.2% 0.6% 0.8% 0.6% 0.8% 2.5°/a 3.6% 1.D% 1.5% 2.8% 2.1°h 2.8% 2.1% 1.4%a 0.5% 1.1% 0.5% 2.8% 0.8% 2.8% 0.8% 1.0% 84.4% 56.6%a 55.2 % 65.3% 9.1 % 65.3 % 9.1 % 49.4%a x x x x 42.3% x 42.3% 6.9% too.o/ too.o/ 7ao.o/ too.oi too.oi �oo.oi too.o/ fao.oi 41.8% 17.7% 17.2% 38.8% 16.6% 38,8% 16.6% 19.1% 20.5% 26.1 % 34.5% 172% 45.4 % 17.2 % 45.4% 28.9% 2.5 % 10.5% 12.5% 10.3% 11.2% 10.3 % 11.2% 10.9% 2.5 % 28.6 % 26.9% 18.8% 22.4% 1 H.8 % 22.4 % 26.8%a 0.8% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1 % 0.2% D.1% 0.1% 0.8%n 7.6% 2.9% 0.2% 0.5% 0.2% 0.5% 5.5% 0.8°h 1.3% 0.3% 0.8% 1.6% 0.8% 1.6% 1.1% 3.3% 0.3% 1.2% 1.8 % 1.2% 1.8% 1.2% 0.7°h 0.8% 1.6°k 0.7% 7.3% 0.7% 7.3% 0.7% 1•7% oa�o� r,aob, 37/ 4.6% 0.1% 4.6% 0,1% _ 5.4% A 2.0% 1.6% 2.9% 0.6% 6.3% ati% ti.�n+ o.aio 8 2.0% 0.8% 5.8% 0.6% 8.1% 0.6% 8.1% 4.2% C 4.1%a 1.1% 11.1% 4.3% 4.7% 4.3% 4.7% 3.9% D 2.0% 0.1% 1.9% 0.2% 0.5% 0.2% 0.5% 0.5% E 2.0% 15.0% 6.0% 0.2% 3.9% 0.2% 3.9% B.B% F 2.0°.6 10.9% 0.2% 6.4% 14.2°� 6.4% 14.2 % 10.5% G 55.1% 4.8% 0.3% 20.3% 17.8% 20.3% 17.8% 10.4% H 2.0% 10.9 % 1.3% 50.0% 24.6 % 50.0 % 24.6% 17.1 % I 2.0% 0.5% 0.6% 0.4% 5.4% D.4% 5.4% 2.4h J 20.4% 50.3k 46.2% 5.1% 1.4% 5.1°� 1.4% 28.6% K 4.1% 2.0% 9.4% 4.1°/u 4.9% 4.1°h 4.9%n 4.2% L 2.0% 2.0% 14.3% 7.7% 8.1% 7.7% 8.1% 6.1°i5 o�ai �oo.oi �ao.o� too.oi too.ai ioo.o� �ao.ar �oo.oi �oo.oi iway 17 A 15.2% 15.2 % 15.2 % 15.2% 15.2% 15.2% 15.2% 15.2°h B 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.D% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.Oh C 17.3% 17.3%a 17.3% 17.3% 17.3% 17.3% 17.3% 17.3% D 8.5% 8.5% 8.5% 8.5% 8.5% 8.5% 8.5% 8.5% E 22.3 % 22.3 % 22.3 % 22.3% 22.3% 22.3 % 22.3 % 22.3% F 11.6% 11.6% 11.6% 11.6% 11.6% 11.6% 11.6% 11.6% G 13.1% 13.1% 13.1% 13.1% 13.1% 13.1% 13.1% 13.1% ..._. .,,,,,,,,,. �nnnn>i_ �nnnna. �nnnni too.a0% 100.00% 100.00% 700.00% NNTB 11/10/99 11:38 AM 1 MSP Pari 150 Track Use - Night Track Cargo Northwest Passengar Regional - Jet RePi'onnal - GA/Mii - Jet GA/Mil - Props Average Runway 4 A 3.7% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 10.0% 20.0% 10.0% 4.0% B 3.7% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 10.0% 20.0 % 10.0% 16.0% C 74.1 % 20.0 % 20.0 % 20.0 % 50.0 % 20.0 % 50.0 % 36.0% D 14.8% 20.0 % 20.0 %' 20.0% 20.0 % 20.0% 20.0% 40.0 % E 3.7% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0 % 10.0% 20.0 % 10.0 % 4.0 % �way 22 A 1.6% 2.8% 5.3% 5.9% 2.4 % 5.9 % 2.4% 7.8 % B 3.2% 5.6% 10.7% 5.9% 2.4% 5.9% 2.4% 17.4% C 48.4% 1�.1°/a 10.7% 5.9% 14.6% 5.9% 14.6% 10.9% 0 1.6% 19.4% 8.0 % 5.9% 2.4% 5.9 % 2.4% 5.3% E 1.6% 8.3% 2.7% 5.9% 2.4% 5.9% 2.4% 3.9% F 1.6% 2.8% 1.3% 5.9% 2.4% 5.9% 2.4% 2.6%a G A0.3% 38.9 % 37.3% 58.8 % 56.1 % 58.8% 56.1 % 25.0 % H 1.6% 11.1% 24.0% 5.9% 17.1% 5.9% 17.1% 27.0% A 1.4% U.b %0 4.L%a a i io 8 1.4% 1.8% 26.7% 3.1% C 1.4% 24.0% 1.6% 3.1% D 2.8% 10.2% 0.5% 3.1 % E 5,6% 3.5% 0.5% 3.1% F 2.8% 1.6% 0.5% 3,1% G 1.4% 3.3% 2.6% 3.1% H 1.4% 3.0% 1.6% 3.1 % I 12.5 % 232 % 22.3%a 26.6% J 12.5% 232% 22.3% 26.6% K 542% 2.3% 12.6% 15.6% � 2.8% 3.5% __ _ 4J% 6.3% 7.8% 8.5% 14.8 % 10.0 % 7.6% 9.8 % 16.5 % 0.7°/a 0.7% 3.5 % 3.1 % 3.1 % 3.1% 3.1% 3.1 % 3.1% 3.1 % 26.6% 26.6% 15.6 % 6.3 % too.0 % %.eio a.�i 8.5°/a 11.2% 14.8 % 12.6% 10.0% 3.6% 7.6% 6.5°/a 9.8% 18.8% 16.5% 2.5 % 0.7% 32.9% 0.7% 0.0°/ 3.5% 3.1 % . __..._.. . A 3.9% 5.7% 3.9% 2.0% 4.7% 2.0% , o . o B 4.5% 28.8% 14,5% 3.9% 5.2% 3.9% 52% 27.2% C 0.3 % 0.8 % 1.6 % 2.0°/a 1.7°/a 2.0 % 1.7% 0.3% D 1.1% 2.8% A.9% 2.0% 8.2% 2.0% 8.2% 2.5% � E 4.7% 0.9% 3.3% 2.0% 25.4% 2.0% 25.4% 1.4% i �. ' P 0.3% 0.6% 1.6% 2.0% 3.9°/a 2.0% 3.9% 1.0% G 85.2% 60.3% 70.1% 86.3% 18.5°/a 86.3% 18.5% 49.4% .. .. ,. ., Y 37:t�/ x 32.3% 6.9% 8 232% 25.6 % 27.3 % C 9.7% 7.2% 6.3% D 5.3 % 33.7% 19.3% E 0.5% 0.4% 1.3% F 0.5% 11.4% 5.9 % G 0.5% 0.6% 0.4% H 1.4 % 0.8% 2.9% I 0.5% 0.8% 2.1% J 9,2% 12.9% 10.5% „e�� nnn�, too.0% 100.0% q 2.a% u.bro u.�io 8 2.4% 0.6% 7.5% C 2.4% 1.5% 22.4% p 2.4% 0.6% 1.5% E 2.4% 7.9 % 0.7% F 4.9% 15.2% 0.7% G 2.4%a 11.4 % 0.7% H 2.4% 4.1% 0.7% I 2.4% 1.2% 0.7% J 68.3% 51.8% 47.0% K 4.9% 1.5% 9.7% i �du 3.8% 7.5% 5.4% 2.7 % 2.7 % 2.7% 2.7 % 2.7%a 2.7 % 2.7% 20,3% 1.3 % 2.5% 2.5% 2.5 % 11.4% 15.2 % 5.1 % 11.4% 5.4% 2.7°/ 2.7 % 2.7% 2.7 % 2.7 % 2.7 % 2.7 % 20.3 % 28.9 % 1.3% 10.9% 2.5% 26.8% 2.5 % 0.1 % 2.5% 5.5% 11.4% 1.1% 15.2% 0.7% 5.1% 1.7% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 42% 4.2% 1.2% 4.2% 12% 3.9% 4.2% 0.2%a 4.2°/a 0.2% 0.5% 4.2 % 5.4% 4.2% 5.4% 8.8 % 4.2% 13.4% 4.2% 13.4% 10.5% 12.5% 12.9% 12.5% 12.9% 10.4 % 4.2% 9.2% 4.2% 9.2% 17.1% 4.2%a 13.4% 4.2% 13.4% 2.4% 4.2% 4.9% 4.2% 4.9% 28.6°/ 45.8% 17.1% 45.8% 17.1 % 4•2°/a 42% 13.6% 4.2% 13.6%......_ 6.1% A 15.2% 152 % 15.2% 15.2% 15.2% 152 % 15.2 % 15.2 % 8 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% G 17.3% 17.3% 17.3% 17.3% 17.3% 17.3% 17.3% 17.3% D 8.5% 8.5% 8.5% 8.5% 8.5% 8.5% 8.5% 8.5% E 22.3 % 22.3% 22.3 % 22.3% 22.3% 22.3 % 22.3% 22.3 % F 11.6% 11.6% 11.6% 11.6% 11.6% 11.6% 11.6% 11.6% G 13.1% 13.1% 13.1% 13.1% 13.1% 13.1% 13.1% 13.1% ami �oo.oi �oo.oi too.oi �000i �ao.oi ioo.oi ioo.o� �oo.oi „ .__._.. - - Total 10000/ 10000% 70000% 10000% 10000% 1000D% 700.00% 100.00% 11/109 HNTB 11:38 AM C� � � U � � o O O p O 0 Li7 �' c� �. � � O �-' O 0 � � � O I� M � _I C+) O � c— M \ N N r-- d. N 0 J c'7 N O r � � 0 N i� O 0 d' � 0 0 0 0 0 0� o o a o 0 � CO f� h W W O� � f0 e�- V' N O �; � pp t(j � (�• M O Q I� O O 0 � 0 X X i! ?t YG �C !C !C �C !i X U o O O o o O o � �� m� � N X X X X X to �f' to ch co �t' �c'i � � � � � � � � � � � � �o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� f� 00 6� (37 � CO � O� e- 00 �', M c- �- t'7 r�- a- c- �- r- � C'7 �- ,.. O O O O O O � O O r O O J O o O O O o O o 0 0 � f� CO t0 CO ta tt� tt) N tc'� d' �G �C � 00 00 �t 'd� �- s- c- CO �- 6� 1�. M O O O O O O O d' 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ N 0 �� p � � O �.� C7 d' C� C7 O M p�p X>t K)C >C N �- r3' �- c- � c- � O N O O O Q� \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ � o o O o 0 0 0 0 0 o O o N I�, f` 1� (�- d' 1�. tf) i�- �� t� t� r O O O O �t ��- O N N O O O O O O O r- O O CO O O O � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 N o � Ch C� �i o ai �r' ii x i� i� N O� O O O O O O fO O CO O O GO O O 0 0 0 0 0 �. h- f� � N i� !C �C iC !C fi !C !! N N a0 CO N O O O r- O D�QmU� W tLC�=_�`1-� 0 0 O O O � 0 N 0 0 0 �Ci rn w � 0 ti c� � 0 M � � 0 � tD N 0 v � ri 0 � N ci \ V N ri rn � rnQ o � ` d- � • �� m F- Z 2 � O O A (II � � � � ?� O ? z z d X ( i N O O> m� M o M o o � o 0 � tA �.C) O W r: N� M N M CO � � � �� OD � fV N � O O m�oxxxxxxxxxxx o � o � o � o �� M�� X X X X X � �i' CO M OD d' d' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\ o 0 � � � � p � � � o � � o � M r N O � N O N t- �'d d' M O O O O tM N�- CV O� O O J o 0 0 0� o o� o 0 � OO c� N(O � N M tn 00 ��C �G �.,� O t() 00 � O C? N O N O M'd' ��f' O � O O O�- � o o � O O o � N ti N O(D �� X X>C f! �C � �'d' O O O O � \ \ \ \° \° \ \ \ \ \ \ \ J O O o o O o o O o o O o N��- N O CO � t[) �Y d' � i1) ,�.. O O t!') r- r t- �- O 00 00 r � O O�- �- O O�-- O�- �-- O O o � o o� o o� N o O O O O Q�- O x� X x N O O O O O O O O O O O � O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 �}, � � � r- �- !G !C >C X fC !C �C O O O O O O O O O O N N, � � (L3 Q N 0 .. . � O O O O 0 N O O 0 M M I� M 0 M ti O N 0 � M � 0 � � � 0 � N W 0 0 0 \ O 0 rn� rnQ o � 1 �' r• r � r 0 ro o O � O � O �� 0 N � O N \ � rn M � 0 f� V' N N \ � � O 0 N 0 co o a o�� ti o o� o �� ro �` � O t0 V' � �� O p � N f0 00 O�� N d. N M � � CO m tC) r O N� N M \ ,�,o�xxxxxxxxxx CO 0 0 0� o o� `- rnrnr`-Co:flioT X x X x x''' - CO d' d' r- M ch O) �(i �i' c0 c'� c0 'd' �Y j \ � \ � \ \ \ \ � \ � \I� � O O O O o O O O O o o O ' �' r � � � � � � r � � � � tA r- �- Ch r- O O N r i�- f� t� O t- CV O e- O O O O CO r N J o o� o � o 0 0�� c'� t� O c+� d' r- ��- T- �fi X!C � O O N I` O� O N�- CD M C� N d' O O O G O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ � \ \ \ \ o \ � � ao .- rr ro rn o,,� x �t x x K r- i� O N N� N� O O O O Q \° \ \ \ \ \ \ \° \ \ \ \ J o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N t�- N o0 O d' 00 �1' CD c0 CO O V r- CO M O O O O O O O �t t0 O O O O O O O O N N O O o� o � o 0 0 0 v c�o�oc�c�cv�- i i< ic x V O O O O O O O O O o CO CO O O O CO o � o 0 0 f N N N N N K y� � K x X X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ��QmUOWtiC�2_-�Y�� 0 0 O O O \ 0 N 0 0 0 � v, ti M \ t() � � 0 0 cD � 0 O m � n � 0 � 0 0 \ 0 rn 0 0 rng rn Q o � � � � • �� m � O O p '� O � � ai co NO� � O M J O C7 �' N � N N � � N \ N M N �f) O 0 � o 0 >, o m I � a� � � � o �o � � •` � � d X � o 0 0 0 0�� o 0 0 0 9 O�.��- t�D V�' t� � M(MO, M t� N � � CA m(O O) I� N �•— N � N \ 0 � o x K x}c is i< ia i< x i< Ni ''' 0 o� o 0 0 0 0 "�� r" �� X X X X X � f0 �t rt s- C+) c7 � tC) ch CO M OD �f' d" \ \ \ \ \ \ \ o \ \ \ \ C tC) t�t� M� U� d' I�- � O Cr1 I� t�() � c- �- O O O � CO � N� DO � O O r O O � cf' � O r- O � J o 0 0 0� o o� o � � d' d' c� 00 M c� N t`� oD O� X�C � r. tC) tf) t� O O � N O tfl i.t') N � N O O O O r- O � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 V N'd'MCOrnrnM X!G X X�C _�' i.C) O O t7 t`� � �- CV CO Ci O O 6i � � � � � � � � � � � � J o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V Cp � O tn O� CO tC) t0 CO CO 00 00 _ O O �- �� N r' O'�Y rt �� O O O O O r I.C) O O O O O 0 0� o 0 0 0 0 V O O O O�- O r' O X x x k V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 �' c� o 0 0 o x x x �e i� ie i< Cioocoo � a� � �'' m � a� � QmUC�WtLC�=_�Y-i � 0 O O O � 0 0 0 � a0 M r; M 0 0 N 0 0 � t \ m rn ri 0 0 n oi I\ N 0 0 0 W 0 0 rn� rn Q o � � • �� .. r r: �� 0 m a O O Cj '� O 0 n � � � � � � O \ r- - O O x 0 0�� o 0 0 0�� i� M� � rh N(p N o 0 0 0 <t � �� f� M CO O i� O rl' ��(O � � � r tV O(V nY \ o �s x se x s� �t x x se x x O 0 0 0 0�� o � r�:� � � N� x x X x x - tt) (+� N O� N f� tf) d' (O M a� d' 'd' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ `/ O O o O O O O O O O o 0 C� � M c0 �� CO C4 a0 N N o0 � c� C� f� �- �t N u) O rn� N O) N N�- O�- � CO d� �- O�- N J o 0 0� o 0 0 0� o �� CmD N O O O O O O X X 7 O N O�- O O O GO O O C o 0 0 0� a o 0 s- t!� ('7 d) M CO �- O!t !G X!C V u� d' O O N O O t� s- (h O O O O �- d' \ \ \° \° \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ J o o O o O o O O O o 0 0 � �na��r�rCh�v�nCYiChaoti _.- �.n ch oo rn cc� rn t� o o t- �r cioo.=o�c�iooc>oo 0 0 0� o � o 0 V�- N�- O O O r- M K X!C )G , � o O o 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 0 0 f N N N o0 N� X�� K k x O O r O O O O O O O QaOU�Wl.LC�=—�YJI 0 0 O O O \ 0 N O O 0 �`o N � M e (O � � M 0 � � � 0 0 � 0 � � o� 0 � 0 0 0 N 0 rn� rnQ 0 �� • �� m �- z _ � t0 � .�. N � �L' N ;�. °a C� C� 0 � O O O p O ., � � O � o ci \ � N cc�� N 0 O CO M � � \ lL� d' N � � O � \ J I�- N N � � N d'� � > .` Q co � O 0 O O O o � � � � � o o � � � � 1f O aD M j oN0 e�- (�O dN', tf M(MO. M u N � m � CO U) I�: N �.- CV e- CV U 0 � O �( !C !C !C f< !� �C !C >G �C X Ci O O O O O O O ` a0 00 i� i'� d' Lfi O iC i: x iC x - Cfl 'd' �I' �- C� C'� O> �.ti d' tD c�i co �7' �f' \ \ \ � \ \ \ � \ \ \ � C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 � o 0 0 0 � � � O O O � 0� �� N (T aO � O O r O O r- d' � O r- O � J o 0 0 0 0 0 � o 0 0 � d' d' C7 00 M ch N i� CO �!C �C ,� r. tn tc) 1� O O r- N O CO tA N� N O O O O�- O � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 N d' c'� 00 d> CA cO X X�G !i �C V d' � O O M M�- •- N O O O O � � � � � � � � � � � � � J o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V CO � O U� 0� (D tn CO CD CO o0 OD _ O O r- �� N r' O �Y �t � M O O O O O t- � O O CG O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V O O O O O O O O X k X!G O O O O O O o O � o 0 0 � � O O O O O x x�� X X O O O O O � � � C � � � QmUC] W �C�=—�Y� � 0 O O O 0 N 0 0 0 W M r� M \ 0 v N \ O � v � o� rn cri 0 O r Qi \ 0 0 0 0 � 0 0 rn � rn Q o � � • �� ,. t C:; a � O O O p O �� • �IO � � d' T � � � � 0 � � I`- N 0 O �' O 0 O O 0 0 \\ o 0 0 0 \ \\ \ V' lT ,N- tfY n� M� O i� O sl' � T � qj � r � � fV O N M � !t !C �C X ?t !C !C X �G X Yt� 0 0 0 0� o � � ��(p 00 O N� X X X X X -� ch N O�- N I� tC) �t tfl tM CO d" �l' \ \ \ \ \ \° \ \ \ \ \ \ Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c'� O� C� o� �� CO CO c0 N N a0 � M CA I� e- d: N i.t� O O> Lf� 00 � N CV r- O�- u� CO O� �- O�- N J o o� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 � N M M d' �- c� � i� d' ��t X I �� tA t0 N O O O O O O O N O�- O O O O O O C � o O o O � o O ��.. r tf� M(� M CO �- O�� x x V tn d' O O N O O t� r G'7 O O O O r- �f' \ \° \ \ \ \ \ \ \° \ \° \ J o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V �� M 0�0 � CO � t�- O O�r d' O O O � O r- N O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V e- N �- O O O T-' C� � X�� V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O fO o � o 0 0 y. N N N o0 N X>t X�t !C YC X O O �- O O O O O O O QmUf�Wu..C�=—�Y� 0 O O O O 0 N 0 0 � � u� �ri � 0 � ir) � � 0 � 0 ci 0 cfl N 0 rn� rn� o � � • � � r m H z 2 � O O O O 0 r � c�i r- \ O O 0 a� M CO � 0 v � M � � 0 � c� � 0 � �-- d' O � � � Z � Z � > .` U U Q X � O o o �� t�fl in N N��I N � p � CO N I�-. t� .<t t0 tD N��. � m t�- �!' CO M �, O O lCJ N 0.,�,,. � I� !C !C }: �C i� !C Y: !C !G ?: K O � o � o 0 0 � � N N C7) t� �<''� d' X X X X X - N ch t� c� � N CO d' M d' N CD M c+� \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > N N N N N� N N N f� � N ��- �- �- r�- N t- � r'[j' N e- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m o ci � o 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 � rnN��rnrnrncorn� x x � M d' 00 O O O O N O t� pj � r- r O O O O O�- 0 0 0 0 o a� ��o o �u� V ��.nc�rnooNN x x� K x _ f�- !T �- �t o �- s- � O O N O m \ \ \ \ \ \° \ \ \ \ \° \ J O o O O o 0 0 0 o O O o V I.f) L!') ln O C� O�� M c7 i� O _ O O O �- �- �"' O O d' '�t �O �- O O O O O O O O t7 O r' O o � o o� o o� V O O'd' O O O(''� O x x� K V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O � o 0 0 0 �. c� c� �r c� m X X x�G x X�C O O CO e- O O O O O O u� N � C m n. � QmUC]Wti.U' 2_�`�J 0 O O O O � 0 O 0 a d' r ri N � � 0 � 0 � c�i � 0 � v c�i \ 0 n 0 0 0 t� � 0 rn � rn Q o � � � �� T u O N � O O �j O 0 � � M N cri T � O � O O m N N 0 O N � O � \ � r N � �– .., N N � � T O N N O 0 d� °� � 3 `� z � > z z Q X i� � � o \ o \ \ � p \ o \ � \ � � N � N M•~- r" f�1 �� M O Cp � 00 m 00 O� N e- N � O 0 c`i o� x x x x x x K x x �t 0 O O O � O O O �`'- h- �'�' M C'7 � C7 X X X X X s- �- N f`�- C'� s- r- CO d� M �t N CO m m \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ � � � � e- �� r lf� 00 M O M M O) d' �c- �-- N�� N� N`- N 1`• O O O O�- N N O O � O O � p p p O O o 0 0 0 0 � c� tt') tf) M Cfl f� � N N�?C ft �� I� O� O CO O�– �– � O('�j r d' O r-- fO (O O�– ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 � ��n r� � oo co c� d. x x ic r+t x N t!� 00 N 1` N�– � s– t�- O O (O O� � \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ J O O O o O O O O o o O o N CO p� tC) N tT I� t� cn Cfl t0 tc) � � O r– CD � Ch r t+7 (+7 tt� � N Ch O O N r- O O O O N N O CJ O O \ \ \ \ \ p cv 000000ro X y� x K N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o x x x x��e x � O O O O O O O O O O lol<tmc.ar�w�c�=_—�Y� 0 O O O O \ 0 O 0 \ � � ti N 0 � � oi � 0 N � v� 0 � N ri N 0 O � D N 0 0 \ O lO o rn� rnQ o � T• r � r .. � Z I i< a m O'', �I MI � �I O�, �'� [� �' I � a o � � � o o � � � � �� N 00 CD ^ M r M�t' N (D � N N (O o0 N t� N N (D (O � �� i�• h• V� N O CV � CV � 0 � X iC iG ?t !G X�C X X ?� !� O o � � o o � o � r' �� X X X X X N M o0 c'� N N CO d' c'M d' N CO c+i c� \ \ \ � \ � \ \ \ \ \ � O O O o O o 0 0 0 o O O N c}' r tt� N N N N N O � d' � N I� N r- t- t- �- �- CO CD N O � M O O O O O O t� r- �- 0 0 � o o� o 0 0 0 OC1 O I� t� � O CO tn N�' X�C t0 N O) O'� �- O� O d; C+� (fl M�}' O CV O O O O O � 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ � � � p � � � tn c+0 N tf) d' N T X X!i X X N � � � O � r- rf' O r-' � O N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \° \ \° 0 o O O o O O O o o O o �r o� c*� � rt �t �- co N N m rn M � �- O O O N�- �� O M O N O O O O O O �- �- �- O o�� o � o 0 0 O�- r' �- O O M N� X x� o O o 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O CO O O o � � o 0 O O O O O X� x�{ k x k O O O O O O (O O o O oi¢mUOWu.c�2_�� 0 0 0 O O � 0 O 0 0 N � N 0 W u� � \ n � � 0 N cD M 0 0 N � 0 rn 0 0 0 0 0 � rng rnQ o � � • �� C 0 m O O O p O 0 � M ch � N � \ � O O \ � � M� � C7 0 o ti � N N N � � � T O N 'd r � � 0 N � O O O ,N � T � Q � Z � N � N � O t0 > � � Q X o � �� \ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � o 0 0 o c N�- �Y a0 h tC) t[') M rY p d. V' �� r!' M N d. C'�1 rY 00 � N � f0 f0 V' 00 t[7 M.- M M 00 r � o x x x x x� x x x K x O 0 0 0� o o� �- s--' O O r M O N X X X X X -' M 'cY � �' C7 M f� d' M'V' N CD c'M ch \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rnrnrnrnrnrncfla�rnrn�na� � tD Cfl (D CO CO tfl O C� CO CO � CU O O O O O O N O O O t� O o \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ..i r+.-Q000i�%�c��- i� x r�j � 00 d' d: cl; �t �f' 'd; d: � � O O O Q O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ � \ o \ \ \ \ � V � N � �� r� X YC ?C !C !t _ CO N CO CO CD CO O � O O O O N � � � � � � � � � � � � J O O O O O O O O O O O O V � � � � � � � � � � � � _ N N N N N N N N M M M� O O O CO O G O O N N � O � o � o � o � o ��-�-�-��n�- x �e x x V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O o O o �. c� M M M M X K� y� X X X 0 � � Q Q CO O O O O �IN � C'. ca a a� � QmU�W�C�=—�Y� \ O O O O 0 0 0 0 � � � N 0 � v, m 0 0 rn r 0 � M 0 ti � w 0 m O 0 �..,'.,'�,o M i� rn� rnQ o � �� • r � � . ; 0 @ o 0 D p O � O O O � rn M 0 � � � 0 ca d' � O f CO ch 0 � � O 0 N O 0 t 1>C �IO 0 0 0 0� o�� o 0 0 0 v cD � W rn�w tO N ti�. Q�i � V; � CO f� CD (D � m T � V' N (D (O \ i� Q}e �i ic ia ie i� }e ic ni �i ia 0 0 0 0� o o� �- N t'��) � t��! � N� X X X X X d' ch d' N CO c+M c+') � � � � � � � � � � � � �O O O o O o O o O o 0 0 cr CD a- CO CO N CO CQ N O N O �� d: �t O Of� CO d: �- C� f� � 1� � r- �- o ci .- rr �r ri �r �- ui v� J o 0 0 0 0� o � o 0 � 00 f�. t�- M M M O�- (� O x� M� O O r�- r- CO CO N Cfl �- � O O O O O O O O � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N o�oa�i i�c``'oi c�o°'o x x x x T 0 � � r � 0 � � � � � � � � � � � � � ��',.. J O O O O O O O O O O O O��.. N � �i � � � i� � r � � � � ,'�. � �` � r 0� 0 i�i M Q 0� r,',.. O�- �- N�- ��" N O O O N' � o o� o 0 0 0 N O O �- O O O N�- X�}( p( N O O O O O Q O O O O O O O O O O ' 0 0 � o 0 �. .- �- � M r- x x ic :< ie x x,, O O O O O cioocoo a� o Qmvow�c�=_-��.� 0 0 0 O O \ 0 a 0 0 v r ti N � LC) v M \ O M �ri 0 0 0 0 � 0 rn� rnQ o � � • � � � 0 � O O O p O � c� f�- T � O M J 0 m � N T J N � � N � 0 O O 0 O � � M \ � N N N 0 ro rn � O N d' tD r N d�' O 0 � �. O � r Z O � � � �L' f0 � N �a ' C9 C� Q ?C a�� a o 0 0 0 N.�- � �V' �W � ti t�A t�I� M d' � � V' O� '7 M N?('7 �Y W � N � f0 (D 'V' 00 tf') M .- M C7 CO r- � o x i� x ie i< x x i� x x x O o� o 0 0 0 0 r c"�� M�� X X X X X d� M'cY N CO f� M \ � \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ �o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � � � � � � � � � � � � M(� CO CO CO fD (U O CO CO CO � CO O O O CG O O N O O O 1�- O � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � r-.-ooc�oc�oo� it i� o d� co �t V; rt <i; d: �t rt ao �ciooc000cooci \ \ \ \ \ \ � N � c� ��- ° � rn x K K x K � CO N CO CO (D CO O r- O O O O N � � � � � � � � � � � � J p p O O O O O O O O O O N OO 00 00 CO CO 00 CO 00 CO Cfl � lt� � N N N N N N N N M c'� M i.c� O O O O('O O CO O N N�— O 0 0 0 0 0 � o 0 cv .— .— � r- ��— Ln � x i� i� ia N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 � o �. M M ch M M X x X X X� X O O O O O O O O O O O�QmUC�W tL.C�2_-�Y� � O O O O 0 0 0 � tD M CO N 0 � � 0 0 rn v � 0 � M 0 � � 0 m 0 0 0 M 0 rn � �d o � � • � � � .. r C �( � O � � ro � ti � � i i � � O � M i 1 J ' �� N m � � � � � � � (VII t�V i � � ' 1-- � � J � N � � � � N � � � s < � �. � Z ` a ` 0 � m � � a ¢ '' c� c.� ¢ ; � O � c� ti � LL O c� J O c7 I.L N � J N � N N � ..��... O O O O � O � � O O O O � � T ',' W m W � N I� � W d' d' N ..CO h CO CD r O'� ��'d' N CO (D 0 oxrcxKKxxxxx� 0 � o 0 0 0 0 0 N N O) �f'> �7 C� d' X X X X X N M I� c'� � N CD d' c+'i �t' N Co c'� c'� \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ o O O O O O o O o O o O d' CO •- c0 CO N Cfl Cfl N O N O � rt d' O OO CO rt' � CO I�- � I� c- � O O�- rf' d' M d' �-' �'d' O O O � O O � O O O 00 i� I� C*) M ch O�- t� O�� f' O O �- � � CO �O N Cfl r- e- O O O O O O Q O o O O o o O o � 0� tA ('7 d' (D I� C'� QO i� i� :� i�: ooci��roc�i�ci � � � � � � � � � � � � o O O o o O O o O o 0 0. C'7 � 0� f� O CO 1�- r- O1 O� � C'7 ,. t� O r O cY O M t*') O O d' �' O�- �-' N�- �'-' �- N O O O N', 0 0 0 0� o 0 0 O O � O O O N � y� X x� lil O O O O O O O O 000c000coo , 0 0 0 o a r' .' r� c+� 'r x K K �! x X x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o I olQmUc�W�c�=—�Y�I O � O 4 O � � 0 0 � '�V' ti � N 0 l() v M � 0 r� �ci 0 N N � � 0 O V� � 0 � 0 0 0 � 0 rn� rnQ o � � • � � T C � ►�J Actual Tracks ._ ................_.. ' Model Tracks ', Trock Identification � �� J 0' 30,000` 60,000' Scale in Feet � HNTB �, , .,,,,, : , „ C Actual T�acks Madei Tracks Track Identiflcation � 0' 30�000' 60,000' Scale in Feet HNTB' �, , .,,, , . ,,,.: _ . _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ C � � __ _ C �Y C �� ___"Yf C ; � C 1 Actual Trocks Model Tracks Track Identiflcotion � � � �� .� �� ° Scale in Feet HNTB �., � .., ,, � . , , _ �, C C� �� I Actual Tracks Modei Tracks Track Identiflcation � 0' 30.000' 6p�000' Scale in Feet � IHNTB �;, .,, , . ,,,:. .I ........ . C � DC9-30 Hushkit - Reducted Thrust Takeoff DC9-30 Hushkit - Standard Takeoff A320 - Reducted Thrust Takeoff Stage 1 Trip l.ength 85dB SEL Contour A320 - Standard Takeoff 0 1 2 Scale - Statute Miles ,w,,;, _=�� ,; Mlnnsapolia St. Paul Intornational Alrport ;o',"�,A Mtnnoapolia. Mtnnesoto � �usc.anacrs aNcaxaans Pauv2vaxs rt►. mrrs ao��« C C 1 Stage 1 Trip Length 85dB SEL Contour RJ85 - Standard Takeoff A320 - Standard Takeoff CARJ - Standard Takeoff SF340 - Standard Takeoff E145 RJ - Standard Takeoff 0 � 2 Scale - Statute Miles .•-�� ='�j Mtnneapolts St. Paul Intornattonoi Alrport ?� j 1Atnneapolfa, Minnsaota �••• ��xcalracrs aHc,�vaaxs pr.uvivaxs r►» �rrs c�w�c« C a � ��iptt5 S4jh o T ? t �� a � 3 z �t � a � T n p N U O f�T t � G� � 9~'�IRPORY� t ' i'� • E''t' � 1 [ � Nlinneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport 60�0 - 28th Avenue South • biinneapolis, iv1N 5�4�0-2799 Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fax (612) 726-�?96 l�irs. Kim O'Brien 2356 Apache Court Mendota HeiQhts, l�iN 5� 120 Dear I1�Irs. O'Brien: f^ f "� �-.,. -.r.-� ,_,� _ '-� : . �......� _ .... �.- . � .., .. . ' ''� ;� a � ., , "' : U�.1�'`.�,e��;�`;��""��''- Novernber 9, 1999 I am responding to your inquiry relative to a request from Kevin Batchelder. T'he Metropolitan Au-ports CVA 11�LlSuIVP (i�-iAC) :��ould like to asswre y�os cf o:u� cer.tin�.:ous effert� to be seas�t�ve t� Lhe feelin.