The URL can be used to link to this page

08-09-2000 ARC PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION AGENDA August 9, 2000 Large Conference Room l. Call to Order - 7 p.m- 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of May 10, 2000 Minutes 4. Unfinished and New Business: a. Discuss Update of Airport Noise Plan of Action 5. Acknowled�e Receipt of Various Reports/Correspondence: a. MSP 2010: Building a Better Airport (7une 22, 2000) b. MASAC Operations Committee Agenda for July 14, 2000 c. MASAC Agenda for July 25, 2000 d. MASAC Operations Committee Agenda for July 28, 2000 e. MAC Contract Pertaining to Limits on Construction of a Third Parallel Runway f. Airport Noise Reports g. MA.SAC News 6. Other Comments or Concerns 7. Adjourn AuYiliary aids for persons with disabilities 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. This may not, however, be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration at (651) 452-1850 with requests. ; � CITY OF 1VIENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MIi�IYESOTA Airport Relations Commission Minutes May 10, 2000 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on Wednesday, May 10, 2000, in the City Hall Large Conference Room, 1101 Victoria Curve. Chair Beaty called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. The followina meri�bers were present: Beaty, Fitzer, May, Petschel, and Stein. - � Commissioners Leumann and Roszak tivere absent: Administrator Batchelder was also absent. _ _ APPROVALi OF A1'RIL 12, 2000 MINUTES .. � = Commissioner Petschel stated that she was listed as absent but, in fact, had notified the Commission at the March meeting and City Hall that she tiuouid nof be able to attend the April meeting. Therefore, she requested that the minutes reflect that she was excused. Commissioner May moved and Commissioner Fitzer secondec� a motion to approye the April 12, 2000 minutes as amended. AYES: 5 NAYS : 0 UNFIIVISHED A�tD NEW BUSINESS Discussion of 1�Iinneapolis Resolution on lYlulti-Family Tnsulation Chair Beaty stated that Administrator Batchelder's report states the Minneapolis resolution reaarding Part 1 �0 prioritization to be consistent with current prioritization. The netiv prioritization projram will be�in before the 1996 pro�ram is completed so as not to have a gap in time between the ttivo programs. MAC has suj�ested that the multi- family phase be completed in one year and the sin�le-family program continue to 2005. Ea�an has eYpressed concern that the Part 1�0 fiindin� for the multi-family programs will delay single-family home insulation. Inver Grove Heights has suggested that equal prioritiz�.tion bet�veen multi-family and single family homes. The City does not appear to be affected, and Administrator Batchelder recommended that the Commission endorse the eYistina prioritization system with the provision that the single-family insulation continue unabated from the 1996 pro�ram to the 200� pro�am. Gommissioner l�Iay moved and Commissioner Fitzer seconded a motion that the i1�lendota Heiahts Airport Relations Commission endorsz the existin� prioritization system in place for the 1996 program with the provision that single-family insulation � continue unabated from the 1996 program to the 2005 program. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Ground Run Up Enclosure Chair Beaty noted that at the MASAC Oper�ions Committee meetin� it was voted to deny the MAC recommendation to build Option 2b for the Ground Run Up Enclosure. Northwest Airlines opposes it, as does Eagan. The City Administrator then made a motion to spend $5 million to build a graund run up enclosure, but there was no second. Part 1�0 Update Commissioner Fitzer noted that the study shows that over 22,000 people would be added to the noise contours if the new 17-35 runway were not built. - � - Chair Beaty noted and a�reed with the City's position to advocate fanning,operations because creatin� "no-fly zones" creates problems amon� communities. The City do�s . not want MAC to limit any future options for the use of Runway 17. � Chair Beaty noted that if hush-kitted aircraft were eliminated, the reduction in. the noise �� contours around the airport would be over 30,000 people. Just eliminating hush-kitted aircraft at nijht would reduce the noise contours by over 20,000 people. Hotivever, Norkhtivest only plans to phase out the 727s by 2005;�the DC-9s are not scheduled to be�in bein� phased out until 2009. � Chair Beaty stated that Northwest has enouah planes to be�in the phase-out immediately and he does not understand why it is being delayed. He would like to see more pressure put on Northrvest to begin the phase-out of hush- kitted aircraft. � Commissioner Fitzer stated that although the media is ativare of some information; more education needs to be done on the issues. It is a matter of �overnment mandates. If the government eYpects hush-kitted airplanes to be eliminated, it tivill happen. Commissioner Petschel noted that hush-kitted aircraft are not allowed at European airports. Corrunissioner Stein added that Europeans are pushina for Staae IV aircraf�. Commissioner Fitzer eYplained that Northtivest has not ordered neiv planes. .� neiv order for planes �vill take three to five years to receive. Public Open Houses on the Part 1�0 Study w-iIl be held Nlay 23-2�, 2000 at �:-arious locatioris. Commissioner Stein stated that he will try to attend one and repor back to the Commission. i Commissioner iUlay stated that since he volunteered to go to the Northem Dakota County Airport Relations Commission, he has not been notified of any meetings. The Commission w-ill check with Adrninistrator Batchelder to find out the meetin� schedule. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF REPORTS � March Technical Advisor's Report Com.missioner Petschel noted on page 4 that there is a sijnificant difference in the number of arrivals and departures for the City and Eagan in comparison to last year. She would like to know if there is a particular factor that would account for the bi� difference. l�iarch 2000 Corridor Analysis Chair Beaty noted that flights are heavier on the south side than the north side, and it is hard to understand why. � The Commission will ask Administrator Batchelder to check on this information. Chair Beaty stated that the City needs publicity to push its agenda regarding airport issues. � . � `; It was the consensus �of the Commission to request that the new Commission brochure be ' sent to residents with the next issue of Highlights. To just add the brochure to the rack of �;-- others at City Hall will mean that many residents will not know about it or read it. Chair Beaty stated that he �vould like to begin preparing a video script at the next zneeting. Commissioner iY1ay stated that he knows a contact person for the St. Paa11 Pioneer Press and tivould be u�illing to contact that person w�ith information about the Commission's �vork for a story. He sugQested invitin� this media contact person to a Commission meetina to inform her of the issues from the City's perspective. Commissioners discussed a possible agenda of the follo�ving topics as educational information for a newspaper article: a Ask her to ao to certain locations in the City to tuiderstand the roar of noise that residents must tolerate, such as Rogers Lake Park. • Gi�-e her a brochure and a copy of the Conlmission's Noise Plan of Action. o Provide information on head-to-head and hush-kitted operations. • �Ia�e sure she understands that the Commission is a grass roots vohinteer aroup that is in a David and Goliath type of situation. � Explain positive results that have been achieved. • Information on the run-up enclosure issue. e Future equity� in the runtivay use system • Budaet of the airport--the cost to move it versus what is being spent now. ;. " t It was the consensus of the Commission to have Commissioner May invite the media contact person and invite her to the neYt Commission meeting on June 14, 2000. The meetinQ adjourned at 8:30 p.m. RespectFully submitted, Deanne Gueblaoui Recordin� Secretary � C � � CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS iY1EM0 July 6, 2000 To: Airport Reiations Commission From: Kevin Batchelder, City Administrator Subject: Unfinished and New Business DISCUSSION On Wednesday evenin�, there will two main items to be discussed. First, MASAC took action at their June 27, 2000 meeting on a host of important Part 1�0 Study Update issues, includinj runway use system, land use measures, 17-35 flight tracks, lo�v demand fliaht tracks, and noise abatement departure profiles. Most of the votes were as recommended by Roy Fuhrmann in the June 27, 2000 i�ASAC agenda included in your Ack.nowled�ements. (Please refer to these memos for a detailed discussion of each noise mitigation recommendation.) � Second, it is that time of year to discuss our annual update of the Airport Noise Plan of ; ) Action. I will be prepared on Wednesday evening to discuss our progress this year and be�in a f discussion of priorities, goals and action steps for ne:ct year. (Please see attached 2000 Plan of Action.) � ACTIO�t REQUIRED Acl:no�ti�ledae update on Part 150 Noise Mitigation actions by MASAC. Discuss the Airport Plan of Action. ( • �� ' ♦ �■�■ � January � 0, 2000 MINNEAPOLISIST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ! i TOPICS OF INTEREST January 10, 2000 HIGH PRIORITY ISSUES 1. Part 150 Study Update a. Equity of Current Runway Use System b. Noise Abatement Departure Profiies c. Comdor Definition Issues :.d. Nighttime Restriction on Aircraft Operations 2. Accelerated Conversion to Manufactured Stage 111 Aircraft 3. MSP Long-Term Comprehensive Plan issues - Expansion of Existing Airpo�t. _ MEDIUM PRIORITY ISSUES _ 4. Global Positioning Satellite Technology. � 5. Noise Measurement Issues - a. Usefulness of Ldn 65 Contour ;" � b. Expansion of MAC Aircraft Noise Operations Monitoring t ��___ � (ANOMS). 6. Prevention of Third Parallel Runway — Amend Contract with MAC 7. Promote Run-Up Pad Enclosures - 1SSUES TO BE MONITORED 8. MAC Representation 9. Metropolitan Council "Noise Zone Map" Update and Related Land Use Contro(s 10. Non-Simultaneous Departure Procedures. 11. Aircraft Engine Rur-Up Noise and Aircraft Ground Noise During Periods of DepGr'ture Over Minneanolis. � � 2. Implementation of MSP Mitigation Committee's Comprehensive Plan TOPICS99.INT AIR N01SE PLAN OF ACTION � 1999/2000 FOCUS ISSUES 1. Noise Reduciion Throuoh Modified Takeoff Procedures A. Moniior the impiementation of Non-Simultaneous Procedures B. Pursue the Adoption of "Close In" vs. "Distant° Departure Procedures _ C. Urge the Adoption of Mandatory Nighttime Takeoff Regulations . D. implementation of Narrowed Air Tra�c Corridor E. Monitor Conformance wiih three-mile heading procedure. 2. HeiQhten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Nase Concems A. Educate Policy Makers About City Positions and Action Plan � B. Advertising the MAC Air Noise Complaint Line � C. Expand Distribufion of Air Noise Related Infiormation and information about the work and � effort of the City. D. Continue to collaborate with the Northem Dafcota County Airports Relations Coalition (NDCARC). E. Continue to keep abreast of other communities' issues and actions. . F. Work with Metropolitan Council representatives. 3. MSP Lon4 Term Comnrehensive Plan A. Moniior and encourage promulgaiion and adoption of air noise mitigation requirements in Mitigation Committee's plan. 4. Advocate a ivlore Eauitable Runway Use Svstem A. Prevent construction of a third parallel runway. S. UJork to Eliminate the Use of Head to Nead OperaTions. � 4. �' ; 5 Advocate a More Eauiiable Runwav Use Svstem (Continued) C. Monitor Progress of N!S Runway 17/35. D. Manitor Runway Use System (RUS) for conformance with MAC Policies. Specific Noise Control Measures A. Assure conversion of Stage III quieter aircraft by federal deadiine of year 2000. B. Monitor MASAC's plan to reduce aircraft engine run-up noise and aircraft ground noise during periods of departure. C. Promote the implemeniation of Global Positioning Satellite Technology to control departure headings in corridor. Noise Reduction Throuph �iti a�iion A. Exarnine Feasibiliiy of Cegal ChaOenge � Expand eliaibilitv of Part 150 Sound Insulation Proqram in areas affected bv air noise exposure Metropolitan Council Noise Zone Map and Related Land Use Controls A. Revise Metropolitan Council land use zones and controls. to ihe previous land use zones. A:IFOCUS.99fin.doc AlR �101SE PLAN OF ACTION issue: Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures Goa(: Monitor the Impiementation of Non-Simultaneous Takeoff Procedures Which Minimize Mendota Heights Air Noise Exposure Action Steps: 1. � Monitor Compliance with Tower Order 2. NSDP's — Request Continued Compliance Reports 3. Pursue Magnetic Shift Affect on 105 Degree Heading on 12R 4. : Work with FAA and MAC to Achieve Higher Levels of Use of Procedure � Who When � Staff/ Quarterly ARC Staff Fa111999 ARC Staff/ARC 1999 MASAC � Staff//ARC � � 1999/2000 .• � � • � � �� Issue: Noisz Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures Goal: Adoption of "Close-In° vs. "Distan�' Takeaff Procedures to Reduce Noise Generation Over Mendota Heights. Action Steps: 1. Review NADP Procedures 2. Continue to pursue�adoption of - . - �� "close-in' vs. °distant" departure procedures 3. Review Park 150 Study Update's wo�k on depar�ure procedures ► Who When ARC Part 150 Study ARC/Stafif Continuous ARC/Staff Monthly � � ♦ � . � j . � . Issue: Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures Goal: Adoption of Mandatory NightEime Takeoff Regulations to Reduce Noise Generation Over .. :. - Mendota Heights Action Steps 1. � Advocate IncentivesiDisincentives for Manufiactu�ed Stage !II Only between 10:30 p.m. and 6 a,m. �: 2. Scoping Letter to MAC Requested 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. Quiet Hours as component of Part 150 Study Updafe = 3. Advocate Quiei Hours and/or Mandatory Rules during Part.150 Study Update � 3 Who CC/ARC When CC/ARC April99 ARC/Staff . On-going � A1R NOISE PLAN OF ACT10N Issue: Noise Reduciion Through Modified Takeoff Procedures Goal: Implementafion of Narrowed Air Traffc Corridor which Minimizes Mendota Heights Air Noise Exposure Action Ste�s Who . When . 1. Advocate for Maintenance of 5 mile finai Staff/ARC � Continuous � arrivals and 3-mile corridor for departures � � _ included in Scoping Letier to MAC on � : � Part 150 Study � 2. Pursue the benefit of updating Tower .. Staff/ARC 1999/2000 � orders to originai inient before shifit -. MASAC -- � � in magnetic headings included in Scoping letter to 1V1AC on Pa�t 150 Study Update 3. Monitor Corridor Compliance and Departure Staff/ARC .�� Excursions 4. Pu�sue Removal of °Hinged Corrido�' and ARC the repeal of Tawer Order on South Paralle! Runway included in Scoping Letter to MAC on Part 150 Study Continuous Long Tenn 5 Pursue ro er Location of Corridor ARC/Staff Fall 1999 . p p based on GIS Analysis of Existing Commercial/Industrial Uses and Land � Use Compatibility Theories - 6 Pu u C r'dor Definition Issues During ARC/Staff 1999/2000 . rs e o n Part 150 Study Update 7. Conside� Consuitant to Assist with Corridar Definition � ��. AlR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION Issue: Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures �. Goai: Moniior Confonnance With Three-Mile Heading Procedure Action Steps: Who When 1. Review Corridor Gate Penetratiori Analysis StaffJARC Monthly 2. �� Alert MASAC and MAC About Compiiance Staff/ARC As necessary 3. Work with FAA to Achieve Comdor Staff/ARC As neeessary Compliance � � . 4. insist that Technicai Advise�'s Report StaffIARC Continue to Identify MAC's Policy Boundary of 095° . 5. Consider Consuitant to Assist with Corridor Definition 0 Fall 1999 , � �. A!R NOISE PLAN OF ACTI�N Issue: Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concems � Goal: Educate Policy Makers about Ciiy Positions and Action Plan Action Steps: Who When 1 Develop long-term strategic approach to Aii Continuous . relations with legislature. Work with the . Association of Metropolitan Municipalities to educate (egislators. 2. Educate MAC Representative to our concems and issues with operations and use of the MSP Airpo�t and reliever sysiem. 3. Review New MAC representation with Norkhem Dakota County Airport Relations Commission. 4. Educate Federal Representaiives on FAA's role 0 ARC/Staff ARC/Staff � Fall 1999 - a � AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION Issue: Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concems Goal: Advertising the MAC Air Noise Complaint Line Action Steps: Who When -,� -�- 1. Advertise in Each Quarte�ly Newsietker Staff Each edition � 2. Continue to Handout Magnets on Request Staff As requested ". Basis � .. � 3. � Mention During Public Mee#ings and Telecasts � � 4. Produce Govemment Access Segment a. � Develop Script b. Woric wiih NDC4 Producers c. Public Airing � 7 City Councii � _ ARC Spring 2000 JanlFeb. March :. Aprii . (��`�� ' Issue: Goal: AIR NO1SE PLAN OF ACT10N _ Heighten Awareness af Mendota Heights Air Noise Concems Expand Distribution af Air Noise Related Information and Informafion about the work and effort of the City � Ac#ion Stgps: wno 1. Continue to inform the communiiy on Staff/ARC ARC projects and concems us�g the -� City's newsletter and separate single page mailings. � � 2. Maii letters and Heights Highlites to Staff State Senators and Representatives . regarding ARC issues �� _ 3. Invite guests to monthly ARC mee6ngs - Staff � ` (i.e.; Mr. Hamiel, State elected officials) �- - 4. Expand coverage of air noise issues Staff _ by pursuing informational meetings with Council � editorial staffs of major pape�s 5. Continue to send press releases to Staff newspapers, State Senators and Reps. 6. Update and Promote air noise Staff/ARC mitigation document. . 7. Hosf an Annual Open House for Community Stafif/ARC 8. Develop Informational Brochure for Staff/ARC Display Case 9. Annual RepoR to the Community : When -,. :. Continuous . Continuous � Quarteriy . . . - 1999/2000 Continuous Annually Annually In Winter Fall 1999 Issue: Goal: A1R NOISE PLAN OF ACTION Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concems � Continue to Collaborate with the Northem Dakoia County Airports Relations Coalition (NDCARC) Aciion S#eps: Who � ' When � 1. Define Accompiishmenfs of NDCARC ARC � 1999/2000 2. Provide Information to City Council ARC ,� -.. 1999/2000 � . : A6ouf the Benefits of Coliaborafion � :. � � 3. Participate in Annual Joint Meeting �. ARC . , As Sciieduled � . of ARCs . . - . _.,:.: . . . . 4. Work to�Buiid Trust Amongst Members ARC � Con6nuous� -. . and Respective Counciis � . � 0 C � �� i A1R NOlSE PLQN OF ACTION Issue: Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concems Goal: Continue to Keep Abreast of Issues and Actions of Other Airpo�t Communities Action Steps: Who When 1. Review Media Ouilets for News Articles Staff Continuous, - and Publish in Friday News "' 2. �. Participate in Annuai Joint Meeting �of NDCARC 3. Inform Other Communities of our Issues and Actions � ' � �. � 4. Disiribute NOISE Newsletter to City Councii and ARC � � I� � Staff Staff Annuaily Continuous Bi-weskiy � � AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACT10N Issue: Heignten Awareness of Mendota He�ghts Air No�se Concems Goal: Work with Metropoiiian Councii Representatives Action Steps: . Who When 1. .Mail Letters and Heights Highlites Staff Quarierly and - to Districi 15 Representative � 2. � Meet with District 15 Representative .- to Educate and Lobby on Mendoia Heights Air Noise Issues 3. Resolve Land Use/Air Noise Zones Issues 4. Mest with and Educate Me# Council StaffStaff 11 As needed Mayor/Staff Annuaily � Councii/Staff Current � � As needed � � � : C � i • ' ' • ` • issue: MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Goai: Monitor and Encourage Promuigation and Adoption of Air Noise Miiigation Requirements in Mi�igation Commiftee's Plan Action Steps: Who When � 1 Par�icipate in MASAC Action Plan ARC/Staff Monthly �� to Impiement MSP Mitigation Plan �` 2. � Review MSP Mitigation Pian 3. Participate in Part 150 Study Update to Ensure Gaals of Miiigation Report are met � � 12 ARC ARC/Staff Annuaily 1999.2000 r Issue: Goal: AIR NOISE PLA�N �F ACT10N Advocate a More Equitabfe Runway Use System Preveni Construction of Third North Paraile! Runway. Action Steps: 1. Monitor MAC Compiiance with Contract 2. Monitor passible MAC Ac�uisition of Bureau Mines properiy and MAC interest iri off airport properties in 3rd runway area 3. Renegofiate with MAC on Terms in ._ Minneapolis/MAC contract. 5. Direct MAC on Preparation of Exhibit of Affected Prope�ies 13 Who Staff/ARC �taff When Continuous As necessary Council/Staff Current Council/Staff � �� C � A1R NO1SE PLAN OF ACT10N Issue: Advocate a More Equitable Runway Us� System Goai: Woric to Eliminate Use of Head to Head Operafions Action Steps: Who When 1. Advocate Completion and Projected ARC/Staff 1999/2000 Use of Runway 17-35 as part of � � � '� � - � - > Par� 150 Study Update 2. Eliminate Head-to-Head Operations � ARC 1999/2000 included in Scoping Letter to MAC on __ � Part 150 Study Update � .:;..,. _ _ � . 3. Advocate a revise Runway Use System ARC/Staff 1999/2000 that eliminates�Head-to-Head Operations during quiet hours 4. Negotiate with FAA on Head-to-Head ARC/Staff �- 1999/2000 Operations — � �! AlR NOiSE PLAN OF ACTION �� . Issue: Advocate a More Equitabie Runway Use System Goai: Monitor Progress of N/S Runway 17/35 Action Steps: Who When 1. Oppose any attempts to revise projected ARC/Staff -Contintious �- " use percentages of Runway � 7/35 as � -� ideniified in MSP 2010 Comprehensive Pian . .. -2. .�.: Advocate for Timely Construction of ARC Continuous � New Runway 17/35. � � � � � 15 � �� C 0 r' ,� Issue: �� Goai: A1R NOISE PLAN OF ACT10N Advocate a More Equitable Runway Use System Monitor Runway Use System (RUS) for Conformance with MAC Policies Action Steps: �� Who � When . . . �- . . . 1. = Review Existing Runway ARC/CC � 1999/2000 - , . -: �: . . . �t1se System . . .. . � -� 2: � � Request MAC to Reconfigure ARC/CC � 1999%2000 : - . :. � ` � Runway Use System to . �. _ .: . : , _. . . ,_. . - � incorporate changes consisfent with �. .� � � : _ _ MSP 2010 Comprehensive Pian fo�. � . . . . : - - Runway 17/35 . - - . - . _. � . . . , : ` 3 � - Mo�nitor Gate Penetration Analysis � . � - ARC _ � . - Monthly . - � . � � _ � . ... _. . . . - for Comp6ance wiih Esta61'ished - � . - - . .. . � � . Corridor Procedures � -. - � � : . ; —�.� �4. � ReviewTechnological Opportunities ARC - � 2000_ ��Y to Equitably Distribute Traffic in � � Runway Use System 5. Ensure Technology is not used to Increase Capacity in the Comdor � ARC/Staff � 2000 A1R NOISE PLAN OF ACT14N � Issue: Specmc Noise Control Measures Goal: Assure Conversion by Federai Deadline of Year 2000 .. . _ <..: � �--- _ . - � . Action Steps: :- � _ :� �` - _,:- Who` .. -_ When - - � .,,: :._ .... .. . , . :�.,,_. _ _ .-- . . �_ ... �� -1. ` - MASAC Consideration of � - : � � .::: .. � ARC/Councii � = Periodic _ . _ ..,� . :. .. :. . . . , �',-�Stage lll compfiance . ��_ :. . _. , - . _ .. _ . _ , . . .: ... ., _ _ _ .. _ 2 Pursue the Adopt�on of an Incent�ves/ ARC - 1999/2000 _ , .. .. . _. . . . '� " Penalties Pro �ram for Sta e�lll : NDCARC - ..: -� � = . . . 