11-10-1999 ARC Packet1.
2.
3.
4.
CITY OF MEI�DOTA HEIGHTS
AIRPORT RELATIOfVS CON�iV11SS10N AGENDA
IVovember 10, 1999 - Large Conference Room
Call to Order - 7 p.m.
Roli Call
Approval of October 13, 1999 Minutes.
Unfinished and New Business:
a. Consider MAC Capital Improvement Plan — 2000 — 2006
b. Discuss Production of Airport Relations Commission Brochure
5. Updates
�
Q
:
a. Third Parallel Runway Contract (Available Wednesday)
Acknowledge Rece�t of Various Reports/Correspondence:
a.
MASAC Agenda for October 26, 1999 and Sept. 2$, 1999 Minutes
including MASAC Operations Committee Minutes of October 8, 1999
MASAC Technical Advisers Report for the Month of September 1999
MASAC Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis for September 1999
Airport Noise Report -- October St`' and October 22�d editions
Carrier Jet Runway Use Percentages during Construction
Eagan ARC agenda for November gtn
Articles of Interest -"Silence Please", "The Rush to Hush", Burning
Issues" and "Airpart to Demonstrate Close L.andings"
Other Comments or Concerns.
.�.
Auxiliary aids for disabled persons are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a
notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to
provide the aids, hawever, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City
Administration at 452-1850 with requests.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA CO�JNTY, MI1�11�TESOTA
Airport Relations Commission Minutes
October 13,1999
T'he regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on Wednesday,
October 13, 1999, in the City Hall Large Conference Room, 1101 Victoria Curve. Chair Beaty called
the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m. The following members were present: Beaty, Leuman, May, and
Petschel. Also present was City Administrator Batchelder.
Commissioners Fitzer, Roszak and Stein were absent.
Newly appointed Commissioner Elizabeth Petschel was introduced. Commissioner Petschel stated that
she is pleased to be appointed to the Airport Relations Commission and stated that she has followed
airport issues since before moving to Mendota Heights in 1987.
, ►�.� � � 11
MOTION: by Cha.ir Beaty to approve the September 8, 1999 minutes as written.
� � Commissioner May seconded the motion. The rninutes were approved
�-- unanimously.
I:1�V:�INISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
AIl2PORT PLAN OF ACTION
Administrator Batchelder reported that the draft copy before the Commission incorporates the changes
discussed at the last meeting. These changes include:
Topics of Interest No. 2: was changed to accelerate the conversion to manufactured stage III aircraft.
Focus Issues No. 2: was changed to advocate educating policy makers about the City's position and
Action Pian instead of pursuing an appointment of a City resident to the MAC Board. A brief
discussion followed about whether to use the word "position" or "policy". It was the
consensus of the Comrnission to keep the word "position."
Page 3: Under item No. 2, rather than requesting a regulatory rule, the Commission added language
advocating that MA.0 create incentives and disincentives that would encourage airlines to use only
Stage III aircraft during nighttime hours. Only Sun Country has agreed to pay a penaity for not using
Stage IlI during those hours. Chair Beaty suggested that the action step be further modified to indicate
IVIENDOTA HEIGHTS AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION �
"manufactured" Stage IlI aircraft because after January 1, 2000, Stage III aircraft will be required. It
was the consensus of the Commission to make this added change.
Page 4: No. 8 was added to consider hiring a consultant to assist with the corridor definition. No. 6
was modified to state, "Pursue proper location of corridor based on GIS analysis of existing
cornrnerciaUindustrial uses and land use compatibility theories." Commissioner May asked if the
problem is that unless there are safety issues, the FAA will not mandate that the corridor be moved.
Administrator Batchelder explained that it is more of an environmental issue. If the corridor is moved,
the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be done again.
Page 5: The same recommendation to consider a consultant to help define the corridor was added as
No. 5.
Page 6: The goal was changed to educating policy makers about its Action Plan and City positions
with No. 3 changed to reflect that goal. No. 5 was added to educate federal representatives about the
FAA role in the runway use systems and federal funding.
Page 7: No. 4 was changed to produce a government access segment about the Airport Relations
Commission by the Spring of 2000. Chair Beaty requested that a portion of the January, February and
March meetings be designated to plan the video. No. 4.a. was added to develop a script, and 4.b. to
work with NDC producers. It is anticipated that the video would be completed by April 2000.
; � Page 8: As a part of the Commission's A.nnual Report, it was nated that an informational brochure is
-- to be done by fall of 1999. Administrator Batchelder stated that the brochure could highlight the
priorities of the Commission. Chair Beaty requested that this item be placed on the agenda of the next
meeting.
Page 14: It was the consensus of the Cornmission to add No. 4 for negotiations with the FAA on
head-to-head operations.
Page 16: It was the consensus of the Commission to add Action Step No. 4 that as technology
increases, it not be used to increase capacity in the corridor but be used for equitabie distribution of
traffic on the runway system. City Administrator Batchelder noted that the new north/south runway
will ease traffic over Mendota Heights. The runway will be finished in 2003, and he summarized maps
showing new traffic patterns by 2005. The FAA has taken the position of adhering to this plan and not
making further changes to recommendations resulting from the EIS. The FAA does not want to make
substa.r�tive changes that would require a new EIS.
MOTION: by Commissioner Leuman, seconded by Commissioner Petschel that the
revised Airport Action Plan be submitted to the Council with a
recommendation for approval. The motion was approved unanimously.
� j
1VIENDOTA HEIGHTS AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION �
• � �•. . �. ��. � . � ;. � . � � ��. ;� �
Administrator Batchelder reported that the Airports and Aviation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan
was revised significantly by the City Council.
Chair Beaty asked for clarification of the policy that establishes physical capacity of the corridor. Mr.
Batchelder explained that the Council would like to establish a finite level at which the Corridor is to be
used, sot that when that level is reached, reliever airports would have to be used.
He further noted that the revisions to the Comprehensive Plan addressed land use issues. T'he
Comprehensive Plan must be reviewed and approved by the Metropolitan Council which will require
consistency with the overall metro systems.
UPDATES
MSP Part 150 Study Update - Noise Abatement on Runway 17-35
Administrator Batchelder reported that the meeting of the October 8, 1999 MASAC Operations
Committee included discussion on: 1) noise abatement depariure procedures for Runway 17; 2) track
definition and usage; and 3) preferred night time track use.
Flight tracks are being developed with the FAA. It is important to remember that a single noise event
� � count exposure was developed on all EIS tracks. In the current analysis, the single noise event is being
-- compressed into to one section with the affected population 14 miles out. People at a distance of 14
miles will experience a significantly smaller duration of noise time than those who live close in. People
close in experience 30 to 40 seconds, while those 14 rniles out only are affected for two or three
seconds. The contour is based on the single noise event. The decision was to use distant depa.rtures as
a base line. The Part 150 Study will analyze close-in departure procedures for the 17-35 zunway only.
Analysis based on single noise event contours is really not accurate because the intensity and duration
of the sound event is not being taken into account.
MAC CAPTTAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) 2000-2006
Administrator Batchelder reported that under new legislation MAC is required to solicit comments
from affected municipalities on its CIP. This document is a formal notice to the City that they have
adopted a CII' plan. The City has until November 22, 1999 to submit comments. It was a�eed that
the Commission will review the plan and discuss it at the November Commission meeting.
� J
t
MENDOTA HEIGHTS AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION �.
�MC1R i ' : : : : 1►►. �_ _
Administrator Batchelder reported that in the MAC/Minneapolis contract agreement there were several
provisions of benefit that were not included in the City's contract. A new contract will be drafted
including the beneficial provisions in the Minneapolis contract for Commission review at the next
meeting. It will then be submitted to the Council for approval and sent to MAC for signature.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Commission acknowledged receipt of various correspondence and reports.
Administrator Batchelder noted that it is difficult to obtain the graphs and charts of the Technical
Advisors Report in color from MAC. He will find out whether color copies can be obtained for a small
fee or try to obtain a disk to run additional color copies for Commissioners. The graphs and charts are
difficult to read without the color designations.
The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Deanne Gueblaoui
Recording Secretary
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
November 8, 1999
To: Airport Relations Commission
.
From: Kevin Batchelder, City Admi ' 1 ato
Subject: Unfinished and New Business for October 1999 Agenda
DISCUSSION
This memo is to discuss the Unfinished and New Business items on Wednesday
evening's agenda.
1. Metropolitan A.irport Commission's CIP 2000-2006 — Under state statute, MA.0 is
now obligated to share its Capital Improvement Plan with adjacent municipalities and
seek their comments on their five-year Capital Improvement Plan. This process also
includes the Environmental Review Process for the same five-year CIP. (Attached
you will fmd both the Preliminary CIP and the Assessment of Environmental Effects.)
The Commission should review these documents and discuss whether the City of
Mendota Heights should submit any written comments. If so, the Commission should
make a recommendation to City Council and propose comments for submission ta
MAC.
2. Airport Relations Brochure — During the discussion about the Airport Plan of
Action, the Commission expressed a desire to produce an informational brochure for
public consumption. One idea discussed was that the brochure would highlight the
goals of the Commission, as outlined in the Plan of Action. The Commission should
begin a discussion of this proposed brochure and provide direction to staff.
Suggested topics for discussion would include who is the intended audience, the
primary message for the brochure, the shelf life of the message/information, how the
brochure would be distributed, etc.
� • � ' 1
If the Commission so desires, they should discuss the MAC Capital Improvement Plan
2000-2006 and the Airport Relations Brochure.
� �� .� ,� ..�.�;, : � . �� � �. .� a ,�, :,� ,�; ,
�PP+ is sa�^,r
?� t 9G
� �
� m �
�t °
� , ty
O N
� �,
o r �.
t G�
9� 41RPORty
September 17, 1999
Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport
6040 - 28th Avenue South • Niinneapolis, NIN 55450-?799
Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fax (612) 726-5296
Keven Batcheider, Administrator
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
RE: Capital Improvement Program
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Dear Mr. Batchelder:
The Commission on September 22, 1999 approved the preliminary 2000-2006 Capital
Improvement Program.
A copy of the spreadsheet listing the projects and project costs for the seven-year period and
� � project narratives for year 2000 and 2001 is attached for your review. In my August 23, 1999
�, _ letter, I indicated that you will have 60 days to provide comments on the preliminary CIP to the
MAC. The last date to submit comments will therefore be November 22, 1999. All comments
regarding the CIP must come from the affect municipalities and not from individuals.
All comments should be addressed to my attention as follows:
Robert Vorpahl, Program Development Engineer
Metropolitan Airports Commission
2901 Metro Drive, Suite 525
Bloomington, MN 55425
Since ely, �
� .�J Citi`-"
����,..vL
Robert J. Vorpahl, .E.
Attachment
sb
cc: Nigel Finney
Dennis Probst
� l
The Nletropolitan Airports Commission is an affirmati�•e actiun empluyer.
ww�v.mspairport.com
Relie��er Airports: AIRLAKE � ANOKA COUNTY/BLAINE • CRYSTAL • FLYI\G CLOUD • LAKE ELbtO • SAINT PALL DO�\�iTOWN
m
0
0
N
tC)
O
O
N
Z
g
�.
�
Z
W
�
v
� N
d
�
J
H
Q I
V
O
O
N
N
O
O
N
F-
J(Z�
E—}C�')
a p
v�a
a
�
Z
W�
a � W
V a a
�
0
O
N
O
O
O
N
}'�
U
W
�
O
�
a
0
0
0
0
�
�i
N
f!?
O
O
Q
O
O
�
tI)
N
U}
0
0
0
0
0
ti�
tf�
N
�
O O
O c0,�
� �
M
N tH
fi3
O
O
O
O
O
tf]
�
, N
F1Y
p p O O O
o � � o �?
�
� � � �
Q O O O
�,,'��,,',,. l� O M t )
K}
N � H3
�I GFf
J
Z
O
�
CD y
� �
C J �
t0
� 0 =
�� y �
�
d �u � �
� 3 .� �, �
ro o � • o
C � c p � C
O � m N d O
� � o o a �v �m
C 'O
�+ � .-. m � C � E
V � C G � O �'
� c � '� m
a W � _ � � � �
d O � � Q W �
v� :° � .� c�n u�i � � t°'
N � C N
d � � t0 tTf O y G
d C .0 � C C � � O
Rf O ,'�O_ ;O N N
m _ = a o n :
c �> � a�i a`"i aNi c'=i � a�i
� �y U` � � � ua tn >
0
a
0
0
0
�
�
N
�
O
O
O
O
O
It�
tt'1
N
6A
0
0
0
0
0
�
tY)
N
�
O
O
O
O
O
il')
tl'1
N
�
O
O
O
O
O
�fy
t!�
N
�
O
0
O
0
�
�
N
th
�
O
0
0
O
M
�
�
t0
C
�
C
O
.c
w
O
�
�
�
�
0 0 0
a�
rn
`� � m
n.
O �
t� �
�
Q o
� �
o O .
� �
O O O
� � �
O O O C?
«j O � �V
� � � �
O O O O O O
N (�O t�Cf c+�') O '�C'
Ni EfT 4'T ^, �
69
�
N N
� �
N �
fl) �
-� J
t4 M � Q�
C fiJ `J a m
o � � � �
� c o
?�. N
im.. � G }' '}� C � `
N � � � � t0 d �
G �V � � d X �
� � ` � � W �- O �
� U
V � O � ` ` 0 � � N
C.) � V m `o. � N �
� � � °� c c `_ °� � �;
. � ¢ ~ O = U U � � U 'Q
CT C �
� o=_ '� ��� �� o ii
C - 41 � � N Vl C �+ y 'O
� � LL ('Ll � O O V � � ..�.
J C C ,_ _ C
°� o �� O E E � � U 0_
� � �' .� � � � N :?
� LL Q Q �C Q Co CO U S � Q
ZQ
�.7
�
�
Z
w
�
w
;�
O
�
d
�
J
h
a
¢
C�
tD
O
O
N
�
0
0
N
v
0
0
N
c�
0
O
N
�
O
0
N
O
O
0
N
h
U
W
O
�
a
0
0
0
0
O
�
C")
fR
O O
O O
O O
O O
0 0
�n o
c� v
t�! .-
�
0
0
0
0
0
0
v
�
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
O O
V' �[7
E�9 �
O O O
O O O
O O O
O O O
O O O
O N .-
� 6�9� �
0
0
0
0
0
0
ai
�
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O. O
O O O O CI O O O ' � O O O�
O O LL] O O O O O O O O
� tC) CO O N O tI') O O N� O
M V O aO �A a0 T tf e-
69 � � � V3 NY V� Ff? 4H� �
O O O O O O O O O O
O � O (�D O t+�') a�0 � N t�D ����.
�r �sa va '
� � � v o � <s>
V� I
E1J 69
(0
(9
N
N C
m �
a� m
� (�
� �
o �
M = �
N � y
c� E �
N �
O
c � � m m � �+ �
° = X °' s a' � _ �n o =
o. � m rn .-. rn � o o '�. o
Q � i- � c'v� 5 0 � e� �
� � �a o v � c .._.
� o 0 0 ° � c�i ° c � ° C) �t � c :o
_ � = o a� o m
� .m .m .m m c � m '� � � ai c o '� � m (
:n �� � o m�u �? c°� m � a� � 2 �� � i
� [6 c9 c0 N U J �N X N O S� uf O � O
p � .c .c � ,� in � W � � � o � U � m
� � CL Q' R� M C17 � N N N � QI V U � V �
N N N �p `
D C C C r � `n"' M V�' V1' r1' Q p .-�. CO U R7
lU N N T T T ?. ?. ?. T 'O � �., T f,n O
� � E � m ro m m m m m w� 3 co ca ��
= a� m u� 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 � 3 E 3 s c�
� > > > c c c c c c c o o ' ' •-
o m �v m � � � � � � � m c � m m �
z a a a������� cn cn in H�- �- �
0
0
0
O
O
�
v
59
O
O
O
0
0
v
�
�
K3
0
0
0
0
0
rn
c�
N
b4
0
0
0
0
0
�
I �
N
�
O
O
O
O
O
O
�
�
69
0
0
O
O
�
C"�
�
d}
O
0
0
O
O
CU
N
Q1
N
�
io
O
.n
�
o�
0
N
N
m /'�
a 1
O
O
O
O
O
00
69
0
0
O
O
O
�
tf3
O O
O O
� �
ER �
�
rn
QJ
�
a�
.n
m
o.
a� �
a �
m Y � ,.
a � � �
= U �
N •� �
N �
� ,C c
0
c a �
� ¢ m
0
I �
0
0
N
I
� �
1 �
0
N
Z
g
a
F-
z
w
�
w
> o
p o
� N
0.
�
J
�"'
a
¢
c�
�
0
0
I N
�
O
O
O
O
O �
N �
h
J W ����{{{
~��+ O
¢ Q � ( N
U�a
a �
� i
i
H
Z �
W
ajW o
N
van�.
�
O
O
O
O
O
O
�� �
O
� p O
O
O
� t� N
�p t[)
K3 p�
U3
O O O O •O O O � .
O O- O O O �
O O � O ��t� (O � �
t!'/ � � � � �
EA dT �
ff�
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
N � O It� N � t�Cl M t� � O O � NV
tf} EA' t,Cj � h. N � � � N ��., ��.. �
f�T � � � Ef3 f/-}
rn
�
0
�
a�
rn
c�
a
a� N
-o c
m a�
( _ � �
c
� � � a — �
N N � � N T m
� � C� � � � @ N (n rn
i� a� c� a � ,°� u- m �
U t
�' O 0 �, � � � YA m N a U `
O � Q C � � C � � � � �
� � .O CO � � - O � � tD .:� O U � Q � �
Q Q L� 07 C Q. J Y Q� q) C c0 m � C E � ..�.
� � �' m 1D a� o � `II � � V:4 °� W� o. � Q' E a�''i
m d m CC
� � w o � � � �i� � -' a> o � � c c N Q t j � � � U7
�
� c � V �o v � � L a� m >. '� m � m •° � °i � Y c � �
I � �' .E � � � > Q � 'S m � .n m m �j � W o o d � > ti
� � � E o u � � o c a� Q c� c� .o �<t
i m � C] cr1 `m `.i o� o� a�� 1° � c�i E o 0 0� ` a�i
�"' a�i o rn uyi Q a� a� v`�i a� Q °� � � m � p a�'i � V C� C7 � _ �
V � U � � � E E � � Q W c � > rn � � � � a�i a�i s � a.
� o a� �•,� c E E c� in �n o � � �� � o � � � oi � u�
p � � •� � a� o 0 o m m o
� Q m m m fJ U U U � W W W Ltl LLJ W ti i.� U` U' U� 'U 2 = Q
a
Z
�
a
�
z
w
�
w
O
�
a
�
J
1�¢-
d
U
H
Z
J I.(J �
t-�-W�
�
Q Q �
�
v a �-
�
�
Z �
J W �
!4- W W
Q � �
vaa
�
Q O
� �' O
O
O {,q _
N �
� O
� O
� � O
O �y _
N
69
0 0
� � o
I N � �-
69
Q o
o � a
o �
N
�
� O O
� � O O
O � _ _
N
69 ffT
O O O O O O O
O o O o O o O
Q rt O n O t� O QV
O
N � N� � � N� N �
�
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O 4 O O O O O O O O O O
O O O � O O O O O O O O
� O ll� � N � � O p O O O O
N �j nj ER £H fH V3 �- .� ll') (O O
� � £9 4H ff? fR f�
�
O
O
O
O
O
O
tt
ffT
O
O
O
O
O
0
�
O
O
O
O
O
O
G:3
0
0
0
0
0
O
Ei?
0
0
0
0
0
a
�
O
O
O
O
O
O
ff!
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O t� (.�. �
Ei? V�
V> d3 EPr EA
�
C C T
O O C � �
N G (11 d .� 'S C tD
C 0 � C � _ � '� N
ry . .
W Q � c � a T� � -rnp �" �
N O U � =' O . C �
'N � � a� � m y � Q' �� � (jJ _1 � j �
� O Q a rn- � �p = �n tt C� � � U o �
a=i X n � � �` �,c o c •° o •o � � �' � c m m N � �
o. ?, � E Y c E� C� �0 D�� � 'v m'� o c o � rn
o .... 'C m a� m � rn� d ti m c� �� W � F- c �
y:� � a g rn Q o c � L� Q m � c�_ � � � v E
� ty U a m E N cu m = �C .n .°� � Q Q o @ o 0 o m Q?
� 00 W u. � � � Z � FQ- > �+ � � � c c c a� �
tq tl1 N
� j O O [0 (0 (0 f0 N ca f� (fl (0 (0 C C .�•.T• � t0 t9 f0 m C!�
� c c c c c c c c c c c — Q a a �
� �E � E E E E E E E E E E °' � � c"a � W W W � m (
� ¢ � `m a� a� a� r`u a� a� a� iu a� o. m m u" � rn rn rn� :°
� `° m O I- F- t- I- f- i- t- F- I- I- o 0 0� c�i � � c c � �
�,�„ ` o � � .c .c _c t .c .c .c .c .c t a� rn rn c Y Y Y ,� v
U .c v v rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn > m � m tA m m m m �
W a ` w m � .n .fl a .n a � .n .n a 0 U U � m d � n- n �
� � a� c c a v v a v v v v v v F.- U C� c � . . . , a
� = C J J J J J J J J J _1 J J J � �S S,� (l, a a d � +.•
a �
0
\
I I I o 0 0 0 0 0
0
O O O O O 0
O
O O O � � 0
'- .- O � � �
� � �
�
O O O O O �
O O O O O �
O
O O O tt� t� O
D
r- � O � N� r'
69 :�1 �
fif
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 o Q
0 0 0 0 0 0
� O p p� tl� N O
O �
� � �r v> � � �
� �
�
O
� p p O O O 0
p O O O O O �
0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 �n �n
� � � � irs � �
(t3
O
O
p O O O O O 0
O
� � � O � tn �
� � � � � � � .
69 �
O O O O O �
O O O O O O O O . � � ..
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
� � O � N �
O � 1�- tH � � � 6q .
� � N-T
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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 �ri o 0 0 0 0 0 o ui ui o O o 0
O O O N � O O � O � � n N O O � O
�� � � �' � � � � � � � � tA � tt) O � EN9
''�,�. � � � � � �
�
O
O
N
�
O
O
N
Z
�
a
Z
W
�
W �
� N
a
�
J
F-' ,...�,.�,..
a '
U
c�
0
0
N
N
O
O
N
�
z�
W
F j �
Q Q �
U�a
a
�
Z
W �
a�w
I van�.
�
O
O
N
O
O
0
N
F
�
W
�
0
�
a
I � �
� C
N
� .0 N
f4 C G
� W O
� c
c - o �
a� �� w
U 'O E
C C.� � � c'�' C .� f0
'� � V � t0 E y O tQ C N
f� � �' .Q C N C N C � U N O �
+-�+
N � � � � O 0 � U � C C @ N
CO C N �O � � U '� f0 tC O N � N ;� �O
�' � Y ti- V - -p S� G � N t4 CD
� � � O O C '� '��p tV '4,�,., � @ n. U L N �
y C� � �Q O 0 ,C p N O c6 .N n- Q.
w c V � � .m � � � � � c � > � � � �
� m � � � m u o o'� cu � a aC � o
I m � m � ¢ U
I f�/f � 'Q S y N � U 7 yN„ U N C N O C C G
_ � p� N c6 p N N x N ,a C IL � • •
c�i U � Q m [0 U W W W � ,2 � a� y r� � E
o >, m m m m m m m m m m m U > �
V ._ � c c c c c c c c c �'� � � t� t�
-a o'x E € � E E E E � € m m � w a"'i a`�i
� i� � � � � � ►°' i � � � t- �- � � � S
0
O
O
O
O
V'
U9
O ',,
O ',
O
O
O
'V'
�
0
0
0
0
O
(D
�
O
0
0
0
0
cD
v
u�
O
O
O
O
O
�
N
EA
O
O
�
0
O
7
�
O
Ef?
0
0
0
0
ti�
M
O
rn
N
�
N
;o
�
�
c
N
J
m
0
�
�
�
�
0
�
d
m
t0
�
�
�
�
�
N
.a
�
..�.
Q.
N
�
m
v
LL
�
w
c
a`
°�,'
�
0
ZQ
J
a
F-
z
W
�
W
O
�
a
�
J
H
d
Q
V
�
J �z(J c,�"
I¢-W�
>�
Qp0
�a�
a
�
H
Z �
W
a>W �
Q � � N
�aa
�
�
i
�
H �
U �
W
7 �
� �
�
Ll. �
0
0
0
0
o �
N M
�
0
0
0
0
o �
N �
�2'
ff!
0
0
0
0
i� Q uo'�
.......... N �
�D
�
O
O
O
O p
O 0
N �
69
O
O
O
O
O �
N �
M
69
O
0
m
0
o �
o -
N �
N
�
O
O
O
0
N
M
V'
t�D
�
0
a
Q o 0 0
� � o �
� v o �
�m v �n rn
c � o v v
�� � rn ca c�
� �r v3 -
� �
m
a.
�
N
0
a
�a �
c i
c i
� ;
� N fp N
� N fD (D
N j O O O
� I- F- F
o � �
E' o 0 0
� N N N
�
C
C
N O
Q N N N
rn
w
0
m
m
rn �-
N
a
rn
rn
rn
�'
�
N
.n
a��i
n.
a�
�
� �.
fd
'O
�
v
a�
c
a`
�
m
�
�"'
J W �
I � > �
0' O 0
' U��
o. n-
�
�, F-
Z
w�
ajw
Ua�
�
tD
O
O
N
tf)
O
O
N
�
0
O
N
�
0
N
N
O
O
N
O
O
N
0
O
0
N
0
0
0
0
O
M
Vi
O
O
O
O
O
O
tf')
�
O
O
O
0
0
m
N
�
0 0 0
p O O
� o 0[p O
�
� �
N
N
Q
�
C
'O
t6 �
3 m
� � Z
� C
� � � � a�
� m 3 � o.
�' �ip N O
a�i � ° 'm �
U E o
� ? c m m
m x � � �
� c I- 'm
� '� a� m
...�,...�,.., O. � � Q � �p
C �` m
,, (U Y tn ,� N � L
nyi � o � o � �
� a U Z o. cn t�n
0
0
0
0
O
f'�
ffT
O
O
O
O
O
O
�
(�
O
O
O
O
0
�
N
�
0
0
0
........., O
,�
I�
�ci
I u�
N
Y
t9
Q
0
0
0
0
N
M
Ei?
O
O
O
O
0
0
c�i
sFr
0 0 0 0
o a o 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
N Gl C7 O
� t0 N
', !f? d3 ff?
I O O
I O O
I � M
� �
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
M O (D W
�i
� �
N
C C
O
N � y C
E � � w
� �
U L m X X
a, W Z •� W c
� ' � m m
C C ��'- � X
c � � S�' � x� a? �
C ,� �. O_ � O J ~ � C
.� � a o % '� � n� `'�� �L
pp � > > � a; -� `� m �
' � � 0 = W �2 4 '- Q
m � rn
_ � � � � N N N N C
� Q c= C m O) O� tn .[7
� � � � � N N ITO � CD
� � � � j G C C �C N
Q¢ m m a��� v� �
0
0
0
0
N
M
ffT
O
O
O
O
0
0
c�i
�i
0
0
0
0
0
tt)
�
(f3
O
O
O
O
O
�
tP
U�
0
0
0
O
0
ti
�ci
es
N
C
.�
m
T
c
�
0
U
m
Y
O
c
d
w
O
a
�
�
rn
0
ti
a>
m
t0
d.
0
0
0
O
u�
N
hFT
Q)
rn
rn
r
a`>
�
aEi
N d
a�
o tn
w �
o ti
� �
N
Q1 C
� = a`
� •� y
� � o
U
cD
0
0
N
O O
O O
� O O
O �
N � �
Z
a
z
W
�
> `t
O o
� N
a
�
�
�
a o 0
¢ o 0
� � o
M
0
o � �
N
N
O
O
N
JUZ,J� O O
I�-W� � uQy
Qp0 N � �
vaa
�
Z� o 0
W
0 0
I4- w W o� � n
a�� N �r vs
U��
�
:9
�
UI
.. I
0
.o
�
�
� � �
� 0 Q
0 � �
� O tp
�3 �
OO �,,�..,'�.
� �
ffT �
0 0
o �o
� �
x
W
�
ti
N
�
rn
3
� �
a� O
C G
O �
.y
C X
a� W C
o W c a
c �ro
�' �� o E o
m �
�
� 0 O N ` � N ,
a m .;° o c v � �
_ � :c � ° I
� m � � � a�i � 4 i
� � �-� co � a`� rn I
'Q� U D 'y � M J �y C
� � � '� � � � �
Q W m U N >. N � _
C� .a `m Q � � � � f.�
c
c . �
' � � G > C 2'� C �
LL'¢ _ � a�� rn i�
0
0
0
0
u�
rn
�
0 0
0 0
0 0
o rn
u�
� �
0
0
0
0
0
rn
�
0
0
0
0
0
rn
CO
�
0
0
0
0
0
rn
T
�
o °'
o p
0
o °D
o �
� a (�
O
O
O
O
O
Ef!
0
0
0
0
0
�
0
0
0
0
0
�
� Q
� Q � 0
n � � o
� � M �
G9
�� �
O p
O p
o � o
0 0
M � � E:3
�
O �
O �
0 0
0 0
o a
N
M �
�
I
I
'a i ; o '
o � � I
V W
� Y
G � �
T
� �
c r
a�
0 0 � �' �
, c E
N C U ' � O �
! � S ` o � a
� '� � •N i � d
� �
c
�� � � C o � (
I Q .f°c N W ° � a �
I � � M N 'S� � LL' �.
ta O 'O C .- d. �y p -p yl
� W CO E fO c° .a � CO •
c
�
fq m in > c c � U1 a U �.
� w a�� i i�� �
� , a
Z
g
a
�
Z
W
�
w
O
�
a
�
J
H
a
U
h
...i (ZyJ �
�j�
�' Q �
¢ � �
vao-
�
H
Z
W �
H W W
v�a
�
�n
O
O
N
v ''
0
O ',
N '
M
O
O
N
N
O
O
N
O
0
N
0
0
N
O
O
0
0
�
�
0 0
0 0
� �
N
N
'�
m
`o>
n
�
� c
U �
i4
i� =
N —
W c'aa
y L
tU
o �
c c
co �
v �
N >
� Q
C
3
O
C
3
0
0
�
@
�.
f/7
m
0
.o
�
�
�
�
�
:V
�
;O
�
0
0
�
0
a
N
�
�9
0
0
0
r�
0
0
ti
�i
0
0
0
0
u�
tf )
�
69
0
0
0
0
0
�
CO
�}
O
O
0
0
N
N
69�
0
0
0
0
�
�
tC)
sY
�
N
�
0
a
Q
�
N
�
�
m
F�—
N
7
C
C
Q
O O O
O O O
O O O
O O O
� ti v
r, tf'� t+)
tD V' ,—
vs � .-
�
U1 N fA
:� :fl »Q
F�— F�— 1�—
cD co
0 0 0
N N N
O O O
N N N
O ',,
O ',.
O ',,
O ',,
N ,
M ',,
O ',,
�
�
0
0
0
0
0
N
M
�f1
GF}
0
0
0
0
0
�
N
ti
�
O
0
0
0
u�
tf)
�
�
�i
0
0
0
0
0
r
M
�
V�
O
O
oc>
0
N
c+')
t'7
�
0
0
0
0
�
ai
�L7
�
�
�
0
O. ',,,
Q I
Q
N
ia
H
N
�
C
G
Q
O O O
O O O
OO O CD
O O O
O I� h
.— N f`�
M CO �
t� t0 tD
rn r� r�
� � �
�
N N N
� fC �0
i-- I-- F-
m m
0 0 0
N N N
Q O O
N N N
01
O
�
N
Qf
t0
a
rn
rn
rn
n�
N
a
E
a�
a
N
C/)
T
co
v
ll.
v
a�
c
d
...�.
N
�
2000 CAPITAL IiV1PROVEMENT PROGRAM
Minneapolis-St. Paul international Airport
i
Environmental
Residential Sound insulation (inside 65 DNL) $25,500,000
An ongoing program to insulate residentiai houses within the certified 1996 DNL 65 noise contour.
School Noise Abatement Projects $4,000,000
This project will provide for noise insulation for Elliot School in Richfield and a yet ta be identified school in
Minneapolis. A pilot project at the House of Prayer pre-school will also be completed.
5upplemental Environmental Projects
$300,000
The Baytown Township Groundwater Contamination Site extends f�om east of the city of Lake Elmo through
Baytown Township to the St. Croix River, and is approximately bounded on the north by State Highway 5
and 40th Street and on the south by 30th Street. The site includes the Lake Elmo Airpo�t.
Groundwater of the Prairie du Chien and Jordan aquifers is affected by a release of the volatile organic
compound, trichloroethene (TCE) within the Baytown Township G�oundwater Contamination site. The
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) believes that the release has occu►red at the Lake Elmo
Airport. The MAC has worked with the MPCA to conduct investigations and response actions at the Baytown
Township Groundwater Contamination Site, and 'in so doing has agreed to terms under a Consent Order
that requires the MAC to implement a Supplemental Environmental Project. (SEP).
The three projects proposed to satisfy the SEP provisions of the Consent Order are: ::- :�.:
.:.... : ,
� . .. .
- 1. Enlargement of an infiltration basin at Flying Cloud Airport. :�.. �
� 2. Participation in the planned Water Quality Improvernent project.for Lake Nokomis in South
� Minneapolis.
3. Contribution to the Metro Greenways Project in Washington County.
Ventilation Testing/Remediation of Past Homes $1,570,000
This is a continuation of the program to remediate problems associated with indoor air quality in houses
which were insulated in the period from June 1992 to April 1997.
Field & Runways
Air Operations Area CCN Installation $200,000
This project will provide for the installation of six CCN cameras around the air operations area (AOA). This
system of cameras would allow Airside Operations staff to view operational activities around the airport and
would be effective in a variety of situations including snow removal, emergency response, cleanup
coordination and conformance verification activities.
Aircraft Fueling Truck Meter Proving Stand
$650,000
This project wil! provide for the construction of an aircraft fueling truck meter proving stand on the snow
storage area to be constructed adjacant to Taxiway A1 on Runway 30L. The meter proving stand will be
used to testJcalibrate the meters on the fuel trucks which service the aircraft at the gates.
Airside Bituminous Construction
$�00,000
An ongoing program to construct or reconstruct bituminous pavements within the Air Operations Area.
Inspection of the overlays on Runway 12V30R will be made in the spring of 2000 to determine whether or
not a bituminous repair project is required.
Printed 9/17/99 4:16:32 PM Page 1
Bituminous Reconstruction - Rwy. 12R/30� Seg. 2
This project wili provide for the mill and overlay of the center section of the
12R/30�.
Green Concourse Apron Expansion
$1,300,000
bitumious segment of Runway
$17,000,000
The expansion of the Green Concourse will require the expansion of the apron and fueling hydrant system
which will be required to serve the new gates. This project is the second phase in the construction of the
apron and fueling system and will serve Phase 2 of the Green Concourse expansion.
iVliscellaneous Construction
$400,000
An ongoing program to consolidate various incidental items beynnd the capabilities of the maintenance
personnel, projects too small to be accomplished independently, or to handle airside problems requiring
repair which come up unexpectedly.
North Side Storm Sewer
$3,000,000
The extension of Runway 4/22 by 1000 feet to the northeast will require the construction of a new storm
water drainage system. The new storm sewer will be constructed from the Runway 12U30R and Runway
4I22 intersection to Snelling Lake. This project will provide for the construction of the segment from Golf
Taxiway east along the north side odf Runway 12V30R to Highway 5.
Pavement Rehabilitation - Aprons $3,500,000
An ongoing program to replace sections af concrete pavement in the aircraft operational areas that have
deteriorated to a point where maintenance is no longer a viable option: This year's project will include the
reconstruction of the apron adjacent to Gates 1 and 2 on the Gold Concourse and also a segment on the
Red Concourse adjacent to Gates 22, 26, 28 and 30. -
Runway 12R Deicing/Holding Pad $15,000,000
This project will.construct the airport's deicing/holding pad on Runway:12R to allow for the efficient deicing of
aircraft and collection of glycol as welt as for the holding of aircraft for operational reasons. This project will
also include the construction of Taxiway B between the deicing�pad and Exit Taxiway 610.
Runway 17/35 Construction $145,600,000
This is a continuation of the program to develop a new North/South Runway:(Runway.-17/35) at MSP.
Projects proposed for 2000 include the following: .. „ _.
1. Construction of the west cargo apron for use by BAX Global, DHL, Emery and MAC Cargo
2. Construction of the Signature Taxiway
3. Taxiway W realignment
4. Construction of Taxiways W/Y and Y3 and Runways 4/22 and 17/35 tunnels
5. Reconstruction of Longfellow Road from 77th Street to 66th Street
6. Storm sewer installation
7. Airpo�t Medical Clinic demolition
8. 34th Avenue sanitary sewer pumping station
Runway 17/35 Land Acquisitian
$100,000,000
During 2000, there will be a continuation of the acquisition of off-airport land as well as lease e�inguishment
required to provide for the Runway 17/35 Protection Zone (RPZ}.
Secured Area Access Control System Field Gate Installation $300,000
This project will provide for the 'installation three new security gates to be located at the Standard Air Cargo
site, at the new Navy facility and at the Public Safety Storage building.
Snow Storage/Melting Area
$2,850,000
This project will provide for the construction of a snow storage/melting area including two 80-ton snow
melters adjacent to Taxiway A1 on Runway 30L.
Printed 9/17/99 4:16:32 PM Page 2
C
Stormwater Collection/Detention Ponds $1,500,000
A new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDE5) permit is expected to require additional
storm water storage in order to control discharge of settleabie solids to the Minnesota River. This project
will provide for the construction of a new storm water detention pond for the Minnesota River South drainage
� �l basin. �
Tunnel Struc#ure Rehabilitation
$200,000
The vehicle tunnel under Runway 12R/30L was constructed in 1970. Major rehabilitation of the two
mechanical rooms located adjacent to the tunnel is now required. Replacement of inechanical equipment
and lighting is required as well as replacement of the existing doors.
Utility Modifications
$600,000
This project provides fo� the lining/repair of the sanitary sewer line which runs adjacent to Hwy. 5 and
between the Inbound/Outbound roadway and Hwy. 55.
-►. .-
� )
72nd Street Upgrade $1,450,000
This is the first project in a three year p�ogram to upgrade 72nd Street from 34th Avenue to the west to
include two westbound lanes and three eastbound lanes and three traffic signals. The upgraded roadway
will allow traffic from the new Humphrey Terminal and future Humphrey/Employee parking ramp and future
LRT station to access 72nd street �
Airport Mail Center
$53,400,000
A new Air Mail Center for the US Postal Service is being constructed on a site adjacent to Northwest
Building B as the existing facility must be removed to� make room for Phase 2 of the Green Concourse ..°
expansion. This facility will also provide concourse space for Northwest Airlines adjacent to the USPS .-
concourse area for the purpose of interchange of mait:.. As..the site.for the new Air Mail Center displaces ..�.
Nortwest Airlines employee parking; replacement parking will be provided on two levels`on top of the,Air Mail
Cenier. A project to provide the foundations arid structural steel will be bid in 1999. This project will �provide
for the building enclosure and finishes as well as all mechanization system equipment.
Buildings Demolition . . � $250,000
This project will provide the demolition of the Navy o�ce and moto� pool once they have moved to their -
temporary facilities.
Business Service Center Development
$400,000
This project will provide for the development of a business/customer service on the Red. Concourse plus
technical and space upgrades to the other three service centers that will enable them to cross-market with
the Grieve Conference Center.
Central Alarm fl8onitoring/Fiber Optic Cable Upgrade
$5,000,000
This project will provide for the installation of the fiber optic backbone required for the operation of the
Lindbergh/Regional Terminal P.A. system, the MUFIDS sytem, an ADA required visual paging system, a
terminal complex fire annunciation system and a fully integrated central alarm monitoring system.
Commercial Vehicle Staging Area $500,000
Additional commercial vehicle staging area is required on Post Road as the increasing number of taxi cabs
are reducing the area designated for cornmercial vehicles. The staging area will be a paved, illuminated and
fenced area with AVI equipment for entry and exit control.
Concession Area Developrnentllmprovements $7,200,000
This is a program to add new concessions and improve existing concession spaces throughout the
�indbergh Terminal Complex. Approximately 20 new concessions and a new food court will be constructed
in Phase 1 of the Green Concourse extension. The addition of five new concessions within the existing
Green Concourse as well as continued upgrading of concession areas on the Blue Concourse will also be
included in this program.
Printed 9/17/99 4:16:32 PM
Page 3
D Street Reconstruction $2,500,000
This project will provide for the realignment of D Street adjacent to the Green Concourse such that it will be
compatible with the installation of the Green Concourse people mover.
East Airport YVater Main Loop $500,000 �,
This project is a continuation of the program to loop the water main on the east side of the airport to ensure
that water pressure and service demands can be met. This phase will provide for the installation of water
main from the existing 18-inch stub under the 30R blast pad west along the north side of Runway 12V30R
to an existing 18-inch main at Taxiway Golf.
East Electrical Vault $1,350,000
This project will provide for the construction of a new East Electrical 13.8 kv Vault ta provide power
distribution capabilities for continuing faciiities expansions. The need for the new Primary Distribution
System Eest Vault was determined during design for ongoing projects. This new vault will also allow
removal of some load from the existing North and South Vaults. Anticipated ultimate loads for the new East
Vault include:
Green Concourse Phase 11
Future Ground Power System
Four parking ramps/Parking Management Building
Green Concourse APM
Additional expansion space �
This project will also provide for the installation of equipment in the North and South as well as the East
electrical vaults which will allow the remote monitoring of high voltage switch positions and bus voltages to
allow safe high voltage switching. .
Electrical Substation Upgrades - $500,000 -
'The electrical distribution system components within the Lindbergh Terminal are approaching 35 years old
and are at or near their lifetime operational expectancy. Major system protection components are no longer
manufactured and a single failute of a component could cause an extended power outage in the Main �, <
Terminal and older concaurse facilities. Included within the scope of work is .the replacement of obsolete
and problematic substation circuit breakers, installation of electronic protective controls and recalibration of
serviceable substation breake�s. : � _
Fiber Optic Cable Installation $475,000
This project will provide for the installation of fiber optic cable from the Lindbergh Terminal to the new
Humphrey Terminal. The fiber optic cable will be used for airport security, the MACNET, operations, and life
safety/fire alarm systems. The new cable would also serve the propased Humphrey parking ramp and
ARFF station to be constructed on 34th Avenue north of the new Hurnphrey Terminal.
Green Concourse APM $12,000,000
This project will complete the program to provide a people mover system on the Green Concaurse similar to
that currently under construction with the parking project. The APM equipment was bid in 1999. This
project will provide for the construction of the guide way system and terminal modifications at the station
locations.
Green Concourse Expansion - Phase 2 $75,000,000
This project is the second phase in the program to add new gates to the Gresn Concourse. This project will
provide for the construction of eight new gates and a new Regional Terminal Facility with 29 aircraft parking
positions.
Green/Gold Parking Ramp Security System $1,400,000
This project will provide for the installation of CCN security cameras and call for assistance systems in the
existing Green and Gold parking ramps to match the system in the new Red and Blue ramps. Completion of
the ins#allation of the security systems will then allow the ramps to meet the security standards set by code
ordinance by both the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul. �
Printed 9/17/99 4:16:32 PM Page 4
Humphrey AVI System $425,000
This project wiil provide for the instailation of a permanent AVI system and taxi starter booth at the new
Humphrey Terminai to allow for taxis and commerciai vehicies to be dispatched from the Post Road staging
area. There will also be a patron waiting area attached to the taxi starter booth.
Humphrey Terminal Development $15,000,000
This project is a continuation of the program to construct a new Humphrey Terminal and provides for tenant
and FIS finishes, sitework, concession build out and the construction of a ground services aquipment
storage building.
International Arrivals Facility Expansion $2,500,000
The success of the International Arrivals Facility (IAF) has prompted the Federal Government to add
additional staff to the IAF facility on the Gold Concourse. There is therefore a need for additional office
space and facility expansion to hause the staff. In addition, it is proposed to modify the secandary
inspections area by installing new Agriculture and Customs inspection counters and modifying the
passenger pick up area located on the baggage claim level by adding additional seating and signage. The
success of the IAF facility has also prompted a request for a study of how to expand the capacity of the
entire facility to handle additional i47 aircraft simultaneously.
Landside Bituminous Construction $400,000
An ongoing program to reconstruct the airport's bituminous roadways and parking lots. This p�oject will
provide for reestablishing a paved bike path through MAC property to connect to other established bike
routes. The closing of Standish Avenue/66th Street which was a popular bike route was required to provide
for the temporary extension of Runway 12R/30L.
Landside Operations Department Office Expansion ,�$275,000
This project will add office space for tlie Landside Operations Department including one �office for the
Assistant Airport Director%Landside and ane small cash counting/deposit room:. ;• ; -
Lindbergh Terminal Emergency Power Modifications �- $950,000
This project will revise the existing l.indbergh Terminal 480v emergency power distribution as a continuation
of revisions to the Terminal Complex emergency power system. The Emergency Generaior Project installed
and revised the 4160v emergency distribution system to the Main Terminal. This project wo�k will revise and
expand the sub-distribution within the Main Terminal, Red Concourse and Blue Concou�se to allow for future
additional elevator loads and to further separate the generator loads to Life Safety and Equipment branches.
Lindbergh Terminal Fire Alarm Upgrade $750,000
This project will upgrade the existing fire alarm system throughout the Lindbergh Terminal to meet current
NFPA and NEC local codes. The current fire alarm system does not include audio or visual annunciation of
fire. This project would add audio and visual annunciation in both the public and non-public areas of the
Lindbergh Terminal complex. This project could be done in phases over the next two years:
Phase I(2000) would include public occupied spaces;
Phase II (2001) would include non-public occupied spaces.
Lindbergh Terminal Interior Rehabilitation $4,000,000
An ongoing program to renovate the interio� of the �indbergh Terminal. This project will provide for the
remodeling of the Ticketing Area and will include refurbishing of the ticket counter shells and backwalls, new
signage to better identify the checkpoint locations as well as the airlines, and other amenities.
Lindbergh Terminal MUFIDS and BIDS
$1,000,000
This projectwill add Multi User Flight Information Display (MUFIDS) and Baggage Information Display
(BIDS) systems to the Lindbergh Terminal. This project will be cornpleted in phases over three years.
Lindbergh Terminal Rubber Flooring Replacement $400,000
This project provides for the phased replacement of the rubber flooring on the sky bridges, east mezzanine,
� � in the parking ramp stair towers and in the west mezzanine stair to the loading dock. The existing materials
__ have deteriorated in condition and appearance and require replacement with new flooring material.
Printed 9/17/99 4:16:32 PM Page 5
Lindbergh Terminal Toilet Additions $1,500,000
There are no toilet facilities within the ticketing area of the Lindbergh Terminal which has been a source of
complaints from the traveling public. There is also a need for additional toilet facilities on the Red
Concourse. A project to add facilities to the ticketing erea and renovate closed restrooms on the Red �
Concourse will be completed.
Lindbe�gh Terminal Visual Paging $1,600,000
This project will add visual paging to the Lindbergh Terminal to comply with ADA guidelines. LED displays
will be added to the top of directory kiosks located throughout the Lindbergh Terminal. Consistent with the
ADA Guidelines, the �ED signs will display visual messages providing the same or equivalent information as
that now broadcasted through the public address system.
LRT Development $70,000,000
This program will provide for the development of the LRT system including the construction of the tunnel and
the stations.
iVlaintenance Facility Modifications $5,000,000
The existing office and crew facilities at the Equipment Maintenance Building are overcrowded due to the
growing staff required by increased airport area and facilities. This project will add offices for supervisors
and support staff and area for 70-80 additional crew members, including bunk rooms, an expanded crew
room, kitchen area and locker rooms. This project would also reconfigure the current parking area for
additional spaces, provide a separate delivery area and relocate the AOA security gate away from the
building entrance. A new boiler to service the new as well as the existing facilities will also be included with
this project �
Parking Structure Rehabilitation , . - : $1,000,000
An ongoing program to maintain the integrity of the multi-le�el parking structures. Projects include concrete
repair, joint sealant replacement, expansion joint repairs,�and-concrete sealing. This year's project wilt �
provide for the painting of ceilings not currently painted to. improve the the light levels, repair of expansion.; ��
joints and required structural repairs in the Green and Gold ramps.
Public Parking Expansion - Entrance/Exit Roadways � $3,000,000
�
This projec� provides for the construction of the short term and general parking entrance lanes to the new �
parking facility, ticket dispenser islands and canopies and the realignment of the exit roadways near the
rental auto company exit ramp.
Public Parking Expansion - Roadway Landscaping $2,500,q00
This project will provide the softscape improvements for the Inbound and Outbound Roadway including
landscape materials and an irrigation system.
Public Parking Expansion - Transit Center Plaza $700,000
This project will provide for the construction of the Transit Center Plaza between the new Parking
Management building and the Transit Center building including concrete paving of the plaza, installation of a
storm drainage system and signage.
Public Safety Storage Building Improvements $850,000
The Airport Pofice and Fire Departments would like to expand the use of Public Safety Storage Building.
Currently the facility is used only for storage and annual taxi inspections. Proposed changes would provide
a training facility for both departments. The building's use as a storage facility would also be improved.