�s of those who live in close proximity to the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP). � There is no doubt the airport imposes an impact to its neighboring communities. As a resuit, the MAC is continuing to explore ways of minimizina the impact on surrounding communities, as well as, working toward an equitable disiribution of the resultant impacts from MSP. MSP is a large hub airport servicing iravelers from a large region including parts of North and South Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin and all of Minnesota providing a gateway to destinations around the world. An airport of this maQnitude provides a place of operation for multiple unique aviation services including charter, airline, carQo, corporate and commuter aviation. The role of MSP in the National Airport System coupled with the national and international increasing demands for fast, convenient and safe air travel necessitates continued capital improvements and increased operations to and from MSP. The issue of nijhttime operations at MSP is and continues to be a topic of community and MAC concern. The MAC is adamant about providin� as much ni;httime impact relief as possible to the communities surroundinQ 1�1SP. In pursuit of that goal the MAC developed a voluntary nighttime noise pro�ram. This pro�ram advocates no aircraft operation from 2230 to 0600 local time. If an operation is deemed an operational necessity between 2230 to 0600 local time, the program solicits the use of a stage III aircraft (quite enaine technolo�y). This pro�am has proved to be successful over the past seven years. The procurement of such programs is a hi�h priority to the MAC, and will continue to be pursued. MSP is a public use facility, which uses millions of federally funded dollars to procure capital improvements on a reaular basis. Because IVSAC uses Federal dollars to �develop and maintain the facility the federal government (FAA) reserves the right of refusal relative to proposed operationally restrictive policies, if those policies conflict with determined FAA Cuidelines. The mentioned FAA �uidelines center around the capricious and discriminatory operation of an airport and the impact it posses on the smooth and orderly flow of interstate commerce. Due to the location of i�ISP and the large region which relies on services from the facility, MAC has very little if any flexibility with respect to operational restrictions. vlore specificallv, I followed up on your inquiry about operations occurrina over your residence on October 26, 1999 between 2210 and 2240. After discussion with the Federal Aviation Adminisrration I discovered no extenuation circumstances other than a predominate southeast follow of traffic due to prevailina winds. Enclosed is information relative to the operations you observed on October 26, 1999 bztwz�n 2? 10 and 22�0. There w•e; e rt 1 departure operations off runways 12L and 12R durin� the time period you speciFed The �tetropolitan Airports Commission is an airir.natice action employer. wcvw.mspairport.com Pe!ie�•er Air^o::s: .-�I.�L� �E •.�\OiC� CO�'ev T'f/BL.�INE • CRYST.�L • FLYING CLOUD • L:�KE EL�[O • S.�I\-i" i?a.UL COtV\i0�41; as presented in attachmen[ � 1. In addition we constructed a�ate one mile wide centered on your location as �, depicted in attachment #?. We then extracted the number of operations which passed through the �ate and the altitude at which the aircraft where when they penetrated the gate as provided by attachment rt3. If you have any further questions, I invite you to attend one of the monthly Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) meetings held at 7:30 PM the fourth Tuesday of every month, at the YtAC general office, located at 6040 2$th Avenue South, in Itifinneapolis. MASAC brings toaether the public, airport users, and i�fAC officials to address and comment on aircraft noise and operations issues. Sincere y, ,--'',�_'` Chad Leqve ANOMS Coordinator, Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs cc: Kevin Batchelder, I�lendota Heights MASAC Representative �.. Paa� � i � _ ;:::; <._ •� - - - t. _ ___. '_ . O U � � � m - �w .o.s ,�,� - 'c '� _ /'n, ':ri `o '' � � `Y� � .�:i .^ �.. ,'''� z; �y � �.'•5� G .F_ � �ei'3 ' y' j ':' _ '! . �.�1 ��;t; � ': � :�i .� ',;�,: '_i � O � -t �9 .Y� �I � � '~-7 �: v N CC `:=;r:� �j �� o "i�;� '-= a o, � .�,,�; ,.<� �R � � .^ __j _� � � � • {�";� _1�It � � h (�% ��.a�'�"��."( I 'c ((�1� �y�r �../ '�.��'t � � o �" : M1�} -' 1 O r '�' :'�:; : �`;7 N O ' � ;^} { _ : p 0 �::3 = :', � G. t� � =:.;;a _ � ,u? C� = - � , c4 Cy .G'+ - �C �N(�f = _ O � � �fy c� r N - - _ � ` N Ct> N �oU � T � � �.i .. � L � � T � � , . . . o . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . : . . . . O . � . . .....: ......:...... :......:..... O � : • Q • • =� . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . O � , ' ' . � .... . .Q.. , ...Q.�•.....;..... T� � : Q ;: : � O , . . • � � �.. ............. O �.. . . . . . : . . . . O O � : : � C.� .... , ..0. , ..... � --.. , .... � O : : : : i LL : � - - N O ...� : ......:.....�......:..... �) > : O: . : M p .... . ..... • ............. :..... o ; � ; : .... .....Q:..�., .... ; .... o , . . . � , . . . � O O O O O O�j p O O O O � � M N � (�aa�) apna��d � �� \ .;.-.r' ' � " = i : - •. :� � � �;�: �' . : � ,, -�,; ,, .� � r ,� � ; � ;R, �� ; r 1 1 l � `, ,: ' �, ,, ; '' . f.-'" �i ) �, ._ , C �'o: � �+ IZOM: SUBJECT: DATE : ,`` � ♦ �:,: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONM�ENT Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council Roy Fuhrmann, Manager, Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs Part 150 Update Progress Review November 22, 1999 The Part 150 Study Update activities are now concentrated on evaluation of the 2005 Unmiti�ated DNL 60 Noise Contour and associated noise abatement techniques. Today's public meetings focused on the following topics and associated issues: � � � A description of the forecasted 2005 fleet mix. A detailed description of the past Dual Track High Scenario fleet mix. The INM unmitigated 2005 input data, dual track assumptions for Runway 17- 35; airport runway use, and anticipated track use. An illustration of the unmitigated 2005 DNL contour depicted over e}cisting land uses. �- Recommended noise mitigation measures to be carried forward in the Part 150 alternatives analysis. The list of ineasures include land use and noise abatement measures and seek the publics comments on these as well as new measures. The contour development used actual aircraft tracking information obtained from the Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System to develop the INM tracks. HNTB and MAC staff used aircraft arrival and departure paths and elevations from all operations to generate a the basis for the forecasted contour that will most accurately represent the future conditions. MAC staff will provide an update on any other issues rela[ed to the progress of the Part 150 Study Update at the November 30, 1999 regularly scheduled MASAC meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me at 725-6326. CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK To: Members of MASAC From: Manny Camilon, Jr. Environmental Health Official Subject: New representative Date: October 26,1999 Mayor Charles Mertensotto, Chair On behalf of the City of St. Louis Park, thank you for the honor of allowing our city to participate and have representation on MASAC. I have been an alternate �' � representative since 1991, along with Robert Andrews. Recently, I have assumed new supervisory duties which require more of my attention, and thus, the need to designate a new alternate representative, Steven Wolfe who is here tonight. I appreciate the opportunity to have served with this committee and feel con�nt that Mr. Wolfe will continue this service. �'" cerely, � -- . , � n T Ca ilon, r., S Department of In ctions cc: Charles Meyer, City Manager Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections ( C r r ,- �. _�_ . � �� s _�; .'�� ' ` :� 1.� .�_ .; ��-, . �: ' 0 'i ) 1. I�TETROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATENIENT COUNCIL GENERAL NiEETING October 26, 1999 8:00 p.m. MAC Large Conference Trailer 6040 28`h Avenue S. Minneapolis, Nlinnesota Call to Order. Roll Call The meetinj was called to order by Chairman Mertensotto at 8:00 p.m. The followinQ members were in attendance: Mayor Charles Mertensotto, Chairman Mark Salmen Jennifer Sayre Brian Simonson Brian Bates Bob Johnson Dick Keinz John Nelson Lance Staricha Jamie Verbrusje Kevin Batchelder Jill Smith Will Eainton Neil Clark Dean LindberQ Dick Saunders Mike Cramer Glenn Strand Sandra Colvin Roy Marks Hinds Manm� Camilon Advisors Rov Fuhrmann Chad Leqve Mike Pedro Shane VanderVoort Cindv Greene Visitors Steven Wolfe Mendota HeiQhts Northwest Airlines Northwest Airlines DHL Airways Airborne MBAA MAC Bloomington Eaaan Eagan Mendota Heiahts Mendota Heishts Inver Grove Heights Minneapotis Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis Richfietd St. Louis Park MAC MAC MAC MAC FAA St. Louis Park 2. Approval of Minutes _. � The minutes of the September 28, 1999 MASAC meeting were approved as distributed. Introduction of Invited Guests There were no invited guests. Receipt of Communications A letter from Manny Camilon, St. Louis Park alternate, was received. Mr. Camilon wrote that he was resianinQ from MASAC due to increased responsibilities at the city and that Steven Wolfe would be his replacement. 4. Review of Summer Operations Activitv and Onaoina Construction Pro'et cts Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, gave a presentation on the 1999 Summer Operations Activity and Ongoing Construction Projects at the airport. o Information on the runway use for Summer 1997, 1998 and 1999 was explained. ♦ During the summer of 1998 construction season, 43.8% of the carrier jet departures were off runway 22. s Durina the summer of 1999 construction season, only 34.6% of the carrier jet departures were off runway 22. The difference between 1998 and 1999 levels is due to the loQistical challen�es ATC faced using runway 4/22 in conjunction with runway 12R/30L. ♦ Overall, the north parallel runway experienced heavier use in 1999 than what is typical. �� o Narrow-body aircraft were placed on the south parallel runway more often for arrivals during ... the 1999 construction season. ♦ Wide-body aircraft were placed on either the north parallel or 4/22 runway during the 1999 construction season. ♦ Carrier jet a1-rivals on 4/22 durin� the 1998 and 1999 construction seasons didn't change much from 1997 levels, but the departz�res off runway 22 did. Chairman Nlertensotto asked when the center section of the south parallel runway would be reconstructed. Mr. Fuhrmann said that project will not be considered until after the north/south runw�ati• is built and operational. He said since the center section is not impacted as much as the ends are during arrivals, reconstruction of the center section can be put off until then. He said it is a possibility in the future, given the advancements in paving materials and equipment, that the rumr�ay wouldn't have to be closed do«�n compietely to repave the center section. Mark Salmen, NWA, said there are also plans to mill and overlay the center section next summer but that it would be completed during the ni��httime hours. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked whether the eYtension of runway 4/22 to the north would take place during the 2000 construction season. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said plans called for the �vork to take place in 2001, not 2000. He also noted that the plans to extend the runtivay are still not concrete given the fact that an EA is in process and that there is still land acquisition that must be completed. Chairman Mertensotto mentioned that MAC Commissioner Alton Gasper su�aested MASAC �% invite Richard Anderson of Northwest Airlines to one of its meetings. Chairman Mertensotto � said he would look into that possibility for the February or March meeting. � Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, asked if the extension of runway 4/22 would affect how the � runways are used at MSP. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said'the extension is beina planned primarily to accommodate long haul, heavy aircraft. Mr. Fuhrmann then reviewed the immediate past, current and future construction plans at MSP, includina: ♦ The south parallel runway reconstruction project (1998-1999) o Construction and e:ctension of Taxiway Whiskey (1999) o Installation of an EnQineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS) (1999) e Blast fence installation along Post Road (1999) ♦ Construction of a new 9-story parkin� structure (1999) ♦ Construction of a new airport Post O�ce o Construction of additional inbound and outbound roadways (1999-2000) s Construction of a new return-to-terminal loop (1999) ♦ Construction of a new revenue control building (1999) ♦ New Hubert H. Humphrey Terminal ♦ Extension of the Green concourse and re�ional ramp (1999-?000) o Construction of a Green-Gold Connector (1999-2000) o Construction of a deicing pads (1998-99) ♦ Construction of a materials storage facility (1999) o Construction of the North/South runway (1999-2002) { � 5. Executive Committee A�pointments Chairman Mertensotto noted that the Chairman of MASAC, per the bylaws, shall appoint an Executive Committee, a non-policy, administrative body of MASAC. JOI-�N NELSON, BLOOi�1INGTON, MOVED AND DICK SAUNDERS, MINNEAPOLIS, SECONDED THE APPOINTMENT OF THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS TO THE NIASAC EXECUTIVE COMNIITTEE: DICK KEINZ, NIAC BARRETT LANE, NIINNEAPOLIS JENNIFER SAYRE, N�VA LANCE STARICHA, EAGAN THE VOTE WAS UNANIi�IOUS. f1IOTlON CARRIED. October 8. 1999 Operations Committee Report - Mark Salmen Mark Salmen, NWA, briefed the members on the October 8, 1999 Operations Committee. He noted that the bulk of the meetin� was taken up �vith a Part 150 Update presentation and discussion reQarding Noise Abatement Departure Profiles (NADP) for runway 17/35. Mr. Salmen also reported that the Operations Committee had discussed continued revisions of the Technical Advisor's report. Due to time constraints with the Part 150 Update Study, a motion �' , was made throush the Committee to place this topic on its year 2000 work plan after the Part 150 . Update Study was complete, tentatively in June. The next meeting is scheduled for Friday, November 12, 1999 at 9:00 a.m. Chairman Mertensotto encouraged members to attend the meeting if they are able. � Chairman Mertensotto called for a motion to approve the present format of the Technical Advisor's Report and to give the staff direction to continue producing the report in its present format. John Nelson, Bioomin�ton, said it is very important that the Part 150 Study Update process be given precedence at MASAC. There was a lengthy discussion regarding whether or not the Technical Advisor's report could be chan�ed between now and when the Operations Committee takes the issue up in 2000. Chairman Mertensotto said that if the full body voted to make a change that the change would certainly be made with a majority vote, but that for now staff needs direction to continue producin� the reports in the September 1999 formats. Dean Lindberg, Minneapolis, said he would be willing to, on his own time, redesign the reports for consideration by the Operations Committee at a later time. Glenn Strand, Minneapolis, suggested that a small, informal committee be appointed to review the information and layout of the Technical Advisor's report rather than havin� fo wait for the Operations Committee to be able to address the issue. Chairman Mertensotto said the Executive Committee would discuss this possibility at its next meeting. Mark Salmen, NWA, objected to having another committee work on the Technical Advisor's reports. �/ .��: Mr. Strand also noted that if inembers have information needs not met by the reports, they can still fill out a noise monitoring and information request form. �`" JOHN NELSON, BLOOMINGTON, MOVED AND MARK SALMEN, NWA, SECONDED TO HAVE STAFF CONTINUE TO PRODUCE THE TECHNICAL ADVISOR'S REPORT IN ITS PRESENT FORMAT, THAT THE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE WILL TAKE UP THE ISSUE AS PART OF THEIR 2000 WORK PLAN, AND THAT THE CONINIITTEE WILL DISCUSS INCLUDING TREND ANALYSES AT THAT TIME. THE 1�IOTION PASSED BY MAJORITY VOTE. 7. Report of the Low Frequencv Noise Policv Committee MeetinQ - Dick Saunders Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, reported that there had been no meetings since the last report. The next meeting of the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee is scheduled for November 10, 1999 at 3:00 p.m. in the Commission chamb�rs. Report of the Communications Advisorv Board MeetinQ — Roy Fuhrmann Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, reported on the October 7, 1999 Communications Advisory Board meetinQ. He said the committee prioritized their work plan for 2000. Based on a budget of $50,000, work items for 2000 include: • A direct mail piece that will be combined with a Part 150 Public Hearing mailing • A MASAC newsletter - published quarterly, first one to be distributed January 2000 t o Publicity - news releases, media advisories, etc. � o Ongoing information pieces sent to neiahborhood and city newsletters and weekly ne�vspapers • Continue to update and enhance the website Bob Johnson, MBAA, asked that the full MASAC body have the chance to approve the content of the newsletter before it is mailed out. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, said the committee tivould do its best, but that deadlines may not allow for lenathy review. 9. Report of the MAC Commission Meetina Chairman Mertensotto reported on the October 1999 Commission meetin�. He noted the followin�: • The Commission approved the purchase of a new jetway for the Hubert H. Humphrey Terminal. He explained that with Sun Country having two of the three gates, an additional jetway is needed to handle the increase in charter travel over the winter. 10. Technical Advisor's Report Chad Leqve, MAC Advisor, asked the members if there were any questions re�ardinQ the September 1999 Technical Advisor's report. Jill Smith, Mendota HeiQhts, noted that many of the top 10 noise events are being senerated by hushkitted 727's and asked whether or not each aircraft is tested for Stage 3 compliance. Mark Salmen, NWA, said individual hushkitted aircraft are not tested, but that each hushkit for . �' � each aircraft and enaine type is tested to be sure it meets the Sta�.te 3 specifications. Ms. Smith noted that the Operations Committee had generated a contour using the hushkitted 727 and asked what noise levels were used to generate that contour. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said the FAA's Part 36 noise levels are used in the Integrated Noise Model (INM), �vhich �ives noise levels for each aircraft and enaine type. He noted that the INM process was validated usina actual RNIT noise level data. y Mark Salmen, NWA, also noted that because there are proportionately more hushkitted aircraft now than StaQe 2, more and more hushkitted aircraft will be�in to show up in the top ten noise events. Yet,ythe hushkitted aircraft are still relatively quieter than the Stage 2 aircraft that previousl�� showed up on the lists. Ne said eventually only hushkitted aircraft �vill show up in the top ten lists because there ma�� no lon��er be Stage 2 aircraft. Glenn Strand, Ivlinneapolis, said the concern is not hotiv mmzy hushkitted aircraft show up on the top ten lists, but the noise level differences between Stage 2 aircraft and hushkitted aircraft. It was noted that the hushkitted aircraft, ��•hen compared to their Sta�e 2 counterparts, are expected to brina a� to � decibel reduction in noise levels. Roy Fuhrmann, Technieal Advisor, noted that a hushkitted aircraft will never be as quiet as a comparable Sta�e 3 aircraft. Sandra Col��in Roy, Minneapolis, asked if it is reasonable for a hushed 727 to aenerate noise levels of 107 dBA. Mr. Furhmann said it is reasonable if the aircraft is fully loaded. Cind�• Greene, FAA, noted that charter aircraft, like Champion Air, show up frequently in the top ten lists because their flights are usually fully loaded and lona-haul. Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, noted the large difference in operations from September 1998 and September 1999. Chad Leqve, MAC Advisor, said the difference is due to the NWA strike in September 1998. ( 1 l. Persons Wishina to Address the Council There were no persons wishin� to address the council. 12. Items Not on the Aaenda Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, reminded members that the next MASAC meetin� would take place in conjunction with the public open house on November 30`h at the Nokomis Community Center in Minneapolis. 13. Adiournment Chairman Mertensotto adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted. Melissa Scovronski, MASAC Secretary �-� �i � 1� 1 �1 _ � �� .:. .. ��, .� •�` � �� : '� � � ` �� :�"�� , `� ,�' ,' , �� ' ,��; .. �� ;�; . � .� ; The loTovember 12, �.999 NiASAC Operations Committee Mi�nutes will be available at the I�Tovember 30,1999 li�i.SAC Meeting. � 9 '�� c , . �:. �;� — � � � � ��, ; : t, � � •�. '� /1 �- 11 �. -� � • • November 12, 1999 0 ■ Updated Fleet Mix for 2005 ■ Comparison of 2005 Updated Fleei Mix to FEIS High Scenario ■ History of the FAR Part 150 Program at iViSP (1987 and 1991) ■ Measures Recommended for Analysis in this Pari 150 Update �`�aE��OL i f �'h : � �� a.J. � 'f' 0 �?'�'�.�� . >.� �- -�_�� llpdated 2005 Flest IUlix 575,000 annual operations — 50% NWA passenger operations —15% Other passenger carrier operations — 20% Regional operations — 5% Cargo operations — 9% General aviation operations — �% Military operations �� ,� �' � � s : - �;: . . .:..._ . `: .. „ :ff �:_._ ..�.. H!'rilTB I r '��yr I, � �`�aE�,�ot1J jl`� ,.. - � -i- 1 ^ C � � r.a.' -c i [ .; � ° ..� � / � Total operational leve! modeled for 2005 is 575,000 annual operations, matching the FEIS High Scenario forecast. New fleet mix has more hushkit DC-9 aircraft than projected in the FEIS. New Fleet mix has more regional jet aircraft than projected in the FEIS. �ra��....� �,�: Effectively the new fleet mix has 448 more jets ^r , considering the night time penalty. ��, � O yy � �ti . "f' �T'`�P'�5 Preliminary 2005 D(VL Contour 6 3 • � L � � . . ' � ' � s . . • FAR Part 950 Noise Compatibility Program Submittal, 1987 Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) consisted of fourteen (14) Noise Abatement measures and eight (8) �and Use measures. Twelve measures were approved, 4 were disapproved entirely; 3 were partially approved/ disapproved and 4 were disapproved pending submission of additional information. ■ NA-1 Adopt a Phased-in Noise Budget Ordinance for MSP Approved as a vo/unteer measure only; ordinance disapproved. o NA-2 Exempt the Quietest Stage 3 Aircraft from Noise Abatement Flight Tracks Disapproved ■ NA-3 Negotiate with the Airlines a User Fee to be Levied or�,,.