9 . _._ ..�:._ . g .� : � - ` Compiiance byAirliRes�included m � :. _ - ,. -. � - : Scoping Letter to MAC on Part 150 Stud . r; j .. - Y _ � : �• U daie .-. - � - P : - . . ,: . ._ r . = 3 - Pu�su�-an accelerated phase out o� °� ARC/Staff ` 1999/2000 �. . ._ ...:. .- . . : . . :. _-..._ . . _ _. , .: ., hush-kiited airctaft .:.. . ;: .. � � _ . _ _ _ �:_ :... : .,. : -: -::_ . . . : _ - . M1- � - . ... _ . �r � _ _ �." . : �: � 17 AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTiON Issue: Specific Noise Control Measures Goai: Moni�or MASACs Plan to Reduce Aircrafi Run up Noise and Aircraft Ground Noise During �-: `.-' - Periods of Depa�ture. . � . - � _ . _ . , .: . , Action Steps: . � � � Who -;.- _ , ,�: � When ; "� .. . _ . _ _.... ..- . : . •-- . - - �. 1. --� . Review Bluff Noise Issue . � ARC � _:, �1999I2000 -. . : ='� 2 � = . Promote the instailation.of a Ground . ° .ARC/Staf# = 1999/2000 � - �. _ . .. . � - - .x: _ ,. . .;:. _ . � _ . Run-Up Pad Enclosure : _ - _ . _ �_ _ . . : , _ .: ... - - �- 3 Morntor Low�Frequency Noise Study ARC/Staff :1999/2000 � : . for:Mitigation Techrnques to Address . - - - : .- Vibration and Back Noise along BIuff.Area .:- __ ... . . . . -. � _ . - � -�; :. (_ .) . . � . .. � . - � :, .�. --. s AlR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION Issue: Specinc Noise Control Measures Goal: Promote the Implementation of Globai Positioning Satellite Technology to Control Arrivai and Departure Headings in Corridor Without Increasing Capaciiy Action Ste�s: � � Who When � 1. Advocate during Part 150 Study . ARC/Staff 1999/2000 �.-.: .�-.: = - . � �Update to preserve_Three and Five Mile ° �: . . � . . � � � � _ .. �� - Finals on Amvai =��.- .. . . . . ; : � : :.: . ;� � _ . - .2. Advocate�During�Discussion on °��f��l : - ARC/Staff.� . Continuous � � � Runway Use System_Revisions � . - _ �. 3. � Promote Standard Instriiment Departures . � ARC/Staff �: Continuous �� - � a and, Finai Approact►es through the . ` � . :. � : . �. : - � Use of Global Positioning Satellites -:� - - _ � .- . - - . _ � . �` , a . � � � • � � � Issue: Noise Reduciion Through Litigation � Goai: Examine Feasibility of a Legal Challenge to Current Air . � . Noise_ Distribution - _ - ,. . . :�..: . � . � Action�Steps: - _ - - - . . .'� . Who . When . 1. �� Continue to be kept abreast of other� Staff/ARC Continuous .. �. - :communiiies' issues and possible '� � � . . : _. . . : . . _ . litigation process .. ,.. . _ � 2. -�: Consider Freedom of lnformation Request StafflARC �: 1999/2000 ��:� ., . ., _ _ _.: : . _ . _ : . ... . ; : :. . . , . .. .. . - . .- for ElS or FONSI's on"Increased � : � ° -- . _. :.._ .. . . . - .: �- � 0 rations in Comdor -. � . _ ' . . . . .. • - . - : - ,. .. :, . PQ._ _. _ _ . - _ _ ,.. , _ . . . . . . :. . - 3 :�.£on'sider Legal Challenge.Op�ions ifi :: � �: �: Staff/ARC �. 1.999%2000 . : � :_ : . : North/South Runway is Delayed or ':.. � - - ; �: � � � _ , � . . If runway use perc�niages diluted ;; . - �-`. . : . . r j � . ., , � . r _ . .. \�. � . : - . . � 2� • ' • ' • �- ` � (ssue: Expand Eligibility for Part 150 Sound insulation Program in Areas Affected by Air Noise Exposure Goal: Air Noise Mitigation Through Sound Insulation � � Action Steps: � =: � ` � . _ Who When ` . : - � .. - . . .. : 1. :; : Continue to monitor changes in the Ldn �� Staff/ARC _� On-going . : ... .. . .. . , �. = ` � �contours and monitor the Part 150 : � - � � Sound insulation program completion - _ - process _. � ` - � . - . . , _ . _: , .. _ __ -., -. -� :. �k :: _ :. . . ;: . :: . . : 2. Exam�ne the feasibiiity of purchase o� `:. ` ARC/Councii 1999/2000 �:, ..� _ .: _ .. .. . .,,�. '_ acquisitiori��hrough Part 150 for severely � � . , _ _ � . , , .. .. ...... ., - - ,.. _ . . _ :. �. impacted areas ;: � - _ - � .. . ,..:p.,. - .. . _ � . .. . -:' 3. Ensure ANOMS data used for Noise Contour . Staff/ARC ��:: 8es-'I�� .. � - �` Generation for 2005 P.art 150 DNL 60 MASAC On- oin � � �-- � ... - :.9 g . � - . � �., �4. Advocate for the increased use of Staff/ARC �. Continuous .-, Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) for _ Council �� . : funriing Part 150 programs . . . . -- 21 � � . � � � � � Issue: Metropolitan Councii Noise Zone Map and Relaied Land Use Controls � Goal: . Revise Met Councii Land Use Zones_ and Controis to the Previous Land Use Zones �. - - Action Steps: : . .: Who � When � ' - . _ . . , _ : f _ - � 1 _ Wor1c with City Council and . , . � ARC : . . -: Current - _ - � ,~ _ � . . Planning Commission on Comprehensive :� - _ - . - ; : ..... .. � , -�...Plan submission : : ..- .. �� -. - _ . . . ....:... ...... . .:. ._.. : . - - ... . _.. . : -, ,. _ . . . :. _ 2 � Review MAC 2005 LDN Contours for_. ARC/CC _ -� 'f 999 � - : : . ... : . -- . . " � Appiicafion tq" l.and �Use Zones- �� - - , , -�= . . . . . .: : : ..-. .. . _:: .. ; _ :� �3 Cons�der Updating Sound Attenuation , ARCICC �2000 ; �. =�Ordinance to ciirrent standards - � - -- - - �: � �-- _ - - . - - . . . . . . _.: _ . _ . . _ � .. . . . : ; � :. . : .: . �: :� . .. � _ � � . . . , � __ , . � . _ ; '_ . . ' - . . ' ' . . . ' ' �� _ . . ' " ' � . � . ' . . . . . . . '" . � . . - ' - . � Updated January�10, 2000 � . . . .. ACTIONPl..99fin � ,,, • . � . . N0.610 P.2i2 ��►1L' 1 �QPo�ll 1'lJ.\I .�1i�.CoA1 � C��IJ.r'11�,7�7��1V rr�>�t `j �9-vra Mirm.eapolis-Saix�t Paul International Airport . � t°c� B04a - 28tb Avr3xtue South • Mia.neapolis, MN 55450-2999 ;�, a P11one (612} 726-8100 • Fax (612j 726-5290 n , �' N 0 y o �: �� ct V '�' G� h 4iaPOnt� MSP 2010: BUILDING A IiETT�R AIItPORT Gity Staf� Briei�ng sa �'une 22, 2440 The Metropolitan. Airports Comtnission invites you to attend a city stafr briefinD on Thursday, 3une 22 at 1;30 p.m. ta discuss construction projects and chanaes at the Mirineapolis-St. I'aul Internat�onal Airport that will impact the surrounding communities this year. The meeti.ng on MSP 2010: Building a BetterAirport vvill focus on those projects that will imPact neighboring commuaities in 2040. Project spokespeople will be on hand to answer questi.ons. . Vi�tAT: � WHEN: WHERE: City s�aif briefing on MSP 2010 Nigel rinn.ey, c�ePuty executive director for Planning and Environment, Metropolitan Ai.rporrs Commission. Gary Warren, director of Airside Development Roy Fuhrmann, manager of Aviation N'oise and Satellite Programs Denny Probs�, di.rector of Landside Development Thursday, June 22, 2000 1:30 p.m. Metro Office Park 2901 Metro Drive, Suite 525 Bloomington, MN 5542� '� Please contact Amy von Walter in the MAC Public Af.�airs office at 612-726-8172 to RSVP or for more information, ### Tho btotropolitan Airporta Commiseion is an affirmative action employer, Reliever Airporta; AIFL,r'�KE •.WOFCA COtTNTYtBLRTNE • CRYSTr�L • FLYNG CLOUD • LAKE ELMQ • SAINf P.iUL DOWIVTOWN � C 1;15? 2010: Buiidina a Ec[ter Airp��rt Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport Meeting the Travel Needs of Minnesota into the 21st Century Anticipating increasing demand for air travei, the fv1AC and the Nlinnesota Legislature reviewed many ootions `or meeting the needs of air travel in the future. These options included improvements at NiSP or the development of an entirely new airport in Dakota County. After much deliberation, the Governor and Legislature in 1996 stopped further consideration or a new airport and directed the Metropolitan Airports Commission to implement MSP 2010, a long-term comprehensive plan to improve existing airport facilities. The MSP 2010 plan will increase the airport's capacity to meet projected deRiand throuah the year 2010. MSP 2010 wiil provide an airport that is modern, sare and reliable; minimizes costs to airport users; and minimizes environmental impact to our neignbors and community. Simply put, we're building a better airport for service into the next miilennium. � MSP 2010 encompasszs an entire series of improvements imrolving �he ainield, the Lindbergn and Humphrey terminals, airport access and parkina facilities. Since the airport must remain open durirc construction, these improvements wiil be comolece� in onases over se��eral years. Comple'ted Components Traveiers �,vill notic� improvements to �he airoor� �rot nave aiready been made. They inc!ude: .._,�i =�rc^,urs� ��,ir,,rin� b`!�C<:+f;•.!5 - Tne "e;v ^':rvine :v�i::vavs orovide travelers ��ich added e�se, .pe�a .nd r�rr�enizr.Ce in makira conneCtionS �rom aate5 on :"e Green concour;e ar.d the Regioral concourse �.o :�? :;c::et counter ani! bace,uge claim areas. Tiie Pierson M. Grieve Conrerence Center - A ne�.v 3.�00-:ouare-`oot business and conierence center ooened in the Lindbergh Terminal. The conference center nas eight rooms that accommodate from two to 100 peoole. Ser�ices include workstations, computer connections, fax and cooy machine services and catering services. Eacn concoursz also houses self-serve business service centers. Northstar Crossing — 65 New Shops and Restaurants In response to customers who showed keen interesi in a varie*�/ of food, beverages and merchandise selections in the airport, the Commission is improving customer service and satisfaction with more facilities, better service, areater variety of vendors and products and orices comoarable to those in malls. Norths�ar Crossing is a ne�r+ coileccion or stores, restaurants and a food cour, in .he Lindbergn Terminal �eaturino ��iinnesota-iheme� _;�aos alona �r�i[h nationa'Jy known retailers ir,c �cing ihe tirs;-ever, airoor-oased Lands' End �r.c Li� Cl�ioorne scores. �rourci r�r,sportation C�^[e� - An urderaround :v�ik:v,:�; connecCs the Lire�e��r. Termiral (tic�eting ar.d oacaage c!aim leve!c; ::i,� :ne oar:<ina ramos and Ia�cinc �reas �ur ouoiic t._,._.,.,r.ation suc� as ta:�is, o�e! =_ru:[le ouses, r�^:.;. �� _�uC:les, ou[-st�te :r:c, es �r,h cnarer i�u�z:. - . �reuro Trrspor,�:ion C�n�e� e'iminates ch� nee�� `� �e�es�^ars ;o step ou'sice ar.ii cross msr•i '� �_ .,. :r- c- m�;:;nc the � roor: _c'er and mor,. c^, ._ ... e ( J F�tirneaoolis-St. Paul In[ernational Airport international Arrivais Facility - The International Arrivais Facilic/, which opened on the Goid concourse in the �indbergh Terminal in 1996, allows passengers to pass easily through immigration and customs and walk to connecting gates for domestic fliohts. The new facility makes Minneapolis-St. Paul one of the most convenient entry points to the United States. improving the Runways and Airfield The addition or Runway 17�35 wiil add 25 percent more capacir� at MSP. This new, 8,000-foot, north- south runway will allow MSP to meet growing demand for air service nationally and internationally. The new runway, expected to be completed by 2003, will help reduce congesiion and delays nationwide. Mi9nwdy ci Dc�ung? tl Temporary ""� E�tension .ODO• ��, oo-�ung Pad snen SVee� '=?.�7 •\'u.�� 1 I IIIII � � �,�,�,,�,� „�� - ��h 4N � � ��c. s SP . '�� `�'l.v. � _ [-Ctn 5`�.�.t � ,a� � � >,�: �9 � N<.�, m i ,r,m�,°��eY � xon�� - a .=�._-� --�:`=:'� = o-,a..,.amr ,.e � . .. �.-_—� �,�or,-,.:�_.,,,..�� ;��:�„a'� ;� =s� r . /� 3f� �. ;�. �:'�:N,t;. _. De-�cing ?�d 11999) �O • \� �/q� RunwaY a�consx�uR�on d (Aorii. ieatemoer I9J<.1 xev ,;�y � _..,>��y,.��=.:�,n_„�:�.. N�pc, tr L �n � �.i�a _mc .a � ,. •,.,.�„�„=>z ,��,,,..,,,,,...,,,,..,..�,..,, �>.....,_.... C In addition to 17�35, Runway -�j22 wiil be extended to accommodate long-haui international flights. Out of public view, but important to both the business communiry and the economic health of the aviation industry, MSP 2010 also provides for improved air freight and airline maintenance facilities. The mitigation oT environmental impacts includes the continuation of sound insulation for residences and schools in the area. New de-icing pads at the end of eacn runway wiil enhance the e�ciency of the de- icing process for departing aircrat"t and provide an area to collect used glycol (de-icing fluidj. Improving the Lindbergh Terminal To handle flights to new destinations and provide an opportunity for new airlines to begin air service at MSP, 12 new jet gates will be added at the Lindbergh,_ Terminal. The first four gates open in sumrner 2000,�' �, and eight more jet gates open in 2002 along with a new and expanded Regionai concourse. A heated skyway will link the �reen and the Gold concourses at their eastern ends. Additional entry points, skyeao service and limited ticketing check-in will allow travelers to access the Green and Gold concourses from the ne�,v expanded parking and rental car facilities. It also will help oassenaers by eliminating the need to go ail the way to the Lindbergh Terminai in order to make connections oetween gates on the Gold and Green concourses. In June 2000, the currenc color-coded concourses will be repiaced by an ainhanumeric �ystem (letters and numoers) to accommodatz adcitionai oates and provide censistency for trave!zrs Prom �ther airoorts. Replacing the Humpnrey Terminal a, ne�:v 300,G00-�qu�re-=oec :e��^inai ooens :n 2001 �' ' Wiiii �;Qfl[ Je[ yo(2� arC ;^e �G�:�!lllal CO Oe ZXD"afl(le� to 13 ;et ga[es. inis re�iaceme^t izrr,,inal ��iill be a�iaiiaole �or both scneu�.!e^ ��u charer airlines. �;iSP 2010: Building a 2etter Airport Improving the Roadways and Parking As the number oP people using MSP grows, so does the demand for parking space. Not only are there more people parking at the airoort, they are parking for longer time periods. Parking facilities at the Lindbergh Terminal's east end wili be expanded by more than 6,000 spaces. During construction, airport users should allow ror parking shortages or consider aiternatives to parking at the airport Travelers can call 612�826-7000 for updated parking information. Thank You for Your Patience - It's Worth the Wait Ali told, fviSP 2010 is a muiti-year project ihat invoives councless hours or planning, building and ren"ning. All o� these changes wiii oe `unded, noc by taxes, but by airport user fees such as airport landing fees, parking, passenger faciliry charges and concession revenues. So, instead of using valuabie tax dollars, it's estimated that MSP generates revenues of more than �400 miilion per year for local and state An automated people mover will run from the governments and Lindbergh Terminal to the new parking ramps and injects more than expanded auto rental facility making travei easier for �o billion a year peoole who use MSP. into the region's economy. The renEal car service center wiil be adjacent to the sT�ray between the east ends of the Green and Goid concourses. This will make access to those parts of the terminal more �onvenient. _...........:� . ... ... ......... .. .. The airport's inbound and outbound roadways will be reconstructed and expanded to four lanes in each direction by the end of 2000. This expansion allows for the Green concourse to be extended and accommodates ne�.v entrances and exits to parking. The road project also includes a new return-to-terminal route for drivers wishing to return to the Lindbergh Terminal. The airport also helps bolster Ntinnesota's economy and business environment by its easy accessibiliry for frequent travelers. Additionaily, the airpor['s location near the Mail of America has helped this artraction become one of the top tourisi desiinations in the country. As MSP 2010 is imolemented in the coming years, airport officials ask for your c000eration and patience as construction progr;sses. The resuits wiil he!o us buiid a better airoor �or the next millennium. � _----- _:. .,.,s � �.,e=:<�: =_—.:.�-;5 � � ^� �u � �� '.�,��. r ``iY a� '` . 3t 4 - � �^-fT �,�i�'2' st. ' � ' . . � . LR. e��?f H s+�7�z`�� s=7�i�`3.�`�€'�` A'F a2'.�i-�c. MN�,A�Patlop '. �aW;aasc �,in.�;a.-�wns.�-r�-�!rs n±mzsr.:wi-rt,r.s.a..�-7c'��r..s� n. +,� �.:.�5�'3�ix''�.4+��t? . •+�3del'n7��Pis?T.'x.� f�iSP: 2010 / 6uilding a 6etter Airport Sprin� - F�II %��00 U,��a �e Specific improvements underway at MSP during the 2000 construction season include: Inbound Roadway Tne inoound roadway at ,he airport will continue to be con- structed through 2000 to accommodate the opening of the new parking ramps and expansion of the Green concourse. "Slow Down" and "Stay Alert" sians will direct airport visitors 2s consiruction progresses. Construction began in April 2000 and is expected to conclude in November 2000 with four lanes in each direction. New Parking and Rental Car Facilities New nine-level parking ramps east of the current parking ramps are nearing compietion, adding more than 5,000 addi- tional parking stalis at the Lindbergh Terminal. Rental car service wili expand its operations into the Red ramp in June 2000. A Hub Tram carrying passengers from parking and renzal cars to the Lindbergn Terminal will be availabie to the puolic in fall 2000. Green/Goid Connector Bridqing the airport roaoways between the Green and Gold concourses will be a ciimate-controlied connector with moving walkways. The new Connector will allow travelers to reach gates at the east end of the concourses without traveling through ihe Lindbergh Terminal. Limited ticketing/check-in service wiil be provided to passengers. Anticioated completion is in July 2000. Travelers using the new parking or rental car �acilities will find enhanced access to many of the airport's gates. Green Concourse Gate Expansion The rirs� Tour of 12 ne�� jet aates for the Green concourse :xpansion will be open in June 2000. This first pnase of the Green concourse exparsion includes a new food cour� and retail rotunda, and a connection to the Green/Goid Connec�or. As pa� o� p�ase two, eight additionai jet gates and 30 new regional aates will be constructed for compie- tion in 2002. Phase two inciudes a continuation of the mov- ing walkways and Concourse Tram stations along the length of the concourse. Concourse Renaming In September 2000, the current color-coded, conszcutively- numbered concourses wiil be renamed using an alphanumer- ic system to enhance traveler navigation through the airporc and provide consistency with other airports. The new regional and mid-field termina!s (under conscruction in sum- mer 2000) will be named A and B respectively. The existing Green concourse as well as the 12-jet gate expansion wili become the C and 0 concourses. The current Biue concourse will be renamed E, the Red concourse, F and the Goid concourse, G. North/South Runway (17/35) A new 8,000-foot runway is expected to add approximaiely 25 percent additional capacity for the airport, reducing con- gestion in the national air space system and reducing delays for travelers. The new runway will run almost parallel to Cedar Avenue in a north-south direction. Aircraft will depart to or arrive from the south. Construction began in 1999 from the northwest end of the runway progressing south. The runway is expected to be operational in 2003. Repiacement Humphrey Terminal Construction of a new 300,000 square-root termiral to replace the existing Humphrey Terminal began in �all 19°9. Tnis new eight-gate facility wili house both scheduled and char[er airlines and have a new ticketing lobby, baaoaae handling and ground support `acilities. The new terminal is aiso designed Tor a future exoansion of up to 18 jei oat�s. It is exoected to ooen in sprina 200L _ __. f�%�etr000li:ar ueneral Oi�ice Airport Director's Of�ic: :�irports �'J=Q :o. . _^.�: So.:.., �UG G�uT.acr �- �; Commissior, . -.neaoo�s� �.1^: �_=�� Su�,e 30v0 :12 '2e'-?li)� S�;rf Fau' Fd�td ,c,i i ........^SO3;rJi�';..0^'� �i_.'2^-��`_.. �� m,5�� ' : �.'. . ., :� . . . ._. .., , . . � .. "� �... i.A�+A. . . . . �, ' � � _ . � .��.. Minneapolis-St. Paul Intern�ltiOri�ll Airport's ��b site is the ne��est site to see for travel-rrs heacling to;MSP. 'It's loacled �vith helptul intonnarioi�: o TER1�u1v� maps and �hotos a PArtxuvG and giound a•ansportadon informatiori a ArxtLnvE p]lonc nuinUers and,��eb sit� links n.�� STATISTICS E111C1.�1115\i'tPS t0 COi11IilOII t1Ut5C10115 .