Security Camera Installation - Terminal $500,000
This is a continuation of the security program to provide for the installation of CCTV cameras throughout the
terminal complex. This project will install cameras in various locations in the terminal and on the concourses
to enhance FAA security and public safety. These cameras will monitor and record events in areas that
currently do not have CCN coverage.
Printed 9/17/99 4:16:32 PM Page 6
Taxi Staging Area Canopy Installation $1,100,000
This project wili provide for the instailation of a canopy over the taxi staging area on Post Road. The canopy
will provide cover for the 40 vehicle staging area to improve conditions for the drivers and their vehicles
waiting to be called to the terminal for passenger pick up.
Terminal Air Handling Units Replacement
$1,700,000
A 1997 study of the existing mechanical equipment in the Lindbergh recommended that mechanical units
that were installed in 1960 be replaced. Some of the units were replaced in conjunction ith the
development/revision of the concessions area. This prog�am will be continued with the replacement of air
handling units located in the center meuanine area.
Terminal Blast Mitigation-Bomb Containment Waste Receptacles $325,000
The FAA has requested that the MAC review the replacement of existing waste receptacles with the
purchase and installation of new bomb containment waste receptacles. Explosive devices are the preferred
weapon used by terror'ists and are most commonly placed in waste receptacles. This project will provide for
the installation of blast resistant trash containers for all public, non-ste�ile a�eas of the terminal building.
Terminal Blast Mitigation-Curtainwall Security Enhancement $550,000
The FAA has requested that the MAC review enhancing the safety of the curtainwall at the terminal. A
report prepared by the FAA recommends that all glass at the terminal be treated to prevent scattering in the
event of an explosion. This process was recently completed at Dallas-Fort Worth Airport where interior and
exterior safety glass surtaces were covered with plastic treatments that adhere to glass to prevent scattering
under an explosive force. This project would provide this type of treatment to the glass surfaces in the :�..
Lindbergh Terminal adjacent to the upper and lower.roadways. Study is needed to determine whether this
would be effective; what areas are affected; should the a�ea extend beyond the main terminal curtainwall.
Application of this window treatment, if justified, will proceed in two phases. Phase I application includes the :.
�indbergh Te�minal glass surfaces adjacent to the upper and lower roadway and the Green and Gold- .
Concou�se glass surfaces adjacent to the roadway. Phase II will include the glass surtaces of the two
skyways connecting the Green and Gold parking ramps to the Lindbergh Terminal.
Terminal Complex Sprinkler System Modifications .. . $100,000
An ongoing program to address areas in the terminals which are not currently sprinklered. This item is -�:. -�
programmed to allow for further analysis of areas, which; 'if sprinkled, would allow for insurance premium .
reductions. It will also allow far extension of sprinkled areas should space utilization changes occur.
Terminal Electrical Modifications $100,000
An ongoing program to address electrical issues in the Terminal Facilitias due to the age and deterio�ation of
the existing systems or modifications necessary for improved reliability. This year's project will include
increasing the switchboard capacity for additional fused switches in an electrical room on the Green
Concourse, miscellaneous fire alarm revisions on the Green Concourse, adding lights on emergency circuit
and battery pack in 15 electrical vaults, and providing miscellaneous minor revisions to electrical rooms
throughoutthe Main Terminal and on the Concourses.
Terminal Elevator Modifications
$250,000
This project will provide for the installation of an elevator to serve the Com/Ops Center as well as modify
existing elevators/escalators to meet the current codes as required by the State elevator inspector.
Terminal Exterior Rehabilitation
$3,500,000
This is a continuation of the program to rehabilitate the exterior of the �indbergh Terminal including roofing
and curtain wall systems. This year's project will include replacing the roofing on the Red Concourse as well
as commencing a program to repair the curtainwall on the airside ofthe Red, Blue and Green Concourses.
Printed 9/17/99 4:16:32 PM Page 7
Terminal Mechanical fVlodi�cations $150,000
An ongoing program to address mechanical issues in the Terminal Facilities requiring attention due to age
and deterioration of existing systems or modifications necessary for improved reliability. This year's project
will provide for upgrades primarily to a variety af plumbing systems. This year's project will include instaUing �
new water meters, pressure regulato�s, and flow sensors for all concourses, replacing domestic water
rnains, waste and vent lines in the valet garage, and replacing pump controls and alarms in the valet garage
mechanical rooms.
Terminal Miscellaneous Modifications $250,000
An ongoing program to update and remodel areas within the Terminal Facilities to keep abreast with
changing requirements. This may be a series of individual projects to meet the requirements of the various
tenants or may be consolidated into a single project when possible. This work is typically done by purchase
order as the projects are small in scope and cost.
Trades Building Mezzanine Installation
$75,000
This project will provide for the installation of a mezzanine for the carpenters in the Trades Building to
provide for additional secured storage.
Transit Center Development
$4,925,000
This project will provide for a Transit Center at the east end of the new parking facilities including a waiting
area, restroom facilities, vertical transportation and baggage check-in capabilities. In addition, this project
will also include the "cut and cover" excavation and enclosure for the proposed Lindbergh Terminal LRT
station.
Tug Drive Floor Replacement
$1,500,000
Water from melting snow brought. in by tugs has been leaking from the tug drive area into the valet parking
below. The concrete slab above the valet parking area has deteriorated to the pqint that pieces of concrete
have fallen on cars. To co�rect the deterioration, a new concrete wear surface wilf be �installed with an under
floor drainage system. :� . � . .
West Meuanine Finishes -. , � $1,000,0�0
The new concession storefronts in the Lindbergh Terminal waiting area extend 15 feet beyond the line of the
existing West Mezzanine. A floor structure has been constructed over the extension:with the concessions
project completed in 1998. This project will expand the West Mezzanine to provide.additional area for
expanded office space.
West Terminal Area Rehabilitation $350,000
An ongaing program to modify or remode! areas within the West Terminal Complex to rneet the needs of the
various tenants/general public/MAC departments utilizing the facilities. This year's project will include
window and flooring replacement throughout the West Terminal as well as some roof repairs. A first floor
conference room will also be constructed.
West Terminal Complex Boiler Replacement $200,000
Two of the four boilers currently serving the West Terminal Complex no longer function praperly and must
be removed. These boilers used to also serve the air traffic control tower which has been rebuilt and is
currently on its own heating system. Because of the reduced building load, three boilers will be sufFcient;
the fourth boiler will not require replacement. It is proposed to salvage a boiler in the old Electrical Shop as
it is only three years old and reinstall it as the lead boiler for the West Terminal Complex. This boiler will
have to be salvaged at the time the Electrical Shop is demolished.
�
Printed 9/17/99 4:16:32 PM Page 8
2000 CAPITAL It�PROVEt1�ENT PROGRAM
Reliever Airports
,�iriake
North Parallel Taxiway Realignment $850,000
This project invoives the removal of the existing parallel taxiway along the northwestern end of Runway
12/30 and the construction of a new parallel taxiway along a new alignment. This is required because the
existing taxiway does not meet FAA standards regarding runway/taxiway separation.
Sanitary Sewer/VVatermain Install.-N. Building Area $3,000,000
Airlake Airport is located on the south edge of the developed area of Lakeville. A study has been completed
evaluating altematives for extending public utilities consisting of sanitary sewer and water main to the
Northeast and Southwest Building areas. This year's project will extend these utilities to the Northeast
Building Area
South Building Area Development
$2,100,000
This project is the second phase in the program to develop a new south building area and partial parallel
taxiway. This year's project will provide for the installation of the pavements and taxiway lighting system.
Anoka County - Blaine
Ai�eld Signage�ndcone Replacernent � • $300,000
This project provides for the installation of taxiway signage and a new windcone and segmented circle as
well as the rehabilitation of the beacon and the fumishing of a backup ganerator for airtield lighting and MAC
facilities. ,
Pavement Rehabilitafion �' . ° �$1,000,000 �
An ongoing program to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas.(runways, taxiways, aprons) through
� bituminous overlays, sealcoats, or in some instances, reconstruction, to restore the surfaces to a smooth, �
even condition and improve ayerall operating conditions. This year's project will include the reconstruction
of the South Building Area apron and access road. In addition, pavements in the south half of the East
Building Area will be crack filled and sealed.
Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extensions $3,600,000
The Anoka County - Blaine Airport is located adjacent to developed areas in Blaine and Moundsview. There
has been a study completed which has evaluated alternatives for extending municipal utilities consisting of
sanitary sewer and water main to the airport. Negotiations have been completed with the City of Blaine as to
the extent of the utility installation to be accomplished in 2000. It is proposed to extend utilities to the East,
West and South Builiding Areas in 2000.
West Building Area Annex
$800,000
This project will provide for the construction of the West Building Area including sanitary sewer and water
main and all required wetland mitigation.
Crystal
Drainage Modifications
$250,000
The area to the east and west of the East Building Area have been subject to ponding as a result of poor
drainage. This project will provide for the cleaning of culverts and the regrading of ditches to alleviate the
water ponding problems.
Pavement Rehabilitation
$500,000
An ongoing program to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, taxiways, aprons) through
bituminous overlays, sealcoats, or in some instances, reconstruction, to restore the surfaces ta a smooth,
( � even condition and imprave overall operating conditions. This year's project includes the reconstruction of
the northside access road, the northwest building area access road, Taxilanes N-4 and N-5, and the
Runway 14U32R north parallel taxiway.
Printed 9/17/99 4:16:32 PM Page 9
Flying Cloud
Land Acquisition $27,700,000
There has been and continues to be considerable residentiai development to the east and north/northwest of ;
the Fiying Cloud airport. The degree of development has raised concerns about the ability to adequateely (
prfltect existing encroachment by non-compatible land uses. The rnost positive method of preventing non-
compatible land uses is to acquire the land and control its use. It is proposed to acquire approximately 280
acres of property immediately south and west of the existing airport boundaries to provide approach and
transitional surtace zone protectian as approved by the Commission in March 1999. Some of this land will
be acquired in 1999. However, it will be assumed for purposes of this CIP that approximately 196 acres wiil
be purchased in 2000. In addition, there are easements to be acquired over approximately 16 acres.
Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extensions $4,500,000
Flying Cloud Airport is on the fringe of the developed a�ea of Eden Prairie. Studies have therefore evaluated
a(ternatives for extending municipal utilities consisting of sanitary sewer and watermain to the airpo�t. Wth
the adoption of the Sewer and Water Installation Policy for the Reliver Airports, negotiations are continuing
so as to reach final agreement on the altemative to be implemented. If agreement can be reached in 1999,
the project will commence in 2000.
St. Paul Downtown
MAC Building Modifications $100,000
An ongoing program to provide for facility modifications to ensure continued efficient operation of buildings
or modifications necessary to meet the requirements of the various tenants. The FAA will be commissioning -..
a new air traffic control tower in 1999. The existing tower is attached to the MAC administration building. A
study will be made to determine what areas associated with the old FAA tower should be demolished,
modified and/or left as they exist. .
- Miscellaneous Electrical Upgrades _. .. ., .. . � $400,000 _
The REIL systerns for Runways 30 and 32 are powered from the runway circuits which is causing problems
for the regulators. This project will provide commercial power to the REIL systems as well as a new air �
conditioner for the regulator room as the current system is not properly cooling the room. There are also
sign bases which have heaved due to frost or have settled and must be replaced. A backup generator will
also be provided for the airfield lighting system and for MAC facilites.
Pavement Rehabilitation $450,000
An ongoing prograrn to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, taxiways, aprons) through
bituminous overlays, sealcoats, or in some instances, reconstruction, to restore the surFaces to a smooth,
even condition and improve overall operating conditions. This year's project will include the mill and overlay
of Taxiway P and a 600 foot section of Runway 14/32. There will also be pavement rehabilitation of the
alleyways in the West building area.
�
Printed 9/17/99 4:16:32 PM Page 10
2001 CAPITAL IMPROVEtUiENT PROGRAI�
iVtinneapolis-St. Paul Internationai Airport
Environmental
Ground Run-up Enclosure $3,000,000
This project will provide for the instailation of a ground run-up enclosure on the existing MSP run-up pad to
reduce the noise impact of engine run-ups on the communities adjacent to the airport.
Remote HAonitoring Unit Installation $500,000
This project wiil prpvide for the installation of additional Remote Monitoring Towers (RMTs) to monitor the
noise environment associated with the new north/south runway 17/35.
Residential Sound Insulation (inside 65 DNL)
$25,500,000
An ongaing program to insulate residential houses within the certified 1996 DNL 65 noise contour.
School IVoise Abatement Projects
$2,000,000
This project will provide for noise insulation to a yet to be identified school in Minneapolis. There could also
be noise insulation projects for several pre-schools depending on the results of a pilot project to be
completed in 2000. � ,
Ventilation Testing/Remediation of Past Homes
$1,570,000
This is a continuation of the prog�am to remediate problems associated with indoor air quality in houses
which were insulated in the period from June 1992 to April 1997. -
� Field & Runways ' - -
Airside Bituminous Construction $500,000
( j An ongoing program to construct or reconstruct bituminous pavements within the Air Operations Area.
. Inspection of the overlay on Runway 12V30R will be made in the spring of 2001 to determine whether or not
a bituminous repair project is required. . '
Ap�on Lighting Upgrade $2,000,000
This project will provide for the upgrading of the light fixtures that serve the apron areas adjacent ta the
Lindbergh Terminal complex.
Humphrey Remote Ramp Expansion $2,500,Q00
This project will provide for the expansion of the Humphrey remote ramp to the north to provide a parking
area for aircraft waiting for a gate at the new Humphrey facility. This area will also serve as a deicing area
and overnight aircraft parking erea.
Miscellaneous Construction
$400,000
An ongoing program to consolidate various incidental items beyond the capabilities of the maintenance
personnel, projects too small to be accomplished independently, or to handle airside problems requiring
repair which come up unexpectedly.
North Side Storm Sewer
$500,000
The extension of Runway 4/22 by 1000 feet to the northeast will require the construction of a new storm
water drainage system. The new storm sewer will be constructed from the Runway 12V30R and Runway
4/22 intersection to Snelling Lake. This project will provide for the canstruction of the segment from
Highway 5 to Snelling Lake..
Pavement Rehabilitation - Aprons $3,500,000
An ongoing program to replace sections of concrete pavement in the aircraft operational areas that have
� ) deteriorated to a point where maintenance is no longer a viable option. This year's project will include the
l reconstruction of the apron adjacent to the Blue Concourse.
Printed 9/17/99 4:16:32 PM Page 11
Runway 17/35 Construction
$64,850,000
This is a continuation of the program to develop a new North/South Runway (Runway 17/35) at MSP.
Projects proposed for 2001 include the foilawing:
1. Site preparation, grading, and utility instailation for the center segment of the runway
2. Construction of the Runway 4/22 intersection
3. Taxiway M construction
4. Construction of the public road from Longfellow to the infield area
5. Construction of the 66th Street interchange
6. Construction of the glycol treatment facilities
7. Demolition of the freight forwarder buildings
8. Construction of the infield fueling facilities and pipeline
9. Storm sewer construction
10. Maintenance/Materials Storage building
Runway 17/35 Land Acquisition
$40,000,000
During 2001, there will be a continuation of the acquisition of off-airport land as well as lease extinguishment
required to provide for the Runway 17/35 Protection Zone (RPZ). Costs for these items will be determined
based on negotiations with the impacted property owners.
Runway 30R Deicing/Holding Pad $18,200,000
This project will provide' for the construction of the airport's deicingJholding pad on Runway 30R to allow for
the efficient deicing of aircraft and collection of glycol as well as for the holding of: aircraft for operational
reasons. This project will also include the construction of the apron pavement in the area of the demolished
Post Office as well as the installation of fuel lines and pits. . . �
C
Runway4/22 Extension _ _ ; -.;$5,000,000
This project will prov'ide for the construction of a 1,000 foot extension to the northeast end of Runway 4/22 to �
accommodate non-stop air serve to the Pacific Rim countries. .�•,-� -� ::. - . ..
Runway 4/22 Reconstruction - Seg. 3 ., $8,500,000 �,
Reconstruction of the northeast 2000 feet of Runway 4/22 is required as.the pavements have reached their
usefullife. � �.. �
Runway 4/22 Road Relocation $1,000,000
The FAA is requiring that the Runway 22 service road be relocated. This requirement to provide a Runway
Safety Area on the approach end of Runway 22 which meets the current design standards is stated in a
Special Condition in the Grant Agreement for the previous Runway 4/22 extension.
Stormwater Collection/Detention Ponds •• $4,000,000
A new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is expected to require additional
storm water storage in order to control discharge of settleable solids to the Minnesota River. This project will
construct a new larger earthen dam and concrete spillway in the ravine near the Highway 5 embankment to
provide the required storage.
Taxiway B Construction
$1,200,000
This project will provide for the construction of Taxiway B from Runway 4/22 to Taxiway M.
Utility Modifiications
$1,000,000
This project provides for the slip lining of the 24 inch sanitary sewer between the Inbound/Outbound
roadway and Highway 55.
Landside
72nd Street Upgrade
$600,000
This project is a continuation of the upgrading of 72nd Street from 34th Avenue to the west to include two �
westbound and three eastbound lanes and and up to three traffic signals.
Printed 9J17/99 4:16:32 PM Page 12
��� �;
�. )
Auto Rental Service Site Development $1,000,000
This project will provide for the relocation of the auto rental service sites to a permanent location.
Central Alarm Monitoring/Fiber Optic Cable Upgrade
$5,000,000
This project is a continuation of the program to provide for the installation of the fiber optic backbone
required for the operation of the Lindbergh/Regional Terminal P.A. system, the MUFIDS sytem, an ADA
requi�ed visual paging system, a terminal complex fire annunciation system and a fully integrated central
alarm monitoring system.
Commercial Roadway Bag Belt
$1,00O,OOQ
There are currently discussions taking place on how to better utilize the east upper level roadway to alleviate
traffic congestion on the upper level roadway adjacent to the terminal. One issue which must be resolved is
the movement of baggage from the east roadway to the terminal bag make-up area. A project to provide the
required bag belt and sortation facility is being considered.
East Airport Water Main Loop $100,000
This project is a continuation of the program to loop the water main on the east side of the airport to ensure
that water pressure and service demands can be met. This phase will provide for the final connections to
the existing water main system and includes the installation of an 18-inch main under the Runway 30R
deicing pad to the existing 18-inch main at the south side of the 30R blast pad.
EconoLotJEmployee Parking Structure
$60,000,000
The construction of the southeast segment of Taxiway W wilt impact approximately 300 parking spaces in
the employee lot on Post Road. There is also a need to expand the.EconoLot to serve the proposed
Humphrey facility as well as provide additional public parking for the �indbergh Terminal. A new parking
structure to serve both needs located at the south end of the EconoLot site is being studied. The facility will
be sized to accommodate approximately 1800 employe.e spaces and 5500 - 6000 public spaces. This
project will also provide for the demolition of the existing Hurriphrey TerminaL ��
: Electrical Substation Upgrades
$500,000
The electrical distributian system components within the Lindbergh Terminal are approaching 35 years old
and are at or near their lifetime operational expectancy. Major s.ystem protection components are no longer
manufactured and a single failure of a component could cause an eictended power outage in the Main �
Terminal and older concourse facilities. Included within the scope of work is the replacement of obsolete
and problematic substation circuit breakers, installation of electronic protective controls and recalibration of
serviceable substation breakers.
Elevated Roadway Landscaping $600,000
This project provides for the landscaping of the planter areas between the upper level roadways to beautify
the approach to the Lindbergh Terminal. Included in this project are stone walts, trees, shrubs, annual
flowers and accent lighting.
Energy Management Center -- Boiler Replacements $4,500,000
The boilers in the Energy Management Center which serve the Lindbergh Terminal complex have reached
their useful life. Previous projects have rehabilitated the boilers to extend their life but now continuing
deterioration requires that the boilers be replaced. A new bolier was installed in 1995. The two older boilers
will be replaced with this project.
Gold Ramp Express Entry $450,000
This project will provide for the construction of an "Express Entry" from the east upper level roadway directly
into level2 of the Gold Ramp. This will allow patrons into parking without the need to recirculate on the road
system.
Landside Bituminous Construction
$400,000
An ongoing program to reconstruct the airport's bituminous roadways and parking lots. Projects will be
evaluated in 2000 and presented for approval when ttie CIP is updated for the 2001 construction season.
Printed 9/17/99 4:16:32 PM Page 13
Lindbergh Terminal Bag Make-up Area Addition $2,000,000
The bag make-up area in the Lindbergh Terminal is very congested. The addition of gates on the Green
Concourse will put additional pressure on these facilities. A study will be completed end a project to
increase the bag make-up space will commence in 2001. �
�i�dbergh Terminal Fire Alarm Upgrade $750,000
This project is a continuation of the program to upgrade the existing fire alarrn system throughout the
Lindbergh Terminal to meet current NFPA and NEC local codes. The current fire alarm system does not
include audio or visual annunciation of fire. This project will add audio and visual annunciation in the non-
public occupied areas of the Lindbergh Terminal complex.
Lindbergh Terminal Interior Rehabilitation $1,000,000
An ongoing program to renovate the interior of the Lindbergh Terminal. This project will include the
upgrading of the bag claim area corridor flooring, ceiling and toilet facilities.
Lindbergh Terminal MUFIDS and BIDS $2,500,000
This project is the second phase in the program to add Multi User Flight Information Display (MUFIDS) and
Baggage Information Display (BIDS) systems to the Lindbergh Terminal.
Lindhergh Terminal North Addition
$12,000,000
This project will provide for a iwo story expansion of the north end of the Lindbergh Terminal. The first story
of the addition shall extend the existing retail mall space to the north while including new public restrooms,
public elevator and stair to meuanine and an entry lobby to a second story airline preferred customers .. ..
lounge. The second story of the addition shall consist of ineuanine office space as well as an airline �
preferred customers lounge.
Lindbergh Terminal Rubber Flooring Replacement . $400,000 ,. ,.
This project is the second phase in the p�ogram to replace the rubber flooring on the skybridges,.the east •
mezzanine and in the parlcing ramp stair towers. � „
MAC Cargo Buildings-Airline Belly Cargo Facility .. � $4,700,800 (
In conjunction with the construction of Runway17/35, new building areas will be developed. The MAC will
construct two cargo buildings which will be leased out�to airport tenants. This project will provide for the �
construction of a"belly" cargo building including all required aircraft apron and auto/truck parking areas: �
Presently, a majority of MSP's airline belly-cargo is accommodated within a 36,000 sf multi-tenant cargo
facility owned by Standard Air Cargo (Standard Cargo Facility). This facility is scheduled to be removed to
accommodate the construction of the Humphrey Terminal and its associated infrastructure. Additionally,
Delta Airlines has indicated a desire to move inta the proposed MAC owned belly cargo facility. Currently
there are no other existing facilities at MSP that can accommodate the required airline belly-cargo
operations. Therefore, a new facility must be constructed to replace the Standard Cargo Facility and house
airline belly-cargo operations.
Parking Structure Rehabilitation $1,00O,OOq
An ongoing program to maintain the integrity of the multi-level parking struc#ures. Projects include concrete
repair, joint sealant replacement, expansion joint repairs, and concrete sealing. This year's project will
provide for continued painting of ceilings to improve the light levels and concrete repairs as required.
Red Concourse Infill $3,000,000
In order to maximize the capacity of the existing terrninal complex, it will be necessary to expand the Blue,
Red and Gold Concourses. This project will add additional space by filling in the notch between gates 26 -
30 on the Red Concourse to provide for additional concession space, toilet facilities and phones and to
provide storage space for the MAC and the airlines.
��.
Printed 9/17/99 4:16:33 PM Page 14
Security Camere instaliation - Terminal $500,000
This is a continuation of the security program to provide for the instailation of CCN cameras throughout the
terminal complex. This project will install cameras in various locations in the terminal and on the concourses
to enhance FAA security and public safety. These cameras will monitor and record events in areas that
currently do not have CCN cove�age.
Terminal Air Handling Units Replacement $1,700,000
A 1997 study of the existing mechanical equipment in the Lindbergh recommended that mechanical units
that were installed in 1960 be replaced. Some of the units were replaced in conjunction ith the
development/revision of the concessions area. This program will be continued with the replacement of
additional units on the center mezzanine.
Terminal Complex Sprinkler System Niodifications $100,OOU
An ongoing program to address areas in the terminals which are not currently sprinklered. This item is
programmed to allow for further analysis of areas, which, if sprinkled, would allow for insurance premium
reductions. It will also allow for extension af sprinkled areas should space utilization changes occur.
Terminal Electrical Modifications
$100,000
An ongoing program to address electrical issues in the Terminal Facilities due to the age and deterioration of
the existing systems or modifications necessary for improved reliability. Projects will be evaluated in 2000
and presented for approval when the CIP is updated for the 2001 construction season.
Terminal Facterior Rehabilitation - . .$1,000,000
This is a continuation ofi the program to rehabilitate the exterior of the Lindbergh Terminal including roofing
and curtain wall systems. This years project will include a continuation of the program to repair the
curtainwall system on the airside of the Red, Blue and Green Concourses. :: '
: _. , �, . ..: . �.'. � 150,000: . .
Terminal flAechanical Modifications: :.;. �;.._:�. ,.,
An ongoing program to address mechanical issues in the Terminal Facilities requiring attention due to age .
and deterioration of existing systems or modifications necessary for improved reliability. Projects will be
evaluated in 2000 and will be presented for approval when the CIF is updated fo� the 2001 constn�ction
season.
Terminal Miscellaneous Modifications . $250,000 ,,. �
An ongoing program to update and remodel areas within the Terminal Facilities to keep abreast with
changing requirements. This may be a series of individual projects to meet the requirements of the various
tenants or may be consolidated into a single project when possible. This work is typically done by purchase
order as the projects are small in scope and cost.
West Terminal Area Rehabilitation $100,000
An ongoing program to modify or remodel areas within the West Terminal Complex to meat the needs of the
various tenants/general public/MAC departments utilizing the facilities.
Printed 9/17/99 4:16:33 PM Page 15
2001 CAPITAL INIPROVEMENT PROGR�4M
Reliever Airports
Anoka County - Blaine
Building Area Development - Northwest $5,600,000
This project provides for the construction of one-half of the Northwest Building Area including all wetland
mitigation for the entire building area.
Pavement Rehabilitation $1,300,000
An ongoing program to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, taxiways, aprons) through
bituminous overlays, sealcoats, or in some instances, reconstruction, to restore the surfaces to a smooth,
even condition and improve overall operating conditions. This year's project will include the reconstruction
of Runway 18/36 and the pavement rehabilitation of the Runway 18/36 parallel taxiway and the south
crossover taxiway.
Crystal
Pavement Rehabilitation $450,000
An ongoing program to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, taxiways, aprons) through
bituminous ove�lays, sealcoats, o� in some instances, reconstruction, to restore the surfaces to a smooth,
even condition and improve overall operating conditions. This.year's project includes the pavement
reconditioning of the Runway 14R/32L paralle! taxiway. .
Flying Cloud
Rwy 9R/27L Reconstruction/Extension & Rwy 9L/27R Extension. •.. . $8,450,000
This project provides for the reconstruction of Runway 9R/27L and the extension of Runways 9R/27L and
9U27R. The project includes pavement construction .and �econstruction, VOR and MALSR light relocatior�s,'
and signage changes to reflect the renumbering of the runways to 10/28. A backup generator for ai�eld _.
lighting and for MAC facilities will also be provided. �. -
South Building Area,Development
. = � �': ,-�' $4,600,000
This project will provide for the first phase in the constructican of the new South Building Area and will include
grading and utility installation.
Lake Elmo
Pavement Rehabilitation $500,000
An ongoing project to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, taxiways, aprons) through bituminous
overlays, sealcoats, or in some instances, reconstruc#ion, to restore the surfaces to a smooth, even
condition and improve overall operating conditions. This year's project includes the milling and overlay,
including crack repair, of Runway 14/32.
St. Paul Downtown
MAC Building Modifications $100,000
An ongoing program to provide for facility modifications to ensure continued efficient operation of buildings
or modifications necessary to meet the requirements of the various tenants. This project will include
modifications to the facility based on the study which will be completed during 2000.
Pavement Rehabilitation $1,110,000
An ongoing program to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, taxiways, aprons) through
bituminous overlays, sealcoats, or in some instances, reconstruction, to restore the surfaces to a smooth,
even condition and improve overall operating conditions. This year's project will include the mill and overlay
of Runway 13/31 and the southwestern portion of Taxiway D.
Printed 9/17/99 4:16:33 PM Page 16
:�' � '`� "��'�� ` ' � ' �`� � , � , '. `'` ,,` ,
��PP+ IS g4�,y o
T
2 t 9G
F t
3y Z
-1 1 -O
71 � t N
O N
q �
O' � y,
� t G�
9�41RPORY�
������C��'�'•�';
Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport
6040 - 28th Avenue 5outh • Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799
Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fax (612) 726-5296
Keven Batchelder, Administrator
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
RE: Environmental Review Process
Metropolitan Airports Commission
MAC Capital Improvement Program, 2000-2006
This letter and enclosure replaces that which was sent to you on October 13, 1999.
Dear Mr. Batchelder:
In accordance with the �equirements of Minnesota Statutes 1988, Chapter 664, the Metropolitan
Airports Commission (MAC) is required to conduct an Assessment of Environmental Effects for
� � projects in the Commission's seven-year Capital Improvement Program (2000-2006) for airports
- included in its system.
A copy of the Assessment of Environmental Effects relating to construction projects on
Minneapolis-St. Paul International is enclosed. Assessments for St. Paul Downtown, Flying
Cloud, Crystal, Anoka County-Blaine, �ake Elmo and Airlake Airports did not need to be
prepared since the Capital Improvement Program and Plan has not changed from the previous
year or the changes have only trivial environmental effects. "
Comments concerning the Capital Improvement Program can be given at a Public Hearing to be
held on Monday, November 1, 1999 at 2:00 p.m. in Room 3040, Mezzanine Level, Lindbergh
Terminal, Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, or in writing to the CIP file, Metropolitan
Airports Commission, 6040 — 28th Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55450. Please note
that the comment period ends on Wednesday, November 17, 1999.
Sincerefjr,
� �
. ��-��- ���
Rabert J. Vorpahl
Program Development Engineer
slb
� � cc: EQB Member List
The Metropolitan Airports Commission is an affirmaHve acHon employer.
www.mspairport.com
Reliever Airports: AIRLAKE � ANOKA COUN'CY/BLAINE • CRYSTAL • FLYING CLOUD • LAKE ELMO • SAINT PAUL DOWNT04VN
IVgINNEAPOLIS/ST. 1'AUL I�tTERt'vATIOI`r'A.I., A.IR.PORT
ASSESSMENT �F ENVIl�.ONM�NTAL EFFECTS
l�►i1ETROPOLITAN ��II2PORTS �OiYIlVIISSION'S
SEVEN YEAR. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
200Q-2006
FoR TxE
METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COl'IMISSION
�
: �:
OcTos�� 19�9
('
C,
;-i
�i
MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
. � �� •
.�.� . . �..�. , � �
,, ,. , ..� • ,
i1'i 11�
_••�
, ., •. . � �. • . .
�.
�.�.HCi�TB-
ASSESSMENT OF EI�YIRO?�`�'�NTAL EFFECTS
Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport
Metropolitan Airports Commission Seven Year Capital
Improvement Plan
TABLE OF CONI'ENTS
Section Pa�
A. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................1
B. PROJECTS WITH POTENTIAL ENVIRONMEN'TAL EFFECTS ............................................ 2
C. IMPACTS DURIlV�G CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................................... 7
D. CT.TI�TULATNE ENVIRONNIENTAL EFFECTS .......................................................................... 7
APPENDIX A: ASSESSMENT O� INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS' ENVIl20NMENTAL EFFECTS
� p 1
ASSESSMENT OF EI\'VIRONIVIENTAL EFFECTS
Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport
Metropolitan Airports Commission Seven-Year
Capital Improvement Plan
A. INTRODUCTION
This report, prepa.red in response to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes 1986, Chapter 473, as amended
in 1988 and 1998, and presents an assessment of the environmental effects (AOEE) of projects in the
Metropolitan Airports Commission's Seven-Year Capital Improvement Plan (2000-2006) for the
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP). Under Minnesota law, the MAC is required to "examine
the cumulative environmental effects at each airport of the projects at that airport (in the seven-year CIP),
considered collectively." An assessment of each individual project at MSP with patential environmental
effects is included in Appendix A of this docurnent.
This assessment examines the cumulative environmental effects of all proposed capita] improvement
projects at the Airport from 2000 to 2006. Many of the projects listed entail only repair or rehabilitation of
existinQ facilities. Such work would not affect the before/after usage of the facilities, and as such would not
add to or subtract from the cumulative environmental effects. The anticipated measurable effects during
construction are discussed in general terms under Paragraph C. The purpose of the AOEE is to evaluate the
environmental effects of CIP projects in a cumulative manner and serve as an overview document. The
projects included in the cumulative evaluation are those that have the potential of altering, creating, or in
some manner affecting the environmental impact categories listed below. The selected impact categories
were chosen because they historically contain the more critical impacts. Those projects for which an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) is required look at all impacts in somewhat greater detail.
However, it was determined that no Year 2000 CIP projects for MSP require preparation of an EAW
document.
IMPACT CATEGORIES USED TO ASSESS ENVIl20NMENTAL EFFECTS
Aircraft Noise
The types of projects which might impact noise on the environment are new or len�thened runways,
new or lengthened taxiways, new maintenance hangars, additional aircraft gates or facilities that
may increase operations, and noise insulation and other noise mitigation measures.
Air Quaiitv
Air quality impacts at the Airport will be primarily caused by changes in vehicular or aircraft
activity. Projects which might have an impact will generally be the same projects which affect
aircraft noise or vehicular tra�c.
Water Qualitv
Projects which affect v��ater quality are those which create additional runoff (ne1;' pavements or
buildinas), fire suppression systems, new retention basins, or projects which mi�ht affect the
�round«•ater.
C,
fi
I
Liaht Emissions
Projects e��aluated under this category are airport beacons, lights associated with ne«� runvvays or
taxi«•avs and IiQhts associated with new roadways, parking ]ots, or ramps.
Sev��aae
Those projects which have the potential to increase sewaae discharged into the sanitary sewer
(' system are new or expanded buildings or other changes that significantly alter the number of people
i I usina a facility.
Wetland Impacts
All projects are evaluated to see if they would entail complete or partial filling of wetlands.
Residential Relocation Impacts
Residential relocation impacts are associated with land acquisition projects that will displace
occupied residential units.
B. PROJECTS WIT'�� POTENTIAL EriVIRONMENTAL EFI�ECTS
Table 1 lists all projects included in the MAC`s Capital Improvement Plan for the years 2000 through 2006.
Those projects determined not to contribute to the cumulative environmental effects at the Airport are so
noted with a numerical code. The notations are coded by number in order to explain in more detail the type
of work the project entails and why this iype of project will not contribute to the cumulative environmental
effects.
�
�1
C:
O
C.
L� Z
��
, in
�
o�
FO
�"� � .Nn
r"'
� Z �
F � G
�z
F
tq O
V1 G
j0
OC
��
i:a �
z
z
�
v Vp � �
N1 �
� � 6 �
� � �
N
� � � � �
$z �
�, � g � s
4 �� �
� N
N �
$ � � S
� 8 � � �
Q y y � ^ N
Cj � {ry H
N
8 8 � � �
�) � � Q � N
O "°' � �s
0
N
� s $ � g 8 $
H W vl � N �1
p 1.�9 W H N
0
N
�� ���� ������ �� ��
g� sg�� �$g��� �� �=
o�� wHww �w�wv°Oiv� �w v9v
N H
��� �� ��� ��� ��� ���
��� g� ��g ��� g�g ���
p H � � N
� V9 V9 ✓! � I^ � b�9 H y� O �� N
YJ y y W
N
.=
N N q
u u N �
E E � u
m m -�
rn v� '� V
� � a a �o
A O O O Pt U
p Y �n '�`t � � � c L �
< o.c ^� ❑ =� E E o �
•C � � � T T C � � m' ..J pp � L C
�1.. � O C N C C. y T C ~
uZ � G C {Y G' C rG p 3.N � O� � G tn ^ Q O
C 'v'. a.. V I I G G G� A^ ... ' C C� O�` 'A C
� � F ' o .� � �
� � r� � c u � 3 c c" c c e=.0 u' �❑ 2��,oj < �'' c K y� v�i
a ,�j .x c� u u o� `u o o c- 2<-' N m^ u_
'p = � n� 2 2 c C � 3 h�m �_ c � c�� c�'" c° u a'u c<
i.. - 0 2 c � � G u e�n ::c _; o g 'u �$ b u u � 2 0�•�
�` � x== u u'�' °U F2 A�'u V:3'�tyCs<� c' V � uZ
c u E'G R' C � C�?= �.r C` m�` ry`.�.. A V U� u �'" `c..'
y�"� m O O C V C'O C C C.� ��. � V' V C' G p� T�j,� V, � n'�S
�,` ^ C C C U��. u � T}. T A T T T� y� ry .=
`...' u'N c E � E N,i E � � � 3 � 3 3 3 u c �'K •K �_,r
> > U = n R m > > > > > ^ C " q � -�
«¢<^cU-.�Za���rtzccCa�nv,v;!=FF= �V
v � � v F
y" C � . � � - � � . : ' - � � . � � _ � . ` Z
�z , . . , , . . .
c
L•
�
�
L ' t
K i
� u ,
_ u �
K =
c �
c u +
O N �
t� � -'
� �
`c "'
�
c �
E �
n
!` u
.0 •�
c � '
c � '
� �
u � �
� �
N r
`u _
i ^
c
��„
: o �
; � •_
, » •
� � u
: R 00
� T ._
: = ,� '
j� u
T
u
c -
' o � �
� c
; u .o .
O
� �
� u _c`
i 3 �c i
� �:
i u ..
'� _`�-'.
� u .
) C u
; C ,;
: � � '
i "
� C.�.
; � _
i � G .
c °
� c C
C � V
' L •
: ¢ G
�. C
� �
L '
C •
� '
c �
c
4.
`c
c
E
a
c
.y
C
�
E
`
a
�
l
E
<
C
t
K �
� .
, t
U �
� '
�
o _
u '
c
>
c �
N �
N �
C G
�
.0 p c
� L
� N
_ � 'r
o "
u "'
m op �
T C
� C
� C
L
� -
U V
. G A
i C U �
i C C �
� u � =
; � c c
`c
' 3 c �`
�_G�I,
E'
c �.-'
� ,u _
- u _
u �
i C C
i - = -
i � c
- C C
- E
3 _ �
- u _
- N
.'. �
" ¢ ¢ ¢
� � �
<
K
�..� � f'"�tt'�i` -a � Sr,•.�:�,. ..i.. ._-"'_ ."_
I
�. .)
� �
� �
�C �
b
N
� �
� �
w
U�+7 �
O
N
� �
� �
� w
N
� �
� �
vi
w
t'�1
�
N
� � �
� � � � � � ��
� � � � � -
� ��
� � � �
N
� � �� � ���� � � � �� ���
� � �� � �gg� � � � �� s��
�., — ,� ,,,_,
C ✓i W ✓T ay
C !H
N
�� =�X �X��� � � `��,�� ��`,��p�p� ��� � �p�p`��p,�
� pC � O O f�� vGi uC't X � O G O'x�.
C� yCj Y�K � N�� 4 � R ��'? �� v1 W� CM H Q' yQy v'1 �G
_�
vC: W W� e,•w r N M� � � N t`�� vt � eNA w uu vi vf �
Q w� W W W bR W b9 w
C "`
N
C
n r� C C C
C"'
%� V G � C 1- u
^ u .. .� ^ �
d % � � `c_
u - u� � E � � -
A u � � G u c u n � n n� n C
C V u j u � �U 'G L� C t Q 3 G y '�" C C C^
•G u � G � � ` G n T C rGc C C C- `�' _ X�•� �' .0 W
• c ^ n�- — � u �` o.., �•- a, — u i. '+ � � �'m
tn ^ c �. x� ,—_i � .. C�y N � G ~ C � � h C � ` � r � ^ � ... Q � `�` _
� � > :� = � = `�i � n m u c m C C ct u '� c � � � C � L = � �
c `u
� � u x m.� c G n `n a' U h C c � F �.s c�'_ t,� C m __ ��. Z'_: F>
u _ •✓: - � -� b �?•� i.. � c R j� C m¢ u� u>. => c C � 19 � - c c c c c C a
� = _ .,u, _ _ y �� 3 'u G N � ° " •= �. � o '= � � N � ° r, ,- ^ n •� .. .. � _ G ❑ � E ^ =
C e`c " Z '$ t c u u y> c� 3 m=;i� K-� ;> >.�i � � u u u`v u u` C u � c
� U ^: 7 c 3 n � s � CJ � L•: c c c' - G=-' -� i- i- F� i- F F F F F- 1- 5
... _ '� � 'C � � � � u � •_ c .��„ c A u c � c � C a. � ^ O �.. .. ._ .. .. � '" >
=:i: �"" 4 C � n c c � a. ..''. �? �` y w`:` m w-e`c oc ao �
` L _ .. ,� �L �.. ✓ y C' •J u � t C. J y U U CJ ,_ . . • ^ ' � � u -.
L L
;r. - = (J .: " " _ V ,�, < :-. " ` G ". � L L u 3 .. _ C � � -� - - � � � " C C
� c = - _ _ ^ c = y '" z u � .n � c " ,", u _c _ _ - 9 'i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
�" � C - � J Ci Ci CJ C ,:i � '" " L'�.' _ L Ci C7 C7 C: .- - - - - -
JO • � a • ..� ... ... �' ��.. � .�... � v � �. .�. .�. � . • � r'. r...� s • .�... .... v .�.'. �IV.. `. . ... . ��.. ... ... .
U Z . �
.� T
¢ �
� u
v: .
� :L
L .� — C
�;,_�
u � � �N
C L
� V
� n � ,
J T � _
� — G _ �L �C
y T �n C
t� , j G �
'J ^
� � � �
= C �.
C � �
_ y C �
.= j •^ u 'u
� �. ' l�
.` � '3 _ x
.. ^ � �
_ _ G J '�
C u �
_ _ 'y
< � � C _ -
j _ � - _ _
= y ..`v � _
3 _
- � G G <
r . .
z .__�
�yrl�u:s?�ew � F s � 5i��'Y t - - - -
_�
�
�
x �� ��� � � �
� gg ��� 8 � �
yc _ rv �y '
�C�p w-, w _ ar �n "f
C r! w N N
N
� � � C LS � � � �
� gg g��N S $ a
y Vf N N M �"'� � ?
'�^ � N H
GI
N
C � � b � � � � � � 6
� � � g8 ��N 8 g g
'�} � � M N H � H M � �p �
� Ir� N y N N
N
X O C� C O C C b �
� � 88 ��N � � �
',,,' a,�"v �n w w w '^ �i �`c
C r'! � an
C
N
� � � � � � � � � � �
� � � �8 ��� � g
� �
N v� � w» _ wf w e�v n
� µ� y N � N �
fI1
N
� � �� � �� ��� � _ �
� C C C c
� }c X C C � C � N N � � �
r � � w � w�.y w w ✓` v, �;
p � r H w °i' N N
O
N
��X��� ����x���������C���� �
�.X.� .X. vl F S �� t� N��� N v�'� � N w P Y� � e+�i N� F
- • w w v> • en w w �n w'„� df w _"'�' c �r
� _ _ _ v _.
w..� %r: w w w vi w af w y ,�n
O
N
C
V �
T T � C
- :-0 i"' '
_ � _ 3 T �
` � r � _
' � ^ � 'u �. u
�+ � � G �
C .` ./: C
C � u v �4 � u _ ��_ G c u
.G = ` T T J C C C �� C u C� ^�
� C ,y C ^
'� : m = c ' 3 = c v _ � � "m ' - "' -
y U `�' � m = - _ - F : _ o :n '= - � i' c _ _
^ � � � m C C N � U C � - t� � U � _ G :/�
Ir ,� �. �. l= � ` •. � q �. .. � �.- �
u ^ G G �= _ C C � � C� C _�`` �^ � t'� G n U j G
d � L = ' � _ � = C =.0 �- .r. �G � � .� S` ? h C u v 5 - 1
•L Z C � T � � n t= ^ u '� .� K � � 'X J G � > - u n �
G � _ _ - 'n G � = = c = 't � C L d U ` d
.� � _ � % ':� % " � V -� C- •� V — R � � C � .�.
�.. .'. q � 9L OC _O '/% U G � � u u � u vUi � V � .0 = J' �
U c� � � � T �. .. .� �.
m aVL � � _ _ _._ .. C C�� U %� L J C %
� � _ ;n "_` � � ^ C� '� - - r - - ? - a - = V �� J c' ._ � '-
C.i Ci � Y � � � r = T ^ C ' C C � � ' C ._ .. L , ^�
G� _ _ � _ _ �" � .. ^ _ •'• : 'C '^ ._ .. � � "" _ » v. Z � I
< < '� _ _ _ _ ' u = . .J .0 C , . ', �� - y ..- .+
- - � r — — � 3� �
2 L G �/:
� v . . - v � .... ... � ,.. L"'. � .... � � ....
fZ . . .., � . ... . , ... ... ._. ....
¢ �
� 'u
G �
� L
N �
C = c
� �-0 „
�� -_
E � C �
=_ -
� _ '_ �
� � u J
� � �
A co �
G T,� C
C � C
� .�- T 'n C
� � G �
' u �
C .. u C � ...
.� C
C � _ j • �
� � � � C �
'� ' �e _ e �m
-�= "c �:.
� ? 3 E �
A 'n � F
,'� '� � ` �
N � � G y
U•—
N�^ u c !� _
J � 7 U
� V L
< L � 2 � L
� � j vt C
u .= ; u '= �
G G -� ` U �
� L C J
� — C C
_ 3 _ -
v� Y J J � �
_ . _ G G G
f J
_ • � ri �--
Z� �. �. ...
F
C. IlVIPACTS DU�ZLNG CONSTRUCTION
It is e:cpected that typical mitigation measures will be used during construction to minimize potential adverse
environmental effects caused by noise, dust, erasion, etc. Since the environmental impacts of construction
will be temporary, they have not been included in the cumulative, longterm effects of projects in the CIP.
It is recognized that the planned reconstruction of Runways 12R/30L and 12L/30R during the seven-year
proeram will require rerouting of air traffic for temporary periods. The rerouting of aircraft traffic for this
project will cause temporary changes in overflight noise levels. The greater noise levels from more fliahts
concentrated on one or two of the three runways will be partially offset by reduced levels under the
approaches of the runway(s) temporarily out of-service for repair/rehabilitation. In addition, MAC, working
with the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC), will utilize whatever noise
controUreduction measures are feasible during the constructian of these runways, includinQ:
Scheduling the work during the closed window season (to the extent feasible).
Requirina longer work days and weeks by the contractors to expedite the work.
Balancina the effects of night construction noise with aircraft operating noi�.
Enforcing strinQent penalties on contractors for delays in work.
CUMITLATIVE ENVIRONI�NTAL EFFECTS
� �, .
) FollowinQ is a summa.ry of the cumulative environmental effects of the pro�ects in the MSP 2000-2006 CIP.
Appendix A contains an assessment of environmental effects on a projec�by-project basis.
�� A number of projects included in the CIP for 2000-2006 are on�oing projects from previous years or they
have been previously analyzed for their environmental impacts. These projects are identified in Table 1 with
two stars (**). The impacts of these projects are discussed in their individual project description, as well as
�� in other environmental documents (Environmental Assessments, Environmenta] Assessment `i/orksheets, or
Environmenta] Impact Statements).
�l
The remaining projects listed in the CIP are included in the MSP 2010 Long Term Comprehensive Plan
(LTCP). The 1989 Metropolitan Airports Planning Act required the MAC and the Metropolitan Council to
complete a comprehensive and coordinated study of the region's long term aviation needs. The seven-year
study, known as the Dual Track Airport Planning Process, came to an end in 1996 w�hen the legislature
stopped further study of a new airport and directed the N1AC to implement the MSP 2010 LTCP.
The LTCP stud�• included a number of alternatives for development and expansion of MSP. The study �vas
conducted in accordance ��ith the Alternative Environmental Review Process approved by the l�linnesota
Environmental Qualitti• Board (EQB) in ivfarch 1992. This process included the preparation of Alternative
Environmental Documents (AEDs) for evaluatin� the alternatives under consideration. A draft AED �;ras
prepared and disrributed for comment as part of the MSP LTCP study. This document addressed the
cumulative em�ironmental effects that would result from the proposed improvements. Upon receipt of
comments, a final �ED was prepared and aaain distributed for comment. The I�1AC, beinQ the Responsible
Governmental Unit (RGU), determined the adequacy of the Final AED in early 199�.
7
Several project descriptions in Appendix A refer to the Dual Track Airport Planning Process Final EIS. This
document assessed the environmental impacts of the MSP 2010 LTCP and 2020 Concept Plan. The 2010
LTCP is the first-phase implementation of the 2020 Concept Plan; it includes the new north-south runway
and related projects, and interim improvements to the Lindbergh and HHI-i terminals and parking. The FinaI
EIS was distributed and made available to affected agencies and the public for review and comment on its
adequacy on May 7, 1998. The FAA determined in its September 23, 1998 Record of Decision that the
Final EIS, together with supportin� documents and responses to comments on its adequacy, meets the
environmental review reporting requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for projects
in the MSP 2010 LTCP. The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) found the Final EIS to be
adequate in terms of compliance with the environmental review requirements of the state of Minnesota on
October 26, 1998.