��°"J f,, Landings by Stage 1 and Stage Z Aircraft, with Revenuesr i �'�; to be Used for Noise Compatibility. �l � Disapproved. �� Cm ��,� � � . a '",,;,,...:�G�''�i • ,• � ;� ■ . � � • � . . ' �` � • • o NA-4 Relocate Runway 4-22 to the South of Runway 11 L-29R Approved in concept. ■ NA-5 Reduce Generai Aviation Activities by Providing incentives to Relocate at Other Airports Disapproved ■ NA-6 Assign Propeller Aircraft to Runways 11 �-29R and 11 R- 29L when the PRS is in Use Disapp�oved. m NA-7 Negotiate New and Binding Agreements with the ' Operators for Nighttime Use; if this cannot be Achieved in 6 ', months, Regulate the Number of Nighttime Operations (11:00 '�, PM to 6:00 AM) to Current Levels. EA�o�„ J II Approved as a voluntary measure only; o�dinance Mz�� .��h, disapproved. Implemented voluntary nighttime � G agreement. �� , �� a dl e�l.�.�.sl� � � �� _,� 0 � j' � � .. � � • '. I ' •• . i .- . ■ NA-8 Extend the Nighttime Restricted Hours to 11:00 PM to 8:00 AM on Saturday and Sunday Mornings. Approved as a voluntary measure on/y; ordinance disapproved pending the submission of addifional information. ■ NA-9 Obtain FAA Agreement to Implement the Cedar Avenue Procedure for Aircraft Departing Runway 22. Disapproved. ■ NA-10 Tighten-up Procedures for Keeping Aircraft Departing Runways 11 L and 11 R to the "Eagan Corridor." Disapproved. a NA-11 Test the Use of I-494 Corridor for Aircraft Departing Runway 22. Disapproved. ��`"'°`�: ��M� �� , Hi�iTB � t �. ,;� ', 1 .' �• . � �. .• . m NA-12 Enforce and Optimize MAC Nighttime Run-Up Policy. Approved. e NA-13 Improve the Monitoring and Enforcement of All Noise Abatement Measures. Approved. ■ NA-14 Instail a Microwave Landing System at MSP. Disapproved. Hl�i[�� aE�,(OLIJ ji' � �/� � �r> � i � 5 . • • ' L • � . ' , �` , t . . . � • • • ■ LU-1 Amend Land Use Plans to Bring Them into ' Conformance with Metropolitan CounciPs Noise Compatibility Guidelines. ' Approved. ' ■ LU-2 Zone for Compatible Development. , Approved. - ■ LU-3 Apply Zoning Performance Standards. ', Approved. ■ LU-4 Establish a Public information Program. Approved. , `��4�roc�r Je�h 'I ? � r , m LU-5 Revise Building Codes. �� C Approved. °� � '�� o a � l 1 yh I . ��S'� T Tp�T � � �l . � , .�� . � `� � r . '�.. ' D. . :�, .t� .�. • � • �: � ■ LU-6 Acquire Developed Property in Non-compatible Use. Approved. ■ LU-7 Provide Purchase GuaranteelSoundproofing of Homes. Approved. ■ LU-8 Soundproof Schoois. Approved. ■ LU-9 Soundproof other Public Buildings. Approved. �. �aE�,! Ol � } l�' w�� /� C ' � • _ � � ,�r s.: � s: • •' � �' � FAR Part �50 Noise Compatibility Program Submittal, � 99'1 a Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) consisted of fourteen (14) Noise Abatement measures and eight (8) Land Use measures. m Eleven (11) existing (NA-1 through NA-11) and three (3) new Noise Abatement measures (NA-12-NA-14). ■ Five (5) existing (�U-1 through LU-5) and three (3) previousiy approved, reorganized measures (LU-6 through LU-8). � Outright approvai was granted for 13 of the specific program�,.��"'°"s �,,,� elements, approval on a voluntary basis only was granted for 6�%� � elements and 3 where disapproved. .�- � '�� o � f Sy - � �� ,,.'�.. � �y _ � ..._ .. .� i �� •� �.� � ''� . :. ' ` � ��. ,' ,.. .. �� /. - .r �� : ��. L � ., Noise Abafement Measures ■ NA-1 Continue the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC). Approved. ■ NA-2 Voluntary Noise Budget Program. Approved as a voluntary measure. ■ NA-3 Voluntary Nighttime Limits on Flights. Approved as a voluntary measure. ■ NA-4 Nighttime Powerbacks. Approved as a voluntary measure, a NA-5 Engine R�n-up Field Rule. Approved. I = �`��E�roii: �h w � . �' �: � • • ` � ' . i ' • t' . . ' •, Noise Abatement Measures � NA-6 Training Restriction. Approved as a Voluntary Measure. ■ NA-7 Operating Procedures. Approved as a Vo/untary Measure ■ NA-8 Noise Surcharge Differentiai and Stage 3 Credit. Approved as a Voluntary Measure. m NA-9 Runway Use System (RUS). Approved. ■ NA-10 Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System ��+�"'°"t k,y� (ANOMS). � � ; Approved. o,� , k ts� o � — °� .'�' 'T`,.a�'S History of FAIR Par� 150 Program at MSP 1991 ...�...�. �.:-:a.- �4� .:�:.-.,...�-� _ �� .,� ,.=�, Noise Abatemenf Measures ■ NA-11 Noise Abatement Sensitivity Training. Approved. ■ NA-12 Extend Runway 4-22 to Increase Use of RUS. Disapproved. ■ NA-13 Issue a Standard instrument Departure (SID) Procedure for Runway 22. Disapp�oved. ■ NA-14 Freeze All Stage 3 Operations Between 11:00 PM and 6:00 AM, Then Ban Ali Stage 2 Aircraft Operations Between ��o�,: l 11:00 PM and 6:00 AM After June 1, 1992. ',>�� k'�. I Disapproved. A ;� H�il'EB � : v ` • � ' � . • ' I � �' � . Land Use Measures ■ �U-1 Amend Local Land Use Plans to Bring Them into Conformance with the Metropolitan Council's Noise Compatibility Guidelines. Approved. � LU-2 Zone for Compatible Development. Approved. ■ LU-3 Apply for Zoning Performance Standards. Approved. ■ LU-4 Establish a Public Infarmation Program. '�•+;`� Approved. ^'�'' s� 0 i = �.� � ,,{� History of FAR Part 150 Program at IV1SP Land Use Measures ■ LU-5 ' Revise Buiiding Codes. Approved. ■ LU-6 Land Acquisition Program. Approved. � LU-7 Purchase Guarantee Program. Approved. ■ LU-8 Part 150 Sound Insulation Program (Residential, Schooi and Other Pubiic Buildings). ��t��°"' �,y� Approved. � � , El1�C'CBI � �� - • • `' '. 1 • tc . .`�i � a � � � a a Summary Comprehensiveness has a trade-off: A large number of ineasures have been proposed and included in previous Part 150's, placing a significant delay in obtaining approval. Measures which require restriction of operations have only been approved on a voluntary basis. Multiple altematives will require time to study: GIS wiii allow analysis of potential measures in a more efficient manner. �`a�E�._... ��h � � �, I H�rce Land Use Nleasures Recommended for Anal�/s�s �.......,.. . :•'"'::"��'_...�::�:.ir' W.��...�.�°�'...W..�.v�;.cyv,' »?'�"�"�'�'�^'�"'��-��.�.»�.,-'-'� ■ Amend Local Land Use Plans to Bring Them into Conformance with Metropolitan Council's Noise Compatibility Guidelines s Zone for Compatible Development ■ Apply Zoning Performance Standards a Establish a Public Information Program/System ■ Revise Buiiding Codes for New Development e Acquire Developed Property in Non-compatible Use Areas o Property Purchase Guarantee/ Buyer's Assurance Program h• :"�` Hl�I'C� ,� J� I '�,�ti ♦ 10 a '�- � t-t � 4 ■ Part 150 Sound Insulation Program ■ Avigation Easement Acquisition ■ Far Property Disclosure Policy ■ Transfer of Development Rights/ Land Banking � Creation of Sound Buffers/Barriers �� T�' • � � ��'. ' .� � , • ; �. � � ' � . I � ! �� . , �.. . ! :., ' ,-. � .• �•� �� ` . �� •. � . Departure Procedures � Close versus Distant NADP by Runway End � Eliminate reduced thrust takeoffs ■ Eliminate reduced thrust takeoffs at night C=11\!'�B �`��t��OLif �iy � - � 1 h 1 T ��E��o�� k� � , +� r � 1 � 19 Noise Abatement Alternatives Recornnnended for Ana`� /'s�s �r_. �� ,. +�c,:2'�^T.»�.:;��:r�k.^egf7t.;'?;rr-:�..' :f-.a.,s—.,..Y.�.,.,^`.�-�c�-.-C--�s^-•�r"�s.,-;�'�7 �.f • Hushkits/ Flest Mix ■ Restrict hushkit aircraft ■ Restrict hushkit aircraft at night a Restrict hushkit aircraft to Mendota Heights/ Eagan Corridor ■ Restrict hushkit aircraft to Mendota Heights/ Eagan Corridor at night ■ Restrict hushkit aircraft to Runway 17-35 at night. ��4�fOltt Jt, � T � y�� .l H!�!'F� � . . • . • . -. . ,` - �. � _, �.� � . :� Runway Use ■ Modify RUS to favor parailels and Runway 17 ■ Modify existing RUS to equally distribute noise (capacity sensitive) ■ Modify existing RUS to equally distribute noise at night (capacity sensitive) e Preferred night departure route from Runway 17 (river route) s Curved visual approach for Runway 35 (future) s Curved instrument approach for Runway 35 (GPS) �`��rotir �,�. ■ Reduce available departure routes from Runway 17 A,,� (restrict divergence) o�� ,� 0 f y � r y �f,y .�' �i.__ _. [0�4 12 •' • '• �:� � � Public IV1e�tings November 30, December 1 and 2, 1999 to present the 2005 Unmitiga�ed DIVL Contour ��. �at"�""' j�. �`� �"l> � •�9�• 13 MINNEAPOLIS - ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT FEDERAL AVI�TIOiV REGULATIONS (FAR) PART 1�0 UPDAT]E The items below represent the proposed land use measures recommended for consideration in the Part 150 Update. � Amend Local Land Use Pla�ts To Brzng Them Into Confof-r�tatice With Metropolita�t Coacnczl's Noise Compatibility Gaiidelines �EXISt112a NOZS2 Compatibility Progra�n (NCP) Measure). This measure involves the coordination of the MAC, the Metropolitan Council (MC), and the local communities to revise land use plans and policies to be consistent with the noise compatibility guidelines set forth in the Aviation Chapter of the l�Setropolitan Development Guide. • Zone For Compatible Development (Existing NCP lbfeastcre). This measure involves the coordination of MAC, MC, and the local communities to review the existinj zoning policies in the Airport Noise Zones and to rezone, if necessary, to ensure consistency with the Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide. • Apply Zoning Performance Standards (Existing NCP Measure). This measure invoives requests by the MAC and the MC for affected local jurisdictions to adopt ` ordinances based on the Model Ordinance for Aircraft Noise Attenuation. • Establish A Public Information Program/System (Existing NCP 1bleasure). This �, __ � measure proposes to develop and distribute information concerning aircraft noise and Noise Coznpatibility Prosram elements in a v�-iety of digital and non-di�ital formats. • Revise Bacilding Code (Existin� NCP 1bleaszcre). This measure supports the effort to modify the state and local Building Codes to require specified interior noise level reduction for construction in the aircraft noise zones at MSP. • Acquire Developed Properry In Noncompatible Use (Existin� NCP 1t�Ieasure). This measure proposes that at the initiative of the jurisdiction in which the noncompatible land uses lie, the MAC would acquire property developed in noncompatible use, then clear and either keep the land vacant as a buffer, sell it for redevelopment in a specified compatible use, or use it for airport purposes. • Pr-opert,t-� Pur•clzase Guar-antee (E.r-istin,; NCP lt�leasure). This measure is implemented after the property o�vner has made a bona fide effort to sell the property at fair market value. The acquired property would converted to compatible use or insulated and returned to use to residential use �vith appropriate easements. IYIINNEAPOLIS - ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 2 FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS (FAR) PART 150 UPDATE • Part 1 SD Sound Insulation Program (Existing NCP 1�Ieasure). This measure proposes to alleviate the impact of aircraft noise by providina indoor environments where normal activities can be enjoyed without intemaption. The program funds the soundproofing of existing private homes andlor public use facilities to achieve an interior noise level reduction. • Dedication of Avigation Easenients (Proposed Measure). This measure would require the dedication of avi�ation easements permittin� aircraft overflights to the MAC as a condition of buildin� permits for specified noise-sensitive land uses in noise impacted areas. s Fair Property Disclosure Policy (Proposed Il�reascrre). This measure incorporates of aircraft noise information in sales documents for existing and new residential development. This technique would require the disclosure of aircraft noise levels by property owners and their agents. s Transfer Of Development Rights (Proposed 1bleasure). This measure involves the purchase of an interest in privately-owned land which permits the MAC to prohibit " any and all uses of the land which could be adversely impacted by aircraft noise. Development potential would be transferred from properties within aircraft noise �-�`� � zones to desi�ated receiving areas outside of the noise zones. ._. • Creation Of Sound Buffers/Barriers (Proposed �Lleasure). This measure consists of the combined use of sound barrier walls and/or berms and natural landscaping to reduce noise from aircraft-related noise for the communities surroundin� MSP. • Land Bartkzng (Proposed Measure). This measure involves the fee-simple purchase of privately-owned, vacant land by a local public agency to prevent non-compatible land use development and to hold such property for later public use not necessarily related to aviation. � C ��. �:. �� '�'. :., .. •.�'' . . .' . � ��: . ,. .. ....... � '''. ��._ ` �:�' •'.. . � �� °_ � �� . �1�` �� '� i ; �� i �� F� _ , . . ' ' � . � . ' � . . � . . ' '. . . . . . . . ... ,�I.. . � . . - . . . . . . . . .� . ' . . � ' , � ' . � :. C MINUTES MASAC COMMUNICATIONS ADVISORY BOARD October 28,1999 The meeting was held at the Metropolitan Airports Commission Lar�e Conference Trailer and called to order at 3:30 p.m. The following members were in attendance: Members• Mike Cramer Dick Saunders Dean Lindber; Advisorv• Roy Fuhrmann Wendy Burt Amy vonWalter Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis MAC MAC MAC AGENDA :( � j APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 7, 19991�fEETING MINUTES The minutes of the October 7, 1999 meeting were approved as distributed. MASA C NE y�SLETTER Co�ltefzt Part 150 information Brief history of MASAC FAQ's Other sources of information (web site, hotline, MASAC Secretary, etc.) Current MASAC issues (ground run up enclosures, low frequency noise policy committee) Definitions and acronyms Noise Complaint and Information line description and phone number MASAC meeting dates, location and time MASAC members DZSII'ZI7ZlilOil LISi - ZSOO COjJ18S � MASAC members and others receiving MASAC information (120) � MASAC appointing bodies/individuals � Neighborhood/citizen group organizations � City officials (mayors, city council members, planning departments, etc..) � Part 150 Workshop Attendees � People who have left a complaint on the Complaint and Information line this past year � Realtors � MAC Commissioners/stafi �� It was noted that the information in the newsletter would not be copyrighted and could be duplicated by anyone for wider distribution. The desi�, therefore, will be copy-friendly. Environment staff will compile a master mailing list. The newsletter will also be published on the Web site. Timeline � Before November 19, 1999 - Staff will pull together copy and explore desi� and printing options � November 19, 1999 - First draft of copy completed � November 22, 1999 - Fax draft to committee members � November 29, 1999 - Next Meeting - Review draft � November 30, 1999 - Copies of draft available at MA.SAC meeting �, December 5, 1999 - Final copy completed � December 6, 1999 - Final copy to desi�ner (either in-house or out-house) � December 20, 1999 - Final layout to printer �. January 5, 2000 - Labels printed and ready � January 10, 2000 - Mailing date FEEDBACK FROM FIRST ARTICLE There were no reports of the article being used in any of the newspapers, city newsletters or neighborhood ne�vsletters. It was noted, however, that many of the newsletters won't be published until December. YEAR 2000 CALEtVDAR Due to time constraints, this item was not discussed. The secretary will put together a schedule based on the third Thursday of each month. The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, November 29, 1999 at 3:30 p.m. The meeting �vas adjourned at �:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: �Ielissa Scovronski, Secretary C . . . ,�; � i ' ' � i , � ' ' � ' � , �' I PLEASE COMPLETE THIS FORM AS ACCURATELY AND THOROUGHLY AS POSSIBLE AND ATTACH ANY LETTERS OR FORIVIAL RESOLUTIONS. Date: Name: Address: Phone: Is this a one-time request? Yes or No On whose behalf are you requesting?: Yourself City Council Mayar Citizen Organization Other If no, what is the expected time frame for this request? Beginning Ending to Which of the following best describes the nature of your request: (Circle all that apply) Ground Noise Overflights Run-Ups Contours Part 150 Other PLEASE WRITE OUT YOUR REQUEST HERE AND/OR ATTACH ANY LETTERS OR FORMAL RESOLUTIONS. - over - , , � �; �• , � �• . � • ;� , �' Additional Space if Required: Please send your request via mail to: MASAC Secretary, 6040 2$th Avenue S., Minneapolis, MN 55450 or fax it to: (612) 725-6310. C. � � a� �� Q �^ � � � O N � .c 3 E- � o h+.(� � � Q� � � �1�}� +~-� � Fil � � i.� •� ^•�, � �n C � o c � .r � N � Z � O Q � d' U 0 o c-�� -� c c � � � ^ r O � � y � � � •° U O � � p O � ^ '� L � Q� � � .� � ' a� a � � c ^ U v, • �.. ..`�^_. � � N-+ � } r ,� O O O � N � � a� � � � �, ^ , � �" L � J � C �L', V V � � O cn � 'C7 � � v � � � � G � � � � � � C � �t '.`= v' D G�1 Y^" N . � G r a� C/� N O ,� C ^ „� '�. C� "� " �. : � � � ° � N c u ,_„ � ¢ r � N ^ � G � _ � � 0 � � v � N � � � M N c1' ONO N N ,.. tn O O � M � O � o�,,, �, � � M �C. M� N M C � C v � � w O r C �=' U p �' � v o �' E-° U � � � � Q c c U Z � .r � •V y C � C �.a..� Y h C U a� � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000�noo V'1 M M� 00 Q V'� `T" oo d' ['�- ['� Q� M�-^ N C� •�/ ��i 6N-? E��r b9 69 6N�}- �-�g -MC�}- -� ' � � > � Q � � � G C v�, N � U � � � U�� t; c� �: �n rr t� �n c� _,��,o�:oo�� , �� ^,--. N N N N � F� �g 69 69 Ff-3 6�} � � � 0 � v � C3 � Q � � � � � � � � O O O O O O O O � � � � � � � � G� M G� M N t� N�n M d' .�i d' O d' ^ t'� N�n co O o0 C� �D � � N � Ff; y � 0 ... O � N tl") v� � '� N M d' N�O ['� 00 G� E" �.C7� .ni .C"�+ .C"�i C:r1 C�1 Q� G1 0 � � � G� � � � � � � C, C ' MASAC Nlembers c�;�an: Charles 1lertensotto (Mendma Heightsl First Vice Chairnran: John [Velson (Binomingtonl MASAC Operations Committee Chairman and Second Vice Chairman: Mark Sslmen (NWA) Air6orne F.spress: Brian Bates ALPA: Ron Johnson Ciry ojB(oomingmn: Petrona Lee Vern W[Icox Citv of Burnsvitle: Chades Van Guilder ciry of Eagan: Jamie Veciirugge Lance Staricha Ciry af /nver G�ove Heights: Charles Eginton Citv ojMendota Heights: Ji11 Smith Kevin Batchelder Cirv of Minneapo[is: BartEt Lene Dean Lindberg Jce l.ee Glenn Strand Sandra Colvin Roy Mike Cramer Ciry of Richfield K risial Stokes Dawn Weitzel City oJSt. f�urs Park Robert Mdrews c�rv olsr. r�[: John Halla Ciry ojSunfah Lnke: Glenda Spiotta Detw Airlines Inc.: i.�y c�nrir,� DHL Airways: B rian Simonson Federal Express: Jo6n Schussler MAC Sraff: Dick Keinz MBAA: Robert P.Jo6nson Mesaba Norrh we.n A irlink: Phil Burke Northwest Air(ines: J ennifer Say re Steve Hdme N�� s�o�a� St. Pau! Chamtxr ojCammerce: Rolf Middleron Sun Counrrc Airlines: Gordon Grsves United Airlines lnc.: Kevin Blacic United Pnrcel Sen�ice: Michael Gever U.S. Airw�ues lnc.: Lam Yandle MASAC Advisors Metrapnlitan Airports Commission: Roy Fuhrmann Metrnpolitan Airparts Commission: Commissioner,alton Gasper Federal Aviation Administration: Ron Glauh Cindv Greene AirTransportation A.ssocialion: Paui htcGraw MNAir Natinrull Guard: Major Rov J. Shetka U.S. Air Force Resen�e: Captain David J. Gerken Srcretan•: hlelissa Srnvron+ki Metropolitan Airports Commission Declaration of Purpose l.) Promote public welfare and national security: serve public interest, convenience, and necessity; promote air navigation and transportation, international, national, 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 transportation; and to those ends to develop the full potentialities 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 around 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 problem and of sugCestion for the alleviation of the same; through initiation, coordination and promotion of reasonable and effective procedures, control and regulations, consistent with the safe operation of the airport and of aircraft using the same; and through dissemination of information to the affected communities, their affected residents, and the users of the airport respecting the problem of aircraft 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 govemmental 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. This report is prepared and prin[ed in house by Chad Leqve, ANOMS Coordinator and Shane VanderVoort. ANOMS Technician questions or comments may be directed to: MAC Aviation Noise and Satelli[e Programs Minneapoli�/St. Paul International Airpon 6040 28'" Avenue Sou[h Minneapolis MN, 55450 Tel: (612) 725�328. Fa�c: (612) 725-b310 MAC Environment Department Home Page: www.macavsaz.org The Airport 24-hour Noise Hodine is 726-941 l. Compl�ints to the hotline do not result in ctmnges in airpon ac[iviry, but provide a public sounding board and airport information oudet. The hodine is swffed during business hours. Monda�� — Fridati•. � l. Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report �, Table of Contents for October 1999 Complaint Summary Noise Complaint Map FAA Available Time for Runway Usage MSP All Operations Runway Usage MSP Carrier Jet Operations Runway Usage MSP Carrier Jet Fleet Compositio MSP All Operations Nighttime Runway Usage MSP Carrier Jet Operations Nighttime Runway Usage :� 0 7 MSP Top 15 Nighttime Operator's by Type 9 ( ) MSP Top 15 Nighttime Operator's Stage Mix 10 Airport Noise and Operations Monitorin� System Flight Tracks 11-14 MSP ANOMS Remote Monitoring Tower Site Locations Map Carrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Even Carrier Jet Departure Related Noise E MSP Top Ten Aircraft Noise Events per RMT 15 16 17 18-27 Analysis of Daily and Monthly Aircraft Noise Events Aircraft Ldn dBA 28-29 A Praiuct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report 1VISP Compl�ints by City October 1999 Number of Number of % af Total City Arrivals Departure Caanplaints Complainants Complaints Appie Valley 0 3 � 3 2 0.49� Bloomington 0 8 � .8 6 I 1.29c Bumsville 0 1 1 1 0.1 r'� Fagan 23 18 41 16 �.9`I� Etlen Prairie 0 2 ( 2 2 0.39r F11ina 0 � 4 4 4 0.6�Io Cmiden Valley 0 1 1 1 O.l�Ir Inver Cvove Heigh[s � � 296 � 301 13 � 43.6 �'� Lal:e IImo 0 1 1 1 0.1°Ic Maple Ga�ove 7 12 19 1 2.7�Ir Mendota Heieh�s � ( 24 ?9 10 �.3i'� Minneapolis 78 � 123 � 201 � 87 � 29.290 Richfield 8 I 22 � 30 31 4.4�Ir Rosemount 0 1 1 1 O.l�lr Rose�•ille 0 1 1 1 0.1% St. Louis Park 0 � 1 ( 1 1 O.l�lo St. Paul 34 I 4 38 18 �.��lo Suntish I.ake 0 I 4 4 2 0.6�1e West St. Paul 0 > � 1 0.7�Ic ' Total 160 �31 691 199 100.0% Nature of MSP ComQlaints i Tirrm of Day Complaints by Airpo�t � Nature of Complaint Total Time Tota1 Airport Total �ccessive Noise � �67 _(XXX) -0�� 30 MSP 70� Earlv/Late l ly UC�(Xl - 06�y f 19 Airlal:e 0 I,c�w Flyinr 0 ()7(X) - 1 l��) j 1�2 Anoka 3 Strucwral Disturbance � 3 I?(X) - 1��1 ! y4 Crystal 0 IIcliropter � U IC�(X) - l�);�� l�fi Flying Clc�ud ( 1 C�ound Noise 17 Z(XX) -? I�� 11? Lake Flmo 0 Fngine Run-up � 0 ?�(X) -�"_��) I y; St. Paul � 1 � Freyucncy ( � ?3(X)-�3i�) : 30 Misc. ( 0 Total 708 Total 708 T4ta1 ?13 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program C� ;:. � Me[ropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASACI Technical Advisor's Re�c�rt Available Tirne for Runway Use Oc�ober 1999 (FAA. Runway Use Logs) tiote: For i cc of the time availabla simuitaneous departure ops occurred resulting in use greater than 100�?0 October 1999 FAA AirEx�rt Traftic Record Counts A ir Catrie r �? � Commu[er 3?3 ( � Czneral Aviation l�? • M ilitarv 10 i Total 137� 999 Dailv Counts 7�i 3 �1 �O1 Il 1491 A Praciuct oi'the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�ram 3 RWY 4 I 2I. l�x �� 30I _ �ox 4 1?I. I?R �� 30I . �OR Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC> Technical Ad��isor's Re�c�rt All Operatior�s Runway Use �2eport October 1999 ArrivaU De nartur A rr An A rr Arr A rr A rr Over$i�ht Area So. Richficki/}3kx�min�ton So. MinncaGx�lis/Nc�. Richfieki So. Minnc:a��liti/[V�>. IZic:hti�ki St. PauUNisThl�nci Park Ea�anlMcncic�ta Hc:iehts Ea�an/I��t�nci��ta Hci<lhtti Total Arrivals I�e� St. Pau]/Hi�.