- -�" c� NEWS on airport iinprovements aud adi ulces. ;: n'L��{s to T�vin Cine's "sites to se�" :ind,;rnore Beiore your nest flight, inclucle a stqp it www.mspairport.com . on. yoiir itineiary. ' C MSP 2010: BUILDItVG A, BETTER AIRPORT FACT SHEET FOR 2000 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS JuNE 22;` 2000 Inbound/Outbound Roadway e Construction of the airport's roadways will continue through 2000 to accommodate the opening of the new parking ramps and expansion of the Green concourse. • This phase of construction is expected to conclude in November with four lanes in each direction. Parking and Rental Car Facilities • New nine-level parking ramps easi of the current parking ramps are nearing completion, adding more than 5,000 public parking spaces at the Lindbergh Tern�.inal. When the full expansion (levels 4-9 on the Blue and Red ramps) is completed, MSP's total public parking capacity will be 17,541 spaces. o Until fall, severe parking shortages are expected in the Lindbergh Terminal' s ; � general parking. Patrons are urged to consider alternative modes of - transportation to driving and parking at MSP. Please call the parking information line at 612-826-7000 or the new toll free number ::: :.: 1! • Renta.l car companies will double their space by expanding operations into the Red ramp (levels 1-3) in July 2000. The rental car facility currently operates on levels 1-3 of the Blue ramp. The Hub Tram carrying passengers from parking and rental cars to the Lindbergh Terminal will be available to the public in November 2000. Until then, the shuttle bus system currently in place will service both parking and rental car customers. A dedicated auto rental exit lane, similar to the auto rental entrance lane, was constructed to exit the Red ramp on the south side and opened June 10, 2000 to allow auto rental traffic to more easily exit the facility. Green/Gold Connector • Construction began in August 1999 on a skyway to connect the Green and � � Gold concourses. Spanning the airport's inbound and outbound roadways, the - connector will be heated and air-conditioned and includes moving walkways. The connector from the Hub Building to the Gold concourse opened June 7. The section connecting the Green concourse is expected to open July 11. MSP 2010 Construction Fact Sheet June 22, 2000 Page 2 � • The Green/Gold connector will help travelers reach gates at the furthest end of the concourses without traveling through the Lindbergh Terminal building. Travelers making connections who have already passed throu�h security will not need to re-enter security to use this skyway. Limited ticketin� check-in services and concessions will be added in the future. Travelers using the new parking or rental car facilities will find enhanced access via the new connector to reach many of the airport's gates. Green Concourse Expansion • The first four jet gates of the Green concourse expansion opened June 7. The first of this two-phase expansion began in September 1999. A food court and retail rotunda will open in August. Phase 2 includes eight more jet gates, a new Regional concourse with 30 gates for regional aircraft and a new Concourse Tram. Phase 2 will be completed by the fall of 2002. North/South Runway e A new $000-foot runway is expected to add approximately 25 percent additional capacity for the a.irport, reducing congestion in the national air space � system and reducing delays for travelers. The new runway will run almost parallel to Cedar Avenue in a north-south direction. Aircraft will depart to or arrive from the south. Construction began in 1999 from the northwest end of the runway progressing south. The runway is expected to be operationai in 2003. New Humphrey Terminal • In spring 2001, the new 300,000-square foot Humphrey Terminai will open with five jet gates (expanded to eight gates by December 2001) and the potential to be expanded up to 18 jet gates. Construction began in September 1999. This replacement terminal will be four times the size of the existing building and will be available for both scheduled and charter airlines. The new tern�inal also will have parking space for eight 727-size aircraft or six DC- l Os, 44 ticket counter positions, four baggage carousels and a new federal inspections facility. Travelers will enter a street-level lobby for check-in, then be directed to the second level and through a central security checkpoint for boarding. A new food, beverage and retail area also is planned. __ . _ MSP 2010 Construction Fact Sheet June 22, 2000 Page 3 Concourse Renaming • In September 2000, MSP will adopt the internationally-accepted alphanumeric gate and concourse naming system. Because MSP is expanding, adding new jet �ates and regional aircraft gates, it is outgrowing the present color and continuous numbering system. In the alphanumeric system, concourses are denoted by letter and all gates are numbered consecutively for each, individual concourse. This system more easily adapts for gate expansions on every concourse and gives each concourse its own set of numbers. It should help travelers navigate the airport and provide consistency with other airports. The new regional concourses will be named A and B. The existing Green concourse, as well as the 12 jet gate extension, will become the C and D concourses. The cunent Blue concourse will be renamed E, the Red concourse, F and the Gold concourse, G. Other MSP 2010 projects • The 24-hour retail service provided to the public at the MSP International Airport U.S. Post Off'ice closed in November 1999. Construction began on a new mail center located next to Northwest Building B. The new mail center is scheduled to open July 2001. What is MSP 2010? � • MSP 2010 is a comprehensive plan of improvements at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, designed to meet the region' s air travel needs through the year 2010. Planning began in 1989. • In 1996, the Governor and Legislature concluded the Dual Track Airport Planning Process, determining that the current airport could be developed to meet future needs, and a new auport would not be built. Funding MSP 2010 • MSP 2010: Building a Better Airport is estimated to cost $2.6 billion. • It will be paid for through a.irport user fees, (landing fees, parking, passenger faciliry charges, concessions revenue, etc.) not state or locai taxes. For more information • Visit our new Web site at http://www.mspairport.com # # # MSP 2010: BUILDING A BETTER AIRPORT " ESTIMATED TIMELINE OF MAJOR LANDSIDE (TERMINAL) CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS ( ProjecdActivity Begin Date Projected Completion Estimated Cost \ (Construction) (Construction) Reconstruction of InboundlOutbound April 1999 November 2000 $25 million Roadway Public Parking Expansion May 1998 Fa112000 $85 million Rental Car Relocation May 1998 July 2000 $40 million Green Concourse Gate Expansion March 1999 June 2000 $40.5 million Phase 1 (4 gates) Apron paving in conjunction $7 million Green Concourse Gate Expansion FaI12000 Fa112002 $71 million Phase 2(8 gates) and Regional Terminal Concourse Tram June 1999 June 2002 $36 million Green/Gold Connector . October 1999 June-July 2000 $20.7 million Hub Tram September November 2000 $25 million 1998 Northstar Crossing, Green Concourse March 2000 Aub st 2000 $14 million Construction of New Humphrey August 1999 May 2001 $73 million Ternunal Concourse/Parking Re-signing February 2000 Septernber 2000 Cost included in other ro'ects Mail Center July 2000 July 2001 $53 miliion ResidentiaUSchool Sound Insulation Program Residential Insulation January 2000 December 2000 $36.5 million Washburn School (Minneapolis) June 1999 September 2000 $8.5 million Light Rail Transit (LRT) (Designated airport stops: Lindbergh Fa112000 Fall 2003 MAC contribution and Humphrey Ternunals) $70 million for airport-related stops This estimated timeline is current as of June 2000. As with any construction project, this timeline is subject to change. MSP 2010 — BUILDING A BETTER AIRPORT r::. ESTIMA.TED TIMELINE OF MAJOR AIRSIDE (AIRFIELD) CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS ProjecdActivity Begin Date Projected Completion Estimated Cost (Construction) (Construction) North/South Runway (17/35) April 1999 October 2003 $400 million Temporary 1,000 ft. extension TBD TBD $3.5 million Runwa 12R/30L* 1,000 ft. extension to Runwa 4/22* A ril 2000 Fall 2000 $19.5 million Runway 30R De-Icing Pad April 2001 September 2001 $9 million Runway 12R De-Icing Pad — June 2000 August 2001 $15.9 million Taxiway B This esti»zated tinaeline is current as of June 2000. As with any construction project, this timeline is subject to change. Completed Projects: South Parallel Runway Reconstruction Runway 12L/30R De-icing pad * Awaiting FAA approval of environmental assessment � IVletropolitan �ircraff Sound Abatem�nt Council (MAS�C� 6040 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450 •(612) 726-8141 Chairman: Mayor Charies Mertensotto Past Chairs: Robert P. Johnson, 1995-1999 Scott Bunin, 1990-1995 Walter Rockenstein, II, 1982-1990 Jan Dei Calzo, 1979-1982 Stanley W. Olson, 1969-1979 Technical " Advisor: Chad Leqve MEETING NOTICE MASAC OPERATIONS COMMITTEE The Operations Committee wili meet Friday, Julv 14, 2000 — 9:00 to 12:00 in the Large Construction Trailer, 6040 28th Avenue South. If you are unabie to attend, please notify the committee secretary at 612-726-8141 with the name of your designated alternate. 1. Roll cali 2. Approval of the June 9, 2000 Minutes 3. Special Operations Committee Meeting and Agenda items Old Business 4. Runway 17 Departure Flight Tracks 5. Fleet Mix Considerations 6. GPS/Future Technology Considerations 7. Other Items Not on the Agenda 8. Adjournment MEMBER DISTRIBUTION Chairman John Nelson � � ��-� Bob Jahnson, MBAA - � Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan Ron Johnson, ALPA Brian Bates, Airborne Mary Loeffelholz, NWA Dick Saunders, Minneapolis Mayor Charles Mertensotto, Mendota Heights Roy Fuhrmann, MAC 9:15 10:15 11:00 11:50 12:00 Advisory: Chad Leqve, MAC Ron Glaub, FAA Cindy Greene, FAA Keith Thompson, FAA Jason Giesen, MAC Shane VanderVoort, MAC Glenn Orcutt, FAA -� Mark Ryan, MAC Joe Harris, MAC cc: Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights Charles Curry, ALPA Will Eginton, IGH Jennifer Sayre, NWA Pam Dmytrenko, Richfield Tom Lawell, Apple Valley Tom Hansen, Burnsvilie Jan DeiCaizo, Minneapolis Glenn Strand, Minneapolis � . _ _ __ r; �. / L ,' � �' I , ,' ( : : ; `; , `� �;. '_,;' `� '. , ��: FROM[: SUBJ�CT: DATE: �L�SL�C MASAC Operations Committee Roy Fuhrmann, Manager of Aviation Noise a.nd Satellite Programs Special MASAC Operations Committee Meeting July 6, 2000 The MASAC Operations Committee has reviewed many operational and landuse measures as part of this Part 1�0 Update process. It is ea�tz-emely important to continue this aggressive approach of reviewing topics in order to provide MASAC with information on a timely basis_ Staff is proposing a special MA SAC Operations Committee meeting for: Friday July 28, 2000 9:00 A.M. Metropolitan Room Lindbergh Terminal There are three signif'icant topics that need to be considered: • Contour Boundary Defmition • Single Family and Multi-family Insulation Priorities • Sound Insulation Modification Packages Discussion on these topics are important as we draft the Part 150 Update document. Action Requested That the MASAC Operations Committee endorse the staff's recommendation to hald a Special MASAC Operations Committee meeting on July 28, 2000 at 9:00 A.M. ., o.., � � TO: FROM: SUB�ECT: DA'I'E: MASAC Operations Committee MASAC Roy Fuhrmann, Manager of Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs Runway 17 Flight Tracks July 6, 2000 At the June 9, 2000 MASAC Operations Committee meeting FAA expressed concern about the proposed departure procedure for west bound aircraft from Runway 17. FAA indicated that aircraft could turn almost immediately to their destination heading after passing a specific DME point and that FAA air traffic controllers would not hold aircraft at the departure heading until it reaches a specified altitude. As a resuIt of this discussion, MAC, HNTB and FAA agreed to revisit the west bound departure procedures for Runway 17 to develop a workable solution. MAC, HNTB and the FAA have also clarified assumptions about overall west-bound departures, aircraft track layouts and the associated fleetmix. HNTB has since developed three alternatives with different DME turn points as potential solutions. Additionally, some background concerning the development of flight tracks and the contour generation process are also provided. First, this Part 150 Update uses AutoCAD and GIS software to analyze actual, digita.l ARTS/ANOMS data from the existing runways to project typical jet departure tracks, turn points and turn rates. Dispersed flight tracks, with sub-tracks to the left and right of the primary flight track are also used. This simulates the fanning that occurs as aircraft of difFerent performance capabilities turn to assigned headings. This data. was then used to develop the layout and ground track of the projected Runway 17 flight tracks. While these types of digital methods for developing flight tracks were not available during the FEIS process, the refinements to the flight tracks in this Part 150 Update increases the accuracy of the modeled noise contours. Second, because Runway 17 is not yet operational, the flight tracks in both the FEIS and Part 150 Update are estimates of flight track locations based upon typical destinations and ATC routing procedures. Although destinations and routing are not expected to change from the FEIS, advancements in software, data analyses, and the increasing use of high performance aircraft affect the projected layout of the Runway 17 departure flight tracks. Finally, at the July 14, 2000 Operations Committee meeting, HNTB will present Runway 17 west bound jet departure alternatives that are consistent with radar data, FAA air traffic controller departure procedures and maintain the original intent of the MASAC Operations Committee's previous endorsement for noise reduction from Runway 17. Action Reqnested That the MASAC Operations Committee endorse the consulta.nt's recommendation for Runway 17 departure procedures that minimize impacts of westbound jet departures as a noise mitigation measure for the Part 150 Update and forward these recommendations to the full body of MASAC for endorsement. If you have any questions, please contact me at 725-6326. �. I I , � � / , , �'_' � , � �. '': TO: MA.SAC Operations Committee MASAC FROM: Roy Fuhrmann, Manager of Aviation Noise and Satellite Proarams SUBJECT: Fleet Mix Considera.tions DATE: July 6, 2000 Throughout the Part 150 Update process, MAC and HNTB have been working with the airlines and communities to develop realistic alternatives and options for reducing noise impacts within the affected communities by reducing the use of older, louder aircraft. Although all parties involved would like to see a completely updated, all manufactured Stage 3 aircraft fleet, there are other factors that affect the ability to implement such a measure as pa.rt of the Part 150 study. First, there are limitations on the ability of manufacturers to meet the aircraft production demands for , ' replacement aircraft while also meeting the overall increase in demand for new passenger aircraft. The �_ � manufacturers production facilities are extremely complex and their ability to increase production rates are planned over extended supply/demand cycles. This helps to ensure that new aircraft continue to meet the stringent safety standards set forth by the FAA and required by the traveling public. Second, although communities aze anxious for airlines to replace old hushkitted Stage 3 aircraft with new manufactured Stage 3 aircraft, they are cautious about how soon airlines will be able to realistically replace these aging air frames. Therefore, community leaders have asked Iv1AC to work closely with the airiines to develop realistic time frames for including new aircraft in the Part 150 aircraft fleetmix. MAC and HNTB have conducted meetings and surveyed airlines serving MSP as part of this Part 150 Update Process. MAC is also participating on a national level to help accelerate the phaseout of hushkitted Stage 3 aircraft. Although MAC is optimistic about the national direction, there are few opportunities to impose restrictions at the local level. As part of this update process, the use of voluntary agreements may be the most effective method to implement change at MSP while continuing to work toward a national approach. At the July 14, 2000 MASAC Operations Committee meeting, members wiil be briefed by HNTB about the airline survey, discussions, reaIistic projections for replacing hushkitted Stage 3 aircraft and a proposed recommendation with respect to finalizing the Part 150 Fleet Mix discussion. Action Requested That the MASAC Operations Committee endorse the consultant's recommendation to pursue voluntary nighttime agreements with airlines serving MSP to limit Stage 3 hushkitted aircraft aperations as part of a � ) noise mitigation measure for the Part 150 Update and forward these recommendations to the full body of MASAC for endorsement. � � ., �' • e , ,' (,. ��i�IT� MASAC TO: MASAC Operations Committee FROM: Roy Fulumann, Manager of Aviation Noise and Satellite ProQrams SUB�ECT: GPSlFMS Technology DATE: July 6, 2000 One of the noise mitigation measures that is being considered for the Part 150 Update is the use of Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and Flight Management System (FMS) technology to evaluate existing and proposed departure and arrival procedures. MASAC endorsed the exploration of this technology in 1999 as part of the Part 150 Scoping document. HMMH and HNTB are working together with MAC staff to evaluate and define the benefits of GPS/FMS technology: As part of this evaluation HMMH will present a briefing on the following information: I. INTRODUCTION A. Proposed approach to defining the benefits of GPS Technology 1. A realistic assessment of GPS potential r' 2. Preliminary analyses intended to support a recommendation for more detailed �,< investigation following approval of the Part 150 B. Part 150 will include A status report on the advanced technology II. DISPERSION ANALYSES A. Limitations in designing procedures close to an airport 1. . FAA design criteria -- FAA Order 8260.4A 2. Aircraft perFormance -- Climb rates, angles of bank B. Dispersion Due to Airline Procedures and Pilot Technique 1. Presentation of Logan's Runway 27 GPS/FMS flight procedure illustrating variables and challenges for implementing GPS procedures. C. Dispersion Due to Crosswinds 1. Presentaxion of ANOMS data and distributions of aircraft through gates 2. Resulting variability in DNL contours 3. Effects of variability on population counts D. Potential Improvement Due to Generic Reduction in Track Dispersion with GPS Technology l. Changes in DNL contours 2. Changes in population counts III. UPDATE ON MANUFACTURER'S AND FAA PLANS FOR GPS IMPLEMENTATION This measure is cunent(y under review. Additional information and potential committee action wilt be presented at the July 14, 2000 Operations Committee meeting. ' _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ .. _ � If you have any questions, please call me at 612-725-6326. UNA.PPROVED M I N U T E S MA.SAC OPE]L2A.TIONS CONIlVIIT7CEE June 9, 2000 The meeting was held in the Large Construction Trailer of the Metropolitan Airports Commission and called to order at 9:10 a.m. Chauman Nelson called the meeting to order and the roll was taken. The following members were in attendance: Members• John Nelson, Interim Chair Dick Saunders Bob John.son Jamie Verbrugge Roy Fuhrmann Advisorv Chad Leqve 7ason Giesen Shane VanderVoort � ) Mark Ryan Joe Harris Cindy Greene Glenn Orcutt Visitors: Kim Hughes Pete Rothfuss Tom Lawell Will Eginton Torn Hansen Jan DelCalzo Mary Teske Bloomington Minneapolis MBAA Eagan MAC MAC MAC MAC MA.0 MAC FAA FAA �IN�I`B HN'IB Apple Valley Inver Grove Heights Burnsville City of Minneapolis Resident of Eagan AGENDA Receipt of Communications Chairman.Nelson acknowledged receipt of the following correspondence: � A letter frorn U.S. Airways was received dated May 9, 2000 aclrnowledging receipt of the letter sent by the Operations Cominittee, dated April 26, 2000, regarding the use of the run up pad at MSP. 'The May 9`i' letter stated that U.S. Airways fully understands and accepts �the provisions of the MSP Aircraft Engine Run-Up Procedures Field Rule and that the airline will do everything possible to E� comply. (. A letter was received via fax dated June 8, 2000 from the Inver Grove Heights Airport Noise , Abatement Corrunission. Several comments were included regarding the runway 17 departure fan, particularly the 60° fan re-evaluation, as well as comments on the proposed new land use measures. A letter was received from the business manager for the Burnsville - Ea�an - Savage Independent School District regarding a resolution that was passed by the School Board pertaining to runway 17- 35's flight track dispersion. The resolution stated that the school board supports the widest possible dispersion (or fan) and aslced that the district's schools be sound attenuated should the noise from aircraft overflights .become obtrusive. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the May 12, 2000 meeting were approved as distributed with the addition of Glenn Orcutt, FA.A, to the attendee list. Runway 17, 60° Departure Fan Reevaluation Kim Hughes, �II�PB, reviewed the goals for the runway 17 departure flight track analysis and gave a brief overview of the 105° departure fan analysis, which was recommended for inclusion in the Part 150 Update. Ms. Hughes illustrated how west-bound aircraft in this case would be able to use a deparh�re procedure that used turn points and altitude requirements to keep aircraft on flight tracks that most closely represent the EIS flight tracks. Cindy Greene, FA.A, said she was concerned about the altitude requirement of 3,000 feet before aircraft could be turned to their ultimate destination heading. She said once an aircraft reaches the Distance � Measuring Equipment (DME) point and turns onto its departure heading (185° or 200°), it could be a matter of seconds before it is then cleared to turn onto its ultimate destination heading: She said at this point, aircraft could be at varying altitudes and that the air tra�c controllers would not hold an aircraft at the departure heading until it reaches 3,000 feet before turning it onto its fmal destination heading. Some discussion took place regarding the content of a meeting that MAC staff, Part 150 consultants and FAA. staff had conducted regarding this issue. The parties involved indicated that there had been a miscommunication as to what had been a�eed to at that meeting. Chairman Nelson asked for an explanation of how DME works. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said the IUME is normally co-located with other equipment, such as a VOR. He said the DME sends a signal to the aircraft that indicates how far the aircraft is from the DME by one-tenths of a mile. Chairman Nelson noted that since the length of the runway is over a mile long, aircraft reaching the 1.7 mile DME point would not be far from the end of the runway after turning onto its departure heading. Ms. Hughes then presented a reevaluation of the 60° hybrid fan, which is defined by EIS tracks H through E(140° on the east to 200° on the west). The following points were made: • The 60 DNL contour for the 60° fan is similar to the 105° fan. The 60° fan impacts 40 more people than the 105° fan. Although the 60° fan eliminates the 095° heading (track A), overflights of central Eagan would � continue as aircraft turn and fly towaa-d their departure gates and destinations. Implementation of a 60° fan would not reduce overflights over central Eagan. Ms. Hughes said because the 60° fan would not offer any benefits over the 105° fan, the recommendation of a 105° fan stands. Cindy Greene, FAA, agreed that eliminating track A would not eliminate overflights over central Eagan. She also noted that the smaller the fan the longer aircraft stay on their departure headings. And the longer aircraft stay on their departure headings, the more likely it becomes that there will be a need for a longer separation time. She said that although the capacity of the runway overall would not be a problem, a smaller fan adds more complexity to an air traffic control environment and to ATC's job. She said although MSP ATC wants to be flexible, a smaller fan is not in the best interest of ATC, particularly when the benefits are negligible. Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, asked why 20 people were added to the contour in Minneapolis with the change to a 60° fan. Kim Hughes, HNTB, said she did not have a specific answer. Cindy Greene, FA.A, said, althou�h she did not lrnow if the INM program would take this into consideration, it could be that because of the complexity associated with a smaller fan, aircraft that would normally be assigned runway 17-35 would be diverted to the parallels. The 60° dispersion fan and the 105° dispersion fan were then compared. The dispersion of aircraft was virtually the same for both. Bob Johnson, MBAA, said he did not want to reduce the operational ability of the air traffic controllers to use the new runway. Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, asked how often runway 17 could not be used for departures because of operations on the parallel runways to the southeast. Kim Hughes, HNTB, said she did not have an answer. Mr. Verbrugge reported that he has been receiving a number of phone calls from Eagan residents asking about what level of noise they can expect when the runway becomes operational. He asked how best to respond to these inquiries. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, suggested having them use the website to locate an area off the end of one of the parallel runways that is the same distance and angle from their home from the end of runway 17. The resident could then iind the closest RMT to that area and find out what the average noise level at that RMT is for any number of aircraft types. Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, said altitude information is also available. Chairman Nelson said Mr. Verbrugge could convey to the residents that this resource is available and ihat if they need help applying the information the MAC staff is available to help. Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, asked if the contours could be expected to remain syminetrical fiu-iher out from the 60 DNL contour so that some assumptions could be made regarding the noise levels beyond that contour. Kim Hnghes, HNTB, said the Integrated Noise Model (]NN� vvas designed to be most accurate at the 65 DNL level. She said the further one goes away from the 65 DNL level, the less accuracy there is. She said once beyond the 60 DNL level, the contour becomes intimately reliant on the departure tracks. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said the 1996 MSP Noise Mitigation Committee had a 54 3 DNL contour drawn and that Mr. E�inton could take a look at that contour to see how it chan;es further out. � Chairman 1\Telson asked whether the contour would change in light of Cindy Greene's comments regarding not being able to use the 3,000-foot altitude requirement for departures to the west. Kim Huahes, HNTB, said she would assume that the contour would change to some de�-ee. Chairman Nelson noted that the Operations Comznittee has recornmended that the 105° fan be implemented and that a fundamental chan�e in this assumption has been made (i.e. the 3,000-foot altitude requirement for the second turn). He asked whether or not a resolution could be found before the next MASAC meeting on June 27, 2000. Cindy Greene, FA.A, said she did not know if a resolution could be found but that if a meeting is set up she would attend. Chairman Nelson said he felt the matter needed to be settled by the date of the MASAC meeting and encouraged the parties involved to keep the Committee abreast of any alternatives that may be viable. He said it is possible that the Committee may be asked to meet again before the MASAC meeting. Cindy Greene, FAA, asked if the purpose of the 3,000-foot requirement was to place aircraft more closely in line with the EIS tracks or to reduce the impacted population. Kim Hughes, HNTB, said the requirement was used for both reasons. Ms. Greene said this was the first time she remembered being told of the 3,000-foot altitude requirement. Glenn Orcutt, FAA, said he also did not remember discussing the 3,000-foot requirement. But he did remember discussing a second DME point being used during low-demand periods. Chairman Nelson asked whether or not a river deparhu-e procedure could be developed for this Part 150 submittal. Kim Hughes, F-�TIB, said a river departure procedure cannot be developed today but that one could be developed using future and existing technologies for use in the future when the technology becomes more widely used. Jaznie Verbrugge, Eagan, asked about the river departure procedure used at the Washington National Airport. Kim Hughes, �INTB, said the Washington National river departure procedure is a visual procedure that requires 3-mile in trail separation. Chairman Neison asked the FAA representatives if a second DME point could be used during periods of low demand. Cindy Greene, FAA, a procedure using DME points that would mimic a river departure during periods of low-demand is already being considered. Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, asked staff if it would be possible to get a map that has both the departure fans for 12R and 12L along with the departure fan for runway 17. Land Use Measures Pete Roihfuss, F�IT'B, briefed the council on the eight approved and the six possible land use measures being considered for the Part 150 update. Mr. Rothfuss first reviewed the eight approved land use measures with general information as to how (.. n each measure would be implemented. Mr. Rothfuss then reviewed each of the six proposed land use measures with a recommendation for either inclusion or e�:clusion into the Part 1�0 update. Land Z�se Item 9- Dedication ofAvigation Ease�a2ents For the following reasons the recommendation was not to carry this item forward for inclusion in the Part 150 update. • MAC already obtains an avigational release from property owners to prevent further aircraft noise claims after completion of sound insulation s Obtainin� more restrictive avigation easements from properties between the 60 and 65 DNL while not requiring them for previously insulated properties within the 65 DNL would not be equitable • Implementation of LU-1 and LU-2 should protect communities against new noncompatible development (amending local land use plans and zoning for compatible development) Land Use Item 10 - Fazr Property Dzsclosure Policy The Fair Property Disclosure Policy would incorporate aircraft noise information in sales documents for existing and new residential development. It requires the disclosure of aircraft noise levels by property owners and their agents. Mr. Rothfuss, at the request of the Cornrnittee, presented current research on this type of policy's affect on property values, as well as provided examples of the policies. Mr. Rothfuss suggested that, to a lesser degree, public information programs could provide compatibility benefits by providing real estate disclosure inforn�ation to buyers and real estate professionals. This item was recommended for inclusion in the Part 150 update for the following reasons. • Potential buyers are allowed an informed decision regarding airport-related impacts. • Affected communities and properiy owners have LU-7 (Property Purchase Guarantee) for community stabiliza.tion and properiy value assurance. Chairman Nelson asked if there was a recommendation as to which political subdivision would be responsible for implernenting the policy. Mr. Rothfuss said he did not have a recommendation at this point. Land Use Item 11 - La�zd Banking For the following reasons the recommendation was not to carry this item forward for inclusion in the Part 150 update. m Implementation of LU-1 and LU-2 should protect communities against new noncompatible development. � • Strong urban/suburban character of the region surrounding MSP and relatively few large tracts of undeveloped land remaining means there is little opporlunity for large tract acquisition. 5 •'The adnzinistration and acquisition costs outweigh the potential benefits of this item. �,. Land Use Item 12 - Ti-ansfer of Development Rights � For the following reasons the recommendation was �zot to carry this item forward for inclusion in the Part 150 update. • Implementation of LU-1 and LU-2 should protect communities against new non-compatible development. � This item represents a very complex legal and admulistrative process for local and metropolitan government. • Administration and acquisition costs outweigh potential benefit of this application. Land Use Item 13 - Purchase of Development Rights For the following reasons the recommendation was not to carry this item forward for inclusion in the Part 150 update. • Implementation of LU-1 and LU-2 should protect communities against new non-compatible development. • This item represents a very complex legal and administrative process for local and metropolitan government. � Administration and acquisition costs outweigh potential benefit of this application. Land Use Item 14 - Creation of Sound Buffers/Barriers The measure consists of the combined use of sound barrier walls and/or berms and natural landscaping to reduce noise from aircraft. It only assists communities immediately adjacent to MSP. i, - This item was recommended for inclusion in the Part 150 update. • This measure would benefit those closest to the airport when aircraft are on the ground. • The recommendation is to incorporate large barrier walls andlor berms as appropriate in areas adj acent to the north and west of the airport boundary. • A barrier design and detailed acoustical analysis would be required to determiiZe the costs and benefits. o Large-scale redevelopment or capital projects would be the trigger mechanism for consideration of the measure. Discussion and Actions on Items 9 through 14 :•: •CI • i:• � � 1 1 '• ':1 • • 1 / • ' • 1 1 ! • :i C • 1 : • 1 1 • ' IC ' 1 ' 1 / • � � • i � C 1 1 1 � ', • • :1 '�' 1 '/� / � 1'• 1:1 "• '� :1 • • � ' ' 1 1 • • • Discussion ofltem LU-10 Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, moved and Bob Johnson, MBAA, seconded to recommend to the full MASAC i body that land use measure number ten (LU-10) - Fair Property Disclosure Policy - be included as part of the Part 1�0 update's land use compatibility program. Furthermore, that the Fair Property Disclosure Policy only be implemented after the Property Purchase Guarantee pro�am is in place. After further discussion, Mr. Johnson withdrew his second. The motion failed due to the lack of a second. Significant discussion took place regardin� LU-10. Some concerns were raised, includin�: • There is no clear research that proves property values would not be affected by this policy. • Implementation of a Property Purchase Guarantee program is very complex and may not give residents proper protection from loss in property values associated with the Fair Property Disclosure Policy. • It is not clear which governing body would be responsible for implementing the policy. o Other groups, such as realtors and city officials, should be involved in the decision to implement such a policy. BOB JOH1\TSON, MBAA., MOVED AND DICK SAUNDERS, AZINIV�APOLIS, SECONDED TO RECOMMEND TO THE FULL MA,SAC BODY THAT LAND USE MEASURE NUMBER TEN (LU-10) - FAIIt PROPERTY DISCLOSTJRE POLICY - NOT BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE PART 150 UPDATE'S LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM. THE MOTION CA,RRIED ON A VOICE VOTE WITH ONE NAY. JAM� VERBRUGGE, EAGAN, MOVED AND BOB JOHNSON, MBAA, SECONDED TO RECOMIVIEND TO THE FULL MASAC BODY THAT LAND USE MEASURE NUMBER - ELEVEN (LU-11) - LAND BAlY.K1NG - NOT BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE PART 150 � � UPDATE'S LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM. THE MOTION CARRIED ON A VOICE VOT'E. BOB JOHIVSON, MBAA, MOVED AND JAMIE VERBRUGGE, EAGAN, SECONDED TO RECOMIVIEND TO THE F'ULL MASAC BODY THAT LAND USE MEASURE NUMBER TWELVE (LU-1Z) - TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS - NOT BE INCZUDED AS PAI2T OF THE PART 150 UPDATE'S LAND USE COMP'A'TIBILITY PROGRAM. THE MOTION CARR][ED ON A VOICE VOTE. BOB JOHNSON, MBAA, MOVED AND DICK SAUNDERS, NaNNEAPOLIS, SECONDED TO RECOMll�ND TO T'HE FULL MASAC BODY THA.T LAND USE MEASURE NUtV�ER THIRTEEN (LU-13) - PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS - NOT BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE PART 150 UPDATE'S LAND USE COMPAT'IBILITY PROGR.AM. THE MOTION CARit]CED ON A VOICE VOTE. Discussion ofltem 14 Chairman Nelson asked whether or not the Low Frequency Noise Study would be available for incorporation into the Part 150 update. He said he wanted to be sure, pefore supporting this measure, that this type of barrier would abate low frequency noise, ground noise or ground run up noise. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said he expects that the study would be available for inclusion in the Part 150 update. Both Jan DelCalzo, City of Minneapolis, and Pam Dymtrenko, Richfield, expressed a desire to carry this measure forward for further discussion at the Council level. It was noted that barriers and/or bernzs would not affect the contour. DICK SAUNDERS, MINiVEAPOLIS, MOVED AND BOB JOHNSON, MBAA, SECONDED, TO RECOMl�ZEND TO THE FULL MA.SAC BODY THAT LAND USE MEASURE NUlY�ER FOURTEEN (LU-14) - CREATION OF SOUND BUFFERSBA.RRIERS - BE INCLUDED AS PAR.T OF THE PART 150 UPDATE'S LAND USE COMPATLBILITY PROGRAM. THE MOTION CA,RRIED ON A VOICE VOTE. Other Items Not on the Agenda Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, outlined the upcoming Part 150 update calendar: June MASAC Meeti�zg - Action on the recommended NADPs, RUS, Runway 17 departure fan, low demand flight tracks, land use measures MASAC Operations Committee meeting - Upcoming Items - GPS/FMS proj ects update, Fleet Mix Alternatives, Sound Insulation Pacicage, Contour Boundaries, Multi-family insulation priorities Part 1 � 0 Update Public Hearing - Expected to be held in late August or September Jan DelCalzo, City of Mixuieapolis, asked if there were any other land use measures that other airports are using or considering that have not been brought up for this Part 150 upda.te. Kim Hughes, HNTB, and Pete Rothfuss, HNTB, said they were not aware of anything other than the 14 measures presented to the Cornrnittee. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, reported that Steve Vecchi, MAC's Part 150 Program Manager, had resigned from the MA.0 as of June 16, 2000. He noted that Joe Shortreed, Part 150 Construction Manager, would continue in his role with the construction and that the noise program office will help out until Mr. Vecchi's position could be filled. . Roy Fuhrmann, MA.C, also introduced a new member of the MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs, Joseph Harris. The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 a.m. The next MA.SAC Operations Committee meeting will be held onFriday, July 14, 2000 at 9:00 a.m. in the Large Construction Trailer of the MAC General (Offices. Respectfully Submitted, Melissa Scovronski, Committee Secretary __ _...._....� ,y:�..��,, _,.�____....._,��.�,.z.�. _ . �A.�SAC ei�Ei'c'��iORS C�117Pii1� NI�fi1119 N�SP Part 150 llpda�e S�usiy auiy x4, Z000 � Agenda _ .. � �,...�.� ;�_.,.: ::.: _ . � Fieet Moc Consideratians " Runway 17 Flight Tracks �� PGS/FMS Technology Briefing (HMMH) � �leet Mix Consittera�iions Reductions in the use of hushkit aircraft would reduce noise impact : Example scenarios: ' Replacement of hushkit aircraft @ night would reduce impacted population by 21,390 ' Replacement of all hushkit aircraft would ,.j�°' reduce impacted population by nearly 31,810 T ' 4,•, a � _} �' o`, �� : 0 1 Fleet 9Vfix Consede�ations --... ,..._� �-��...�.�.._. � Limited options for impasing restrictions on hushkit aircraft at locai level Part 161 Study would be required, with little chance of successful impiementation Manufacturing base and finances do not e�dst far the expedient replacement of all hushkit aircraft ��"'t-,, Adverse economic impact to carriers and � �. associated industry �` �'�,,s �t u�-- F'ee'� �i1X C019Sit��'1"ati011S _ . ._. -_�.�-��-.ti�-....�:_..� _. Several aiternatives far reducing use of hushkit aircraft anaiyzed Moving some night ops inbo daybme analyzed using SIMMOD - schedule shifit not feasible Noise benefit of buying new airaraft does not of�'set purchase cost �''wT$ F'!L'@t �IX �OltSldL'1'�t1099S . ., _~--�_.�.:. :...�....ti�::,--_: Analysis af airiines using MSP conducted to estimate aircraft purchases and rep{acement of hushkit aircraft Analysis shows promise, but there are no guarantees Communities cautioned MAC about over estimating the airiines ability to reduce ,� ushkitted aircraft in the Part 150 %� �tours =,. : oL, t �{+dr . 0 '��...A•c . ... ....... :. ..._._.. ._.._.. ._....._.... . , „ 2 �: C� �leet �liix �oatsic6era�ia�ns _ _. _ �........____...,,.��.,_ :� •n u-i!� •�C7'�i Voluntary agreement to reduce �se of hushkit aircraft at night Aitiine agrees not to operat� or schedule hushkit airaaft during nighttime (10:30pm-6am) Exceptions pemi�tted for emergencies, mechanical problems, ATC deiays, and weather Similar to previous voluntary agreement reducing ,,.��•..,, the use of Stage 2 airtraft at rnght �� +•. � � :. A�„,.�� E�unwray 17 Flight '�racks . :..�......� �.�..�. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Record of Decision (ROD) st�ted that noise abatement measures could be evaluated for Runway 17 departure tracks m avoid populabed areas close to airport � Fiight tracks and procedures must provide suffident guidance to ensure that aircraft of ,,.�..,,, varying performance capabilities avoid, as f�� much as pOssible, populated areas en- ';, ,�� route to ttreir destinatiw�s �,.—� Etureway 17 Flight Tracks : West Flight Tracks — bum points ` Tum point can be designated as part of a Departure Procedure (DP) for a spec�c heading, and as part of an FAA order for use by ATC Usc of tum points may resutt in a slight decrease in nmway capacily in order to insurc adcquate aircraft separation Provide positivc guidance of aircraFt, using existing technology �„�..: „Pu4�rc use of GPS/FMS shouid be considercd as the ;,� + pechnology evolvrs � � e+ g � + �,; C .� .,,,,, 3 Runwray 17 �light �i ra�ks _.. ____�_.�__,,. ...�.._.:._.._�_ �. :.. ..._,.._...._.._.___..�._._..�....�_ � MASAC Operations Committee May 12, recommendation ' Implement 105° Fan � Reduces population witf�in the DNL 60 contour Avoids increased overflight� of other communities Tum Points aliow aira�aft to tum to westeriy ,,.��. ,,,destination headings at higher altib�des and _.'-�. +C�er less populated areas �'` ��^' � t �3 �tlt9Wr7�/ '� � �'1��1t �1'1C�CS . _ _......�..----�---- -.... .. ., ,_�..._.....__.. �;-�.. At the ]une 9, MASAC Operations Committee meeting, FAA eupressed concern about the method used to define the tum points. � HNTB, MAC and FAA worked to estabiish an FAA Air traffic oontroi acceptabie turn point that maintains the intent of the � c3mmittee's recommendation.. �� f ?! 'k 01. �+,+ � �t1i111Via�/ 77 Ftl��1t Tt'1C1CS __ _ .-..,�,�...�-=��.�-�--..�. .�. : Flight tracks are estimates based upon typical destinations and ATC routing procedures FEIS flight tracks are appropriate, given data available at the time � R.nenv�ray 17 F6igitt 'iracks _ _..__� - ..... ......�.._.._.�..._ F.;,�.�. AuboCAD and GIS soflware used to analyze. digital ANOMS/ARTS data, and develop estimated flight track layout " DisperserJ ffacks used to simulate fanning ti�at occurs as aircraft of dif%rent perft�rmance capabilities Uum to assigned heading Increasing use of high performance airc�aft - sharter takeofF distance, dimb quicker, ,.��+„ and tum sooner than older aircraft �� 4 �:. ��.�.:" � 1�unvvay 17 �light Tracks ` Recent analysis indicates some aircraft would turn sooner than previousiy projected Some PropeIfer Aircraft are repiaced by Regionai �et Aircraft : Unmitigated 2005 DNL Contour updated with new flight tracks for Runway 17 �,,,.«..44 . r�. F �t � �..� ��` . . . � iiunway 17 �light �'racfcs : 20a5 DNL UnmitigatedwContour � ' 7uly-00 Unmitigated Contour , . Poputation impact as compared to the March-00 2005 Unmitigated DNl Contour DN� 7D dBA contour - approbmately 100 people deleted DNL 65 dBA contour - approximately 1640 people added DNL 6D dBA cartour - approbmately 1330 people added To1al change - approximately 2670 pmple added frnm 6Q* DNL mntnur �"riTB 5 Run`nray 17 �6ight Tracks _. . ._.. . - . .. _--___.:�.�,� .�._ :. Goai - Reduce noise impact within the DNL 60 contour Avoid increased overflights of other communities Maintain rvnvrray capadty Feasible implementation by FAA/ATC Providepositive guidance to aircrafr to reasanably foliow desired flight tracks A11ows for possible firture transition to FM5/C�5 ,�.�•• � navigafion 4� 4•. F � ;a �:. r .�d,.` � •,..,, Rtenve+ay 17 �11ght 7'raC�cs - -.....��..._=.�_ �-...�-�,..-_:: 105d Hybrid Fan FAA indicated aircraft could tum almost immediately after DME point Secondary tum could not be implemented Reduces feasibility of altemative � Additional aiternatives developed ,,,e,,, +. �� . L '4 � .., ��,,•° _ . . ■�i RunWay 17 Flight Tr�aCks _ .._ _._...��r,�._.��.. �, ` Turn Point Alternatives East bound aira�aft are able to tvm immediately ofF runway end West-bound aircraft (Tracks D, E, F, and G) Depart.on straght-out track (Track C� Upon rcachin9 designated DME point, tum to assigned heading Three tum points considcred - 1.7 2 and 2.7 ,,,.«,. ,, naulical miies (from sta�t of takco� rolh �� +�•. _f ; '� ................ �.. t.�,�,•` L�t Raanvvay '67 �light Trac6�s _ _ .�. _.�..._,_ . _ .. ..... �...�...�:, . . , 2.2 Tum Point Aitemative : Reduoes noise impact within 64+ DNL, while avoiding inaeased overftights of oth� commun'�ies Simple, easily implemerrt�d Departvre Proce�lure Maintains Intent of Operations Comm'�ttee's Previous recommendation . West-bound airaaft at slightly higher altitude ti�an in 105d Hybrid Fan before tuming over populated areac ,,��"OY�.�D''�. �t�iilWlj/ '� 7 �01E311$ Tt'dC6CS -.. .._.....___ . ._. . .. _. -_. .._ . ......._�. :y-::-- - 2.2 Turn Point Alternaiive Reduces runway capacit� by 3-4 departures per hour (similar to 105 fan) � Recommend development of River DP, using e�dsting technology, for use during low-demand periods � Allows for future irarisition to GPS/FMS navigation 0 Rt�nway 'B 7 �Beght Trac�rs __.. ..�._�._.....�>._. - .... � Turn Point AlternativesM� �� 2.2 Tum Point Population impact as comparcd to thc Jufy-00 2005 Unmitigated DNL Contour � DNL 7D dBA cartour - approwmately 40 people added DNL 65 dBA cartour - approximately 1,160 people deleted DNL 60 dBA corrtour - approximately 12,780 people deleted Total change - appro�rimately 13,900 people ddeted from r,,,,,,, � 60' DNL cartour r �� a ,x 4 s ;, ,�,�, �. .: =r i f � ! ) n ��C� � �v O ! � ! �c� �h�.C �j � � �� t \ ,� �'" \J' ..--�-"'_- � �{"""_,.,-"j —_ � �4�� c-- ' , �;� _ �� -� , ��`,� o- . � ,� �� P\�~ � �il , '_�--�1 ��.� �. !i �--' � (f.� � �, ti, .r'�� - � G . .� �- � e• ♦- i. � (� C�' :4 � � � � T , t � �._ �: . , , , .. � r; '.`' ' ""1 � �\ : � ' ._.-;' ; i •� •\ ��'' ��J-, \ �� '� � r t . ` + f �. - `� �; �; S: � • ; : �"'�. �\\�,� t :ti.—==,; ,%�`' �\�� i! L-; � i . J� � � � i � �.., \. %J �� lt....- S� �,,,=-��1L�--= �` i; � ��.~� (,r � � _ 4 � �.�,�'` �:. Lv`l �t' ��._..� (7 ' I y� j �� r �% ^ti I ,�, � , � � t%� `�.. 7r J �� ' � �� , ��' i I.'',� � -�.. .\ � \\ �'J \ � CA � r, � �"'�``_ � \`L L,'� t �"_7"_• i ....� ` j '' i '�`'"`y� ,�.b,�, �._�,_,,:;'/ � ` ; \ f`�� . �� .. � 1 '\ r----�� –.:,,�=,r^ : i ;j • � ` '"^� ".{•,�! ; i . --� �-,�""---'..- '� �--�>`� �"-'–� ��,� v ��. ' G �'v. I � : � r � r j� i i _ �, � , , �� : .. � ��--'�-�� ; � ; ` �� , f � r.,,�_ ;^�.._i�. � l� t' 4 f^ � � !�� ` i _—._—� �` ti i: � i I:_,_j . ��' (, `. r-. -�: "� c-V.I' _l"_ � ( l .J' . � . t � •� ' . -� �i ! � i � _.i-,."_ ' .\ 5 1 � ,,'Yi.y..��'._. / _ 1 �:._ `�� '. . "_...� �, i � —_ �.- ✓ � ' � � i. _ , %•= r ' � --. ' e ~ ` �'`., ,. - ; t � ..�:=, � ,�.� . - _ �_._. O '- i � F I � ' f . 1�� ,� t �,. `�....%` i � � 1.� � .,� �` , �: - - .. � s "- , (?a 1`_ :� ,� , 1- _ ` 1r�'". - -. � . > > ,.. . . � > > . � : : `' � ^�."\, I . ',. . i - . ., m m : ;— � � � . ; �-. 4" �> . ( ' i `� �,f O O -�. � �: . i � . 'i�":�.. ..._._..... _ � i. -�.. - ___"""_ ' ._"' _ : � \ � 'D ._.� _. - . O O � ' 1 - . . . � ..�-..� .. . '. __�i N N _ _ . ^ _ I � I I � �.._ -\ � _. . ..___. � J .� _ „'.w.� � l �c. � - `,,,_ "_'"' _ . - — r �; . , , . � �D : � . , y: �, . . J� �� : ��?_ "� . m c ...,� . -� --"—_..-- , . f� . 's — - —.. . ._'q _"_..� �_ ., ' : � . . .. r ,. y � :' . • . . { . � .. ..... � ._ . : . ' � .�. f : t . _ l:i,.. O _ C � `^ - ..___ '"" . '__, .�-" _ . • . �_ �� .' -. __., �.� _ � �•' 1 � _ .. �. .: . �._ --.. .� •, � �--"�� ' . ' . ' _ . ^ . ' � `"_ �... O; . ' � . .. _.. � . i: `'.. • _... � ... /��"��+..�:.`r�' �� . � .:. ' : :, ��.. ' ��. _' ` ' ._. .�,t. . �i �. '. . . .._ _...�... ..i.._ � `�'-'� � � . h� O '.' � . . . '... . . .. f , : '- . : '.,.. . . . - ..: _ . �_. ..'' _ ; � f� I ...._.�� ....__.._. � � ' ..� _.._.. __ __""" !:� ��. , � . : �. D; . � . . _.._..