Summary Of Cumulative Environmental Effects
As disclosed in the May 1998 Dual Track Airport Planning Process Final EIS, the MSP 2010 LTCP would
have sig-nificant adverse effects on noise, historic properties/districts, surface water quality, wetlands and the
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge. Through consultation with affected aaencies, the MAC has
committed to implement measures that will appropriately mitigate these adverse effects. The potential effect
of low frequency noise is an unresolved issue that MAC and affected municipalities and aQencies are
cunently studying. The MAC has comrnitted to develop and implement appropriate measures that would
mitigate any si�nificant adverse effects identified in the study.
( 1 The CIP for 2000-Zo06 includes a portion of the projects identified in the MSP 2010 LTCP. Therefore, the
i � cumulative environmental effects of the projects in the CIP are included in the assessment of environmental
effects presented in the Final EIS.
i: � ;
� l m:/ducs/176?7/aoee?OOO.doc
L. �
� i
� `, ...__
�
l._._.
II
��
.,..;�.��► -
-
, � • � � �� . . . �
r• � •
0
�-1
l
�
LNTRODUCTION
The followina pages describe the anticipated environmental effects of each item in the MAC's overall
seven-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP} for the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airpon (MSP), if
implemented. Table A.l summarizes these items by year and by element of the MSP CIP (projects,
program, plan) while Fi„�ure A-1 depicts the location of each major project in the CIP.
__ TABLE A.1
� l NIINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIl2PORT
ENVIRONMENTAL Il�'ACT Si;m�IMARY
1—� �.
I, 2ppp CApTTAL II��'ROVEMENT PROJECTS
I.A
I.B
I.0
I.D
I.E
I.F
I.G
I.H
I.I
I.J
I.K
I.L
I.M
I.N
I.O
I.P
I.Q
I.R
I.S
I.T
I. TJ
I.V
I.W
Residential Sound Insulation (Inside DNL 65)
School Noise Abatement Projects
Supplemental Environmental Projects
Ventilation Testing/Remediation of Past Homes
Airside Bituminous Construction
Green Concourse Apron Expansion
North Side Storm Sewer
Runway 12R Deicing/Holding Pad
Runway 17/35 Construction
Runway 17/35 Land Acquisition
Snow Storage/Melting Area
Stormwater Collection/Detention Ponds
�2`� Street Upgrade
Airport Mail Center �
Commercial Vehicle Staging Area
Green Concourse Automated People Mover (APM)
Green Concourse Expansion-Phase 2
Humphrey Terminal Development
International Arrivals Facility Expansion
LRT Development
Public Parking Expansion-Entrances/Exit Roadways
Public Parking Expansion-Transit Center Plaza
Transit Center Development
A-1
�, f
_l
, l TABLE A.1
NLINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL TVfiERNATIONAL AZRPORT
EivVIl20NMENTAL IlVIPACT SUI�lQ�1ARY
,i
(Contin.)
'
i
II. 2001 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAII-i
Ground Run-up Enclosure
Humphrey Remote Ramp Expansion
Runway 30R Deicing/Holding Pad
Runway 4/22 Extension
Runway 4/22 Road Relocation
Taxiway B Construction
Auto Rental Service Site Development
EconoLot/Employee Parking Structure
Lindbergh Terminal North Addition
MAC Cargo Buildings- Airline Belly Cargo Faciliry
Red Concourse Infill
11 1 1 - • /" • � � • ,
� III.A Blue Concourse Infill
, I, III.B Lindberah Terminal Loading Dock Relocation
III.0 MAC Cargo Buildinas— Air Freight Faciliry
��
� 1
I. ,_ _ ;,
�
(-
�_
IV. 2003 CAPITAL Il1�'ROVEMENT PLAN
N.A Residential Sound Insulation (Between 60 and 6� DNL)
V. 2004 CAPITA.L Il�iPROVEMENT PLAN
V.A Taxiway C/D Complex
VI. 2005 CAPITAL IMPROVEMEivT PLAN
(No projects with impacts be�in this year)
VII. 2006 CAPITAL I�i SPROVEMENT PLAN
(No projects with impacts beain this year)
A-2
❖ Aircraft Noise
This project will result in a positive impact concerning airport hiQh frequency noise due to the
significantly lower sound levels which will be achieved within the homes receivin� sound
insulation.
Low frequency noise and its effect on nearby residences is an unresolved issue. MAC initiated a study
to determine the effects of low frequency noise and vibration from aircraft operations at MSP. If
supported by the study, MAC will prepare and implement a low frequency noise mitiQation program
for those affected communities.
I.B. SCHOOL NOISE ABATEMENT PROJECTS
�� MAC has included noise abatement projects within the CIP with the goal of achieving an ag�regate
;� interior noise reduction of 15-20 decibels (dBA) in the instruction areas of schools, compared to noise
levels prior to the project improvements. In past years, ten (10) schools have been soundproofed by MAC
with financial assistance from the FAA and MnDOT - O�ce of Aeronautics. It is proposed to continue
_� this program in 2000.
The legislation which ended the Dual Track Airpon Planning Process contained requirements that the
`,� MAC insulate an additional six schools between the officially-delineated 1996 FAR Part 1�0 DNL 60
and 6� noise contours. Elliot School in Richfield, Barton School in Minneapolis, and the House of
� Prayer Pre-school (a pilot program) will be soundproofed as part of this project in 2000. Schools on
�
' � the fringe or just outside the DNL 60 contour are currently ineligible for abatement initiatives.
❖ Aircraft Noise
These projects will provide positive impacts concerning airport noise. Achieving an aQare�ate
interior noise reduction of 1�-20 decibels (dBA) in the instruction areas of schools compared to
noise levels prior to improvements is possible and has been shown to be an effective abatement
strate�y. Reductions of this maQnitude wiIl provide higher qualiry learning environments in which
to teach children.
I.C. SUPPLEiY�ivTAL EN`VIRON11�iE�tTAL PROJECTS
The MAC has worked with the MPCA to conduct investigations and response actions at the Baytown
To���nship Groundwater Contamination Site, and in so doina has agreed to terms under a Consent Order
that requires the MAC to implement a Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP).
One of the three projecu proposed to satisfy the SEP provisions of the Consent Order involves IvISP
; i operations. The other two projects are not in the irnmediate vicinity of MSP. The MSP-related project
',_ ) has to do with the MAC's participation in the planned Water Qualiry Improvement project for Lake
Nokomis in South Minneapolis. The project afFects water qualiry in and around MSP. This supplemenral
; � project will have an overall positive afFect on the qualiry of water in the Airport's viciniry.
��
'._J
I:�
i_. �; - ��
I.D. VENTILATION TESTP�IG/REN�DIATION OF PAST HOMES
There is a need to make mechanical modifications to homes soundproofed previously under the residential
sound proofina proaram (see Para„Qraph I.A). These modifications are the second phase of this initiative
intended to improve the quality of the indoor air of those homes that were insulated or soundproofed
berween June 1992 and April 1997. Air qualiry is the only environmental category that would be affected
by this project (indoor air qualiry in particular). There will be a marked improvement in the qualiry of the
air residents breathe afrer the required modifications are made.
. 1• 1� : It • • • • �
This is an onaoing project to construct or reconstruct bituminous pavements within the Air
Operations Area. This year's work will include the inspection of existing bituminous overiays on
Runway 12L/30R. This project may involve the repair of existing paved areas that should not
result in an increase in stormw�ater nuioff volumes, sediments, nutrients and organics.
I.F. GREEN CONCOURSE APRON EXPANSION
In order to meet the anticipated future needs of the airlines, a phased easterly expansion of the Green
Concourse was initiated in 1999. The first phase of this project added gates to the Green Concourse
and extended the existing fueling hydrant system. This project is the second phase of this overall
project to expand the Green Concourse. When expanded, the apron serving the Green Concourse will
be e:ctended to the east. The only impact category affected by the project is water quality. This project
is included in the Final EIS for the MSP 2010 LTCP. The cumulative effect on water quality was
addressed by the Final EIS for all projects included in the 2010 LTCP.
II.G. NORTH SIDE STOR�'�i SEWER
�� The extension of Runway 4/22 by 1,000 feet to the northeast (for which a separate EA has been
)
prepared) will requirz the construction of a new storm water drainage system. The new storm sewer
--, will be constructed from the intersection of Runway 12L/30R and Runway 4/22 to SnellinQ Lake. This
� i project will provide for the construction of the segment from Golf Taxiway east alon� the north side of
`` Runway 12L/30R to Hiahway 5. Water qualiry is the only environmental impact cateQory affected by
this project. A positive impact will be created as a result of implementin� this project since the amount
'! of harmful effluent reachina the re�ion's waterways will be reduced.
I.H. RUIV`ti�'A�' 12R DEICIi�iG/HOLDING PAD
The need exists for a larQe apron area near the end of each runway to provide space for aircraft waitina
i I' for departure and to also function as a deicinQ pad with a glycol recovery and containment system.
{ � Airlines experiznce delati�s at departure for a number of reasons with the result that other aircraft
��
cleared for departure may be delayed. The holding apron would provide storaQe for delayed aircraft
while allowing other aircraft to taxi by and depart without delay. This project will construct the
airport's deicing/holding pad on Runway 12R to allow for the e�cient deicinQ of aircrafr and collection
of gl}�col as well as for the holding of aircraft for operational reasons. This project will also include
the construction of Taxiway B between the deicing pad and Exit Taxiway B10.
Although aircraft idIing at the hold apron will emit noise and air emissions during delay periods, delays
at the airport are anticipated to be negligible with construction of Runway 17/3�. Delay savin�s are
anticipated to be approximately 21,000 hours per year by the Year 2010 (based upon the current ratio
of growth in operations).
Deicing aircraft is an environmental issue since the glycol that runs off can reduce oxyQen levels in
bodies of water with which it comes in contact. These aprons would incorporate a collection system to
collect the glycol runoff. Water qualiry is the only category to be impacted by this project. There will
be a positive effect in that the Airport's overall collection system will decrease the amount of
contaminated runoff entering the Minnesota River.
This project is included in the Final EIS for the MSP 2010 LTCP. The Final EIS addressed the
cumulative effects of this project.
I.I. RUNWAY 17/35 CONSTRUCTION
One of the key facility requirements of the MSP 2010 LTCP is a new north-south 8,000-foot runway
;}; on the west side of the Airport. The construction of Runway 17/35 is being phased over a 5-year
; � period. Work began in 1999 which included grading and utility construction in the New Ford Town
area, site preparation and utility installation in the infield area.
This project is a continuation of the overall 5-year program to develop this new North/South Runway at
MSP. Projects proposed for 2000 include the following:
1. Construction of the west cargo apron for use by BAX Global, DHL, Emery and MAC Cargo
2. Construction of the Signature Taxiway
3. Taxiway W realignment
4. Construction of Taxiways W/Y and Y3 and Runways 4/22 and 17/35 tunnels
S. Reconstruction of Longfellow Road from 77`'' Street to 66�' Street
6. Storm sewer installation
7. Airport Medical Clinic demolition
8. 34`� Avenue sanitary sewer pumping station
The Final EIS for the MSP 2010 LTCP addressed the cumulative and construction impacts of Runway
17/35. Mitigation plans for identified significant adverse environmental impacts have been prepared.
Runway 1713� will not become operational until the committed mitigation has been accomplished.
A-7
.
• t �
�, °� -
L
l
i I.J. RLTl��'�'AY 1'7/3a LAI�D ACQUISITION
This project is a continuation of efforts be�un by the Metropolitan Airports Commission in 1998 to
acquire off-airport land for the Runway 17/35 project. Land will be acquired and leases will be
extinguished to provide for the FAA-defined Runway Protection Zone (FtPZ) for the Runway 35 end.
A e relocated as a result of this ro'ect. No residences
Several business..s offices and a VFW Post will b
; , P J
i I are within the RPZ, so there is no impact in terms of residential relocations. However, the businesses
� and their emplo}�ees will be affected by these acguisitions. The acquisition and relocation proceedings
,--. will be done in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
; Acquisition Policies Act of 1970.
This project is included in the Final EIS for the MSP 2010 LTCP. The Final EIS addressed the
cumulative effects of this project.
I.K. SNOW STORAGE/MELTTNG AR.EA
This project will provide for the construction of a snow stora�e/melting area including two 80-tom
i) snow melters adjacent to Taxiway A1 on Runway 30L. Water quality is the only impact category
� affected by this project.
❖ Water Quality
In developing the MSP 2010 LTCP, which includes the construction of ancillary facilities such as
1' � this storaae/melting area, the MAC has worked with the appropriate agencies to identify
' mitigation measures required as a result of increased runoff. The Final EIS discusses appropriate
mitigation strategies.
I.L. STORM WATER COLLECTION/DETENTION PONDS
The Commission's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit contains
restrictions on the contaminants allowed to enter the Minnesota River in storm water runoff from the
Airport. The Airport's system of stormwater detention ponds aids in containing and removing such
contaminants as solids, grease, and oil. Modifcations, additions, and refinements to these systems are
periodically required to produce continued improvement in water quality discharge. A new National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is expected to require additional storm water
storage in order to control discharge of settleable solids to the Minnesota River. This project will
provide for the construction of a new storm water detention pond for the Minnesota River South
draina�e basin. Surface water discharge off of the airport is regulated by the MPCA through NPDES
permittin� authoriry and procedures. Storm water control measures will be developed or enhanced
consistent with NPDES permit requirements. The proposed collection/detention pond locations are not
anticipated to have adverse impacts on Fort Snelling State Park downstream.
.•
C ,
,
'I
❖ Water Quality
This project will create a positive impact on the water qualiry of the Minnesota River by reducina
the amount of harn�ful effluent discharged into the Minnesota River.
I.M. 72°a STREET UPGRADE
This is the iirst project in the three year program to upgrade 72`� Street from 34`�' Avenue to the west to
include two westbound lanes and three eastbound lanes and three tra�c signals. The upgraded
roadway will allow traffic from the new Humphrey Terminal and future Humphrey/employee parking
ramp and future LRT station to access 72`� Street.
An EAW was prepared for the overall project to expand the Humphrey Terminal in 1997. This EAW
stated that the environmental issues of this project are limited to short-term construction impacts (air
pollution, fugitive dust and noise}, tra�c, loss of existing parking spaces, the impact of fuQitive dust on
the adjacent National Cemetery, and the potential for additional international and domestic charter flights
in the future.
I� • Construction impacts will be mitigated. Air pollution and dust generated during construction will
generally be controlled by periodic site watering. Vehicle emissions will be mitigated by parking
! i gasoline or diesel-powered equipment while not being used. Construction noise will be typical for
a p r o j e c t o f t h i s t y p e. O n l y a p proved e qui pment will be used, so that excessive noise will not be
,,�_
created. There are no nearby residential areas that will be affected �by construction noise.
��� ��� � • Mitigation of fugitive dust at the construction site will address the impacts on the National
Cemetery, which is located east of 34�' Avenue South and approximately 1,SQ0' east of the
� � proposed project.
• While total daily traffic will not increase significantly by the completion of this project, pealc hour
traffic will increase. The projected 2010 level of service for 34�' Avenue South is estimated to
remain at LOS "B". However, the left turn volumes for northbound 34�' Avenue South into the
terminal area should be monitored to determine whether additional traffic control is warranted or
additional left turn storage space is required.
• Public parkinQ spaces eliminated by construction of the new chaner terminal will be ofFset by the
addition of 500 visitor parking spaces (as well as 280 additional spaces for employee parkina).
•'I"he relocated terminal is expected, in the immediate future, to have no significant impact on noise,
' since initially the project represents a relocation of current operations. Charter airlines, however,
'_ I may wish to add domestic and international flights in the future particularly with demand
increasing. It is likely such increases would be approximatel y 0.31 percent and approximately
;� 0.10 percent by 2010, respectively. This small increase would have a minimal effect on overall
�_,l airport noise. Therefore, no mitiaation is proposed.
�
I .�••�• .� �
A new Air Mail Center for the U.S. Postal Service is being constructed on a site adjacent to Nonhwest
Building B as the existing facility must be removed to make room for Phase 2 of the Green Concourse
expansion. This faciliry will also provide concourse space for Northwest Airlines adjacent to the USPS
concourse area for the purpose of interchange of mail. As the site for the new Air Mail Center
displaces Northwest Airlines employee parking, replacement parking will be provided on two levels on
top of the Air Mail Center. A project to provide the foundations and structural steel will be bid in
1999. This project will provide for the building enclosure and finishes as well as all mechanization
system equipment.
The environmenta] effects of this project in the year 2010 are included in the Final EIS for the MSP 2010
LTCP. Traffic levels entering and leaving the new USPS facility are not expected to differ dramatically
from levels experienced at the current on-airport postal building. This project represents a shifting of
these activities from one location on the airport to another nearby location. The environmental effects of
this project are included in the Final EIS for the MSP 2010 LTCP.
I.O. COMI��RCIAL VEHICLE STAGING AREA
Additional commercial vehicle staging area is required on Post Road as the increasing number of
'i � taxicabs is overcrowding the area designated for cornmercial vehicles. The staging area will be a paved,
' illuminated and fenced area with AVI equipment for entry and exit control. The impact of additional
,�
taxicabs at the Airport has been addressed as part of the Final EIS for the IvISP 2010 LTCP.
� � � ❖ Air QualitY
'I ( The cumulative impact of the additional taxicab tra�c on air quality in 2010 is not significant
, i and no mitigation is required. This is according to the findings of the Final EIS for the MSP
2010 LTCP.
I.P. GREEN CONCOURSE AUTOMATED PEOPLE MOVER (APN�
This project will complete the installation of a people mover for the Green Concourse. The people
mover is a cable-drawn "horizontal elevator" which will run from the east to the west end of the
concourse with an intermediate stop. The year 2000 portion of this project will provide for the
construction of the guide way system and terminal modi�cations at the station locations. This overali
project will make provisions for passenger convenience, will complement the existing moving walkway
system, and will not affect any of the environmental impact categories.
A-10
(
�� I.Q. GREEN CONCOURSE EXPANSION - PHASE 2
In order to meet the anticipated future needs of the airlines, an easterly extension to the Green
Concourse will be constructed. This project is the second phase in the proaram to add new gates to the
Green Concourse. This project will provide for the construction of eiQht new gates and a new Reaional
, Terminal Faciliry with 29 aircraft parking positions.
The environmental efFects of this project in the year 2010 are included in the Final EIS for the MSP 2010
LTCP.
I.R. HUMPHREY T'ERMINAL DEVELOPMENT
The MAC is currently constructing a replacement facility for the Hubert H. Humphrey (HHH)
International Arrivals Terminal. The replacement terminal will be approximately 1,000 feet
immediately west of the existing terminal building. Access to this replacement terminal will be from
34`'' Avenue, between 70`� and 72'� Streets. The replacement facility will consist of eight gates initially
(fitted with twin jetways to handle more than one aircraft per gate, if needed) and will provide for
future expansion to a total of nineteen gates (also ftted with twin jetways). The overall proposed
project also includes the construction of parki.ng areas and new entrance roadways to improve
circulation.
' � This project is a continuation of the program to construct a new Humphrey Terminal and provides for
tenant and FIS finishes, sitework, concession build out and the construction of a ground services
'. � ' � equipment storage building.
i
This project is included in the no action alternative and the MSP 2010 LTCP alternative in the Final
�I 1 EIS. The Final EIS addressed the cumulative effects of projects included in the no action and 2010
� LTCP. An EAW was also prepared for the initial phase of development in 1997, concluding that the
project, if properly mitigated in several categories of concern, could be implemented.
I.S. Il�TTER.NATIONAL A.RFtIVALS FACILITY EXPANSION
The success of the International Arrivals Facility (IAF) has prompted the Federal Government to add
additional staff to the IAF faciliry on the Gold Concourse. There is therefore a need for additional
office space and facility expansion to house the staff. In addition, it is proposed to modify the
secondary inspections area by installing new Agriculture and Customs inspection counters and
modifyin� the passenger pick up area located on the baggage claim level by adding additional seating
and sianage. The success of the IAF facility has also prompted a request for a study of how to expand
the capaciry of the entire facility to handle additional 747 aircraft simultaneously.
This project is included in the no action alternative and the MSP 2010 LTCP alternative in the Final
� EIS. The Final EIS addressed the year 2010 cumulative effects of projects included in the no action
and 2010 LTCP.
A-11
, ; I.T. LRT DEVELOPMENT
'
Planning and implementation of LRT access on the Airport began in 1999. This project will provide for
development of the LRT tunnel and stations to serve the Lindbergh Terminal and the Humphrey
Terminal. Implementation of the Ii�ht-rail transit project to serve MSP passenQers is continaent upon
._ , FAA approval to expend Federal funds for this type of project.
A joint state/federal Final EIS for the Hiawatha Avenue project was completed in February 1985
[THSS (Hiawatha Avenue) Final Environmental Impact Statement/(4,fl Evaluation and Alternatives
Analysis, City of Minneapolis and Minnesota Deparnnent of Transportation]. A reevaluation of the
adequacy of the approved FEIS will be completed. At the time of the 1985 study, the proposed project
included an 8.5-mile LRT line and a 4-lane divided at-�rade roadway between the Minneapolis CBD
and MSP. The LRT would then proceed through the Airport with three potential stations (the main
terminal, the charter terminal, and Northwest Airlines maintenance facility). The facilities would be in
a tunnel below the area bounded by the two parallel runways. The project is now proposed to proceed
an additional 2.9� miles to the Mall of America (old Met Stadium site), of which 0.36 miles would be
in tunnel. No adverse environmental impacts on the Airport were identified at that time.
i1 The Minnesota Departrnent of Transportation (MnIDOT) is currently preparing the necessary State and
� Federal Environmental documentation for this project. Once findings are available from this
documentation, the MAC will incorporate appropriate portions.
I.U. PUBLIC PARKING EXPANSION - ENTRANCE/EXIT ROADWAYS
;�
i i � The parking system at MSP is currently operating with inadequate capaciry in both short term and general
parlcing. If additional parking space is not provided, the number of times users will have to be turned
j i away from the Airport for lack� of available spaces will increase. The number of occunences will
�_ _ potentially double by the year 2000. Evaluation of the demand forecasts indicated that an initial increment
of at least 5,000 new spaces should be added to the existing parki.ng supply at MSP as soon as it can be
l constructed. This proposed project is part of a larger project that will soon provide approximately 6,000
� new parking spaces adjacent the existing parking structure. Specifically in 2000, this project provides for
the construction of the short term and general parking entrance lanes to the new parking facility, ticket
' j dispenser islands and canopies and the realignment of the exit roadways near the rental auto company exit
� � ramp.
The Final EIS for the MSP 2010 LTCP assumed an additional 7,OQ0 parking spaces, and the air quality
analysis deternzined that no air qualiry standard or emission threshold would be exceeded either on or off
the Airport. The proposed project would therefore have no adverse effect on air quality.
I.V. PUBLIC PARKING EXPANSION - TR-ANSIT CENTER PLAZA
This project will provide for the construction of the Transit Center Plaza between the new Parkin�
Management building and the Transit Center building including concrete pavina of the plaza,
A-12
�'
� ' 1.
;
l '
�
,l
�
' i installation of a storm drainaae system and signage. This project is included in the Final EIS for the
`;" i IvISP 2010 LTCP. The Final EIS addressed the cumulative effects of projects included in the 2010
LTCP.
i
i
:;
)
I.W. TRANSIT CENTER DEVELOPMENT
This project will provide for a Transit Center at the east end of the new parking facilities including a
waiting area, restroom facilities, vertical transportation and baggage check-in capabilities. In addition,
this project will also include the "cut-and-cover" excavation and enclosure for the proposed Lindbergh
Terminal LRT station. This project will serve as a centralized location for all buses carrying
passengers to the Airport. Air quality and vehicular traffic are the two environmental impact categories
that would be affected by this project. However, this center is not anticipated to attract any additional
vehicles but simply separate them from other tra�c entering the , on-airport roadway. The
implementation of this project is anticipated to result in an overall positive impact for these two
categories.
A-13
4-�
II. PROJECTS BEGL�fiTING IN 2001
The followinQ projects are proposed to start in the Year 2001 that have the potential to affect the
em�ironment.y Several projects continue for several years and are discussed in the year that they are
scheduled to beQin.
Ground Run-up Enclosure
Humphrey Remote Ramp Expansion
Runway 30R Deicing/Holding Pad
Runway 4/22 Extension
Runway 4/22 Road Relocation
Taxiway B Construction
Auto Rental Service Site Development
Econol,ot/Employee Parki.ng Structure
Lindbergh Terminal North Addition
MAC Cargo Buildings — Airline Belly Cargo Facility
Red Concourse Infill
I.A. GROUND RT.JI`T-UP ENCLOSUR.E
� I This project will provide for the installation of a ground run-up enclosure on the existing MSP run-up
� J pad to reduce the noise impact of engine run-ups on communities adjacent to the Airport. Aircraft
noise is the only impact category affected by this project.
l :
l i�� -
� ❖ Aircraft Noise
I This project will result in a positive impact concerning airport noise due to the significantly lower
� sound levels which will be achieved when aircraft/aircraft engines are operated for maintenance
purposes inside this enclosure.
II.B. HITMPHREY REMOTE RAMP EXPANSION
This project will provide for the expansion of the Humphrey remote ramp to the north to provide a
parking area for aircraft waiting for a gate at the new Humphrey facility. This area will also serve as a
deicing area and overnight aircraft parki.ng area. The impact category affected by this project is water
qualiry due to additional paved surfaces and the deicing activity associated with this expanded ramp.
❖ Water Quality
Water qualiry is the only impact category affected by this project because it will result in a slight
increase in runoff to the Minnesota River North Draina�e Area. The effect of the increased
runoff is included in the Final EIS for the MSP 2010 LTCP.
A-14
II.C. RTJN��'AY 30R DEICII`'G/HOLDING PAD
The need exists for a lar�e apron area near the end of each runway to provide space for aircrafr waiting
for departure and also function as a deicing pad with a glycol recovery and containment system.
Airlines experience delays at departure for a number of reasons with the result that other aircraft
cleared for departure may be delayed. The holding apron would provide storage for delayed aircraft
while allowin� other aircraft to taxi by and depart without delay. Deicing aircraft is an environmental
issue since the glycol that runs off can reduce oxygen levels in bodies of water with which it comes in
contact. These aprons would incorporate a collection system to capture the glycol runoff. Also
included in this project is construction of the apron pavement in the area of the demolished Post Office
as well as the installation of fuel lines and pits.
This project is included in the Final EIS for the MSP 2010 LTCP. The Final EIS addressed the
cumulative effects of projects included in the 2010 LTCP.
,�
Water quality is the only category to be impacted by this project. There will be a positive effect m t at
the Airpons' overall collection system will reduce the amount of contaminated runoff entering the
Minnesota River.
IT.D. RUNVVAY 4/22 EXT'ENSION
! � The proposed project is to extend Runway 4/22 1,000 feet to the northeast to a total length of 12,000
feet. The purpose of the extension is to allow non-stop service to Pacific Rim countries with full
'I � payloads requirin� a runway length of approximately 12,000 feet. A Draft EA was prepared and
,; distributed in November 1997 and the Final EA was distributed in September 1999. Findings of this
document indicate that the cumulative impacts of implementing the project are not significant. The
'i ( cumulative impacts of the project were also included in the Final EIS for the MSP 2010 LTCP.
1-1
II.E. RITN�'4'AY 4/22 ROA.D RELOCATION
A service road currently crosses through the Runway Safety Area (RSA), the Object Free Area (OFA),
and the L,ocalizer critical area for Runway 22. This project would relocate this roadway outside of the
RSA and OFA in accordance with a Special Condition in the Grant Agreement between the MAC and the
FAA for the earlier 2,750-foot extension of this same runway to the southwest.
❖ Water Quality
Water quality is the only impact category affected by this project because it will result in a slight
increase in runoff to the Minnesota River North Drainage Area. Although the increase in runoff
from this project will not be significant, it is included in the Final EIS for the MSP 2010 LTCP.
A-15
f I
\
f
II.F. TA�.I«°AY B CONSTRUCTION
i
This project will provide for the construction of Taxiway B from Runway 4-22 to Tahi��ay� M. The
environmenral impact cateQory affected by this project is water quality due to new impervious surfaces.
i ..
❖ «'ater Quality
Water qualiry is the only impact category affected by this project because it will result in a slight
'� I increase in runoff to the Mother Lake Wetlands Area. Although the increase in runoff from this
project will not be significant, it is included in the Final EIS for the MSP 2010 LTCP.
II.G. ALJTO RENTAL SERVICE SITE DEVELOPMENT
� This project will provide for the relocation of the auto rental service sites to a permanent location. The
project will result in the development of three general sites that could accommodate as many as six (6)
auto rental agencies. At the present time, one such agency has committed to locating its center of
(� operations near the intersection of I-494 and 24�' Avenue South. In subsequent years, several other
i auto rental agencies are expected to permanently relocate to two other sites that are to be developed in
the same general vicinity as the initial site.
II.H. ECONOLOT/EMPLOYEE PARKING STRUCTURE
; � The construction of the southeast segment of Taxiway W will impact approximately 300 parking spaces
in the employee lot on Post Road. There is also a need to expand the EconoLot parking to serve the
proposed Humphrey facility as well as provide additional pubIic parking for the Lindberah Terminal.
l A new parkinQ structure to serve both needs located at the south end of the EconoLot site is being
studied. The facility will be sized to accommodate approximately 1,800 employee spaces and 5,500-
i 6,000 public spaces. This project will also provide for the demolition of the existing Humphrey
� Terminal. No clear indication of impacts can be made at this time. An EAW may be necessary as this
project moves forward in the future. .
II.I. LINDBERGH TERMINAL NORTH A.DDITION
This project will provide for a two-story expansion of the north end of the Lindbergh Terminal. The
first story of the addition shall extend the existing retail mall space to the north while including new
public restrooms, a public elevator and stairwell to the mezzanine level, and an entry lobby to a
second-story airline preferred customer lounge. The second story of the addition shall consist of
mezzanine office space and the airline preferred customer lounge. This additional space is intended to
accommodate the 2010 LTCP. No clear indication of impacts can be made at this time. An EAW may
be necessary as this project moves forward in the future.
A-16
'� II.J. M.AC CARGO BUILDINGS - AIRLINE BELLY CARGO FACILITY
'
; In conjunction with the construction of Runway 17/35, new building areas will be developed. The
! � MAC will construct two cargo buildings that will be leased to airport tenants. This project will provide
for construction of a"belly" cargo building to include all required aircraft apron and auto/truck
, � parking areas.
Presently a majoriry of MSP's airline belly cargo is accommodated within a 36,000 SF multi-tenant
cargo facility owned by Standard Air Cargo (Standard Cargo Facility). This facility is scheduled for
removal in order to accommodate construction of the Humphrey Terminal and its associated
infrastructure. Additionally, there are no other existing facilities at MSP that can accommodate the
required airline belly cargo operations. Therefore, a new facility must be constructed to replace the
Standard Cargo FaciIity and house airline belly cargo operations. The potential aircraft noise and
water quality cumulative impacts associated with this project have been addressed in the Final EIS for
the MSP 2010 LTCP.
II.K. RED CONCOURSE INFILL
In order to maximize the capacity of the existing terminal complex, it will be necessary to expand the
Blue, Red and Gold Concourses. This project will add additional space by filling in the "notch"
between Gates 26-30 on the Red Concourse to provide for additional concession space, toilet facilities
and phones and will provide storage space for the MAC and the airlines.
A-17
i
III. PROJECTS BEGINNING IN 2002
', � The following projects are proposed to start in the Year 2002 that have the potential to affect the
i � environment. Several projects continue for many years and are discussed ir� the year that they beain.
; �� III.A Blue� Concourse Infill
I III.B Lindbergh Terminal I,oading Dock Relocation
III.0 MAC Cargo Buildings — Air Freight Facility
III.A. BLUE CONCOURSE INFILL
The expansion of the Blue Concourse includes miscellaneous additions such as phones, lavatory
facilities and concession space. It does not include additional gates. Since these are only expected to
be minor additions, no impact categories are affected.
III.B. LIlV"DBERGH TERMINAL LOADING DOCK RELOCATION
The MAC proposes to relocate the existing Lindbergh Terminal loading dock because of increasing
congestion in that area of the Airport. It is proposed to move the loading dock (where supplies, food,
etc. are delivered to a landside location on airport. MAC is currently studying possible locations. The
project should not adversely affect the environment. �
_ ��� )
'` III.C. MAC CARGO BUII,DINGS — AIR P'KEIGHT FACILITY
I � This is the second phase of the two-building cargo facility complex that the MAC will construct for the
i- � handling of air cargo shipments. The iirst will accur in 2001 and will handle belly cargo. This project
will occur in 2002 and will handle all-cargo carrier air shipments and ancillary developments. The
� potential aircraft noise and water qualiry cumulative impacts associated with this project have been
I� addressed in the Final EIS for the MSP 2010 LTCP.
�-�
C
i
i
'� IV. PROJECTS BEG�G IN 2003
I
� The followin� project is proposed to start in 2003 that has the potential to affect the environment. Several
'' projects continue for many years and are discussed in the year that they begin.
II
N.A Residential Sound Insulation (Between 60 & 65 DNL)
IV.A. RESIDENTIAL SOLTND INSULATION (BETWEEN 60 & 6a DNL)
This project is part of the MSP Noise Mitigation Plan for the 2010 LTCP. It is an expansion of the
current Sound Insulation Program (SIP) for DNL 65 (see Para„araph I.A) to include sound insulation
of residences within the 2005 DNL 60-65 noise contour. The 2005 DNL contour will be prepared in
the update of the FAR Part 150 program. The impact of the project is a reduction of interior sound
levels due to aircraft overflights.
A-19
f
'� V. PROJECTS BEGINNING IN 2004
�
,�� The following project is proposed to start in 2004 which has the potential to affect the environment.
i � Several projects continue for many years and are discussed in the year that they begin.
V.A Taxiway C/D Complex
V.A. TAXIWAY C/D COMPLEX
The Taxiway C/D Complex, located adjacent to the Red and Blue� Concourses and parallel to Runway
4/22 will be reconstructed as a part of this project. Taxiway D(adjacent to the Red and Blue
Concourses) is currently restricted to Boeing 727-type aircraft or smaller aircraft and the pavement on
both taxiways is in need of replacement. Reconstruction of Taxiways C and D will allow unrestricted
two-way taxiing of aircraft on both taxiways.
This project will not increase the overall capacity of the Airport. It wiil involve the construction of
additional taxiway maneuvering areas adjacent to the Red and Blue Concourse. The project will add
approximately 336,750 square feet of impervious pavement surface. Runoff from this surface will be
added to the Minnesota River North Drainage Area. The environmental effects of this project in the
year 2010 are included in the Final EIS for the MSP 2010 LTCP.
A-20
VI. PROJECTS BEGINl'r'�LNG IN 2005
There are no new projects included in the MAC's Capital Lmprovement Plan for the Minneapolis-St.
Paul International Airport beginning in 2005 that may potentially affect the environment.
VII. PROJECTS BEGIlVNING IN 2006
There are no new projects included in the MAC's Capital Improvement Plan for the Minneapolis-St.
Paul International Airport beginning in 2006 that may potentially affect the environment. .
m: \docs\ 17657\aoee99a.doc
A-21
:.
A
� _ � . �. � �
:� ; _ . � - -�_ ;• • �: � °
.
�' �
�' �': '' `� ��`�
C '
� � � , • ► � � � � r � � � F
C�UNCIL
General iVleQtinQ
October 26, 1999
8:00 p.m. to 9:45 p.m.
6040 28TH Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota
1. Call to Order, Roll Call
2. Approval of Nlinutes of Meeting September 28, 1999
3. Introduction of Invited Guests
Receipt of Communications
4. Re�-ietiv of Summer Operations Activity and Ongoing Construction Projects
5. Ratification of Executive Committee Appointments
6. October 8, 1999 Operations Committee Report - I�Iark Salmen
7. Report of the Lo�v Frequency Noise Policy Committee - Dick Saunders
8. Report of the Communications Advisorv Board Nleetina - Roy Fuhrmann
9. Report of the NLA.0 Commission Nleeting
10. Technical Advisor's Runwa�� System Utilization Report and Complaint
Summarv
11. Persons `Z"ishing to Address the Council
12. Items i�iot on the :��enda
13. Adjournment
Nest iYleetin;:
itiovember 30, 1999
11'i�� 0��1'� � U� DEPARTI�IENT OF ENVIRONI�iENT
TO: 1�letropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
FROM: Roy Fuhrmann, Manaaer, Aviation Noise and Satellite Pro�rams
SUB,jECT: MSP Construction Projects Summary
DATE: October 15, 1999
The summer construction project for th� _ south parallel runway, Runway 12R/30L is now
complete. At the MASAC meetina, staff will provide a runway use summary for operations
during the construction time period. . �
Additionally, there are a number of other construction projects that are continuin� into the fall and
early winter months. Many of these projects are multi-year construction contracts that will be
sequenced durinQ the next couple construction seasons before being closed out As the MAC
continues with the legislative mandate to build the MSP 2010 Plan, there will be additional
� � projects that will surface. MAC staff will cive a brief status report of the major construction
' activity currently takinQ place on the field. �
We believe this will be an informative briefina that will address many of the common questions
you may have concernin� continued airport development.
If you have any questions, piease contact me at 612-72�-b326.
NIETROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOU�D :�.BATEi�IENT COUNCIL
GENERA.I. NIEETING
September 28. 1999
8:40 p.m.
Comfort Inn
Bloominb on, :�Iinnesota
Call to Order. Roll Call
The meetina was called to order by Chairman Mertensotto at 8:00 p.m. The followin� members
were in attendance:
Mavor Charles Mertensotto, Chairman
T.J. HorsaQer
Mark Salmen
Jennifer Sayre
Brian Simonson
John Nelson
Petrona Lee
Lance Staricha
Charles Thorkildson
Will E�inton
Jill Smith
Neil Clark
Dean Lindberj
Dick Saunders
Mike Cramer
Glenn Strand
Leo Kurtz
Sandra Colvin Roy
Joe Lee
Barret Lane
Kristal Stokes
l�farks Hinds
John Halla
Mannv Camilon
Advisors
Roy Fuhrnann
Chad Leqve
Mike Pedro
Shane VanderVoort
Cindv Greene
V isitors
Mendota Hei�hts
Sun Country
Northwest Airlines
Northwest Airlines
DHL Airways
Bloominaton
Bloomington
Eaaan
EaQan
Inver Grove Heights
i�iendota Heights
i�iinneapolis
i�iinneapolis
l�Sinneapolis
I�Sinneapolis
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
�finneapolis
l�linneapolis
Minneapolis
Richfield
Richfield
St. Paul
St. Louis Park
i�L�C
tii_�C
�f �C
�,i_�c
F:�..�
2. Apnroval of Minutes •
�..
� The minutes of the August 24, 1999 MASAC meetina were approved as distributed. �
3. Introduction of Invited Guests
There were no invited guests.
Receint of Communications
There were no communications.
4. Staae 3 Compliance Review
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, noted that in September 199$ MASAC was briefed on the
FAA's 1997 year end report and that the 1998 year end report would be reviewed this year.
Mr. Fuhrmann then briefed the members on the Sta�e 3 compliance requirements of the Airport
Noise and Capacity Act of 1990. (see attachment)
Mr. Fuhrmann also briefed the members on each airline's current aircraft numbers and
percentaQes of StaQe 3 operations occurring at MSP. He noted that the overall percentage of
StaQe 3 operations at MSP for the month of Au�ust was 89.5%.
Mr. Fuhrmann then compared the total number of Staje 3 aircraft in the active fleet from 1997 to
1998. �
Mr. Fuhrmann noted the following:
� 1998 marked a cumulative Stage 2 fleet reduction of 67.2% from base level.
� The number of active Stage 3 aircraft increased from 5,719 in 1997 to 6,464 in 1998.
�, The overall Staae 3 aircraft fleet percentage rose from 45.0% in 1990 to 86.9% in 1998.
� The FA.A is satisfied that all Irnown affected operators were in compliance with the scheduled
December 31, 1998 interim compliance requirements.
AlthouQh Airborne Express is the only remaining applicant for a waiver from the FAA for the
Staae 2 phase out, they have agreed, regardless, to operate only Stage 3 aircraft at MSP after
December 31, 1999, as part of the MAC's ordinance process. The FAA is planning to make a
final determination on Airborne's waiver request within weeks.
Jill Smith, Mendota Hei�hts, asked why United Airlines and TWA fly less Stage 3 aircraft at
MSP compared to their total Stage 3 fleet. Ivlr. Fuhrmann said it is most likely due to the staQe
len�-ths that they fly in, and out of .Minneapolis. He said TWA's primary aircraft in and out of
MSP are DC9's and 727's.
Neil Clarl:, l�Sinneapolis, asked if there was any way to knotiv how much the noise levels have
been reduced due to the increase in Staae 3 operations. Ivlr. Fuhrmann said the day/night level at
MSP has dropped 3 to 5 DNL over the past year.
Dick Saunders, I�Sinneapolis, noted that the 1990 ANCA only applies to aircraft over 7�,000
pounds and that military aircraft are exempt. Mr. Fuhrmann said that was correct but that some
military aircraft already meet the requirements even thouah they are not sta�ed. He noted that
most of the military aircraft operating out of MSP are C130's.
Discussion of Draft Technical Advisor's Re�ort Revisions
Chad Leqve, i'VIAC Advisor, briefed the council on the revisions that were made to the Technical
Advisor's and Corridor Reports at the direction of the MASAC Operations Committee.
The follo�tilnQ are some of the changes that were made:
Technical Advisor's Report
� Page 1: The number of complaintants has been added for each community. A pie chart
provides a graphical illus�ation of the nature of complaints.
� Page ?: The monthly complaint map has been incorporated into the Technical Advisor's
Report.
� Page 3: An airport reference map has been added to help the reader better understand runway
terminolo�y in relation to departures and arrivals.
� Page 4: Information about the community affected by arrivals and departures on each runway
was added. '
� Page .i: The Carrier Jet Fleet Composition paoe now includes the FAR Part 36 departure
noise levels for each aircraft type. Information is also given on the numbers and percentages
of operations usin� Stage 2, Staae 3 not manufactured and Stage 3 manufactured aircraft. An
e:cplanarion of these categories is also included. ��
�, Page 6: The top 15 oriQin and destination airports are now included. This information helps
the reader to understand the reasons behind why certain aircraft and flight paths are used at
MSP.
�. Page 8: This paQe shows the top 15 niQhttime operators, the aircraft they fly, what stage they
are and the number of operations flown durinQ the nighttime hours. There is also infornnation
on the number of operations for each hour.
� Page 9: A breakdown of the top l� airlines, the number of niQhttime flights for each airline
durinQ the month and the sta�e of the aircraft flown is available.
� Pageyl0: A color map of the Remote Monitoring Tower locations includes the five new
RMTs.
� Page 11: The averaQe �daily and total monthly number of noise events for each RMT is given.
� Page 1?: The averaQe dBA noise levels, given in L,,,�Y and Leq for the month, are given in
graphical and tabular form at each RMT.
� Page 13: The DNL values; for the month at each Rl�IT for aircraft events, community events
and the total DNL are aiven in graphical and tabular form.
�, Page 23: A summary of the top ten events for the month is given.
Jan DelCalzo, Nlinneapolis, asked why the number of operations per day was taken out of the
Technical Advisor's Report. Mr. Leqve said that number could be derived from the total number
of operations in a month by dividinQ that number by the number of days in the month. He said
the Operations Committee tivanted to reduce the iniormation presented and one w�ay to do this is
to take out information that can be easily derived by othe; means. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical
Advisor, noted that the cnanges to the Technical Advisor's Report tivere made per the Operations
Committee': requests. i�ir. Leqve also noted that the daily number of operations per day is
available on the Internet, as well.
Corridor Report
Page 1: A new� fliQht track map has been added that shows the 3-mile corridor and the flight �
`tracks that stayed within it for the month. There is and 12L and how fa �from the enter of the
number and alritude of aircraft that departed off 12R
corridor they flew.
Pa,;e 2: A new flight track map shows the northern comdor (0908) boundary and the number of
aircraft that turned to the north before the end of the corridor. The starting point on the runway
was located so that each operarion that turned north was captured.
Page 3: A new flight track map shows the southern corridor (runway heading 120A) boundary and
the number of aircraft that flew south of the boundary.
Page 4: A new flight track map shows southern boundary that is 58 south of the southern corridor
boundary and the number of aircraft that flew south of that boundary.
Page S: This page shows the top 15 destinations from MSP, the heading to the destination and the
number and percentaje of operations during the month for that destination.
Jill Smith, Niendota Heights, asked if the table on page five could be put in destinat�on heading
order rather than frequency order. Mr. Leqve said that staff could do that.
Mr. Leqve asked the members if distributing the MASAC package via email would be preferable
for anyone. After discussion, it was decided that the MASAC package would continue to be
distributed via the mail but that those members who wished to receive it by email could do so by
informin� the secretary. ��'
A discussion reQarding possible changes to the Technical Advisor's and Corridor Reports ensued.
Chairman NSertensotto noted that the correspondence received by staff regarding the reports will
be discussed at the October 8, 1999 Operations Committee meeting.
John Nelson, Bloomington, asked if staff had responded in any way to the correspondence
reQarding the reports. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said there had been no responses given
and that the correspondence had been forwarded from the September Operations meetin� to the
October meeting due to a full a�enda.
Mr. Nelson said the most important questio nformat on needstof the membersto be included in the
reports is ���hether or not it meets the noise
Jill Smith, Mendtoa HeiQhts, asked why the daily activity report had been eliminated. Roy
Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said one of the parameters for making a decision about what
information should be included in the report was w•hethe: or not it could be easily derived from
information already provided. John Nelson, Bloomin�'ton, said if the total number of operarions
are available, the number of operations per day is calculated by dividin� the total number by the
number of days in the month. Iv1r. Nelson said, though, that the average daily number of
operations in the old report showed the same information from the previous year and that this
information miQht be helpful.
t
Chairman i�rlertensotto asked if the number of operations for the month for each runway could be
added to the runway use map.
Neil Clark I�iinneapolis, said he thought the daih� DNL levels from the 29 RMTs should be
published in the Technical Advisor's Report. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said it was
available on the internet site.
Dean Lindberg, �finneapolis, said he thought the report should be less technical and that an
outside consultant should be hired to produce a report that could be used as a comrnunications
tool for the general public.
Glenn Strand, Minneapolis, said he thought the reports should be completely overhauled by
starrinQ over from the beginning. He also said he would like to see information about trends over
time rather than just one month's information. He said long-term trends would offer members the
ability to see whether or not conditions have improved over time.
Joe Lee, I�Sinneapolis, sugQested that a trend analysis could be produced either quarterly or bi-
annually rather than on a monthly basis and asked that the Operations Committee consider this as
an option.
John Halla, St. Paul, asked if there was information on the Web site on past months. Chad Leqve,
MAC Advisor, said there are Technical Advisor's reports datinQ back beyond a year�on the site at
this point. L
JOHN 1�`ELSO�, BLOOiVITi�TGTON, i�IOVED Ai'vD JII�L Si�IITH, MENDOTA HEIGHTS,
SECO��ED TO SEND T33E TECH'�i tCIAL ADVISOR'S AND CORRIDOR REPORTS
BACK TO THE OPERATIONS CON .Ibi IITTEE FOR FURTHER REVISIONS AI�'D THAT
THE COI�I.MEi�"TS AND DISCUSSION OF TffiS MEETING BE USED IN THAT
DELIBERATION. FURTHER, THE PERCENTAGE OF OPERATIONS FOR EACH
RUi�'WAY DURIl�tG THE MONTH TO BE ADDED TO THE RUNWAY USE MAP AND
THE D�iLY OPERATIONS INFORNiATON BE ADDED BACK INTO THE
TECE�'CIAL ADVISOR'S REPORT. THE VOTE WAS UNANIlViOUS AND TT3E
11�IOTIO� C_�tR7[7:,D.
Discussion
Glenn Strand, l�finneapolis, said he thozrght the Operations Commitiee was not the appropriate
group to take this matter up since the group is already very busy with other more important
items. Chairman 11,fertensotro said the Operations Committee should have tlze chance to make
revisions.
l�ill E�i71t011, Inver Grove Heights, said he is not interested in trends on a monthly basis but is
ntore interesred in the dav to day data in the reports. He said he uses the monthlv information to
QilSlver az�estions_7rom ciry staff and council members and from the general public. lohn Nelson,
BloominQton, echoed that sentiment and said he routinely uses tlze Technical Advisor's report to
anstiver at�esrions about operations tlzat took place the previozrs montli. He also said he felt the
renort should continue to be a technical document rather than a doczcment for the general public.
�llark Salmen, :'�orthwest Airlines, stated his opposition to distin�uishing manufactured Stage 3
aircraJt operations from the remainder of Stage 3 operaiions. He said the inlor�rzation is
redurtdanr and that it can be derived fran the fleet mLr information.
Lance Staricha, Eagan, said he supported Mr. Lindberg's comments and the idea of adding a
trend analysis. He suggested that individual cities mav need to take responsibilitv for producing
their own reports based on what they deem to be important. i,
l
6. ' Se�tember 10. 1999 Ouerations Committee Renort - Mark Salmen
Mark Salmen, NWA, briefly described what had be�n presented and discussed at the Operations
Committee meeting and referred members to the minutes in the packa.ge.