�hlanci !'ark Uep ( Eagan/Nlcnduta Hri��hts l�ep � Eagan/Menci��ta Hci��htti Dep � So. Ric:hfieki/I3kx�tiungtc�n I�c.�p � S�. Minn�a�liti/I�i��. Richticki I�cp SI u. Minnea�c�fi5/?Vc�. Richticki Total Departures Total Oue ratians Caunt • 1; � rations Percent 9_5 � 0.59� 4140 ( 19.8°I'c 4?61 20.3�I� 89 � 0.4°In 6547 � 31.2�I� 5831 ! 37.89� 20963 140.0 % 53 � 0.3�7� 4030 � 19.5�� 44�1�? i 21.4°Ic 4Q6 � 2.O�Ic � 607i ?9.3�'/c 5703 I 27.5°Io 20709 � 100.0 % 41672 Last Year Last Count Year J rations Percent 133 0.7�/0 5266 26.9°Io 5191 26.5�� 105 O.S90 4�93 22.4�� 4509 23.0�'Ic 19597 100.0% 49 0.3% 5157 26.8% S3S8 27.8°Ic _51? 2.79c 4033 20.9�/c 41�9 21._59c 192�8 100.0% 38SSS 4 A Prociuct of the Metropolitan Airpocts Commission ANOMS Pro�ram ; RtiVS � 1?I. 12R �� OL �ox Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Ad��isor's Repc�rl Carrier Jei Ope�ations IZundvay IJse 12eport C.�ciober 1999 ArrivaU De aartur Arr A rr Arr Arr Arr ��- Overfli�ht Area So. Richfieki/Bkx�min�ton So. Minneapolis/No. Rirhtieki Su. Minnea��lis/Nc>. Rirhtieki St. PauUHi��hland Park Ea�an/Mend�xa Hei�hts Ea�an/Menduta Hei�ht5 Total Arrivals Dep St. PauUHi�hland Park Uep ( Eavan/Meneiuta H�ights Dep � Eaaan/Mcnd�xa Hcights Dep S�. Richtiek�/I3kxxl��t�m Dt�De Sc�. Minnca�wliti/N��. Richticki So. Minneapc�liti/No. Richticki Total Departures Total Oae rations Count Qperations 72 2�86 3151 67 4797 a�x� 15058 �� y�{� 33U5 157 4714 3893 15020 30078 Pe rce nt ( O.S�Ic � 19.2�7� ( ?0.9�'/c � O.S�Ic � 31.8cIc � ''7.1 �'� loo.o% � 0.29� � 19.5�� ' ��.0�/� I l.o�� ' 31.4c1r i 2�.9c1c � 100.0% Last Year Count 102 3633 3734 82 2998 3143 13692 1S 3659 39�� 3067 2678 13621 2'7313 �t Year Percent 0.79c 26.59� ?7.3�� 0.6CIr. 21.9°Ic 23.0°Ic ioo.o% 0.1°Io ?6.99c �.8°I� �.o�� 2?. _5 �Ic 19.7�Ic 100.0 % A Proeiuct of the Metrope�litan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�ram 5 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Ad�•isor's Re�rt October 1999 IVISP Carrier Jet Fleet Composition FAR Part 36 'Eake � 'j' Off Noise Levcl Aircra� Descri tion S e Count Pe rcent B742 � 110.0 Boein 747-200 3 i l�i � O.-�C� ! B741 ' 109.4 ( Boeing 747-100 � 3 3? 0.19� B743 ' 10� � DC$7 ! B772 I A306 � A310 � B73Q ' MD80 I B7�2 ( DC9Q I B734 I A 320 ! B73i ' 10�J 10�J 103.0 102.4 101.6 100a 99.3 98.� 98.1 97.7 9�.8 9�.7 94.� 9�.5 94.3 94.0 92.9 92, i 91.� 91.4 91.0 88.9 87.8 87.7 Boeing 747-300 I McDonnell Douglas DC8-�00 � McDonnell Douglas DC8-600 � McDonnell Douelas DC10 Boeing 727-200 � Boeing 747-400 IMcDonnell Douelas DCS (Modified S I L.ocicheed L-1011 ( Boeing 727-100 I McDonnell Dougias DC9 � Boeing 737-200 � McDonnell Douglas MD11 i Boein� 767-200/300 Boeing 727 (Mod�ed Stg. 3) ( McDonnell Douelas DC8-700 I Boeing 777 L-_ AirbusIndustries A300B4-600 � Airbus Industries A310 � Boeing 737 (Mod�ed Stg. 3) � McDonnell Douglas MD-80 I Boeing 7�7-200 I McDonnell Douglas DC9 (Modified S � Baeine 737-400 I Airbus Induscries A320 Boeing 737-�00 58 7 67 1116 580 6 182 8 8� 863 63i 2 � 3309 7$ 4 51 2 316 1753 2965 52 4354 241 0.?90 0.0�7r 029c 3.7�Ic 1.9�7c 0.0 r'� 0.69c 0.09� O.3 r'f 2.9�Io 2.1�/� 0.0�1� 0.0�I� 11.0°Ic 0.390 0.0°Ic 0.2% 0.0°l0 1.1°Ie 5.8�� 9.9�Io 28.7% 0.2% 14S% t�!_ix b7.7 ' Boeina 737-�(� � 0 � 0.0°Ie � A319 87.i ; Airbus Industries A319 3 707 2.4�1c B73_� � 87.� ; Boeine 737 ��i00 3 939 3.1% B737 87.� Bc�eine 737-700 3 7 O.O�Ic ' BA�fi 8�.9 British Aeros ace 146 3 1455 4.8�7� CARJ 81.8 Canadair6>0 3 404 13% El�� 81.8 ' F.mhraer 145 3 269 0.9�I� j F1(� �1.� Fold;t:r 1(� 3 766 2.6°l0 ' F70 30.1 Fol:l:er 70 3 4 0.0%n. � Tatals 30078 100.0 % � Cu.rreni Last Years ( Count P�rcent Percent S�ase tI 2237 '7.4% � 29.1 % S[aHe III � 12�i0 41.4% S�aee III Manufactured � 1i391 >1.2�Ic � Total S�aee III 27841 92.6�/0 70.9�10 Note: Staez III reprasent aircrafr modifiad to meet all stage III crieeria as ouUined in Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 36. This Includes hushkit eneines, eneine retro6ts or aircraft oprrauonal flight configurauons. � •The Provided tioise fevcis from FAR Part 36 aze thz loudest levels documen[ed per aircrah type during take-off ineasurzd in EPtiL dBA (Effective Perceived Noise Levat). • •EPtiL is the level of che time int�gral of tha antilogarithm of oae-tenth of tone-correctad pzrceived noise level of an airaaft flyover measured in A- weigh�ed dccibels. 6 A Product of the Mecropo(itan Airports Commission ANOMS Program ' R�VY 4 ; � 12L : 1?R ; , �� ; 30L ' 3UR 4 1?I. i�x �� 30L 30R � Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Aba�ement Counci! (MASAC) Technical Ad�•isor's Report I�ighttime All Operations 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. 12unway �.Tse Report �ctober 1999 ArrivaU De partur A Arr � So. Richfieki/Bkx�minaton Arr � So. Minneapulis/Ne�. Richtieki Arr � So. Minneaix�lis/Nc>. Rirhfeki An St. YauUHi�hlanci I'ark Arr Eaaan/Mcnd��ta Hei�hts Arr I Eaaan/Menci��ta Hci��htti Total ArrivaLs Dep � St. PauUHivhlanci Park Dep � Ea��an/Mencicxa Hci��h►s llep I Ea�an/Mend��ta H�i�_=hts Dep I Su. Richficki/Bkxmun��tcm Dep I Su. Nlinnca�x�li�/Ne�. Rirhtieki Dtp � Su. Minncapc�lis/Nc�. Kichticki Total Departures TotalOperations ___ Count Herations 86 37 182 61 607 82 10�� g 155 �� 68 ?57 19? 964 2019 Last Year Count Pe rce nt U rations 8.1cIo 31 3.5�� 148 17.3�� 136 � 5.$9c 39 �I 57._5�'Ic 238 ' 7.R�� 34� 100.0 % 940 I 2.99� 6 16.09� 263 i 27.49� 200 ; 7.19� 62 ; ?6.79� 97 ! 19.9�7� 15? � 100.0 °l0 780 1720 �t _Year Percent 3. �9'� 15.7°Io 14._S�Ic 4.2�� 25.3°Ic 37.0�'Ic 100.0 °Io 0.8°Ic 3�i.7°Ic 25.69� 8.0°Ic 12.4°Ir 19.59c 100.0 °lo A Prcxiuct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�ram � Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Repe�rt I�lighttime Carrier Jet Operations 10:30 p.m. �0 6:00 a.m �2unway �.Tse l�eport �ctober 1999 A rrivaU R�V�' De arture Uverfl'�ht Area 4 Arr So. Richfieki/Bkx�min�tun I?I. ' Arr Su. Minnea �lis/Nc�. Richticki 1?R An � Sc>. Minnca�c�li�/I�i��. Rirhticki 2? Arr ( St. PauUHi��hlanci Parh :�OI. flrr � EaQan/Mende�ta Hei�hts �OR Arr � Fa�an/Mcnd��ta Hci�zh►ti Total Arrivals I�e� � St. YauUHi�.�hl�nci Park [�cp I. F:a�anlNtencic�ta H�i�7htti 1�� F:a�an/Nlenduta Hei�7hts llc:� I Sc�. FZichtieki/Bkx�min�tun Uc ( S�. Minnea �li�/Nu. Richlicki Uep Sc�. MinneaGx�li.ti/Ne�. E2ichti�ki Total Departures To tal Oae rations Count �e rations 66 35 160 50 4fi7 73 $51 13 fi6 171 32 201 65 54S 1399 Pe rce nt � 7.8�`/n � 4.19'c � 18.8�I� � 5.99� I 54.99� ' $. 5 °Ic 100.0 % ; 2.49� � L.0% 31.29� � 5.8C/c ' 36.7�Ic � 11.99c � 100.0 % I.ast Year Last Caunt Year � rations Pe m.e nt 26 3.59� 124 16.79� 112 ( 1 S.1 �I'c 30 4.0�7� 193 26.0�7� ?_58 34.7rk 743 100.0% 4 O.y9� 1?i ?f�.?9c 1� 31.��I� 40 9.09� 77 I 17.39� S8 � 13.19� 444 100.0% 118'7 8 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission AIv'OI�1S Pro�ram Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Councii (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Repart October 1999 Top l� A.ctual Ni4;httime Jet Operators by �pe 10:30 p.m to 6:00 a.m Total Nighttime Jet Honr o � __�' H°u� .. Count � � 2?30 ! �22 I � 2300 ! 416 ( � �� 1�� 100 � 3'_ � 200 � I 3(� � � �(� 93 j(X) '7-� � TdTAL � 1399 '; Airline A merican American Airbome Airbome Airborne America West America West America West Delca Delta Delca FedEx - FedEx FedEx FedEx FedEx Kittv Hawk Kitry Hawk •�• : � �� .1 �� :• B722 � � � MD80 B721 s�2z A306 A310 Count �� 7 iy r; 4 14 1 3 28 i 10 3 �� 1 37 10 Mesaba MES 3 BA46 34 Nonhwes[ NWA 2 B722 4 Nonhwest ' NWA 2 DC9 14 Nonhwest NWA 3 A319 23 Nonhwest NWA 3 A320 140 Nonhwest NWA 3 B72 30 � Nonhwest NWA 3 B741 2 Nonhwest NWA 3 B74' 1 Nc�nhwest NWA 3 B752 267 Northwest NWA 3 B7�7 1 Nonhwest NWA 3 DC10 21 Nc�rthwest NWA 3 DC9Q 110 Nc�nhwest NWA 3 MDSO 5 Etv:in Rl'N 2 B721 49 Kti�;�n � Kyt•i 3 B72 42 Sun Cuuntn� SC� ? B722 6 Sun C'<�untn• � SC� 3 B72Q 97 5un C��untn,• SC'}: 3 DC10 2 1'rans VVurld "l�'A 2 DC9 1 Trans Wc�rld � TWA 3 MD80 24 [Inited ( t1AL ' B722 5 tinitc�l tJAL 3 B72 47 (inited tIAL 3 B7�? 4 tJni�ed I)AL 3 B772 1 lTI'S CTPS 3 DC.�Q 56 Van�uard VC�) 2 B73� �0 �� 1321 :Yote: Ttie top 15 nighttimz operators represent 94.4%of the total nighttimz operations. A Prcxiuct of the Metropolitar� Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�ram 9 1 y i'. 0 .� c, y C r� v � O L � � � z Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Repc�rt October 1999 Nighttime Fleet Stage Mix for Top l� Airlines 10:30 p.m to 6:00 a.m ��.v P,��}- �� Qy ��-}. ��,�-�� '�- 4,�� }. ��e- ��,v �45 �G� Airline � Sta.ge 2 ❑ Stage 3 � Manufactured Stage 3 � , October 1999 Nighttime Fleet Stage Mix for Top 15 Airlines 10:30 m. to 6:00 am _. Manufactured Airline S e 2 S e 3 S e 3 Total AAL 0 ( 0 � 4S 48 ' ABX 7 ' 34 i 0 41 AMT 4 i 14 ; 1 19 COM 0 � 0 � SS 55 DAL 3 � 28 ' _5 36 FDX 13 I p ' 60 �3 KHA 10 • 3 � 0 13 M ES 0 ' 0 34 34 N W A 1�i 140 4fi0 618 RYN 49 � 4? ' 0 91 SCX �. 6 � 97 ' 2 lOS TW A � 1 � 0 24 2_5 UAL S ' 47 5 57 UI'S ( 0 56 0 S6 VGD � 50 0 � 0 50 Total 166 461 � 694 1321 (' 10 A Prcxluc� of the Metropolitan Airgorts Commission ANOMS Pro�ram Metropolitan Aircraft Saund Aba[ement Council (MASAC) Technical Ad�•isor's Repc�ri 1Zernote I1�Ionitoring To�ver Site I.oc�tions Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System _ - - . __d;.., _; ; ::, .� .- -" �- \� _ :�: _ `_-` =-.- _ ..-..� _ �,--„< �_. a _- _ � - - - _ �O - "� , ,,'��J 7{ � ^.� _ ^;� .� .,r r ----, - - _ _ '_ �— ,r�� _..ti_. ""'�?._y � '`__µ1' :/ `a -� '+ ~,.-�- _ _ —_j ___ — — �' '0 - _��-_..� ., -_ -=- .._.:.� `; `�` � � = _ - — _= :�- -- — - �S y.....-_-, - - - - • �_� -_' ` '`',. _ � - _{-----' _ ^ .. . ' ' _ _.._ -- 1 .; ,� ,, . , -.•--- ___--� t�,.�-'.. ^ _ �f�_ o - .. . : _ _ . �' _ _ _ _ _ �+c...+� � � . . . -,,,` . „ 4�� _ �� > _''" - — �� — _ _.sor� J �. - ..� , .�.. � -. _ ��vlinneaU�olis—� _ `-_ �__� :�,��.��,.�-.� �.� - __-o �`i.--�al�.a -- ' �, _ � _ �� :T.;�-'ai'/��,.,.- a �� .�, o � �_ --� = �� _-•,, .—�; _ ~�f =._ � �:. � -_� : - ��-�� 9-- _ � _- _ _ � _ - �' ---�-- . =Z_ �=�=� � _ �� =--� �; ; _ — __ -�=� -.� - _ - - -, � ; '-�'J-�= - -- =_�-'. ,--- , -. �:.-. ---- _ .._�.�_---� =- _ - 10:__ �. '" f, (Jl.:_= _ -- _ _ =�.-:<:_: :� — -- — ��s_i�., -- — �,-_ _ ==:�-7-==��.�` ; �; _ '�-. _.�.2�..- ��, _ _- -__ —_ _ - _��= . - - � .'• y �– .Y. - —J---+� -- l.._�,-�—r-�=--.�— ' _ � �^ -_ _ .—� 52 — --�, ;t=��.��'-,o /-. ~: �� - — �J � �� d2 �` -�„� ,-� . r '� �....._ _ - _��'_—�� _ `.'��- . �'. . • - u — y - _ _ � �ti ,�'-_ '�=-`==�.cYlC�OiZ ;�...- - -.`� � �;. 62 _ ��. �'=� . � -:; w= _ � ; . - — _ -. _ �.� _ - s` s t':`�� e1._fi - - �" t�;= ' - �� _ — r: . ��9 _ _ �j , :` T, .�; _. � � f l�C - .'�^_�'„�,�.. _ ..... . , , �r _ .. _. . . ,;� ;�. , --� -- -- _��%=- � p--�� _ �,..�� _ _ - �t� �'�,c �� Richf"ie`�d � `� , - ='� ' �J_ . � � j q " ..�` ' � �=-� �� v�J ;; —�..�=��-.I _ tj` — _ '�--- -- ^ �, � �''`�� `.r,�. °Q,;a_°ini � ` •: GJ�� j� . -:_..-� = T�S7.� - _ _ _ _ . -_ . � _.` . ` _ _ - _ I r_'"c� ''' �— �"� _tio '�-..�, �-�—� � � -'!9'1 f .r _ _ _ - -�� .9 ` - _ - f !' �,;<. �'-+�>' 2� _ �` ' Q�� - ._ � _- 4 - _ . r� - �-�=�� ,.- �- �.� _ _ � : � �� - �- _ �__� .c;- _ _- = _�-= o. — ,�'Z... C�" -_ = — ---�%� �4 ", �`� - �' - - - (�� - _ _ _ ` '/ ^-`�5 ,: . _ --�- _ _ y' !._ . _ _ — . .� �. a. ,,,� '�R:. _�_--__��'�Ioomington= - � _ �--- � �`�=a � - �:_ �� f �� _� �-.r ._,_ _ -- - __ � �-- _ ,. _ =j-� � �-,.. �. � ., ____v : _�_ __—__ - ; � _ ..._...�` �:._ _ � .,,�-� _`.�-, ; - - - - _ -� .� -_ � l� � — — _ - � � ciII, �o ��_ �-=:�:,��,. = �__ - - -- _ -- - � - �� - - � - -� .�-. -g �� __ - _ � . / _ o : . �.� __�.� ��.: = :- Q .-:.o-, ,., _ -.:�; . _-� - - - � � - _ o 0 _!_—J _ _ '_--- � �• �� V _ �–_ _ .. O� ��..` . � . -� � _ '. �._ �/ � � ..rvr _ �-.' _ _ _ , __ `_'�-„_ _ ` _ _ : � -:� , - - - _ _ _ _ . .. - -- --- � _.� � � , ,: -: �f� � � - -��:�` ^ - '�---- -_ -_ _. . � - ,: . - -_ - � -- - --- ---- .. �� J�. • -:� . .i' - .".. --' ;� _—__.:�7'-c`�-- � _ _-:r= ' -� —._�. – .-- � f �.� ._ _ –__ ' ." .- •{' . -. _ 1�, �r.� -- _ - � �� G _–•. ---_ / + - -- r _ . 1G.�� . _ - �`�� . _ �`S� � _ - � ��o { . — - - -- ---- - - --- _ �"'r,r '� _ �_ _ � �-- - - �� - -"'--:.� - - - � � � - - _ _ 1. -� �-- - ; -` - - . -- -� � �; o �:e::= � - _ - � , .-�! : � _ -- � -,�. o� - M��Q-� �.--_ = _ — — -�-�,.�, � jr......� _ _ _ __ � �:� :. � . � -- — - _ — - . _. . ..�_ . •- _ ,- o � --- � _�,. ._. _. _ --- Le.�errd � � Remote Monitorin� Tower A Prociuct of the Metrope�litan A.irports Commission ANOMS Program 15 Merropolitan Aireraft Sound Abatemen[ Couneil (MASAC) Technieal Advisor's Reporc Carrier Jet Arrival ]E�elated Noise Events October 1999 t� Am��al Arrival Arrival Arrival RMT Events Events Events Events m,:.. :. � Address . . ' . >65dB � >80dB -' " >90dB . >104dB 1 Minnea olis ( Xerxes Ave. & 41st St. 3999 � 43 0 0 2 Minnea olis � Fremont Ave. & 43rd S�. 3000 � 200 1 0 3 Minnea olis � West Ilmwood St. & Belmont Ave. 3411 ( 1449 17 0 4 Minnea olis � Oakland Ave. & 49ch St. 323_5 841 1 0 i Minne3 olis � 12ch Ave. & 58th St. 3683 3071 308 0 6 Minnea olis � 2�th Ave. & 57th St. �00 � 2841 698 0 7 Richfield I Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. 156 8 0 0 8 Minnea olis � I.on�fellow Ave. & 43rd St. 220 � 7 0 0 � 9 St. Paul I Sarato a St. & Hanford Ave. 76 � 42 0 0 10 St. Paul � Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin Sc. 85 � 70 15 0 11 St. Paul � Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 14 2 0 0 12 S[. Paul I Alton St. & Rocl.tivood Ave. 13 3 0 0 13 Mendota Hei hts ( Southeasc end of Mohican Cour[ 75 0 0 0 14 Ea an � 1srS�. & Mckee S�. 7390 49 0 0 1� Mendota Heiehts � Cullon St. & Lexin ton Ave. 322 9 1 0 16 EaQan � Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane 5499 2754 12 0 17 Blaonrineton � 84th St. &-�th Avc. 88 33 0 0 18 Richfield I 7Sth St. & 17th A�'c 91 � 20 1 0 19 Bloorrnnoton 16th Ave. & 84th St. I 40 � 5 0 0 � 20 ilichfeld 75�h St.8c. 3rd A��e. � 17 � 1 0 0 I �l InverC�ove Heigh�s � Barbara A�•e. & 67th Si. 160 � 1 0 0 � 22 InverCu'ove �-ieiQhts � Anne Maric'I�rail 39�4 i 6 0 0� 23 Mendota Heishts : End af Kennd�in A�•e. 2252 � 38 0 0 ?4 Faoan ' Cfia cl In. �� Vv`ren [n. 6902 � 142 2 0 �i f�aean ' Moonshinr f':u�k 13�1 Jurci�� E2d. 398 � 3 0 0 � 26 InvcrCa�c�� Hei�hts : 6796 Arl::insas A�•c._�h'. 74S � 2 0 0 27 Minneapc�lis Anthony Schu��l �7�7 In�in�. A�'c. S. 105 9 1 0 28 Richtield 6E�� 16th :'1�•enur S. � 385 23 0 0 ?9 Minnea cilis Fricssc�n Elem Sch��c�l-l:il� �lst Ave. S. 12 � 2 0 0 Total Arrival Noise Events 49727 11674 1057 0 i � 16 A Prociuct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�ram Metropolitan Aircc'aft Sound Abatemen[ Councii (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Carrier Jet Departure l�elated Noise E,vents October 1999 Departure Departure Departure Departure itl�IT Events Events Events Events ID City . . � Address _ >bSdB >80dS >90dB >140d8 I Minnea olis � Xerxes Ave. & 41st St. 11?� i .'_53 � I � 2 Minnea olis ! Fremon� Ave. & 43rd St. 1303 � 430 13 0 3 Minnea olis � West Elmwood S[. & Belmont Ave. 2914 i 607 23 � 4 Minnea olis � Oakland Ave. & 49th St. 3388 � 941 8� 0 i Minnea olis � 12th Ave. & 58th St. 6223 � 2980 702 18 6 Minnea olis � 2�th Ave. & �7th St. 6693 � 3i00 143� ?Ob 7 Richfield � Wentwonh Ave. & 64th St. 41�t3 • 1787 138 1 8 Minnea olis � Lnn fellaw Ave. & 43rd St. 2�94 I 838 51 0 9 St. Paul � Sarato a St. & Hanford Ave. ( 40 I 10 1 0 10 St. Paui ( Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 2$ j 17 lj > 11 S�. Paul ! Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 36 I 10 ? � 12 St. Paul � Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. 51 � 0 0 0 13 Mendo�a Hei�hcs � Southeast end of Mohican Court 2767 482 14 0 14 Eaean � lst St. & Mckee St. 3959 1106 7� 1 li Mendota Heiohts � Cullon St. & L.exin�ton Ave. 2938 � 718 53 � 16 Ea�an � Avalon Ave. & V�ilas Lane 3710 1470 262 2 17 Blaorrnneton I 84th St. & 4th Ave. 188 �5 26 0 18 Richfield � 7�th St. �. 17th Ave 367 109 JJ 9 19 Bl��c�rrrinston ' 16th Ave. & 8�th St. 172 � 8� 23 0 ?0 Kichtield 7�th St. & 3rd Ave. � 999 I 4p 3 0 21 inverCs��ve Hei�hts ; Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 1430 � 167 0 0 � 2? In��er C�rove Iieiehts . Anne Maric 1�rai1 1699 � 166 1 0 � ?3 Mende�ta Heiehts : Fnd of Kenndon A��e. 40�4 � 1609 600 12 i i 24 F•'a�an Cha el In. & Wren Ln. 3187 I 531 6 0 ; 2; I Eacan Moonshine I'ark 13?1 Jurdv Rd. � 1507 � 30 1 0 � � 26 In��erCa�c�ve Fieieh[s 6796Arlc:insas A��e:. Vb'. 1702 � 156 0 0 ! 27 Minnea olis Anthon � Schc��l �7�7 Irvine Ave. S. 2409 ! 494 20 0 28 , Richtield 6fr�� 16th Avenue S. � 4679 I 471 � 0 29 Minncapolis `. Fricsson Elcm Sch��ul �31� 31s� Ave. S. 1=�E� I 309 10 0 Total De rture Noise Events 65773 19371 3617 256 A Prcxiuct of the Metro�olitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�ram 17 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report �op Ten I.oudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP October 1999 (RMT Site#1) Xerxes Ave. & 41� St., Minneapolis Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) Type Departure. 10/ 19/ 99 20:15:57 DAL1683 B�22 D 30R 89.8 10/ 16/ 99 11:52:11 N W A 1271 B722 D 30R 89.6 10/ 02/ 99 11:49:23 NWA1259 DC9 D 30R 89.6 10/ 21/ 99 1'7:20:46 NWA557 B722 D 30R 88.5 10/ 03/ 99 11:25:35 N W A 1543 B72Q D 30L 88.0 10/ 13/ 99 11:27:19 N W A 1271 B72Q D 30R 87.8 10/ 17/ 99 l 1:30:21 N W A 12'71 B72Q D 30R 87.7 10/ 10/ 99 11:28:16 N W A 1543 B72Q D 30R 87.3 10/ 10/ 99 16:19:57 DAL1624 B722 D 30R 87.2 10/ 15/ 99 21:23:00 N W A615 B722 D 30R � 87.2 (RMT Site#2) Fremont Ave. & 43rd St., Minneapolis Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) Type Departure � ' 10/ 20/ 99 15:28:34 SCX715 B72Q D 30R 92.4 10/ 16/ 99 11:51:53 N W A 1271 B722 D 30R 91.4 10/ 20/ 99 17:04:13 N W A784 DC9 A 12L 91.4 10/ 02/ 99 11:20:16 N W A 1543 B72Q D 30R 91.3 10/ 02/ 99 13:08:05 N W A 1055 B722 D 30R 91.3 10/ 23/ 99 20:57:57 N W A615 B722 D 30R 91.2 10/ 23/ 99 13:15:4'7 N W A 1271 B72Q D 30R 90.9 10/ 10/ 99 11:47:15 N WA 1829 DC9 D 30R 90.6 10/ 24/ 99 15:17:48 SCX715 B72Q D 30R 90.5 10/ 17/ 99 11:21:19 N W A 1543 B72Q D 30R 90.4 ( RMT S ite#3 ) West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave., Minneapolis Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) 10/ 12/ 99 13:10:59 10/ O l/ 99 10:0135 10/ 15/ 99 16:09:43 10/ 18/ 99 15:53:43 10/ 29/ 99 18:51:20 10/ 29/ 99 23:42:02 BSK206 UAL437 DAL1624 UNKNOWN NWA1218 AMT8138 B72Q B72Q B72Q H 25A DC9Q B72Q Departure D 30L D 30R D 30R A 12R A 12L A 12R 96.4 95.6 95.4 95.1 94.3 94.2 10/ 15/ 99 21:22:12 N W A 615 B722 D 30R 93.8 10/ 19/ 99 10:03:14 SCX791 B72Q D 30L 93.6 10/ 11/ 99 15:14:�0 UNKNOWN H25A A 12R 93.2 10/ 15/ 99 15:31:32 KLM 66�1 B743 D 30L 93.1 18 A Praiuct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS ProQram C Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatemen[ Council (MASAC) Technical Ad��isc�r's Report Top 7Cen Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP October 1999 (RMT Site#4) Oakland Ave. & 49"' St., Minneapolis Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft ArrivaU Runway Lmax (dB} Type Departure 10/ 10/ 99 16:19:18 DAL1624 B722 D 30R 99.3 10/ 21/ 99 16:06:51 DAL1624 B722 D 30R 98.8 10/ 21/ 99 15:25:44 SCX715 B72Q D 30R 97.1 10/ 03/ 99 9:37:15 SCX791 B72Q D 30R 97.0 10/ 20/ 99 15:28:11 SCX715 B72Q D 30R 96.6 10/ 16/ 99 11:51:13 N W A 1271 B722 D 30R 96.2 10/ 22/ 99 21:35:55 NWA56 B742 D 30L 96.2 10/ 24/ 99 11:26:56 N W A 1271 B722 D 30R 95.4 10/ 15/ 99 21:20:48 NWA56 B741 D 30L 95.2 10/ 20/ 99 16:07:58 DAL1624 B72Q D 30R 95.0 (RMT Site#5) 12�' Ave. & �58�' St., Minneapolis Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) Type Departure 10/ 16/ 99 7:02:57 AMT8415 B722 D � 30R 104.8 10/ 10/ 99 11:24:35 DAL1507 B722 D 30L 103.9 10/ 08/ 99 14:06:29 N W A 624 B722 D 30L 102.3 10/ O1/ 99 21:46:04 SCX711 B722 D 30L 102.0 10/ O1/ 99 16:56:31 SCX403 B72Q D 30L 101.6 10/ O1/ 99 8:07:12 SCX227 B722 D 30L 101.5 10/ 12/ 99 11:40:22 DAL1507 B722 D 30L 101.1 10/ 31 / 99 13 29:52 N W A57� B72Q D 30L 101.1 10/ 19/ 99 10:02:49 SCX791 B72Q D 30L 100.9 10/ 22/ 99 9:17:32 SCX407 B72Q D 30L 100.9 (RMT Site#6) 25�' Ave. & 57`� St., Minneapolis Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) 10/ 28/ 99 9:39:31 10/ 01 / 99 11:54:26 10/ O1/ 99 21:24:58 10/ 08/ 99 17:48:38 10/ 21 / 99 16:06:15 UNKNOWN UNKN NWA72? DC9 N W A 154> B722 N W A 746 B72? DAL162� B722 Departure D 30R 109.7 D 30R 109.0 D 30R 108.6 D 30R 108.0 D 30R 107.9 10/ 03/ 99 9:36:39 SCX79 l B72Q D 30R 107.6 10/ 24/ 99 11:26:17 N W A 1?7 I B722 D 30R 107.5 10/ 17/ 99 1 b:0820 DA L 1624 B722 D 30R 107.3 10/ 12/ 99 11:32:15 N W A 1543 B72Q D 30R 106.7 10/ 16/ 99 11:�0:29 N W A 127 I B722 D 30R 106.4 A Prc�uct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Prosram 19 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Ad��isor's Repe�rt Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP October 1999 (RMT Site#7 ) Wentworth Ave. & 64`h St., Richfield Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) Type Departure 10/ 16/ 99 7:03:19 AMT8415 B722 D 30R lOI.Q . 10/ 30/ 99 8:13:36 SCX227 B72Q D 30L 97.3 10/ 15/ 99 14:53:51 DAL1731 B722 D 30L 96.8 10/ OS! 99 9:15:11 SCX791 B722 D 30L 96.3 10/ 16/ 99 9:10:06 CCP460 B72Q D 30L 96.2 10/ 17/ 99 8:16:04 SCX227 B72Q D 30L 95.8 10/ 1'7/ 99 8:14:27 CCP304 B72Q D 30L 95.5 10/ 16/ 99 18:13:01 SCX785 B'72Q D 30L 94.9 10/ 10/ 99 8:12:42 CCP304 B72Q D 30L 94.7 10/ 16/99 12:07:23 UAL1661 B�2Q D 30L 94.6 (RMT Site#$) LonQfellow Ave. & 43�' St., l�Zinneapolis Date/ Time F1igh� Number Aircraft Arrivall Runway Lmax (dB)' Type Departure 10/ 28/ 99 9:40:10 UN KN O W N U N KN D 30R 99.6 10/ O1/ 99 15:13:55 SCX743 B'722 D 30R 95.5 10/ 03/ 99 13:15:25 N W A672 B722 D 30R 94.5 10/ 16/ 99 14:56:12 SCX743 B�2Q D 30L 94.4 10/ 13/ 99 9:19:14 CCP304 B722 D 30R 94.2 10/ 23/ 99 15:09:46 SCX743 B72Q D 30R 93J 10/ Ol/ 99 11:55:03 NWA722 DC9 D 30R 93.6 10/ 30/ 99 7:31:53 SCX710 B72Q D 30R 93.3 10/ 15/ 99 13:49:0� N W A 1270 B722 D 30R 93.1 10/ 18/ 99 22:41:52 KHA709 B727 D 30R 93.1 (RMTT Site#9) Saratoga St. & Hartfard Ave., St. Paul Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) Tvoe Departure 10/ 28/ 99 15:16:47 10/ 11/ 99 5:45:36 10/ 06/ 99 0:27:04 10/ 07/ 99 431:14 10/ 09/ 99 19:51:48 NWA19 SCX603 NWA56 ABX172 SCX744 --_ B742 D 04 92.3 B72Q D 04 89.5 U N KN D 04 89.2 DC9 A 22 8$.4 B72Q A 22 88.3 C 10/ 07/ 99 4:34:20 RYN 610 B721 A 22 8'7•8 10/ 12/ 99 5:15:35 FDX1718 DC 10 A 22 87.8 10/ 12/ 99 5:38:50 ABX354 DCBQ A 22 87•� 10/ 14/ 99 521:3� UPS560 DC8Q A 22 86.8 10/ 24/ 99 12:40:43 KLM66S B743 A 22 _,_. 86.7 , ( �p A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�ram Me[ropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC? Technical Advisor's Report Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP October 1999 (RMT Site#10) Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St., St. Paul Date/ Time Fiight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) Type Departure 10/ OS/ �99 15:05:5� N W A 19 B742 D 04 103.1 10/ 15/ 99 15:14:20 N W A 19 B742 D 04 101.9 10/ 16/ 99 15:21:2'7 N W A 19 B742 D 04 101. 