� -.__. , ..- � _ _. ,:. . ._ i . ... . . . . . .. -- �. - - � n �: ' . , ,r .O' . _ _ _.`.. _ . • �� . ' ie . � . :- . _ ` ! _� ..: ^ .... � ' "�•' ' � ' ...-�: � O : � ':. n�..._ � . - .. ' \ " ' . � t . � �`: . �, • -� � .� '--.. ' -._.- . -1 „ ' ._' _ _ ' . . :. � t ... -- .. ,_ i . . i ..-..: 1.:.. ''� � , �. : ." . , { , . , ' -- _— � ,_ . /,, � . \\� t � ,L\. . '; � ..,ti. \`.\ :�. \ i} �� — 11 = ;�`� '- t--- (_' J'�= I �--/_____.__-� 1=,� _1 ' a �"�f �l\'�'� �� ; ��. }J�\� . o � �� \ \�; `� � � a ; l�: ,;\ ;l ` , = � ��,� \ `� �,1 � � iT = �, �'t� . � ; �1 �1 `t , � � �� t,� pi� �, � , ��' � ` � � 1 .� �� ;,�� i�� i � ,,� ,��i � � , , � j � � - �'�``�, � � o �a i i , �� -�o �-,, , > v, � rn � � ��' '. v �, J � (' � `� 1\ N � ( � - _. � . N � I \ � m u li��^�I� � .-.. � • CCp --� }--! �! �; / ` i�.. �„ ,�—I I ��,;�,ti' � n ,�� x— ��, , -D o f � �- � o �. ' Q� } � � � ,�`�`� ( i � -� i 's`�.� � � �, = S� � �' _ ;�-� �� ,i, �-n-;,` , � � il �� r � ti I , �; �� ~--� ;; � � �i� C � � �; � � I� s� �-- ' � I n ��;y�� i 7� �,��., f., � t � � i,:::'.f ..-�._. ii .i � �"I " r �'� �� I r � ' � ~ � L ^lj - i :,,%:� II'i� I� � -; ( „� � � ` � �. f i i �.. I�( / t.`� t_`�r—� Y�`u f'�� i 1 �.- ..—i�r.,,,_,1 �r ��-f ?,.�. I /;. %: ��: ;.: f- �-(.,.,.�'•�. j > >� � r-- L=�%; , . m m ,� ..r• j-- i `�^`.. � r..:. `— 0 0 .�\`, �—/ /..��' , j I i _— N ...'_.-----^""" ; t � , \' �: � � �,i . i_ � 'O ^'�� ' � ��\'' � O j' !'_'` . .:S __ m C � � '- - p > '^": � r ��, , ' �, 1 . \ � �. 6 = �..� `. ' _ •�,.•`. ' _ O,-f: L � �v j `./. 1 .%� �_"�•� ,:1 J) .. o �� I l ) _ r. �- `` � , � '; .. o— i ,.-- — i-' --- D �\\Nr�l] - . — � �rr ,~ ' '� , � W . -- ` ; - , - __�:._... —= ' F i , ('' !i �. ;.�. �"��%� ` � r � `Y �.� r; ;� �� ..� t � � i �' � l.f'r'_ , � i �� : �.;: � i -�,I,r�, ,,� '�.. F '- - � . � -�'' �,'�. �`1�-~ '` — .� , ;, � `� _--'' �.'� `\,;r y~ '` � ,� ` i ; 'L� � s I� .._ � ; ;,— ; . c �. . t _ . ,::� F MSP Part 150 Runway 17 Flight Track Alternatives Analysis Unmiti ated Contour Track Use Track Headin Jet Use Turboprop Use A 95 152% 15.2% H 140 0.0% 0.0% I 155 0.0% 0.0% B 160 12.0% 12.0% C 170 17.3% 17.3% D 185 8.5% 8.5% E 200 22.3% 22.3% K 215 0.0% 0.0% L 230 0.0% 0.0% F 245 11.6% 11.6% G 285 13.1 % 13.1 % Total 100.0°/a 100.0% Turn Point Alternatives Track Use Track Headin Jet Use Turboprop Use A 95 10.1% 0.0% H 140 5.1 % 0.0% I 155 4.0% 19.9% B 160 8.0% 0.0% C 170 17.3% 10.1% D 185 8.5% 3�.0% E 200 22.3% 0.0% K 215 0.0°/a 10.0% L 230 0.0% 30.0% F 245 11.6% 0.0% G 285 13.1 % 0.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% HNTB 7/13/00 7:51 PM r17trk_tp22_use.xis C . C, . C. :� �. n 0 � N d 0 � �. Percertt Oxurrences -� N 4/ aa N Of V QJ tD O O O O O O O O O O O � � o o�° � o �� o 0 0 0 I'��'a .'S��i , x :� . i fx� � .. �9� 7EIlh�' � � A [�,� av .. ~6' R G.� A N �G�{'�F :� , � �. , .. �� i�j. � ��'1 N L 1.� C� �' J��.�j # �� 1 iy '"& . ' '9 . � � .. 1a i � u�'^ . .'��t�}�" m��. �a S p '' : �'�,i� 4s '3�''' ��5,��" O � ��8� � j t y' tS� " . � � , uh` .,� �� q� y ��C"��.�'' tn �� W 41'�' 4. 4, r� 13' .��, � , '�� .�; » 0 a, � �' T � pfif o�,P�'�,�a,� O �a ' � ° • ��,j'��'� �a � ' �'' "' �- � ��' : � � "'�� '� �',a- .� �:. � a�� ,�� u ��? � 0 0 ��r^,� 7�et� �� '� k,,, T 'i��9„��^'�! GJ� � W '.ryr��'E5 ' S^M. .� �j,.� Y � 1 �, �i e.tW�� 47 � 1 �',��. 't � 1 �i.� I .1 I I.a ^' . .+ � Q � y'� � �"�� O 0. � N �. �="�rd�r'1�?�..�tt��- �� a. �� a�r � ��.� . N r �0 0 ' r� �y �= aq2� O M �� .r 0.��% u�„T s{ *��,1 rt � i ��.. � � ��` '�a.M�i�.1�G �'� �� • i = O � ��a � � A � 1 �p• ^;i 0 C : r, � i �,/r�iG'ti �C .�}� � i�l> �� i (� �y, I'.��i X >. . . ^' ' '�.r � � 1 9L w o M1�g� F„ � �" .�,��'�r r ry„ o k N i,� °ii�,� �� .� a��i. ,�, �. N .a J � J�({�-St' � +y rv�J� �7.�. �y F . �� U.� vN .�ix5;7'��2w . , � .., �'� . ; � � � r�k��k� , ; ro .. i -�'++t�y , !�, �'�i I�� , .r a1 ��'�� ',� � ,� � c x'� �� a �� yi9��ti��y W � � � �,� r � �� ' � � �� `� u � ��y�' "� ��i�'��ke��'r*.'�i � ,, ��' ��'�' �'�m''h+��1� l�'�i �� ~ C ,�y 4�� -0 li ' '��'�,'^�f�!` r'�'� '�3�'�j h5��%T� ��'t ihL '. � C A �fl� � ,��•� a,�,��s6Yc�'.ykv'�i� ��r��if'�e�h" ., „��n"��ktb ,�^�'l1r (�I. �SI 5'� A �� ,�F �"�g' �#��". j �� i�.�i°�� 4�``E.'f�i�' a�^s'4%'�� y-+'� " i 3 xtl3e S.h.�7�.. �5�� S �+n A r+ 't"I a�,'µss�u„-�r�^�Ct� u �"�� "�'n�..a.�ihi �„nT��a}�� r � � � �,�k'�li �J� P �`��K��k k �1�.� i`�C'�. a '��i �{ �Y'j,� �'pt( �" �� n .� N i�p �ie �3 4,�e ^J'.�i' ��t�� `� nT�'u�f�b'�� 0 �17 � �"�t �� # "'�� F? c�M� d� >+2'" ui�.��a � '''r�� Ri�:�ri tll � fi� u h F.a i 9 � t �� l�5 +' a��^ u�ii4 MS h'�y..��n d r�..l�i +1t -I T��S i iK^r p F��iH f�i�J�� a.�'��4 � `�i� ^�'2'+;�c�F'�.sy j � �.��h.i� 'ilt �h'��2��4iy��i i�e 5 C 4at r��!��ry� �a�'�'''� o+.rt c"�'�R�;2a �y�.`a� �� y�ggg� �'�yF� �� dd� y r��1Ud�'�a!�rs�,�:��71�� .+y�I{,�i�ri��a��'�7{�4^ y � B�:9k�'�.,�,_._i•:sEl al V� N�Jh>.p+ h�*.d�Jl.�<7+� �..f�t6� �. d��' N Percent Occurrences -� N W A O� � Q! O O � o o O - � �'. •: ►' l': t ' : E; � �P 0 � � �+ A N O 0 f6 W O1 ..�A � 0 .7 � N � O � O A � j A = O � O A a.� i � � j M N O X h1 J O 1`1 O W W O .P A O tJt N Peroent Occ�urences Q m iQ .A i J �mi \ � O � O O � O � ` � u � ya,-;�y .. n� .� .e T' -c �:� '� ''a^i +��y. j..: :iaZ, .:=aL. �a[i. V CT1 Number of Occurrences 3 � � °�3 � � '��3 � °i�d °�8 9 � � O O O O O O O O O O O O O� ; r� �- �...��.�.._,.:;,4,,,. ; ;� � ,:, � ,- . " . ';R R . , ' . �, . � �' � ' ' ;., � �� . . ; ' � ; � ; S C�7 :❑ Blank Nolse Monrtoring arid Information Request Form � , ° s �; , � , ��=, - `, } t � � , � 5y : 0'Blank MASAC News Feedback/Input Form � ' � � _,: .. . . : , . . . ... ,, � , , , ,. �, . : : , - , � , , ' , �: � � ,: : v �: - J ' ' , ` �t 0 Monthly Part 150 Resldential Sound Insulanon�Program_Update � � . . . ., � ; : O� June 2000 Technical Advisor's and Comdor Reports �� . 1' '7 __ � . . , . . ' . . . . . � ... . . . � . . . . .. ... . .. a , , ' , � . . � . ... � . . . � . . . ..� . .,. . _ .. � . . ,... �..:. ....�� i. .. .�.; . � . .. .� � ��: .. ., _ " .. . .... . . ", .; .. , _: .. .; �.� _ , : .. ,. _ w., R. �"' 7 � i _. ,. . ..... . ,. .. . � .� . , . ., : :. . - ��.� .� . �.: .:t r.:. t `' ' _ k ' ... �� '.. ..:. - :'- �'.� . . .:. . . • �• n i � ' . :.;; : �_i . '.�� . �:��. �',r . . . �; .� � ...� �. S ��"_ ,G . . , ..: ,. ... .. _ .:-. , . . . . . �� J � I r�' 7 � fi r 7 �5 a '" � � � - f �� , � ; : � r ��i ._ : �: t r N; ( i � . l � c f a r ' - . : ' . � �ti i ��i+ J-x -� i ,i' �. J' j -"�, ?� 3.1 � � . Y �Z ( � '�� . �', ,�� .' t } Y i.� " �--' .�: ��'• �..:��- `: :�' _ . .. � ) ..�� 5 , �1 , :: . . . ��:: . �' .. �.... : , i. i _ f J . 1 A f 1 �: . ! ' ,` 3 � , } � � t '- �' 1 ��• � �� , � 'L � �r `r � i � � r �� , � . .: i _ � . .- . . �� k � r 1� � { . .... �,'-_ -. • _ . � r _i�' �x � f. +� �P �, '-u : �� ' . 1 �- ..,: �.c: , . _ � .; ! .., ; �.; .; .. .� ,.., :...: \ +� -' �' r � � i 1 . 4 �. f 4 ! �� J � �� k�,� � .. � �! '. J i } ",'� � u ��' ,.1 :�:x y e�� P.� .� , �+�� . J r� t �� r� g 4 i t �. � �� = f �; r. � f J+' i '��r y y, j hF � t �� d tj� . .� �, �4 : � i - . .'. :,,: ( ..: ,`. :'_ -; „ . a s , ' �> _ ... -.. . t ',,;.' '� : : �.: _ i =r k t s }i � t t � � t . t i .. ..; .. i :; . t, � �, _, ( i {:� � � p : f �:, 9 .t t` � � d v ^ . . . . ..; " ? :i t � _ ii : + t . . . '�`'� ��: .; ..�. _, 1 3 �i - .r - t + ..^'! t 4 i. � � � r'-- 1 � r 7, x r i .. . .: �. ..... , ,� � �� ..: �.�� . '.-,�. � . �'.' ,:. ,��., . ' � c z , . ... . .. .. ��:. _ . .� .,. . . . . _ .. -. . r . ,�.: . .�: _.: -� ,....�. : . .�� . . : . . .. � ..;�. .:.�. . , . � . �� .. .. �:: � . . � .... . r. � „ � � 7 r y . = r � . i t f, ,��. �', t ., �� ,:� '�: i �t�. - .: _ '. � . . . - � ,;� , - > a r y,1 �: t... ` I Y'-. 4', � l. ��. .. �( 1 I: r i- . . � . . . . . ,��: '. � :: +: . ..�. � . , .. . . . . .. . ..,. . . .. . .� . .. ....: . . . ...,�. . .�� . .. ,,':�.. .... .. ,�.:� .:��;... � . .. �._...�� . ... " " ..... �.. ... . �, :.... . . :.... .�:.�.. , � .. J � V". . ., . ,. . ., �, - : . � .: �,: ' � . f ;` 't � K � ':�rt _ " t{' � { ' C t� f � 1 � : . . � r �. � e � . � / ' �' �'� � �� i, '��; f � r { s y y ��t f .. ;._ .� x ' 1'n � ).: r t � � 1 � : C f h Y .� . , " � 3 � � } : � , � '�f r f f .: , : , i �%�� : y � ' .' �.: ` 1 � : � � { t l .� t, t Y' -} ' � ; 1 ' �`� _ . _{ ;,_ ;< ;—... :: :Y, , � , °� , i . ; ` ,,: _ _-; , � �_ � � — � �� s _ .::� � — f _ .��' S Y' ' } ' f ' t C~ T � �t. '.- �:' .,.' � �'�1 t - : ._ . � .; '„ 1 ,, , _ , �.: . � , r .- . -. ;.; a : • ' ' , ,,. _;::. .::,,. . , � , �.. . , ,...: ,. .;.. . �.,._. . . .�._ . .... ...�., . _ ,,. �. . . ...., . . .,,: . ,�..�.. . . �,._ .. .. . ., _ i.. • r: . . ,.. . :.. . _ ...... . �, , ..:...: � . :. . . . . . .. . . ., - ..� , �.,.,.. -. :.- . <... �•-:. -:,. . �� .. �:_;. � .,., ... � .:: . ... : �,. ..: _ r. {' _ AGENDA NIETROPOLITAI�T AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL General Meetin� July 25, 2000 7:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 28`h Avenue S. Minneapolis, Minnesota l. Call to Order, Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes of Meeting June Z7, 2000 3. Introduction of Invited Guests Receipt of Communications � 4. 1�1SP 2000 Construction tipdate - Gary `'Varren 5. Part 1�0 I�pdate • Fleet I�Iix Considerations • GPS/Future Technolob Considerations 6. Report of the Jul� 14, 20fl4 Operations Committee Meeting 7. Report of the Jul�� 12, 2000 Communications Advisory Board Meeting 8. Report of the i�1.aC Commission n'Ieetina - Chairman Mertensotto 9. Technical Ad�•isor's Run�+�a�� S��stem Utilization Report and Complaint Summar�� 10. Persons «'ishing to Address the Council 11. Items i�ot on the Agenda 12. :�.djournment NeYt Nleeting: August 22, 2000 C C TO: �ROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MASA C �•. � MASAC M�sAc Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor MSP 2010 Construction Update: Year 2000 Construction Projects July 14, 2000 The Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport 2010 Plan is well under way. This comprehensive capital improvement plan includes infrastructure development and renovation throughout all facets of the airport environment includin� both the airside and landside areas. The comprehensive MSP 2010 Plan is intended to accommodate the regional air travel demands through the yeaz 2010. The associated capitai improvement initiatives will be funded with airport user fees generated at MSP (parking, passenger facility charges, landing fees, concessions revenue, etc.). No state or local talc dollars will be used. The total cost of the MSP 2010 Plan is estimated at �2.6 billion. � The scope and ma�nitude of this initiative requires year-round construction efforts to ensure the associated - projects are carried forward consistent with established schedules. As a result, several construction projects � � will be occurring at MSP during 2000. These projects include work on the inboundloutbound roadway, parking and rental caz facilities, Green/Gold Concourse connector, Green Concourse expansion, north/ south runway, new Humphrey Terminal, concourse renaming and other associated MSP 2010 projects. Below is a brief summary of each of the MSP 2010 Plan year 2000 construction projects as oudined in the MAC Fact Sheet for 2000 Construction Projects. Inbound/Outbound Roadway • Construction of the airport's roadways will continue through 2000 to accommodate the opening of the new parking ramps and expansion of the Green concourse. • This phase of construction is expected to conclude in November with four lanes in each direction. Parking and Rental Car Facilities • New nine-level parkine ramps east of the current parking ramps are nearing completion, adding more than 5.000 public parking spaces at the Lindbergh Terminal. When the full expansion (levels 4-9 on the Blue and Red ramps) is completed, MSP's total public parking capacity will be 17,541 spaces. • Until fall. severe parking shortages are expected in the Lindbergh Terminal's general parking. •'Rental car companies will double their space by expanding operations into the Red ramp (levels 1-3) in July 2000. The rental car.facility.currently operates.on ley.els I-3.of the Blue ramp. • The Hub Tram carrying passengers from parking and rental cars to the Lindbergh Terminal will be available to the public in November 2000. llntil then, the shuttle bus system currently in place will ser- vice both parkinQ and rental car customers. • A dedicated auto rental exit lane, similar to the auto rental entrance lane, was constructed to exit the Red ramp on the south side and opened June 10, 2000 to allow auto rental traffic to more easily exit the facilitv. Green/Gold Connector • Construction began in August 1999 on a skyway to connect the Green and Gold concourses. Spanning � the airport's inbound and outbound roadways, the connector will be heated and air-conditioned and �, , includes moving walkways. The connector from the Hub Building to the Gold concourse opened June 7. The section connecting the Green concourse opened July 11. • The Green/Gold connector will help travelers reach gates at the furthest end of the concourses without traveling through the Lindbergh Terminal building. Travelers making connections who have already passed thraugh security will not need to re-enter security to use this skyway. Limited ticketing check- in services and concessions will be added in the future. Travelers using the new parking or rental car facilities will find enhanced access via the new connector to reach many of the airport's gates. Green Concourse Expansion • The first four jet gates of the Green concourse expansion opened June 7. The first of this two-phase expansion began in September 1999. A food court and retail rotunda will open in August. • Phase 2 includes eight more jet gates, a new Regional concourse with 30 gates for regional aircraft and a new Concourse Tram. Phase 2 will be completed by the fall of 2(}02. North/South Runway • A new 8000-foot runway is expected to add approximately 25 percent additional capacity for the air- port, reducing congestion in the national air space system and reducing delays for travelers. The new runway will run almost�parallel to Cedar Avenue in a north-south direction. Aircraft will depart and arrive from the south. Construction began in 1999 from the northwest end of the runway prob essing south. T'he runway is expected to be operational in 2003. New Humphsey Terminal • In spring 2001, the new 300,000-squaze foot Humphrey Terminal will open with five jet gates ( (expanded to eight gates by December 2001) and the potential to be expanded up to 18 jet gates. Con- '' struction began in September 1999. This replacemenr terminal will be four times the size of the exist- ing buildin� and will be available for both scheduled and charter airlines. • The new terminal also will have parking space for eight 727-size aircraft or six DG lOs„44 ticket counter positions, four baj�age carousels and a new federal inspections facility. • Travelers will enter a street-level lobby for check-in, then be directed to the second level and through a central security checkpoint for boarding. A new food, beverage and retail area also is planned. Concourse Renaming • In September 2000, MSP will adopt the internationally-accepted alphanumeric gate and concourse naming system. Because MSP is expanding, adding new jet gates and regional aircraft �ates, it is out- growing the present color and cantinuous numberin� system. In the alphanumeric system, concourses are denoted by letter and all gates are numbered consecutively for each, individual concourse. This system more easily adapts for gate expansions on every concourse and gives each concourse its own set of numbers. It should help travelers navigate the airport and provide consistency with other air- ports. • The new resional concourses will be named A and B. The existing Green concourse, as well as the 12- jet gate extension, will became the C and D concourses. The current Blue concourse will be renamed E, the Red concourse, F and the Gold concourse, G. Other MSP 2010 projects • Several on airfield construction projects (please see attached map). • The 24-hour retail service provided to the public at the MSP International Airport U.S. Post Office closed in November 1999. Construction began on a new mail center located next to Nor[hwest's Build- ing B. The new mail center is scheduled to open July 2001. At the July 25, 2000 MASAC meeting Mr. Gary Warren, MAC Airside Development Director, will be present to provide additional information on 2000 MSP construction projects. If you have any questions, please call me at 612-725-6328. , ; ! `■ � . ...�` :� . •_ • . � � ,s«� SCA�E IN FEE� NORTH /, 1 �: � _ J' i ` 1 t� � � . .� { . 1 � � i ; . � • . _ • • ' , � FOR GENERA� REFERENCE ON(.Y SUBJECT TO CHANGE WiTHGUT NGTICE t � Metropc,l itan � i *A Airp��rts GENERAL OFFICES � 6040-2$TH AVENUE SOUTH ^`` � o m m i s s i o n MINNEAPOl15, MINN. 55450 At the July 25, 2000 MASAC meeting a presentation providing information on the mentioned fleet mix information will be provided. � ,, If you have any questions, please call me at 612-725-6326. Action Requested MASAC endorse the consultant's fleet mix and to pursue voluntary nighttime agreements with airlines serving MSP to limit Stage 3 hushkitted aircraft operations as part of a noise mitigation measure for the Part 150 Update. C� �o: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MASAC •'- � �sAc MASAC Roy Fuhrmann, Manager of Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs GPS/FMS Technology July 14, 2000 One of the noise mitigation measures that is being considered for the Part 150 Update is the use of Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and Fiight Management System (FMS) technology to evaluate existing and proposed departure and arrivai procedures. MASAC endorsed the exploration of this technology in 1999 as part of the Part 150 Scoping document. HMMH and HNTB aze working together with MAC staff to evaluate and define the benefits of GPS/FMS technology. As part of this evaluation at the July 25, 2000 MASAC meeting, HMMH will present a briefing on the following information: I. INTRODUCTION A. Proposed approach to defining the benefits of GPS Technology � � 1. A realistic assessment of GPS potential 2. Preliminary analyses intended to support a recommendation for more detailed investigation following approval of the Part 150 B. Part 150 will include A status report on the advanced technology II. DISPERSION ANALYSES A. Limitations in designing procedures close to an airport I. FAA design criteria -- FAA Order 8260.4A 2. Aircraft performance -- Climb rates, angles of bank B. Dispersion Due to Airline Procedures and Pilot Technique 1. Presentation of Logan's Runway 27 GPS/FMS flight procedure illustrating variables and challen�es for implementing GPS procedures. C. Dispersion Due to Crosswinds Presentation of ANOMS data and distributions of aircraft through gates Resultin� variability in DNL con[ours Effects of variability on population counu D. Potentia] Improvement Due to Generic Reduction in Track Dispersion with GPS Technology l. Changes in DNL contours 2. Chan�es in population counts III. UPDATE ON I�IANUFACTURER'S AND FAA PLANS FOR GPS IMPLEMENTATION This measure was reviewed at the July 14, 2000 MASAC Operations Committee. After considerable � � discussion, it w�s decided to include GPS as a mitigation measure in the Part 150 Update to provide a Part � I50 approved means for further noise impact reduction analysis of the GPS technology as it matures in the future. The Operations Committee forwarded this motion with a recommendatian for approval to MASAC. HMMH will provide a briefing at the July 25, 2000 MASAC meeting. If you have any questions, please call me at 612-725-6326. Action Renuested MASAC endorse the Operations Committee's recommendation that the Part 150 Update include the exploration of GPS/FMS technology to evaluate existing and proposed departure and arrival procedures as a future noise mitigation measure. Ju�y l, Z000 Mr. Charles Mertensotto Chairman. Mctropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council 6040 28`h Avc. S. Minncapolis, MN Dcar Mr. Mcrtcnsotto, The MASAC statcment of purpose as given in every Technica.l Advisor's Report is "...the alleviation of problems caused b�• thc sound of aircraft..." We know, without saying, that many people object to aircraft noisc, but do not think it is a problem. Others disturbed by aircraft noise believe it to be a problem, but are hclplcss to provc it to those in the business of making noise. This subjective issue makes it impossible for MASAC to `'alleviate" the problem of aircraft noise. We must look to other ways of dealing with the aircraft noise probiem. In my opinian, since we can't rcduce thc noisc. «�c must ha�e a policy for dealing with it. The policy whieh I observe from the staff approach is ciearl�� to spread the noise as equitably as possible in a way that all affected communities can immcdiatcl}• sec is "fair". This is vcry important from a political point of view which, I'm sure, the MAC �t�ants to scrvc. _, 1 bclicve that mast of the objections from communities around the airport would cease if they were ( ) convinced thnt MASAC �i'as supplying MAC with "fair�' information about noise distribution. We have spcnt mam• hours discussing corridors, land use, and flight tracks for doing just this. It remains to be provcn fair. M�� vic�� is that pcoplc disturbcd b}� aircraft noise understand living under a blanket of DNL65 which is a big. encompassing a��cragc. But. of much more significance is the number of "events" they must suffer. Aircraft noisc c��ents are no„• routincl}• mcasured b�� the RMTs and their geographic placement provides a largc co��cragc of pcople so disturbcd. B�� sub-dividing the land around MSP in quarter-square-mile areas aiid mcasuring thc numbcr of cvents occurring in each square, we would have a good measure of the �olitical disturbancc �t�ithin the arca. The number of people living in eaeh area multiplied by the number of dis[urbanccs ��ould ��icld a more objective measure ofthe noise problem. MASAC polic�� to minimize thc number of pcople-cvents would be seen as a fair objective. Sinccrcl�• vours Ncil Clark � 5917 Grass L ke Ter. Minneapolis, MN 55419 c.c.: C. Leqve John Nelson Dick Saunders � ) Metropoiifian �ircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC, 6040 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis. Mfnnesota 55450 •(6�2) 726-8141 Chairman: Mayor Charles Mertensotto Past Chairs: Robert P. Johnson, 1995-1999 Scott Bunin, 1990-1995 Waiter Rockenstein, It, 1982-1990 Jan Del Calzo, 1979-1982 Staniey W. Olson, 1969-1979 Technicai Advisor: Chad Leqve July 11, 2000 Dr. David J. Rhude 24 Forestdale Road Minneapolis, MN 55415-2546 Dear Dr. Rhude: The Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) is an organization comprised of equal community, airline and airport representation. MASAC continually strives to find new and innovative ways to address airport noise issues around Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP). Through cooperative decision making and i�►sightful proposals, MASAC has a lon� list of noise reducing success in which both the communities and the airlines played an active role. Consistent with the charter�of the Council, I would like to assure you of our continuous efforts to find new and innovative ways to address the noise impacts resulting from aircrah operations at the Minneapolis/St. Paui International Airport (MSP). The points you raised in your letter dated June 8, 2000 are valid concerns. Many of the specific issues you mentioned are topics that have been, or are being, reviewed by MASAC. The number of fliahts at MSP increases typically 3�Ic to 5�7o annually. Aithough this represents an increase in operations from year to year, I do not believe the magnitude of this small annual operational increase is what vou have observed since the fall of 1999. During the summers of 1998 and 1999 major runway reconstruaion took place on the sou�h parallel runway (12R/30L) causing a significant reduction in the number and frequency of aircraft opera[ions on that runway. Your residence is approximately 4. t miles from the departure end of runway 30L to the northwest. Durina the 1998 summer construction period t April 6. 