The next meeting is scheduled for October 8, 1999 at 10:00 a.m. in the large construcrion trailer
at the MAC General Offices.
Jill Smith, IvSendota Heights, asked about a comment included in the minutes of the September
Operations meetina that was made regarding the number of operations that would be used for the
200� Part 1�0 contour map. She said it was unclear to her whether or not the "high forecast"
would be used or not. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said the high forecast would be used.
Retiort of the Low Freauencv Noise Policv Committee Meetina - Dick Saunders
Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, reported that there had been no meetings since the last report. The
next meetinQ of the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee is scheduled for November 1999.
Re�ort of the Communications Advisorv Board Meetings — Roy Fuhrmann
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, reported on the last two meetings of the Communications
Advisory Board. �
Mr. Furhmann noted that an informational piece has been developed for distribution to local �
newspapers and city and neighborhood newsletters regarding the Part 1�0 Study Update. He said
that the information should be distributed within the next week.
The next steps for the Communications Advisory Board will be discussed at the nest meetin? on
October 7, 1999.
9. Re�ort of the l�IAC Commission MeetinQ
Chairman IVSertensotto reported on the September 22, 1999 MAC Commission meeting and made
the following points:
� The I�Setropolitan Council asked the MAC to take a position on funding part of the LiQht Rail
Transit (LRT) project that will connect throuQh the airport. MAC endorsed spending �70
million for the project if the FAA allows the e:cpenditure with the caveat that there would be
no cost to passenaers �aveling between the Humphrey and Lindberah terminals.
�, leff Hamiel, EYecutive Director, briefed the Cflmmissioners .on.pendinQ airport competition
initiariz°es. Commissioners were told that two low-cost airlines are si�nificantly interested in
beQinninQ service at MSP in the near future. Ivlr. Hamiel also eYplained ho�v gates are
assigned currently and how they will be assi�ned in the future. Chairman i�iertensotto said
I�ir. Hamiel also discussed the financial concerns associated with assi�ning aates and makina
sure thev are beina used as fully as possible.
10. Technical Advisor's Re�ort
Due to the late hour, a formal report was not provided but members were allowed to ask
questions.
Will Eeinton. Inver Grove Heights, asked how the "nature of complaint" is determined. Shane
VanderVoort said it is determined by what the caller indicates. 1�Sr. Eginton said he has called
several times and complained about the frequency of the overflights but that the data from August
did not reflect that. He asked staff to be sure these cateaories were beinQ accuratelv recorded.
Ivlanny Camilon, St. Louis Park, asked why there we:e as many flights between 10:30 p.m. and
6:00 a.m. as there were. Jennifer Sayre, Northwest Airlines, said the numbers reflect actual
flights and not scheduled fliQhts. She said a number of factors affect whether a scheduled fli�ht
�ets bumped past 10:30, such as weather related delays. She said the runway reconstruction
during the summer affected an increase in the number of ni�httime operations.
11. Persons Wishin� to Address the Council
There we: e no persons wishing to address the council.
12. Items Not on the Asenda
There were no additional items.
13. Adiournment
Chairman i�Sertensotto adjourned the meetinQ at 10:00 p.m.
(, ��)
Respectfully submitted.
Melissa Scovronski, MASAC Secretary
i
�
C.
a {^_r'"'"""'^,"
,�
� � ��
_.
..� ,
,__
::
:.
rr
� ,.
� i :<�
i:.
� � ��.:
��� �,�,�r_,
;��� � ,,.,.;,;:
< rsr:'?'
�,,i , � _ .�i
�
��� z .
r '
~ �:' 1 t'*�4 .
K . j
Y-
��i tf�..��.t
.7`d. 4, 'u x , , ,+.
h� V 4�r� �
� �` � { �� 9J-
�' >t�t4.�.�i^ � ..
�y"�� �, � � � ���
' ,� __rt 1 Q� ��� � _�� J�'
�' ti.. ' n � � �"
`� � CY ��� �
� - r'
����_ �`' ,.�'` � �•
P�
Hc��{=�s �
"T'
�
�•J
� HCiGSi
q�, '�" ��G
,� J
� � ��
r
q' � K•
� O
N
C� _j !
y tZ,
1. Q,
� i
�',4�� .t., p,�:
6.`FTSU
C
�._
C
J �
II
L
��
��
. V
W
cii
a�
�
�
01
� p
� �
O O
T �� O\ O O � � o � O O
y� CD C� CO � N T" r
�= CO I`�- CD ���' M Cti7 I`
� �
� '�
T U
� �
� �Li O O O O O O O O O
� � � � � � � � �
`�'� O O O O O O O O O
��p � � T" � � 'r" � � � �i
yJ � �.i�� � � � r � � � �
00 i CO QO � 0� t�- GO d'� � 00
G� �
Q� a
r
�
G� �
� fC{ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.a.r \ \ \ o , \ \ \ \ \
+�+ � p 1�- CD r N C� T- CD UU�
� V f�- CO CO 'd' CO � t�- 00 CA
t�- sr I'` t�- t�- t`- t.C) CTJ CO t` (�-
� �
� �
r
� �
� O
� �
ir
C d' QO C� r' '�' O�„{�.
t!� . � � r- � d'
� � � � � r�- r P�-
� �
T- �
�
.
.• .
• ' • �r � � � �
�r •
� • r .
• � �� �
.
.� �
•
•
�
• ` •
s ' _ .
� � •
..., �� . � •• • •
• '.
�� �;� ..� '.
. ...... . - :
� r
...
"'
�= =��''+�� =x: y ���.� �";.�; �� �
E-F+� >''�'; � Li�. a°� iT
E ` .4.1
• ' i
� ,�
. �� � �. � ;
• ,,,�'�..� . .�' �
,� � `� ;� w -� G� ,; �
.!��I . ,.
W -:
Q:
�1=�.
C,
C_
��
�
�
�
�
. r—,
��}�
V
�
0
�
O
4—;
4�
O
�
4�
b.Q
�
;—�
�
U
N
�
�
�
�
�
�
T��
• ��
` V
�
�
�
�
�
� N�'-s�
Q"° .�" '�'c
,� // J
? � y'�
r
4 � .j. ,
y O
N �
J �
c �' �, �
o Z,
�y \�P
�
�t� t.•r-rSU4�
�
�
�
�
::`�
C
I i � •: ' :: `'' `'� •
•': ' - • �
MINUTES
i '�
MASAC OPERATIO�IS C0IYIlYIITTEE
October 8,1999
The meetinQ was held at the Metropolitan Airports Commission MASAC Larae Conference Trailer and
called to order at 10:00 a.m.
The followinQ members were in attendance:
Nlembers•
Mark Salmen, Chairman
Dick Saunders
Bob Johnson
John Nelson
Kevin Batcheider
Bob Kirmis
Dick Keinz
Advisorv•
Roy Fuhrmann
Chad Leqve
Shane VanderVoort
Mark Kill
Cindv Green
Jason Giesen
Visitors•
Mark Hinds
Jan DelCalzo
Neil Clark
Larrv Lee
Will EQinton
Glenn Strand
NWA
Minneapolis
NLBAA
BloominQton
Mendota HeiQhts
Eaaan v
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
FAA
MAC
Richfield
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Bloomin�ton
Inver Grove HeiQhts
Minneapolis y
AGENDA
Part 150 Runtivav 17/3S Noise Abatement Departure Procedures (ses information packet "Noise
Abatement Options for Runway 17/3�)
Kim Hughes, �-�1TB, introduced the meetinQ's aaenda.
1
Assumptions Used in Dual Track EIS �
• Runway 17/3� is a primary departure runway to the south.
• Approximately 37% of all deparcures at MSP will use this runway to the south.
• Approximately 17% of all amvals will use this runway from the south.
• Deparnu-es to the north were modeled for less than 0.05% of annual operations.
• Runwav 17/3� will not be used to or from the north as per an aoreement with the City of
Minneapolis. ATC will only use this runway to or from the north due to an overridinQ safery 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.
• Percentase use of tracks was determined from destination and airfield capacity requirements.
Runway 17 Track Development
Course Divergence
• Successive aircraft departing from the same runway must be separated to ensure flight safety. Fliaht
safety is ATC's main concern.
o Course diverQence of 15° decreases the time between successive departures, thus increasina runway
capacity while maintaining safe separation.
• There must be a minimum separation of one mile and the aircrafr must be airborne between
successive departures with course diver�ence of 15° or more. When aircraft travel divergent courses,
the separation between them quickly increases, even if aircraft speeds vary.
• Course diversence can only be used in a radar environment. Radar �helps ensure that minimum
separations are maintained.
• Without radar, course diversence cannot be used and a minimum of three miles is needed between �,
successive departures. This dramatically reduces runway capaciry.
• Usina course divergence at MSP, ATC will clear an aircraft for departure when the preceding aircra$
is at least 6,000 feet down the runway, has taken off and the landing gear is retracted.
ivis. Huahes then displayed a dia�?ram of runway 17/35's EIS determined flight tracks. The followinQ
headinas are included in the diaQram alonQ with the EIS determined percentaae of departures for each
track usina that runway, both commercial and general aviation:
• 100°
• 165°
• 17J°
• 190°
. ?05°
• 2�0°
. ?9p°
�1s. Huahes cautioned, however, that there would be dispersion along and between the tracks shown on
the dia�?ram.
RunwaV 17NADP
2
�
Close-in versus Distant N.4DP Revieit•
Close-in procedures were developed to reduce aircraft departure noise in areas close to the airpon.
Distant procedures were developed to reduce aircraft deparn.ire noise in areas further awav from the
airport.
Currently, the close-in depanure procedure is used off runways 30L and 30R, while the distant
departure procedure is used off the remainina runways.
Close-in NADP
Ivis. HuQhes brieflv e:cplained the general procedures followed by the pilot when performinQ a close-in
departure procedure. I�1s. HuQhes 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 l 0,000 feet is 250
knots.
In a close-in departure procedure an aircraft reduces thrust sooner and maintains takeoff flaps lon�er
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 reachina 3000 feet, however, the aircrafr must
substantially reduce its rate of climb and accelerate to a su�cient 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 performina a distant departure procedure.
Distant NADP
1�1s. Huahes briefly explained the Qeneral procedures followed by the pilot when performinQ a distant
departure procedure. The distant procedure is standard at most airports in the counrry. Durina this
procedure the aircraft accelerates quickly and uses this airspeed to oain altitude. y
Takeoff Pro�les
� � Ms. HuQhes then displayed several takeoff profiles for both hushl:itted and manufactured Sta�e 3 aircraft
with g-raphs 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 Integrated Noise Model
(INI�1). The "Distant RT NADP" is a distant procedure using reduced thrust and is more typical of the
procedures flown at I�iSP.
Ms. Huahes noted that, compared to a hushkitted DC9, the noise level associated with an A320 is
dramatically lower. In other �vords, with the newer generation aircraft the noise levels associated with
each departure profile becomes less perceptible than hushkitted aircraft noise levels.
Single Event Level (SE�) Contoz�rs
N1s. Hushes then displayed SEL contours for each fliQht track off runway i? at an 80 dBA izvel. An 80
dBA sound level is similar to the sound a motorcycle makes. The SEL noise metric is equal to the sound
exposure of a sinale noise event compressed into one second. SEL �vas chosen for this analysis because
it considers the duration of the sound event.
I�1s. Hughes noted that a departure profile for runway
produce both the 200� unmitiQated contour and the
followinQ information has be�n provided for that purpose
3
17i3� would need to be determined in order to
200� mitisated contour. The preceding and
Close-in and distant departure profile contours are depicted for both a DC9 hushed and an A320
aircrafr at the 80 dBA sound level.
For each fliaht 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, Mendota Heights, asked why an SEL contour was used rather than a DNL. Ms.
Hushes said the SEL contours help to determine NADP impacts, but that a DNL contour will be
considered with the recommendations.
Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, notinQ 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 StaQe 3 aircraft contours, that information would be helpful. Ms.
HuQhes said that information was being gathered and would be available at the next MASAC Operations
Committee meeting in early November. She said the fleet would be distributed alon� each track
accordin�ly.
John Nelson, Bloominaton, noted that at a short distance from the end of the runway a densely populated
area of Bloomington is included in almost every one of the fliQht track contours. And, areas closer to the
end of the runway eYperience higher noise levels for a lonaer period of time than areas farther away from
the airport.
Ms. Hu�hes noted that for the arrival track (straiaht in) contour, the A320 is actually louder than the DC9
hushkitted aircraft. She said newer generation aircraf[ are louder on arrival than the older generation
aircraft because thrust Ievels are hi?her on arrival and thus louder.
Ms. Hughes then introduced a possible "river track" that could be used durin� times of low traffic levels
to avoid residential areas. The river track, then, could be used as a nighttime procedure. The
approximate headinQ for the river track is 245°. Accordina to the population data, the river track affects
fewer people than the 250° track. Ms. Huahes 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.
Population Coi�nts
Ms. Hughes also displayed information on the gross population counts included for each contour. The
population data �vas 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
demoQraphic information dated Apri] 1998.
The population analvsis indicated that for the two most prominent aircraft at MSP (DC9 hushed and
A320) the distant ItiT:�DP effects the least amount of people and that new technology aircrafr show less
difference benveen the NADPs.
I�Is. HuQhes then displayed the population data for each fliQht track's 80 SEL contour for both the DC9
and the A3?0. She noted aQain the difference in population affected by the 250° track versus the "river
track."
0
i
�.
C
C
John Nelson, Bloomington, asked if the population counts could be provided to the members. Ms.
( � Huahes said the information could be provided.
Nighttime Options
Ms. Hughes outlined some of the possible options for niahttime operations off runway 17, includin�:
• Consider a preferred niQhttime departure track includina a possible river track.
• Consider limitations on the use of hushkitted aircraft with either the implementation of a preferred
runwav or. a curfew.
• Consider limited track dispersion (fewer tracks being used).
• Consider a limitation on the use of thrust reversers for amvina aircrafr.
Ms. HuQhes noted that these are only possibilities and that the communities would be asked to make
recommendations on what niQhttime options should be included in the final document.
Rumvav 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 NAUP will be based on a
mixture of full and reduced thrust takeoffs, which could change the shapes of the contours. �
Larry Lee, BloominQton, 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 with a specific headina in order to maintain positive aircraft separation. With a
navisational or cockpit procedure, such as the river departure, there is no positive ATC instruction to
keep aircraft away from each other.
Glenn Strand, Minneapolis, 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 di -i"�terences
are relatively small, there is a difference and that the FAA still requires airports to desi�nate a departure
procedure for each runway. She said the airport and the comrnunities cannot simply ignore making a
decision because the differences seem small.
Chairman Salmen said that over the past several years MASAC has had to work with small, incremental
improvements in the noise environment because the more si�nificant improvements had already been
accomplished in the early years. He said this is one of those incremental improvernents that can be made.
John Nelson, Bloominaton, asked staff what type of decision was needed from the committze at this
meetina. Roti• Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said staff needed to know «hich departure procedure
should be used for the aeneration of the 200� unmitigated contour, �vhich ��ould be presented at the next
meeting. He said since runway 17/3� was not operational at this point, an assumption needs to be made
reQarding the specific departure procedure for inclusion in the contour model. He said the final
recommendation may be dif`�terent than the procedure decided upon for the unmitigated contour. �
As a point of clarincation, Kim Huahes, HNTB, noted that the unmitigated contour is the starting point at
which the committee can beQin to make recommendations for the Part 1�0 update to improve the
environment. The 200� 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.
I�1s. HuQhes also pointed out that regardless of the procedure used for the unmitigated contour, a
comparison will need to be made between the two procedures usin� a DNL contour analysis.
A discussion then ensued regarding the benefits and differences between each NADP.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, encouraged the committee to consider treating those with the worst
noise impacts first.
JOHN NELSON, BLOONIINGTON, MOVED AND DICK KEINZ, MAC, SECONDED TO
DIRECT STAFF AND CONSULTANTS TO USE THE DISTANT NOISE ABATEi�iENT
DEPARTURE PROCEDURE (NADP) AS THE DEFAULT PROCEDURE FOR DEPA32TURES
OFF RUNWAY 17 `'�HEN GENERATING THE 2005 UNMITIGATED CONTOUR, WITH THE
UNDERST.ANDING THAT THE MOTION DOES NOT RESPRESENT AN ENDORSENTENT
OF THAT PROCEDURE AS A FINAL DECISION. THE VOTE WAS UNANINIOUS:
NIOTION CARRIED. �
John Nelson, Bloominaton, referrinQ to the 290° track, said he supported the elimination of that track if
feasible. Kim Huahes, HNTB, asked if he would consider a reduction in the percentage of use for that �,�_
track rather than a complete elirnination.
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 percentaae use were changed, regardless
of whether or not it afFected runway capaciry, 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 envirorunental 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 navisational capabilities, a 10° divergence may even be considered.
JOHN NELSON, BLOOMINGTON, N10VED AND BOB JOHNSON, NIBAA, SECONDED
TH.AT EACH OF THE i�iITIGATION ELEMENTS PROPOSED IN THE PRESENTATION BE
Ii�JCLUDED FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION AND THAT NONE �'VILL BE ELIibIINATED.
AND THAT THIS i�10TI01*t DOE� NOT �EPRESENT APt ENDOI2SE�IEI�iT OF ANY OR ALL
OF THE PROPOSED ELE�IENTS. THE VOTE �VAS UNANIl�iOUS. NIOTION CARRIED.
Kim HuQhes, Hi�'TB, said the next �IASAC Operations meetinQ would entail taking a closer look at all
of the operational and land use mitiQation options, includina those presented at this me�ting. The
0
decisions made at this ne.ct meetina will be presented to the public at the November/December
workshops. She encouraaed members to come to the meeting prepared to discuss various options for
' ' mitiaation based on input from their constituenu.
Cindy Greene, FAA, asked Ms. Hughes how possible environmental studies might effect the timinQ of
the Part 1�0 Study Update submittal. Ivls. HuQhes said she felt that if environmental work were
necessary it wouldn't sionificantly chanae the contour and that the core portion of the contour could
continue beina mitiaated while the environmental work is bein� accomplished. She said it will need to
be made clear to� the public in February which mitigation measures beinQ submitted require
environmentaI assessments before they can be implemented.
There was a discussion reQardin� the lenQth and breadth of the next Operations Committee meetina and it
was decided that the meeting should beQin at 9:00 a.m., that lunch would be provided and that the
committee members «ould determine the length of the meeting.
Future Teclrnolo�,t:
Ms. Huahes noted some possible recommendations that could be considered in the use of future
technolo�y, for instance:
• Developing a GPS au�nented departure procedure.
o Developing a GPS au�nented arrival procedure.
• Staae � noise specifications.
Environmental Considerations
FAA Order 1050.1D states that:
I j
'- New or revised ATC procedures which routinelv route air traffic over noise sensitive areas at less than
3, 000 feet AGL are subject to EA or EIS documentation.
Controversv over a proposed action mav reqzrire development of an environmental document.
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
revisin� track use �ti�ill likely require environmental documentation and Part 150 recommendations could
include completion of environmental documentation to revise the track use or track location for the
current ?90°s headina from runway 17/3�.
Communications and Technical Advisor's Report Revisions
Since the majorin• of the communications received were in re�?ards to the Technical Advisor's Report
revisions, thev «�erz discussed in tandem.
Neii Clark, I�tinneapolis. �z'as asked to explain his Relative Residential Noise (RRN) and the Daily Ldn
metric.
tifr. Clark noted tha� �1AS�C 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 1�1.AS:�C know
7
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 bearina 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 countin� residences. He recommended that the RRN metric be
added to the monthly reports.
A discussion of Mr. Clark's RRN and Daily Ldn metrics followed.
Will EQinton, Inver Grove Heights, said he rejected the RRN 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, Minneapolis, said if the RRN metric were to be adopted it should include the city of St.
Paul and any other cities that may be brouQht into the noise contours in the future. He also asked how
often the information would be published since he felt the results wouldn't change considerably from one
month to the neYt.
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said since the RRN metric is hiQhly dependent on population counts
and that population counts do not change si�ificantly over time, there wouldn't be much chanae in the
results.
Bob Johnson, MBA.A, said he was concemed with the proliferation of information already being
provided and on that basis could not support havina RRN added to the monthly reports.
John Nelson, Bloomington, asked Mr. Clark to give a more in depth e:cplanation of how 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 methodoloQy 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 len�h of time that is being analyzed.
N1r. Clark said his metric is linear and not logarithmic.
Mr. Nelson also noted that the RRN metric illustrates what is already known (i.e. that Minneapolis'
population is the most dense and Mendota Heights' population is least dense).
Will Eainton, Inver Grove Hei�hts, 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
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, Ivlinneapolis, reiterated his concern over becominQ too concerned with details and missing
the larger picture.
Rov Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, presented staffs recommendations for continuinQ on with the
revisions to the Technical Advisor's Repons (TAR). (See attachment)
Ivir. Fuhrmann noted the followinQ reaardina the purpose and backoround of the TAR revisions:
:
:� There �vas a request fram MASAC to reduce the amount of unnecessarv information provided in the
� reports.
.�' Review of the TAR was added to MASAC's 1999 work schedule.
�' The MASAC Operations Committee reviewed the TAR durins its May, July and AuQust 1999
meetings.
� The MASAC Operations Committee approved the chanQes and sent it to the full MASAC body for
comment.
� The full MASAC 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.
He also noted that the MAC publishes information that may be useful to MASAC members includin� a
yearly operations report.
Mr. Fuhrmann then noted and iecommended the following:
.� The TAR is a result of eisht years of community informational requests. .
� Many communities depend on the historical trackina of data for local reports and trends.
.� No historically si�nificant data should be removed from the report without the approvat of the
MASAC Operations Committee.
.� New requests for data must be approved by the Operations Committee. .
� 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 MAC staff and graphic display experts.
� The next eiQht months are critical for the Part 1 �0 Study Update process and MASAC's efforts
should focus on these pressina issues.
.� The reporting format for the TAR can continue with all old TAR data and the newly included
information until a time at which the Operations Committee is able to take it up once aaain.
BOB JOHNSON, i�IBAA., MOVED TO ADOPT, IN WHOLE, THE TEC�INICAL ADVISOR'S
PRESENTATION AND RECONIMENDATIONS AND THAT NO MORE CHANGES SHOULD
BE lY1ADE TO THE TECHNICAL ADVISOR'S REPORT UNTIL THE PART 150 PROCESS IS
COi�TPLETED. THER.E WAS NO SECOND. THE NIOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A
SECOND.
Glenn Strand, Minneapolis, confirmed with Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, that technical questions
could still be asked of sta�on an individual basis throuah the Monitorina and Information Request Form.
John Nelson, Bioomin�on, said he would like to discuss a work plan for 2000 before aareeina to take the
matter up once the Part 1�0 process is complete. He said that althouah the Part 1�0 process is important,
he feels the Operations Committee needs to establish a wori: plan for 2000 soon. He suQQested that two
issues be included in the �vork plan, includin� how to improve or modify the Technical Advisor's Report
and how to auament the information with summary trend repons. He also reiterated his fe�lings about
keepinQ the Technical Advisor's Repor[ at the same technical level or hisher rather than for Qeneral
0
public consumption.
JOHN NELSON, BLOOMINGTON, MOVED AND DICK SAUNDERS, MINNEAPOLIS, (,
SECONDED TO ACCEPT THE TECHNICAL ADVISOR'S REPORT AS IT IS, THAT A
REVIEW OF TI3E TECHI�IICAL ADVISOR'S REPORT BE INCLUDED AS PART OF
MASAC'S WORK PLAN FOR 2000 ONCE THE PART 150 PROCESS IS COMPLETED AND
THAT MASAC COMiVIIT ITSELF TO ADDRESS A PRtOCESS FOR PUBLISHING TREi�tD
ANALYSES ON A QUARTERLY OR ANNUAL BASIS. THE VOTE WAS UNANII�IOUS.
MOTION CARRIED.
bick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked about the timeframe for decidinj upon a work plan for 2000. Roy
Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, noted that the Operations Committee was oriQinally 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
meetin� with a written list of recommendations for possible inciusion into the 2000 work plan and
indicated that those recommendations would be taken up at .the December meetin�. He said he would
like to have at least the first quarter of 2000 accounted for by then and thouQht at least the first half of the
year would be taken up with the Part 1�0 process.
John Nelson, Bloomin�ton, said he would like to have the work plan in place by the January 2000
MASAC meetinQ. As part of the Part 150 process, an additional meetin� was set for January 21, 2000
alonQ with the November 12, December 10 and January 7 meetings.
The meetinQ was adjourned at 1:00 p.m. The next MASAC Operations Committee meetina wiii 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 meetinQ will adjourn at the members'discretion. \.,
Respectfully Submitted,
Melissa Scovronski, Committee Secretary
�
MASAC OPEI.A�'IONS C0�1�IM.ITTEE
i�0 e
FROM:
SUB JE CT:
DATE:
MASAC Operations Committee
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor
Part 150 Runway 17/35 Noise Abatement Departure Procedures
September 30, 1999
NIASAC
__ As part of the continuin� effons to receive community and airline representative input concerninQ the Part
150 process, the Iti1ASAC Operations Committee will be briefed on Noise Abatement Departure Options
for Runway 17/35. A brief discussion of the assumptions use,�I in the Dual Track Plannina Process EIS will
be provided as a base line for considerin� options for fliQht track usage and noise abatement procedures.
The outcome of this discussion will heip to refine the alternatives that will be considered as part of the
future recommendations in the Part 150 Noise Compatibility Pro�am (NCP). The followin� outIine
identifles the topics and associated issues to be presenterl:
No�ic�Abatement Dgpanure Procedures (NA.DPs)for RunwaY 77
l. Distant Procedure
2. Close-In Procedure
Tra�k Defznition and Ilca�g
1. 1� degree diverQence requirements
2. Capacity requirements
3. Track usaQe
4. Environmental requirements
Preferred ni;ht time track use
l. Reduction of track dispersion for departures
2. Departure Procedure for river route
3. Arrival proc-rdures
4. lise of GPS auamente� procedures will be considered to renne depanure procedures and to
�Centially define curved arrivai procedures.
If you have anv questions or comments please contact me at 72�-63?6.
1��IASAC QPEI,AT�ONS C011�IMITTEE
•�� �
T�: MASAC Operations Committee
FROM: Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor
SUBJECT: MASAC Communications
DATE: September 30, 1999
MASAC
At the September Z8, 1999 MASAC meetina, the members requested that the Technical Advisors Report
(TAR) revision process, as well as associated member comment letters, be returned to the MASAC
Operations Committ� for further review. -
By way of back�round, the impetus for revisin� the TAR came from a request from one of the MASAC
members durina a MASAC meeting last fall, who indicated that the TAR provided an overburdening
amount of information which creates confusion. As an immediate response, MAC staff be�an providinQ an
executive summary to the TAR with the nexi regort. Additionally, the MASAC Operations Committer
began a len�thy process of reviewing many aspects of the TAR as well as information dissemination
options. The committer sgecifically reviewed the Information Dissemination Options at the May 1999
meeting and the TAR and Corridor report reviews were discusseri at the July and August 1999 m�rincs.
After siQnificant review and comments from this body at the above mentioned meetings, the Operations
Committe� forwarded the revised TAR to the MASAC full body as a draft proposal. This topic and draft is
now, once again, bein� referred to this body for comment and review.
�th respect to the correspondence that has been submitted, I would like to offer the followin� comments
concernin� the sug�estions from the various letters.
Letter from Mr. Lance Staricha, Eagan MASAC Representative
l. Thank you for the opening compliments cancerning the overall revisions.
2. The commenu concerning objective evaluation versus subjective evaluation of the chanQes
from month to month is an excellent idea. If the �roup believes an executive summary is
necessary in the future, we will incorporate these suagestions.
3. Anv time summarizations about percentaQes are attempte�, there is a gossioility for
misunderstandings. I agree that we must establish a standard me[hod for describina
ge;centa�e chanaes that are clear and concise. ✓
I.etter from Mr. Neil Clark, Minneapolis
l. The dailv DNL levels are available on the Internet at the www.macavsat.or� home pa�e.
Then aorto "Aviation Noise and Satellite Pro�ams", "MASAC", "August 1999 DNL
Levels".
2. The report is liste.�i as draft because the full body of MAS�C has not approved the revised
chanQes.
3. The old report will not be sent in addition to the revised technical advisor report.
4. 'The communications ourseach pro�am is part of the Communications Advisory Board's
major tasks for the upcomin� year. Althou�h they will be reviewinc many items, the TAR
revision is not a part of their workscope.
5. The full body of MASAC, with recommendations from the MASAC Operations
Committer, will determine when the TAR is satisfactory.
6. Over the years, MASAC members have requested different information to answer specific
questions they have about the noise environment at MSP. The ten loudest noise events at
each RMT pages were a direct result of a request for this type of informatian.
7. Many different options are available for displayin� the data in the TAR. Ofrentimes a line
graph or a baz gsaph are equally informational. Either will work.
8. Definitions for Aircraft, Community and Total DNL can be added, however, this document
was ori�inally intended for MASAC members with. a fairly significant levei of
understanding of these items.
9. The Relative Residential Noise metric appears to be highly correlated with residential �
population within the Ldn contour. Although any metric may be used by MASAC if it
helps to clarify noise impacts, the RRN metric may not change significantly each month
due to its reliance on population within the contour and therefore may not adequately
represent the noise level distress within each community.
Leiter form Mr. Dean Lindberg, Minneapolis MASAC Representative.
1. Currently, the ability to hire a graphic desi�ner or comrnercial artist are not within the
department's bud?et.
2. Comments concernin� the cover are well receiveci.
3. The su��estions for a Ldn, reiative level decibel chart and annoyance level chart will be
forwarded to the Operations Committe�.
4. The location of a specific informational item within the TAR is a preference. Staff will
reorsanize the Tf1R to meet the collective preierence if so desired
5. It isVassume:i. Lhat ALL MASAC me��bers are familiar with the -nomenclature of MSP
runwavs.
6. Pase 1- The inclusion of the number of complainants is intende� to provide members with
information regardina repetitive comolaints. Tne total number of calle:s is ofren�imes
more useful information than the total number of complaints.It also provides another level
of evaluation for MASAC members.
Paae 4-The TAR is desianed to provide objeccive information without biasin� the reader. r-
Ti�e:eiore, no additional commencs are included. �.
8. Paae �- It may be impossible to footnote all aspects of the report information. AQain, the
TAR was desiQned to be read by an educated MASAC member that is familiar with the
report format, layou[ and information beinQ provided.
9. Pa�e 6- The OriQination and Destination information can be moved anywhere within the
TAR that makes more sense, or removed in its endrety if so desired by the committ�.
10. Paae 11 - Staff is ogen for sug�estions.
1 l. Page 12 - The definiuons for these metrics are relatively simple. A design chanae could be
incorgorated. �
12. Pa�e 13 - A�ain, the average MASAC member should be familiar with the threr DNL
definitions.
13. Paae 14 - Staff can include the Monthly DNL levels at each RMT if the committe� so
desires.
Concerning the comments with respect to the Old Technical Advisors Report, the majority of Mr.
Lindberg's comments support maintainin� information previously supplied in the old TAR within the new
TAR document. The ori� nal intent by most MASAC members was to REDUCE the amount of
information contained within the TA.R and only include the data that members find useful.
The comments from Mr. Staricha, Mr. Clark and Mr. Lindberg are helpful to staff, however, the full body
of MASAC and the MASAC Operations Committee membe:s must determine whether the TAR revision is
to accomplish data distribution reduction, inclusion of additional information and is the intent to provide
100% satisfaction for ALL MASAC members.
At the October 8, 1999 Operations Committee merting, staff will present this information as well as an
overview of a potential solution to the TAR revision task.
�)
C
"'a
I °�s�.
�
t
s
�
�
•
t
•
•
�
�
:..� e �U{`N��SS'
.• `''�
`�r-� �J
�5 �/+
Y
J "'� pC
� Q
` � � a
�
`ryy c
'!`
.,�MfrRo o``��
5�
:v
.�•
�SFwy.. M1��.
,'v';' "ie,'
�'
•�'r
•�;
.`
�.:
:�.:
:.�
.,
ir.,.
. -. �
ii
�
�
•
.
�
•
•
t
•
•
�
�
t
•
�
•
•
�
�
�
(,
�
;
�.:
;�
0
�
�
�
•
•
�
�
�
�
•
4 �u� Norss
.� "f" �`s'%y
�' o
,,,�'-� �J
M Y
� "� OG
� O
C..
L � � �
"'y r,
y/�'yET1t OpO��s�'e-
C
�
��:
s�
�
0
�
O
�
CCi
�
�
C�
Q�
�
�
�
�
!
. �
r
a
t
t �
•
�
.� Q �'��NO�ss.
��' `yfr-
` �Y� J
� ��
... �
O p
o- � � �
L / , q
'yy �'( !
/� fTROPp����e-
�
�
',.
:t
�
�
•.
t
�
t
s
0
t
�
•
�
f
�
�
t
•
�
•
t
!
�
`2'� e ru�NolSs�`Yh.
�,� o
h
N � ��
_ �
J �
� C
C.
L '�"� "E'i `c
y T
�L •
�h, �F T R � � L��t,,:
:�
�
''�
�
C
C�
�
t
•
i
�
4�
�
�
�
0
U
0
�
��
.�
� Q �'��"OjSfi
•�' `��r-
=e-"E" �J
H N
r
� C
G �� � �
.+,y '�` �
ti �
�sy�f1'RO 0`\,�.,c
8000
7000
6000
�, 5000
.�
� 4000
Q 3000
2000
1000
0
0
150
140
m 130
a
� 120
a�
�
� 110
�
0
� 100
c
a�
W 90
a�
�' 80
�n
70
60
0
8727 Hushkit Takeoff Profiles
-3-
4
. . ; ; : � �--i
: ; . : �,.,-;
,
. ._ _,
, : .�
..�"" . _�
y. � .
� ._ _ . '
Close In NADP
• ---Distant NADP
' Distant RT NADP �
�
g g 10 12 14 16
Distance (statue miles) .
872? Hushkit 5ingle Event Noise
2 4 6 g 10 12 14 16
Distance (statue miles)
Note: NoRhwest Airlines Stage Length 2 Operations Only
��
r
C
8000
7000
6000
�, 5000
. a�
� 4000
�
�
¢ 3000
. 2000
1Q00
0 -r
0
150
140
m 130
�
� 120
a�
�
� 110
�
0
� 100
c
a�
W 90
a�
c 80
cn
70
60
0
DC9 Hus�cit Takeoffi Profiles
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Distance (statue miles)
DC9 Hushkit Singie Event Noise
r �
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Distance (statue miles)
Note: Northwest Airiines Stage Length 2 Operations Oniy HNTB
u
10000
9000
8000
7000
m 6000
. a,
' � 5000
4000
: Q
3000
2000
1000
0
0
150
740
m 130
a
� 120
m
�
� 110
�
0
� 100
c
a�
w 90
m
�
� 80
in
70
60
0
2
A320 Takeflff Profiies
, , : : ; I
� . � _�� �� .
, ' : . �.-
..: .
� " .
• Ciose in NADP
. � �---Distant NADP �
Distant RT NADP � -
g g 10 12 14 16
Distance {statue miles} :
A320 Singie Event Noise
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Distance (statue miles)
Note: NoRhwest Airlines Stage �ength 2.Operations Only
�Y:]
y . "
C
C�
C
�
10000
9000
8000
7000
� 6000
� 5000
�
Q 4000
3000
2000
1000
Q
0
150
140
m 130
�
> 120
a�
�
a �1Q
�
0
� 100
`c
a�
w 90
a�
c 80
�n
70
60
0
8757 Takeoff Profiiles
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Distance (statue miies} .
B757 Single Eveni Noise
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Distance (statue miles)
Note: Northwest Airiines Stage Length 2 Operations Oniy HNTB
- i
;
� �•
�
�
•
•
i
t
�
t
•
t
�
�
E
�� Q �,u�No�ss��
� ``c
,,�t' ��_; /� J
y � \ �N
� r
J �
� O
1 � � �
L �
"'y �
y/�'�f TROpO����'c
; ,.
-.�.�:.'.F;:-.
�-:�� .��.,
.�
i;
�: ..
+c: �
:,`�
f
�
�
.
t
•
•
.
•
�
�
�
a
�
�
CC3
Cn
�
�
�
y=-
Q}
�
�
Ci�
�
4�
O
0
'
t
t
•
�
1
�
•
�
�
Q�
�
.�
�
CU
U
U
�
�
�
• �
RUNWAY 17-35 FLIGHT TRACKS -
... __. _ . � --
.:z�� :: �::.: _ ��-:-:.-�_- -_.:. - . �.:.._ _.� _..__ -- .. � -:�-=------- . _.._ =.-,. -. .l �= (.
_ _ �':.,.�-::-�:. - _- --_:_::- __.. _ _ -- -:;:----�_. ��_ �. -- �...- � .; � �
r f . . . ._ -•- - �T . . ... . . .,.._. - -- = � . : --_ _ . � !�•'�
-- :,��,i ^ , �.-� _f :.r = _ '- -- .. . _.._.._ --- �;': '. _ � . . . � . . . '"_ . .. ._ . - � J:' / ti\
.... . ��:�� - ..
t_. _ . ! ..._~_ � . . . . . _i _ . . __. __ �. . . �.. ;-- --- , :`'` .
_ �_ • -._. , ' ,`J' '— _ �. _ ' ' .� ' , • . , ._. . . _-����--,� _��. ..._. . . )
� .. _ � . '� � `�.;. - ' = - ' - -• -i
y� t_.__' ... ._._ i ' _ '- _;�: — `` _ • . - ..._.. � -- -
�:: ; ; :-r:-��;�;;.; :' — �Y�, ��' ";I � : . _ --
��.� r r�_: ;� � --' _: = � � . .� �:` _ " � -- — . ' _ . _ : -
�. . ": !-. �. .�� _. . . , ',�. ,--�: �-_ ; -- r . , _
f 1 ' �� ;' __�i; r.� : ;-... i l,l'i : : l.i._. �- � ::..�..�' .,_; � t : - ' � . _ -_ _ - -
, u-u' ��5�� �' i � � _- �..,r,,� - - �- • • - /
-^ t�� r f•+ ���� - ' ~' _�_.,�: .. . .. ._..,.�..r-: � '._ �� ... ;,' ! /..
, .�i �.t_ —. . .___... . . . . . 1 , � � ��` _r • I . �!I
- -`:;,:.--� ` ---. . . ._. .�. � : .
' i % ' �' .. — ._ _.._. . t -- • , .
� ;,,..�.; �;� ..,,:.• ; .._. . � �
: ; ,, � : , f�: ;,;,:.t: �' . . , .. _.._ :;: �; _ - 1 __
i �i ; ' R(�_ _ ur �• . : � � _ � -
-1-�-' �,,t; _� _ ;:L;.y' , :j . _ i _
� • ._.!`"�. . . . . . � . •f . � ;-{ ti • . _.
1 _ • '^J ._ . . . . . . _. . . —_. y ' . .__. . � � t - •--- ` r'\_ �.':
.,i. �:_ ;}; ...._... �.'' ---. •:; " . _ _ .�-�.�-.
—,i'�;• � ��i•- • •. _�'�; _ I. - ••i--- '- �
'"�7��_, ;. —: ' . - --" • _,_ .I - �- • •_- ' e _ •,-
-- _- "�� -._ - ._. �__. . . . �: , --- . � - _ . r .
�� : - . T_ �: � - . . . _
; _ �---. �--� : : :�-._... . � � _-� ._ .- : :,, . _. �_ . �_. ; . _ : f� .
_ .��,, : ��� --- . � ---� :. .._._._ .. . .__ � .. . � .: . _ .. . � __- __ ,
�����_ _...._..._ _:._..__... ....., .-- ! _ . . ,� , .
'`YrN'i.�l : J r��..- ' ' • ^^ � � "''_ ' . �.... . _ . .,�. � ' ' � ' � _. . �/• ' ...
y� `' ' � . � ...- '_ � r 1's. .� u "' ... . / _
._ _ "' _ . _---' "_":_ _ ,;: � I .
,-. . —\ . --- -_._ . ----... .... . ' i G' . .. .--�---•_.. . � r •-- --_J; -
--- � �� . f � • _._. . . . . ._— . . . ��.. _ .r',"" _7 �
— � -- - : ., _ �
�qp� DE-? CC,�A 48sx . - � - •- _ j pE? OM 5.66'/. ,..- :�
\
2�a G c3o, a.iax - ... . �►NG 100'! GA, 5.�5'd j �'
. -. , �� -'.r' _. . . . , _ ._. . ., i..
..� !!i _ .. . . .: __ _ -- . S '. _ _ _ , .. ;,; _
• � _ _ G'� CC7M 4.33% - . _ .. � � .. , _. - � . . �.; �: .
_. . . GA 3.957. -- _ . � , • � '� _ �
----- . . . _ � �
-•- --_� • . �
,Zt�CS . _ p� CC1M 4.46% . .
• ' � � � " . GA 4.06% . -_ � ----• - �--
� .. �/ . �, , __.. - : ,.�-- .-
b � -- . ;,
• C� I CC#A 5.31'l. S�E _ _�.__ - � v. . . , '
GA 288X � 17I - .
� ' , ... �' � . .... •
. C�� � .. . -
� � � COM 8.43'l. � -• � - .
� Caf�. rJ.�� � �i� �" .'��%/ .a
� f'� C?�a 238� 1�
!
Deporture Tracks �' _ fi,000__ 12,000'
—I ARC5ITSC'7S L�YCINdZILS Pl.l.'lNSRS
� r.__....� a+�S.. _._ �_-.-._..�-..-• --- � 7T. HM7 Ca+.y.s*t..
Arrival Tracks �
Scale in Feet
�
, �
�
t
�
� �
�
� •
�
t
�► •
�
�
.
� �
�
t
•
• �
s
• �
. �
. �
. •
�
�
�
�
t
��
1 -��
• _
�
•
• '
�' �
t
t
•
•
� ■
�,. "'
�
.�
�
O
U
U
�
�
�: ;
•
�
•
.
•
� �
�
.
•
�
�
. .
•
•
t
i
i �
t
t
\
•
•
�
•
.
�
l
l
•
•
•
<
\�
•
.
�
�
•
•
•
•
�
!
•
t
�
t
t
s
�;
�
0
�
•
.
�
0
�
.�
W
-i--�
O
W
�
0
U
�
a�
�
�
�
�
O
U
�
a�
>
0
Q
�
�
O
�
O
�
�
.s—
CL�
CU
�
�
0
�
�
a�
�
�
�O
�
Cll
U
�
�
�
�
�
C�i
� �
V �
�rn�
W =J
��
� � L
VJ o �
.-°— � 2
� Q
U
`V � �
-�--,
� � �
� �
tti Z� •
� � �
� � �
— � U
.0 Q �
� � � Ct�
O �� �
� V �
C� �
� �' C
� � �
� o �
� � �
U
� � .�
Q� � -�
� � _}_'
�, � CI�
� .� �
:;_, --�--' ' �
.� � .e..
� .� �
� U �
� � �
� .� O
tn c.n U
� � �
�
•
•
�■r
�
�
�
.t�� e ru�N O,ss/ 'y
�Y
�� o
ti �
� N
- Y
J d'
� Q
LJ�, �%r
�T' / , �+ �+r
� Wyy �( t
� �� \ � �tr
„�` �f TROP���
�
� �
Cia �
o -�-'
� �
�
� �
._ �
� �
� �
� �_
� a
� �
� U
� .�
� �
O � �
s- (ll Z3
� � � '.
l� s- -�
�
CC� � C6
� U . � :_
� U �
� �. �
� � O
� CL� -4--'
�
� � �
C� ' � �
. � Q� Q
t.�,-' ,� . t�
� ��
a— (— C�
�
�
�
V
L
0
L�
�
W
�
v
�
.�
�
0
U
a�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Q
z
�
�
�
�
�
C�
�
�
C�5
.�
,-
�
0
V
O
�
�
�
0
c�
C �!
1`�-
L�
�
m
T,
::�
L
�� � hv�`N O,ss�h�
��L, O
.,r-�l J
y� �af�
r f'
J � �
0 _� C
L �� ' ;' �
"�yy c
�n '�'� f TR O P p ��t�:
�
�.
' ..
0
�
•
:
�
�
�
�r
s
�
!
•
�
t
• �
�
�
�- •
t *
t t
� �
i
�
t �
� •
!
�
�
�
t
�
•
t
�
i
t
�
E
�
•
r
t
t
i
!
,�
�
t
s
�
:
i
!
t
�
.�� e hu�NO,ss/ '�%'
�Y
!� �
ti
y N
.� r
J �
� C
L. � / � 4
W'Ly 'fC T
i� � � ��e�
MErROPO��
�
t
•
1
•
t
t
•
�
t
�
•
•
a
�
•
►
�
�� 4 ���NoirS��
�' o
yr-� / J
y � \ �N
r
J �
0 O
n„ � � a
L ( 4
'y� ._.!"_'C �"
/� fTROpO���rT
�
t
i
�
� !
t �
•
•
��
•
.
� •
�
• � ,
� �
.
� < <
•
•
• i �
• �
e �r �
• � M
. .
. ,
.
i � t
t
t t
s
� �
•
0
Q�
�
�
U
�
�
�
0
U
�
0
�
�
�
�
Q.?
�
�
O
V
Q�
�
0
�
�
�
c�
�
0
Q�
�
-}-+
�
�
4—
�
O
CCS
U
a
U
c�
�
�
�
0
Q�
�
�
�
U
C6
�
CU
�
c�
�
.�
�
�
C
•
•
�
•
•
.�.
p=
.o
c�
�
�
u
�
. �—;
�
�
C
C.
a
•
�
�
�
.
.
.
.
•
�
�
.
�
•
�
�
�
ti�
7
n
C^
C_
�` •` �: " '', •.-
';• - � -i; •' :�-'1;
7 .
C
MINUTES
MASAC COMMUNICATIONS ADVISORY BOARD
October 7, 1999
The meetina was held at the Metropolitan Airports Commission Small Conference Trailer and
caIled to order at 3:30 p.m.
The followinQ members were in attendance:
IYlembers•
Mike Cramer
Dick Saunders
Dean Lindberg
Neil Clark
Advisor��•
Roy Fuhrmann
Chad Leqve
Shane VanderVoort
Wendy Burt
Amy vonWalter
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
AGENDA
APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 14. 1999 MEETING MINUTES
The minutes of the September 14, 1999 meetina were approved as distributed.
REYIEW PART I SO INFORMATIDN PIECE
There was a discussion regarding how often information should or could be sent to the local
netivspapers and community newsletters. It was decided that the cover letter should indicate that
information �vould be sent on a quarterly basis.
Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked staff and other members to brina in any news clippinQs they
may find resultinQ from this article. �
REVIEW CO:tiil'�fL%.N'ITY�OUTREACH PROG.RAN1'�TE�YIS AND �'RIORITIZE WORK
ITE:tiIS A1VD GD:-� LS FOR 2000
Rov Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, reported he has placed $�0,000 in his department's year 2000
budaet for 11�1.�SAC Community Outreach/Communications efforts. He noted that the budaet
hadn't yet been appro�•ed by the Commission, but that it �vould be revietived by the Commission
� � in December.
Given this budQet, members of the Communications Advisory Board prioritized the follo���inQ
items from the Community Outreach Program.
' ITEM
1. MASAC Newsletter (qL
2. Direct Mailina (60,000
3. Publicity (press release:
�eces�
media advisories
EST. COST
�21,000
$20,000 (cost shared with. Part 1�0
�9,000
Members also discussed the ww«,'.macavsat.ora and www' msnairpon.com Web sites and the
pro�-ress staff has made in updatina them. Wendy Burt, PIO, said the plan is for both sites to be
combined into one, but that she didn't know when that would happen. She said the combined site
would provide less technical explanations for the �eneral public.
The following is a schedule of events impacting the MASAC Communications Aclvisory• Board:
October 28,1999
NeYt MeetinQ (discuss first newsletter and possible articles focusinQ on the Part 1�0 process)
IVIid November 1999
Part 150 Workshop Ads placed
Media Advisory distributed
November 30, December 1 and 2,1999
Series Two - Part 1�0 Workshops (unmitigated 2005 contour)
January 2000 �
First MASAC Newsletter distributed
February S, 9,10, 2000 (tentatively)
Third Series - Part 150 Workshops (2005 mitiaated contour)
Nlarch 2000 (tentatively)
Direct Mail Postcard sent (Part 150 Public Hearinas/MASAC combined mailing)
Apri12000
Part 150 Public Hearinas
Second NIASAC Newsletter
June 2000
Part 1�0 Application Submittal to FAA
The next meetina is scheduled for October 28, 1999 at 3:30 p.m.
The meeting was adjourned at �:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted: � .
Melissa Scovronski, Secretary
, ,
MASAC NOISE MONiTORING AND INFORMATION REQUEST
FORM
;
PLEASE COi�IPLETE THIS FORM AS ACCURATELY AND THOROUGHLY AS
POSSIBLE AND ATTACH ANY LETTERS OR FOR.NIAL RESOLUTIONS.
Date:
Name:
Address:
Phone:
Is this a one-time request? Yes or No
On whose behalf are you requestina?:
Yourself
City Council
Mayor
Citizen
Organization
Other
If no, what is the expected time frame for this request?