8 10/ 12/ 99 15:21:28 N W A 19 B742 D 04 1 O l.1 10/ 02/ 99 15:17:52 N W A 19 B742 D 04 100.3 10/ 13/ 99 15:22:07 N W A 19 B742 D 04 99.6 10/ 06/ 99 15:22:08 N W A 19 B742 D 04 99.5 10/ 22/ 99 15:14:50 N W A 19 B742 D 04 99.5 10/ OS/ 99 5:07:25 RYN 610 B72Q D 04 99.4 10/ 28/ 99 15:16:18 N W A 19 B742 D 04 98.6 (RMT Site#11) Finn St. & Scheffer Ave., St. Paul Date/ Time Flight Numb�r Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) Type Departure _ 10/ 22/ 99 15:15:10 N W A 19 B742 D 04 97.6 10/ 23/ 99 15:06:36 N W A 19 B742 D 04 96.9 10/ OS/ 99 15:06:18 N W A 19 B742 D 04 86.6 10/ 13/ 99 17:01:44 UAL719 B732 A 30R 86.2 10/ 13/ 99 15:22:28 N W A 19 B742 D 04 g4•g 10/ 16/ 99 15:21:52 N W A 19 B742 D 04 84.7 10/ 06/ 99 15:2? 24 N W A 19 B742 D 04 84.4 10/ 02/ 99 15:18:13 N W A 19 B7�2 D 04 84.0 10/ 12/ 99 15:21:43 N W A 19 B742 D 04 83.6 10/ OS/ 99 5:07:46 RYN 610 B72Q D 04 82.3 (RMT Site#12) Alton St. & Rockwood Ave., St. Paul DateJ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) Type Departure _ 10/ 07/ 99 21:00:43 N W A 1761 DC9Q A 12L 86.7 10/ 20/ 99 10:12:16 N W A 1233 DC9Q A 12L 86.0 10/ 29/ 99 9:4�:17 MES3238 SF:�4 D 12L 85.6 10/ 11/ 99 7:11:42 BMJ13 BE80 D 12L 82.9 10/ 03/ 99 14:52:17 UNKNOWN BE60 D 12R 81.5 10/ 09/ 99 19:15:15 M ES2757 SF34 D 12L 81.1 10/ 29/ 99 724:50 BMJ21 BE80 D 12L 81.0 10/ 31/ 99 21:06:30 AAL499 F100 A 12L 80.6 10/ 04/ 99 13:50:02 MES3160 SF34 D 12L 80.4 10/ 29/ y9 21:17:01 NWA9869 DC9Q D 12R 79.4 A Prcxiuct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�rarn �l Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatemen[ Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP � October 1999 � " (RMT Site#13) Southeast End Of Mohican Court, Mendota Heights Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft ArrivaU Runway Lmax (dB) Type Departure _ 10/ 04/ 99 13:42:36 N W A 1270 B72Q D 12L 94.5 10/ 29/ 99 22:05:21 NWA615 B72Q D 12L 93.4 10/ 31/ 99 17:11:51 DAL505 B722 D 12L 93.2 10/ 09/ 99 20:55:01 N W A 1507 B72Q D 12L 92.9 10/ 14/ 99 19:2037 UAL922 B722 D 12L 92.8 10/ 07/ 99 17:27:47 N W A724 B72Q D 12L 92.3 10/ 09/ 99 21:09:59 N W A 1545 B72Q D 12L 91.8 10/ 24/ 99 21:12:18 N W A615 B72Q D 12L 91.5 10/ 09/ 99 20:49:41 N W A 615 B72Q D 12L 91.4 10/ 20/ 99 10:11:03 NWA375 B72Q D 12L 91.3 (RMT Site#14) ls` St. & Mckee St., Eagan Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft ArrivaU Runway Lmax (dB) Type Departure 10/ 15/ 99 7:18:25 AMT8139 B722 D � 12R 100.8 10/ 29/ 99 9:08:35 SCX791 B72Q D 12R 97.0 10/ 04/ 99 8:29:38 AMT8139 B72Q D 12L 95.8 � 10/ 14/ 99 10:04:13 UAL437 B722 D 12R 95.8 10/ 15/ 99 11:26:58 DAL1507 B72Q D 12R 95.3 10/ 09/ 99 17:14:11 NWA557 B722 D 12R 94.8 10/ 18/ 99 14:55:26 AAL510 F100 D 12R 94.4 10/ 07/ 99 13:45:12 N W A624 B72Q D 12R 94.2 10/ 29/ 99 22:57:15 KHA2709 B72Q D 12R 94.2 10/ 08/ 99 4:53:27 SCX603 B722 D 12R 94.2 (RMT Site#15) Cullon St. & Lexin�ton Ave., Mendota Heights Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) Tvne Deoarture 10/ 0'7/ 99 8:12:29 SC�C325 B72Q D 12L 96:9 10/ 07/ 99 11:48:09 N W A 1271 B722 D 12L 96.5 10/ 04/ 99 21:16:20 N W A 1545 B72Q D 12L 95.6 10/ 0'7/ 99 16:02:31 �DAL1624 B722 D 12L 95.6 10/ 14/ 99 7:22:17 SCX710 B72Q D 12L 95.1 10/ 20/ 99 21:16:25 N W A 1545 B72Q D 12L 95.0 10/ 07/ 99 21:18:13 N W A 1237 DC9 D 12L 94.5 10/ 14/ 99 15:2434 TWA533 B722 D 12L 94.1 10/ 20/ 99 21:11:21 NWA787 DC9 D 12L 93.9 10/ 04/ 99 19:16:34 U AL922 B72? D 12L 93.6 /" \. �� A Produc� of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program Merropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report 'Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP October 1999 (RMT Site#16) Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane, Eagan Date! Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) Type Departure 10/ l?/ 99 17:33:15 UNKNOW�N UNKN A 30L 102.9 10/ 15/ 99 11:49:49 N W A 627 B722 D 12R 101.0 10/ 18/ 99 7:17:26 AMT8139 B722 D 12R 100.1 10/ 07/ 99 20:53:04 N W A625 B722 D 12R 99.7 10/ 03/ 99 1732:59 N W A557 B722 D 12R 99.0 10/ 06/ 99 11:43:26 N W A 627 B722 D 12R 98.9 10/ 09/ 99 7:56:29 SCX227 B722 D 12R 98.8 10/ 11/ 99 7:18:12 AMT8139 B722 D 12R 98.8 10/ 09/ 99 11:13:08 DAL1507 B722 D 12R 98.6 10/ 20/ 99 9:15:33 SCX791 B72Q D 12R 98.5 (RMT Site#17) � 84''' St. & 4`� Ave., Bloomington Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) Type Departure 10/ 27/ 99 15:13 :26 N W A 19 B742 D � 22 99. $ 10/ 10/ 99 15:22:45 N W A 19 B742 D 22 99.1 10/ 17/ 99 7:09:17 AMT8417 B722 D 22 98.4 10/ 30/ 99 15:10:16 N W A 19 B742 D 22 97.5 10/ O1/ 99 15:0533 N W A 19 B742 D 22 96.7 10/ 26/ 99 16:30:44 N W A 19 B742 D 22 96.5 10/ 19/ 99 15:10:38 N W A 19 B742 D 22 96.2 10/ 17/ 99 15:08:24 N W A 19 B742 D 22 96.1 10/ 18/ 99 15:07:06 N W A 19 B742 D 22 95.9 10/ 18/ 99 10:34:08 N W A 17N B744 D 22 95.4 (RMT Site#18) 75`t' St. & 17`� Ave, Richfield Date/Time Flight Number .Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) 10/ 17/ 99 7:08:52 10/ 18/ 99 15:06:37 10/ 17/ 99 7:15:24 10/ 20/ 99 15:15:28 10/ 27/ 99 15:13:0? 10/ 08/ 99 15:24:40 10/ 04/ 99 15 :13 25 A M T8� 17 NWA19 CCP101 NWA19 NWA19 NWA19 NWA19 B722 B742 B72Q B742 B742 B742 B742 10/ 24/ 99 1 �:19:47 N W A 19 B7�2 D 22 1 QQ.3 10/ 09/ 99 1 �:06:�8 N W A 19 B742 D 22 100.1 10/ 31/ 99 13:?5:�8 N W A 19 B74-� D 22 99.8 Departure D 22 D 22 D 22 D 22 D 22 D 22 D 22 105.4 102.0 102.0 101.7 101.5 100.9 100.5 A Prcxiuct of the Metro�olitan Airports Coirunission ANOMS Program �3 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technica.l Ad�•isor's Repc�rt Top Ten Loudest Aircraft 1�loise Events for MSP October 1999 (RMT Site#19) 16`� Ave. & 84`� St., Bloomin�ton Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) Type Departure 10/ Ol/ 99 5:44:37 SCX603 B722 D 22 100.0 10/ 02/ 99 0:37:39 RYN 710 B72Q D 22 97.5 1Q/ 10/ 99 7:12:52 SCX710 B72Q D 22 96.9 10/ 10/ 99 19:33:29 N W A 1738 B72Q D 22 96.1 10/ 17/ 99 6:54:34 SCX461 B72Q D 22 95.9 10/ 10/ 99 7:14:12 SCX621 B72Q D 22 95.5 10/ 03/ 99 7:10:22 SCX621 B72Q D 22 95.4 10/ 17/ 99 7:13:11 N W A 1066 B72Q D 22 93.6 10/ 21 / 99 15:48:41 N W A 19 B742 D 22 93.5 10/ 14/ 99 15:0839 N W A 19 B742 D 22 93.0 (RMT Site#20) 75`� St. & 3`� Ave., Richfield Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) Type Departure 10/ 02/ 99 4:4937 RYN610 B721 D 22 95.4 10/ 25/ 99 11:31:01 DAL1507 B722 D 30L 92.8 10/ 31/ 99 12:34:16 UNKNOWN B'721 D 30L 90.5 10/ 12/ 99 22:23:07 KH A 1772 B727 D 30L 88.7 10/ 25/ 99 12:15:05 MES2848 SF34 D 30L 88.6 10/ 19/ 99 4:49:51 RYN 610 B72Q D 22 88.5 10/ 16/ 99 17:18:28 UAL1897 B732 D 30L 86.3 10/ 12/ 99 11:27:13 NWA459 DC9Q D 30L 85.6 10/ 19/ 99 1438:04 N W A 1256 DC9Q D 30L 84.3 10/ 12/ 99 2?:31:23 N W A211 DC9 D 30L 84.3 (RMT Site#21) Barbara Ave. & 67'�' St., Inver Grove Hei�hts Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft ArrivaU Runway Lmax (dB) 10/ 04/ 99 10:08:30 UAL437 10/ 14/ 99 21:18:41 N W A 56 10/ 06/ 99 17:46:50 N W A 1080 10/ 14/ 99 19:21:22 UAL922 10/ 04/ 99 15:02:11 N W A737 Type Departure B722 D B741 D DC9Q D B722 D DC9 D 12L 88.7 12R 87.6 12L 86.6 12L 86.5 12L 85.8 10/ 04/ 99 15:0423 SCX743 B722 � D 12L 85.7 10/ 20/ 99 17:23:50 UAL1897 B732 D ' 12L 85.7 10/ 18/ 99 15:34:02 SCX743 B72Q D 12L 85.5 10/ 06/ 99 12:08:34 UAL1661 B722 D 12L 8�.4 10/ 15/ 99 8:14:Si SCX325 B72Q D _ ___12L 8�.3 2� A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS ProQram C Metropolitan Aircraf[ Sound Abatement Cou.ncil (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Regort Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP October 1999 (RMT Site#22) Anne Marie Trail, Inver Grove Heights Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) Type Departure 1Q/ 09/ 99 7:57:41 SCX227 B722 D'• 12R 91.2 10/ 17/ 99 17:31:32 UNKNOWN UNKN � A 30L 89.4 10/ 04/ 99 7:59:36 SCX227 B722 D 12R 86.7 10/ 15/ 99 7:19:16 AMT8139 B722 D 12R 86.6 10/ 09/ 99 8:0934 N W A559 B722 D 12R 86.2 10/ 27/ 99 13:24:00 N W A624 B722 D 12R 86.2 10/ 02/ 99 0:03:37 AMT8138 B72Q A 30L 85.8 10/ 18/ 99 15:30:06 TWA533 B722 D 12R 85.5 l OJ 07/ 99 20:54:08 N W A625 B722 D 12R 85.5 10/ 27/ 99 17:06:46 DAL505 B72Q D 12R 85.4 (RMT Site#23) End of Kenndon Avenue, Mendota Heights Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) Type Departure 10/ 04/ 99 13:42:05 N W A 1270 B72Q D 12L 103 A 10/ 03/ 99 21:20:28 N W A449 B722 D 12L 102.5 10/ 07/ 99 11:47:59 N W A 1271 B722 D 12L 102.2 10/ 11/ 99 20:56:06 NWA615 B722 D 12L 101.5 10/ 03/ 99 20:43:55 N W A 1597 D C9 D 12L 101.4 10/ 04/ 99 7:21:30 SCX710 B722 D 12L 101.2 10/ 20/ 99 21:11:06 NWA787 DC9 D 12L 101.1 10/ 06/ 99 1333:43 N W A584 B72Q D 12L 101 A 10/ 20/ 99 11:19:15 N W A 1 S43 B722 D l2L 100.8 10/ 14/ 99 15:24:21 TWA533 B722 D 12L 100.7 (RMT Site#24) Chap�l Lanc & Wren Lane, Eagan Date/ Time Flight Number Airc.7aft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) 10/ 15/ 99 7:18:46 AMT81 ��) $722 10/ 09/ 99 7:57:05 SC�:2?7 B722 10/ 09/ 99 11:13:49 DA L I 507 B722 Departure D D D 12R 94.6 12R 94.3 12R 92.3 10/ OS/ 99 12:58:10 COA57x MD80 A 30R 91.3 10/ 08/ 99 4:53:�5 SCX603 B722 D 12R 91.2 10/ 16/ 99 16:34:02 A W E75� B733 A 30L 90.7 10/ 14/ 99 10:04:31 UAL437 B722 D 12R 90.7 10/ 17/ 99 17:32:18 U N KN O W N U N KN A 30L 90.4 10/ 07/ 99 15:14:17 SCX715 B72Q D 12R 90.2 10/ 04/ 99 7:59:06 SC?�?27 B722 D 12R 89.3 A Product of the Merropolitan Au�ports Commission ANOMS Program 25 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP October 1999 ( (RMT Site#25) Moonshine Park, 1321 Jurdy Rd., Ea�an Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft ArrivaU Runway Lmax (dB) Type Departure 10/ 29/ 99 21:43:33 SCX711 B72Q D 12R 90:4 10/ 04/ 99 7:11:39 FFT301 B'73Q D 12R 85.3 10/ 15/ 99 12:06:24 TWA658 DC9 D 12R 84.8 10/ 20/ 99 0:32:54 RYN 710 B72Q D 12R 84.1 10/ 29/ 99 10:06:55 UAL437 B72Q D 12R 83.8 10/ 21/ 99 13:57:35 DAL1859 B72Q A 30L 83.2 10/ 11/ 99 9:13:34 SCX791 B72Q D 12R 82.9 10/ 03/ 99 15:05:26 DAL1731 B72Q D 12R 82.9 10/ 07/ 99 6:12:37 SCX461 B722 D 12R 82.9 10/ 09/ 99 15:01:35 DAL1731 B722 D 12R 82.8 (RMT Site#26) 6796 Arkansas Ave. W., Inver Grove'Heights Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) Type Departure 10/ 29/ 99 15:15:06 N W A 19 B742 D 12R 89.9 10/ 06/ 99 7:09:38 SCX710 B722 D 12R 89.4 � 10/ 29/ 99 8:3225 SCX227 B72Q D 12R 88.6 10/ 04/ 99 11:29:35 DAL1507 B722 D 12R 88.5 10/ 04/ 99 7:22:23 SCX710 B722 D 12L 87.8 10/ 06/ 99 7:57:51 SCX325 B72Q D 12L 87.7 10/ 04/ 99 15:03:58 SCX743 B722 D 12L 87.4 10/ 24/ 99 21:36:12 N W A56 B742 D 12R 87.4 10/ 15/ 99 9:07:20 UAL754 B722 D 12L 87.3 10/ 11/99 19`.05:23 NWA1274 DC9Q D 12L 87.2 (RMT Site#27) Anthony Middle Schooi, 5757 Irving Ave. S., Minneapolis Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ ' Runway Lmax (dB) Type Departure 10/ 30/ 99 7:10:42 AMT8� 1 S B72Q D 30R 92.7 10/ 23/ 99 11:35:40 N W A 627 B722 D 30L 92.4 10/ 28/99 7:09:0> AMT8417 B72Q D 30R 92.3 10/ 28/ 99 8:27:5� CCP304 B72Q D 30L 92.0 10/ 10/ 99 7:19:�8 CCPI01 B72Q D 30L 91.9 10/ 22/ 99 9:18:08 SCX407 B72Q D 30L 91.8 10/ 22/ 99 5:15:4 I RYN 610 U N KN D 30L 91.7 10/ Ol/ 99 15:15:25 UAL463 B72Q D 30R 91.7 10/ 04/ 99 13:56:16 N WA 1073 DC9Q A 12R 91.3 10/ O l/ 99 13:21:50 N W A 624 B722 D 30L 91.3 (, . ?6 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP October 1999 �RMT Site#28) 6645 16 Avenue S., Richfield Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft ArrivaU Runway Lmax (dB) Type Departure 10/ 31 / 99 12:33:44 UN KN O W N B�21 D 30L 98.4 10/ 22I 99 13:27:35 UAL1055 B732 D 30L 92.7 10/ 12/ 99 12:33:14 NWA431 A320 D 30L 92.4 10/ 16/ 99 15:00:51 DAL1731 B72Q D 30L 92.2 10/ 10/ 99 7:04:13 N W A 1066 B72Q D 30L 91.8 10/ 15/ 99 13:43:37 U N KN O W N LR25 D 30L 91.5 10/ 30/ 99 7:15:51 BMJ56 BE80 D 22 91.4 10/ 31/ 99 12:42:27 RAX121 LJ24 D 30L 91.0 10/ OS/ 99 15:14:38 NWA732 DC9 D 30L 89.9 10/ 29/ 99 8:13:46 NWA1733 DC9Q A 12L 89.8 (RMT Site#29) Ericsson Elementary School, 4315 31S` Ave. S., Minneapolis Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) ' 1 Type Departure 10/ 23/ 99 7:26:41 SCX710 B72Q D 30R 95.7 10/ 21/ 99 19:33:47 UAL922 B722 D 30R 94.4 10/ 10/ 99 9:08:27 UAL754 B72Q D 30R 93.7 10/ 12/ 99 20:46:35 MES2910 SF34 D 30R 92.4 10/ OS/ 99 15:10:46 SCX743 B722 D 30R 91.6 10/ 21/ 99 10:0922 CKS1844 DC86 D 30R 90.7 10/ OS/ 99 20:49:46 U N KN O W N LR24 D 30R 90.7 10/ OS/ 99 17:57:31 SCX408 B72Q D 30R 90.3 10/ 19/ 99 2124:43 FDX1385 B721 D 30R 90.3 10/ OS/ 99 9:07:21 UAL754 B72Q D 30L 90.2 October 1999 Top Ten Summary: 'The top ten noise events and the event ranges at each RMT for Octabc:r 1999 were comprised of 86.2�7� departure operations. The predominant top ten aircraft type was the Be�eing 727 with 6�.5�/0 of the highest Lmax evencs. Due to the nature of operations on the crosswind runway, (4/2?) RMT's 9, 10, 11 and 12 in St. Paul are an exception. The predominant top ten aircraft type over St. Paul was the Boeing 747 with 47.5% of the highest Lmax events. Note: Unknown fields are due to data unavailability in FAA flight track data. A Product of the Nletropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�ram 27 Metropolican Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Repor� Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events - Aircraft I,dn dBA October 1999 I3ate 1 � 3 4 i 6 7 K 9 Remoce Monitoring Towers � #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12�#13j#14 #15 �I �8.? 61.7 63.6 ' 66 72.9 76.5 67.9 � 64.7 � �2.9 I�7.3 39.3 31.7 : 38.3 61 (-�7. �( I�7.3 60.3 60.� ' 63.6 69.6 7?.1 6i.2 , 61.3 43.8 �6.6 �.3 nla n/a ' j7' 36.-� � � i8.E 603 63.1 ! 63.9 70.8 73.6 6?.1 ! 61.3 ; 36.9 393 n/a 41.1 �;7.7 E*�.3 �9.-� I �9.7 ( 59.9 635 ! 62.1 68? 68.9 � � 47.1 ( 43.8 34.1 ?>.? ( 41.7 � 63J 66.� I 6�.9 58.=� j9J ( 6?.i � 65? 70.9 7�? I 67.6 I 64.6 ( 49.� I 61? �3.5 3-}.4 ' 39 ' S9.y ��9? I i9.6 � 61? ( 65.4 ' 63.fi 69.7 I 69.7 52? ! 49.� �>2.� I 59.1 48 38.1 � 61J ' 66 � 63 �) I�9.3 � 61.1 I 6i 64 70.1 71 I�4.� i 5� ( �2? I�6.4 4? '( 46.4 6? ' 65.9 6S.b i7.? 59.8 61.9 ; 6�.6' 72.�3 7i.i' 66.3 I 63.6 ; 36 3;.3 nla n/a 37.4 __ 61.9 �6.6 �6.1 _>6.9 62 i 60.9 67.1 68.1 � 4L9 � 46.7 � 52.6 ��.1 37.6 41.? � 62 ' 65.9 63 �8.4 �9.8 61.9 6i? 71? � 7=�.1 673 � 63.2 ( 38.3 43.7 39? 39.� ��3.8_'_60 � � 39.3 �6J �9.2 63.8 : 61.9 68.7 ( 68 �) 49.6 � 49.1 � 48.2 49.i 36.1 42.6 � 61 E*�.8 63.� ' �8.7 �9.8 63.7 ! 64.� 71.1 7�J 66 62.6 55.9 61.6 47.6 39.3 I 56.9 � 62.9 59 57.6 59.2 63.4 � 63.8 733 74.6 67.8 ( 63.3 43 � 56.3 47.9 40.1 I �33 i 61a 54.4 60.6 59J 64.4 � 62.9 69.1 69.�) 3�,7 ( 47.4 (�6.� 48.; 42S �1.8 � 63 � 67 64.8 i � 58.3 59.6 63.9 I 64.3 7"?. i 7-1 6�.1 ( 63.4 46.7 �8.3 4� 4�.4 55.4 i 6�.8 57.7 59 i 60.7 62.7 � 6�.3 7� 7-t.l 67.� � 63.6 4�.7 58 4b 37.2 35.9 I 60.6 44 �K.7 60.6 6"_'.3 , 6�.C� 71.� � 7�.K � fi7.-� ' fi�.l 41.3 42 i 40.9 36.3 � 37.1 � 60.7 46.1 � f�().3 6?.3 � 64.7 F� � 7().l � 7�.-� j fO.K f�.3 � 42 ( 43.8 47.y 40.4 � 60 � 6�.6 63:? � i9.� E�.l 62? 6� � 71 �1 ( ��.�J 67.fi ! E�.7 i� �:? 37 � 39.8 I 36.4 I 61 4�.4 f � i ��fi.y � 60.6 I 63.4 �-t.K I 71.7 � 7-t.l � 6�.�) 61 ��i1.7 �2.4 3�.6 46.5 � 60.4: 6� 63.4 , � 57.? I>�).7 61.7 6�.? � 71.1 � 7�.ii , hfi.l ' fi� ��.6 39.j 36 38.5 � 4i.8 : 63.1 52.4 I ��7.3 � i7.9 6?? f*i � 71.E� ; 7;.�) ' 67.7 fi�? �-�3? I�6.9 i:}.8 38.7 i 38 I 613 4�.8 I �6.fi � 6().3 61.7 E��.; i fi�?.f� � 7-l.l i fi�.�i f�l.-� i 4�.-� ��.8 �-�.8 36 � j�.l � 61.7 j6? � I;6.-� � f�() 63.-� fi�.� I 71.�` 7-�.1 � C��.�) E�l.? �=�8.-� � j0.1 37' 39 5•. 60.8 i 62.8 62.4 I��' � i�I.7 I i9.7 fil.fi � fi�i.� �,.ti fi�.fi E�l.� � 37.7 ��5? 4?.1 ! 38.3 � 4�.? '��).6 j0.� ��6.2 ��7J 61.8 6?.E, 7U.�� : 7�.�� (�i.h � 6?.6 i 3i.6 � 35.4 36.9 3i,3 i �i.2 : 61.1 57 ' E�().�) � C�().-� I Cx�.3 .6'_.t{ I fi�).� 7t).1 ��fi.� i3? 41.-� � 4�.3 �1.� 54.� ! 61.� 6�.� Er1' � �C�.;S �:i;{.9 63.7 6?.-1 � 7U.ti 7-�.� E�� fi0.7 jl � ii,i ( 3�).�) ; 35.i �7.7 6? 9 I i9.i , � i i � i�).-� � C�().y I fi-1.� 63.� ! fi�),I 7().f� -1-t.�) -�7.1 46.3'; -�7.-� =�3.6 ( �1.� 6?.� 6�.�) j Ex�.� •, �7.-1 i i7.�) � FiO.h 6?.?{ i 7U.�1 7�.� ' E�fi.� C�?. I' 37.9 �-31.� ( n/a j n/a 37 �9.9 41 i ;1 ' ifi.h I 5y �(�3 fil.� � 7U.� 7?.l ; 61.5 iK.E, �U? I 3�).? ��O.l �l.l i9.9 6?.'3 � 63? i ' I�Io. Ldn 60.Oi 61.3 6�.� 6�.6 � 73.4 i 7�.�. 67.1 64.0; ��.8, �4.6 4$.4i 45.7 60.4� 67.1 63.1 2K A Yrociuct of the Metr�politan Airpc�rts Commission ANOMS Pro,ram ( /; \ � Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Analysis of Aircraft I�oise ]Events - Aircraft I..dn dBA ,�� . October 1999 Rermte Monitoring Towers j Date #16 #17 #18 #19 #20 #21 #22 � #23 #24 #2� #26 #Zi #28 #29 1 6�.4 �7 I 61.4 j 61? � 1.1 37.1 �7.9 � 5i ; 61 i 45.8 51.5 63? 63.1 I n/a ' ? I 63 I 36.2 : 52.� I 41.4 ��.6 39.1 52.2 49.6 '>7.8 37.8 ( 4� � i9.9 � fi�.? � n/a � � � 68 6 ��3 3 � 6? 1! i7 1� 47.4 56.6 `��.7 : 69.9 ' 61.4 ��.8 ( i7 ' 61.? ��6.7' n/a , � � 4 � 69.1 �6.8 I 61. I� 53.8 ( 46.5 59.2 60.7 1 72 � 6�.1 i8.4 i9.9 !_i 1.3 ; 5?.9 3�.9 j ( 6�.7 �>6 � 60.1 � 47.3 ��2.8 . 41.6 I>4.9 I j6 � 612 � 48.4 4$.8 �?9.�) 63.1 62.6 ! 6 � 68.6' �3.8 i 53.1 I 47.6 , 4?.l 59.9 i9.4 � 71.8 ! 63.8 ( 6?.7 59.6 � 4i.1 I i9.; � 37.� 7 ( 68.4 ( 49.; i 54.� � 46J 39.7 _55.9 (>8 i� 71.8 � 63.1 58.8 � 58.1 52J ��7.1 4�.6 8 ( 66.6 I 50.1 � j8.6 � 52.� 46.9 40.6 �6.7 56.6 6?J �6? n/a i 6?.8 { 59.8 ��)? 9 68.8 �6 � 62.3 58 4�.3 �73 59.2 � 70 5 I 62.8 ��.1 n/a 4�.4 ( 46.4 47.9 10 I 6�.6 I�9? I 62.9 � 61.7 � 53 �.7 j4.j ;�! j9.$ 38.6 n/a 60> 62.4 i��.7 11 68.6 � �6.4 � 59.7 � �3.9 ��J.1 57.4 �8.4 ! 71.1 i 61.9 �8.2 i8.1 463 S9' 3�.8 12 ( 67.i 453 � 49.3 43.? �?S �3.4 56.3 � 66.5 � 60.9 54.1 �3.5 60.7 61.4 >3.9 13 66.3 43.8 48.8 46.7 50.1 45.3 ».9 I 63.4 I 60.5 52.2 � 1.3 63 61.3 57.2 1-� � 69.� 51.6 �>8.1 52.4 42.� ;9.8 59.7 I 71.8 ( 63.i 5�).8 i9J 3�.6 47 > 3�.6 l� 69.6 45.2 ` 46.4 40? 45.9 55.4 _57.1 j 66.6 I 62J 57.7 58.3 61.2 59.8 56.2 16 ( 66? 49? ( i1.7 I 46.3 54 38.6 57 i i2 � 60.8 50.9 49.1 58.i 62.7 >8.9 17 � 66.1 61 � 6�.8 ��9.� ;3.7 ,�'?.9 SS.S � �1.9 ! 60? �2.9 4i.9 61.� 61.4 60.1 l�i � 6�3.K (�7.7 ': i9.9 ! i0.1 ��0.7 (�6.3 ( i9.4 ' 69.4 � 63.9 >83 57.4 � 56 I 57.3 i3.1 1�� I 6F �;;.1 ! 59.=1 I�7.h I S6.�1 4U.7 �7.6 ��; ! 613 47.3 � 4t3.6 � 60.3 � 63.4 62.4 ?O ! fiS.3 � i0.3 ' SK.� '-17.h I 49 �6.� �9.2 70.1 ' 62.4 � 57.6 I�7.3 � 60.6 I 59? I i3 ?I � 67.-� � 4�).� � 49.�) ' i0.7 ! i3? 3�).� �6J 61.1 ' 61.8 52.8 I�0.8 � 60? 61.� 61.8 `" I 66.6 -��.3 �'_.-� �-�7.fi � ii? I 3x I ii.9 i5.3 61.1 � 43.2 �7.6 I C�.2 I 6� 6? ?; (�i,5 �-a-l.H :-�7.�i �;.-� �-1�).; ��0.6 i3.7 fi-#.-i i8.�) 47.1 j3.� � C�.K ( 62.1 E�.� ?.� �(�(� � 5�. � C�(). 3�?.7 �-i7.7 ; i.�.3 � i6.K 6K.Fi f�.� 4K.6 ��-�.7) E�.9 ( j8.7 ��).9 i ' I � ?� E��.� �-ll.i iQ.7 -1-1.? ��-t.7 � �?.1 � i 3.5 �h ��I.7 ��1�).� ��s.? i�7.? � 62? f�O.l I �fi ' 6i � 5.},� ' S.}.y �.}i,3 ;-1�).� I�l.fi I ��.-� E>-l.3 i9.-� I j2.1 I JZ.� � C�O.4 � 5�).ti �7.7 _ ' �7 ' C�7 � fi6.h i7.i .}�,i '.�?.� ! i7.� ��7.1 7Q.1 F,1 62.K ,�6.� . 4ti.4 I 56.4 46? ?ti � fi7.3 � -�y.l �U.6 -1�.� ' -37.3 ' ��.i ' i5 67.K f�().3 � �H � �i.4 � ��).4 � 61.1 � -�7.6 �y � fi5 7!-�7 1-�� 7�O.K '-lC�.-� t iK.�J � iH. l 71.K 6?.3 � 61.K � i9.K ( 49 � 55.4 37.i �() � f*�.7 �6.� �y.7 �3�).-} ' �U.� i .�(}.K � i-3.� �l.fi �9.? , 47? . �fi.6 i 61.3 � 61.1 i ��).-� 31 6�.-3 �fi.-3 Fi1.6 �7.fi :�-�.3 � i3.6 � ii.i 6�).3 f�().i ; �� 3 � i>.7 � ih.7 � C�().�J ��.K 1��Io. I1dn 70.316Q.2 64.0 6{).8; 56.5 56.5 60.3� 69.6 64.8 59.2 58.7 61.4 63.3 60.4 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 29 i. $�i::lt� _�� u1 � z .� . ,. , �� . �� 1 .. , �1-� �,.� �1 �= _ � .. , . . .. : .: � _ � e� � . . . . r �� < C� __ __ _ Metropolitan Airports Commission � 41 (0.6%) Runway 12L and 12R Carrier Jet Departure �perations were North of the 090° Corridor �oundary i)uring October 1999 Minneapolis-St. Paul Penetration Gate Plot for Gate North_Corridor 10/01/1999 00:00:00 -1 i/01I1999 Q0:00:00 ' 41 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left =15 (36.6%), Right = 26 (63.4%) OVUV . � • 50Q0................ : ................: ................ : ................. ... � : .r • • ...... � 4000 ................ . ................: ................ : ........... u. • • : .., � 3000 ....................................•........�.......p ...�........... � . • p � �.1 = . C�04;. . �. . � Z000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : o. . . . .�g o �So o. �o. o.� . o. . . . . . . . . . - - . a � _ a : 1000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . C� . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 _.._ . 0 1 (Corridor End) (Runway End) —1 Deviation From Center of Gate (Miles) + Arrival � Departure ❑ Overflight � Page 2 Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis Q Metropofi[an Airports Commission 253 (4.1%) lZunway 12i., and 12R Carrier Jet Departure �perations were South of the Corridor (5outh of 30L I�ocaiizer) Dur�ng �ctober 1999 , .... Minneapolis-St. Paui ` Penetration Gate Plot for Gate South_Corridor '' 10/01 M 999 00:00:00 - 11/01/i 999 00:00:00 :' 253 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 160 (62.0%), Right = 93 (38.0%) : . :... . ,<._ . : � -. 6000 . 5000 ................ : ............... : ................ : ................. ... ' ' � � . . . � 4000 ................ ................ ................ ................. u. . . : ... . . � 3000 �...0 . .�CO:�p p ..� O .......................:.................. � • : . . .. . ... .. ............:.................. a 2000 . � �° .�o�_ � : � � � �."i'� 0� (Corridor End} .,. _ ��;�� . ��..o....... —1 0 i �RWY Mid-Point)� Deviation From Center of Gate (Miles) + Arrival O Departure ❑ Overfiight � Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis Page 3 Metropolitan Airports Commission 9(0.1 %) IZunway 12L and 12R Carrier Jet I)eparture Operations were 5° South of the Corridor (5° Souih of 30L I,ocalizer) During October 1999 .:.. . ._F � ;� . . t z .-.,. ,. -i'. c' . �': .- ... `' . . . ..i :S� . � � ..r _ .73.:,..._o4L.F:rN....._t. .�i._......a'�. .... �, {' �.�._».,. ... ... .t . . .. . � . _ -c... . . . .. � �... '` '` i'� Minneapoiis-St. Paul +.; � , � t ' ;� :� s<, ;� ,;� Penetration Gate Plot for Gate South_Corrldor_5deg '�' �s � 10/01/1999 00:00:00 -11/01/1999 00:00:00 .r.:r'� .;:i4-.'��ry� :-;:�=:�:,:;�;.; t:3�;; g Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 9(100.0%), Right = 0(0.0%) , r � r� : � � a s, —: � � ��.f�.;,.,. ^�--r ...� w_•... .:< . .� .,:�: :�.__. .. _._r}.,..,_- ..... _.,,� ._.. . .. ,_� �� , . . 5000 ................ . ................ . ................ . ................ ^ . . . �., , . . � 4000 ................ . ................. ................ . ................ � . . . ... � 3000 .................:.................................... ................. � � . . . = �? .(� . a2000 . ....o... . ........o...o . ................ ................ 1000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � . . . . . . .Q;. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 (Corridor End) -� � 1 (RWY Mid-Poi�t) Deviation From Center of Gate (Miles) + Arrival O Departure ❑ Overflight � Page 4 Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Anatysis �. �" � Metropolitan Airports Commission Top 15 Runway 12L and 12R Departure Destinations for October 1999 ,, , �, , ii •�i ,, i � �� YYZ Toronto qso 74 1.2% BOS Boston Logan g�o 73 1.2%a DTW Detroit 105° 121 1.9% CLE Cleveland 109° 63 1:0% MDW Chicago - Midway 124.0 142 2.3°Io ORD .