1998 �o ,�ugust 15. 1998). ?.09c of the total airport depariures were ofF runway 30L and 12.8�/0 of the arrivals were on runway 12R. In addition, during the 1999 summer construction period (April 5. 1999 to September 1(, 1999). 4.190 of the total airporc departures were off runway 30L and 20.3% of the arrivals were on runway 1?R (please refer to the attached construction operations summary packet). In comparison. from .April l. 1997 to August 31, 1997 (non-construction time period) there was 28.3% of the total airport departures otf 30L and 23.090 of the arrivals were on 12R. I propose that the change in operational levels thnt you have described is a result of the mentioned operational decreases over your area during the 1998 and 1999 construction seasons and the subsequent return to normal non-construction operational levels this vear. The issue of nigh�time operations at MSP is and continues to be a topic of community, MASAC and MAC concern. IvtAS�C is adamant about providinQ as much nighttime impact relief as possible to the �' � communities surrounding MSP. In pursuit of this �oal MASAC and the MAC developed a voluntary ni�hccime noise proQram. This program advocates no scheduled aircrah operations between the hours of ??30 to 0600 la:al time and has proved to be successful over the past eight years. Through the auspices of the Part 1�0 Lpda[e. it is possible tha[ this nighttime agreement could be modified to request the use of only manufactured stage 3 aircraft (as opposed to the noisier stage 3 hushkitted aircraft) during the nighttime hours if the operation must occur during those hours. MSP is a public use facility, which uses millions of federally funded dollars to procure capital improvements on a regular basis. Because MAC uses Federal dollars to devetop and maintain the facility, ( the federal government (FAA) reserves the right of refusal relative to proposed operationally restrictive � policies, if those policies conflict with established FAA guidelines. The mentioned FAA guidelines center around the capricious and discriminatory operation of an airport and the impact it poses on the smooth and orderly flow of interstate commerce. Due to the location of MSP and the large re�ion that relies on services from the facility, MAC has very little if any flexibility with respect to operational restrictions durin� the nighttime hours. As the demand for air service at MSP continues to grow with the expansion of the Metropolitan Area, the issue of airport noise impact wiIl continue to be a paramount concern for the communities living in close proximity to MSP. Issues such as the frequency of aircraft over-fli?hts, nighttime noise issues. Part 150 Update mitioation measure implementation and all other associated topics wili continue to keep MASAC busy for months to come. Once again let me assure you that as MSP continues to grow. MASAC is committed to finding new and innovative ways to address airport noise issues. Lf you have any further questions, I invite you to attend one of the monthly Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) meetings held at 7:30 PM the fourth Tuesday of every month, at the MAC general o�ce, located at 6040 28ih Avenue South, in Minneapolis. MASAC brings together the pubtic, airport users, and MAC o�cials to address and comment on aircraft noise and operations issues. Sincerely, ��--� -� - Gy,.,�,�..zs Charles Mertensotto Chairman I�Setropolitan Aircraft Sound Ahatement Council cc: Honorable Sharon Sayles-Belton Mayor, City of Minneapolis Room 331 Citv Hall 350 South Fifrh Street �linneapolis, MN 55415 Barret Lane City Council, City of Minneapolis Room 307 Citv Hali 3S0 South Fifth Street �iinneapolis, MN 5�=�15 Average Daily Operations Aprii to August 1997, 1998 and 1999 Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport 1500 — 1450 -- � 1400 o � - �- 1350 ��y4� - � '� =`--. Q 1300 �� - __ � 1250 � : o �� :-_ ___ _... � 1200 �'```�' _ Qi �4'f,�:: .. . . � 7150 c �` = s�� Z 1100 :��- �_� 1050 �� __ . � ;�� a� . . 1000 I '� April � 1997 1363 - . ❑ 1998 � 1377 � �1999 1398 � Source: FAA Airport Traffic Record May 1299 1312 1367 June 1401 1377 1423 Month �_ August 1383 1366 1454 Hennepin County Medicol Cc�rier f � �e11 Trauma Center Pe[er A. Schlesinger, M.D.. F.A.C.P.' Duecror Thomas 1. Bloss. tiLD." � Dawd J. Rnuoe. M.C.' � M.Thomas Stillman. M.O.. F.A.C.P.•' June 8, 2000 Department of Medicine Division of Rheumatology Mr. Charles Mertensotto, Chairman Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council 6040 — 28`h Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 5�450 Dear Chairman Mertensotto: 701 Park Avenue Minneapolis. MN 55415-182° 612/ 347-2704 FA X : 6i2! 904-4299 www.HCMC.org I would like to express my concern about the growing problem of airport noise. Obviousiv as the Chairrnan of the Sound Abatement Council, you are very much a«�are of this problem, but I think a personal note is imponant. I have been a resident of southwest Minneapolis for some fifteen years. Obviously this is ,_, one of the premier neighborhoods in the entire Twin Cities. Since I have lived there, the �. ) reality of the airport and the accompanyina noise has been talerable for me, as it is primarily a problem during the daytime hours. Since the fall of 1999, the airpon noise in our neishborhood has become simply unbearable. Clearly the tracks of the flights as well as the number and the hours of the flidhts have undergone a remarkable increase and chanve, the bottom line being that sleep is becominQ a very difficult commodity. Flights arrivin� and leaving the Niinneapolis-St. Paul International Airport at midniaht, 1:00 am, 3:OU am, �:00 am, and 6:00 am an a regular basis have made sleep in our neighborhood extremelv difficult and at times, impossible. I recentl�� attended a public open house for the'`FAR Part 1�0 Program". I found this r..00r:n� ty 1�.� .-.W,-r�n.��LLi�,� i�nl�n�r.�ii� �t�e: :ii�i:'• .t.�:.,t «.nt:r.j th�� .i�l��n `l�o y�n-..• nnT:'��.C,."...�tl, . .,.. ;, . .. . . . :�. u., . u� a.��., � .. v �,. ' ..• rum�.a�4 is completed in appro�imately t�vo years, it may shift a small amount of the noise a��av trom our neighborhood, but o�rerall �� ill not sia-nificantly impact the noise levels that «�e are sufferina with. In particular. a�ain I draw your attention to the flights after t U:00 p.m. and prior to 7:00 am. which have made sleep at standard hours difficult. 1�Iv Tear is that as this airport continues to expand, not onl_y in space but in number of flivhts, this airpon will evolve in a?-� hour around the clocl: facility such that there wiil be tlivhts all day and all niQht and the neighborhood surrotinding the airport will simply be �lnli�•able. This is such that I am in the process of contemplatin� movin� from south��est :�Iinneapolis and I am sure that many others have sirnilar feelinas. I would • �>�iow. amencan Codege oi ane::rrzt�,ug;: �oaro certihed Incernai '�teoi::•ne F.neumatoiogy • Direc;or. Un�er2�aeua�> �teo�cai :�uca;;c� - �uec;or or Pnmar. r_are Outreacr An eoual opportunity emploVer NSr. Charles Mertensotto, Chairman Pa�e ? hate to think that the neighborhoods of the Twin Cities are �oin� to be sacrificed for the sake of the airline industry as well as the convenience of airline travelers, many of them who are not begiruiing nor endin� their travel in this region. Thank you very much for your attention. I wish you luck in attempting to salve this difficult issue. -Unfortunately, I think that the alternative is to have severely depressed neiQhborhoods throughout much of the Twin Cities, includin� my wonderful area of southwest Minneapolis. Sincerely, avid 1. Rhude, MD 24 Forestdale Road iVlinneapolis, MN 5�415-2546 (612) 927-7601 ( cc: Sharon Sayles-Belton � Mayor, City of Minneapolis Room 331 City Hall 3�0 South Fifth Street Minneapolis, MN 5�41� Barret Lane Citv Council, City of Minneapolis Room 307 City Hall � �n �o,�th :�:ftr Stree: �iinneapolis, MN >j41� DJR•jd 1`�Ill��iTTES OF T � 27, 2000 S�..0 �1�'IEETIN� -. . : . _ ,: � - , :, , F _ , , { � � � - ;�� > > : , � � : � �� l: � r a j , �' F f � �s ` t � ^' t �:. ,';. .� r�. , � _ .' . ..�. ..•' �.+ f � :� t . . .:.: � ' •., '� �� 1 .�:n, ::�� . n:�.' . �. _ . � .4. . .�. . . ..�.. .�.. .... � . � �.! . . . _ . . . .. . .. . . . _ r.. . . . tt � . � _. . � .... _ . .. � . l i J :ti ��t - ��( , t 1-' � ( 1, � � _ _ _ i I i ! • 1 � L. ' ` � � �;�_ - - � 0 METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND AEATEMENT COUNCIL GENERAL MEETING June 27, 2000 7:30 p.m. 6040 28`h Avenue S. Minneapolis, Minnesota Call to Order. Roll Call The meeting was called to order by Chairman Mertensotto at 7:40 p.m. The following members were in attendance: Charles Mertensotto, Chairman Mary Loeffelholz Jennifer Sayre Brian Bates Brian Simonson Rov Fuhrmann Bob Johnson � John Nelson, Vice Chair Jamie Verbrugae Lance Staricha Jill Smith Kevin Batchelder Wil] Eainton Neil Clark Dean LindberQ Dick Saunders Leo Kurtz Sandra Colvin Roy Mike Cramer Glenn Strand Joe Lee Steven �Volfe Jeff' Beraom I�av Hatlestad Pam Dmvtrenko I�ristal Stol:es Advisors Cind�� Greene Shane �'anderVoort Mike Pedro Visitors Andv Pederson Gene Franchett Mendota Heights Northwest Airlines Northwest Airlines Airborne DHL MAC MBAA Bloomington Easan EaQan � Mendota HeiQhts Mendota Heights Inver Grove Heights Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapo�is Minneapolis Minneapolis St. Louis Park Burnsville Burnsville Richfield Richfield FAA MAC MAC Apple Valley Dakota County � 4 Howard McPherson Jerry Larson Sonva Larson Paul Teske Mary Teske Approval of Minutes Eagan Resident Easan Resident The minutes of the May 23, 2000 MASAC meeting were approved as distributed. Introduction of Invited Guests There were no invited guests. Rece�t of Communications A letter was received from the City of Burnsville appointin� Kathryn Hatlestad as the City's MASAC alternate. A letter was received from a Dr. David J. Rhude, a resident of Minneapolis, regardina his concerns about aircraft noise and the effect it has on his neighborhood and its residents: Chairman Mertensotto asked the MAC Staff to reply to Dr. Rhude's letter. Part 150 U�date Noise Co �atibilitv Prosram (NCP) Mitiaation Measures Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, briefed the Council on the preliminary Noise Compatibility Program (NCP ) mitiaation measures as approved by the MASAC Operations Committee and noted that action would be taken at the meetin� on each of the items. Noise Abatement Departure Profiles (NADP) I�•Ir. Fuhrmann briefed the Council on the two FAA-recognized departure profiles and the benefits of each. He noted that the close-in departure profile typically benefits communities that are within 3.� miles from start of take off. The distant profile typically benefits communities that are further than 3.5 miles from start of take off. (A graphic of the areas affected by each profile ��as mailed prior to the meetinQ.) VVill Eginton, Inver Grove Heiahts, asked Mr. Fuhrmann if there was a graphic that depicted contours that only considered departure noise rather than both arrivals and departures. Mr. Fuhrmann said an overal] contour had not been generated for departures only but that a single event contour was generated. 1�4r. Fuhrmann then displayed that contour. The sinQle event contour also showed the areas that are affected by each profile. He also displayed a contour that showed the difference between the 2005 unmiti�ated contour and what the contour looks like ��hen the distant departure profile is used for each runway end. He noted that the only change takes place to the northwest for departures off runways 30L and 30R. �t-1.�1S.�IC Operations Committee Recommendatiai • Adopt the distant NADP for runways 30L, 30R, and Runway 17. • Maintain the distant NADP for runways 4, 22, 12L and 12R. Nir. Fuhrmann noted that application of this recommendation removes approximately 9,800 people from the unmiti�ated 60+ DNL contour. Discussion Dean Lindberg, Minneapolis, noted his concern for those people closer into the airport who will no longer benefit from the close-in departure profile procedure for departures off runways 30L � i and 30R. He said it was unfair to justify the chanQe based on the fact that the homes in the affected area have already been insulated. Neil Clark, Minneapolis, said he felt an approval of the motion would indicate a statement of policy from MASAC; that MASAC wants to do the most good for the most people. He said he supported that goal. Sandra Colvin Roy, Minneapolis, asked what effect, specifically, the chanQe to a distant departure profile would have on the people closer into the airport. Roy Furhmann, MAC, said the staff had attempted to evaluate the benefits of the close-in departure profile after it was imptemented in 1997 for runways 30L and 30R. He said the staff hadn't been able to demonstrate a change in noise levels but they were able to verify that aircraft were approximately 400 feet in altitude higher than they had been using the distant profile. He said this change in altitude, however, would not be expected to result in a perceptible chanQe in noise levels experienced on the b ound. He noted too that the differences between the profiles become less noticeable with the increased use of manufactured Stage 3 aircraft. John Nelson, Bloomin?ton and Chair of the Operations Committee, said that the Committee had taken a"holistic" approach to these decisions. He said the airport is a regional operation. Therefore, any decisions made regarding its operations should take this into consideration. He said the Operations Committee would continue to evaluate this decision once it is implemented to be sure it continues to make sense. _ JOE LEE, MINNEAPOLIS, MOVED AND BOB JOHNSON, MBAA, SECONDED, TO ( ) ACCEPT THE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT THE DISTANT NOISE ABATEMENT DEPARTURE PROFILE FOR EACH RUNWAY END AT NISP (17, 0�, 22; 12L, 12R, 30L, 30R) FOR INCLUSION IN THE DRAFT PART 150 STUDY UPDATE DOCUMENT. THE MOTION CAR.RIED ON A VOICE VOTE. Runwa�� Use System (RUS) l��Ir. Fuhrmann reviewed the factors influencina runway use selection including: • Weather and wind conditions • Capacity and flow requirements • Traffic demand • Aircraft separation • Pilot compliance and safet}• considerations • ATC • Safet`• 1�1r. Fuhrmann noted that runway use at MSP is primarily determined by wind and capacity requirements, which limit the options to si�nificantly chanae runway use, even with the new runwa}�. Since capacity requirements at the airport drive runway use during the daytime hours, runwa�� use alternatives have more impact durin� the nighttime hours. Reconunendation The 1��IASAC Operations Committee has recommended the followin� Preferred Runway Use Svstem: • Future use of GPS/FMS should be considered, in lieu of turn points, as the technolo�y evolves Mr. Fuhrmann said one of the gaals for determining the appropriate flight tracks for runway 17 � was to avoid, as much as possible, densely populated areas. One way to do this is to direct fliQhts over more compatible land uses, such as the river. In order to do this, turn points could be used to keep aircraft over the river to the a eatest extent possible. Mr. Fuhrmann noted, however, that additional analysis needs to be completed to determine exactly how this can be achieved so that ATC can implement the procedure. A graphic depiction of the proposed flijht tracks/fan and the projected percentaQe of jet and turboprop aircraft that wouid use each track was displayed along with a depiction of the resultinQ impacted area. Application of this mitigation measure would remove approximately 990 people from the 200� unmitiQated 60+ DNL contour based on the original assumptions. There may be a chanae in these numbers once additional analysis is complete. Recommendation The MASAC Operations Committee has recommended a 105° fan for runway 17 from 095° to 200° (EIS tracks A to E) because it reduces the impacted population, avoids increased overflights of other communities and uses turn points for westerly destination headings in order to turn aircrafr at hieher altitudes and avoid populated areas. No action was requested for this item. The MASAC Operations .Committee will discuss this issue further at the July 14, 2000 meeting, given the FAA's concerns about feasible implementation procedures. � Lance Staricha, EaQan, asked if there had been any decision as to the location of the runway 17/3� remote monitoring towers and when they would be installed. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said an analvsis of the exact locations has not been completed but that the MAC has made a commitment to have the RMT's installed and collecting data one year prior to the runway openinQ. Low Den:afrd Fliglrt Tracks Mr. Fuhrmann then presented information reQarding recommended flight tracks for periods of lo"� demand. He said the goal �vas to determine fliaht track priorities and procedures for use by ATC that «�ould minimize, to the �reatest extent possible, the impacted population durin� low demand periods (typicaliy at ni�ht). The methodolo�y for the analysis included the followina considerations: • Fli�ht tracks were chosen, by runway end, that impact the fewest people • Fli�ht track priorities cannot severely detour aircraft from their destination • The recommendations are intended to give ATC auidance on selection of appropriate flight tracks durina low-demand periods that will impact the fewest people • Deviations from these recommended fliaht tracks are expected due to safety, aircraft performance, pilot compliance, weather and traffic conflicts 1�1r. Fuhrmnnn then reviewed the recommended low demand flight tracks for each runway end. Rumvav 4: When practical, ATC will assign headings that roughly overfly the river basin (approximately 355° true/353° magnetic}. Precise navigation of this route is not possible without external navigation to aid the pilot, therefore a departure procedure should be developed and implemented that directs aircraft over the river basin. The use of runway 04 will be minimal in 2005. Runway 30L/30R: Continue to use the departure procedures used today for departures on these runways. Due to population density in this area designation of specific, preferred flight tracks does not provide substantial benefit and would concentrate flights on select tracks and thus would impact the same people disproportionately. A departvre procedure that overflies Highway 62 should also be investigated for departures off runway 30L. Once GPS/FMS technology becomes more widely available, a more precise departure procedure could be developed (rather than aivinQ headings). It is expected that an investigation into this type of departure procedure would take place sometime after the Part 150 Update is submitted. : � Rartzwav 2?: Develop and implement two departure procedures, one for west bound aircraft and one for south bound aircraft. The west departure procedure would place aircraft over the I-494 corridor for use by west bound and �- north bound aircraft. The south bound departure procedure would turn aircraft prior to Cedar Avenue and then turn an aircraft again to fly over the river on a southwest heading. This departure procedure could be used by west and south bound traffic. . Rarmvav 17: Disperse departure tra�c away from centerline by assignin� the followin� headings - 095° for east bound departures, 160° for south bound departures and 185° for west bound departures. Investiaate the use of a river departure procedure by west bound departures. Riurtivar 1?L/1?R: Continue usina the crossing in the corridor procedure, which impacts the fewest number of people. Investigate the use of future technoloay to optimize fliaht track location and further minimize the impacted population. A population analysis was not performed because these departure procedures could only be implemented durinQ periods of ven• low demand and would have a very minimal effect on the population of the 60�- DNL contour. RE�cv�rtme��c�ation The MAS.aC Operations Committee has recommended that the above described low-demand fli�_=ht tracks be included as part of the Part 150 Update draft documerit. Si�7niticant discussion took place. Jamie �'erbrugge, EaQan, noted that the Eagan City Council has taken the position that during lo�v-demand periods the city prefers to have ATC use the l70° headin� rather than the 095°, 160° or 13�° headinas. He said this decision was made primarily because the 170° heading would place aircraft over Cedar Avenue freeway, which in their estimation would impact fewer residential areas. He said that althouah the city understands the desire to avoid concentration, the elected o�cials from EaQan believe it would be better to fly the 170° headin� when possible durin� low-demand periods. Mary Teske, Eagan resident, said she was opposed to any recommendation that concentrated aircraft on the 170° heading during low demand time periods. She said she had opposed the � Ea�an City Council's recommendation reaardinQ the low-demand departure fliaht tracks because � she feels the departures off runway 17 should be dispersed across a wide area rather than concentratina aircraft on one track. Ms. Teske also commented on her preference to have the EaQan/Mendota Heights indusirial corridor used to the fullest extent possible. Chairman Mertensotto asked for clarification as to whether the low-demand fliaht tracks would be used to develop the contour. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said the low-demand fliaht track information would not be used to develop the contour because the impacts are minimal and all the specific departure procedures have not been developed. Chairman Mertensotto commented that he was concerned about making decisions for a runway that was not in use at this time, particularly since a decision would not change the contour. Cindy Greene, FAA, said it was necessary to address how the new runway will operate durin� the Part 150 Update process because it is the appropriate mechanism for addressing these types of issues. She said if there is anything that needs to be addressed regarding runway 17/3� and how it will operate from a noise perspective, it should be included in the Part 150 Update document. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, aQreed with Ms. Greene. John Nelson, Bloomin�ton, noted that the 1996 MSP Noise MitiQation Committee Report had directed the MAC to explore the possibilities of employing advanced navigational aids to reduce noise over hiQhly populated areas, but that the technology, at this time, is not widely available for implementation. He said in order to fulfill the requirements of the MSP Noise Mitigation Committee Report, these types of scenarios are being included in the Part 150 Update so that when the technology becomes more widely available, the framework for analyzina the procedures � witl be in place. � Jamie Verbruage, Eaaan, said he sympathizes with the residents impacted by 170° fliaht track, but that the Eagan City Council had deliberated for a significant amount of time on the issue and has made a recommendation different from the Operations Committee. He said the Council does not feel it is "dumpina" noise on a particular neiahborhood and that the Council is made up of representatives from all over the city. He said he felt MASAC should take the Council's recommendation into consideration given it is an elected body. Jeff Bergom, Burnsville, and Andy Pederson, representing the city of Apple Valley, said their respective cities prefer to use the widest fan possible for the low-demand flijht tracks Jamie �'erbrugge, Eaaan, noted that since the number of fliahts affected by this decision are so fe�� and that the recommended low-demand departure flight tracks will not be used to determine contour boundaries, the decision is one that should be based on the affected cities' preferences. Ro�• Fuhrmann, MAC, acknowledged the differences in opinion regarding the appropriate low- demand fli?ht tracks for runway 17, but asked that a recommendation be made at the evening's meetin�T due to the tiaht schedule for completing the Draft Part 1�0 Update document. He also noted that there will be opportunities for comments to be made once the draft document is completed. Sandra Colvin Roy, Minneapolis, asked about the recommended low-demand flight track for runwav 04. She asked when the low-demand flight track for this runway would be implemented; ( immediately after the Part 150 Update is approved or after the GPS/FMS technology becomes more widely available. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said once the Part 150 Update is approved, the low-demand flight track would be implemented using available navigational aids, such as a VOR, but once GPS/FMS technolo�y becomes more widely available, a more precise fliaht track (departure procedure) could be developed and implemented to more accurately place aircraft over the river. Joe Lee, Minneapolis, said he was not convinced that eliminating the recommended low-demand fli�ht tracks of 095°, 160° and 185° and substituting them for a 170° track would not reduce the number of impacted people. Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, said that the Eagan City Council has recommended the 170° headin� because it overflies the Cedar Avenue freeway, which is more desirable than overflying residential areas. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, cautioned that even if the low-demand flight tracks for runway 17 were reduced to only the 170° heading, aircraft will still need to turn onto their on-course headings at some point and would be overflyin� residential areas resardless. Mr. Fuhrmann noted, too, that the reason a 170° heading was not included in the low-demand flight track recommendation is because all of the arrivals during the day and niaht on this runway will use that same track. Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, asked for a definition of "low-dernand periods." Ro�r Fuhrmann, MAC, said that a low-demand period is defined as less than 14 operations in one hour, which usually occur between 11:30 p.m. and 530 a.m. JAMIE VERBRUGGE, EAGAN, MOVED AND LANCE STARICHA, EAGAN, SECONDED TO SUBSTITUTE THE RECOMMENDED LOW-DEMAND DEPARTURE HEADINGS OF 095°, 160° AND 18�° FOR RUNWAY 17 WITH A 170° HEADING. THE MOTION FAILED. � ) JEFF BERGOM, BURNSVILLE, MOVED AND JOE LEE, MINNEAPOLIS, SECONDED TO ACCEPT THE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT THE LOW-DENIAND DEPARTURE FLIGHT TRACKS, AS DESCRIBED AND DISPLAYED, FOR INCLUSION IN THE DRAFT PART 150 STUDY UPDATE DOCU1�'IENT. THE MOTION CARRIED. Lafrd Use Measures Rov Fuhrmann, MAC, reviewed each of the nine recommended land use measures. The first eight are carry-overs from the 1992 Part 150 Update. The abbreviated nine recommended land use measures follow: LU-I:.Amend local land use plans to brin� them into conformance with Metropolitan Council's Noise Compatibility Guidelines LU-�': Zone for compatible development. LU-3: Appl}� zonin� performance standards LU-�: Continue a public information pro�ram LU-�: Revise building codes LU-6: Acquire developed propertm� in non-compatible use areas LU-7: Propem� purchase guarantee LU-8: Part 1�0 Sound Insulation Proaram LU-9: Creation of Sound barriers/buffers Dean Lindberg, Nlinneapolis, said he is concerned about the residents between the 65 and 60 DNL contours receivinQ a less extensive insulation packaae than those within the 6� DNL contour. Ro�� Fuhrmann, MAC, noted that the land use measures being recommended do not include a recommendation as to the ultimate insulation packages. He said that decision is yet to be made. He said the recommendation simply represents an endorsement of continuing a sound insulation pro�ram as a land use mitigation measure. Pam D mtrenko, Richfield, asked if land use measure six (LU-6), Acquire Developed Property `, Y in Non-compatible Use, meant that the MAC would be able to, by imminent domain, take developed property without the cities' approval. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, noted that the full measure says that any acquisition would be at the "initiative and approval of the local jurisdiction...." Pam Dymtrenko; Richfield, said she was not sure land use measure number nine should be carried forward. She said she did not know whether a sound barrier or buffer would be of any help in reducing low frequency noise in Minneapolis or Richfield. John Nelson, Bloomin�ton, said that it is important to keep the measure alive at least until the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee's report is submitted. JOHN NELSON, BLOOMINGTON, MOVED AND JAMIE VERBRUGGE; EAGAN, SECONDED TO ACCEPT THE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT LAND USE MEASURES ONE T�IROUGH NINE (LU-1, LU-2, LU-3, LU-4, LU-5, LU-6, LU-7, LU-8 AND LU-9), AS DESCRIBED AND DISPLAYED, FOR INCLUSION IN THE DRAFT PART 150 STUDY UPDATE DOCUMENT. THE MOTION CARRIED. Rov Fuhrmann, MAC, reported that discussions and recommendations on the followinQ items are remaininQ for the Part 150 Update: s Runwav 17 F1iQht Tracks s Fleet Mix Considerations ( • GPS/Future Use Technology m Contour Boundary Discussions • Sinale Family and Multi-family Insulation Priorities • Sound Insulation Modification Packages Report of the June 9�000 Operations Committee Meetina There was no report of the June 9, 2000 Operations Committee meeting. A majority of the content of that meeting was revie.wed in item 4 above. Re on of the June 14. 2000 Communications Advisorv Board MeetinQ Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, briefed the Council on the June 14, 2000 Communications Advisor�� Board meeting. He reported that the Qroup had reviewed the content for the 3�d Quarter AL�S.-iC ;`'etics newsletter and that the topics for the 4`h Quarter newsletter would be established at the nett meetina on July 12, 2000 at 3:30 p.m. Report of the MAC Commission Meetina Chairman l�Iertensotto and Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, reported on the June 19, 2000 MAC Commission meetina. The following items were mentioned: The Ground Run Up Enclosure recommendation from MASAC was on the a�enda as an information item only. - � ' � o Commissioner Gasper and Mike Sandahl, Chair of the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee, met to determine the next steps for the committee. It was indicated that the next meeting would be sometime in AuQust 2000. ! o MSP has been voted the best airport in North America in the category of 25 million passen�ers or more. 8. Technical Advisor's Report Shane VanderVoort, MAC Advisor, briefed the May 2000 Technical Advisor's Report and noted the following: o Complaints were up from the previous month. The three top cities for complaints were, m order, Minneapolis, Inver Grove Heights and St. Paul. • 389 complaints were received via the Internet. • There was high use of the corridor during the nighttime hours. • Operations favored a southeast flow due to wind conditions. • The top three aircraft operatin� at MSP were, in order, the DC9Q, the A320 and the 7?7Q. • There was a correction for page 8 of the Technical Advisor's Report that was available at the meetinQ. 9, Persons Wishins to Address the Council There were no persons wishina to address the Council. 10. Items Not on the Asenda '" Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, noted that construction of the 900-foot extension of the south � � p a r a l l e l r u n w a y, to accommodate lar�er aircra$ when runway 04/22 is unavailable next year, would begin in mid July. 11. Adiournment Chairman Mertensotto adjourned the meetinQ at 9:45 p.m. Respectfull}' submitted. Melissa Scovronski, MASAC Secretary � � NAC,. � • � �. ♦ � � � � • , � � � . � ... ' .,. ... Part 150 Update 7,�,e 2�, z000 Roy Fuhrmann, MAC Mana2er Aviarion Noise and Satellite Programs Website: www.macavsat.or? . ... � � NAC..�.. � � � � • ; MSP's Part 1 �0 Update � Noise Abatement Departure Profiles _ Runw'ay lise System = Run�i'ay 17i3� Flight Tracks - Lo�v Demand Fli�ht Tracks � Land LJse Measures � Recommended Noise Abatement Measures ��l'S 5�:4. ` l • y � #i� o ' = � `- � , .r✓ ;'�^F J^ �,�'"' '-ct�t ,� _ p►.,�, . ' f,..�. -.�;,'}' . �° +MASAC — ,•��- — 1 .,.� MSP's Part 150 Update Process ---___�li MASAC members were briefed on the proposed Noise Abatement Measures and Land Use Measures presented at the Public Workshop — May 23, 2000 � MASAC Operations Committee is forwarding the following I` items to MASAC with recommendations: �� Noise Abatement Departure Profiles � Runway Use System ---_-_��' Low Demand Flight Tracks .. �y' Land Use Measures �' Action on these items are necessary to begin Drafting the Part.150 Update Document �-��"�� Noise�� Abatement Departu.re ��'-��` Profiles (NADP�__ ^. Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular provides two NADPs to consider ��Close-in NADP �� Distant NADP -. Close-in NADP typically reduces noise levels for areas in the immediate vicinity of runway end -. Distant NADP t�pically reduces noise levels for areas beyond 3l 2 miles from start of takeoff � C ..:......�. �� Noise Abatement Departure . �:+ �'..`. �Prnfi 1 Pc (N A T�PI ---___�j MASAC Operations Cornmittee Recommendarion --0--__�1 Adopt Distant NADP for Runways 30L, 30R, and Runway 17 ----__�li Mai.nta.in Distant NADP for Runway 4, 22, 12L and 12R _�� Action ReQuested �-----___��,, Endorse the use of the Distant NADP for all runways at MSP — 30L, 30R, 12L, 12R, 04, 22 and 17. This procedure reduces the overall population within the DNL 60+ dBA cOIltottt' (Total change - approximately 9,800 people subtracted) ' - r �Y. Runway Use Factors ;=,: Runway use is determined by multiple, inter- linked, factors: �-_---__�, Weather and wind conditions � Capacity and flow requirements �: Traffic demand � Aircraft separation �: Pilot compliance and safety considerations �_ ATC �----___��' Safety . � C� • .. ...+ �` � Runway Use Factors .. -�.. D;i Runway use is determined primarily by wind and capacity requirements ---____�� These requirements limit options to siQnificantly change runway use, even with the new runway ----__�—� Capacity requirements drive runway use during day-time hours (ATC, separation, traffic demand) �----__fi�.� Runway use alternatives have more impact during night-t�me hours �'::.�..� Runway Use Factors �----__�, Preferred RUS � Maximize use of Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor: depart Runways 12L/12R, arrive 30L/30R -. Second priority - depart Runway 17, amve Runway 35 :� Head to head operations when needed and operationally feasible � Third priority - balanced use of Runway 4/22 ` Depart Runways 30L/30R, and arrive Runways 12L/12R,�at all other times . :��.� Runway Use Factors � Recommended RUS �: Departure priority 12s, 17, 22, 04, 30s ---___�i�� Arrival priority 30s, 35, 04, 22, 12s �� Action Requested �� Endorse the use of the above recommended Runway Use System. This procedure reduces the overall population within the DNL 60+ dBA contOur (Total change - approximately 540 people subtracted) '� � .' Runway 17 Flight Tracks � :�� Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Record of Decision (ROD) stated that noise abatement measures could be evaluated or implemented for Runway 17 departure tracks to avoid populated areas close to airport � Flight tracks and procedures must provide sufficient `�uidance to ensure that aircraft of varying performance capabilities avoid, as much as possible, populated areas en-route to their destinations o� Runway 17 Flight Tracks �----__��. Goal - ----__`�„�1i Reduce noise impact within the DNL 60 contour ----__�lii Avoid increased overflights of other communities � Maintain runway capacity �1Feasible implementation by FAA/ATC ---__�-`� Provide positive guidance to aircraft to reasonably follow desired flight tracks � Allows for possible future transition to FMS/GPS navigation — ;�} Runway 17 Flight Tracks � West Flight Tracks - Turn Point �: Turn point can be designated as part of a Departure Procedure (DP) for a specific heading, and as part of an FA.A order for use by ATC � Use of turn points may result in a slight decrease in runway capacity in order to insure adequate aircraft separation �r Provide positive guidance of aircraft, using existin� technology � Future use of GPS/FMS should be considered as the ` technology evolves : �� -'�` f � . �{� rl . .T �`w• . i:.i .��• 1y5 .�� `, �,�,��J:�`� 3�-.� , �', ++ . • . _��` : :1'r;sr:.� _ ' .. ��. h.'� .!!�- . . � � �j � ` �. � T�F "�'F..,. w��>J � / , : .: �'. _,'`,� �,� � . �.M �, �w�,}��w,'a�f,''a'/��Sy 'f �i `"1 +� T�5 ' �+ �'.�..,�. �i� '�'^t.• �.er,^.� . e++��. . � 4 / '�J .'.^.� �.. � ,�t/M1��,� � . � ��r`� r.. �'. �` �. �o ""' ?5.�:,•'�� y?`�:.(`�:r5'-.�.; _ �t:::. ^; �'��' � . , �,%- ' �1� � ^."'�t-. .`t1ry � �'� i • �' :' ' I .:. ♦.'��' ^;.: .:1r �.. ,� ��•��J� r x' `� y' b�� V f , •l � �.rt - 4 � ":.,r. .:'S • :. � � �i %ri., '� :3p� y ,)y"- �F '�,,• �n i KL('� . �""'i1'� a .,a. ,-' . 1� t' .,..,'.y,��:..��, ;.,�T . 't �' .. .. .� . .1 ;.'��.. `�M �ti �ii� �W..r�'.nei -..�- . "" .� nn- F7 �. __ �+ Runwa 17 Fli ht Tracks ...� g Y ----__�u MASAC Operations Committee Endorsement_ �----__�j 105° fan - from Track A to Track E(from 095° to 200°) • Population impact as compared to tYie 2005 Unnutigated DNL Contour • DNL 70 dBA contour - approximately 190 people deleted . � DNL 65 dBA contour - approximately 230 people added • DNL 60 dBA contour - approximately 1030 people deieted -� Total change - approximately 990 people deleted from 60+ DNL contour :�' Runway 17 Flight Tracks ;� MASAC Operations Committee May 12, recommendation � Implement 105° Fan !�; Reduces population within the DNL 60 contour � Avoids increased overflights of other communities i� Turn Points allow aircraft to turn to westerly destination ` headin�s at higher altitudes and over less populated areas � At the June 9, MASAC Operations Committee meeting, FAA expressed concern about the method used to define the turn points. � HNTB, MAC and FAA are currently working to establish an FAA Air traffic control acceptable turn point methods that maintain the intent of the committee's recornmendation. - 10 ('. � -� If1AC ._ •. � ., � , � . / �Recommended Low Demand Flight Tracks �. Flight track priorities and procedures for use by ATC ` that minimize impacted population, for use in low- demand periods (typically at night) � Action g2equested �_ Endorse the use of the above recommended Low Demand Flight Tracks 12 C C � - :.. �...� Land Use Measures [�I LUl : Amend local land use plans into compliance with Me�opolitan Council's Noise Compatibility Guidelines: Met Council, MAC and MASAC have developed language which designates the DNL 60 as the land use planning standard for the application of preventative and correcrive land use measures. � LU2: Zone for comparible development: based on the Met Council land use planning language. Communities adopt zonina classifications and ordinances consistent with metro land planning act. Communiries may urilize Met Council's Model Ordinance for Aircraft Noise Attenuation. . ;�y LU3: Apply zoning performance standards: model ordi.nance for. Aircraft Noise Attenuarion was prepazed by Met Council to assist corrununiries in implementing the land use comparibility guidelines. . �...� Land Use Measures (�ontinuea.) � LU4: Continue Public Informarion Program: Met Council is updating the 1989 Builder's Guide; Use state-of-the-art technology when available such as Interactive ANOMS repons and Internet technolosies. � LU�: Revise Buildine Code(s): Support efforts of Met Council to revise local and state buildine codes as needed to ensure interior noise reduction based on ad��anced building techniques; Use Met Council's Performance Standard of 4� dBA interior noise level for new� residential construction in the aircraft noise zones. �, LU6: Acquire developed property in non-compatible use: Continue proeram in coordination with other mitigation measures: Carry forward from the 1992 Part 150 Proeram — acquisition at the initiarive and approval of local jurisdiction, reasonable consensus among residents for acquisition, eligible properties located within 6� dBA DNL contour. 13 ...� .�:..� Land Use Measures (�ontlnued� ;�? LU7: Property Purchase Guarantee: develop measure in coordination with other mitigation measures; program was not used from 1992 Part 150 Program but is carried forward for eligible properties within 65 dBA DNL contour; Properiy would be purchased, converted to comparible use or insulated and returned to residential use with appropriate easements. � LU8: Sound Insularion Program: conrinue program in coordinarion with other mirigarion measures; sound insularion packages will be considered at future meetings. ;_yi LU9: Crearion of Sound BuffersBarriers: consists of combined use of sound barrier walis and /or bemis and natural landscaping to reduce noise from aircraft-related noise; only assists local communities imniediately surrounding MSP Land Use Measures :� Recommended Land Use Measures � LU 1: Amend local land use plans to bring them into compliance with Metropolitan Council's Noise Compatibility Guidelines � LU2: Zone for compatible development ;� Lli3: Apply zoninQ perfomlance standards � LU4: Continue Public Information Program ;E LU�: Revise Buildin� Code(s) � LU6: Acquire developed property in non-compatible use � LU7: Property Purchase Guarantee ` LU8: Sound Insulation Proeram � LU9: Creation of Sound BuffersBarriers Action Requested � Endorse the Nine (9) land use measures listed above for ` the Part 150 Update. 14 C :+� Recommended Noise . �' }�� Abatement Pro am ----__�jli Implement � �----__�Distant Noise Abatement Departure Profiles for a11 runways �----__�Preferred Runway Use Systern (RUS) ----__�li Low-Demand Flight Tracks � Nine (9) Updated Land Use Measures Preliminary Recommended ��°��'�� Noise Abatement Pro ram. -.: Population impact as compared to the 2005 Unmitigated DNL Contour =y DNL 70 dBA contour - approximately 260 people added � DNL 65 dBA contour - approximately 320 people added � DNL 60 dBA contour - approximately 11,300 people deleted L�Total change - approximately 10,720 people, and 4,290 dwellings, deleted from 60� DNL contour 15 ;ecommended �u��ieazooso��c�,ro� ; 7EYIt if8�T3R1.. '... � �., ;; -J �1°Il^�' Mltiyated�05 ONLConrow' � � ; � � � � ��s o� � � 12, Z000 s�� COI� I�TICATI�NS � VISC�l�Y BCi , I��ETII��G , _ , , _ _ . , - . . � ;,� .:.. , ; � . , .., - . , . �. : , __ - � _. _ . . , . .;:. . . .. . . _. .. x' i 1 . _ f _ +:f :. :... .: .. " �� ;; � . �. . � �'. . v . . . ..i. . . �..:: .. � ... .:, . r . - ! . ..'. �_..�::- . - �'� . . ._�-.t. .. i �.. . `! � . . ..,.. .. .. . .. .. , .. - ... . , , ��:. .:.. ��' I: . :�' .�i':, t ' �' . . ...'.' ._ 1: . �'.; �:� � _ �� ' " I 1 f 5i: r �' - - 1 l' `f I I �' ( S' 1'. 1� MINUTES MASAC COMMUNiCATIONS ADVISORY SOARD July 12, 2000 The meeting was held at the Metropolitan Airports Commission Small Conference Trailer and called to order at 3:30 p.m. The followin� members were in attendance: Mernbers• Dick Saunders Minneapolis Dean Lindberg Minneapolis Advisorv• Chad Leqve MAC AGENDA Approval of tlte Mi�iutes The minutes of the June 14, 2000 meeting were approved as distributed. i' � Review 3rd Ouarter Newsletter Corite�it i Members reviewed possible 4thrd quarter newsletter topics. The following topics �vere chosen: 1. Government Accounting Office (GAO) Report to the U.S. Congress on the FAA's role in major airport noise programs. Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, said he had received the report recently and thoujht it ��ould be an interesting topic. There was some discussion as to whether it was the complete report or if it was a preliminary report. The members agreed that it would make for an interesting topic. 2. Part 1�0 Update: GPS Assessment Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, noted that a GPS Assessment for MSP is bein� completed and that the MASAC Operations Committee would be discussing the assessment at its July 14, 2000 meeting. He also explained the reasons for includin� a GPS assessment in the Part 150 Update. Members a�reed it would be a timely topic under the Part 150 Update. 3. Part 150 Update: Contour Boundary De�nition Multi-family and Single Family Prioritization Insulation Packages MASAC is expected to make decisions re�arding these items within the next t��o to three months. These topics are also very important to the generai populace. The topic of the south parallel temporary extension was discussed, as well. It was decided that this topic would be more timely during either the first or second quarter of 2001. Members also discussed a suj�estion made by Neil Clark, Minneapolis, to publish a monthly, daily or weekly noise reading, somewhat like a temperature reading, in the newsletter. Members a�reed that it would not be necessary or prudent to publish this type of information due to the difficulty in defining the number, the limited space in the newsletter and the fact that the noise monitoring data can be found either in the Technical Advisor's Report or on the Internet. The next meetina of the Communications Advisory Board will be held September 13, 2000 at 3:30 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Melissa Scovronski, Secretary . . � � � ' • � � ' • � � � � ' I, ' PLEASE COMPLETE THIS FORM AS ACCURATELY AND THOROUGHLY AS POSSIBLE AND ATTACH ANY LETTERS OR FORMAL RESOLUTIONS. Date: Name: Address: Phone: On whose behalf are you requesting?: Yourself City Council Mayor Citizen Organization Other Is this a one-time request? Yes or No Beginning Ending If no, what is the expected time frame for this request? tp Which of the following best describes the nature of your request: (Circle all that apply) Ground Noise Overflights Run-Ups Contours Part 150 Other PLEASE WRITE OUT YOUR REQUEST HERE AND/OR ATTACH ANY LETTERS OR FORI�ZAL RESOLUTIONS. - over - . . � � � ,' • 1 • _' . �, � � � '' Please send your request via mail to: MASAC Secretary, 6040 28th Avenue S., Minneapolis, MN 55450 or fax it to: (612) 725-6310. C MASAC NEWSLETTER INPUT FORM Date: Name: Address: Phone: E-Mail: Proposed article topic: On whose behalf are you requesting? (please check one and explain where necessary): Yourself ❑ City Council � Mavor ❑ Citizen ❑ Name: Organization � Name: Other ❑ Name: Circle the desired publication date: 2"d Qrt. 2000 3rd Qrt 2000 4`h Qrt. 2000 1S` Qrt. 2001 Reason for request: Please provide a description of the article's focus and content: Please send your request via mail to: 1vlA�Ac.. �ecre�a, r•, vv�,� ��u A��+LY�. ..,.