Beginning Ending
to
Which of the followin� best describes the nature of your request: (Circle all that appl}�)
Ground Noise Overflights Run-Ups Contours Part 150 Other
PLEASE WRITE OUT YOUR REQUEST HERE AND/OR ATT:ACH ANY LETTERS OR
FORMAL RESOLUTIONS.
I� j
( ) - over -
�, ,
1VIASAC NOISE MOIVITO]�.i1�1G AN]� �N�'i��:MA�'IOI� �Q�TES7C ',
FORM ' ,
Please send your request via mail to: MASAC Secretary, 6040 28th Avenue S.,
Minneapolis, MN 55450 or fax it to: (612) 725-6310.
� )
C v;
'_ �
. ,_
� r � �
�./ � C C
i "+ �
, o ~ �
C C
� ~ � E
L C
� � ._.
r� � `Q
V.I .-��.+ �
� � �
� � � �
Q � �
�
F �° ~
� �' Z
.� ^ L
� � � �
� � �
� p C^.
� � v
Z `r,' �
cc � �
o �7 � "�
�7
� oU d
� ° o L
i�y r- :�
� � o u
� � y r
� �+
� �' O � G
'� I� c� C 0
ra U
Z `V �
� G r � ~
•v L �
r� ,p o G,
F' � � e�
Q aa = �
� � � �
� if� = -' vi .:
Cn �N G� �.r
z� ��� �
Cl „Q = � c �
� Q O C
o � J
y , r^. C�
t!� a� �, a�i
J �� �
� � �- rr�
O �
C � �
'�" v C C.�
E� � � 3 �
W = �0
"
� � � �
�.. � ` �
�
L-7 c� � '�
� � tI'i �" y
C .-. '�Y c� �.:.
� t!'� C� �C.r
�., ._.. .^_
� � r � �
c
� ^ c „� �
� ^- �" ;- r
� � � � �
'�" C� C/Y
i�. CJ .l ' y;, ►.
� � � y
=
C � �
� � �: rn
�C.
� � N
,�; M N
`° c o
�
00 N N �
~ d
c
•V
y
C
H
�
C�
� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
000000�noo
�.+ Ul M M 00 O tn
"�' oo �f' [� t� Ci M.-» N
C, E+9 �1? 6�} 6H b4 69 6�? f�3
y
L
�
�
�
C'^ �
C/1
O �c
� C C o U � � � � � � � ,G
� i. �t �n o d- o co N�
d ��rf'�,���r�r�
� r'�.'
�i'i
M 7 N
�
� � N
� f'�'. N
M
c
c
� u
G:: �
� C y
O " ^
'r ` U
�
G= c �'
E-� U �
�:
.. �
� ; '^ •�.
��.r V� VJ
r � �
� � �
O c �c
� �
v
� �
� �
O =
� C
.-.� �
L�. "�°
'� C�
L' x"
�
J �
d d
� a a� a a� a
''" r-
� �
O O O O O O MO O
.L � r-'�. r�.. .�i w �+�. r'~...
C.1 M G1 M N l� N C�
�d' C1 '�t O �f' �
N v'� c0 O co G� v'� i
G1
�
�
�
4)
4
CO
C
N
tI �,
C/�
�
i' N M`7 N �J I� 00 G1 �
� c, c, c, c, c, c� c� c�
j„c�c,�c�c���c�0
�
%V,b (, �-- Z.�.� ,.�-e.. � �.�� o ws r-e- s c �Q..�. �,.. �- � �. � v 5.�-5 �-' !
•( ' S 1
L�
c. �
;>
� w.�. � f G� �.., ,
�(,,� z -�..a �-•� � �„�, � e � .� ,-� �. � � ..--�.9 r� t�'.,�-v��`� � � � �,.
�.��...�.�.� 5 � �- �- � � � -z - -K.-.- 6 �. �7
�LS � C 6y,-. t,,,L u K � �� �'`'S c., .,.._ 6 r--r.� t v+.. c�,� "�
( �. f- � o.. {-2 Y-4. w C a�-�S -4-r � c_ f'���-•
T� S a u �--� �
��%�,,� S �ti�.. � L.�.>O ✓ � ...J`�.C..'r" �.( \... � � � � _ ✓�`' � �" �" � � ✓� L � '1+�C
(� �
� t�"�v v�.�Y .,,2,�'^"". !� V'--2�--- cj Y"2S4r+ � �-�-c-� r, , . � '{"'
lJ � ✓` v -'�-": �o',z`'^
� ��^�c..'�" C.. 9 �"'� 1�-- �'"'_ _ G..� f'" r`� f
�
� o c5,�- ZB,...2 '� � t �-s.e.�Sz o� -�tr--- ��:_..��.-� � `'c `t Ca
p,�,� L C� S c:bw-�-���- /_
��'" l 0�" '�Zi 1v'"�' A' �� \ C u�'t D\ �_ �U it:�.� t O tn. CT'v �-� ��''Ol�� 1'�i�
�
� ,� �� c�.�,,,,,,,_t,,,.�,r.- b -F C�'r. i (o � -{�-s.-� � 5 �7 rz r �-�-' � c�--5
cr-,� � ��5� 1�^-�-."-2
B U'� � cS�-�, ��p j S-e- Z.�i r`.t` �j �..,..y �,.:-�.�r-
( � `' �
� �t..¢..A..i�-- Cc1 �. �j, � �-a..ir"'— � 0. Cc1W�--� `"'� c. � �.a... _ G.
r
/' / r� � � rri ✓� �" � � tir t 2.w l---e,, b u r-
1�1 . �" ✓'t� �.�o � � � � C_,.O � �^-c. :, l i �
tX (� r` (-
� �/Kx..��..e �v` J� t !: 0. � y �'l. � J O VC+.. � �-y ( . .
r-.:� ,�-c, S f �"-" . \ .
�..c c. s �� �- � c�.�-� o vc .
`� �- ,4- t�4-G�:,�:, {-�� v�- 45:,�_.5-E--�-�., ��4-��, . .
o��,- '
=� � -4t-�- l�-.:-5 L� v. �---� ��� //'
,�.. �...�,.,.�.��..tz�.S v:�t�9v�r� c,._�-�'���f'��
�\ i � lil' ,�-+.iC �.i W""R' �"'�, ` \ � Gt. �:.� ..: � �. Ci. L„_ �'"` •7 ✓�� � ' — �'-� �•-C_ t""' �
� �� ; S c- ` �U U t�S-C, Zo v�Y�
� -��-�-� -��:, � �� � =�t
�- ;ti,� 1�'}y � ,'-',_.f /LC? l l � �l �.G.4..� C `J � �
1��� ' �yz.<<c�� �o'.n'� `1'�` �ln-o wS ��"` �� V r"_b �w✓�r- -�
��i.`L�7 � �! �.,.- Ca �' ��n f�'"
� u� G1 � V(„__'._ G�'--�"- �`-�,s2. 1 `G" �'�c.. t t�
Q
t S t� v 1� ��'{- ' f t'`f
l;
�
MASAC Members
Chairman:
Charles Mertensotto
(Mendota Heights)
Firsr Vice Chairman:
John Nelson (Bloomington)
MASAC Operations Committee Chairman
and Second Vice Chairman:
Mark Salmen (]YWA)
Airborne Express:
B rian Bates
ALF'A:
Ron Johnson
Citv ojBloomington:
Petrona Lee
Vern Wilcox
City af Burnsvifle:
C6arles Vsn Guilder
c;ty ofEaB�:
Jamie Verbrugge
Lance Staricha
City oflnver Grove Heights:
Chades Eginton
Ciry ofMendota Heighu:
J�1 Smith
Kevin Batchelder
Ciry of Minneapolis:
Barret Lane
Desn L[ndbeig
�ce �e
Glenn Strand
s�a� co�� xoy
Mike Cramer
City of Richfreld
Kristai Stokes
Dawn Weitzel
Ciry ofSt Louis Park
Robert Mdrews
Ciry of St. Paul:
John Halla
City of Sunfuh Lake:
Gienda Spiotta
Delta Airlines Inc.:
Larry Goehring
DHL Airways:
Brian Simonson
Federa! Frpress:
Jo6n Sc6ussler
MAC Stajj.•
Dick Keinz
MBAA:
Ro6ert P. Johnson
Mesatw Nonhwest Airlink:
P6il Burke
Northwest Airlines:
Jenniter Sayre
Steve Holme
Nancy Stoudt
St. Paul CAamber of Commerce:
Rolt Middleton
Sun CountrvAirlines:
Gordon Graves
United Airlrnes lnc.:
Kevin Biack
United Parcel Service:
Mic6ad Geyer
U.S. Airwavslnc.:
Larry Yandle
MASAC Advisors
Metropofitan Arrports Commiasion:
Roy Fuhnnann
Metropolitan Airporu Commission:
CommissionerAlton Gasper
Federal Aviatian Adminisrration:
Ron Glaub
Cindy Greene
Air Transportation Association:
Paul McG�aw
MNAir Nationa( Guard:
Major Roy J• Shetka
U.S. Air Force Reserve:
Captain Dav3d J. Gerken
Secreranc
Meli.ssa Scovmnski
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
e�cient, safe, and economical handling of air commerce; assure the inclusion
of this state in national and international programs of air transportation; and to
those ends to develop the full 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 azea 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 Intemational Airport - Wold-
Chamberlain Field, a public airport in the County of Hennepin, State of
Minnesota, thraugh the alleviation of the problems created by the sound of
aircraft using the airport; through study and evaluation on a continuing basis
of the problem and of suggestion for the alleviation of the same; through
initiation, coordination and promotion of reasonable and effective procedures,
control and regulations, consistent with the safe operation of the airport and of
aircraft using the same; and through dissemination of information to the
affected communities, their affected residents, and the users of the airport
respecting the 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 governmental bodies which by reason of their
statutory authority and responsibility or control over the airport, or by reason
of their status as airport users, have a direct interest in the operation of the
airport. Such members will be cailed 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 printed in house by Chad Leqve, ANOMS Coordinaror and Shane
VanderVoort, ANOMS Technician questions or comments may be directed to:
MAC Aviazion Noise and Sazellite Progtams
Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport
6040 28'h Avenue 5outh
Minneapolis MN, 55450
Tel: (612) 725-6328, Fax: (612) 725-6310
MAC Environment Department Home Paee: www.macavsat.org
The Airpon 24-hour Noise Hodine is 726-941 I. Compl�ints to the hodine do not result in
changes in airport activity, but provide a public sounding boa�d and airpon informa[ion outlet.
The hotline is staffed during business hours, Mnndar — Friday.
C�.
�
�
�
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
� Table of Contents for September 1999
Complaint Summary
Noise Complaint Map
FA.A Available Time for Runway Usage 3
MSP All Operations Runway Usage
MSP Carrier Jet Operations Runway Usage
C!
MSP Carrier Jet Fleet Composition 6
MSP All Operations Nighttime Runway Usage
MSP Carrier Jet Operations Nighttime Runway Usage
�
_
j MSP Top 15 Nighttime Operator's by Type 9
MSP Top 15 Nighttime Operator's Stage Mix 10
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks 11-14
MSP ANOMS Remote Monitoring Tower Site Locations Map 15
Canier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events 16
Carrier Jet Departure Related Noise Events 17
MSP Top Ten Aircraft Noise Events per RMT
18-27
Analysis of Daily and Monthly Aircraft Noise Events Aircraft Ldn dBA 28-29
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
(
C
Ivietropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
IVI�P Complaints by Cgty
September 1999
' Number of ; Numbe e of % of Total
City Arri� als Departure , Complaints �' Complainants °.Complaints
Blaine � p j 1 � 1 � 1 0.1�/0
BloomingCon 1 � �7 � �8 39 4.8%
Burnsville 3 5 ( 8 7 0.7%
Columbia Heights 0 1 � 1 1 O.1�Ic
Fag an � 72 116 49 9.7�10
Eclen Prairie 3 1 4 2 0.3�1e
Edina i � � 6 6 0.5°Ie
Fridley 0 1 1 1 0.1 �7c
Inver Grove Heigh�s � 9 � 289 � 298 22 24.8%a
Z.ake IImo 0 3 3 2 0.3%
Lakeville 1 0 1 1 0.1 �Ie
Maple Grove 11 17 � 28 3 2.3�Io
Mendota 0 1 ( 1 1 O.l�10
Mendota Heights 12 43 � �� 26 ' 4.6�Io
Minneapolis � 122 324 446 199 37.2%
Minnetonl:a 1 0 1 1 0.1%
New Bri�hton 0 � 1 1 1 O.l�/o
Plymouth 2 � 0 ( 2 2 0.1�70
Prior Lake 0 1 1 2 0.1%
Richfield 2 40 42 39 3.S�lo
Savage 0 2 2 2 0.1%
South St. Paul 2 1 3 3 0.2%
St. L.ouis Park 6 0 ( 6 6 Q�°!o
St. Paul Park 6 0 6 5 0.5%
St. Paul 102 � 0 102 70 8.5°l0
Sunfish I.ake 0 6 6 3 0.5%
West St. Paui 0 1 1 1 0.1%
, , _
.. . , ;
�4tal _ : ;328 : 872 . . . ;`` 1200 : � ' 49S ;:. . .140.0% . ?:
Nature of NISP Camplaints Tirr� of Day Complaints by Airpoct
Nature of
Complaint Tatal Tune Tatal Airport Tata1 .
ExcessiveNoise � 910 0000-0��9 66 MSP � 1206
Farly/L.ate � 27? 0600 - 06�9 ( 33 Airlake 0
Low Flyin� � j 0700 - 1159 � 3� 1 Anol;a 7
Structural Disturbance i 0 1200 - 1�i9 � 187 Crystai 2
Helicopcer ; 2 1600 - 19>9 j 17� Flying Cloud 3
Cs�und Noise j 6 2000 - 21_>"9 � 139 L.al:e Ilrrx� 0
Fneine Run-up � 0 22(� - 2259 j 18? St. Paul 6
Freyuency � 11 230Q -2359 j 73 Misc. � 1
Total 1206 Total 1206 Total ; 1225
A Product of the Nletropolir:in Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�ram
�
C � � � o 0
O cu •�" 01 o cv �n `�
� :� � � �L. rl �— � � �
"" 0� 4-' '1'r �— � N O
> � � a,
� U � �:�
Mctrapolitan Aircraft Sound Abatcmcnt Council (MASAC) Tcchnical Advisors Repo�rt
Z A Product of the Metropolitan 1lirpons Commission 1�NOMS Pro�r�mi
� Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Counci! (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Available Time for Runway Use September 1999
(FAA. Runway Use Logs)
Note: For 26% of the time available simultaneous departure ops occtured restilting in use greater than 100%n
No[e: For 10°l0 of the time available simultaneous departure ops occurred resulting in use greater than 100°l0
Septemher 1999 FAA Airport Trafiic Record Counts
i, ,.„� .. .. � . ., ,,,.,, ,. ., � .
Air Carrier
Conunuter
Cxneral Aviatic>n
M ilit:u��
` Total
498
2pq
�3�
9
948
� 72�}
� 321
i 387
10
I 1442 '
A Prcxiuct of the Metrope�litan Airports Corrunission ANOMS ProUram 3
! 4 ;
; 1�L �
� 12R i
i ?� '
� ,
; 30L
�ox
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Aba[emenc Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Repar[ `
. ,, ' � � , �
� • �•111 •Ii •' /'' 11�
,
Year Last ;-
: =
unt '. _ Year .;°
itions Percent
Arr So. Richfield/Bk�omin on 136 � 0.7% 539 4.2�7�
Arr So. Minnea lis/No. Richfield 3753 18.4% 25�9 20.2�/0
Arr So. Minnea lis/No. Richfiekl 3329 16.3% 2404 19.0%
An St. PauUHi�hland Park 223 I, 1.l�In 648 5.190
An Eaaan/Mendc�ta Heiahts 6336 I 31.1%n 288? 22.89�
Arr Eaaan/Mendota Hei�hts � 6587 � 32.4% 3628 ��.79�
Total ArrivaLs ` ° 20364 104.0 % ' 12660 100.0 %
De � St. PauUHi._hland Park ( 65 � 0.3�Io 165 1.390
De Eaaan/Mendota Hei .hts 3549 � 17.7�� 2620 ? l. l�Ic
De EaQan/Mendota Hei hts 1872 ! 9.390 ?878 ?3.'_�I�
De So. RichtiekiBle�minaton 3578 ( 17.9�Io 1523 12.39c
De Su. Minnea lis/No. Richtieki 5021 � 25.1 �Io 270j ? I.89c
De So. Minnea >lis/No. Richtieki � 5953 I?9.7�Io 2519 (?0.39�
TotaIDe actures 20Q38 100.0% 12410 100.0%a
Total One rations _ 40402 � 25070 �
4 A Prociuct oF the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�ram
�'
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Carrier Jet �perations
' • '•�� -•, • �• ���
.
� � :; � :
. _ .- �
,. Year; .Las't
; ,.. _. , . .. _
.. . , . ,
. . .
, . „
.. ; :: Las
t,<
' ArcivaU ;`. _ ; : Connt ' Count Year ';
.. . ;. _
, �..
RWY . De� arture 4ve ''htArea , r�� �'iatioiis Pe'rce.nt .4 V rations Percent;
4 � An So. Richfield/Bloomin�ton 100 0.7% 327 4.0%
12L Arr So. Min.nea lis/No. Richfield 2822 19.3�10 1616 19.7�10
12R An So. Minnea lis/No. Richfield 2323 15.9�0 1493 18.2%
22 � Arr St. Paul/Hi nd Park 191 1.3% 387 4.7�Io
30L � Arr Eaaan/Mendota Hei hts 4328 29.6�Io 1859 22.6°Io
30R � Arr Eaaan/Mendota Hei�hts 4864 ( 33.2�Io 2532 30.8%
' ; `: Total ArrivaLs , : ,<1462$ � ;104.0% _.. ..: ,.
�. :$?14 100.0°I'o'
4 � De St. PauUHishland Park 26 0.2�Io 70 �.8�10
12L � De � Eaaan/Mendota Hei�hts 2575 � 17.7�n 1707 20.7�0
12R ( De � Ea�an/Mendota Heiahts 1375 ( 9.4�`l0 1909 23.2�Io
22 � De � So. Richfiekj/Bkx�minQton 2666 18.390 929 11.3%
30L � De � So. IVlinnea lis/No. Richtield 3821 �?6.3�I� 2013 24.4�In
( 30R + De � So. Minnea lis/No. Richtieki 4086 � 28.1�10 1615 19.6�Ie
Total De artures 14549 `) 1Q0.0% $243 100.0%
TotalO erations ,29177 ; , � 16457 �
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�ram
Metropolican Aircraft Sound Abacement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
September 1999 MSP �arrier Jet �'leet Corriposition
B721
DC9
B732
MDll
B763
B752
B734
A320
B735
B738
A 319
B733
B737
BA46
CARJ
E145
F100
F70
FAR Part 36 Take
()ff Noise Levei
i 10.0
109.4
10�a
lOJ J
1055
103.0
102.4
101.6
( 1005
i 98.5
� 98.1
� 97.7
�95'8 .---
� 95.7
I 94.�
( 94.5
( 94.0
� 92.9
� 92.1
91.�
� 91.4
91.0
88.9
� 87.8
� 87.7
� 87.7
� 875
( 8Z5
87.�
� 84.9
81.8
I 81.8
� 81.8
� 50.1
Aircraf� Descripiion �
Boein 74g 7-200
Boeing 747-100
Boein _ 7� 47-300 -
McDonnell Dou�las DC8-500
McDonnell Douglas DC8-600
McDonnell Douglas DC10
Boeing 727-200
Boein�747-400
McDonnell Dou ,las DC8 (Modified Stg
Boein 72g 7-100
McDonnell Douglas DC9
Boein� 737-2Q0
McDonnell Dougias DCl l
Boeing 767-200/300
Boeing 727 (Modified Stg. 3)
McDonnell DouQlas DC8-700
Airbus Industries A300B4-600
Airbus Industries A310
Boeing 737 (Modified Stg. 3)
McDonnell Douglas DC9-80
Boeing 757-200
McDonnell Douglas DC9 (Modified S
Boeing 737-400 _
Airbus Industries A320
Boein 7g 37-500
Boeing 737-800
Airbus Indusuies A319
Boeing 737-300
Boeing 737-700
British Aerospace 146
Canadair 6�0
Ernbraer 145
Fokker 100
I Fol;ker 70
Totals '
Staae II
Sta�e III
S[a�e III Manufactured
Total Staee III
2413
12472
14292
26764
ount Percent
154 � 0.�%n.
60 0.?�Ic
58 0.2%
3 O.O�Io
74 039�
1020 3.��10
864 � 3.O�lo
3 O.O�Io
188 � 0.6%
56 0.2°!e
794 2.7�10
622 2.1°Ic
12 0.0°Io
2 0.0°Ia
3366 11.�%
64 0.2%
0 � 0.0%a
60 0.2°Io
10 0.0%
254 0.9%
1767 6.1°Io
2833 9.7%
8664 29.7%
24 0.1°l0
3896 13.4%
233 0.8%
0 0.0%
340 1.2%
894 3.1%
8 0.0%
1446 �.0%
392 13%
256 0.9°Io
760 2.6°Ia
0 0.0°l0
83% � 26 �%
42.7%
49.0°l0
91.7°lo I 73.$%
Note: Srage III represent airaafr modified to meet all stage III criteria as outlined in Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 36. TEus j
Includes hushkit eneinzs, engine retrofics or aircraft operational flight configurations. - ��
••The Provided Noise levels from FAR Par[ 36 aze the loudes[ levets documanted per airccaft type during taka-off measured in EPN'L dBA (Effective
Perceived Noise Level).
�EPNL is tha level of the cime inteeral of the antiloearithm of one-tenth of tone-corrected parceived noise level of an aircraft flyovar measured in A-
wei�hted dacibals.
6 A Praiuct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOi�1S Pro�ram
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
l�Tightti�ne All (�perations 10:30 p.rn. to 6:00 a.m.
� . •.,� . � . .�. ���
.
_; . .
' Last Year Last _
Arr�vaU `' , ;; ;; Gonnt � : Caunt � Year
.. ,; .... �.. -:, ,.._ , �., ,
RWY . De arture ..', .:OverB`aht Area : U' rations Pe'rce`nt" `O rahons :Percent;
4 Arr So. Richfiek�/Bk�omin�ton 130 11.O�Io 79 9.3°Io
12L � Arr So. Minnea lis/No. Richfiekl 101 8.5% 40 4.7%
1?R Arr So. Minnea lis/No. Richtield 68 5.7�10 38 4.5%
22 ; Arr St. PauUHiehland Park 181 15.3�Io 103 12.1�Io
30L ( Arr Eaaan/Mendota Heiahts 246 20.8�% 14� 1'7.4%
30R � An Ea an/Mendota Heiahts 459 38.7% 441 52.0�/0
'Total ArrivaLs 1185 '` 104.0% ::� ` '849 . 100.0%'
� 4 � De St. PauUHi�hland Park 32 � 2.990 13 2.490
i 12L � De Eaaan/Mendota Heiahts 232 � 21.2�70 197 36.0�'0
; 12R � De Ea�an/Mendota Hei�hts 96 8.8% 118 21.S�Io
I ?2 i De So. Richfiekj/Bk�omineton 283 � 25.9�Ic 106 19.3�Io
i 30L ; De So. Minnea lis/No. Richtiek� 150 j 13.7�/� 33 6.O�I�
� 30R ; De So. Minnea lis/No. Richtieki 301 �?7.S�Ic 81 14.8�Io
Total De �utures <1094 100.4% 54S 100.4%
I Total O' rations ;�2'79 ` 139'7
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 7
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report `
1�Tighttime Carrier Jet Operations 10e30 p.�n. to 6:00 a.m. �
, . ..�� .� . ,. ���.
.
,
= Last Year Last
:. , _ ;
` ` ArcxvaU
- :
;,; .. _; -
Count Count , : Year
; _
: _ -: _ ..
:.
... : ,. .
RWY De rinre -, '_. � Uve ' ht'Area :: O rations . Percent' O raiions .Percent�
4 Arr So. Richfieki/Bloomin on 98 � 10.2% 56 8.7°I'o
12L Arr So. Minnea lis/No. Richfiekl 91 9.5% 34 5.2�Io
12R Arr So. Minnea lis/No. Richfield 58 6.0% 28 4.3%
22 � Arr St. PauUHi�hhland Park 155 � 16.2�10 77 11.9�/0
30L � Arr Ea an/Mendota Hei hts 170 17.7�0 119 18.4�0
30R � Arr Ea an/Mendota Hei hts 387 40.4�Io 333 51.5%
Total Arrivals . ' '' 959 -100.0%' 64� 100.0%
4 � De St. PauUHi�iland Park 17 ( 2.6% 4 1.490
( 12L I De Eaaan/Mendota Heiahts 135 � 20.490 101 34.19�
� 1?R ( De Eaaan/Mendota Heiahts 69 j 10.49c fi� 21.690
22 ( De So. RichfiekiBloominQton 188 ?8.390 71 24.O�o
30L I De So. Minnea lis/No. Richtield 118 � 17.890 ?3 7.890
30R I De So. Minnea lis/No. Richtieki 136 � 20.5�7c 33 11.1�%
' Tatal De aitures -` 663 100.0% ?96 100.0%
' - Total O erations . ;: 1622
943
8 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOi�tS Program
C
Meuopolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
September 1999 Top 15 t�ctual Nighttime Jet Operators by 'I`ype
10:30 p.m to 6:00 a.m
Note: The top 15 nighttime operators represent 94.8�/0 of the total nighttime operations.
A Proeiuct of the Ivtetropolitan Airparts Commission ANOMS Proaram
1
N1
C"i
O
.ir
�
L
6)
C
0
t..
O
L
6�
�
�
�
Metropolitan Aireraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Repcxt
September 1999 Nighttime Fteet Stage Mix for Top 15 Airtines
10:30 p.m to 6:00 a.m
e�� �-�'`� �..� �o�` �� ��� �-� �� �,�` 4`�� ��'��'�' o�'v �4� .���
Airline �
� Stage 2 ❑ Sta.ge 3 � Manufactured Stage 3
September 1999 Nighttime Fleet Stage Mix for Top 15 Airiines
lU�U m. w o:vv am
_ ,
' Mant�factured
Au�iine` ...5�' e.2��. `S : e3.;; :;`_.S e'3 Total.,,;u
AAL 0 0 � 59 59
ABX 16 33 0 49
AWE 0 0 � 42 42
COM 0 0 50 50
DAL 7 22 ( 14 43
FDX 7 0 � 74 81
� KHA 14 3 � 0 17
MES 0 0 29 29
NWA 31 207 � 527 765
� RYN 41 42 0 83
� SCX 6 95 j 15 116
� TWA ? 0 I 25 27
�
; UAL 7 42 j 11 60
' UPS � 0 I 3 ; 66 69
! VGD � 47 � 0 i 0 47
i Total 178 447 � 912 ` 153'7
10 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Proaram
C
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisc�r's Report
12er�ote 1VIonitoring 'T'ower Siie Locations
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System
��� �j Le�eir.d
Remote Monitorin� Tower
A Prcxiuct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�ram , l�
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report �
Carrier Jet Arrival �Zelated Noise Events (
Septernber 1999
, - ,� :
;._
,;. ,:. ,. „ Arnval Amval Arnval A.rrrival:
�iT `: : , _ . ; ;_ _ ` Events Events Events �vents :
, , .
`..ID ,�; GS�ty '' -.;; Address ` : .. . >65dB :>SOdB >90dS ; �>104dB _"
i Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 41st St. 3509 22 1 0
2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 28�0 231 0 0
3 Minnea olis West IImwood St. & Belrnon� Ave. 2610 1081 10 0
4 Minnea olis Oakland Ave. & 49th St. 2958 1070 1 0
5 Minnea olis I 12th Ave. & 58th St. 26�2 2210 226 0
6 Minnea olis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 302$ � 2672 782 0
7 Richfield Wentwonh Ave. & 64th St. 50 1 0 0
8 Minnea olis I.onefellow Ave. & 43rd St. 125 3 � 0 0
9 St. Paul Sarato a St. & Hartford Ave. 166 � 103 ' S 0
10 St. Paul � Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 176 157 - S7 0
11 St. Paul ' Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 27 2 0 0
12 St. Paul Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. 10 1 0 0
13 Mendota Heiehts Southeast end of Mohican Coun 81 2 0 0
14 Ea an lst St. & Mckee S[. 7139 91 1 0
15 Mendota Hei hts Cullon St. & Lexin ton Ave. 365 6 1 0
16 Ea an Avalon Ave. & V'�las I.ane 4729 2296 3 0
17 Bloonrin [on ( 84th St. & 4th Ave. 115 58 1 0
18 Richfield 75th St. & 17th Ave 117 43 0 0
19 Bloominston 16th Ave. & 84th St. 39 5 0 0
20 Richfield � 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 12 2 0 0
21 InverGrove Heiehts I Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 154 1 0 0
22 Inver Grove Hei hts � Anne Marie Trail 4020 11 0 0
23 Mendota Hei�hts Fnd of Kenndon Ave. 26�8 37 0 0
24 Eaean ` � Cha el Ln. & Wren Ln. 6751 119 0 0
2� Eaean ( Moonshine Park 1321 Jurd Rd. 318 ( 2 0 0
26 �InverCs�ve Heishts � 6796Arkansas Ave. W. 1341 I 18 0 0
27 Minnea olis � Anthon Schoo15757Irvin Ave. S. 36 I 1 0 0
28 Richfield ( 6645 16th Avenue S. 271 18 2 0
I 29 Minneapolis I Fricsson Elem School431� 31s� Ave. S. 6 0 0 0
� _
Tatal Arriva] Noise Eve�its '. 4b313 10263 . :1090 . 0. '
16 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�ram
C
�,
Metropolitan Aircraf� Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Carrier Jet Departure Related .1�loise �venis
September 1999
. �. ;. , ;. Departure Departure Departure Departure
p�,iT _ � F :Events E�ents ":' ;Events Events
zn ` �� �.c,�y . . . � _ : , � -� Aaaress . ; _
�
>>65dB , . . >80dB : >90dB - >140d.B
1 Minnea olis Xerxes Ave. & 41st Sc. 1219 313 2 0
2 Minnea olis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 1394 504 14 0
3 Minnea olis West Elmwood 5t. & Belrriont Ave. 264$ 600 33 0
4 Minnea olis Oakland Ave. & 49th St. 3250 1016 117 0
5 Minnea olis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 5160 24�6 664 19
6 Minnea olis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 5733 3402 1�7? 2�3
7 Richfield Wen�worth Ave. & 64th St. 3050 . 1405 110 1
8 Minnea olis Lon fellow Ave. & 43rd St. 2527 876 59 0
9. St. Paul Sarato a St. & Hartford Ave. 23 8 2 �
10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 34 17 13. 3
11 St. Paul Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 27 8 3 1
12 St. Paul Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. 29 3 1 0
13 Mendota Hei hts Southeast end of Mohican Court 1864 307 14 0
, 14 Ea an lst St. & Mekee St. 2446 670 61 0
� � 1� Mendota Hei hts Cullon St. & L.e� ton Ave. 2156 438 27 0
16 Ea an Avalon Ave. & V'�las Lane 2043 640 133 3
17 Bloomin ton 84th St. & 4th Ave. 1845 578 114 1
18 Richfield 75th St. & 17th Ave 2715 2303 1162 78
19 Bloomin ton 16th Ave. & 84th St. 2597 1510 546 9
20 Richfieid I 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 1581 106 10 0
21 Inver Grove Heiohts Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 908 76 0 0
22 InverGrove Hei h[s � Anne Marie Trail 965 69 0 0
23 Mendota Heights Fnd of Kenndon Ave. 2860 1401 422 10
24 Eaean Gha el In. & Wren Ln. 1868 310 � �
2� Ea�an Moonshine Park 1321 Jurd Rd. 613 6 0 0
26 Inver Grove Hei�hcs � 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 1682 138 0 0
27 Minnea ofis Anthon School �757 Irvin Ave. S. 2054 565 24 0
28 Richfield � 6645 16[h Avenue S. 4297 � 318 3 0
29 Minneapolis � Fricsson Elem Schoo14315 31st Ave. S. 1406 336 1� 0
Tatal De ure Noise Events 58994 20379 5126 378
A Prcxiuct of the Metropotitan Airports Couunission ANOMS Program 17
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Repc�rt
'Y'op Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
September 1999
(RMT Site#1)
Xerxes Ave. & 41�` St., l�tinneapolis
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
09/ 21/ 99 8:16:49 UNKNOWN L29B A 12L 92.7
09/ O1/ 99 10:56:47 NWA9716 A320 A 12R 91.4
09/ 09/ 99 12:02:02 N W A 1765 B722 D 30R 91.1
09/ 08/ 99 11:33:02 N W A 1271 B722 D 30R 90.0
09/ 14/ 99 11:28:42 N W A 1543
09/ OS/ 99 19:50:55 DAL1683
Q9/ 21/ 99 11:38:40 N W A 1543
Q9/ 14/ 99 16:03:50 DAL1624
B722 D
B722 D
B722 D
B722 D
30R 89.4
30R 89.d
30R 88.7
30R 8$.6
09/ 20/ 99 11:33:31 N W A 1543 B722 D 30R 88.2
09/ 14/ 99 21:14:52 N W A 1507 B'722 D 30R 88.1
(R.MT Site#2)
Fremont Ave. & 43rd St., Minneapolis
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ � Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
09/ 09/ 99 12:01:40 N W A 1765 B722 D 30R 94.4
09/ 13/ 99 11:28:49 N W A 1019 DC9 D 30R 94.0
09/ 21/ 99 11:38:19 N W A 1543 B722 D 30R 92.7
09/ 08/ 99 21:33:03 N W A 1545 B722 D 30R 92.2
09/ 08/ 99 11:32:38 N W A 1271 B722 D 30R 92.1
09/ 14/ 99 16:03:30 DAL1624 B722 D 30R 91.9
09/ 2$/ 99 12:28:47 N W A 23 B742 D 30L 91.5
09/ 28/ 99 7:19:32 CCP101 B�2Q D 30R 91.4
09/ 27/ 99 7:24:17 CCP 101 B72Q D 30R 91.1
09/ 15/ 99 11:32:39 N W A 1543 B72Q D 30R 91.0
(RMT Site#3)
West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave., Minneapolis
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
09/ 22/ 99 15:25:37
09/ 14/ 99 12:03:53
09/ 15/ 99 12:06:23
Type Departure
NWA23 UNKN D
N W A23 B742 D
N W A 23 B742 D
30L 97.9
30L 95.8
30L 95.4
09/ 20/ 99 16:29:43 DAL1624 B722 D 30R 94.8
09/ 21 / 99 15 :13 37 N W A 19 B742 D 30L 94.4
09/ 22/ 99 17:41:47 SCX791 B72Q D 30L 94.3
09/ 26/ 99 15:28:19 N W A215 B72Q D 30R 94.0
09/ 21/ 99 15:40:43 KLM664 B743 D 30L 93.8
09/ 19/ 99 12:07:17 UAL1661 B72Q D 30R 93.7
09/ 22/ 99 15:40:�8 KLM 664 B743 D 30L 93.7
18 A Prcxiuct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�ram
C
C
r
��
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatemen[ Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
September 1999
(RMT Site#4)
Oakland Ave. & 49`h St., Minneapolis
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
09/ 20/ 99 11:27:26 N W A 1271 B722 D 30R '� 96.5
09/ 08/ 99 11:32:03 N W A 1271 B722 D 30R 96.4
09/ 26/ 99 19:59:09 DAL1683 B72Q D 30R 95.9
09/ 22/ 99 16:01:43 DAL1624 B72Q D 30R 95.7
09/ 08/ 99 21:32:28 N W A 1545 B722 D 30R 95.6
09/ 09/ 99 12:01:03 N W A 1765 B722 D 30R 95.5
09/ 10/ 99 16:07:58 DAL1624 B72Q D 30R 95.5
09/ 15/ 99 17:16:30 SCX791 B72Q D 30R 95.5
09/ 21/ 99 11:37:47 NWA1543 B722 D 30R 95.3
09/ 15/ 99 20:50:46 N W A449 B722 D 30R 95.2
(RMT Site#5)
12`'' Ave. & 58�' St., Minneapolis
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ . Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
09/ 20/ 99 8:18:31 SCX227 B722 D 30L 105.0
09/ 19/ 99 7:20:23 AMT8417 B72Q D 30L 102.9
09/ 26/ 99 13:15:21 N W A 12�0 B722 D 30L 102.8
09/ 15/ 99 20:41:39 N W A 625 B722 D 30L 102.6
09/ 19/� 99 7:13:49 CCP 101 B72Q D 30L 102:4
09/ 26/ 99 11:23:43 N W A 1271 B722 D 30L 102.4
09/ 27/ 99 6:26:12 SCX571 B722 D 30L 102.1
09/ 22/ 99 11:42:08 D A L 1507 B722 D 30L 102.1
09/ 22/ 99 18:23:43 N W A724 B722 D 30L 102.0
09/ 15/ 99 17:19:19 DAL505 B722 D 30L 101.9
(RMT Site#6)
25`� Ave. & 57`� St., l�tinneapolis
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
09/ 26/ 99 20:58:10 N W A615
09/ 09/ 99 12:00:26 N W A 1765
09/ 21/ 99 15:39:24 DAL1731
Type Departure
B722 D
B722 D
B722 D
30R 109.9
30R 109.6
30R 1Q8.8
09/ 19/ 99 11:2239 N WA 1271 B722 D 30R 108.6
09/ 08/ 99 11:31:25 N W A 1271 B722 D 30R 108.4
09/ 28/ 99 7:18:38 CCP 101 B72Q D 30R 107.6
09/ 20/ 99 11:26:44 N W A 1271 B722 D 30R 107.3
09/ 08/ 99 13:16:05 N W A 1044 B722 D 30R 107.1
09/ 08/ 99 21:31:47 N W A 1545 B722 D 30R 107.0
09/ 21/ 99 21:24:19 N WA 1545 B722 D 30R 107.0
A Prociuct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Proaram 19
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASACj Technical Advisor's Report
Top Ten I.oudest Aircraft Noise Events for 11�iSP
September 1999
(RMT Site#7 )
Wentworth Ave. & 64`h St., Richfield
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
09/ 26/ 99 15:25:17 DAL1731 B722 D 30L 101.0
09/ 26/ 99 12:27:42 NWA673 DC9Q D 30L 98.5
09/ 19/ 99 8:12:48 SCX227 B72Q D 30L 969
09/ 29/ 99 15:40:33 DAL1731 B722 D 30L 96.6
09/ 20/ 99 9:58:32 AMT8139 B72Q D 30L 96.4
09/ 15/ 99 14:33:45 SCX411 B72Q D 30L 95.4 .
09/ 19/ 99 19:29:24 N W A 1272 B'722 D 30L 95.2
09/ 22/ 99 14:06:02 SCX571 B72Q D 30L 95.0
09/ 26/ 99 17:15:41 DAL505 B72Q D 30L 94.4
09/ 15/ 99 15:35:32 N W A 1502 B722 D 30L 94.0
(RMT Site#8 )
Longfellow Ave. & 43� St., Minneapolis
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
09/ 09/ 99 11:0'7:29 SCX743 B72Q D 30R 97.9
09/ 20/ 99 8:38:54 UAL1480 B722 D 30R 95.2
09/ 21/ 99 14:43:0'7 NWA654 DC9 D 30R 94.7
09/ 20/ 99 11:43:33 SCX743 B72Q D 30R 94.2
09/ 19/ 99 19:26:00 N W A606 B722 D 30R 94.2
09/ 27/ 99 8:03:35 SCX325 B72Q D 30R 93.3
09/ 29/ 99 13:45:16 NWA672 B722 D 30R 93.2
09/ 22/ 99 1'7:15:38 UAL1897 B732 D 30R 93.2
09/ 10/ 99 7:17:55 SCX710 B72Q D 30R 93.2
091 10/ 99 7:20:22 SCX325 B72Q D 30R 93.1
(RMT Site#9)
Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave., St. Paul
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB}
Tvne Departure
09/ 10/ 99 11:02:12 SCX743
09/ 28/ 99 1 S:16:14 N W A 19
09/ 07/ 99 13:3332 NWA24
B72Q D
B742 D
B742 A
04 94.4
04 93.2
22 92.1
09/ 02/ 99 428:09 FDX1022 A306 A 22 91.6
09/ 04/ 99 13:25:28 N W A 146 B741 A 22 91.0
09/ 07/ 99 21:46:46 N W A 674 B722 A 22 90.7
09/ 25/ 99 4:19:42 RYN 610 B721 A 22 90.4
09/ 02/ 99 5:44:12 N W A844 B752 A 22 89.9
09/ Ol/ 99 23:59:48 RYN710 B721 A 22 89.5
09/ 07/ 99 18:26:11 N W A 55 B741 A 22 . 89.4
20 A I'rcxiuct of the Me[ropolitan Airporls Commission ANOMS Pro�ram
C
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
September 1999
(RMT Site#10)
Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St., St. Paul
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
. Type Departure
09/ 19/ 99 11:48:31 NWA23 B742 D 04 103.3
09/ 23/ 99 15:14:52 N W A 19 B742 D 04 101.0
09/ 28/ 99 15:15:46 N W A 19 B742 D 04 100.2
09/ 1 �/ 99 5:02:28 RYN 610 B72Q D 04 98.5
09/ 23/ 99 17:29:58 N W A23 B742 D 04 97.8
09/ 03/ 99 4:55:57 FDX1718 UNKN A 22 97.7
09/ 28/ 99 23:11:06 N W A 677 B72Q D 04 97.4
09/ 03/ 99 5:09:13 FDX1407 DC 10 A 22 96.9.
09/ 07/ 99 18:26:47 NWA55 B741 A 22 96.7
09/ 10/ 99 11:01:45 SCX743 B72Q D 04 96.3
(RMT Site#11)
Finn St. & Scheffer Ave., St. Paul
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ _ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
; � 09/ 23/ 99 1�:30:14 N W A23 B742 D 04 140.5
�' __ 09/ 29/ 99 5:11:32 RYN 610 B72Q D 04 94.1
09/ 17/ 99 5:02:45 RYN 610 B72Q D 04 91.8
09/ 20/ 99 18:43:55 N W A 19 B742 D 04 89.8
09/ 17/ 99 6:56:48 MXP252 BE18 D 04 88.0
09/ 28/ 99 23:11:18 N W A677 B72Q D 04 87.6
09/ 19/ 99 11:48:51 NWA23 B742 D 04 8�.0
09/ 02/ 99 11:20:10 USA912 MD80 A 12L 85.5
09/ O1/ 99 6:46:37 BMJ13 BE80 D 04 82.6
09/ 23/ 99 15:15:12 N W A 19 B742 D 04 82.1
(RMT Site#12)
Alton St. & Rockwood Ave., St. Paul
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
09/ 06/ 99 10:52:12 SCX743 B72Q D 04 92.5
09/ 17/ 99 0:28:33 RYN 710 B721 D 04 87.9
09/ O1/ 99 16:52:12 N WA44 DC 10 A 12L 85.9
09/ 29/ 99 0:25:09 RYN 710 8721 D 04 85.7
09/ 03/ 99 10:07:31 U N KN O W N PA 34 D 12R 83.8
09/ 24/ 99 9:20:47 M ES3081 SF34 D 12L 80.8
09/ 07/ 99 7:16:25 BMJ68 BE99 D 12L 80.6
09/ 07/ 99 7:24:52 BMJ13 BE80 D 12L 80.3
09/ 03/ 99 9:53:29 MES3083 SF34 D 12L 79.5
09/ O1/ 99 7:24:15 BMJ48 . BE80 D 12L 79.4
A Prcxiuct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�?ram 21
Metropoli[an Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
T'op �en Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP (,
September 1999
(RMT Site#13)
Southeast End Of Mohican Court, Mendota Heights
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
09/ 25/ 99 13:41:25 •. N W A 619 B722 D 12L 98.0
09/ 07/ 99 9:46:31 N W A 1515 B72Q D 12L 93.3
09/ 18/ 99 11:23:16 N W A 1271 B72Q D 12L 92.4
09/ 251 99 15:06:27 SCX743 B722 D 12L 92.3
09/ 17/ 99 21:27:24 N W A615 B722 D 12L 91.9
09/ 17/ 99 12:14:45 N W A 619 B72Q D 12L 91.2
09/ Ol/ 99 22:21:48 KHA709 B722 D 12L 91.0
09/ 04/ 99 7:30:52 N W A99 B72Q D 12L 90.8
09/ 16/ 99 16:03:22 DAL1624 B72Q D 12L 90.7
09/ 16/ 99 16:15:29 UAL463 B72Q D 12L 90.7
(RMT Site#14) �
ls` St. & Mckee St., Eagan
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ .Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
09/ 18/ 99 13:2$:46 NWA584 B722 D- 12R 97.5 �-
09/ 04/ 99 10:07:04 Pd W A 1515 B72Q D 12L 97.5
09/ 26/ 99 7:05:30 CCP101 B72Q D 12R 96.5
09/ 25/ 99 11:41:19 N W A627 B722 D 12R 96.4
09/ 26/ 99 7:14:10 AMT8417 B72Q D 12R 95.5
09/ 04/ 99 11:10:26 CTT397 B722 D 12L 95.5
09/ 06/ 99 13:53:55 N W A446 B'72Q D 12L 95.3
09/ 17/ 99 6:28:24 SCX571 B722 D 12R 95.0
09/ 17/ 99 11:39:49 N W A 627 B72Q D 12R 95.0
09/ 18/ 99 10:57:11 SCX743 � B72Q D 12R 94.7
(RMT Site#15)
Cullon St. & Lexington Ave., Mendota Heights
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
09/ O1/ 99 21:10:28 NWA615 B722 D 12L 98.3
09/ 06/ 99 7:11:04 SCX325 B722 D 12L 96.9
09/ 26/ 99 8:06:30 UAL1480 B72Q D 12L 95.8
09/ 06/ 99 21:06:19 N W A615 B'722 D 12L 95.2
09/ 07/ 99 9:46:10 N W A 1515 B72Q D 12L 94.9
09/ 04/ 99 17:22:57 N W A 623 B722 D 12L 94.7
09/ 07/ 99 7:37:43 UAL1217 B732 D 12L 93.9
09/ 25/ 99 13:41:06 N W A 619 B722 D 12L 93.9
09/ 29/ 99 11:51:01 MES3530 BA46 A 30R 93.9 �
09/ 25/ 99 15:06:07 �CX743 B722 D '12L 93.2
22 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�ram
Mecropoli[an Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
'�'op Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events ior MSP
September 1999
(RMT Site#16)
Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane, Eagan
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
09/ 21/ 99 8:11:46 SCX227 B722 D 12R 101.4
09/ 24/ 99 8:18:28 SCX227 B722 D 12R 101.4
09/ 25/ 99 13:1823 N W A 1270 B722 D 12R l OQ.9
09/ 17/ 99 13:20:14 N W A584 B722 D 12R 99.9
09/ 17/ 99 13:31:01 N W A 1270 B722 D 12R 99.6
09/ 18/ 99 9:06:42 CCP101 B72Q D 12R 98.5
09/ 18/ 99 13:28:35 N W A584 B722 D 12R 97.9
09/ 25/ 99 15:31:05 N W A505 B722 D 12R 97.9
09/ 17/ 99 10:05:17 AMT8139 B72Q D 12R 97.7
09/ 17/ 99 20:27:43 SCX711 B72Q D 12R 97.2
(RMT Site#17) �
84`� St. & 4`�' Ave., Bloomington
Date/ Time Fiight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
09/ 19/ 99 15:14:29 N W A 19 B742 D 22 100.9
09/ 07/ 99 17:24:09 SCX791 B72Q D 22 99.4
09/ 27/ 99 15:10:41 N W A 19 B742 D 22 99.1
09/ 07/ 99 16:53:56 NWA563 B722 D 22 99.1
09/ 09/ 99 7:23:11 AMT8417 B72Q D 22 98.9
09/ 08/ 99 20:53:03 N W A557 B722 D 22 98.7
09/ OS/ 99 15:24:00 N W A 19 B742 D 22 97.9
09/ 10/ 99 1136:15 NWA627 B722 D 22 97.7
09/ 09/ 99 9:40:59 N W A 1515 B72Q D 22 97.4
09/ 10/ 99 20:54:15 N W A575 B722 D 22 97.4
(RMT Site#18)
75`h St. & 17�' Ave, Richfield
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
09/ 071 99 11:50:35 NWA627N B722 D 22 105.7
09/ 03/ 99 21:14:40 NWA449N B722 D 22 104.4
09/ 06/ 99 15:23:34 D A L 1731 B722 D 22 104.4
09/ 07/ 99 11:32:10 DAL15Q7 B722 D 22 104.2
09/ 06/ 99 19:15:27 N W A 678 B722 D 22 103.9
09/ 02/ 99 11:30:17 N W A 1271 $722 D 22 103.6
09/ 08/ 99 20:52:34 N W A557 B722 D 22 103.4
09/ O1/ 99 7:29:4? N WA 1066 B72Q D 22 102.9
09/ 08/ 99 8:16:44 SC�?27 B722 D 22 102.8
09/ 06/ 99 9:31:10 N W A 10I B722 D 22 102.7
A Praiuct of the Niecrc�politan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�ram 23
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
September 1999
(RMT Site#19)
16`h Ave. & 84`'' St., Bloomington
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
09/ 0'7/ 99 1132:31 DAL1507 B722 '• D 22 106.0
09/ 06/ 99 15:16:59 TW A 117 B'722 D 22 102.2
09/ 04/99 13:13 :23 N W A 672 B722 D 22 101.5
09/ 06/ 99 17:14:31 DAL505 B722 D 22 100.9
09/ 08/ 99 13:21:57 NWA624 B722 D 22 100.9
09/ O1/ 99 18:09:10 N W A614 B722 D 22 100.6
09/ 09/ 99 8:15:59 SCX227 B722 D 22 1QQ.4
09/ 02/ 99 11:56:56 N W A 1259 B722 D 22 1 Q0.4
09/ 03/ 99 15:53:14 N W A 14�0 B722 D 22 1 Q0.1
09/ 08/ 99 19:55:35 N W A 1272 B722 D 22 99.9
(RMT Site#20)
75`� St. & 3� Ave., Richfield
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
09/ 21/ 99 5:02:32 RYN610 B721 D 22 94.�
09/ 14/ 99 14:55:46 NWA460 DC9Q D 30L 94.1
09/ 07/ 99 23:5�:37 NWA548N B72Q D 22 94.0
09/ 09/ 99 9:26:29 N W A375 B752 D 22 93.9
09/ 09/ 99 20:59.29 N W A677 . B72Q D 22 92.9
09/ 18/ 99 5:12:43 RYN 610 B721 D 22 92.8
09/ OS/ 99 15:37:02 NWA1080 DC9Q D 22 92.0
09/ 10/ 99 13:01:05 BSK537 B72Q D 30L 91.$
09/ 10/ 99 22:38:48 EWW123 DC86 D 22 91.5
09/ 13/ 99 18:30:58 N W A628 B722 D 30L 91.4
(RMT Site#21)
Barbara Ave. & 67`t' St., Inver Grove Heights
Date1 Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
09/ 26/ 99 1339:35 NWA1855 DC9Q
09/ 17/ 99 13:38:58 N WA 1810 DC9
09/ 25/ 99 13:42:06 N W A 619 B'722 D 12L 85.8
09/ 11/ 99 11:33:34 AAL844 F100 D 12L 85.2
09/ 18/ 99 21:07:15 N W A 1545 B722 D 12L 84.9
09/ 18/ 99 14:47:34 SCX715 B72Q D 12L 84.7
09/ 16/ 99 16:16:12 UAL463 B72Q D 12L 84.3
09/ 24/ 99 11:48:08 N W A23 B742 D 12R 84.1
09/ 24/ 99 11:29:09 N W A 1543 B72Q D 12L 83.8
09/ 17/ 99 11:30:33 N W A 1543 B72Q D 12L 83.�
arture
A 30R 88.6
D 12L 86.6
?4 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOl�SS Pro�ram
C
�::
Me[ropolitan Aircraft Sound Abacement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor'sReport
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
September 1999
(RMT Site#22)
Anne Marie Trail, Inver Grove Heights
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB).