� Chicago - O'Hare 124.0 � 11 1.8% ATL Atlanta Iq.go 87 1.4°Io STL � St. Louis 160° 67 1.1 % MCI Kansas City lggo 70 l.l% DFW Dallas - Ft. Worth 193° 78 1.3% PHX Phoeni x 2310 69 1.1 °lo DEN Denver 2370 85 1.4% LAX Los Angeles 2380 60 1.0% SFO San Francisco 251� 69 1.1% SLC Sa1t Lake City 252� 85 1.4% Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis Page 5 C� C �: �� : . �� .: n . � . � .: � . . . , . . ., �. �- !! � m �: f-.= a.. : x � A biweskly update on liti�ation, re�ulations, and te�hnological deve3opments Volume 11, Number 19 Park Service Policy P�.RK SERVICE TO DESCRIBE METHODOLOGY FOR PARK NOISE MEASUREMENT IN IVIANUAL [The National Park Service (iVPS) is expected early in the new year to publish an agency manz�al defzning the methodology the agency plans to use in measuring aircraft overflight noise in national parks. The following paper, written by Wesley R. Henry and William B. Schmidr of NPS, which was presented at Nov. 3 session of the meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, traces some of the more signifz- cant developments in the Par;c Service's efforts to address noise from air tour operations and discusses current Park Service policy and plans.] A reason, and perhaps the principal reason, for this joint Acoustical Sociery of America/Federal Intezagency Committee on Aviation Noise (ASA/FICAI� session is the fact that the National Park Service (NPS) has been increasin�ly active and vocal in its efforts to protect the natural soundscapes of our national parks. A number of recent events have tended to draw attention to this effort but its �enesis ' �es bact; decades. and pro'�abiy can be tr3ced t� ths feunr.iation �f the NPS in �._ � 16. Why is the NPS so concerned about protecun� its soundscapes along with the biota, scenic vistas, and other resources entrusted to its care? Why has the NPS (Continued on p. 1�) Natural Soundsca.pes OVERFLIGI�T NOISE IN PARKS INTERRUPTS 'VOICE' OF NAT�7RA.L WORLD, NIEETiNG TOLD [Following is the text of a presentation made at the ASA session by Bernie Krause, focinder of 4Vifd Sanctuary, Inc., Glenn Ellen, CA. Krause is a bio- acoustician who has tivortied for 2� years recording and evaluating the effects of ambient sound on the vocali�ations of various animals. He has accumulated ane of the lar,�est private libraries of natural sourcds in the tivor(d.] In his important book Nature & i�ladness (Sierra Club Books, 1982), the late Paul Shepard wrote that the increased siQns of patholo�ical human behavior in Euro-,�merican culture are directiv related to the loss of wild habitat and our connection to the natural world. One of the most important resources of the natural world is its voice — or na[ural soundscape. In its pure state where no human noise is present, natural soundscapes are slorious symphonies. However, the combina- tion of shrinkinQ habitat couoled with an increase of human noise has created conditions where non-human communication necessary to creature surviva] has `��n cut off. At [he same timz, humans are denied an experience of the wild '�. itural esszncial to theirs. November �, 1999 In This Issue... Ntttional Parks ... This special issue of A�.'�IR hiah- liQhts papers presented at a special Nov. 3 session of the 138th meeting of the Acousti- cal Society of America held in Columbus, OH. The session, co-sponsored by the Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN), exam.ined the issue of natural quiet in the national park system. The science of ine3surin� a.ircraft overfliQht noise in national parks is still in its infancy. Because of the low levels of ambient noise in parks, special measurement methodoloQies and modelinQ techniques arz under devel-y opment. A1so, dose-response relationships showinQ under what circumstances park visitors will be annoved bv aireraft overfliaht noise are beinQ defined. Besides annovinQ park visitors, aircraft o�'erflight noise also disru�cs the natural soundscape or "biophony" used by some species as a protective mechanism to hide their location frc�m predators, a noted bio-acous�ici�n tells the conference. (Continc�ed on p. I-�8) � � Copyright �O 1999 by Airport Noise Repon. Ashburn. Va. 201�1? ]44 taken a p��sition when o[her land manasin� asencies, such as the f��rest Service and the Bureau of Land Manasemen[. have n��r — at least not yet? W�ile we are obviously not presuming to speak for these other asencies, the reason in the case of'the Park Service is the Ian�uaQe in our foundin� le�islatic�n, the Park Service's Orsanic Act. Titic l5 US Code Section i e: seq states that the purpose c�f the nacional parks is "to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wiidlife therein and to provicic for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and hy such means as will leave thern unimpaired for the enjoym�nt of futvre �enerations ... The authorization of :lctivitics shail be construed and the protection, manase- ment, :incl administration of these areas ... shall not be exercisccl in derogation of the values and purposes for which thesc v��rious areas have been established..." 'I'he5c words have been the subject of extensive analysis, debate, and even liti�ation for years and the meanin� has becomc clear. The first part of the quote imposes an obligatic�n of the NPS to prevent impairment of park ncsourccs and values so that they will be sustained for the ��fit and inspiration of future �enerations. The second ��y s an obligation on the NPS not to take, or allow, any �n ihat would result in a derosation of the values and � for which units of the svstem have been estab- 'iinless directly and specifically provided for by �: In other words, at the most fundamental level, the Act prohibits any action or condition that would rresources and valuPs. Beyond this most funda- Y ate however, the act and its amendments confer ��ibility on the NPS to protect all park resources and 'to the greatest extent practicable, while manajina the �xs, in a sustainable manner for compatible visitor ^�yment, Tt�is '•resource preservation" mandate is a key iple that distinRuishes the NPS from other federal land tltaiiagement :i��n�ies, like the Forest Service, with "mul- �..._ . hplc land usc " ciuirters. `Natural Quiet' ; t ne �oncern of tf�c Park Service about controllinQ the �mwing noise p��n problem in the parks has been crilrcted in NPS E,,��i��,, and NPS-related lesislation for dc�:ades. The titlr ��' ��1� p,SAIFTCAI�i session relates to the trrm "natural quirt" :tnd so it would be helpful to trace the �rnesis and use ��(' i�� ferm as it is related to NPS noise 1\\UCS. ln 1975, as pa�t ,�� 2�i��lic Law 93-620, the Grand Canyon \ational Park Enl,��,_� �l»n� Act. Consress used the term "natural quiet" i�i ir;:i��;ltion for the first time. The lesisla- ti��e history ai'tl�c� ;�,.� ,�,�� not elabornte on what Congress meant by this tri•it� i'Iir lirst N�PS use and definition of the cerm occurs in thr '�;�,�•�•�•:l;t �fanasement Plan Environ- mental Assestimr��•� �•„�. �� Grand Canvon National Park in 1986 w•here nat��i;�� ,�1��•t is defined as "the absence of man- made sounds," �'i��, ��,li�t��t continues: "It is considered a natural resourrr (�� . �,i��,i�� of this plan." Airport Noi.se Report In I987, the ConQress passed Public Law 100-91 thac, amon� other things, mandated the "substantiai restorarion of natural quiet" at Grand Canyon. The NPS defined substan- tial restoration of natural quiet for Grand Canyon National Park as more than 50 percen[ of the park achievinQ "natural quit" conditions (i.e., no aircrafr audible) for 7� to 100 percent of the air tour day. In other words, subscantial restocation of naturai quiet at Grand Canyon Nationai Park (the only park where this phrase has been defined) wilI require that there be natural quiet in half or more of the park for most of the day. In 1994 the NPS, at the request of Congress, prepared a comprehensive report on the probiem of noise associated with aircraft overflishts. As part of that report, the NPS noted that "These policy statements [from NPS Manase- ment Policies] make clear the importance of natural quiet as a resource in many units of the National Park System. This resource is defined as the natvral ambient sound conditions found in those units." Let us summarize some of the key points above: • The NPS has identified the natural soundscape as a resource of the parks for many years; • As a resource, the soundscape falls under the "protect unimpaired" mandate of the NPS OrQanic Act; • The term "natural quiet" was a creature of the ConQress; • Because of the history of tryinQ to control the impact of aircraft noise at Grand Canyon National Park, the term "restoration of natural cjuiet" and, to a larQe extent, the term "natural quiet" iuelf, has become a term of art unique to that P�� .. . . . •"The National Park Service is usins the broade: term "natural soundscape" to describe that condition where there is no human-caused sound consistent with its historic position. Air Tours RecognizinQ how we �ot to today's posidon on noise, what additional observations are relevant? First, as many have noted, the NPS has spent a �reat deal of attention on the matte: of aircraft noise. Is the �IPS "opposed" to aircraft? Is aircraft noise the only noise of concern of the NPS? The answer to both questions is "no." The NPS is home to both the Wrisht brothers' facilities and to the site of the first powered fli�eh� at Kitty Hawk and also uses aircraft as an integral part of iu dailv acavities. Aircraft of all types are used for emersency operations and routine administrative activities in a number of parks — movin� NPS personne] and equipment, providin� surveil- lance of wildiife and parri facilities, etc. Tney are also used by taur operators and others to provide people who would otherwise rot have the opportunity or chance to witness some of the most masnificent scenery this country has to ofier. The N�'S is, however, very concerned tna� the use of aircraft be conducted in a manner that does no� imoair par: resources. tiVe insist that the parks themselves obse:ve this requiremen[ and fe�l it only reasonable [ha� o�ners aoide by Airport Noise Reporc �, , November S, 1999 this standard. As a comment on this point, the Consress is, at this moment, considerin� two slishtiv different versions of lesislation that has been passed by both houses that deals with the manner that air tours should be conducted over national parks. The frame�Nork for these provisions did not come from the F.AA or the Park Service but rather from a working aroup, endorsed by both agencies, that consisted of representatives of the air tour operators, environmental interests, and Native Americans. Despite the diverse interests of the parties, they were able to hammer out an aQreed upon approach that all parties feel is equitable. Aircraft noise is definitely not'the only source of human- cnused noise of concern to the NPS. To date, the NPS has produced two editions of a document called "The Nature of Sound." It is basically an internal educational document intended for people like park superintendents and interpret- ers. The document as a whole, and the messaje from the Director that prefaces the document, are quiet explicit that minimization of all sources of human noise, includinQ the noise created by NPS opera[ions, are of concern and need to be dealt with as quickly and effecuvely as possible. In addition, the NPS is amendin� its internal policies and is preparin� another document called "Reference Manual 47" (RM 47) to �uide its future actions. The policy state- ment with respect to noise and natural resources explicitly reiterates the points made above. "The National Pa.rk Service will reserve the natural ambient soundscapes, a natural resource of the parks, w}uch exist in die absence oi human-caused sound. The natural ambient soundscape is the agoreQate of all the natural sounds that occur in parks..." Noise Nleasurement in Parks Rl�I 47 contains a Director's Order on the subject of noise and soundscape manaaement and contains a number of "how to" sections on such subjects as the development of noise manasement plans, the development of air tour manasement plans, how parks can deal constructively with the military on military air space issues, and how to measure and monitor noise in the parks. This latter subject is perhaps also a matter of interest to FTCAN and the Acoustical Society of America. The NPS has been measurina soundscaoe levels in the parks for decades but has nbt emnioyed a consistent methodoloQy in its work. Some of the measurements were lons term, unattended measurements. some were short term monitorinQ oF inrrusions. Almost all were done in terms of A-weishted decibel levels. Some were done in conjunction wi[h dose- response surveys. Seve; al years aao the F.4A and its contractor prepared a manuai entitled "Draft Guidelines for the i�leasurement and Assessment of Low-Level Ambient Noise" to show us how they thousht such measurements ouoh� to be done. � Over the past few �ears we have be�n tryin� to son out the various pieces to determine which [echniques and proce- dures make sense for the iv�'S Qiven our mission and needs. 145 A basic issue for the NPS has to do with the appropriate metrics for describinQ the natural ambient sound levels. Pviuch of the work done by the acoustic community has been directed at relatively (or very) noisy urban environments. For example, the DNL metric commonly used for aircraft noise studies, is, to us, clearly an inappropriate mecric for park environmeau, both because of the inherent bias of the metric in terms of quiet times and because of the potential for confusion with the FAA's community based standards. Our current thinkins is that a statistical metric such as the L90, the level of sound exceeded 90 percent of the time, is a more relevant metric for determinins the natural ambient conditions, particularly when applied appropriately to diurnal variations to sound levels measured over lon� periods of time. For "quiet" pares of quiet parks, experience has shown the L90,�L50, and 1-second Leq values generally lie within a few dB of each other. For noisier park environ- ments the L90 still represents a usefui reference value for park manaaement purposes and its use in this context is analogous to the "back�round noise level" used in a number of noise resulations. Another issue has to do with the measurement methodol- osy. After careful consideration of the FAA's proposed methodology we have concIuded that it is not suitable for national parks. Among other thinQs, it relies on short (three hour) observer-.based measurements that provide no sense of the overall diurnal cycle being measured, inappropriately combines acoustic and audibility logs, is very expensive, and uItimately fails to provide the information needed by park managers. The mini-manual contained in R1�147, due out shortly after the first of the year, will reflect the ap- proach favored by the NPS and will be refined as time passes. There are a number of other issues that need resolution. Modelin�, for example, is a critical problem. The NPS has an acoustic model that is based on the Army Tank Com- mand's acoustic model. AlthouQh it has a number of strenschs, the cost of updating and maintainina the model is hish. The FAA's Integrated Noise i�Sodel (Ii�i) has not proved useful in its present form, parucularly where audibility projections are required. Tne FAA has been workins with the Park Service to adaot its model to the unique problems of our parks. The Fr1.a. and the N�PS have also recently completed the first field data collection phase of a major model valida�ion studv at the Grand Canvon NaCional Park. `Ve will be usins these data to he:D assess the canaoili�ies associated wich the available mode?s such as the [F�derai :�viation Administra- tion's] InteQrated Noise Model (I�1,1i, the Naciona] Park Service Overr"liaht Decision Supoor� System (�tODSS) [developed earIier for the Park Se:vice by BBN Sys�emsJ, our NPS model, and the NoisemaD Simulation i�Sodel (i�t1�lSItii), a variant of a militar�• noi�e model [bein� evaluated for the Park Service b�� 'vle Labs�. All of these issues present a cnaltea,e to the �'PS in restorins and pro�ecting the natural soundscapes of our parks.04 Airport Noise Repon 146 Airport 1Voise Report Park Noise t1�Ieasurement ASAIANSI SHOULD DEVELOP METHODOLOGY, l�IEETING TOLD The work of developinQ an appropriate methodolo�y for measurins and assessina low-levei noise, such as in national parks, should be �iven to a voluntary standards writing workins �roup of the Acoustical Society of America and the American National Standards Institute (ASAlANSI), Gre�Q G. Flemin�, manaser of the Acoustics Facility at the U.S �� Department of Transportation's Volpe Center in CambridQe, Iv1A, has recommended. His proposal was made at the conclusion of his presenta- tion at a Nov. 3 special session on preservins natural quiet in national parks, held as part of the 138th meetins of the Acoustical Society of America in Columbus, OH � FleminQ's proposal hiQhliehts the fact that the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Park Service, which ConQress expects to work cooperatively in resoIvin� the growing noise problem from air tours over national parks, are developin� different methodoloaies for assessin� the impact of air tour noise on park visitors. It also recog- nizes the fact that the two federal aQencies have vastly different asendas and constituencies, makinQ it very difficult for them to asree on a noise measurement method- olo�y. 4 Under contract to the FAA, FleminQ has developed "Draft Gu��elir.es f�r the MeasLre:ne^t :,n� Asse.sm�Sl* J: T C.r- Level Ambient Noise, which were published in Mazch 1998. However, Wesley Henry of the Park Service announced at the ASA speciai session that the Park Service has concluded that the methodolosy developed for the FAA is not suitable for national parks and that the Park Service will issue a manual shortly after the new year definins the approach it favors. � The eoal of the ASA/ANSI workinQ Qroup, Flemins told ANR. ` would be the development of an American National Standard on the subject." The workin� group, he said, could be made up of inembers of the National Park Service, and the FAA, but would also include experts from the broader area of noise measurement and analvsis. "Such a diverse �roup would eliminate any perceived bias associated with methodolosies developed individually be either the NPS or FAA. It wouid also lead to consistent and comparable noise data measurement and analysis in the national parks," Flemina said. He noted that the FA:� and Park Service have alreadv established a technical revie�v committee for a project to validate noise models used in the Grand Canyon Nationai Park. "That is a�ood startin`� point," FleminQ said, althouQh h� stressed that the focus of that sroup was on validatinQ � nuise models and not on estaolishins measurement method- ologies. � Flemin�'s recommendation to have a standards writinQ workin�* aroup develop a noise measuremen[ methodolosy for low-levei noise is evidence that the field of assessine noise impact in parks is in iu infancy. Still beins debated is what is the best metric to use, what is the best noise modei, and what is the best type of noise mitisation to use in parks. As one ooserver told AN�R. "You can't soundproof, so what do you do?"� Research i• ' '• �- - ! • i� • . '� . . � � Dose-response data being developed on how visitors to national parks react to aircraf[ noise in different situations and settinss wiIl help park manasers make decisions about where to locate fli�ht corridors for air tours and the number of air tour operations that are compatible with their park. Efforts to determine how the noise of air tours affects visitors to national pazks was discussed in a paper presented by Nicholas P. Miller of Harris Miller Miller & Hanson, Inc., Burlington, MA, at a special Nov. 3 session of the semi-annual meetin� of the Acoustical Society of ?�merica. His paper presented the results of research sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Park Service, showin� how measurements of the sound of air tours can be used to estimate the amount of disturbance that will result for park visitors. Since 1987, Miller said, the FAA and Park Service has �een worisin� to find ways to effectir•ely and fairly manaQe the noise produced by air tours over some national parks. "The two aQencies have directed research efforts with the goal of not only understanding the nature and extent of noise in�usions, but also of providin� objective tools for mana�ement of park and air space use." Noise measuremenu and simultaneous surveys of visitors were made at six different sites in three national parks: Grand Canyon, Hawaii Volcanoes, and HaleakaIa National Parks. "The second-by-second records of sound levels, toQether with the visitor survey results and continuous loas of the sound sources heard, permitted development of dose- response relationships. Tnese relationships reveal w�hat percent of visitors were disturbed (their response) for different levels of aircraft sound exposure (the dose)," Itifiller reported. "Park and airspace manasement decision-maLe:s can no�v have an objective understandinQ of the sianificance tha[ air tour noise has for visitors in situations that are similar to those from which the dose-response relationshigs �ve;e developed. By either measurin� or calculatins t'r,e loudness and the duration oi aircrai� noise, an estimate mav be made of what ge:cenc of visitors will find the neise anno��inQ or believe that it interFeres �cith their enjoyment oi the natural sounds." "If, for examole, aircraft sound le`els are no rnore than about 10 to l� decioels hisher �han the natural leve:s. and Airport Noise Repott �" 1 _: November 5, 1999 are audible ]ess than about 30 percent of the time, fewer than one-quaner of the visitors are likely to feel annoyed by the noise. However, the type of location in a park where the "'ircraft are heard plays a role in how visitors react. The onditions �iven above apply to a site that is accessed by a short hike — by walkin� about 1� minutes or more. For an overlook type location, where only a short walk from the car is necessary, the aircraft sound levels and durations �iven above misht annoy about � to 10 percent of the visitors. "By combininQ the dose-response information with the type of park location, manaeement decisions may be made about what fliQht corridor locations and numbers of air tour operations aze compatible with park mana�ement goals for visitor experience," I�liller said.� � Noise Modeling NEW SIMULATION MODEL S�30WS TERRAIN EFFECTS A new noise simulation model beina evaluated for the National Park Service by Wyle Labs of Arlin�ton, VA, can depict the movinQ noise path of an airplane second-by- second and show in various colors on a computer screen how the intensity of noise hittin� the �r�und varies as an airplane moves across a landscane. It also can calculate the percentage of time that an aircraft movins over moderately complex terrain in low ambient ��ise leve3s wouId.be audible to paik 'visitors on tne �round. � tI'he Noisema Simulation 1b1odel p (NMS111� could aiso be used to assess the noise mitiQation potential of noise abatement flight paths around airports, to look at the impact of aircraft noise in rural areas with low backaround noise levels, or to assist the Federal Aviation Administration in its task of revisinQ the national airspace, said�Kenneth Plotkin, chief scientist of `�yle, who discussed the new model at a special session of a recent meetinQ of the Acousticai Society of America devoted to park overPlisht noise. What has impressed people most, Plodcin said, is the color depiction of the noise shadow of an aircraft that the simula- tion can produce. "You can see how IonQ the noise lasts and visualize it better." The video imaQe generated by the simulation shows the complexity of terrain and how much noise varies from one spot to another because of the terrain, Plotkin explained. NtiiSLtii is dynarriic and can show the complexity of aircraft nois� much better than static meas- ures such as noise contours, he said. Ni�1SI�f is inte: active so a user can look in �reat detaii at any point in the tli�ht path of an aircraft and se� which part of th� flisht track a par!: �•isitor could hear and when aircraft noise would be shieldzd b�• terrain. The simulation currently does not calculate the "de:ectabilitv" of noise — which depends on both aircraft and ambient noise — but soon w911 be able to, he said. � )This Szetember, the F.�-� and the Park Service conducted �' a"�oin� Froject at the Grand Canyon National Park to gather i47 data needed to validate the new NI�iSIZ�S noise model and to compare it to two other noise models under consideration by the Park Service: an earlier model developed by BNN Systems of Canosa Park, CA, for the Park Service that handles terrain in a more simple way and a special version of the FAA's Integrated Noise Model (III�i�f). In addition to Wyle, the consuItins firm Harris Niiller Ivliller & Hanson, Inc., which desisned the model validation project, also participated in the study. Trained ]isteners were sent to nine rernote areas to record when aircrafr noise was audible. DiCital recordings of aircraft noise also were made; the FAA gathered fli�ht information on the aircraft over the pazk and weather information; and observers recorded the time and location of aircraft on ihe routes of interest. All this information will be studied and the results of this live testin� compared to the results predicted by the three noise models. This will give the.Pazk Service and the FAA an indication of which modei best predicts real-world conditions. Maieling noise in national pazks is more difficuIt.than around airports where the Day-Nijht Average Noise Level (DNL) is used to predict noise impact and the 6� dB DNL threshold is the clear line of demarcation for compatible residential land use. Noise modelin� in parks must cover large distances with low ambient noise level, and handle complex terrain and weather effects. In parks the important issues are what percent of the time aircraft noise is audible and/or detectable, the lenath of noise free intervals, and the effect of airplane noise on the animals and visitors in the park.r� Grand Canyon ��NDNIENT REQUIRES FAA Tt� DEFINE QiTIET TECH�tOLOGY Sen. John I�ScCain (R-AZ) added an amendment to the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill — currently tied up in a House-Senate conference — that would require the FAA to develop clear standards for what constitutes "quiet technoloay" in airerait used in air tour operations over the over the Grand Canyon. The amendment would: • Require the Clinton Administration to establish a standard for "quiet" aircraft technolosy �vithin one year; � Cali on the FAA and the National Park 5ervice to establish fliQht corridors for quiet aircran consistent with the goal of restorina na�ural quiet to the Grand Canyon: and • Exempt quiet aircraft from the currenc 88.000 air tour operations/year flivht cap "consistent «,•ith the restoration of natural quiet." � Conservation �roups applauded the amendment. .�. spokesperson for The tiVilderness Societv said it �vas an improvement over NicCain's original lan�uaae for th� amendment which would have establisned a ne�� flisht Airport Noise RepoR ��s Airport Noise Report _ '�,. corridor in the canyon for quiet czchnoloQy aircraft, would have eased the current niQhttime curfew on air tour opera- tions, and would have only aiven the FA.A nine months to develop standards for quie: technoloQy aircraft. Some observers, however. expressed concern that the amendment would liit the current cap on the numbe: of air tour operations that can be conducted ove: the Grand Canyon. "For 12 years, I've souant to restore quiet to the Grand Canyon, the crown jewei of our national park system, said NlcCain. "I'm very pleased that we were able to reach an agreement on lan�uase that brin�s us closer to our common goal." Tom Kiernan, president of the National Parks Conserva- tion Association (NPCA), said, "Senator 1tiicCain has demonstra[ed his willinaness to brina two sides to�ether over a very difficult issue. His advocacy of quiet technoloQy will over time make a difrerence in how park visitors see and hear the canyon." � Added Geoff Barnard. president of the Grand Canyon Trust, "Senator I�1cCain has retaken the hill and once aQain served notice that he is serious about his defense of the Grand Canyon: ' The final lansuase of the amendment emerQed after days of discussion over the role that quieter aircraft can play in meetins the requirement of "substantial restoration" of natura] quiet as required by law. Said Bill Meadows, president of The Wilderness Society, "No one will ar�ue tha, the Ya.,�t few d: ys h��: � b: �:� t^u�h �nd fi?ll �f que�tions. Nonetheless, we aze ail oratified to see that Senator McCain remains a committed advocate for the protection and lon�- term interests of Grand Canvon National Park." The FAA reauthorization bill also includes lanQuaQe that structures requirements for dealins with air tour operations over national parks across the country. Under the structure, developed by a workins Qroup selected by the Park Service and the FAA, the asencies must develop Air Tour I�lanaae- ment Plans that will sovern if, where, when, and how air tour operators can fly over parks. AccordinQ to a recent NPCA survey of parl: manaQers, air tours operate over 100 units of the National Park Svstem. NPCA, the Grand Canvon Trust, and The Wilderness Saciety have ail been in�•olved in efiorts to bring the federal �overnment into complianc� tivith the National Parks Overflishts Act ot 1937 which called for "substantial res�oration" of the natural quie: and experience of the park and protection of public healch and safety from adverse effects associaced wich air;:raft overr'7iQnts at the Grand Canvon.J Symphony of Sound, from p. l43 In undisturbed natural environments, creatures vocalize in , re:ationship to one another very much like instrumencs in an � orchestra. On land, in particular, this delicate acouscic fabric � is almost as well-defined as the notes on a paQe of music. Certain insecu occupy one sonic zone of the creature band, and birds, mammals, and froQs occupy others not yet taken and where there is no competition. That is so each voice can be heard distinctly and each creature can thrive. The same type of event also occurs in certain marine environments. This biophony, or animal chorus, serves as a vital gau�e of a habitat's health, its aQe, its level of stress, and provides us with an abundance of other valuable new information such as why and how creatures have learned to sina. Yet, this miraculous biophony is under siese. The frajile weave of sound just described is being torn � apart mainly by two forces: the incredible noise we humans make, and by our undiminished lust for precious natural resources. For example, when I first besan recordin� in � 1968, it would take about 15 hours to capture one hour of usable material for a tape or CD. Now it take nearly two thousand hours to capture the same amount of sound. Compare that to 4� percent of our undisturbed forests still standinQ in 1968 where now less than 2 percent are lefc only 32 years later. This staQ�erinQ observation, combined with the sound of chain saws, snowmobiles, ATVs, trail bikes, jet skis, deep-throated boat enQines pullinQ ever faster water craft around otherwise pristine lakes, has created a recipe ,= for tra�edy unless we are willin� to make an immediate shift (, . in our view of the need for mechanical toys. Evidence of Damaae Evidence of the dama�e from these factors has only recently come to liQht. As a result of the field of bio- acoustics — the study of the sound of livina oraanisms and habitats — patterns are beginning to appear throuQh the use of new field research techniques that confirm the loss those of us particularly sensitive to the natural worid have been instinctively feelins for some time. The followinQ examples demonstrate the point: Ivlany types of froas and insects vocalize toQether in a �iven habitat so that no one individual stands out among the many. This chorus creates a protective audio s�.reen thtivart- inQ predators from locatinQ where the sound is cominQ from. The synchronized froQ voices oriQinate from so many places at once that it appears to be comina from everywhere. Ho�vever, when the coheren[ patterns are upset by the sound of a jet plane as it flies within ran�e oi the pond, the special froQ biophony is broken. In an attemot to re�staolish the unified rhythm and chorus, individual fro�s momencarily stand ouc sivin� predators like coyo�es or owls per-�ect opponunities to snag a meal. ��"hile recordin� [he rare spade foot iro�s above the north ___ shore oi �fono Lal:e in the Eastern Siz:-s onz sprinQ, a � similar even� actually occurred. Afrer c'r.e jet disappeared. �'- qirport \oise Report ) � ) November �, 1999 forty-five minutes passed before the frogs were able to reestablish their protective chorus. In the dusk light we saw two coyotes and a oreat horned own feedin� by the side of the small pond. Because of the unique manner by which we record and measure sound. we have discovered that the relatively intense sound produced by a low-flyin� jet airplane can cause changes in che biophony that make certain creatures lose the life-saving protecdon of their vocal choruses. Once, while doins acoustic research in the Amazon Basin, a multi-en�ine jet flyina low over [he jun�le intezrupted the dawn chorus of birds and insects at a particular site where we were recordina. When we returned to our lab and examined the effect of the jet noise on the natural sound- scape, we found that the disruption caused by the jet caused many creatures to stop vocalizina while others altered their . patterns. The momentary break in the integrity of the animal chorus created by the jet left open the stron� possibility that many creatures would become victim to opportunistic predators such as hawks or resident mammals. Because of the noise introduced into their environment by cruise boats travelin� in Glacier Bay, humpback whales have been seen tryin� to swim away and hide from the noise, duckin� behind spits of land and or behind lar;e blocks of ice that had broken off glaciers appazently in an effort to cet into quieter noise "shadows." Where once there were many, in recent years, fewer and fewer whales have been seen in the bay. Alona with other factors, it is believed by some biologists that human-induced noise is a major contributing in�redient to the fallina numbers. Increased Stress The loss of natural soundseape diminishes human experi- ence of the wild, while human noise increases ssress. Keeping in mind that human and non-human species respond differently to types of loudness, or combinations of mechanical or human noises, we aze just now beginnin� to understand that many of these sounds introduce affliction in both worlds. An experiment done on humans in France invited subjects to adapt to sleepin� in the laboratory. After an initial few niQhts of quiet, the subjects were then sub- jected — while asleep — to l� niQhts worth of recorded traffic noise. The sleeping subjects were wired to instruments used to measure stress. "Heart rate, fin�er-pulse ampli[ude, and pulse-wave velocity �vere measured throughout the niQht, and each sleeper filled out a questionnaire upon wakina." Two to seven niehts later, the subjects reported that they were no lonser disturbed by che noise (e.a. they thouQht that they had become used to it). However, the stress effects — hear[ rate, etc. "measured the fif[eenth niQht were identical to [hose IoQsed the first." (5cience Neivs, 121, June 5, 1982, 330). �� There are many imponant reasons to reconsider the value of natural soundscape as a resource. For one thinQ, it is clear that natural soundscape cannot be replaced. Yet, there are (� ,� rays of hope. �Ve are beQinnina to understand late in the 149 �ame that pristine natural soundscapes are reserves and resources criticai to our enjoyment, understanding. and awareness of the natural wiId. Without them,. a fundamenta] piece of the fabric of life is sadly compromised. That is why the National Park Service recently implemented a strong educational and administrative pian to protect natural soundscapes. They have been positioned not only as a major resource, but as one of great value wonh preservina for visitors and creatures, alike. Visitor reaction to all the noise in the national parks convinced the administration of the parks that it is important to attempc to hear and treat soundscapes difrerently — as important to our weil-beinQ and health as the preservation of pure fresh water, clean air,�and non-polluted soil. If the NPS succeeds in its effort to convince the visiting public of this idea, we will have come a lon� way toward our goal of deliverin� on our objective of respansive stewardship of the wild.� y ON THE AGENDA... 2000 Jan 9-13 79th Annual MeetinQ of the Transporta- tion Research Board, Washington, DC .(reaistration online at www.expocard.com/shows/trb001). Feb 14-16 Year 2000 International Airport Noise Symposium, Paradise Point Hotel, San Diego, CA, sponsored by University of California lnstitute of Transportation 5tudies (TTS) Technolo�y Transfer Pro�ram (for further information, visit the ITS web site at www.its.berkeley.edu/ techtransfern. Feb 20-24 Aviation Issues Conference, Kauai, Hawaii, sponsored by the American Association of Airport Executives in conjunction with other aviation trade Qroups and airiines (for further informa- tion, e-mail Spencer Dickerson at spencer.dickerson C airponnet.ora). March 7-8 2�ch Annual F.�A Commercial Aviation Forecast Conference, ti�'ashinQton, DC, Convention Center (tor further informa- uon, contac[ Helen �tiish at tel: (202) 267- Airpott Noise Repon 9943 or e-mail: helen!:ishC�faa.gov). 1�0 Airport Noise Report . � 1 � • • � f r � � � � Steven R. Alverson Manager, Sacramen[o Office Harris Miller Miller & Hanson John J. Corbett, Fsq. Spie�el & McDiarrnid Washin;ton, DC James D. Erickson Director. Office of Environment and Ener�y Federal Avia�ion Administracion John C. Freytag Director, Chartes bi. Salter Associates San Francisco 1blichael Scott Gatzke, Esq. Gatz]ce, DiIlon & Ballance Carlsbad, CA Peter J. Kirsch, Esq. Cutler & Stanfield Denver Suzanne C.1blcLean Chief Development Officer Tucson Airport Authority John bI. itileenan 5enior Vice President for Industry Policy Air Transport Associadon Vincent E. Iblestre, P.E. Presidenc, NSestre Greve Associates Newpott Beach, CA Steven F. Pflaum, Esq. 1�ScDernott. Will & Emery Chicaso Karen L. Robertson titana�er. Noise Compatibi]ity Office Dalias/Fort Worth International Airpoa 1�3ary L. ViD lante President, Synergy Consuitancs Saatde Lisa Lyle tiVaters i�fanaeer. Noise Abateme�t Proeram Palm Beach County Department of Airports March 26-28 National Aviation Environmental manaQement Sympo- sium, Columbus, OH; sponsored by the American Association of Airport Executives; (for funher information, contact Carter NSoms by e-mail at caner.morris @ airportnet.ore). May 21-24 72nd Annual Conference and Exposition of the Ameri- can Association of AirportExecutives, Baltimore, MD (for further information, e-mail Susan Lausch at susan.lausch @ airporrnet.org). May 29-31 Greenport 2000 Conference and Exhibit, Narita, Japan; sponsored by the Airports Council International and the Narita Airport Authority; contact ACI World Headquarters by e-mail at aci@uniplus.ch). May 30- Jun 31 39th meetin� of the Acoustical Society of America, Adanta, GA (contact ASA's web site at July 19-22 www.acoustics.org). Annual Conference of the National Organization to Insure a Sound-controiled Environment (NOISE), Louisville, KY (contact NOTSE Executive Director Dennis NlcGrann at tel: (202) 434-8163). Aug. 28-30 IN'TER-NOISE 2000, The 29th International Consress .--� on Noise Control EnsineerinQ, Nice, France; sponsored � by the International Institute of i3oise Contr�? EnaineerinQ (contact the Congress Secretariat at e-mail: internoise2Q00 @ inrts.fr). Sept 28-30 Annual meeting of the National Association of State Aviation O�cials (NASAO), Lon� Beach, CA (see NASAO web site at www.nasao.orQ). AIRPO.RT NO�S� REPO�ZT Anne H. Kohut, Publisher Charles F. Price, Contributiiw Editor; i�Iaria T. Norton, Production Editor Published 2� times a}•ear at 43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 20147; Phone: (703) 729--��67; FAX: (703) 729-�528. Price $5�9. Authorization to photocopy� items for in�ernal or personal use, or the in�ernal or personal use of specific clients, is eran�ed b�• .�.ireort Noise Report, provided that the base fee of US�1.0� per paQe per copy is paid dire;:tl}� �o Copyriaht Clearance Center, 2?2 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, NSA 01923,. USA. Copyright OO 1999 by Airport Noise Report, Ashbum. Va. 201-17 Part �50 - Public Notice MAC WILL HOLD PUBL�C OPEN HOUSES ON lYISP A�RP0�.2�''� PA�2�' 1S0 NOISJE COMPAT'I�ILI7C�' PRUGRANI The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) is in the process of updating the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport's (MSP) noise exposure map and noise compatibility program under Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150. The first public meetings for the Part 150 update were held in late September. This meeting is the second in a series of three public meetings. The update study be;an in April 1 S99 and is expected to be concluded in the summer of 2000. The Part 150 study is a process for airport operators to identify potential noise impacts and mitigation measures to address those impacts. The Part 150 prob am provides sound insulation for homes and schools and includes other ef%rts to mitigate noise such as operational procedures and land use planning. Under the Part 150 program, the MAC has provided sound insulation to 5,152 homes at a total cost of $120 million since 1992. At the followin� meetings, the 2005 Unmitigated Day Night Average Sound Level (DNL) contours will be presented as well as recommendations for future mitigation measures to be �"'� analyzed in the Study. The unmitigated contour will be analyzed with noise abatement and land _. use measures to potentially improve future noise conditions for communities surrounding MSP. The following information will be provided at this public meeting: 2005 UnmitiQated DNL Contours Noise abatement measures to be considered in the Part 150 Study Land use measures to be considered in the Part 150 Study The public is 'rnvited to attend one of three workshop open houses: What: wno: When: Where: Workshop open houses for the Federal Aviation Regulation Part 1�0 study update. For community residents interested in the Part 150 update process, unmitigated 2005 noise contour and noise mitigation measures. 5:00-8:00 p.m., November 30, December 1-2, 1999. Tuesday, November 30 Nokomis Community Center 2401 East iVlinnehaha Pkwy. lYlinneapolis �Vednesday, December 1 Royal Cliif Conference Center 2280 Cliff Road Eagan Thursday, December 2 Courtyard by i�Iarriott 1352 Northland Drive 1Vlendota Heights Note: Identical materials will be available at each of the three open houses. Residents do not need to attend all three open houses. Multiple open houses are beina held to allow community members the opportunity to attend the location and date most convenient for them. For further information, contact Roy Fuhrmann at (612)725-6326 � :, _•: , , � � ' ' � � � . � ;i � ' ; � r. , r ' � � ,. � , _� = , - = � - � : _�� ; : �e: � - : - .,: � ' � ' . ; � � � � ' � ,� . . . � . � . . � � : 11 � � 1 I1 , :. MAPQ►d��T'"� :, _..- - .i-iia�a'atha r - :�::cours?; ; - :,'_ - �.-�:� >�:: cr> ' . '� '. � �:�'y��'�..L..r::.._.:::... �.........L.s=''i�:ac.-�=,-�=J I F t51999 tvtapquest.com, Inc.; {� 1999 Navqation Technc *See other side for additional information. C. �' ) >�;.:: -��;=.�-u '�= ��- C 4 ''s�: � a::> as:+,�z�'t.,,., r t.. :At�,�.:,.,,... r :, � " � k v�, i �..w � �,.-� �3 � � Speakout with Four South Metro Legislators: Sen. .Iane Rcztnrm, Reps. Jean Wagenius, Wes Skoglz�jrd and 11�fark Gleason 7 p.m. Thursday, Nov. 18, 1999 I�iay#lower Con�regational Church 106 E. Diamond Lake Road, Nlinneapoiis Spot�sored by St)UTH IYIETl20 AII2P�RT ACTIC)N COUTv CIL BYlil�� Yo1r�' B�'St Sll�o'8St1031S f01" WGFV.s to Keep 1�•IlI1jIBC7�JOlIS "The City of La�.es" not "The C�� of Airport �oise" Si�?n Petition to Pha�e out Hush!citted Airplanes � So i��ISP Can Be A Pure Sta�e 3 Airpor� Call �b l- I 061 for Details � �r .... ,, �,� .. �t��„ �, r :* M_ � v� . � . : ... 'Syw ;. � 4 ��f. , �� ._ . . __.....-�. 1,�{ iz. �t .r 7c 4$ '."Y 3:. �^' `.� i. .�q;, ,F; ��< .�A } 7`t . , s� � I ;�� Fall 1999 I�/II�'C �eg��5 Pa� 15 0 �.T�date The Metropolitan Airports Commission and the FAA have begun re-evaluating Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport's compliance w-ith FAA rules that define home insulation program boundaries, land-use policies, fli�ht rules and other noise- abaternent procedures in preparation for the opening of the new north-south runway in 2003. The Part I�0 program review began last May and is eYpected to be completed by June 2000. Recom- mendations for a 200� noise contour, including a new 60 DNL zone, will be fonvarded to FAA for consideration over the following 12-18 months. In an unusual step, public comment is being received at a series of open �vorkshops_ The first three workshops were held Sept 28-30 in Bloomin�tton, Eagan and Mendota Heights.The next set �=rill be held Tuesday, Nov. 30 in Minneapolis at Nokomis Community Center, at the north end of Lake Nokomis, Dec.1 in Ea�an at the Royal Cliff Conference Center and Dec. 2 in Mendota. Heignts at the Courtyard by Mamott. All meetings are �-om �-8 p.m. SNIA.AC members are urged to attend one of them. Sta.ff members of the IVletro Area Sound Abate- ment Council (i�iASAC) and of H�i tTB, the i�LAC's consultant on rumvav operations and noise abate- ment issues, �tiill be present to sho�t- north-south rumvav usaQe plans, boundaries of the ne�v 60 da��- ni�ht level (DNL) noise contours, and other topics. i�tore than �.400 homes tivill ha��e received a �- decibel noise packaQe bS� the end e� 1999 at a cost o� �128 million. Another 1,9�0 homes are sched- uled to be completed b�� 2002 for �71 million. MAC and Minneapolis A�ree To Ban Thir The city of Minneapolis reacheri a broad agreament with the Metro- politan Airports Commission in November 1998 to prevent con- struction of a third pazallei runway, but at a price. The agre�ment was signerl some 17 months after the dea.dline of 7an. l, 1997 set by the 1996 le�islature as part of the broad noise mitiga- tion campact reacherl as a condi- tion for the �2.7-billion expansion of MSP at its present site. The city gave up its right to sue the MAC over any possible changes in plans or usage of the new north-south runwav. The north end of the runwav could be used only under limiterl conditions, such as emergencies or bad weather. The city-MAC a.