Type Departure
09/ 16/ 99 21:18:18 N W A 56 B742 D 12R 85.1
09/ 14/ 99 0:52:52 LKR383 B72Q D 12R 85.0
09/ 16/ 99 18:09:06 N W A678 B722 D 12R 84.9
09/ 10/ 99 5:06:28 RYN 610 B721 D 12L 84.6
04/ 26/ 99 7:15:01 AMT8417 B72Q D 12R 84.4
09/ 24/ 99 15:19:44 CCP304 B72Q D 12R 84.2
09/ 18/ 99 13:19:40 N W A624 B�22 D 12R 84.1
09/ 06/ 99 12:51:15 DAL935 B722 D 12L 84.Q
09/ 17/ 99 11:17:01 DAL1507 B72Q D 12L 83.8
09/ 26/ 99 9:49:39 N W A453 B72Q A 30L 83.7
(RMT Site#23} �
End of Kenndon Avenue, Mendota Heights
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft ArrivaU Runway � Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
09/ 25/ 99 13:40:54 N W A619 B722 D 12L 103.5
09/ 25/ 99 15:05:55 SCX743 B722 D 12L 103.3
09/ 18/ 99 21:06:03 N WA 1545 B722 D 12L 102.2
09/ 18/ 99 11:33:36 NWA1829 DC9 D 12L 101.6
09/ 16/ 99 20:56:46 N W A615 B722 D 12L 101.4
09/ 06/ 99 7:10:51 SCX325 B722 D 12L 101.3
09/ 06/ 99 14:55:16 SCX715 B722 D 12L 101.2
09/ 17/ 99 21:26:50 N W A 615 B722 D 12L 101.1
09/ 02/ 99 9:43:01 N W A611 B722 D 12L 101.1
09/ 25/ 99 16:47:50 NWA1021 DC9 D 12L 100.1
(RMT Site#24)
Chapel Lane & Wren Lane, Ea�an
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
09/ 26/ 99 7:14:32 AMT8417 B72Q D 12R 93.6
09/ 04/ 99 10:07:25 N W A 1515 B72Q D 12L 92.5
09/ 28/ 99 19:41:01 BMJ13 BE80 A 30R 92.1
09/ 04/ 99 11:10:46 CTT397 B722 D 12L 92.0
09/ 17/ 99 6Z8:45 SCX571 B722 D 12R 90.1
09/ 14/ 99 0:52:23 LKR383 B72Q D 12R 90.0
09/ 18/ 99 20:39:32 N W A557 B72Q D 12R 89.4
09/ 18/ 99 7:14:47 AMT8415 B72Q D 12R 89.3
09/ 18/ 99 9:03:14 EW W 323 DC 86 D 12R 89.1
09/ 24/ 99 1�:26:47 SCX743 B72Q D 12L 89.1
A Prexiuct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�ram �5
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
September 1999
(RMT Site#25)
Moonshine Park, 1321 Jurdy Rd., Eagan
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
09/ 25/ 99 17:39:00 N WA 19N B742 D 22 '• 85.6
09/ Ol/ 99 10:58:10 SCX743 B72Q D 22 85.5
09/ 26/ 99 7:53:42 TWA494 DC9 D 12R 85.0
09/ 15/ 99 22:27:16 UN KN O W N GLF2 A 30L 83.7
09/ 24/ 99 8:04:38 TWA494 DC9 D 12R 82.8
09/ 10/ 99 15:44:22 N WA 1860 DC9Q A 30L 82.8
09/ fl3/ 99 12:10:21 N WA 1543 B72Q . D 22 82.4
09/ 29/ 99 11:35:39 N WA 1270 B72Q A 30L 82.3
09/ 16/ 99 7:13:49 VGD404 B'732 D 12R 80.5
09/ 11/ 99 14:01:48 MES2768 SF34 D 12R 80.0 '
(RMT Site#26)
6796 Arkansas Ave. W., Inver Grove Heights
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft ArrivaU �Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
09/ 28/ 99 17:21:51 UNKNOWN UNKN A 30R 93.8
09l 17/ 99 8:17:39 SCX227 B72Q D 12R 90.0
09/ 07/ 99 7:41:26 UNKNOWN UNKN D 12L 89.8
09/ 07/ 99 9:09:21 UAL754 B722 D 12L . 88.4
09/ 08/ 99 23:57:43 DHL142 B72Q D 12L 87.9
09/ 24/ 99 11:47:43 N W A23 B742 D 12R 87.6
09/ 14/ 99 16:00:15 MES3022 SF34 A 30R 87.6
09/ 07/ 99 8:06:05 UAL1480 B72Q D 12L 87.4
Q9/ 03/ 99 10:59:07 SCX743 B72Q D 12L 87.2
09/ 24/ 99 8:37:34 SCX21 B72Q D 12R 86.7
, (RMT Site#27)
Anthony Middie School, 5757 Irving Ave. S., Minneapolis
Date/ Time
09/ 20/ 99 8:19:05
09/23/ 99 9:11:19
09/ 22/ 99 11:42:�
Flight Number
sc�2�
SCX407
DAL1507
Aircraft Arrival/ Runway
Type Departure
B722 D 30L
B72Q D 30L
B722 D 30L
Lmax (dB)
99.5
93.5
93.3
09/ 28/ 99 18:10:05 SCX785 B72Q D 30L 92.8
09/ 21/ 99 13:24:52 NWA624 B722 D 30L 92.7
09/ 15/ 99 7:17:30 CCP101 B72Q D 30L 92.4
09/ 15/ 99 16:17:03 UAL463 B72Q D 30R 92.3
09/ 20/ 99 20:41:13 N W A557 B722 D 30L 92.2
09/ 20/ 99 15:12:01 N W A 1502 B722 D 30L 92.0
09/ 14/ 99 16:15:39 UAL463 B72Q D 30R 91.8
26 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�ram
C
�
Metropoli[an Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technicai Advisor's Report
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
September 1999
4RMT Site#28)
6645 16 h Avenue S., Richfield
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
09/ O1/ 99 13:03:41 DAL1721 MD80 D 22 93.9
09J 13/ 99 18:36:27 AMT7255 B72Q D 30L 93.6
09/ 23/ 99 18:43:30 DAL256 B72Q A 30L 93.2
09/ 16/ 99 10:59:44 EWW738 DC86 D 30L 92.2
09/ 23/ 99 18:54:46 N W A 1507 B72Q A 30L 92.1
09/ 10/ 99 12:21:39 UAL1055 B73Q D 30R 89.7
Q9/ 09/ 99 8:38:07 KH A 1728 B727 D 30R 89.0
09/ 19/ 99 14:55 :47 N W A 676 M D 80 D 30L 88.3
09/ 09/ 99 7.21:02 AAL487 MD80 D 30R .88.2
09/ 14/ 99 17:28:53 SCX791 B72Q D 30L 88.1
(RMT Site#29)
'' �
Ericsson Elementary School, 4315 31S` Ave. S., Minneapolis
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
09/ 19/ 99 16:59:40 MES2725 SF34 D 30R 94.6
09/ 09/ 99 6:11:10 UAL694 B722 D 30R 94.2
09/ 09/ 99 19:27:28 N W A606 B722 D 30R 93.5
09/ 10/ 99 9:04:02 UAL754 B72Q D 30R 92.8
09/ 26/ 99 9:10:29 UAL754 B72Q D 30R 92.8
09/ 13/ 99 22:09:17 EWW 123 DC86 D 30R 92.7
Q9/ 19/ 99 9:10:32 UAL754 . B72Q D 30R 92.2
09/ 14/ 99 14:51:50 N WA 1810 DC9 D 30R 91.4
09/ 22/ 99 9:11:56 UAL754 B72Q D 30R 91.0
09/ 16/ 99 15:14:44 UAL1122 B'73Q D 30R 90.8
September 1999 Top Ten Summary: The top ten noise events and�the event ranges at each RMT for
September 1999 were comprised of 91.4% departure operations. The predominant top ten aircraft type
was the Boeing 727 with 73.1% of the highesi Lmax events. Due to the nature of operations on the
crosswind runway, (4/22) RMT's 9, 10, 11 and 12 in St. Paul are an exception. The predominant top ten
aircraft type over St. Pau] was the Boeing 747 with 32.5% of the highest Lmax events.
Note: Unknown fields are due to data unavailability in FAA flight track data.
A Prcxiuct of the Nietropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro;ram 27
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
C
Analysis of Ai�craft I�oise Events � Aircraft Ldn d�A
September 1999
Remote Monitoring Towers
; ;.: .
__ .
_
=Il►ate ; #1::" :#2 ' #3 #4 #5 #G #7. ?; . .#8: ; �. #9 ; #10 : #1.1 #12 #13 #14 #15
1 �8.9 61.4 63.4 64.2 683 70.6 40J 44.6 53J 5�.4 � 44.7 47 59.2 I 59.3 63.3
2 563 603 62 63.5 67.2 69.9 38.8 4�S 56.5I59J 45.5 45S 57.5 59.8 59.9
3 57.1 � 61.5 62.6 643 671 70.5 40.8 47 56.9 I 62.4 38.6 48.6 57.3 60.9 58.8
4 57.6 62 62 64.8 66.2 71.4 41.8 499 �3.8 57.4 413 42.7 579 63.7 60.8
5 57.2 58.1 I 58.2 62.7 63.7 73.9 56 62.8 46.9 � 38.9 n/a n/a 42.1 60.1 46.5
6 57.4 61.1 � 62.3 63.8 67.2 70 47 43.9 5�3 ( 60.1 39.9 51.4 58.4 62.6 62.5
7 56.2 60.9 � 61.2 64.7 65.6 72.1 50.3 56.4 57.5 � 60 ( 40.7 46.4 57.5 613 60.9
8 �8•4I 61 58.5 66 65.2 75.9 5� 64.1 38.� 4�3 47.1 nla 43 61.4 52_1
9 58.1 60.4I 58 64.6 63.6 75.5 54.4 64.6 45.9 4$ 42 42S 42.1 61.1 47
10 60.4 623 62.6 66.8 6�.8 77.1 60.4 64.4 54.6I56.5I38.3 47.6 44.2 60.6 47.4
11 JJ.F) �83 61.9 613 66.2 67.6 45.6 533 403 46 40.6 40.2 53.8 58.9 56.8
12 60 62 62.1 63.2 67.4 70.1 61.4 59.8 �3.1 ( 56.3 49.8 54.3 57.5 63.4 62.3
13 57.2 60.4 60S 64.7 71.4 74 66.7 62.6 47.1 38.1 I43.8 38.9 46.5 61.1 49
14 60.4 61 63.8 65.6 71.8 75.5 67.4 6�.1 41.8I46.8 n/a 43.4 42.4 62.6 513
15 59.7 61.6 64.3 66.7 74 75.6 67.3 64.8 383 43 46.1 44.9 46 60S 413
16 58.4 603 63.7 64.4 71.8 73.1 63 59.2 47.2 46.5 44.1 42.2 �93 64.6 59.6
17 57.1 ( 58.9 633 61.4 68.3 683 44 45.9 38.4 58.1 51.2 4$.7 633 66.7 63.6
18 �7.1 57.7I63.1 61.4 68.2 68.2 46.8 46.7 48.7I44.1 39.6 46.9 62.7 66.2 64
19 60.4 60.7 � 64.9 65.1 72.9 76.1 68.3 64.8 45.7 60.2 � 48.4 n/a 48.7 61.4 40.3
20 59.8 65.5 64.6 66.4 73.4 76 68.2 6�.4 48 51.1 � 50.9 39.7 n/a 59.6 45.9
21 59.4 I 61.5 ( 63.4 65.6 72.1 7�.3 66.1 64 n/a � n/a ( 44.4 44.4 5�.3 62.4 5�.4
22 56.2 60.1 63.5 66 72.8 75.7 66 63.1 42.7 41.4 49.4 46.5 43.8 60.5 50.9
23 �8.7 59 (63.3 6�._5 72.� 75.2 67.7 63 50.5 59.8 57.4 38.8 4�.1 59.6 43.9
24 �9.1 60.2) 64.7 63.4 64J 69.9 48S 4�.9 49 �43I38.7 46.3 62.2 66.8 64.7
25 57.4 58.8 64.3 62.7 69 69.1 42.6 46 54.5 58.2 47.6 40.7 62.5 6�.6 64
26 �3.7 �9.9 643 65.3 73.2 75.1 67.3 63 �2.1 ��.7I 48 389 �2.9 63.� �6.5
27 i9.6 60.4 64.7 6�.3 72.7 74.8 66.9 63.6 43 49.9 � 39.7 �4.1 63.2 �6.7
28 '?9? I 60.2 � 62.9 6�.1 71.� 7�.1 67.4 6� �1.8 � 59.6 I 48.5 42.1 37.2 60.3 41.6
29 57.6 ( 60.6 I 62.1 6�.4 72.2 75.8 67.5 6�1.3 �1.4 58.4 ��3.1 4f35 43.1 59 �4.7
30 53? � 60.1 ( 61.4 64.3 71.2 75 67 63.6 ».6 � �9.3 ; i0.2 38.8 39.9 61.4 49.9
1VIa Ldn 59.8 62.1� 64.'7 66.5 '72.4 '76.3 66.2 64.9 59.9 64.7f 54.0 48.9 59.0 65.8 61.0
28 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS ProDram
,� j
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
A.nalysis of Aircraft Noise Events - Aircraf� Ldn d�A
September i.999
Remote Monitoring Towers
, ,_
; .:. . , . �. ,: _ ..
_ _.
� Date . ';. #16 #17 #18 #19 #20 :#21 #22 #23 #24 #25 #26 #27 `#�2$ #29
1 �.� � 62.7 75.4 72.1 52.1 52.1 51 70.1 56.1 54J 58.1 43.8 583 44.4
2 54.1 64 75.4 72.1 52 53.3 52 69.4 56.4 47.8 57 41.1 56 41.9
3 56.4 63.8 75.7 72.5 51.6 50.7 55.2 69 58.3 45.1 58.6 39.8 56.7 42.5
4 �7.4 62.7 74S 70.8 523 53 53.2 69.8 59.6 � 43 57.4 n/a 5�.8 39.8
5 62.6 � 66.4 73.2 70 583 46.3 55.4 58 59.1 34.8 51 47.6 5�.4 61.6
6 57.1 62.5 75.8 73.1 53.� 53.7 56.1 69.6 59.5 46.3 57.4 41.4 56.3 483
7 59.2I 66.8 76 71.1 603 51.1 54.3 68.1 58.8 48S 58.5 49.4 57.6 53.8
8 64.6 ( 67.4 75.2 72.1 58.5 45.8 56.2 56.1 60.6 435 54.3 48.9 56.4 60.1
9 63.8 68.1 75.3 72.3 60.6 39.7 56.7 56.1 60.8 42.3 51.1 50 56.4 61.7
10 64.7 68.5 75.1 71.4 603 39.9 55 60 60.2 44.1 50.6 49.8 57 61.3
11 63.7I41.6 44 46.4 49.6 48.8 49.7 64.9 55.8 52.7 53.2 38.6 47.6 44S
12 64.2I6�3 70.1 65_2 58.7 56.2 56.9 70.1 62.1 60.3 58.7 55.9 60.2 61.1
13 6�.5 � 5�.7 57.7 50.3 57.7 47.3 58.1 56.7 61.8 465 50.6 613 62.8 61.1
14 66.6 ( 52.5 58.7 49.3 55.7 38.5 58.4 57 62 462 51.3 61.4 63.1 62S
l� 6� 56 59.7 4$.3 48.4 41S 55 54.3 59.7 51.1 50.1 64.8 61.7 60.1
16 68 55.6 60 47.8 45.6 57.2 58.3 69.3 622 57 58.4 60.5 57.9 55.4
17 69.8 � 54.5 60.6 55.1 41.7 59.6 58.2 72.4 63 56.2 60.2 40.1 49.3 41.5
18 68.4 ( 54.7 62.3 52.1 52.6 58.6 57.7 72.2 62.5 55.8 59.1 41.5 43.9 38.6
19 66.4 ( 57.9 56.5 47.3 51.4 38.8 5�.4 53.6 60 43.9 56.6 62.9 63 61.6
20 65 � 40.6 50.� 48 483 42.9 5�.4 49.4 ( 59.5 47.4 48S 653 62.4 59.5
21 67.1 ( 52.3 59.6 51.1 55.8 52.8 56.2 63.3' 61.2' S3.7 54.9 63.3 603 60.2
22 6�.4 � �2.9 56S 47.3 49.6 44.9 5�.4 59.7 60 48.1 51.8 63.7 60.6 58.4
23 65.1 � 49.1 58.1 50.4 49.9 42.8 54.6 5�3 59.2 47.7 46.3 63.6 62.4 57.8
24 69.7 � 5�.6 61.3 48.5 43.5 58 58.4 71.7 63.5 62.4 59.9 41.2 58.5 44.4
2� 69.1 � 54 63.2 56.2 45.4 54.6 57.5 71.1 62.1 57 56.9 35.4 52.1 39.6
26 6�.9I57.8 62.7 50.4 47.4 49.7 57.1 62.5 61.6 47.4 54 63.9 60.2 60.8
27 67.7 I�8.4 62.1 60.2' 47.2 53.4 5�.2 64.7 60.7 52.1 57.1 63.3 60.7 �6.9
28 6�.3 � i8.3 58.� 52 _51.6 41.8 S43 53.5 59.8 45.2 62.2 61.8 62.4 I 60.8
29 C� i �9.6 60.2 50.6 53 43.3 54.3 �9.2 59.1 49.3 49.4 63.2 60.9 n/a
30 66.1 '�2.6 61.� �6.6 53.3 46.3 56.8 �8.4 613 45.8 55.2 62.2 62.4 n/a
1tilo. Ldn 67 ?� 65.0 73 � 69.3 59.2 �4.8 591 69.0 63.6 5�.4 59.4 b1.8 62.3 60.8
A Product of the Nletropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 29
C�
(.
. _ _ _ � ;.�
K rt' �. E �} �(�s �? � �. ��� '�, `i�� �%`. ' �3.
r r � 4. L F". � y
�. l�
1�.�.��� ��.��� ��'I�►�������� i ' ����� � �� � �� � �.��� � �°�
���°�°����� ��������
C-
(�
Mrtru��uliian Air��urts Ci>mniissiun
� 395() C�arg-i��- JciS L)cp�B-tec� Ra.���w��ys 12I� �nc� 12� in Septen����r 19�y
3�19 (�6.7%) ���� tIl()S� C�p�'Cil�@tD61S I��i6i`c1IB�Lt.� i8`H th� COfl CICIOC
39�O 'I'otal 12I� & 12i2 Carrier Departure
���� ) Operations
3819 (�6.7%) 'I'otal 12L & 12R Caa-rier
De�ariure Operations in ti�e Corrador
�Ulinneapolis-St. Paul
Per�etration Gate Ploi for Gate In_Corridor
(D9/01 /1999 00:00:00 — i 0/01 /1999 00:00:00
3819 TracScs Crossed Gate: Left = 1469 (38.5%), f3ight = 2350 (61.5%)
6000
5000
� 4000
�
� 3000
�
Q �000
����
Q
..................:...............................................
........ : .�....... - ... �:'.......�,-.0 :.................
. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . ,�-. C.�� C_.� Gti, � , -,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .��� ��� t �'� ����'''����� ��� � . . . . . . . . . . . . .
( ���+A,��iq� �'�ny� f,�P3.�.x'���'^`�r������3'i'�y�..� 2 �'.y� k � R4x���� .
nn�`",�aqtati 'y`� �' r�a �'fi�3 Jr�� ��t��fa,�a�� '�.'�"f ��j�
. . . . . . . . . . . . �-r�Y:t �i:. f'" j c�- a 1�r7 R�� '�.r�i�"r' t y ��t �.r p rh � � r �� . . . . . . . . . . . .
t �`'t y4�� �' � ���� � �k-� � �-����t3�,����,4'�� � ��i
� , : c�< � F y°r'�iC�.�� { ' } �'`'�� �i �r c} �--�5 }� 1 s.„i yi-�` � ��rjk''`' L y,,,�;�.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:. . . . . . . . ��c,. ,t� :r� ,...�' . . . . � �,:r c^�. . . .-t.�. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
—2 —� � � 2 ;
�evaata�ra �roea� Ce�a�er s�fi Gate (9VBiles� ,
.`r,.�,•.aw:a:rv:.,.^�.ww.ar•� axv,.,n-,a:,�,..m,�:.....,...,.�...,....,.....,.,.»,,.__..'. _.... ..
+ Ara-aval - @eg��ria�re D C�ve��lig9�t
...................................,�.,v,..�..�� :..���.....,.��.,,�.�.�����:�:�: ��
f�l��iiilil� I :i��:iu/'�i�.�n�l„I;i Ilii��li��•.I)�•��;irun'��('�,rri�J��r:lnal���i�
(':i,��• I
M�tn����,litan Air�x,rts C'unui�i„i��n
27 (0.7°�Io) �2iQnway l�I, anc� 12I2 t;`��'�-fl�r,J�t i)��ar��.o�-� C.���c�rations w�rc
North of the ()90" Corrid�r �<�d�nclary D�ar�ng S�pt�Q����er 1999
Y.���r �
Minneapolis-St. Paui
Penetration Gate Piot for Gate North_Corridor
09/01/1999 00:00:00 - 10/01/1999 00:00:00
27 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 15 (55.6°/a), Right = 12 (44.4°/a)
..................:..................:..................:..................
.-. •
,�, . . .
� 4000 .....................................:.....................................
W ; : :
v. - •
� ���� .................:..................: .................:..................
� ; . .
� . . .
� 2��� . . . . .. .. . . . . . . .. . .:.. . . .� . . ,'(��.�. ��.:. .. . . . . .. .. _. �; . • .v.�,L�. . . . . . . . . . .
: 1 (� tJ ' �`� . . . ( � . . . J. . . . . . .�. C)
1000 ..................:..�....��.....�'U......:......... ' ............
0 �-
-2
( Runway Fn�3 )
-1
��
1 2
(Cc>rri�l��r Encl)
Deviation From Cenier of Gate (Miles)
+ Arrival �� Departure ❑ (3verflight �
Nlunthly Ea;�cin/til�n�i<�ta f-Ici�,hts D�Exu�turc C<�rriclur Anulysis
iLlcu•���x,litai� ;\ir�x,rt, ('uniuii;;i��n
1()� (2.(%) Rura�v��y 12I� aa�d 1��� C:=�r�-i��-.1�t ��a���t��-tada•� t�����•ati��sas were
So«th of ihc Corric�or (So�ath �t'3t)�� ���>c`l�Q?('H•) ���a-au�� ��p��n�l��r 1�����
Minneapolis-St. Paul
Penetration Gate Pioi for Gate South Corridor
09/01/1999 00:00:00 - 10/01/1999 00:00:00
104 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 60 (57.7%), Right = 44 (42.3%)
..................�..................:..................:..................
� . . .
.�.. . . .
� 4000 .....................................:.....................................
LL : � �
� . . .
.� 3��� ...C'� .............:...................:..................:..................
� 0 � : : �
= . :
Q 2000 . . r• .��.�.. r. .;�.;. .. .. ..�. `_.: .. ✓ .... .. .. .... : . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .
J p �- �s" � ,,. . : .
1000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'� . � � . . �c� J��'� V .C��c: �y . "��. ✓ . . . . . . . . .
� �Jv - y� J ��� '~�`� `f�
. . . ' (iV-' �
0 `
(Curricl2rFn�i) —1 0 � (RWY Nti�l-P�>ir2it)
Deviation From Center ofi Gaie (Miles) ,
+ Arrival �� Departure � Overfilight;
Nl�,nthly E?a��an/Nt�n�luta f-Ici`�hts D���:u�turc Curri�lur Analysis P�i�zc 3
i�l�u•�,�,ulit�in Air��urts ('cnumi;si��n
18 (U.�°�lo ) I�«nway 12�, ancl i2iZ Ca�ricr ,��t ��j�a�-t�i�•c ()�et-��ta��ns `vc�rc
5° South �f the Corric6or (5° So�ith of 3OI. Localiz�r) I��a�i�ab S�pt�nabcr 1999
Minneapolis-St. Paul '
Penetration Gate Piot for Gate South_Corridor_5deg
09/0�/1999 00:00:00 - 10/01/1 999 00:00:00
'18 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 4(22.2%), Right =14 (77.8%)
..................:.................:..................:..................
... � . .
� 4000 ..................:..................:.....................................
� � � :
.., . .
� 3000 ..........� ......:...................:..................:..................
� . � :
`� .................0 ................:..................:...................
= 2000 � :
Q : � p ��C� �� p:
1000 ..................:..
................:.t •c�.....�....,�......,..�..........
0 .._ .
(Corri�i2r En�l) -1 � 1 (ItWY (vli�l-P��i2t)
Deviation From Center ofi Gate {Miles)
+ Arrival o Departure ❑ Overflight:
Nu�,� -4 Lt�,nthly F.u��an/M�ncluta Fl�i��hts Dc��artur� C��rri�l��r An.ilysis
� a
i�l��tn,�u,lit:u� ;\ir�u,rts ('�m�inissi��n
Top �5 12unway �2I, anc� �2�2 D�:p1�C��li"�' �Q'S$��41�aQ➢�S �QD➢- 5�������her- 1y99
/'// � �' 1
� � � ' � /
/ � i / / � /
YYZ Toronto c)5�� 5� I.�%
BOS Boston Lo�an y��� 6`� 1•7`��
D"I'W Detroit 105" t2=� 3. I�Io
EWR Newark 106" 5`� 1.4°!0
CLE Cleveland ipy�> 61 I.S�Io
PHL Philadelphia � 1 l� 61 I.5%
ORD Chica�o - O'Hare �?�� ?'S $•�`�o
MDW Chica�o - Midway ��4� 74 1.9�10
ATL Atlanta ��.y� 70 1.8%
STL St. Louis 160° 79 ?.O�Io
DFW Dallas - Ft. Worth 193° �9 2.090
DEN Denver �37�� 78 2.O�Io
SLC Salt Lake City �5�� 57 1.4°Io
SEA Senttle ��g� 63 (.6%
FAR Fargo 312� 59 I.S�Io
Munthly F.a;�un/Nl�n�lut,i Ilci;�hts [)r��.u•tur� C'urri�lur An.ilysiti Na��r i
�
< ;
1
; , > :
� ` � `" i`' ,f
- / f; : , : ,:.
E-
t.
.�:. . -.. _ ... � .� �
; .. ,� ;E x r
�4 ... ..�::.
A biweekly update on litigation, rewlations, and technological developments
Volume 11, Number 17
C��
FAA PROPOSES UPDATE TO ORDER 1050.1D
ON ENVIRONNIENTAL REVIEW PROCEDURES
The Federal Aviation Administration is seekin� public comment on a proposal it
just announced to replace it's Order 1050.1D on Policies and Procedures for
ConsiderinQ Environmental Impacts, issued in 1983 and updated four times, with a
new order— 1O50.1E.
The order is used by a�ency personnel and others to guide them through the
process of conductin� environmental assessments under the National Environ-
mental Policy Act (NEPA). It specifies how analysis of aircraft noise impacts (and
other environmental impacts) arisin� from airport development and expansion
projects or air route chanses should be condvcted.
The proposed revision reor�anizes and consolidates information in the old order,
propases new and modified catesorical exclusions (projects exempt from environ-
mental review), incorporates new procedures for preparing environmental docu-
( � ments, consolidates appendices from the old order in the body of the new order,
_ - and proposes new appeadices.
The new order also would add a new appendix providing some guidance on
conducting environmental justice reviews.
The updated order adds a new subject, "Supplemental Noise Guidance," to the
(Coniinued on p. 128)
Legislation
SENATE PASSES FAA REAUT]HORIZATION BILL;
MEASURE WILL LOOSEN SLOT RESTRICTIONS
On Oct. 5, the Senate passed leQislation reauthorizin� the Federal Aviation
Administration. It will add fliahts at the four slot-controlled airports: WashinQton,
DC, Reaaan National, Chicago O'Hare International, and New York's Kennedy
International and LaGuardia.
Differences between the Senate bill and similar IeQislation passed earlier by the
House (1 1, ANR, 71) still must be reconciled in a conference on the leQislation.
An amendment to the bil] (S. 82) authored by Sen. Slade Gorton (R-tiVV) and
John D. Rockerfeller (D-WV) — and supported by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ),
chairman of Senate Aviation Subcommittee — would create 24 new slots (a slot is a
takeoff or a landino) at ReaQan National Airport. That is half the number ori�inally
proposed by I�IcCain. T�velve of the 24 new slots would be able to fly beyond the
I.Z�O-mile perimeter rule at the airport.
In an effort to mitiaate noise impact, the bill stipulates that only StaQe 3 air-
planes can operate in the netiv slots. However, an earlier provision restrictin� the
�� J ne�v slots to operation bv smaller, quieter reQional airplanes was dropped. The
le«islation also �vould require that residents near National Airport be consulted
(Continued on p. 129)
Copyrieht C� 1999 by Airport Noise Repon. Ashburn, Va. 201-t7
October 8, 1999
In This Issuea . .
Noise Policy ... FA.A
proposes to update it� Order
1050.1D on policies and
procedures for considerinQ
environmental impacr.s �vith a
new Order lOSO.lE, which
reorganizes and consolidates
the old order and adcis new
guidance on several issues
includin� noise and environ-
mental justice - p. 127
Legislation ... Senate
appr�ves'uill te, reauthorize
FAA, allow more flights at
the four slot-controlled
airports - p. 127
San Jose ... The city does
not have to disclose to a
newspaper the names of those
who complain about airport
noise, a California appeals
court rules - p. 1 �0
Toledo ... Homea��ners
near Toldeo Express get $4.6
inillion in settlement ��i
lawsuif over nni�;e ;�,�.���:znce
from car�o hub - I.�. ; �::'.
Noise Certi�cation ...
FAA rule har�T�onir.c�s i_l.S,
European noise st�indards for
small prop airp]anes, p. 133
San Francisco ... Califor-
nia LeQislature passe.s bill tc�
require noise impac�. to be
considered in FIIZ Tor runway
reconfiQuration -- p. l 33
�
128
noise section of Appendix i. The asency said that supple-
mental noise analyses are most often used to describe
iraft noise impacts for specific noise-sensitive locations
v� situations and to assist in the public's understanding of
the noise impact.
"Accordingly, the description should be tailored to
enhance understandinQ of the peninent facts surroundins
the chan_es," the FAA explained it its proposai. The ajency
said tha[ its selection of supplementa] analyses "will depend
upon the circumstances of each particular case." In some
cases, "this may be accompiished with a more complete
narrative description of the noise events contributing to the
yearly day/niQht averaae sound levei (DNL) contours with
additional tables, charts, maps, or metrics. In other cases,
supplementa] analyses may included the use of inetrics
other than DNL."
The aaency said that use of the supplemental metrics
selected should fit the circumstances. "There is no single
suppiemental methodo]osy that is preferable for all situ-
ations and these metrics often do not reflect the ma�nitude,
duration, or frequency of the noise events under study."
The proposed updated order also incorporates recommen-
dations made by the Federal Interagency Committee on
Aircraft Noise in 1992 (1 l, ANR, I 11). Primary among
these recommendations was that an assessment of the noise
impact below 65 dB DNL (the point at which federal noise
analysis traditionally stops) should be made under certain
�`-cumstances.
� ��e upc�ated order rec�mmends that, if a screenino
analysis shows a 1.5 dB DNL or greater increase in noise
impact within the 65 dB DNL or greater noise contour, then
further noise analysis should be done in the 60-65 dB DNL
noise contour where noise increases of 3 dB DNL or more
are expected. ' �
Categorical Exclusions
FAA defined cateaorical exclusions as "actions that,
based on the FAA's�past e:cperience with similar actions, do
not normally require an Environmentai Assessment or
Environment Impact Statement because they do not
individually or cumulatively have a sisnificant effect on the
human environment." 4
The updated order includes several noise-related actions
that are cate;oricall_y excluded from environmenta] review.
AI�tR was unable to determine by deadline which, if any, of
these were newly added to [he order.
Excluded from environmental revie�v are the followin�?
actions:
• Establishment of new or revised air traffic control
procedures conducted a� �,000 feet or more above ground
level (AGL): instrument procedures conducted below 3,000
feet AGL that do not cause traffic ro be routinelv routed
i�ver noise sensitive areas; modifications to currently
( )roved instrument procedures conducted below 3,000 feet
tiGL thst do not si��nificantl�� increase noise over noise
sensitive area; and increase in minimal altitudes and landing
Airport Noise Report
minima. For Air Traffic modifications to procedures at or
above 3,000 feet AGL, the Air Traffic Noise Screenin�
Procedure should be applied;
• A short-term chanQe in air traffic control procedures, not
to exceed six months, conducted under 3,000 feet AGL to
accommodate airport construction;
• Tests of air traffic departure or arriva] procedures
conducted under 3,000 feet AGL, provided that: (1) the
duration of the test does not exceed six months; (2) the test
is requested by an airport or ]aunch operator in response to
mitiQatins noise concerns, or initiated by the FAA for safety
or efficiency of proposed procedures; and (3) test data
collected will be used to assess operational and noise
impacts of the test; and
• Approval under FAA's Part 16 t re�ulations on notice
and approval of airport noise and access restrictions of StaQe
3 aircraft that does not have the potential to siQnificantly y
increase noise at the airport submitting the restriction
proposal or at other airports to which restricted aircraft may
divert.
16 Proposed Changes
The FAA is askins forpablic comment on the followins
] 6 proposed chanaes to its environmental order: �
• ReorQanize the order to place all categorica] exclusions,
includins new and modified ones, in Chapter 3, thus
eliminating the need for separate appendices for each
program (noise, air, water, etc.);
• Reorganize the order to place the types of actions that
normally require preparation of environmental assessments
and environmental impact statements for al] programs into
Chapters 4 and 5, resFectively;
• Add a new appendix 1 containina an overview of
procedures for implementins other appiicable environmental
laws; 4
• Provide �uidance so that the Air Traffic Service could
accept the Depanment ai Defense's use of a cateaorica]
exclusion for actions relatins to a request for desiQnatior� of
special use airspace when that request is subject to a
catesorical exclusion by DOD;
• Add a reference to Tribes in definina extraordinary
circumstances when actions are ]ikely to be hiQhly contro-
versial on environmental Qrounds; �
• Provide guidance on inter�overnmental review of �ocnr.>>
actions that may affect state and local governments;
• Provide procedures for adoptinQ environmental assess-
ments prepared by other aQencies:
• Provide a new optiona] procedure for preparin� scopin`
documents. These are used to identify the potential cff�cts
on the environment of a proposed action and set the tempo-
ral and seo�raphic boundaries of the stud��:
• Add�a new procedure to para�raph 516. Re�•ised or
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. The FAA
said it is proposina to add paraaraph (d) that ��•ould include
a procedure for circulatins status sheet or supplen�enta)
environmental information, such as reports, on lon��-term or
Airport Noise Report
C
�'--..;'- 1
i �
October S, 1999
complex EISs to provide information that does not require
preparation of a supplemental EIS;
• Add new or amended catesorical exclusions;
• Add a new sabject, "Supplementai Noise Guidance," to
the Noise section of Appendix 1;
• Add a new appendix 4, Guidance on Third-Party
Contracting;
• Delete from the characteristics for extraordinary circum-
stances actions that are likely to be hi�hly controversial with
respect to the availability of adequate relocation housing.
The FAA said that it is not aware of any environmental
assessments required by this circumstance alone. Rather,
when this situation has occurred, it has been accompanied
by other extraordinary circumstances;
• Clarify that the FAA foliows the �uidelines of the
American National Standards Institute of Electrical and
Electronic Engineers for electroma�netic radiation.
The FAA also is seekina public comment on the "potential
usefulness of requirin� NEPA documents to be prepared and
submitted in electronic form suitable for access via the
Internet.
Comments Due by Jan.11
The proposed order was issued in the Oct. 13 Federal
Register. It should soon be available on the FAA Office of
Environment and Enersy's�web site (www.aee.faa.gov),
listed under "What's New:'
Public comment on the proposal must be received
received by FAA by Jan. 11, 2000. �
Comments should be mailed in triplicate to the FAA,
Office of the Chief Counsel, Attn: Rules Docket (AGC-
200), Docket No. 29797, 800Independence Ave, SW,
Room 915G, Washington, DC 20591_
Further information on the proposal can�be obtained from
Dr. Ann M. Hooker in FAA's Office of Environment and
Eneray; tel: (202) 267-3��4.�
Legislation, from p. I2�
durins an environmental review of the effects of the new
tlishts and that noise mi[isation funds for surrounding
neishborhoods be provided. Sen. Chuck Robb (D-VA)
offered an amendment that was accepted that wiil prohibit
fliQhts after 10 p.m. and before 7 a.m. at National.
The Gorton-Rockerfeller amendment to the Senate bill
would eliminate slot controls at New York's Kennedy and
LaGuradia airports as of Jan. 1, 2007. In the interim, new
entrant air carriers set new flisht opportunities, and reaional
jets Ret slot e;cemptions for new service or increased
frequencies to small and non-hub airports.
The Gonon-Rockerfeller amendment would have elimi-
nated slot restrictions at Chicaso O'Hare International
Airport by April I, 2003. However, the Senate approved a
second-de;ree amendment offered by Sen. Peter Fitzgerald
(R-IL) and Richard Durbin (D-IL) to the Gorton-Rocker-
129
feiler amendment that would provide 30 slot exemptions at
O'Hare (18 tar�eted for service to underserved communi-
ties) but does not drop the slot rule altoQether.
"The purpose of the competition enhancement provisions
is [o complete the dere�ulation of our domestic aviat'ron
system for the benefit of consumers and communities
everywhere," McCain said. "I am pleased that the Senate
has recognized the importance of removing remainins
barriers to competition, barriers that study after study have
cited consistently increase air fares for consumers."
Torricelli Amendments
Sen. Robert Tomcelli (C-NJ), a stronQ advocate for
reducing the impact of airplane noise over New Jersey,
authored two amendments thai were added to the FAA
authorization bill. One would direct the National Academy
of Science to conduct a comprehensive study on the airport
noise problem and report its findin�s to Consress. The study
would focus specifically on the threshold of noise at which
health impacts are felt, the effectiveness of noise abatement
pro�ams at airports in the United States, and the impacts of
aircraft noise on students and educators in schools.
Noting that the FAA currendy is the only federal agency
reporting to Con�ress on the aircrafr noise issue, Torricelli
contended the agency faces a conflict of interest between its
responsibilities to promote the aviation industry while
dealin� with the aircraft noise problem. Torricelli said his
amendment "will allow Con�ress to hear another voice on
this issue: '
"I don't believe current noise standards are sufficient, and
this report is the first important step towards chanQins
them," he said.
Torricelli's second amendment expresses the Sense of
Con�ress that ocean routin� procedures be considered by
the FAA durin; its current redesisn of the metropolitan New
York air space and that community �roups be involved in
the redesi�n process. "This amendment will send a strons
messaQe to the Ft�,A that it must consider all viable options
for reroutina aircraft in our reaion and that the community
must not be ignored durin� the process," the senator said.
Durin� the debate process, Torricelli also spoke in support
of a provision of the bil] that would provide an additional
�36 million over three years to the National Airspace Re-
Desian project.
ThreQ Year Authorization
The lesislation, entitled the Air Transportation Improve-
men[ Act, would provide a three-year authoriza[ion of all
programs of the FAA at a total fundin� level of $1 1.8 billion
for fiscal year 2000, � 11.53 billion for fiscal year 200 i, and
$1 1.95 billion for fiscal year 2002.
The Airport Improvement Prosram, under which noise
miti�ation srants are provided, is funded at a level of $2.47�
billion in fiscal 2000, �2.41 billion in each of fiscal years
2001 and 2002. The lesislation increases the apportionment
for noise grants in the AIP proRram from 31 percent of the
Airport Noise Report
130 Airport Noise Report
Discretionary fund to 3� percent.
- The bill includes other noise-related provisions.
)It requires the FAA to work with the Taos Pueblo to
I study the feasibiliry of conducting a demonstration project
to require all aircraft that fly over the ancient Native
American site and the Blue Lakes Wilderness Area, where
reli�ious rites are performed, to maintain a mandatory
minimum a]titude of at least 5,000 feet above ground level.
Native Americans have complained the low-level tourists
fli�hts were damasing the frasile adobe Pueblosite and
intrudins on sacred rituals. �
• The IeQislation also inc]ucies provisions that address air
tours over nationai parks. They reflect a compromise that
was reached between the air tour industry and environ-
mental interests. In order for air tour operators to operate in
national parks, they must conduct their tours in accordance
with the air tour mana�ement plan for that park. If a plan is
not already in place for a particular park, the FAA adminis-
trator and the director of the National Park System would
develop one.
Commercial air tour operators have to apply for authority
to conduct operations over a park, and the FAA administra-
tor wili prescribe operatina conditions and limitations for
each commercial air tour operator. Existins commercial air
tour operators will have 90 days to apply to the FAA for
operating authority. New entrant air tour operators will be
required to apply for the authority before they can beQin
'" -nmercial air tour operations over a national park.
� �ens. McCain and Richard Bryan (D-NV) offered an
amendment that was adopted directing the FAA to desi�nate
requirements for aircraft ta be considered as employing
quiet aircraft technology for Grand Canyon air tours. The
FAA will establish a reasonable schedule for the phase out
of aircraft that do not meet the new requirements for quiet
aircraft technoloQy.O
Sa�z Jose I�zt'Z
NOISE COMPLAINERS' N �.NIES
DO NOT HAVE TO BE DISCLOSED
In a landmark rulin� overturninR a trial court decision, a
California Appeals Court held Sept. 8 that the Ciry of San
Jose does not have ro disclose ro a loca] ne�vspaper the
names, addresses, and telephune numbers of residents who
have complained about aircraft noise because such disclo-
sure �vould likely have a chillin� effect on the filinQ of
t'uture c��mplaints. �
San Jase's etforts to block the San Jose IVlercury News,
Inr. from obtainin�� the names of those who re�ister noise
complaints �vas supported b�� the City and County of San
�rancisco and j I additional California cities who filed
cinriru.r briefs in the case. includin� San Dieao, Burbank,
( �meda, I�iodesto, Tviontere�•. Napn, and Newport Beach.
lisins a balancin�T [est under the state's Public Records
:�rt. the appellate court a`�re�d ��•ith the arUument made by
San Jose, proprietor of San Jose International Airport, that
the public interest in disclosina the names, addresses, and
telephone numbers of persons who have made airport noise
complaints "is clearly outweighed by the public interest in
protecting the complainants' privacy and in preventinv a
chillins effect on complaints." �
"Under the facu of this case," the court said, "where Ciry
makes public a monthly noise report and other records
which provide a wealth of information about airport noise
complaints, the public's interest in disclosure of the com-
plainants' identify and personal information is minimal. It is
not necessary to disclose the names, addresses, and tele-
phone numbers of the complainants for the public to have
access to vital information about City's performance of its
state-mandated duty to record and report airport noise
complaints."
The newspaper has alternative means available to contact
and interview complainants "other than by intrudinQ on their
privacy through forced disclosure of their identities from
government records," the court ruled. "The newspaper may
directly contact complainants who have made their identities
pubiic, for example, by appearing at city counci] meetin�s,
by joinin� anti-airport noise community groups, or by
disclosins themselves on the �roup's web site. The 11�1ercury
News may also identify from the monthly noise reports
those neighborhoods from which complaints ori�inate, and
canvass those neighborhoods for complainants who are
willin� to be interviewed."
"We recoonize that a maiIin? and telephone list of airport
complainants would a eatly facilitate the Mercury News'
investi�ation. However, facilitatins research is not the
purpose of public access to �overnment records," the court
said. "Because alternative information is avai]able reaardinQ
the city's complaint-related operations, the public interest in
protectina the privacy of complainants clearly outwei�hs the
public interest in disclosure of their names, addresses, and
telephone numbers from aovernment records."
Evidence of Intimidation
In March 1998, the Mercury News, a daily newspaper,
asked the director of San 7ose International Airport for
disclosure of the names, addresses, and telephone numbers
of 215 individuals who had made written, telephonic•. c�r c-
mail complaints about airport noise durins the monti� of
January I998. It also sought tapes and transcriptious of the
complaints.
The city declined the request on the �round that t17e
complainants' privacy rights outweiahed public disclosure
and provided the paper with its monthly noise rer.�rt.
Dissa[istied with that response, the paper sued ,o compel the
city to disclose the information. It araued [hat it was entitled
to disclosure of the information under the California Yublic
Records Ac[, which is modeled after the fedzra) I�reedom of
Information Act. Thei�fercury News contendeii tliat the
information it sousht concerned a matter- of� si«nificnnt
public interest — airport noise — and theref'ore t}�c. public
Airport Noise Report
C
October S, 1999
in�erest in disclosure was not outweished by the complain-
ants' risht to privacy. The paper ar�ued that "the validity of
,�-' �the noise complaints could not be evalaated without access
`�� to those who were doins the complainin=."
� The trial court asked the city to show cause why it should
not require disclosure of the information the paper souaht.
The city submitted copies of a number of letters it had
received from Jon Rodsers who represents an or�anization
caIled Aircraft Pilots of the Bay Area, Inc. Rod�ers is based
in the San Francisco area but is active around the state using
real estate disclosure laws to quell noise complaints. He
informs those who file a complaint about noise that they
must disclose that noise is a probiem when they sell their
homes or risk violatina the disclosure laws. Rod�ers had
asked the City of San Jose to disclose the names, addresses,
and telephone numbers of airport noise compiainants, but
ihe city refused to do so.
The city submitted to the court a copy of an article from
the �1ay 1995 edition of the newsletter of Rodger's associa-
tion. The article, entitled "The I�iore You Complain, the
I�Iore You Must Disclose," discussed Rod�er's efforts to
obtain the identify of those who complain about airport
noise. The city cited the followins statement from that
article: "The effect of.Rod�er's messaje on complaining
homeowners and anti-airport groups has been salutary ... As
reported last month, the latest shining example of how well
the disclosure law works when anti-airport groups are given
the message, is the success of the Tahoe Valley Airport.
r` j� �Noise complaints there fell from a hiah of 450 prior to 1q94,
t, .,, �
x�� ' to only 36 last year."
Despite this evidence, the triai court sided with the
Niercury News explaining that the city's evidence was old
and that the public interest in obtainina the data was not
outweighed by mere speculation that its disclosure would
chill further complaints. On Juty 23, 1998, the court ordered
the ci[y to disclose the information the paper souaht.