��r�ment also stipulates that: 0 The new runt�av will be operateri to ma�cimize MSP's capacity while attempting to reciuce noise in the city and equitably distributing future noise loads throu�hout all communities. (See Communiry Noise Distribu- tion graph, p. 6 and article on � The MAC reaffirms its commitment to a fairer distribution of air traffic. (Details were not spelled out.) o The MAC will expand the number of noise monitoring stations to 29 in the area. a.ffzcte� by the e:cisting parallel runways. o If MAC acquires the vac.�nt Bureau of Mines property northeast of Hwys. 62 and >j as part of an extended runway protection zone, MAC would grant a conservation easement to the National Park Service and use the property for open space. (Acquisition negotiations between MAC and the Bureau a.re not camplete.) The ciiy and MAC also agreed in November 1997 to a11ow construction of a 900-foot tempora.ry e;itension to the south parallel runway (30R-12L) before a permanent 1,000-foot e:{tension of the crosswind 20I0 t1�.fS�' Air�eld Ex�ansion 1'lan Hlqhvray 62 hemporrry Exurtsion 2000• Oe7cing Pad 66th St � OeWnq Pad - a000� � r7o� :,ry � �, , ��P . t�.a rr �:. � :_c� x�s�-, . � -� � ��y. � ,� . �`:;Z.': =� U�, � w�= �, �; +. �- � :,;= 4r`�. � ``Zt�t �:,� a�. t , w ��-� a� '�. ''.' �r -i..: : 'y-' �p� .�� g. n "�r ��. �ai �, ��c y`c� � 3 .,.ti :: ��.-�r^�.�x' "�'�. �¢ ��: 'o,a • •�1i� r�� .,:a: =�t....�. � :. . �� ,.�.,r.,. d4d , .• .. : .. Extenaion af a722 2001 • Terminat el Runway � Eliminate Night Flighis! runway (4-22) is built to accommo- date fully loaded Boeing 747s headerl for Asia.{'The MAC agrers to use the south parallel extension only during construction of the 4/22 e�ctension [now scheduled for 2001] and to escrow $ I00,000 to demolish the extension if �,1AC uses the south parallel e.ctension beyond the agre�i time frame.) Observers noteri that south 11�iinneapolis residents will be e:cposed to increased noise off the north end of the south parallel runway during the 2001 construc- tion season. The third-parallel-runway aQreement may be reapene3 for discus- ,,� sion no earlier than yss 203�. The city of l�iendota. Heights earlier si�e� its a...are�.ment wi#h the I1�iAC to conclude in 2020, but is s�kinj � to extend it to con- form w-ith the 11�iinne- ' 1DOI1S 1Er�:Tlerit. n�. ; p�d The citv of Eagan, the Ea a'"' =°°�' third a�ected commu- nitti• cited by the DefctrqPad(iM9) leQislature, has yet to si� the anreement. Rt�t�ar R[0f6(iVCf�IX1 (AP�'!"3eW t'N9) . � w�:€ t f ho�sed Uqhtltad � I/�n�lt Tradt � � � ,' , i` �� i� "�► � '�` East 70th 5tn�t � � ^----- \ i ��... EConotat ^ -�$ � � Pahing ttumphny � Tartninel p�r,4a ^ � � — i � f 4 1 1 .�'.� 1 .N*`1�' � N�9� , '.lweicinp FM �prowl d •rni�o��xrwrxal �s� Page 2 Stifr�.�1C iVe�.vs(ettr. Fal( 1999 C ( � ��h�eld �3�f��ir�g fo�- �'��s to O�is�� I�de� �a��way's �r��ac� The citv of Richfield is see'�cing $90 million in fesieral, sta.te and NiAC funding to help rerlevelop a 64-block azea west of Cedar Ave. that will be impacterl by the new north-south runway. The city envisions having to remove some 1,400 hames, relocate some 2,900 residents, construct sturdier housing and replace a11 conunercial and multi- family buildings in the Cedar Avenue Redevelopment Area e:ctending from Hwy 62 to Hwy. 494 and from Cedar «est to 16th Ave. S. The total cost, estimated at $14� million, would include $2� million from land sales and $2� million through a tax incre- ment financin� plan. The re�evelopment step is m�de necessary by the prospect of low-ftequency noise emanating from the 300-400 da.ily flights onlv two blocks ftom present homes. De�p rumblin� from aircraft ta.�ciing, landing or taking off can shake and rattle walls, �vindows and suspended objects for 4� seconds during each flight, city studies have found, No other noise abatement strategy is considered feasible by� Richfield, So far, Richfield has received $30 million in bondina authority and another �30million commit- ment from the 1999 state le�isla- ture. However, the FAA has held up the funds pendinQ further FAA study of uses of airport funds for off-airport purposes. Richfield citizens have taken an active role throuQhout the 18- month negotiations «zth the. l�ir� C, the FAA and state and fetieral elected representa- tives ,engaging in heavy letter- writing and phone-calling cam- paigns. They flacderl a state capitol hearing room twic; last fall to hear the State Environmental Quality --�oard f�B) debate the a�dequacy � > m a m Q _,_ ;;>n a a a � L � L ,0 G''OSST04VN FiWY 62 � �� o Golh �r� N � u �e s � of the MAC's environmental impact statement on the runway. (Some E{�B officials gave the statemeat a C- ratin�.) ' Another unique aspect of the Richfield debate has been the 14iAC's willingness to join Richfield at the bargaining table in St. Paul to s�� state funds for part of the re�e �elopment plan. This came after strong public denuncia#ion by MAC chairman Grieve and MAC cammissioner John Himle of Richfield's demands for a more camplete analysis of the noise problem and potential salutions. Meanwiuie, the MAC agz�d to i pay some $26 million to settle a; demand from the U. S. Fish and� Wildlife Service for the loss of us-� age of parts of the Minnesota Va1-i ley Wildlife Refuge from over- flights. Some Richfield citizens' conciusion: "Animals anpeas' more important than people." Low-�r�qu��cy Noise Panei t� I�.e�ort Te�hnical analysis of low- fre�uency noise characteristics a.nd identification of Iikely a.ffectesi neishbarhoeds is neari campletion by a special panel c noise experts that eonvened by the i�iAC and Richfield. � Their findings a.re scheduled to be reportezi Nov. 10 a I.aw- Frequency Noise Policy � Conunitt� made up of re�res�- ort -South �tives of T✓iAC, R.ichfield, ��,av Blcomington and Nii.nneapolis. If the findinas call for niitisation, the policy committee wi 11 v develop strategies. I�ra��ed ��c3��Piri ��edev�lo��n�nt Area S�fri4C Ne�.�slett�r, Fall 1999 PaQe 3 I�r. ��derson Explains �eal�� Cons��e�e�s of .t�i�-�ort I�o�se Dr. Floyd O. Anderson, psychiatrist and University of Niinnesota associate professar, summarized his research findings on the health effects of airport noise exposure at Si�IAAC's annual me:.ting in Niay. Anderson said he cancurs with other mental health professionals who estunate that aircraft noise can tri�er involuntary physiological and psychological stress responses in up to 30 percent of the population living in LDN65 and higher noise zones. He also observetl that: ♦ Manifestation of the stress response varies from one person to another, depending on individual vulner- abilities and predispositions. 0 Chronic stress is one recognized precursor of "leamed heiplessness" (a psychological term for a type of low grade depression), and characterize� as relatively prominent in airport-impacted neighborhocds. Ander- son noted that learnerl helplessness beha.viors require about three times the effort to cure than to acquire. � The release of stress hormones impairs health and impacts human temperament. Immune system function, which is affected by chronic noise/ stress exposure, is lowereci by about 1 � percent in jet-noise communities. �'Ihe disturbanc� to slerp cycles causes impairment of the brain's discha.rge of store� short-term memory during sleep, which subtly affects lons-�rm me:nory function. In a.ddition, Anderson presented a fascinating Gflver�flr's Tas�. For�� oo'�.i'�� int� Funding Sources A Governor's Task Force on Community Stabiliza- tion, createri by the 1999 legislature, has b�n merting to search for fundin� sources that the MAC and state. and federal governments can use to pay for mitigating the impacts in all neighbonc�ods surrounding the expanded airport. The task forc� is require� to report its findings to Governor Ventura and the nest legislature by Jan. 1�, 2000. - Included on thz task force are reoresentatives of the Governor's staff; the Depar�nents of Finance and Trade and Econoruc Development. the Fr�, I�iAC, tiietro- politan Council and dele�?ates from affecte�i cities. model of the psycho-dynamics of airport noise stimu- lus and response. A person's ne� to respond to noise stimulus may manifest itself in the form of a ca11 to the airport noise hot-line. Compulsive and natural reactions to noxious noise stimuli frequently cause people to band together in an effort to cope. Group activities such as noise demon- strations, formation of anti-noise organiz,a.tions, citizen lawsuits and airport-sponsore� noise abatement committers such as MASAC ma.y result. Anderson encouragezi Si1�AAC members to continue wori�ng to reriuce camrnunity noise impacts. He cite�i Si1�AAC pressure put on airport of"ticials to participate in the FAA home insulation program as vital in overcaming initial MAC resistance toward the pro- �• He also crerliterl SMAAC for promoting the concept of fanning outbound flights over Mi.nneapolis to distribute noise more equitably as jet tra�c has quadruple� in the past 20 years. �istri�# Co��-t Sid�� it� 1�IAC in Gieason Laws�i# Judge Diana Ea�on in Hennepin County District Court side� with the MAC in late October in a per- sonal lawsuit brou�ht by Iviark Gieason, a�2ichfield resident and state representative, over the ade�uacy of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) filed in connection with the north-south iunwav plans. Gleason alleged that the EIS did not ade�uately define the estent of sideiine noise problems in Richfield to arise from the use of the nuiwav onlv two blocks a�vay from residential and commercial developrnent. (R.ichfie?d had earlier waived its riQRt �o cantest the EIS findinss as part of an a�re�ment ivith the t�iAC to "onlv se�:c funds for rerievelopmeni of e,ast Richfie:d.") Gleason said he has until Dec. 20 to appeal. Pa�e 4 S1�4t1AC Newslettr., Fall 1999 '98 Traffic Declines Slightly 35 30 � X 25 m j�2� � 015 m � �10 a MSP Trafific Trends 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 Year � X a a C � � �. O Flights in and out of MSP declined 1.7 percent to 483,013 in 1998 from 491,273 in the prior year. It was the first decline in many years, and was attrii�- uteti to the two-w�k Northwest Airlines pilots' strike and reiated shutdown by Mesaba Airiines in the first half of September 1998. In addition, there was a slow buildup to full servic� in the w�ks following � � _ � � the strike. By category, charter flights rose 38 percent, general aviation 24 percent (to nearly 80,000 flights) and freight flights 2 percent. Military operations decline�i 44 percent, regional flights dipped 11 percent and major carriers were off 4.7 perc�nt. The number of passengers increased one-half of one percent to a recard 30,347,920 from 30,208,000 a year a�o. Once again, Northwest Airlines held its dominance at 1�iSP, capturing 81.3 percent of the domestic and international passenaers. Unite.�i w�s ne�ct at 4.28 percent, followed bv American (3.2 percznt), Delta (2.86 perc�nt), Continenta.I (1.6 percent), TWA (1.5� percent), US Ainvays (1.4� percent), America West (1.04 percent), Vanauard (1.03 perc�nt), KLM (1 percent), Frontier (.4 percent), Air Canada (.2 percent) and Icelandair (.2 percent). Ca.rgo tonnage decline� 4.3 perc.,-nt to 240,817 metric tons in 1998 from 251,731 tons in 1997. Mail feil 1.6 pe: c.,.-nt to 127,561 tons frcm 125,529 tons a vear eariier. MSP ranks as the 13th busiest passenger airport and 24th bi�est cargo airport in the worid. 6� DN�., Noise Co�#o�ur �Ias C�a�geri S�ce 1992 �'or�zast The neighborhoods rec�iving the most noise frorn airera.ft taking off or landing at MSP ha.ve changed since the last HN'I`B computer update in 1992. This is due la.rgely to lower than proje�teci usa.ge of the 4/22 cross wind runway and increased tra.ffic in the ensuing years, The master 1tiiSP noise abate- ment plan at that time presumerl4/22 usage would rise to approximately 1'7-22 percent of total MSP operations, taking some ofthe pressure ofs'homes at the ends of the two parallel runways. However, because of an unresolved Riciifield Iawsuit in 1995, the runway continues to be used only about 1-5 percent of the time. As a result, the flight noise "footprint" that would have affect�i south Richfield, north Bloomington and the Highland V'illa�e area. of St. Paul, now appears to have settlerl over north Richfield and south i�iinneapolis extending along a Hwy. 62 corridor to nearly Franc;.. Ave and in a south Minneapolis area bounderi by Chicago Ave.- Cesiar Ave. and from roughly Minnehaha Parlcway north to 38th St. i�iew ��a�r� I'roc��r� Be�i�s Under a new FA�-approved policy, pilots taking off to �he north on the two parallei rumvays have b�n instructerl to climb more sharply than previ- ously, throttle back for approximately si� miles, then rzsume their climb to minimize noise over residential areas The prace�ure, initiate� in 1997, calls for aircrafz to climb to 800-1,000 fert «•hile still over t�'�e runway in some cases, teduce thrust for about six miles, then resume climbin�. This plan is hoped to preduce a slignt re�uction in noise hear� on the arOlL-l�j Iri CIOSe-7I1 P,ZiQhbonc�ccis. Paae 5 SMF 4C i lewsletter, Fall 199G `98 Election Fallout Analy,zed The surprise election of Reform Partv candidate Jesse Ventura as governor last fall tri�ereri a number of important changes on the MAC boazd. Charies Nichols was ap- pointed to succe� Pierson Grieve as chair, and Bert McKasy, Nancy Sp�r and Paul Weske were ap- pointed comrnissioners. Long-time Minneapolis mayoral appointe: Steve Cramer resigned as vice chair to take the leadership role at the Minneapolis Community Development Agency (MCDA). Namezi MAC vice chair svas Ed Fiore, who represents Anoka. County. Succeeding Cramer as the mayor's delegate was Roger Hale, well-jrnown businessman. Ventura himself has voiced few insights on lon�-range airport service. and capacity issues. Nichols has said he opposes a new airport, and su�ests a spaceport—a space- port?—instead. Ted Mondale, new chair of the I�ietropolitan Council, sponsored the bill that prematurely cut off debate on a dual-track study at the 19961egislature, and led to the decision to spend �2.7 billion to expand the present site rather than build a new one. Another ne�v player on the airport scene is Banet Lane, 13th Ward city council successor to Steve Minn, «ho took the Public Servic.. Comm.issioner's post in the Ventura cabinet. Nichols, a former airport hangar builder and educator, spoke briefly at the StiiAAC sprino me.,�tinQ. He asked for "solutions, not com- plaints" to noise problems. Net result is likel�• to be a diffi- cult road for anv substantial in- crease in the NLAC budaet for environmental neetis, but some possible modest state aid, and some A Way to Take Into Account Co�nmuni�y Size From the standpoint of inental anguish and suffering, we all are alike depending on our sensitivity and the amount of noise. How- ever, from the standpoint of polulation density and numbers of people, we di$'er considerably. The chart beiow depicts com- munities with the most noise by averaging the DNL levels from a11 the ANOMS microphones in that community and establishing an average community noise level. Then that number is multiplied by the number of residences in the comrnunnuty to define the Relative Residential Norse. It shows Minneapolis suffers thre� times the impact from aircraft noise com�aresi with other communities beca.use of the high �lation densit,y in south ea�ahs. Individuals, of course, m a11 communities suffer alike. This does raise the issue of fairness in noise distribution, which the MA.0 finds impossible to address. However, the Minne- apolis level was 3 percant less than that measuretl in May 1998. progress on increasing airline campetition, especially with the addition of 23 new gates over the ne�ct two years. The balance of power among I�fAC commissioners has not changed; the vast majority favors economic growth over environmental protection. Three New Citizen Groups Organize Thre� new citizen groups have or�anized to fi�ht airport environ- mental problems in the past 15 months--two in Richfield and one in NSinneapolis--while a fourth contin- ues active in the Macalester- Groveland neiahborhoad of St. Paul. Residents Oppose� to Airport Page 6 SI�iAAC Ne«sletter, Fall 1999 .Kacxet (xt�ax.� m tvlinneapoiis nas focusezi on short-term solutions and called on public officials to take a more proactive role in controlling noise. The Richfield CAR.E Team (Caring Citizens Concerne�l About Richfield's Environment), on�inally createti to back Richfield's demands for adequate miti�ation commit- ments frorn the MAC, has rec�ntly bern reconstituted as an independent voicr. In its place has arisen STARR (Standing Together As Richfield Residents), tivhich suppor'ts city of Richfield airport goals. S�iAAC is participating w-ith the ether groups on joint issues. � �il� �Torth- S ou�h �.untivay ! �'rLlly ��°3.r'lg Z�O�'e G i�ii.�et, �o Sou��. l�Iinnea�ol�s? A study of NiAC planning documents indicates 90,000 additional annual flishts over l�iinneapolis by about 2010, after the north-south is incorporated into the MSP runway system. That conclusion, put forth in a I�1ay 1998 Southwest Journal article, and later raised �;rith MAC executive Director Jeff Hamiel at the S1�TAAC fall 1998 general meeting, has since been confirmetl by MAC staff. The runwav was �zaarously sold as a"noise reziuction" step to Nlinneapolis o$'icials in 1996, with all flights arriving and departing on the south end. Subsequent MAC sta.tements now ca11 the runway a "capacity builder". MAC officials have receatly increased forecasts from 520,000 annual operations by 2020 given to the Iegislature in 1996, to 625,000 for that same date. 62�;000 repre- sents a 27 percent incrzase over the 1997 count of 491,000, about a 3 percent annuaI growth rate. (The 3 perc�nt rate la�s w•ell behind FAA forecasts of � percent for U.S. gro�ti-th b�� 2020.) Integration of the north-south . and new taYi-tit�a�-s into the runwav system increases overall c�pacity by about 120,000 more flights per y�ear, carryinQ I�iSP totiz-ard a 6s0,000 target level. The ne�v runti��a�• is expected to be operational in 200 y, about the same time the e�istinQ run�vav svstem reaches its e�'zctive y�eariv capacit�� of �20,000 (barrina cutbacks in airline service. or di��ersion of Qeneral a�-iation fliQhts to other airports). FAA officials note that MSP is the only airport of its size that must use the same runways for arrivals and departures at the same time. 'The north-south will alleviate this traffic management hindrance. As aircraft transition from flight to ground, or ground to flight, the MSP iunways presently serve a function similar to freeway high- speed interweave mergin� lanes (like the Crosstown 1-35W crossover exchange). However, FAA air separation rules for landing and departing trafFic are different, with departmg aircraft requiring much less separation than an-ivals. So, using the same runway for operations requiring di�erent separations seriously impedes the runway's houriy capacity, and complicates a.ir tra$'ic rnanagement. To simplify things for control- lers, both landina and takeoff intervals at MSP are expanded, which allows two types of operations to simultaneously occur on the same runway However, this seriously con- stricts overall MSP ca�pacity, especially as the practical o�era- tions ceiling of 520,000 rapidly approaches. Adding the north-south gives controllers the ability to assian one MSP runway exclusively for amvals, and another for depar- tures only. This allows arrival rates to increase about 15 percent, and departures to jump from the present, sustainable practical limit of one every two minutes, to almost 3 per t�vo minutes. Noise rerluction advocates are very conc�rned about the im- pending flight fre�uency in- creases over Minneapolis. Noise pollution research clearly docu- ments that flight frequency increases siEnificantly boost annoyance/stress levels. There- fore, they are lobbying for flight frequency restrictions. Observers note that �iinne- apolis officials have been dis- tracted by strident MAC pledges to not use the north-south to, or from,the north, (an understandable concsrn) and still haven't recognizeti the north-south's repercussions for north parallel runway opera.tions. Curiously, old MA.0 noise footprints cornparing "before and after" north-south runway incorporation show no noise reduction over Minneapolis, just a shift of noise to the northeast. New MAC "before and after" comparisons include noise reductions caused by anticipated conversion to Stage 3 jets. This probably fooled Minneapolis city officials into believing the new runway, rather than quieter aircra.i�, would reduce airport noise. St�✓IAAC Ne�wsletter Published interznittently by the South Metro Ai�port Ac6on Council. s�.�.ac 5116 Columbus Ave. S. I�iinnespolis, IvfN 55417 �61�> s��-slis FAX (612) 861-1061 e-mail dsndrs�u gatewsy.net Board of Directors: Diek Saunders: President Neil Clark: Vice President Eile�n Scullv: Treasurer Dean Lindberu Crreg Bastien C.B. Mamer Meg Parsons Russel Sehroedl S�f.�..4C h'e��sletter, Fall 1999 Paae 7 SMAAC Enrollment/Renewal Form Send to: SMAAC 5116 Columbus Ave. S Minneapolis, MN 55417 General (�15) Supporting (�25) C� ContributinQ ($50) Name: Phone: Address: City: State: Zip: E-mail address I am willing to serve on a SMAAC committes. The number on your mailing label indicates the last year of paid membership. Please renew if not current. SiviAAC is a volunteer citizens' group and your participation is vital. Your dues provides the funds to inform elected leaders in government, the StiiA.AC menbersiup, and the general public on airport matters. 8� �SS aWn�S�y6iaH ��opua�J � �uo��^ C O l-1. 8 g ao�.�a�sruivapd ��r� �ap��}p8 u�nay� Si�ZOZ 'oi�I �?�-�-Tad j�� `51IOCI1?dtILII� pred a��sod 'S'Cl a}�?i �itng � ��JIS2/�' S11?J�{� 6667 `si :t�l� ut7z.ro,� sanss� anz�vlsiaa7 P�auT� 8II8-�Z8 (ZI9) L I�bSS 1�I `stjod�auury� _• S•an� snquznjo� 9 t I S � ��ti�s '��I�IIlO� i�IOI.L�b' Z?IOd�� O�IZ3�I HZIlOS ;�r�. �. 1.�� `�� - �� f � k January 25, 2000 February 22, 2000 IVlarch 28, 2000 Apri125, 2000 May 23, 2000 June 27, 2000 July 25, 2000 August 22, 2000 September 26, 2000 October 24, 2000 November 28 or I�ecember 5, 2000