New Evidence Presented
The city, however, fi]ed a motion for reconsideration
contendinm it had ne�v evidence of the threat of intimidation
of airport noise complainants by the Aircraft Pilots organi-
zation. The new evidence included more recent letters from
the orsanization to the manaoer of the Van N�ys Airport, in
which Rod�ers requested disclosure of the name, address,
and telephone number of a person who was a frequent
complainer about airport noise. The city also submitted
copies of letters from Aircraft Pilots to real estate brokers
advisinR them that homeo�vners risked exposing themselves
to fraud liabi]iry if thev complained about airport noise and
then later failed to disclose the noise problem to home
buvers.
In linht ot this evidence, and as a result of the Mercury
Ne�vs's concession durinr oral ar�ument that certain
� complainants' personal information should be redacted, the
y`��court amended its order to allo�v the city to exempt from
disclosure those complainants ��.�ho qualified for exemption
131
under the state Public Records Act. San Jose then appe��led
that rulinQ ro the states' Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Balancing Test
In determininQ whether public records that are not
expressly exempted from disclosure under the California
Public Records Act must be disclosed over the sovern-
ment's objection, state courts apply the Section 6255
balancing test for the "catchall exception" on a case-by-case
basis. The "catchail exception" allows a aovernment a�ency
to withhold records if it can show that, on the facts oi' a
particular case, the public interest served by withholdin� the
records clearly outweighs the public interest served by
disclosure.
The burden of proof is on the proponent of nondisclosure
of the recoids to demonstrate a"clear overbalance" on chc
side of confidentiality.
While no appellate court in California has addressed the
issue of whether a city must disclose the names, addresses,
and telephone numbers of airgort noise complainants, the
California Attorney General did issue an opinion on the
matter in 1995. Using the balancina test under the Section
625� catchall exception, the attorney general concluded that
that "names, addresses, and telephones of noise complain-
ants are subject to public disc�osure unless the city can
establish in particular circumstances that the public interest
served by not making the information public clearly
outweighs the public interest served by disclosure."
The appeals court said it a�eed with the attorney gen-
eral's conclusion that disciosure of the names, addresses,
and telephone numbers of airport noise complainants is
determined by application of the Section 625� balancin�
test.
'I'he appeals court said the trial court erred in orderina
disclosure of the names of noise complainants, but the court
also recognized the arsument made by the 1�Sercury News
that it is in the public interest for the newspaper to be able to
contact the complainants individual]y in order to confirm
that their complaints have been properly recorded and
reported by City as required by its state noise variance. "We
also recognize," said the court, "the Mercury News's
implied argument that City may be motivated to underreport
airport noise complaints and thereby prevent any ne��ative
impact on airport expansion."
Courts have not required evidence that individuals were
actually deterred from complainin� by the prospect of�
public disclosure, the appeals court e:cpiained. Insteaci,
courts have based their recoanition of the likelv effect oi'
disclosure on human experience. "Accordinsly, it may b�:
fairly inferred, on the basis of human experience. that it is
]ikely that public disclosure of airport complainants' names,
addresses, and telephone numbers will have a chillin�* effect
on the number of complaints made. Public disclosure �viJl
subject the complainants to the loss of contidentiality in
their complain[s, and also in direct contact by the me.dia �nd
by persons who with to discouraoe complaints. It also may
Airport Noise Repon
132 Airport Noise Report
be presumed that a reduction in airport noise complaints will
Zpede City in its ability to comply with its noise monitor-
.,i� duties."
The Mercury News has unti] Oct. 18 to decide whether to
appeal the Appeals Court rulins to the state supreme court.�
Toledo Express
AIRPORT SETTLES LAWSUIT
OVER NOISE FROM CARGO I�UB
The Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority announced Sept.
17 that a settlement has been reached with 170 residents
near Toledo Express Airport who filed a lawsuit in 1993
asserting that the ni�httime air cargo hub operations by
BAX Global (Burlington Air Express) created a noise
nuisance.
The residents will collectively receive $4.6 million under
the settlement, which wiil completely terminate the litiga-
tion. .
The settlement also contains several non-economic
provisions which are more important than the money, said
David Zoll bf the Toledo law firm Zoll & Kranz, which
represents the homeowners:
• The Port Authority will perform a study to determine if
departure procedures can be routed over less densely
,opulated areas, and if so, and the studies are accepted by
� 1e FAA, will implement such departure routes;
• A three-person panel will be set up to resolve complaints
concernin� the quality of workmanship and materials in the
residential sound insulation program and to monitor the
level of noise reduction obtained as a result of the sound
insulation; and � `
• The Port Authority will implement a sales assistance
pro�ram and purchase assurance proQram for certain heavily
impacted homes upon approval of the program by the FAA
and wil] permit public comment on the terms and conditions
of those programs.
"The Port Authority's commitment to study new departure
routes and add quality control measures to the sound
attenuation pro�ram played an important role in resolving
the liti�ation and illustrates responsible conduct on the part
of the Port Authority," said Zoll.
"The commitment by the Port Authority to undertake
future tlirht track analvsis and related issoes addressed in
thz Settlement ARreement illustrates a recognition by the
Port Authority that airport expansion should not be at the
expense of a few," he said. "tiVhile jobs are important, so is
quality of lit'e of people livin�= in the community. The
burdens crented by airport expansion should be borne by all
those who benefit. Responsible airport operators accept
responsibility for the damases created by the noise gener-
� �ted by the airport operations. The comrnitments made by
--the Port Au[hority in the Settlement A�reement place it in
the rankti of responsible airport operators," Zoll said.
The homeowners who tiled the litigation live in Fulton
County, OH, west of Lucas County, which operates the
airport. They were getting the noise from 34 arrivals and 34
departures every night, Zoll said. The airplanes were being
routed straisht in and out of the airport to avoid flyina over
the city of Toledo, he said, addin� that if the aircraft can
make a left turn on departure over a park that should help
alleviate the noise impact.
Some 22 of the homeowners reside in the 70-7� dB DNL
noise contour, 59 are within the 65-70 dB DNL contour, and
the rest reside in the 60-65 dB DNL contour, accordin� to
zoll.
Insurers Will Pay
Port Authoriry President James Hartung said his a�ency
continues to deny any wronQdoing or leaal responsibility for
the claims alleaed by the homeowners. He said the Port
Authority decided to settle the lawsuit because one of its
insurance carriers a�reed to pay most of the settleinent fee
and avoid further costs in defendina the litigation.
Most of the $4.6 million that will be paid to the homeown-
ers will be funded by Core�is Insurance Company, one of
the Port Authority's insurance carriers. It has aQreed to pay
$3.45 million of the iinal settlement figure. y
Althou=h the remaining $1.15 million initially will be paid
by the Port Authority, Hartun� said the Port is hopeful that
it will recover much of that from its other insurance carriers.
A$200,000 payment from one carrier, which he did not
name, is expected within the next several weeks, Hartun�
said. That payment will reduce the Port Authority's initial
portion of the settlement to $950,000. HartunQ said the Port
Authority wiil continue to pursue liti�ation aQainst other
carriers in order to force payment by them.. y
Paul Toth, director of technica] services for the Port
Authority, who mana�es the asency's sound attenuation
proaram, said that since BAX Global beoan operations at
Toledo Express in 1991, the Port Authority has installed
noise insulation improvements, valued on averase of
$25,000 per home, in 200 houses. By March 2000, another
47 homes wilt receive treatment. In addition, accordina to
Toth, the Port Authority has acquired more than 2501�omes
and two nursins homes affected by aircraft noise since 1991
and expects to acquire 14 more homes befoFe the end of
1999.
"Airport noise is a national problem," said Hartuns�. "The
Port Authority' willinaness to resolve this liti,�acion �r;d
implement the non-economic components of the se.ttlement
demonstrates Genuine concern about the con�ec�uences of
aircraft operations on those who live near the air}�ort."
HartunQ added that the settlement makes ecanornic• sense.
"DefendinQ litigation as complex as this is very expensive.
Because the settlement will be largely funded b�� one of our
insurance carriers, this resolution makes the best usc of our
fiscal resources. Our continued pursuit af IitiRation a��ainsc
the remaining insurance camers demonstrates the Port
Authority is an effecti��e and responsible steward of public
resources," he said.
Airport Noise Report
October S, 1999
The settlement also allows the Pon Authority to focus its
atten[ion on a terminal expansion project.
Appeals Were Pending
,
On Apri] 28, a visitin� state court jud�e �ranted the Fulton
County homeowners' motion for Partial Summary Judgment
and found that the Port Authority had created a nuisance as
a result of the establishment of the BAX Giobal Hub at
Toledo Express Airport. The case was then scheduled to
proceed to trial on July 13.
The Port Authority' appeal of the judge's ruling was
denied. However, the Ohio Supreme Court �anted an
emergency stay haltin� the triai proceedings a few weeks
before trial. The Port Authority's appeal before the state
Supreme Court was pendin� at the time of settlement.
On July 1, a county Court of Common Pleas judge denied
the Port Authority's motion for summary judgment in the
case. He found that the Port Authority was not tmmune from
liability and that a question of fact was created as to whether
or not a nuisance had been created by the Port Authority.
The Port Authority's appeai of that decision was also
pendina at the time of settlement.0
Noise Standards
CERTIFICATION STANDARDS
_ .-- FOR SMALL PLANES AN][ENDED
�' ( �
�' The Federal Aviation Administrauon Oct. 13 issued a�
�.,
�:�_:_;
final rule amendin� its noise certification standards for
small, propeller-driven airplanes in order to harmonize the
standards with those of European countries.
The changes bein� made in the certification standards are
based on a joint effort by the FAA, the European Joint
Aviation Authorities (JAA), and the FAA's Aviation
Rulemaking Advisory Committee to harmonize U.S. noise
certification re�ulations with European Joint Aviation
Requirements for small planes.
These chan�es, which are technical in nature, "will
provide uniform noise certification standards for airplanes
certificated in the United States and in the JAA countries,"
FAA said in its Federal Register announcement. "The
harmonization of the noise certification standards will
simplify airworthiness approvals for import and export
purposes."
The FAA issued a proposed rule on the certification
chan�es on Nov. 18, 1998. 'I'he chanses proposed reflected
the six recommendations made by the advisory committee.
They would chanQe Appendix G of Part 36 noise certifica-
tion standards to estabiish noise measurement procedures,
corrections to test results, and specific aircraft noise limits
that are tied to aircraft weisht.
Further information on the final rule can be obtained from
( �Mehmet Marsan in the FAA's Office of Environment and
`._ _=' Eneray; tel: (202) 267-7703.�
133
San Francisco Int'Z
BILL REQUIRES THAT NOISE
BE CO�VSIDERED IN ASSESSMENT
The California Senate and Assembly has approved
legislation (SB 177) that would add the word "noise" by
reference to the litany of environmental impacts to be
considered in San Francisco International Airport's pending
runway reconfiguration study.
The San Francisco Airport Community Roundtable
members adopted a resolution Oct. 6 in support of the bill,
which has yet to be sisned by the Gov. Gray Davis.
The bill amends the state Government Code to make
reference to a section of the Public Resources Code that
defines "environment" as "physical conditions which exist
within the area that will be affected by a proposed project,
includina land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise,
objects ef historic or aesthetic significance."
The le�isFation stems from the Roundtable's response to
the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact
Report for SFO's proposed Runway Reconfi�uration, which
is consi�ering addina runways into San Francisco Bay. The
Roundtabie's response to the notice stressed that "it is
paramount to the membership of the Roundtable that aircraft
noise be considered an environmentai impact and that it be
given equal weight and treatment with other environmental
impacts actdressed in the draft EIRIEIS document."
'The mernbers of the Roundtable voted 10-5 to encourase
the goveznor to si�n the measure. y
Noise Sarrier
The Roundtable also considered whether construction of a
noise barrier would reduce jet backblast noise impact in
communities behind SFO's Runway 1. 7ack Freytaa of the
San Francisco acoustical consultin� firm Charles Salter
Associates toId the Roundtable members that even a noise
barrier more than a mile long and 35 feet hish would have
relatively 3ittle affect on the noise in the communities
exposed to the backblast noise and probably would not
change ehe noise of takeoffs once aircraft had risen above
the runway.�
Airport Noise Report
134
. � � � � .
• 1 •' :••'1
Steven R. Alverson
ivianaser, Sacramento Office
Harris Miller Miller & Hanson
John J• Corbett, Esq.
Spiegel & McDiarmed
Washin�ton, DC
James D. Erickson
Director, Office of Environment and Energy
Federal Aviation Administration
John C. Freytag, P.E.
Director, Charles M. Salter Associates
San Francisco
1�Iichael Scott Gatzke, Esq.
Gatzke. Dillon & Ballance
Carisbad, CA
Peter J- K9rsch, Esq.
Cutler & Stanfield
Denver
Suzanne C. McLean
Chief Development Officer
Tucson Airport Authority �
John I�i. Nleenan
\ Senior Vice President for lndustry Policy
( ) Air Transport Association
Vincent E. Mestre, P.E.
President, Mestre Greve Associates
Newport Beach, CA
Steven F. Pflaum, Esq.
McDermot[, Wi11 & Emery
cn��a�o
Karen L. Robertson
Manaser, Noise Compatibiliry Office
Dalla�/Fort Worth lnternational Airport
Nlary L. Vigilante
President, Synergy Consultant�
Seattie
Lisa Lv]e Waters
tvtana�er, Noise Abatement Program
Palm Beach County Department of Airports
Airport Noise R
ON THE AGEI'��A...
Oct. 24-27 Airgorts Council International - North Amer-
ica s 3th Regional Conference &
Exlu`bi�ion, Bally's Hotel, Las Vegas (contact
ACI, 1775 K St., NW,
Was�gton, DC 20006; tel: (202) 293-8500;
fax (2�2� 466-5555).
Nov. 1-5 The 238th meeting of the Acoustical Society
of America, Hyatt Regency Columbus
Hote�, Columbus, Ohio (contact by e-mail:
asaC�aip.org).
Nov.16-18 INTII�-NOISE 99, The 1999 International
Con�ss on Noise Control Engineering,
Ft. La�clerdale Marina Marriott, Ft. Lauder-
dale, FL (contact INCE, tel: (914) 462-.
40�; �ax: (914) 463-0201; e-mail:
hqCinee.org). �.
2�0�
Feb.14-16 Year2000 International Airport Noise Sym-
posium, sponsored by the University of
CalifQrnia lnstitute of Transportation Studies
(ITS) Technology Transfer Pzogram,
Parac�ise Point Resort, San Diego (for further
� information, contact ITS web site at
www.its.berkeley.edu/techtransfern .
AIRPORT NOISE REPORT
Anne H. Kohut, Publisher
Charies F. Price, Contributing Editor; NIaria T. Norton, Production Editor
Published 25 times a vear at 43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 20147; Phone: (703) 729-4$67; FAX: (703) 729-4�2$.
Price $549.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal ase, or the internal or personal use of specific clients,
is ;ran�ed by Airport Noise Report, provided that the base fe� of U5$1.03 per page per copy
is paid directly ro Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 USA.
Copyright �O 1999 by Airport Noise Repon_ Ashbum, Va. 20147
� � - ,, ; ;,►- �" s
�k� .� :'� > �
A biweekly update on litigation, rewlations, and technological developments
Volume 11, Number 18 October 22, 1999
Europe
UK CONSIDERING FULL-SCALE STUDY
OF EFFECTS OF NIGITTTIME AIRCI2AFT NOIS�
The British government is considering what further study might be required of
the adverse effects of nighttime aircraft noise on people.
It has initiated two trial studies to investigate the options for possible full-scale
research: one is concerned with methodolo?y; the other is a social survey to
explore the public's perceptions of the effects of aircraft noise at night.
These triai studies are beinQ conducted by university researchers under a
pro�ram managed by the Department of Operational Research (DORA) of the
National Air Traffic Services Ltd. and sponsored by the Department of the
Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR).
There currently is no commitment from the government to conduct any follow-
on study. However, if one is done, like the trial work it will be guided by a steerinQ
group including aviation industry representatives and will draw on technical
,- �dvice from leadin� researchers in the UK and okher countries.
( �n part, the LTK government has based it polices on how many nighttime aircraft
movements to aliow at the London airports on the findings of reseazch into the
relationship between aircraft noise and sleep disturbance. But findings of major
research done in 1992, showin� that nighttime aircraft noise has comparatively
little impact in terms of wakin� people from sleep, have not been accepted by
(Continued on p. 136)
Hushkits
727 hTUSHKITTTER SUES COMPETITOI2.
OVER STA.TEMENT BY F0�.2MER BOEING EXEC
DusanAir Technolo�ies, Inc., a manufacturer of hushkits for $oeing 727 aircraft,
has taken its competitor, Raisbeck Commercial Air Group, Inc., to court over a
statement Raisbeck has circulated and posted on the Internet which cre3tes the
impression that the win�lets used in the Du�anAir kit could be unsafe.
The statement, which purports to be sisned by Ron Woodard, former president
of the Boeina Commercial Airplane Group, contains numerous false statements
reaardin� DuganAir and its hushkit, attorneys for the company, based in Red-
mond, WA, said in a complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washinaton at Seattle.
Woodard purportedly siQned the statement on Auj. 11, 1998, just two months
before he abruptly left Boeins.
The statement "creates the false impression that aircraft operators may �et
'cracks' [in the winss] if they use DuganAir hushkits," the company told the court,
()sertins that there is no evidence that winslets can cause cracks in Boein� 727
�—,-Ginas. � �
(Continued on p. 137)
Copyright OO 1999 by Airport Noise Report. Ashbum, Va. 20147
.IfZ T%ZZS .ISSue...
1Zesearch ... British gov-
ernment considering whether
to conduct a full-scale study
of adverse effects of night-
time aircraft noise - p. 135
Hushkits ... DuaanAir sues
Raisbeck over statement by
former Boeinc official on
winglet safety - p. 135
Noise Models ... FAA
issues a major update of its
Integrated Noise Model;
includes advances in tenain
modeling - p. 136
Seattle . . . Under public
pressure, a floatplane opera-
tor drops plans to run tourist
flights from downtown
waterfront - p. 137
Research ... Noise distur-
bance found related to way
people view costs/bene�ts of
airport development - p. 138
Community Groups ...
European environmental
group coordinating interna-
tional protest days over
airport noise, air - p. 139
Grants... FAA awards
noise �rants to Greensboro,
New Orleans Int'1- p. 140
Environmental Justice ...
Standard FAA e;cpects
airports to meet will be
clarified in EIS on runway at
Boston Logan Int'1 - p. 140
'�'
C
C
;
�,
136 Airport Noise Report
many residents near the London airports.
The 1992 study found that noise levels below 80 dBA
were very unlikely to cause any increase in the normal rate
of disturbance of someone's sleep; that with noise levels in
the ranQe of 80-95 dBA the likelihood of the average person
beinQ awakened was about 1 in 75; and that the number of
disturbances caused by aircraft noise was so small that it has
a negligible effect on overal] normal disturbance rates
(althou�h some people are more than twice as sensitive as
the avera�e). These findin�s appear to have been corrobo-
rated by studies conducted subsequently in the United
States.
But the UK government fears that the �ndings of its 1992
study have been widely misinterpreted as an affirmation that
exposure to aircraft noise at nisht does not disturb sleep. In
fact, they observe that, even thoush the likelihood of
someone bein� awakened is reIatively low, the total number
of people awakened in a densely populated neighborhood
being overflown could be si�nificant, and have continued
(after public consultation) to impose restrictions on night
movements at the principal London airports.
Annoyance May Be Significant Factor
While robust scientific evidence linkin� ni�httime noise to
health impairment has yet to be found, the UK government
does, not reject the possibility that such a relationship exists.
It feels that a long-term research �oal must be to deternune
---- whether aircraft noise can actually be detrimental to
�� �eople's health.
� It may be that noise-induced awakeninCs from sleep is one
factor, possibly only a small one, in a complex web of
cause-effect interactions involvin� nighttime aircraft noise.
UK researchers speculate that annoyance to ni�httime
aircraft noise could turn out to be a more sisnificant risk to
health. They also are concerned that the public's perception
that nishttime noise exposure impairs health — whether that
is correct or not — may itself increase stress levels which by
themselves could lead to health problems.
The 1992 UK study mainly was concerned with sleep
disturbance. It did not directly address the questions of
whether aircraft noise interferes with the process of going to
sleep or causes people to awaken from their sleep prema-
turely, thus reducins the total amount of sleep.
Three research options are currently being examined. The
tirst is to e;ctend the 1992 studv to the `shoulder hours' to
answer the questions of whether aircraft noise can delay the
onset of sleep or hasten people's final awakenin� from
sleep. The second research option is to compare sleep
patterns in communities exposed to hiQh and ]ow levels of
aircrat't noise. And the third option is to focus attention on
sleep disturbance amon� noise-sensitive people.
The results of the trials will inform the �overnment's
decision on whether or not to proceed with a full-scale study
� •lnd, if so, which research op�ions to pursue.�
� )
Noise Modeling
I-•, � � �, . � �,
• '• , ',i � i1
The Federal Aviation Administration announced Sept. 30
the release of a new version of its Integrated Noise Model
(Version 6.0), which the agency said represents the begin-
nina of a major change in its noise modelinQ practices.
Unlike previous versions of the INM, Version 6.0 includes
a computational system that is able to consider the spectral
shape of noise produced by aircraft. This advancement in
the model wiii eventually allow it to account for ac�ustic
effects currently not being modeling, such as terrain
shielding, various meteorological conditions, and the
"excess attanuation effects" that currently are under review
by the Society of Automotive Enoineers (SAE) Aviation
Noise Committee (A-21). It is recognized that aircraft noise
actually attenuates more than what is predicted in the
current INM, which is based on data from 727 aircraft. Thus
the term "excess attenuation."
INM 6.0 also includes enhancements to its ability to
compute noise metrics. The new version can compute time-
above meTrics, includes three new metrics from the C-
wei�hted family, and has a mechanism for gz-id point
analysis that allows users to develop a wide array of user-
defined metrics. The.a�ency said that other noise computa-
donal methods have been updated based on the experience
of INM users and on the recommendat5ons of SAE mem-
beis. �
INM Version 6.0 is the first full update of the FAA noise
model since January 1997 when Version 5.1 was released.
Full releases of the INM include enhancements to the noise
model that require a chan�e in its database definition or
include advancements in the noise assessment methodolo�v
that could result in chanQes in airport noise contours. y
Several computational methods that affect contours also
have been revised in the update as has the standard aircraft
data and substitution list. The updated INi�I also includes
larger terrain contour azeas, improved printing of o aphics
displays, and �better editing features.
Future Improvements
The FA.A is in the process of trying to obtain data from
airplane and hushkit manufacturers to be able in the near
future to update the number of hushkitted aircraft included
in the INM. Version 6.0 did not expand on that number.
Currently the INM includes data for the FedEx 727 hushkit.
two versions of NORDAM's 737 hushkit, and two versions
of hushkits for DC-9 aircraft.
Because one third of the U.S. commercial fleet is expected
to be hushkitted, airport operators need the I'�]i Ivi to include
data on as many types of hushkitted aircraft as possible.
Airport operators particularly want to see data on the
controversiai hushkit for 727s produced by Raisbeck
Commercial Airplane Group included in the INI�f.
Airport Noise Report
_ C
October 22, 1999
Subgroups of the Committee on Aviation Environmental
Protection (CAEP) of the Internationai Civil Aviation
Or�anization (ICAO) are working on the question of how
well noise certification data provided by airplane and
hus6kit manufacturers correlates with noise monitoring data,
which reflects the noise actualIy prodaced "when hushkitted
aircraft fly over communities. Airport officials have
expressed concern that the Raisbeck kit for 72'7 aircraft,
which oniy alters the way the aircraft is operated, will
produce no benefits in flishts over communities. The FAA
has obtained some data from Raisbeck but is seeking more.
SAE's A-21 committee also is doing work to further
improve the INM in terms of its accuracy in calculating how
much engine noise will be attenuated by the time it reaches
the ground and how different �round surfaces, such as
water; affect the transmission of aircraft noise.
Because the location and way that engines are mounteci on
aircraft affects how much noise is attenuated at the b ound,
the committee is lookin� at aircraft-specific engine installa-
tions. The current INM is baseci on noise attenuation data
for 727 aircraft. The committee recognizes that these aircraft
are movinQ out of the fleet and the noise model must be
updated to reflect that.
Since 1978, the INIvS has been the FAA's standard tool for
determininQ the predicted noise impact in the vicinity of
airports. The model uses flieht track information, aircraft
fleet mix, standard and user defined aircraft profiles, and
terrain as inputs. The INM produces noise exposure
conto�rs that are used for land use compatibility maps.
The new 6.0 version of the INM is distributed on CD-
ROM accompanied with a User's Guide and it is supported
to run in Windows 95, Windows 98, and the Windows NT
4.0 operatin� systems. As with previous versions of the
noise model, minor updates to the 6.x series will be distrib-
uted at the FAA's web site (www.aee.faa.gov/aee-100/inm).
The first release of Version 6.0 will have a distribution fee
of $3Q0, which includes two full updates. The INM model is
distributed by the ATAC Corp. for the FAA. For additional
information on the new INM update, contact the FAA
Office of Environment and Energy at FAX: (202) 267-
5�94.0
Seattle
PLANS WITHDRAWN TO RUN
FI,OATPLANES FROM DOWNTOWN
Faced with strong community opposition, a floatplane
operator who wanted to run as many as 16,000 sichtseeina
flishts each summer out of Seattle's downtown waterfront
area withdrew his application for the city-issued shoreline
permits needed to conduct such activity.
The Seattle Council on Airport Affairs (SCAA) hailed the
decision by Kenmore Air as "the responsible thin� to do."
The application had been granted by 5eattie's Department
of Construction and Land Use, and then was appealed to the
state Shorelines �iana:ement HearinQs Board by two
137
downtown condo associations and the state ferry system.
"This is great news for residents of Seattle's growins
downtown residential community," said SCAA President
Mike G. Rees. "Our group has consistently held that a
floatplane operation on the Central Waterfront posed
potential excessive noise and safety risks." The group had
words of praise for all concerned. "The residents near the
waterfront are to be commended for standinc up for their
rights. The ferry system was diligent in protectin� the safety
of its operations. And Kenmore's withdrawal was the
responsible thing to do, when the serious problems in its
proposal came to light."
In an interview in September with the Seattle Times, the
owner of the floatplane firm, Robert Munro, had indicated
that the proposal might be withdrawn. "We don't want to go
out and fight the public," he told the paper.
SCAA's Rees said, "It is refreshing to see how a local,
family-owned business can accept that it should not just
push ahead when there is a serious public challen�e to its
plans." Noting that older floatplanes still cause noise
problem for many residents of Seattle, Rees said he expects
to work with Kenmore and other floatplane operators to
address these problems in the future.�
Hushkits, from p. 135
DuganAir accused Raisbeck of trying to create this false
impression ir► order to discourage potendal purchasers from
buying the DuganAir kit and thereby gaining an unfair
advantage over DuganAir in the niche hushkit mazket. With
only three competitors in the 727 hushkit market (FedEx
also has a kit), and the FAA deadline for compliance with
Stage 3 noise standards rapidly approaching, "competition
for business is vigorous," DuganAir attorneys explained.
Raisbeck's circulation of the purported statement by
Woodard has had a serious impact on DuQanAir's business,
the company told the court. "In numerous instances,
potential customers have cited to the representations made
in the [Woodard statement] as their reason for not purchas-
ina or for having mis�ivings as to the purchase of a
DuganAir hushkit." Gregory L. Russel] of the Bellevue,
WA, law firm Peterson, Russell, Cofano, which represents
the company in the litigation, told A.NR that he estimates at
this point a loss of about $10 million in business due to the
Woodard statement.
In its lawsuit, DuaanAir asserted that Raisbeck violated
the federal LanhamLAct, which prohibits false or misleading
representation of fact as to the characteristics or quality of
another's product or service, and the Washin�ton Consumer
Protection Act, which bars unfair methods of competition.
DusanAir is seekinQ treble damases under these acts,
a]thou�h they have not specified any amount of damases.
While the Woodard statement has hurt DusanAir's �
business, it may not have helped Raisbeck, accordin�
Russell. He said that Du�anAir's suspicion is that the
Airport Noise Report
138 Airport Noise Report
beneficiary of the doubt cast by the Woodard statement is
not Raisbeck, but FedEx.
Woodard Statement
Russell said that DuQanAir had heard rumors about the
Woodard statement but first saw it in the course of biddin�
on a contract to hushkit a 727 owned bv the Federal
Aviation Administration. Raisbeck sent the statement to
FAA in an effort to try to win the contract, which Du�anAir
eventually �ot, Russell told ANR. y
The Woodard statement consists of three "questions"
posed by Raisbeck regardinQ its hushkits and Boeing's
purported response to them. [The text of the statement
appears on Raisbeck's web site at www.Raisbeck.com].
The statement includes the followin��false inforrnation,
DuganAir told the court: �
• That the DusanAir hushkit affects the load paths and
loads of Boeine airplane winQs, whereas the Raisbeck
hushkit does not; �
• That DuganAir hushkits compromise the structura]
certification of the win�s of Boeins 727 aircraft;
• That Boeing would not stand behind its aircraft to the
extent they have been modified with the installation of a
DuganAir hushkit; and
• That the Raisbeck hushkit does not change the basic
loadins of the wins.
All of these statements are false, DusanAir told the court,
and they "create the false impression that winglets are
s� `�ow a`mystery product' and the effect of their use on
7�,--�iirplane wings is unknown to Boeing and therefore
must be unsafe." The Woodard statement also creates the
impression that Boeing is endorsing the Raisbeck hushkit.
When DuoanAir became aware of the Woodard statement,
it immediately contacted Boeing and asked for a retraction.
BoeinQ did not provide a retraction but it did acknowled�e
in a June 15, 1999, letter that it did not endorse any particu-
lar hushkit, did not disapprove of any parties' hushkit, and
would provide only limited support for Boeins aircraft
equipped with any company's hushkit. y
FAA Checks Safety
ResardinQ the issue of hushkit safety, the Federal Aviation
Administration assures that aircraf[ equipped with hushkits
meet federal airworthiness standards before hushkits are
approved.
DuganAir said its hushl:it was subject to extensive testing
prior to FAA certification. "Such testins included but was
not limited to load surveys as to the hushkit modifed wing
structure, marQin of safety analyses, damaQe tolerance
analyses and aircraft performance and handlina fli�ht tests,"
the company said in its complaint. In addition,~it said, flight
tests �vere performed wi[h load testins devices on the wings
nnd the data obtained from these devices "was subject to
te�' �ical analysis which include consideration of it under a
v� .N of computer simulated flisht conditions."
Du;anAir pointed out to the coun that Raisbeck's kit,
which does not include winglets, also changes the load of
the Boeing win� and engine so a statement allegedly made
by Woodard — that Raisbeck has maintained the basic
configuration of the load distribution of the wina and engine
— is false and misleading. �
The lawsuit, DuganAir Technologies, Inc. v. Raisbeck
Commercial Air Group, Inc. (No. C99-1203R) was filed on
July 27.
Neither Boein� nor Raisbeck responded to inquiries from
ANR resarding the Iitigation.0
Research
I1 ' i• • 1 ' � 1
� . . � � , • . � �
In areas of moderate noise exposure (55-60 dB DNL)
around developin� airports, predicting who will be disturbed
by aircraft noise is related more to how a person assesses the
risk an airport poses to making their neighborhood a less
desirable place to live than to a person's general irritability
and noise sensitivity, according to the findin�s of a study of
residents near Stewart International Airport.
"Our findings su��est that airport officials and policy
makers should not discount annoyance from noise as
reflectin� idiosyncratic irritability but should instead
construe it as related, in larae part, to how residents view the
trade-offs between benefits from airport development and
the degree to which they see themselves as wlnerable to
adverse effects," the three psychologists who conducted the
study concluded. -
Those who complain about aircraft noise should be
viewed "as rational decision-makers" and not "as a segment
of the population that is more �enerally annoyed, neurotic,
or troublesome," Susan Staples, a psycholoaist in independ-
ent practice and principle author of the study, told ANR.
Staples is a�liated with a b oup called Ulsterites Fight
Overflight Noise, which is concerned about the develop-
ment of�Stewart International, located 60 miles north of
New York City.
The study, "Noise Disturbance from a Developing
Airport," was published in the September issue of the
journal Environment and Behavior. Co-authors of the study
were Randolph R. Cornelius, professor of psycholo�y at
Vassar College, and MarQaret S. Gibbs, professor of
psycholo�y and a director of the Ph.D. program in clinical
psychology at the Farileigh Dickinson University School of
Psychology.
Two Important Factors
"Because air tra�c is projected to double in the next two
decades and intrude into areas not previously exposed,
government o�cia]s wi11 be increasin�ly handicapped in
decision makins by their limited understandins of the
psychosocial factors that explain the.responses of different
Airport Noise Report
(..
C
Octuber 22, 1999
individuals and communities," Staples and her colleagues
predicted.
She said that the findin�s of her study point to the impor-
i •ce of two factors for understandin� differences in
�onse to aircraft noise: the degree to which one's
neighborhood is seen as beins vulnerable to further increase
in noise and judgments about the economic versus environ-
mental effects of airport development.
It stands to reason, Staples said, that residents living near
small, newly expanding airports in suburban areas might
feel vuinerable and at risk. But, she noted, it is possible that
the concept of risk also is relevant for residents living in
communities adjacent to larQe, long-standing urban airports
with proposed runway expansions. "It may be that when
determining to live next to a lon�-standing urban airport,
people decide on the basis of the airport as is and not in
terms of government projections about the growth of air
traffic durin� the next 20 years," she explained. "Moreover,
because our findings sujgest that perceived risk is conceptu-
ally and empirically related to jud�ments about economic
versus environmental effects of airport development, it
seems possible that these valuations may be as relevant for
residents living next to major, lon;-standing airports as for
those living next to smaIl, expanding airports."
Applying the concept of risk to noise increases from
airports "is a potentially useful way to understand how
people conceptualize neighborhood satisfaction in relation
to the uncertainties of living next to a noise source and how
this conceptualization influences both their view of noise
( �lems and their affective responses," Staples said. "As
i��els of environmental noise continue to rise each year and
impinge on residential housing next to airports and transpor-
tation corridors, the need to balance development with
quality of life will provide opportunities for study."
Questionnaire
The researchers distributed a questionnaire on neighbor-
hood satisfaction to 901 residents in five neighborhoods
located between 2.4 kilometers and 5.6 kilometers from the
eastern end of the main runway at Stewart International
Airport. Some 358 people responded. Noise was presented
as one of the many attributes that people were to evaluate.
The cover letter and questionnaire were designed to avoid
reference to airport development or to suQgest a noise
survey. y
T'he questionnaire included an Environmental Noise Risk
scale developed by the authors to assess how people
appraise the trade-off between economic benefits from
airport development and the de�ree to which they are
vulnerable to noise and other adverse environmenta] effects.
The questionnaire also inc]uded questions desi�ned to
assess noise disturbance, �eneral annoyance, and noise
sensitivity. Participants also were asked to rate aspects of
their�neiQhborhood's physicai appearances, social relation-
s, services, location, and environmental qua]ities.
�__:ie researchers reported that their risk scale proved to be
139
a better predictor of noise disturbance than d'ad measures of
general annoyance or noise sensitivity.
They studied people livin� in "moderate" noise impact
areas (55-60 dB DNZ, contour) "in order to avoid the
problems of past surveys in which feelings of general
disturbance from high-level noise have colored all question-
naire responses."
The Environmental Risk Scale was based on respondents'
ratin�s (on a five point scale) of how well they aareed with
the following 10 statements:
• Noise is the inevitabie price we have to pay for progress;
• The benefits of an airport in jobs, economic growth, and
convenience outweigh the costs in noise, traffic and
pollution;
•'The future prosperity of the area depends on the devel-
opment of the airpon;
• People should try to accept noise because of the benefits
of the airport; �
• If airport noise increases, it will make my neighborhood
a less desirable place to live;
• My neighborhood is exposed to more noise than other
neighborhoods near the airport;
• Airport and government o�cials are doin� all they can
to control noise;
• Airport noise probably will not increase much over the
next five to 10 years;
• I think my economic prospects in the area are good; and
• I think the environmental quality of this neighborhood
wiil be better in 10 years.0
Europe
� 4 � �•� l ♦ �• '�� ♦
� � . � � . � .. • � . �
The European environmental group Friends of the Earth
Netherlands announced that it is coordinating plans to hold
International Action Days on Aviation and Environment on
Oct. 29 and 30 in countries around the world.
The action days are intended to show "that the �rowin�
impact of aviation on the environment and airport neighbors
should be halted," the group said in an information packaoe
sent to potential participants and the press.
It said that previous action days held in 1997 and ] 998
were a success with over 100 groups participatin�. Groups
in 22 countries (18 in Europe, as well as Australia, Canada,
Ar�entina, and the United States) participated in the action
days last year. Activities ransed from banner actions and
conferences to street theater. �
T'he coordinated efforts is desi�ned to garner media
attention and make it difficult for policy makers to iQnore
the issue of the environmental impacts of airpons, the Dutch
coordinating group said.
While airport noise is addressed at action day activities,
the primary focus appears to be on the impact of aviation on
air quality. This years' action days in Europe are timed to
Airport Noise Report
140 Airport Nozse Report
coincide with United Nations climate negotiations in Bonn.
The Dutch �roup noted that this year the LIN Intergovern-
� nental Panel on Climate Chan�e published a special report
on the effects of air transport on the global atmosphere. It
concluded that air transport is currently responsible for 3.5
percent of Creenhouse gas emissions and that this number
could increase to 15 percent by 2050, according to the
Dutch �roup. It said the repon also concluded that techno-
logical and operational e�ciency improvements alone will
not be sufficient to offset the effects of increasing emis-
sions. "Policy makers and the industry can no longer deny
that air transport makes a significant contribution to global
warming and that measures are needed to curb these
emissions," the Dutch group said in its press release.
"If we want to see progress made, it is important that we
keep up the pressure," the group said, adding that "the
European Commission's lack of backbone on the hushkit
issue and continued airport expansion all over Europe are an
extra incentive for acdons." Nevertheless, the group said,
"there are good sians as well: air tra�c is on the agenda of
international climate negotiations and the national and
European level decision makers have begun to realize that
they have to act to reduce aviation's emissions."0
AIP Grants
�' • ' .i:'i
. . � / I • • .
The Federal Aviation Administration recently announced
the award of grants under the federal Airport Improvement
Prograrri• to New Orleans International Airport and Piedmont
Triad International Airport in Greensboro, NC, to support
noise miti�ation projects.
On Sept. 15, the FAA announced that New Orleans
International was given a grant of $211,848 for noise
mitiQation measures for residences within the 70-74 dB
DNL noise contour of the airport.
The same day, the FAA also announced that Piedmont
Triad International had been Civen a grant of $673,131 to
acquire land for development and to provide relocation
assistance.
On Sept. 2, the FAA announced that Syracuse Hancock
International Airport in Syracuse, NY, was given a grant of
$567,944 for several projects includins an environmental
analysis.� �
Boston Logan Int'Z
FAA CLARI��'YING IPOLICY
ON ENV. JUSTICE AT LOGAN
The standard the Federal Aviation Administration expects
airports to meet in conducting environmental justice
analyses in conjunction with airport expansion projects wil]
be further clarified in the final environmental impact
statement for a new runway at Boston Logan Internationai
Airport.
Relatively few environmental justice analyses have been
done by airports since Executive Order 12898 on Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-income Populations was issued by the
Clinton Administration in 1994. The Department of Trans-
portation and the Council on Environmental Quality
subsequently issued orders providing guidance on compli-
ance with the executive order.
The Environmental Protection Agency did not object to
the environmental justice analyses prepared in conjunction
with new runways projects at Seattle-Tacoma International
Airport and Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. But
EPA's New England Regional Administrator John P.
DeVillars sharply criticized the environmental justice
analysis included in the draft EIS on the new runway
proposed at Boston Logan in a letter to FAA's regional
o�ce.
Massport officials contend the EPA re�ion is seeking a
standard �for review faz beyond what the executive order
requires and are working with the FAA to ensure that the
environmental justice analysis included in the final EIS on
the Logan runway project complies with the standard FA.A
expects airports to meet.
Because environmental justice analysis is a new and
developing area of law, airports are closely watchins the
situation at Logan for the guidance it will offer them.
An FAA spokesman told ANR that EPA is the federal
aDency that provides specific guidance on compliance with
the executive order on environmental justice. However, he
said, the FAA is in the process or revising its order on
compliance with the executive order to provide additional
guidance to airports. He did not know when that revision
would be done but said it would not occur in the short term.
Political Manifesto
"The environmental justice issue has been transformed
from an environmental issue to a political issue," said Scott
Kafker, chief leaal counsel for the Massachusetts Port
Authority. The EPA letter "is more like a political manifesto
aQainst urban airports and existing FAA standards than an
environmental and rebulatory analysis of a particular
runway project," he asserted.
The Executive Order on Environmental Justice is not
supposed to create any new riahts, but DeVillars, who
served as secretary of environmental affairs under former
Airport Noise Report
�.�-
�.:::.
October 22, 1999
Gov. Dukakis and has lons been an opponent of any
expansion of LoCan, is usin� it as a means of tightening
leQai standards in a variety of areas, particularly noise,
Kafker said. The EPA region is usin� the executive order to
revisit the 65 dB DNL standard of residential compatibility
with airports and to reconsider whether soundproofing is an
adequate form of micisation for noise impacts above 65 dB
DNL, he said. The reQional EPA o�ce is trying to change
the procedural and substantive standards that airports have
relied on and are well recognized, he said.
Environmental justice analysis is an evolving area of the
law, Kafker told ANR, and airports need to be involved in
its "elucidation."
Kaflcer said the EPA letter is very vaaue and includes a lot
of open-ended critiques that suggest Massport should
analyze all environmental and health issues from all sources
in all surrounding neishborhoods, even those beyond the 65
dB DNL contour. The EPA region also expressed dissatis-
faction with soundproofina as a noise mitigation measure
but is not teilin� Massport what would be satisfactory.
The letter also criticized Massport for including no
discussion of hearing loss, a condition not likely to occur
from noise exposures even in the 75 dB DNL noise contour.
Focus Is on Airport, Not Project
' The most troublin� aspect of the EPA letter is that it
focuses on the airport itself and not the project, Kaflcer said.
The region wants a very open-ended inquiry into health and
environmentai issues even where t�'�ere is no "�exus"
between them and the project impacts. "It is not Massport's
role to analyze such thin�s," the attorney said.
The runway project has positive benefits, he told ANR. It
wilI allow the airport to have three runways in the east-west
configuration alonQ with three in the north-south configura-
tion. This means that when winds are from the northwest,
Logan will not drop from 120 operations per hour to 90 or
60 operations per hour. The runway proposal does not
increase capacity, he explained, it shifts 75,000 flights that
would be over homes over the water and improves air
quality. Planes wi11 not be delayed and will ]and more
efficiently.
The only siQnificant environmental impact from the
project is that parts of one community, Cheisea (a low
income, minority community) which is below the 65 dB
DNL contour, will move into it. But, Kafker said Massport
will comply with federal noise mitioation standards and all
those homes movinQ into the 6� dB. DNL contour will be
soundproofed. "So, we are livina up to the federal standard
adopting soundproofina as a mitigation measure, and the
EPA reQionai office doesn't find that adequate," he said.
And, he added, Chelsea will also be well below the ab eed
on standards for run«�av use that were neaotiated with
surroundina communitv in the 1980's. v
"The friahtenin� thins from a national perspective is that
[what EPA wants Niassport to assess] severs the nexus
between the proposed project and its impacts. It uses the fact
141
that we have an airport in an urban environment to require a
free-floating analysis of all environmental and health issues
an the surroundin� communities_"
"We don't believe that is the standard," Kafker asserted.
"We believe when you exceed a statutory threshold like 65
dB DNL, clearly then you have to stren�then and broaden
your environmental justice analysis for that community. But
the analysis needs to have a reasonable nexus to the impacts
above the threshold and be connected to the relevant
community."
The attorney said that Massport intends to be fully
compliant with the environmental justice order "as properly
interpreted" and is working very closely with the FAA and
the Department of Transportation on the analysis. "We do
not believe that the vague admonitions in the EPA re�ion's
letter are the correct standard," Kaflcer said.
The attorney explained that Massport will expand its
environmental justice review in the final EIS on the runway
project. It will provide better census data and make some
refinements in its analysis. But he stressed that Massport is
not going to do an analysis that "has no reasonable nexus to
the project's impacts."
Massport is very supportive of the environmental justice
order, the attorney told ANR. "We aze one of the greenest
airports in the country, and we understand that we need to
be as green as a grape to get the runway proposai accepted.
But we want to be held to the appropriate standard. The
question of when airports [have reached full capacity] and
are big enough is a question for Cona ess."
EPA Letter
EPA's DeVillars discussed his concerns about the
Massport environmental justice analysis for the runway
project in an April 221etter sent to John Silva, FAA's
environmental programs manager for the New England
region.
The EPA o�cial said the analysis did not meet federa]
obligations. "This is especiaily problematic in light of the
fact that the proposed project will result in a threefold
increase in aircraft overflights in East Boston, Chelsea,
Roxbury, and other communities with large populations of
low-incorne and minority people," he said.
The environmental justice analysis, the EPA official said,
does not demonstrate an effort to implement the executive
order "proactively." It uses extremely narrow definitions of
low-income and minority poolations that allow the FAA to
conclude there are no environmental justice issues because
so few peple fall within the narrowly defined cateaories, he
said. �
DeVillars said the environmental justice analysis fel] short
in several ways. First, "FAA's and Massport's conclusion
that minority and low-income communities do not experi-
ence disproportionately high impacts does not appear to be
credible. The analytic basis for the conclusion is insu�cient
since critical demoo-raphic and other relevant health data are
missing."
Airport Noise Report
142 Airport Noise Repor.t
I ANR EDITORIA.L
ADVISORY BOARD
i )
.,ceven R. Alverson
Manager,'Sacramento Office
Harris Miller Miller & Hanson
John J. Corbett, Esq.
Spiegel�& McDiarmid
Washington, DC
James D. Erickson
Director, Office of Environment and Energy
Federal Aviation Administration
John C. Freytag, P.E.
Director, Charles M. Saiter Associates
San Francisco
Michael Scott Gatzke, Esq.
Gatzke, Dillon & Ballance
Carisbad, CA
Peter J. Kirsch, Esq.
Cutler & 5tanfield
Denver
Suzanne C. McLean
Chief Development Officer
Tucson Airport Authoriry
John l�i. Meenan
Seaior Vice President for Indusuy Policy
��' �`�� irTransport Association
Vinceni r.. �iestre, P.�.
PresidenG Mestre Greve Associates
Newport Beach, CA
Steven F. Pflaum, Esq.
McDermott, Will & Emery
Chicago
Karen L. Robertson
Manager, Noise Compatibility Office
Dallas/Fort Worth International Aitport
Mary L. Vigilante
President, Synergy Consultants
Seattle
Lisa Lyle Waters
Manager, Noise Abatement Pro�ram
Palm Beach County Depanment of Airports
Moreover, he said, the DEIS does not compare the demographics of
communities served by th3s project to the demographics of communities
bearing the burden of the project's impacts.
Second, he said, the environmental justice analysis "focuses solely on
noise and ignores credible public comments identifying air quality, odor,
traffic and other impacts that cumulatively burden surrounding communi-
ties with high percentages of low-income and minority populations."
Specific criticisms of the environmental justice analysis offered by
DeVillars include:
• It provided no detailed demob aphic data for communities surround-
ing Logan International and did not idendfy the impacted communities
with any geographic precision;
• It presented little data and anlaysis on a broad range of potential
adverse impacts;
• It offered no information on the health of communities surrounding
the airport and provided no mention of historical patterns of exposure to
environmental hazards or multiple cumulative exposures;
• It provided no discussion of public health issues often raised by
minority and low-income communities, such as asthma, respiratory
distress, or attention deficit disorder. There is no discussion of hearing
loss. "Without any discussion of baseline health conditions, it is impos-
sible to evaluate the incremental impacts or risk associated with the
proposed agency action," the EPA official said.
He also said there is no discussion "of interrelated social, cultural,
occupational, historical, and economic factors that may increase the
environmental effects of the proposed action," such as the "physical
sensitivity of the community to specific impacts, the effect of any
disruption on community structure, and the nature of the impacts on the
physical and social structure of the community: '
For instance, DeV;llars wrote, the DEIS "appears to assume that
soundproofing completely addresses noise impacts in a neighborhood.
There is no mention that overflights impair residents' use of their porches
or yards. Double-pane windows cannot protect the conversations on the
street and front stoop that bind a community together."0
A:IRPORT NOISE REPORT
Anne I!. Kohut, Publisher
Charles F. Price, Contributing Editor; Maria T. Norton, Production Editor
Published 25 times a year at 43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 20147; Phone: (703) 729-4867; FAX: (703) 729-4528.
Price $549.
� � Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internai or personal use of specific clients,
`__ - is granted by Airport Noise Report, provided that the base fee of US$1.03 per page per copy
is paid dir�ctly to CopyriQht Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, iv1A 01923. USA.
Airport Noise Report
f—
K
C
C
C.
�`�: ' _ � . . .
�- ' . .
�, _,
.
���. a . �r
_ -- g
��. �: � - �
� �'�
�_ �
i , �f�--- � �-
=?
� � �
' �r �.... �,�.' � • • •
a�� ... � �� . w' •• • �
� F��_ � �- ¢ �'� � •
.. �_` G�c:.._..��� _ �
• Y��z�_��� '''x��
a ,
. ,_.� �£==:�c�i��.._.. .— :ss��
__.�_ .,... ���a_._ -�''--�—��'r- '
• ! ����,����� �
i •
� � • • •
_._._ _ . . .
��.=-��----.i,�, __�___--_�_,_�'G��y�� •
� ����
s�
• ..._- •• •t
�'`_x5��-ssar7 n �a �a,a_y�H�� �`a "_`�. _s�:�
� ..��dsc cb � a ,.a C'sPF �c: .�
1'...-.:�—:fe^3i3 �. - ..� ��3� ZSA-: iiF� ��.
..� -- vM n3a�a___^�Ja � �..•���x�fas_e99 �x4�3H .�.
..' Y�._-�....��CS� 4^.e^.3L'AC S#._ :_c33& x n9eT °S.
_. _ _����p � •
� •• �_�==Y�=���=���-�����a�
• �
-'u�����,�--�j�=� -�����—'�
� ! �� r �
---� ����� � � �
� � .. �. .
• `� ��������� • .• �
._.,._�,– ....�wm���
� •
,: ��-- ��C� F3E50Ga�6 G EBifL' �rT3�G �$?.
.. 3=Y�=� c�C.'�.Yz tk 59'S29'� +�R�3.F'a -iGs s
` >L2 dfl F.2H°3'F �r�6 3*T'.
�� -�`c^�� �:7.76 k�3 C..ti B1L ��S .9CC�CHn89l7C
���3iiCAfcg 1:� .'c �E a� T5939Ci2SG3.7b
-
` � IIIII ����
� � ���w ..
s
� Ce��^�� cY..� _
j �
��j[r
t��. ��ii�J� = • . • •
� •• ♦
� � ••
f 3�H �E IIli3 a9�E8R S�iHi53iG� 0 9 9�:
liSSF��a93C.�S�F�314n�B@8q e332 3RC '^9IZY '1.: �
�... 'z-��'?�;z� GHEGis7^i 9C¢CS6 �a..�3 59�u"9� 6 -
.. Si'a�k.�9CiwZn83 9_@._3E[ Fr�3..II.74iFm.i_927JSi
:a-g� $L7£Sv3�5CA'nFi1HH�5rTV� xII96AG705a982S
, . � � �
� �
�,..... ' � �� . ,
• • •
� • • •
._.... ... . .
s' �aaicns�acesaa::aas�se=s'ss6ra`si`se
� ams�ane-saaaeasaas�s�e__saet�ct �
aa�aAaaan=saacaaas:^,�aaQaacmaai
as=etc��cinseas� :eaaaasvseasoanon�
e�as�aucsac�_aenGaaaesteaaagaQs:
� i
i
L •� •
• • • • • • • • • � • �
• • • • • • • • •
• � • � • • � • • • • �
• • • • • � ■ �
.
�- -
- -� - E
Q
r�GENDA
REGULAR MEETING
EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMIVIISSION
EAGAN, MINN7E50TA
EAGAN CTTY COITNCIL CHAlVIBERS
NOVEMBER 9, 1999
7:00 P.M.
i. -R�i.i� i;A.i.i..�i�itr r-�.uv+��'��D� a� i���i�Tirt,
� , ��.� . � ��
11 / M � . � : .1 : : 1�
IV. Zf�►tF.INISSED BUSINESS
A. Contract
B. Runway Construction Diversion Impact
C. North-South Runway Communications Plan
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. Part 150 Study Update
B. MASAC Operations Committee
VI. STAFF REPORT
A. MASAC Update
B. Twin Cities Airports Task Force
C. Governor's Airport Funding Task Force
D. Percentages Analysis
lE. Legislative and Regulatory Update
1 l •'
��III. FUTUR� MEETING AND AGENDA
A. Nezt Commission Meeting — 7:00 p.m. Tuesday, December 14
B. Nezt MASAC Meeting — 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, November 30
[/11 : l i l: ►lu l►� �
Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities will be provided upon advance notice of at least 96 hours.
If a notice of less than 96 hours is received, the City ofEagan will attempt to provide such aid.
GE is focrued on a cGer.ron no��le design for
engi�:e e.rharu7s �:Gicb bas de�nomsri-ated 3.SdB
jet noise redrrdio�u in lab testr �
GuY NoRRis/LOS ANGELES
HILE THE Internadonal Civil
Aviarion O �Qanisarion (ICr�O) moves
relendesslv to�vards an undefined
Scage Nnoise limit for airliner opera-
uons in the 21st century, the industry is hard at
work to find ways to meet iL �tiI•.ury suspect the
new requirements will call for an average rise of
2-3 decibel (dB) per certification point, or an
accumulated 8-IOdB increase overall.
Getdng there bv the espected 200Z-3
pmetable is possible, say most en�ine makers,
airframers and research agencies like Nt1Sr1.
1blost oF the unl�-no«•ns concern the esact rim-
ing and maturing of technolo�ies to reach, and
possibly e�ceed, the targets, and the economic
jusrifications for doingso. Further off, as in any
battle ofdirninishing returns, more fundamen-
tal questions are being asked about how much
further noise reduction can reasonably go.
Leadingthe race foranswers in the USAis the
noise reduction element of \rLSt1's Advanced
Subsonic 'I'echnolow (AS'I) prograznme — a
five-year-old effort to reduce noise by l OdB rel-
ative to 1992 production technolow, by nest
year. The r1ST attacl;s the fi� e main elements of
aircraft noise: enQine acoustics, nacelle air
acoustics, airframe-generated noise, interior
noise and community noise impact. Engine
sound was to be reduced bv 6dB, acousric liner
performance in enQine nacelles was to improve
50% and airfi-anze noise �vas set a goal of 4dB.
Interior lecels were espected to be reduced by
6dB. Communin- noise impact, thcou�$ mod-
elling and reducrion by means of advanced air-
craft operations, ti�•as e.�cpected to generate the
equivalentofa lOdB reduction—orroughlyhalf
the noise e.Yperienced by the averaQe airport
neighbourhood in 199 i .
"Cunent status is 4dB for engines," says
tiUlliam tiVillshire. \ �S �'s �ST noise reduc-
don programme mana�-er. "In liners we have
got 3�% of the � 0%. In airframes there are
three main components: flaps, slars and gear.
�Ue've met the -}dB goal Eor flaps and �vork is
under �va}r on slau and gear, but thinPs look
promising. For the interior «-e ha�-e reduced
tones b� 6dB and for broadband we are at=}dB,
butall at the laboratory scale," adds �j'illshire.
An estimated communin- noise reducrion
level of around ? dB has been achieved so far bv
combining US Federal ��-iation �dmini-
stration inteoraced noise models �virh "some
ne�r•Ip idenafied lo�v noise operadons", he
adds. The agenc�- appears confident that suffi-
cient progress has been made to�cards helping
meet the ne�t«•a�-e of IC�O limirs.
Validaaon comes nest. A full-scale staric test
is being planned to evaluate the engine and
nacelle noise reduction technolo�ies, while a
26% model of a Boeing 7%7 will be tested in the
1 Z x 24m (40 s 80ft) windtunnel atNASAtlmes
in California. Interior noise technologyvalida-
tion will be more easily achieved using labora-
tory and aircraft cabin tests, while there are no
plans to validate the communirynoise reducrion
in the current programme.
QUIET P�WER
"One of the home runs we've had with engines
has been sweep and lean of. stators," says
tiVillshire. Originally conceived by General
Electric, the idea of swept and leaned oudet
guide vanes is yet to be tested on a full-scale
engine, but is espected to result in big noise
reducdons. "It nught be a little prematvre, but
in the windtunnel it dramadcally reduced fan
tones," he adds. A critical advance which has
helped bring ideas about topics like swepr/lean
stators to the fore is the availabiliry ofne�v com-
putational fluid dynamic (CFD) modelling
techniques. The three-dimensional modelling
abiliry of these systems gives researchers the
first tsue understandings of the mechanics of
noise generarion and how to tackle it.
"We tlunkthe fanwal;e impingi.ng on the sta-
tor is �vhat causes the noise. This comes offthe
fan in a three-dimensional, whirling spiral pat-
tem, but hirs rhe traditional two-dimensional
stator," says tiVillshire. "This is being led by the
predicative code model. So we are learning to
minimise noise throu�h design." Phil Gliebe,
GE's principal engineer in acoustics technolo-
gy, adds: "The problem was that we didn't
understand the physics. •No�v we have better
analytical tools." As far as the advanced stator
design is concerned, some applications could
already be on the horizon, including possible
retTofit of CFibI�6 en�ines. The inte�-al fan
frame oFlarger en�ines, such as the GE90, and
its large spacing benveen aeial stages and sta-
tors, mean that applications in this thrust class
are less likely.
Computer modelling has also made a dra-
matic impact on studies of quieter nacelle lin-
ings. "tiUe have improved the process in every
link of the chain, so we are able to mathe-
matically come up with a better acoustic impe-
dence of the liner. Computer modelling has
been the keybecause ithelps all the way through
to howyou manufacture it," saystiVillshire. One
example, although not quite as attractive as
swept/leaned vanes, is reducing the number of
liner splices inside the inlet duct through
improved design. "The more splices, the more
noise,"he says. "I thinkwe'll meet the SO% met-
ric."Alignment oflinings is also changing, a,Pain
helping reduce noise. "ti�th improved model-
lingwe have the ability to align the linings with
the high speed b azing [air] flow and produce
better optimal impedence."
Gliebe says modelling allows a more holistic
approach to fan/nacelle noise treatment. "Ithas
to be designed as a coupled system.lblodelling
gives you a betterway oflrno�vinghow to relate
fan noise to liner noise." Willshire takes ita step
furrher, saying: "There is a paradigmshiftgoing
on todav Engines have been designed for the
`cut-off' condition of the engine, in which the
blade path frequencyof the fan does notpass out
of the nacelle. If we are successful, they will no
longer have to do that. Liners are designed to
absorb discrete tones and, ifwe are able to elim-
inate that at source, the en�ine can be desib ed
for cut-on, rather than cut-off " �
Httshkits nzay achieve Stage 177, bret Stage IV ntay prove nzore d�cult to attain
�Nla�zy suspect the saew s�oise yer�uiYenaents will cccll foY �n �cveY�z�;e inc�ec�se of 2-3dB peY
ces�tific�rtio�z poi�zt, o�-�z�a t�cca�z�iZciccted S-IOdB incYe�tse ove��ccll
999 � FLIGHT INTERN.aTiONA� 20 - 26 October 1999 � 47
.���F�.��.�����r � �r��.r.� ��-�����s.��E������ 3��
Cut-off refers to the proper selection of
numbers of blades and vanes to reduce
r' ``� emissions. By eliminadng that
r�, __,:rion, engine designers �rill ha�-e more
flexibilitt- to improce compressor and tur-
bine confi�urarions. Discrete tones, or sin-
gle-frequency noises produced by the
movement ofblades in the air, fan �cake, and
hot exhaust gases, are one of the rn-o noise
categories under attack. The others are
broadband tones, which cover a n-ide ran�e
of frequencies produced b}- morement of
air over blades and from combustion.
"Liners can have a newpurpose. Theyno
lon�er need to be opdmised for one, n��o or
maybe three fan tones. tiTo�c theyneed to be
broadband devices. It represents a new era
of engine desi�," says �� illshire. The
results may not produce �rasdy different
loolang en�ines, he adds, but linings
designed to combat broadband frequencies
could be thinner, and nacelles could be truiuned
to cut weight and dra�.
Despite the potential paradigm shift for the
front arc of the engine noise arena, GE is
esploring trac�itional approaches for further
reducuons in the aft arc. Future lo�c•-pressure
turbine designs, for example, «zll "probably" be
configured to ensure certain stages are "cut ofP'
and that the blade passing frequency tone does
no[ pass out of the e.Yhaust. "��Te'd rather do it
the smartway and cut off the tone, and when we
de '•t we won't need exhaust liners which are
hi �nd expensive," says Gliebe. •
�;xtiausts form an entire study area in their
own ri�ht GE is focused on a che�Ton nozzle
designwhichhas demonstrated 3.�dB jetnoise
reducrions in lab tests to date. The design,
which resembles the seirated edge nozzles of
stealth aircraft engines, reduces acoustic energy
. _. . . • ---______- _..----- --
by more than � 0%, says rhe company. "We are
looldng at it for the CF34-8D �for the Fairchild
428JET]," says Gliebe. Other retrofit con-
tenders are under study. Another area of focus
related to core noise conrinues to be the low-
emissions combustor design. As these are "gen-
erally running on the ragged edge ofstability" as
theyrryto control the fueUairmixture, GE con-
siders them a potential noise source. "It could
produce an acoustic resonance or screech, and
we can't let that happen because it would begin
to breal:up," he adds. '
As engines become relatively quieter, so the
question of airframe noise grows — particularly
for the largen�zdebody aircraft either in service
or on .the computer design screens. NASAs
focus, and that of the leading US air[rame
maker, Boeinj, is on three main azeas of noise
generarion—flaps, slats and gear, and their com-
bined effecu on approach noise in paracular.
"Li�ze��s ca�a have t� 7zew pac7 pose. They 7zo lo7iges� 7zeed to be
(, fi��zised for o�ae, tzvo o�- ��aaybe three fiz�a to�aes" — T�TTilli�t��i
Willshis�e, NASA AST laoise 7-eductio�z p��ob �ynsne sn��zabey
50
�
"We have a system �;�here we can pinpoint noise
sources on aircraft wZthi.n a windtunnel setting
and an anechoic chamber," sa}�s Larry Craig,
Boeing noise and emissions chief engineer.
In terms of flap and leading-ed�e slat noise,
Boeing is worlang on CFD analt�sis to "change
designs" to alter noise characteristics. The plan
is to attack "separation bubbles" that have been
idendfied between the slat and the wing. Like
the flaps, where noise has been identified as
emanating from the inboard trailin; edge, the
main problem area is the t=ailing edge of the
leading edge slat. Various revised configura-
tions are being evaluated, including saK�-tooth
trailing edges, strategically placed serrat�ons
and vorte� generators. Some primary research
work has been undertaken by N�SA Langley
with the UniversityofSouthampton in the UK,
and has pointed to s �anificant noise reducdons
through steadying of flow
THICKNESS ALTERATIONS
Boeing, which is an.�rious to avoid the added
manufacturing complications of unusual con-
figurarions, hopes that current tests may show
that relatively innocuous alterations to thick-
nesses may suffice. It keeps an open mind, but
Craig adds that altering thicla7ess would be a
"little more palatable from the manufacturing
perspecti�=e". The noise produced bylarge land-
in� gear u-ucls is also under stud}; �cith Boeing
focusing on the lowr-frequencynoises generated
by air flow over hydraulic lines, �viring and
detail around the tyres and aYles.
Boeing believes irs current worl:, lil:e that of
the NASA programme as a whole, is aimed at
"more ag�ressive" targers than those being set
by ICAO. The vast cost of some reu-ofit pro-
grammes for older equipment, however, con-
tinues to plawe all concerned. �.s Pratt �.
ti�Thimey sums it up: "The question is not reallv
u�hat is technically feasible. It should be what is
en��ronmentallyneeded, and ��hat is economi-
cally practical? t�Te should ask �chat can the
industry afford to do, and then look at what is
technically pracdcable." ❑
FLIGHT INTERNATIONA� 20 - 26 October 1999
...------�
Guv f
has t
1ll1dE
ness'
grac�
Rese
�
vent
ing I
N��
peor
ther
then
,. can �
or`b
F�IG
'Stage III' QuiecTechnologyVenture hush-kirs on che Praa &Whitney JT3D-36 engines of a FineAir pouglas DC-8 5eries 50.
QN (a Fine Air subsidiary) wiii complece work on Fine Air's fleet of 14 aircraft later this year and then begin installation for other DC-8 operators.
s� - ��,
ri �, y ��� � f � ' :
t� r���,
�v�. �,,r7 <s . �k. �,r �" �NdN � � � "�' :
�� �L:� j,s#'�: ��i��3�rt;.. � sri. tYl�'i.+l 1 t ��,r t�� ..:F= + r.
'''� ; 4` z3 w), .Z�A ii3v�. v;� � ' < tu' Y ri.
S3 ' , �i
, "t� ��J�Y t �„i ''�``€ �{ �� �3r �r- � x 12•' v } ?� , ;rR
1 UCH i�IEDIA HYPE IS CONCENTRATED ON FORECASTING B�' JOH\ `VEGG
the airline industry's performance against the `Y2K bug'.
However, Netiv Year'S EV2 tl �1S y2cil" cilSO 211aTkS aI10t1 LeT hLlr— Some of the modifications radically change the
shape of exiscing engine nacelles: this is a Nordam
dle—but one that the US airlines are expected to clear �vith hush-kic ficced co a Boeing 737-200 of Ryanair.
:[' Developed in associacion wich Pratt & Whicney,
wich technical assistance from Boeing, che
e�se. Etfecti�-e Januar�- 1, !���, all US carriers—and aircraft Nordam kic was che first for che 737-200's
y JT8D-9/-15/-17 engines to be Stage 3-compliant.
of o�-erseas com��nies that ;
U
serve the US—`�Till ha�-e to 0
be Sta�e 3 noise-compli�nt. Y
The stud�� ��f aircraft noi=e as a
nuis�nce be`ari earl�• in the Fir"ties atid
adual(�� a comple� me�=urin:: ���s-tem
,� as de��eloped, ba�ed ��n s��uri�i pre�sure,
fre�1itetic�•, tone, and otl�er ���riat�les. This
unit of inea:ure i> c,�lled EP\dB (Eftec-
ti��e Penei�•ed \i�ise riecit�el) an�i i� u�ed
Airwoys -}- Seot2m�er 1949
31
Quiet Skies Inc offers Srage 3 hush-kirs for
the )T3D-3B/-7 engines of Boeing 707-300s
at $3 million per shipsetThe modification
invoives 2,500 paru and 15 major assem-
blies, and winglets are now an option.
Meanwhile, leasing company Omega Air
is developing a re-engined 707 with more
powerful JT8D-219s.
C`—' and European Aviacion
are� �ing on a Suge 3 hush-
kit for �he BAC One-Eleven.
European is che world's largest
operator of the Rolls-Royce
Spey-powered twin-jet
to calculate each aircraft type's 'noise footprint', cvhich indudes takeoff, approach, and
sideline values. Subsequently, noise measusing equipment was honed to take account of
the extra sensitivity of the human ear to certain tones (decibeis absolute, or dBA).
Le;islation to gradually reduce 'noise pollution' was drafted in 1966, which led to
the FAA's FAR Part 36 and ICAO Annex 16 which specified three 'stajes' or 'chapters'
(see Tl�e Three Stages). In the US, Stage 1 aircraft were banned from 19S� and, in 1990,
the Airport Noise and Capacity Act was passed by Conb ess to phase out Stage Z air-
craft by 2000.
� In fact, the compliance �vith Stage 3 levels has been introduced �radually since
1994, when 25% of a US carrier's fleet had to be compliant, to a0°o at the end of 1996,
7�% at the end of last year, and 85% by July 1,1999.
This national Stage 3 transition affects large transport turbojet-po�vered airplanes
ivith a maximum a oss u�eight of more than 7�,OOOIb (34,OOOk�). The en�ines of the US
commercial fleet which must be modified are the Pratt & Whitney JT3Ds of DC-Ss
(there are no Boeing 707s active in the US), and JTSD-7/-9/-l�/-17s installed on 727s,
737-100/200s, and DC-9s.
September ] 999 -(- Airways
�" , r.'Y: _iY' _ _ __....�.........�_..✓....��........�........: .:.. ... ...... .. .
Srage 3 hush-kiu for JTSDs have been around since I989. These are BurbankAeronaucical Corp 1) kiu
inscalled on a DC-8-62F of Cargo �ion. More than 70 DC-8-62/-b3s have been modified.
Stage 3 Nacelle (a BAC 11 affiliate) is developing a Suge 3 hush-kit for the DC-8 Series 50 and -61.
(There are no BAC One-Elevens in service with US airlines—those in service with
private operators have had, or will have, their Roils-Royce Speys hushed. The Fokker
F28 is exempt because its maximum weight falls below the 75,OOOlb limit, but a Stage 3
hush-kit is under development. The few 7�9-100/-200s built before December 1971
�vhich are still active have received fixed lip engine inlets and sound absorbing mater- !
ial treatment.) i
'�o meet Stage 3 requirements, the airlines are faced with four choices: replace the �
older aircraft with a modern type, re-engine the older aircraft—if that option is avail- �
able, quiet the existing en�ines by instaliing nacelle noise attenuation modifications '
( �Zush-kits'), or make a combination of aerodynamic and engine modifications.
-- Until recently, the fittin; of hush-kits has been the most economical solution to ;
havin� Stage 2 aircraft comply with Staje 3 regulations. Certainly it has been the most ;
popular, with more thari 2,000 kit shipsets on order or option, and some 1,500 deliv- �
ered. Hush-kits, ho�vever, usually come �vith a performance penalty, increasing weight `
and drag and thus reducing payload and rarige.
The decision wheEher to install hush-kits is based on economic factors: does the
airframe have enough life left to make a profit after the expenditure oF at least $3 mil-
lion? Vlany airlines have reached Sta�e 3 compliance through a combination. of retire-
ments of older aircraFt—replacing thezn with new deliveries—and buying hush-kits for
the remainder of the Sta�e 2 fleet.
Replacing powerplants (not alrvays an option for a specific type) is ttie most—
expensive choice. Re-enginin; a 727, for example, costs about �6 million (after deduct-
inj the sale of the old engines and nacelles but not including the some S,000 man-hours
oF labor im�olved); ho�ve�-er, there are reductions in maintenance costs, a reduction in
ABS Parcnership (Airborne Express—which since sold irs incerest. Burbanl<Aeronautical, and Sanfran Corp)
has a monopoly on S�age 3 hush-kits for che DC-9 wich orders for 550.The principa) changes involve
acouscic linings of the nacelles and reversers, and mixers in the cailpipes of the engine. Not surprisingly,
Northwesc—wich the world's largesc fleec of DC-9s—is the big;escABS customer.
: : "THL THREE ST.�GES :
F.ederkl Azr Reg�ilaiions (FAR) Pnrt 36 �.
;(Part 91 covers regulations for opera- .;
% tions to comply with Part 36) :
ST-�GE I
'.�:First-generation jets, primarily the �;:
:;� Boeing 707 and Dougias DG8. (Con- '°
coide is specifically exempted.)
: '
_.. ` ` ST-�cE 2 _.
�EADLINE FOR COb1PLIANCE: janlldLjT ^
,,�t;
`��>;1;`;:;1985 (various exemptions were'.<�:
available to extend this up to January "
1;'1988; ICAO allowed another year)
$ F
TYPES AFFECTED: all JT3D dnd SOme.,y:l
,;_ ., „
z JT8D-powered types, such as'early ?i
... ,;.;.�:::.,
�T;727s; which were made compliant,;��;a�
Aiik�i':).,�.� . �:...�: �CF.
;�;:with acoustic modifications. HushA��i�;
,,.kits produced for 707s and DC-8s. ;.�;k,��,.;
,,,.�x,.... . . .., � �`,��,
Sr.-�cE 3
�DLINE FOR CO�IPLIANCE: ll2Ce
31,1999 (Europe: Apri11, 2002
>'`:TYPES AFFECTED: all T3D and BD-,':s
T Tz'..
powered (exceptin� JT8D-200 senes) ?:
;:~:.fppes such as Boeinj 707s, 727s, 737s;' =:;
DG3s (non-Series 70), DC-9s, plus}�,:;
BAC One-Eleven (Spev). 'Acoustic �
`.trades' (comfortably meeting tiyo;?;'�
;::ouf of three categories of ineasure`;.;::
�<:ments are allo�ved in the US, but not_ ;.>
`;in Europe).
Under the equivalent ICAO At2ne:r.:;;�
^i16—EttvironnzetTtal Protection, the`':;
Stages are referred to as Chapters I, ;:
II, and III.
To help understand the lecels, SOdBA
is equivalent to heavy road traffic,
and 120dBA is at the threshold of
pain. A Sta�e 2 Boeing 727-200 (three
JT8D-17Rs) can re�ister lO1dBA at
takeoff po�ver.
There is no specific number to
meet Staje 3, as the limits are deter-
mined by airfrarsie/enjine combina-
tion and gross �veijht, and the
aircraft's 'noise footprint' measured
for approach, takeoff, and sideline
noise levels. An arbitrarv number
would be 9�dBA.
Overall, a Stage 3 aircraft is at
least half as noisy as a Stage 2.
�4�r`n'oys `?- Sepfember ] 999 33
C_
C-
fuel burn, long-term value, and improved
perfnzm\ance wrhich make the conversion
api k�g to some operators.
� Nlore recently, some suppliers have
offered the airlines more elegant solutions
to ensure compliance to Staje 3. Devel-
oped as an alternative to the FedEx hush-
l:it, DuganAir Technolo�ies clauns that its
Quiet Win� System is not only faz less ex-
pensive than any other Sta�e 3 727 con-
version option, but is the onl�> one that can
meet ail JAA and ICAO noise standards.
Instead of using 'mufflers' or reduced
power settings, the QWS in�•oi�•es the re-
piacement of the No 2 JT8D re�-erser and
the addition of an ACET (.4coustical Cen-
ter Engine Treatment—an acoustic tube)
and a Pratt & Whitney tailpipe mixer, plus
modifications to Ehe flap and aileron
droop which enhance performance. Winp-
lets are an option �vhich reduce lon�-
~an�e fuel burn by up to 6°0. "Ii the Quiet
vVing System had been here sooner, it
Nould have been the dominant hush-kit
;ystem in the industr};" states Da�•id Fink,
This.P=n Am Boeing 727-200 is fitced with winglers as
�art( `: DuganAirTechnologies Scage 3 QuiecWing
Syst��ri The QWS modification takes cen days. saves
weighr,and increases payload while comfortably
meeting 5tage 3 noise scandards. In fact, QWS claims
the 727-200QWS is quieter Lhan an Airbus A300.
One solution has been co re-engine aircraft Aparc from the DC-8
Super 70 series, one of the most successful programs has been the
Valsan'Quiet 727' (resurrected by Rohr—now BFGoodrich
Aerospace—as the'Super 27') with JT8D-217Cs or -219s in the
outer nacelles. More than 60 conversions have been soid, including
I I for FedEx (above).
FedEx's series of hush-kiu for the 727 have been the most
popular, with more than 700 ordered and 600 delivered (left).
president of Pan American Airways.
In theory, non-Stage 3 aircraft can
operate in Europe for another two years
but in practice, fines levied by individ-
ual airport operators for breaching often
less-tolerant limits, or increased user
fees for non-compliant aircraft, make
this all but impzacticable.
Europe has far feti�er non-Stage 3
types in service in any case. For example,
around 100 Boeing 727s compared to more
than 800 in the USA, and 120 737-100/
-200s, less than half of that type in the US
fleet. The numbers are further reduced if
just the 15 EU member nations are
counted, tn�ith only around �0 hush-kitted
aircraftin service.
After a well-publicized recent furor
between the US and the EU, when the EU
threatened to change previously agreed
rules and ban additional hush-kitted air-
craft from its airspace, the two sides have
a�reed to move on to define more strict
Stage 4/Chapter IV le� slation.
The staje is now set for quieter skies
in 2000 and beyond. �-
C_
.._.��,�� _ ';y,; --::>�-�_-----------�------�
Contr�rils �re u�rdcn•.m�dy b}' scie�rtisis to see Gom
t�ircraft nray af�ect �IoGa1 cli�rrate
JuuaN Moxorv/PARIS
OOK :�T THE Sk�Y" on a clear dac and
vou are likelv to see cona�ails produced by
high-fl}`ing aircrafr, their criss-cross pat-
terns melring slo«•lr to form light, wispy
ciri-us-type clouds before thev disappear.
The phenomenon, triQ�ered bywatervapour
and parricles in the engine e.Yhaust plume, is
one of many being studied by sciendsu grap-
pling with how aircrak may affect the �lobal
climate. In the past 40 ��ears, aircraft fuel con-
sumption, the most ob��ous quanrifier of air-
craftpollurion, has been reduced by 70%, even
if the main driver has been commercial, since
fuel accounts for bv. far the largest part of the
direct operaang costs of an aircraft.
Smoke from e.r-hausts has been virtuallv ban-
ished and enoine noise cut considerablv.
�Iajor advances in en�ine and airframe
efficienct� and in materials technolo�c� have
been ina�oduced «zth e�-erv ne�v generarion of
aircraft.lblost in the indusm-a�ree that as long
as it makes commercial sense those ad�-ances
«zll condnue to be incorporated into ne�v air-
craft and the engines that po�cer them.
There is littie, it �vould seem, for the a�-iadon
communiry to n•om- about. This vie�v is chal-
lenged, ho«�e�•er, in a recent report carried out
for the International Ci�-il Aciaaon Or�ani-
sadon (ICAO) bvthe Intergo�-ernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC). The report,
A✓iation and the GloGnl,�rnrospbere, is more than
300 pages long and is b�� far rhe most compre-
hensi�-e assessment camed out on the effecrs oF
a�-iadon on the global atmosphere.
The repon considers not only the Qases and
particles that aircraFt en�-ines emit into the
aanosphere, but the role the�• pla}- in modif��-
ing its chemical properries. It lools at the
potendalh�damagina effect of the una�•oidable
inerease in contrails �s high-fl}zn P t2affic gro�vs
and at the associated formadon of long-lived
high cirrus clouds, each oEn•hich mav chanQe
the delieate b:�lance bern•een the amount oF
heat enterinP or lea�-inQ rhe atmosphere.
The srud�• of that balance is fundamental to
assessments of the "�reenhouse efferr', for
«•hich rhe pollutancs are responsible. DiEferent
emissions ha�•e differentchemical and physical
effecu. If that effecc chan�zs the heat exchange
process, the zmissions become culpable of
�chat aa-nosphzric scientisrs eall "radi:id�•e fore-
in�". This is the basic messurement of the
greenhouse eFfert. The repoR voes in�o con-
siderable depol on d�e likel�• amount oEradia-
ti��e Eorcina, ;ind theretore rhe contribudon to
the �reenhoii:� effzr�, from che entire r:ina•e of
l:ncm�n aircratt pullurant�.
�ircraftare uniyu� in thatafall ofmankind's•
machines, the�• alone opera�e in the upper
troposphere :ui�i �hr lo«•er scratosphere at
hen�•een9kman�i I �km;ilcinide,��•here«�e.ith-
FLIGHT INTER��aT10�\'AL 20 - 26 October 1999
Sntellite iy�:�ges of contrails laid 6y a NAS�i DG8 flyi�zg a�z oral pnttern off Califonaia sboz� t1�e
eti�olntian of ihe initial oz�al contrail ta an e.rtensit�e arerz of ein-r�s clorrd oz•er i/� i4�nin
er processes occur and .iti•here there are signifi-
cant amounts of the greenhouse gas, ozone.
Todav, aircraft consume onl�� 3-3% of the
total of Eossil fuels used �corld�cide, 80% of
which is used bv cilil aciation. This equates to
13% ofFossil fuels used bvall fornu oEtransporc,
makin� itsecond onlv to che road transponsec-
tor, �vhich consumes 30°6.
�ti'hile the pollutancs are l:no«�n, their effects
on the atmosphere are noc. Carbon dio�ide, Eor
esample, is one of the best uncferstood of the
alobal �vannin, pollucanrs and'1 tll:l�qf C011l�O-
nent of aircraft e.r•h.iust. I� stavs ii� �he amlos-
phere Eor decades or e��en centuries — �-ec d�e
eEFectoEaircraFt-incjuced carb�m dioude on die
am�osphere is just bevinninv to be quan�tied.
Aircraft m;i�� also be unique in a«•a�• that
could one da�•fundamentallyaffectrhe �vac rhe}�
are operated. �1�-iadon is �-ro«-ing at around ?°6
a yearand is predicted to keep esplIllllt]Q ;lt CI1;1C
rate unril at least'Ol>.
Turbine-po��-ered aircraft burn kerosene,
and because rhere �re srill no alCernarive fuels
that are as enzr�--intensi�•e and easilv store�l,
«-ill ha�•e to condnue doinv so For the foresee-
able Curur�. H��droJen is b�inv sruclied, but ics
use forcommercial a�iati��n ti�•oul�i require such
an enomlous chan�re in infrastn�cture ;�nd air-
line ijeets chat i� i: no� rcrosi�lrre�] �iabl� as an
a�iation fuel for:e�-�ral �lecaiies,iC le:�st.
This lea��es :niarion ���id� an a�ck��ard prob-
lem: as emironmen�al pressures ti�rce chan��es
to less pol(utinv �uels for o�her fossil hiel-burn-
ing mnchines. ic bzcomes mi�re espose�{ t��
43
.r11J�J�:��=.!�;..�' `� r r -�..�. :1'�l'I � `� �`J �=✓1.,�sJ�``1�1��J� �J:1"
r-
{ i mechanismsdesianedtolinut,oratleast tall�-consciousregime,pollutersn�llha��etopay a��ation is to �he global economt•and to our
i: ;e for, the pollution it is causin�. One esri- for rhe share ofthe en��ironmental damage they qualin• of life," sa}s Da�-id Grim�s, an arnlos-
mace, contained in the IPCC repon, is thata�-i- cause. ���ation niat> d�erefore ha��e to pay� pro- pheric scientist at the L� 1Ieteorological
adon's 3% concribution to global «-arniinP mat� portionatel�� more than other polluters for its Centre, Bracl:nell, and one of the report's
increase to bern-een I O% and '0°b of the total una�•oidahle use of fossil fuels. authors. "Then, �ce ��•ill ha�-e three choices:
b�� Z00�. L nder the future, more emironmen- "« e�aill ha�•e to askourselvesho�;�important either to lea��e italone completel�•, to tr�� and do
Radiative forcing from aircraft ������
Note: The scale for 2050 is tour tlmes greater than that lor 1992 � � �
�mo
. �� 9 Best estimates ot forcing ��� � 6T^; probabiilty that the true value of torcing falls wiihin this rango ,� GARETH BURGESS 99
' 1s92 :•
. 20
010 ;.' _ 0.6 50 `
�:;
0 os �
05
'' � ���; ���€
0.06 � Contrails � �. � ' � Contra�is ' �
�� �v� E O 4. ��i r � y
��Ozane � iC�rtus � �� � �'$,� -'��
� �,04 � �k'' � G°�"�s- : � p 3 {�"�� �
3 Carbon �� I � c� . � �' � F� �
� "; . do�de „ r'" c C
� �� _ ._ _._. �+�.� ,_ , - _ , o _ . . ,.�:��,� ..' _�
Above: Conzpnriso�T of iGe radivtr�e forcing �.ree�rbozue effed) of nircrnft e�nissious in 1992 and
20) 0. Note that �net{iaue has a positr�e effect becazrse it I�el�is desh-o}� tYO.r. Tl�e ba�s overlaid o�z eacl�
pollrrtant indicate t1�e lez�el of z��rcertainty associated u�ith t/�e eff'ect each bas nn tGe an�tnrnh%•e_
Y7ie efjed on �IoLa14a»ni�rg of cartrails ai tGe top of ibe ntirros(�Gere is expected to inerense
si�mtificmrtlp by 20> 0
44
somethingand letitgo on oro«•ing, orsimplyto
hare less aviation."
The report's projecrions for aircraft pollution
take into account the likelt- cuts in fuel con-
sumption resulting from impro��ed engine and
airframe technolo�� oaer the ne�t fen• decades
and an air traffic mana�ement s}•stem that
allo«�s aircraft to use rhe most efficient routes.
���arion ma�; therefore, be left n-ith no choice
but to find other�l•avs ofreducin� its emissions.
These include emissions trading, a mar k e t-
based approach in �3�hich an overall level of
emissions producrion is set, nzthin which com-
panies (in this case airlines) are allowed to meet
' that standard in any «�ay rhe�• choose. They
�vould be able to seil credits for any emissions
reducdon below that level to users who cannot.
Other methods could include direct char�es
for emissions, ticket ta.ies, let-ies on empt�� air-
craftseats, escess traffic to desanaaons and tvpe
of airciaft serving them, and subsidies to pro-
��ide incentires to reduce pollution.
��Thatever decisions are made, the result for
a�zation is bound to be tou�her legislation and
increased costs, possibly leading to major
changes in the wa}� aircraft are ciewed bv a pub-
lic that has become used to lo«--cost, go anp-
�vhere travel. The European Commission is
alread}� stud}�ing a kerosene tas, �i�hich
European airlines complain u•ould put them at
a "serious disadvantage", while ha�-ing "ne�li�i-
ble em�ronmental benefits". They point out
that increases in fuel prices ha�-e done nothing.
to improve envirorunental performance, calling
instead for government acrion to improve the
efficiency of air tsansport throu�h measures
such as putting Europe's air traffic controi sys-
tem under a single authorin:
TheEuropean Commission hasint=oduced a
contro�•ersia] €12 � ,000 (� 131,000) pro�ramme
to "promote the introducrion ofprice measures .
to reduce the environmental impact of avia-
don". This infuriated the indusm�, which says it
has a far better emlronmental performance
rhan road transport, and is facin� dispropor-
tionate charges for emissions. ���ation also
faces a challenge from high-speed trains.
Z�'"�th fe�ver opdons for reducing emissions
than other forms of transpon, it appears dzat
ariarion faces an en�-ironmental surcharge for
continuing to operate. \ot surprisingl��, some
of the more a�rare in the indusm• are beg-inning
to ask ���hat l:ind oE Plobal air u-anspon s��srem
«�ill be feasible, or e��en pennitted, in 20i0.
KYOTO PROT�COL
E�isting aircrsft polludon stundar�s are mainl�•
aimed at impro�7ng air qualia• around airports
and there are no specific standards applt-ina to
emissions in the cruise. The lead in cutting
FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL 20 - 26 October 1999
�
grou:
Subs,
stanc
��ena
hydr�
en�ir
Tl-
a�riati
Kyor
aime�
tions
long-
f��78t
there
the p
reduc
sourc
1990
ing o.
and n
greer.
(defir
marir
An
unres
been
whed
81 {il?
sions :
for es
tered
andfl
gases
IC.
come
ICAC
Conv
"It is �
sions
addre
reduc
Com�
tectio
re��sr
Proto
srudy
aircra
reduc
TtiE
Aircr;
- gases
� �ails.
such ::
restri;
gases
" as ozc
inter�
- ancec
Th
aircra
becau
FIIGH
. -- . _...--- ---.,m._._._.__._.__^__�__->.;-•-.---:. .,,.,.
d co, '���
1 :l trf.
•ological
report's
choices:
yand do
implyto
ollution
iel con-
!-ine and
decades
:m that
: routes.
> choice
ussions.
narket-
level of
�h com-
to meet
. They
ussions
:annot.
�harges
�tv air-
1d type
:o pro-
�ult for
�n and
major
�
a pu' )
o any-
sion is
tvhich '
lem at
=gligi-
nt out
�rhin�.
:allin�
�•e the
tsures
�l sys-
iced a
imme
�sures
airia-
;avs it
»nce
>por-
also
sions
C}1;iC
e for
�ome
ning
�rem
U��.
�inli �
�OCLS
�' CO
Clll�
J99
While the pollaitctnts �ye knozvla, the ef�'ects they h�ve o�z the �ztynosphere ��-e zaot. The effect of
aiYCYccft-induced caYbo7a c�ioxirle on the t�t�nosphez-e is only jzcst begin�aisa�; to be quas2tified
ground-le��el emissions «•as taken br' the US �.
Subsequendy; IC:�O de�•eloped internadonal
standards and recommended practices for fuel
venring and emissions oF carbon monoxide,
hydrocarbons, niu�ogen o�des and smoke from
engines operaringbelo�v 3,OOOft.
The only global agreement that could affect
aviadon emissions in the cruise came with rhe
Kyoto Protocol, signed in 1997, «•hich was
aimed at stabilisinP areenhouse gas concen�a-
tions at a level Chat would prevent dangerous
long-term damage to the climaac svstem.
Aviation is not specifically menaoned, but
there are nvo areas �vhich are relevant. Firsd},
the protocol requires de�•eloped countries to
reduce their total national emissions from all
sources by an average of about �% compared to
1990 levels. Secondly; there is a procision call-
in� on developed countries to pursue policies
and measures for the limicarion or reducdon of
greenhouse jases from aciation bunl:er fuels
(defined as fuels consumed for internarional
marine and aviadon transportadon).
A major problem «-ith the first area, w�hich is
unresoived, is that once a�iadon emissions have
been quantified, the distinction must be made
tivhether thevare from domestic or internaaon-
al flights. If the latter, then how are the emis-
sions allocated to anyparacular countrv? Who,
for esample, is responsible for an aircraft re;is-
tered in Germanc«•hich loads fuel in �blontreal
and flies to Franl:furc, producing ;reenhouse
gases over se�-eral countries on the �var'�
ICAO has called the Ii�-oto Protocol a."�r•el-
eome clarificadon" of the respecdae roles of
ICAO and the United \ations Frame�vork WATEit
Convention on Climate ChanQe (Li�,�F'CCC). tiVateremissionb}�aircrafteng-inesleadsdirect-
"It is clear that ICAO is rhe forum where emis- lyto the formadon ofrhe conu�ails thatare char-
sions from international aciaaon are to be aeteristic of high-fl�-inj aireraft in the cruise.
addressed," it sa�s. �ti ithin IC�O, progress on These emissions are extremelv small com-
reducing emissions is the responsibilin; of its pared to those from natural annospheric
Committee on ��-iadon Enti-ironmental Pro- processes such as con�-ection from land and sea,
tection (CrlEP), «-hich last year agreed on a cloud formation and rainfall, but there is con-
revised �r•ork programme tal:ing the Ii}-oto cern that contrails ma�-have a disproporrionate
Protocol into account. It has seC up eroups to effectonglobal���arming.Theireffectsareonly-
studt� the technical and operadonal aspects oE beginningtobeunderstood,e�•enifd�eamount
aircraftemissions and market-based opdons for of global �varmin� the�• mat� cause is unclear.
reducing diem. t�'ater remains in the �oposphere for around
nine da}•s. In the stracosphere it can sta�- For
months and e�en �•ears; so there is a build-up of
aircraft-produced ��•ater �•apour th.iT IrilQhr upset
the natural hvdrolo�ica) balance. The report
highlights nvo main consequences: a direct
effecc on die heat esrhange process in dle arn�os-
phere, and a chemical impact on stratospheric
ozone «•hich could increase the occurrence of
polarsn'atospheric rlouds at hi�h �idmdes.
Contrails are e�pected to increase more
rapidlc than fuel eonsumption becsuse of the
rise in the numl�ers ofaircr:itt BtinP in the upper
troposphere, ���here the�� are most likel�-tv forn�.
The IPCC report admits there is still much
caused byaircraftis tiny. Considerable research
is being done to evaluate this contribudon.
CARBON DIOXIDE
The largest and the best understood man-pro-
duced agent affecting climate change is carbon
dioride, the production of which has increased
almost e�ponendally since the be,Qinning of rhe
indusffial revoluaon. Because of its exception-
ally long lifetime in the atmosphere, carbon
dioside becomes thoroughly mised and evenly
distributed around the planet. It is therefore
difficult Co separate che contribution made by
any particular polluter. . .
Along �vith ���arer, carbon dio:ade is the most
abundant of the products of jetfuel combustion,
being an uriavoidable product of it. Toda�, air-
craft account for 2.4°0 of the total produced by
all man-made sources, a fiwre �chich, because
of the increase in traffic, is projected to rise to
more than 7°/a by Z0�0, even thou�h the pro-
ducdon per en�ine has reduced sianificandy
�vith the inr=oducdon of new technolo�•.
THE POLLllTANTS
rlircraft affect the atmosphere b�• introducinv
aases and parricles into ic and bt- fornuna con-
trai(s. The e�nissions include sreenhouse Pases,
such as carbon dioside and ��-a[er, rhat trap ter-
restrial radiation, as «•ell as chemicall�• acti�•e
Qases dl:it a1Cer nsttiral s-reenhouse a15eS, such
ns ozone nnd carbon monovde. Par[icles ma�-
interact directlt- ���ith tlle earth's rac3iaaon bal-
ance or inAuenre th� fornladon oEdouds.
The IPCC report poin�s out that detecnn�
aircrafc-iniluced clitTlate chanve is difticult
because the proportion of radiaci�•e forcin�
FLIGHT INTERN�TIONa� 20 • 26 October 1999
uncertainn> about the increase in ;reenhouse
efFect resulan� from e.Yn-a coritrail cover. One
estimate puts it at around 0.� % of total global
covera�e (see diagram), siYtunes whatitis today.
The understanding of the effect on formation of
cirrus cloud is even less certain, the best estimate
being thac it «-ill rise in proportion to the e.�a
fuel burned in the upper t=oposphere.
PIITROGEiV OXIDES
I\ itaogen osides are influenrial in the chemistry
of the atmosphere and, in the producdon and
destrucrion of ozone. The processes by which
NOc affecu rhat chemisu-vare comples and dif-
fer according to factors such as season and loca-
tion. At cruise altitudes, increases in ozone lead
to an increased greenhouse effect. The IPCC
report found that in 1992, i� O� emissions from
subsonic aircraft �vere estimated to have
increased ozone concentraaons at cruise ald-
tudes b�� up to 6°o and are projected to gro�v to
about 13% ofrhe cotal bv20�0.
� Orproducrion byaircraftis related to com-
busdon temperarure and has incressed as oper-
aang temperarures and pressures have gone up.
Impro�-ed combustor technolom,� has helped
recerse the ti-end, but as the report points out,
the produccion oF\ OC is linked to that of car-
bon dioUde, such that attempu to reduce � O�
can increase the amounc of carbon dioside pre-
sent in the e.�haust. \ e1v, dual annular staged
combustors pro�-ide more control o�•er a greater
operacing range, but are more espensi��e and
suFfer from eatr� «•eighC and complexitv.
Further research is under «-a1• in the USA and
Europe co de�-elop "ultra-lo��- \O�" engines
«�hich reCain lo«- emissions of ocher pollutants.
AE�20SaL PARTICLES
Engines emitim-isible aerosof parricles, includ-
inv soot, metals. sulphuric acid, �cater vapour
and possiblr ni�ric acid and unburned hr•dro-
carhons. These ma�- srimulate chemical reac-
tions in the �rmosphere, absorb or scatter
radiation an�i chanPe cloud proper�ies. The�•
can seed con�rai!s and cirrus clouds and mat' be
a ti�ecor in incres�inQ cloud co�-er. The chem-
istn� oEaeroso! �roducuon and its incer1CC1011
«•i�h rhe aano>on�rz is litde underscood. ❑
A�ia[;on ard L"2 i'cc=r r-'cs�rer?!5 pc� lgrctl �y C2^c: idge University
Press. UK.
45
C�
,: • .
r • , , . , '
�.
�. � . . � r.r .1 i. .. �• ' . ..
�• �°'1 ' r ,
U
O '°'�s�`c`�°"c�u��a�i �
'� �a'ca�'�'a3.,o,�°°oo� `a�
� �� b o� y'a' ..a v w �
yG� a�.y � o o�� e� �
ai ��: `y �:,'� o o � �
'C O cSS '� b � 'O � y
A O?, C CJ i��� M G,'7 �.�+ � 6
V�� ~� y� y� y y�� LL
q ^J ....
R3 C � 3,' � �, � �•� 6 ,� �p � �
C� y�yy�...p,acc^.n m5y
V ... ,Q t9 cQ � C7 � � .�
��,�p .�.� y C C �.uy G��, �.G L%�
y' } .�.^ � 47 � � p L
i� 61 C3 ��.,, i* n" y y G.� •O
-G Ga Lr +-� > O
�Ca! \� '1� � 0�G ;,,-`�n y 4 '��' �„ d Q, U'C
� �a � V�1 CO N�.��. Ci �C3 Vi CJ'
� 'C w � H � � �" � C � C�.�1 w�i v
��, �' �,��ca���ya
v c, � �i a.;, o'r:. d.. -� .-.
•� y C Lq^ y E s.�. �� U v�.
� � .� �C� GL,i .�.i � � y L� � '� .w
�^'�''''�"w"�7 � a '�':+,G�O
� �4 .�
� �� O v y O� y � y y Q'y JI
t � a � a � �4 'u ;.o � ,Q ; �a � P �
� Q"{�' �`"� i" r Q'y,, y y � u
_"' e,"��'�U O'C � � O."� 4�.�
� V•� Ci p y.�7 ��� y p,p G��.r
:9
4 .+ C ��'S. �_���-, v...
� j4'� �.0 � v :Q Z G7 � � �
� � � JJ , 4 ..C, w � � '� 'a.Z ^' -� C .CS
„' 'c, G tC Q ? F+ :3
� � .
� � �
09 .� "°4 � � Z7 � � .=,� r."
� � ��
�' ��y�w �����
�` a�''o`^' c5' c g^= 4.�.
s � o � o.. y �
'Y p� 3J C ap � s„ ,�; S+
a '�`� .:%�°c�� �c��`-��
u u �o. ja;;,`y
� � E� o���..: tt�."�7.,�ce O
=
�:��.z-yv: v �.
� a��,aa;n .� ".C~
i�LI a,�i o"' � o..: a� C��, y�
� aL ��f
� �, ao�y'c'�iB, c�� r.�
� � V.1. ,t. G�6" CO�•'�.iw � i
� U , x � ow =a � � .
a�.-u��� �i�
2 �...ae`�,rv
i.~,��� Qv!y•�-�
� �� S'��'� �"'>.�
� ,+- o`
Z' d QNd�1MONs WdZC : 00 66 � Q0 l��ON