� Minneapolis,l��IN �5450 or fax it to: (612) 725-6310. C c� E� � 0 L-' � V1 � � � � � Mss� � 0 � � Q � U Oo ...� O G, o N O N � � ^ � � � � � � C/1 " z� .� Q � � � O CJ� , � � i� � � .. � N O t!) � N Q � C.. C� � � a� � � C � '� . ^ � t,., .^.. O °�° 3 F' � o � � � Q � VI � � � � ^� V] r1q � � � � � V � � � •� � f/1 !� � � O y � � � � O M V Q I(� L r:l � Q Y�d � � r O .... .rr O � _ CJ L • � C � ° = O �' �j O O � „� � � L C� U C.+ c= � � � O i„ , � � � ^ ` � . O � C,�j � ,,' •^, � � U � � � � -� ° C� � � — ;, O O c c� _ �, o '� � � c � � U ��-. � � �.a � c C. � � �- � 3 � ` O v � � r �„ r ,., y v � � � c 'v �"' ,,^ v� V"i . _ eT c� +� � h � � � � v� G/� N 0 ?� O d- "' rV y N '� � RS _ "� c'3 � � � � r � h C � � � y� 1�1 c.., = C N O � ` � cn � _ p ¢ -- � �n � N M t�'s "'" � e� M 0�0 N N .. � 0 V y H � U � � O O O O O O O O O p O O O O O� O O� p,y tn f'�1 M w 00 d' � t"� Q1 M� M 01 � N N r- � N M M M � Ef? E/3 G/�! 64 69 bA 64 69 td4 L � � � �..� ii C/1 N v�i o o � U�� ~ i. �t v'i a d' O O�ri vs o0 � e3 64E+9��bN46N9��i � � r r� !f O N �a � � N O � � M c 0 � v � O " � ':� � O V C ~ L � ~ y V � � � L:a O s�., � V � �:a � �,] •.� '� � � G Q O O U "" " � � � 0 � � 0 � � � 0 � x� x� x� x x 01 M O� M N C� N o0 �J'' M �f' O� d' O rY ��n �O .-• N N 00 O 00 �(� d' ._: � � � fir , � a d L N M'd' �n � t� 00 O� C7 E-� � C� O� Q� G'� O� Q� Q� O� O �U G� Q� Q� O� Q� tT O'� O O � _ � � � � � _ �� {; - ��? ,.�- d.._e .,__ __,., :,�� _ .. - . ..... �~ __ ..:n _.___._. w � �r,: - - � �^ - - - �4�- :�;,k:�+ i�' a.s ;� F��.s �� A ,�� 6Ns �� .. ' , �. �° MASAC = �\ ��' � Metropolitan Aircraft Sound . � � Abatement Council Minneapolis/Si. Paul International �irport MASAC Members ctia�,man: Cherles Mertecuotto (Mendofa Heighut Firsr Vice Chairmarr: John Nelsoo Bloomington) MASAC Operatinns Commiaee Chairman and Secnnd Vrce Chaimran: John NeLsot� (Bloomington) Airbome Express: a� eec� ALPA: Ron Johnson CiN of Blonmington: Petrona Lce Vero Wilcmc City of Bumsvi!!e: Charies Van Guilder Ciry of Eagan: Jamie Verbrugge I.ance srs.;chs Citv of !»ver Grove Heighrs: Chnrles Egintoo Cirv of Mendora Heights: Jill Smit6 Kevin Batchelder City of Minneapnlis: Barret Lane n� �a�� Jce Lee cae� st�a Sandra Cdvin Roy Mike Cramer Cirv of Richfield Kristal Stokes na..� we�r�� Cirv of St. Louis PanF Robert Andrews CiR ofSt. Paul: John Ha11s Ciry of Sunfish Lake: cynch;a Putz-Yang Delra Airlines Inc: �r ��s DHL Airways: Brian Simonsoo Federal Espress: • John Sc6ussler MAC Stajf.• Roy Fu6rmann MSAA: Robert P.Johnson Mesaba Nnrthwest Airlink: Phil Burke Narrhµ�est Airlines: ,Iennifer Sayre Mary Loeffelhotz Steve Holme Nancy Stoudt St. Pau! Chamber njCommerce: Rolf Middleton Sun Cnunrn• Airlines: Gordon Graves United Airlines lnc.: Kevin Black United Parcel Sen�ice: Michael Gever U.S. Airwavs lnc.: Lam Yandle MASAC Advisors Merrnpoliran Airports Cnmmissinn: Chad Leqve Metrapolimn Airpnrts Cummiscinn: Commissioner Alton Gasper Federal Aviatiun Adminisrrarion: Ron Glaub Cindy Greene Air Trm7spnrtation Assnciati��n: Paul McGiaw MNAirNarinnal Guard: Major Roy J. Shetka U.S. Air Farce Resen�e: Captain David J. Cerken Srrretan•: Me(issa Scovronski Metropolitan Airports Commission Declaration of Purpose 1.) Promote public welfare and national security; serve public interest, convenience, and necessity; promote air navigation and transportation, international, national, state, and local, in and through this state; promote the efficient, safe, and economical handling of air commerce; assure the inclusion of this state in national and international programs of air transportation; and to those ends to develop the full potentialities of the metropolitan area in this state as an aviation center, and to correlate that area with all aviation facilities in the entire state so as to provide for the most economical and effective use of aeronautic facilities and services in that area; 2.) Assure the residents of the metropolitan azea of the minimum. environmental impact from air navigation and transportation, and to that end provide for noise abatement, conuol of airport area land use, and other protective measures; and 3.) Promote the overall goals of the state's environmental policies and minimize the public's exposure to noise and safety hazards around airports. Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council Statement of Purpose This corporation was formed in furtherance of the general welfare of the communities adjoining Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport - Wold- Chamberlain Field, a public airport in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, through the alleviation of the problems created by the sound of aircraft using the airport; through study and evaluation on a continuing basis of the problem and of 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, ar by reason of their status as airgort users, have a direct interest in the operation of the airport. Such members will be called User Representatives and Public Representatives, provided that the User Representatives and Public Representatives shall at all times be equal in number. This report is prepared and printed in house by Chad Leqve, ANOMS Coordinator and Shane VanderVoort, ANOMS Specialist questions or comments may be directed to: MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airpo�t 6040 28�' Avenue 3outh Minneapolis MN, 55450 Tel: (612) �25-6328, Fax: (612) 725-6310 MAC Environment Department Home Page: www.macavsat.org The Airport 24-hour Noise Hotline is 726-94 ( L Complaints to the hotline do not result in changes in airport ac'tiviry, but provide a public sounding board aad airport information outlet. The hotline is staffed during business hours, Mondati� — Fridati. Metropolitan Aircrafr Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Table of Contents for June 2000 - Complaint Summary Noise Complaint Map FAA Available Time for Runway Usage � 3 MSP All Operations Runway Usage MSP Carrier Jet Operations Runway Usage � MSP Carrier Jet Fleet Composition 6 MSP All Operations Nighttime Runway Usage MSP Carrier Jet Operations Nighttime Runway Usage 7 -- 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 Carrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events 16 Carrier Jet Departure Related Noise Events 1� 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 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report MSP Complaints by City June 2000 Number of Ntunber of °l� of Total City Arrivai Departare Compiain�s ..' Complainants CompIaints Bloomingcon i k �' 16 ( 1` 18 14 I 1 1.2% $urns�•ille � 0 � 0 1 E 4 � 1 I 2 0.3�Ia � Circle Pines 0 � 0 1 '0 ' 1 1 � 0• O.l�/o Fagan � � 0 32 C 0 ` 76 30 ( 0 4.9% � 0 1 1 ( � 0.1% Eden Prairie 0 ; � 1 � Edina 1 � 0- 9 � 2'. `:_:`. l� 10 2 0.890 Falcon Heishts 0 E � 2 � 0'; °'' 2 1 � O.l�10 Inver Grove Heights I 38 � 0 61 �. �:',:' 99 18 I p 6.4`7c Lal:e Elmt� I � i. 0 6 � �.-' .. 10 1 �:,: 4 0.6°Io � I�taple Csove t1 � � �� 0 � 1 I. . p 2?�l0 f Mendota Heights � 3 f' 0 32 � 7j 23 ( 1 4.8�Io � P -� - 178 i7? ( 194 : 1049 270 31 68.0°le Minnea olis 10� Minnetonl;a 0 `0' 1 ( '0 1 1 � ` p O.l�lc Plymouth 0 � 14<, . 1 0 l� . 1 2 1.0�Ie Kichtield 0 � 2.; ;.. 42 l 45 30 2.-; 2.9°Ic S�. Anthony ' 1 � �.. 0 � 1 1 � 0.. O.l�/o St. L,ouis Park '_y 1 1 ( 1 32 11 2 2.190 S�. Paul ' �� 0 18 f � 40 21 ,..,..;� ... : 2.6% I West St. Paul I 0 I � 2� ( 2 27 3 2 iJ�/o T��tal �5=� l{i89 1543 �8� _ 1{!(l.Q% ! \ature of �ISP Corr�}�laints ( Time oPDay ; Complaints b�� Airpo�t � ; � Coniplaint Total Time I Total Airport � Tot�tl fixc:essive N��ise I �t)9 376 IXXX)-O��y ��) � MSP i 1549 f arl}'/1 1t� ! � i� 33 tXi(X) - 06i�) -�-3 2; Airlalce () I�,w E�h•u�g i �) ib 07(X)- 11>�) �6:� 10'� Anoka ; 8 S�ru�iural Ilist. � � ' 3 1?(X)- l�S�) 1-�7 3� Crys[al ' 1 I iclicciptcr O � 16(X) - 19i9 12i{} 61 Flying Cioudl � (R��und i�i�iti� ; 1 ?(xX)-'_1�9 '`'� � 78 Iake Elrrx� ; 0 In��inetlun-u� � O 0 ??(X)-"i�) 1?7 � St.Paul ' 2 l�reyucn�}� ; �; 14 Uth�r �� 0 ��a�_�3�y 7.} SO Misc. ? 7'i►tal 1;.�9 T�►tal ! 15=19 '1'i►ta1 1567 Note: 9�acl�d Columns represent MSF' complaints filed via t6e Internet A Praduct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program � p �� Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisors Report � O N u� � a� � O �- � � C� � '� .,.a ,—� i� C`� ' r tp > .� O�4� G� � � N O � � o � ;� � � � ; ia A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Available Time for Runway Use June 20t}0 (FAA Runway Use Logs) june 2Qtli1 Faa .�irp��rt 7'rut�ic Recurd Cuunts 1999 Dail�� Cc�unts Air Cairier 75? 770 C'c,mmu[er 3fx) 3J� ( � C.i�:neral Avi�tiun � 3i! 38� ��— M ilit arv 11 10 'C��tnl � 1=1?3 � 1 S 18 A I'rc�ciuct of the Me[ropc�litan Airports Commission ANOMS Pragram 3 Metropotitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's 12eport All Operations Rundvay Use IZeport June 2000 � � _ -; : . . , , Last;;Year ` Last : .: . . , ArrivaV Caunt ' Caunt _. ;: Year .. , _ - .. , _: : , . � RW�r' De � rture OverBi htArea O'`raiians Percent (J ratians Percent -� Arr � So. RichfiekUBbomin on � 140 0.79� 119 0.69� I'_t. ' Are So. Minnea lis/No. Richfieki � 4?65 ?0.19� 6298 31.0% 1?R ' /�rr ' Si�. Minnea lis/No. Richfieki � 4319 20.4�7� 4753 � 23.49� ?`' Arr St. YauUHiQhland Park i R3 0.49c 130 0.69c �UI. An• L'•a�an/Mendi�ta Hcishts ! 6191 29.29� 390� 19.3`Ic �()K An Eaoan/Mendcxa Hei�hts � 620:i 29.29c 5085 25.I�Io Ti�tal ArriFaIs 212(11 1t1{!.i}�7o 2t}�9t1 1i}(1.(E% -� Uc St. Paul/Hi�hland Park 29 0.19c 1�3 0.79� 1�'I. Ur Eaaan/Mendota Heiahts i 4?� ?0.5"/c 5730 ?8.$°Ic 1?IZ U� F:aQan/Nlendota HeiUhts � ��3 21.59c 303 1.5�Ic �' I)c Su.l2ichfieki/Bkx�min�ton ! 407 2.0�/� 7837 3y.4�7c �()I. I)c So. Minnea lis/No. Rirhtieki i >9?5 28.59� I15? ( S.K9� _�UIZ 1)� 5��. Minnca lis/�tc�. Rirhtieki ' S6y7 27.4"/c 4747 �?3.KcIc Tc�tal De artures 2t}?i9 1U(},{}�/0 19912 111U.{t�lc �, Tutal fJperatitfns �19St1 4420Z 4 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�ram Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Carrier Jet Operations ' � 12unway Use Report June 2000 � Last :Year Last : ArrivaU Count . Count ; Year:, ;: ,. = <.: ' .. .:: :. ;;:: � Rt�i�'� De artur� O�e ' ht Ar+ea C3 "rations Percent 4 rations Percent 4 � Arr ' So. Richfieki/Bk�ominaton 108 0.7�7c 95 0.79'0 ' 1?L � An ; So. Minnea lis/No. Richfield 2927 19.39� 5017 34.8�10 12R � Arr ` So. Minnea lis/No. Ric:hfieki 3??S ?1.29� 2907 � 20.2�I� 22 ' Arr ' St. Paul/Hi�hland Park � 54 0.4�� 99 0.790 30I, ' �,rr Ea�an/Mendota Hei�hts � 4f09 30.39� 2185 � 15.1�1c 30R A�- Eaaan/Mendota Hei��hts � 4?78 ?8.1�7� 4109 28.59c Tatal:�rrivals 1i2()1 1Q1}.{i�I'c 14�12 1{i(}.1}�70 I7ep St. Paul/Hi�hland Park � 12 0.19� 100 0.790 I)e , F.aaan/Mendota Hei hts � 2935 19.69� �163 29.2�Ic Uc Eaaan/Nlendota Hei�hts � 3328 �??.3�I� RO 0.6�0 I�c So. Richf'�eki/Iik�minaton j 2Q0 1.3i'� 5837 41.09c l�c So. Minnea lis/No. Richiieki � 4717 31.69c 471 ( 3.3�Ic I�e Su. Nlinnea lis/l�'c�. Rirhtieki i 37>4 �?>.1�7c 359� �?5.?9� Tot�l De itrtures 1�t9�6 1(}�}.{t°7c 142=�fi 1{iU.l}°la 1'o tal Ope rations 301 �7 28b�R A Prc�uct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�ram 5 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report June 20001VISP Carrier Jet Fleet Cornposition F�R Part 36 Take ( T� g dff Noise Level �� Descri tion S e Caunt Percent ' B7�? I 110.0 Boeing 747-�00 3 172 � 0.690 B7-�l 109.-� Boeine 747-100 3 41 0.1�/� DC$ 10�5 ( McDonnell Dou las DC8-�00/600 � 2 0 0.0�70 ! B7�3 I 10� � Boein� 747 _300 I 3 48 i 0.2�/c DC10 � 103.0 McDonnell Dou2las DC10 ; 3 1142 ' 3.89� i B727 ' 102.4 Boein 727-200 � 2 0 O.O�Ic � B7� � 101.6 Boein� 747-400 � 3 3 � O.O�Ic DCSQ 100a �McDonneli Douglas DC$ (Modified Stg. 3j� 3 233 i 0.89c i L101 i 99.3 L.ocl�eed L-1011 3 0 i O.O�Io i IX'9 ; 98.1 � McDonnell Dou las DC9 ? 0 O.O�Io I B7i2 j 97.7 Boeine 737-� i 2 0 i O.O�i'c � BA I 1 � 97.0 � British Aeros ace (BAC� 1-11 I ? 0 � 0.0�7� i A�0 I 96.? Airbus Induscries A340 I 3 0 i 0.0% MD11 � 95.� � McDonnellDouelas MD11 � 3 � � O.O�Ic. j B763 9�J Boeing 76?-200/300 � 3 � I 0.0�1� i I7C87 94S McDonnell Dou las DC8-700 I 3 24 I O.I�Ic B7�Q I 94 i � Boein 727 (Moditied St . 3) � 3 3952 I 13.1�1e B77? i 94.3 � Boeine 777 � 3 0 I 0.0�7� A�()6 9�.0 ( Airbus Industries A300B4-600 j 3 98 ! 0.3�70 F2� ' 9?.9 Fo1:l:er ZH "��empt trom A\CA t< ��.000 ms.i ( 2 141 � O.i9c A310 i 92.9 Airbus Industries A310 I 3� 12 I 0.0% � B7;Q ; 92.1 Boeine 737 (Modifred Ste. 3) � 3 929 � 3.1�/c MD2� � 91.i NicDonneil Dou�las MD-80 � 3 943 3.19c E37�? ! 91.� � Boeine 757-200 � 3 3068 � 10.2% [X'�)Q ' 91.0 IMcDonneil Dauelas DC.9 (Mod�ed Sto. 3)i 3 9322 ( 30.99� B7;-� i 8;�.9 � Boeins 737--�00 ' 3 77 I 0.2�/0 q3?p I �7.� � Airbus Industries A320 3 48i4 � 16.1%a B738 ! 87.7 � Boein 737-800 � 3 2 i O.O�/c B735 87.7 Boeing 737-�W i 3 426 1.4�0 ._ B7�7 87.5 Boeina 737-700 ' 3 2 i 0.0°/n E37;� j 87.� � Boein� 737-300 3 811 2.7°Ia r��1�) ' �7.� ; Airbus Industries A319 3 631 ! 2.19c BA-�fi � 8-�.9 � British Aeros ace 14fi � 3 18� ; 6.1�Ic E371� ' y3.0 Boein� 717-?(� 3 261 ' 0.9�/c E�l(X) St.1 � E�ol:l�r ICX) � 679 � 2.3�Ie 1•:l-�� Y1.� i E?rnhracr 1-�� 3 li7 O.i�Ic - - - - - _ _ _ ---- - ---- --- 1�7O �iU.l � Fokker 70 3 2 0.090 C'ItJ I 7�).�S � Canadair Reeic�nal Jet 3 274 0.9�70 T«tals I :.3(11�7 ( Ii?tl.{}�lc --- . . -Count Curre�t � Last Years tit:�r II I-tl 0� �%c � 129�'c Scasc tII 1=1=136 47.9°In ; 36.8°Ie �ca�e III ManuFac�ured 1�570 i1.6�Io � SO.3°Ie "I�nt�l Sta;;e 11( 30Qi16 99.�r'c 87.1 C'c Note: Smge tll represent aircraft modified to meet all stage IIl criteria as outlined in Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 36. This Includes hushkit engines, engine revofits oraircraft operational flight configurations. __. __ •The Provided Nuise levels from FAR Part 36 aze the loudest levels documen[ed per aircraft rype during take-off ineasured in EPNL dBA (Effective Perceived Noise Level). •EPNL is the level of the time integral of [he antilogarithm of one-tenth of tone-corrected perceived noise level of an aircraft flyover measured in A- weiehted decihels. 6 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program Metropolican Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Nighttime All Operations 10:30 p.m to 6:00 a.m. ' Runway Use Report June 2000 . ,. : _ ;: _ 'Last Year - Last. : , _ .. ::. ArrivaU ''.. . ; _ ... :: ' Count . . Count � : Year - < - ;: : .. � h A p� p t p `t•�,,,� : po,,,,o„�- i R��Y' De artur� C)ve � t rea e ons ercen ra i I � � Arr � So. Richfieki/�3kx�minQton � 74 5.2% 90 ki 3 ' 1?L � Arr So. Minnea lis/No. Ric:hfiekl 107 7.59c 370 I?R � Arr ' So. Minnea lis/No. Richfield 244 ]7.19� 49 ?? An- St. Paul/Hishland Park 20 1.49c 45 �OI. ; Arr Ea�an/Menduta Heiohts � 5�1 38.09� 81 �()R Arr � Eaaan/Mend�>ta Heiahts ( 439 30.89� _510 Tptal:�rri�'als 1�2� 1()!}.{)�/e 1145 I�c St. Fau]/Hi�hland Park � 8 0.6�I� 29 U� EaQan/Mendota Heiahts � ?66 20.79c _>17 Uc Eaaan/Mendcxa Hei��hts � 2R� �??.19� ?0 I�e So. Richtieki/�3kx�minaton � 63 4.9�`Ic 400 Ue Su. Minnea lis/No. Ric:htieki � ?90 2'_.6i'c 77 Ue Sc�. Minnea li.s/Ne�. I2ichfieki � 374 29.19� 376 Total De • ures � 128� 1(}I}.{►°I'c 1�119 Total4aerarions � 27IA =56� 7.9cIo 32.3�7� 4.3°Ic 3.99c 7.1�'Ic 44.5�'Io 1 {}(1.i) %n 2. l �70 36.4�'Io 1.4�Ic 28.2c1c 5.4°Io 26.590 li}t}.1}% A Prcxiuct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Proaram ' 7 _ Metrogolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report � . �; ., .�!' ., 1 �: �` 1 i 1 �� .' � � . �, �� . '') � � Arri�•aU R�VY De rtuc� 4 , An• I?I, Arr 1?R ' Arr '_"' Arr 30I . n rr �(.)R Arr , , ... : , . : ., - _;Last:Year. �Last. ,. _ , ;.:; ; ; Count : : � ; Count ". '; Year . : . � � . _ ; �: �::�:- OverIli ht Area Q rations Periee�nt U rations Percent So. Richfield/Bkx�minaton Cr� 5.5"/c 7? 7.89'0 So. Minnea lis/No. Richtieki 87 7.59� 323 34.7�0 So. Minnea lis/No. Richfield � 208 17.8�I� 39 4.2�10 St. I'auUHiahland Park � 9 0.89'� 32 3.4�/c FaQan/Menciota HeiQhts j �36 37.4�I� 52 5.6% EaQan/Nlendota Heiehts � 361 I 31.0% 412 44.3�Ic Ttrtal � rriv als [)cp St. PauUHighland Park 1)�p Ea�ari/Mendota Hei�hts I)�p Eaaan/Mend�ta Heights Uc;p So. RichtiekUBkx�mington I)�� So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield U�p Su. Minneape>lis/No. IZichtieki Tot�d Departures "I'ot��! Oaerations 1165 0 149 198 �9 ?41 21R 8�� 3�1Q 1t)t).(} �I'c 0.09� 17.6C/c ?3.S�Ic 4.6c1r 28. S�Ic 25.89� 1(N}.{t_rI'e . 93{} 1{►(}.4} %n lb ?.090 349 32.1 �Io 13 1.6�'/c 292 26.69� 53 6.6�'Ic 270 31.19� 9y3_ 1{►f).!}:%a 1923 8 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�ram Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report June 2000 Top 15 Actual lotighttime Jet ()perators by '�ype ' 10:30 p.m to 6:00 a.m Aidine ID ' S e T Caunt American AAL 3 F100 46 ( American AAL 3 MD80 28 Airbome ABX 3 DC8Q 18 Airborne ABX 3 DC9 33 America West AWE 3 A320 45 Cha ion CC.P 3 B72Q 27 ComA'v COM 3 CRJ 1 5; � Delca DAL 3 B72 30 Deita DAL 3 MD80 � � FedF�c PDX 3 A306 3� � FedFx FDX 3___ _�_ A310 3 ' FedEx FDX I 3 I B72 27 FedE�c FDX 3 DC10 22 Total Nightiime Jet FedEx FDX 3 MD11 1 j Nour I cou,it I ??30 � 611 I � � I �3(X) � 661 , _, �,� ; � �6� i 1(X) 6? I 2(� 18 3(X) 1 � � -�(� 9y i(X) ?8-� : '1'O'1:41. � 20l U � Mesaba MES 3 BA46 36 � Nonhwest NWA 3 A319 32 , Nonhwest NWA 3 A320 400 Nonhwest NWA 3 B72 44 Nonhwest NWA 3 B742 3 Nonhwest NWA 3 B744 1 � Northwest NWA 3 B752 277 • Nc�rthwest NWA 3 DC10 4 i Nonhwest NWA 3 DC9Q 309 Rvan RYN 3 B72 96 j Sun Count � SCJC 3 B72Q 133 � 5un Count SCX 3 DC10 24 ' Trans World TWA 3 DC9Q 22 T'rans W��rld TWA 3 MD80 � t 1n ited [ tA I. ( 3 � B7?Q 2i 1 Jn ite�i UA L 3 B733 1 tJnite�i I)AI. 3 B73Q 14 t!ni[ed � t?AL 3 B7�2 13 LTPS UP5 3 B7�2 8 t tPS UPS ( 3 B763 1 � ITI'S � tJPS � 3 DCS 48 Vaneuard � VCT� � 3 � B73 39 Ti�tal 191(1 Note: The top 15 nighttime operators represent 95.0%of the total nighttime operazions. A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 9 � Metropolitan Aircraft SoundAbatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report June 2000 Nightti me Fl eet Stage Mi x for Top 15 Ai rl i nes 10:30 p.m to 6:00 a.m PF�V Q.4'�` Q.`� � GG4 G�� P�' tLp`�' �P �S 4,�.� ��'�.�P . J�„ti' .�45 ,�C��p Airline ■ Stage 2 D Sta.ge 3 � Manufactured Stage 3 � June 2000 Nighttime Fleet Stage Mu� For Top 15 Aidines 10:30 m. to 6:00 am. Manu�actured Airiine S e 2 S a+e 3 S e 3 Total AAI. 0 � 0 74 � 74 ABX 0 51 0 51 AWE 0 ; 0 ' 4S 45 CCP 0 I 27 0 27 CUM � 0 � 0 5> 5� »,�t. � o �c� � � �5 f�»� I o �� l � ss I tiW'A 0 ; 353 717 1Q70 , I�tt:S � 0 0 36 � 36 KYti 0 9h 0 y6 SCX � 0 1;3 ?4 � 157 � "I�WA � 0 � ?? � �� '� � U�I. � 0 �y 14 � �3 � Li 1'S � (:) �`i y i 57 I VCiI) � p 3y 0 � 3y j Tt�tal (} ( 865 � 1U�5 191(} � � , 10 A Prcxiuct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technica] Advisor's Report Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks Carrier Jet Operations - June 2000 Jun 1 thru 8, 2000 —�053 Carrier Jet Arrivals Jun 1 thru 8, 2000 — 4011 Carrier Jet Departures Jun 1 thru 8, 2000 — 282 Niahtzime Carrier Jet Arrivals Jun 1 thru 8, 2000 — 198 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures A Prcxiuet of the Metrc�politan Airports Commission ANOMS ProQram 11 tiT �Z.'�i'' .. . � .r. . .n.ht .. '� y.. ,. . � .. . . .��7�i1!..�'� "� � ��.� ... �!!� : -x. _� 5 r .�,�x�,� ��' �*• ¢ _ ,��'�� .�a '.'" � �h. ' .: . .�t:::�f ..n ''. Metropotitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks Carrier Jet Operations — June 2000 Jun 17 thru 23, 2(?00 — 3548 Carrier Jet Arrivals Jun 17 thru 23, 2000 — 3497 Carrier Jet Depanures Jun 17 thru 23, 2000 — 270 Nighttime Carrier Jet Airivals Jun 17 thru 23, 2000 —197 Nibhttinne Carrier Jet Departures A Prociuct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 13 � i:. c, •.�� Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report ;� Regnote lYlonitor�ng Tower Site L,ocations � Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System � ;�.��,` r= •:.� --�, ..� —T.�v._ � y - � � � � .µ/'��j.��,�'-..�{� ( '��'-a . M r. -----�__� -�""'�� (— -- . J �/� . � r �Y.' J,— y v'b'�' Y ' '� �"'^�.. /.,� / �1 � Y _ � _ _ � �_,� _ � --_ "�� _ _==-� ,,,�s � S _ ��'�.�' � .- - _ — — _ _ � 1, _ _ � : ( • . — -_ {-`�;_��` ` = _ ._.��_.__.__ _- �� f� ; �,�� . � _ _ _ti Y , - : ��` �, . �' _:-=,� tl -�'�.,�.-r_-y�'� — . — ��\ -""cv-�_ � _1 ,� ��= �'t_ i. : ' . . T � i -.....� ��'-��, '_'=-'r--__- - --- = i,.� f, -. 2 � `.�_� .`�`,--� _ -�nneapolLs— _� ��- .---�-�au --,.r�.`�1%� ; . - � —�.� �^- ,:,� �°=;7;-r__- � �; � -- �_.._...---. _�� .� a>/" �.�-� a . `, `.�. �--�.� �. /`��.• ___�� ---�—� ��_„ �—._� ` � f( �---� �`- i�`-�. _.� — - - - ='- a - �, _ ="' �� _ _ � . - -- - - _ �-:,�/ � _ _- I �' �_�----- . � _ �i .,,7 _ ,. �. �: _ ��.�! _ � ,� =�'- � ; � ll , � � } --1=�"� ��. -- -- _ ''-.-_ _ :�� ` '� {� ;, '•` _ }�.� ;;,.; -�= � � - �, _ - - �� l � x �_ - _ �: - _- � = ��: �: - _ : , � - ' � -�:,. - ��,,u : � -,,�=.-.�,� - - -_ _ _ - � f-�--. � -- --��.-�=':� :'' J�--- .�. �. `�--.�=- r �, _ _ _ -- _ __ - �._ - _ -- . _ --�- -`�.� in"; "•;- � � � — _ '`l`� .... -�� ,: �! ,/ /` - _ — ' - — — _� �, � ' -}—. '' b2 --�-�. �� ",: �- �'� �� ,i�.�� '},L._-- — — "-Jr2 '� J , t-: —=� —� '�� ' u �'is��--�--_•'�� , ' . ji��j�-�� . _ �-' -.i-6�. . "a� ......�: � - �"I l� ,.a':�� „�� .--=LY1GJ��0� _ - ..��•-,,•_ _' _ -- �.-�c�� ` 5 ` •yya��: �:.' � ,�-f� `�,�,� �.: �.- _ _ � _ ; ` � � �' .. � � �}� � � ,�=:Pi¢ S� , - - ,+,� ` ` - - �_ � � . ii . . L�� . _ . . _ ;�- ��•--- _t.j ' � ._•'! ' � �� - - _ . � , ' �---- --� ; ' �" .. -- � - — {' ,i. � ., c�;y� . � .• '��,; - _ �,_,...-. _ � 11 � � — : —.�l - —=�fi8 .,•Yr�-•L3 �:;�, " j 3 .,� �.,.�.,�. ,. ��,,c�,� �I2ic�fie�d=�� .,, � ��=��5,�- . _ -•{ , .- �-- .�--,�y� c-� ,---� _ a-. ` —: ; --�� 1 -�,`--_ �- --- `,`- j" � -'- � - .� �..---z-..._ . : _ L _ J � ' ' - - - - •;-' ' �, � .- r a'^"'b�_� : �ni i . ..... � _ _ : �� -� , y >- - _ . :>.�- �7 --- ---- _ - -- _ -- _ '- � - �` \' II `�r''v+�- �� _ V -• - - - _ _. � _ � _ _, _ - + - -- � , • --...� - '' �� n - - - - --- _ __- - �9 _ — _�� ` � _ ; — .,.... �; � � ,� � — _ ` �/i' '� J �-..-%� _ ._� _ �. , '3' � . ( _ y� Q ,- . .. J _ _ - .: _ . � r� : -: � _ . -�._ 'T � - - -- _ - _ - „ ._: _;. .. �_ ._:�._. �. _� I,%�n: - _ . - �i,'Y p�' _ _ _ _ � . , _ .—. . . . .. -,.: - •-' i�- - . • - ---' -`-'- - ----...___ � -- .,,_ ,r ' :%,' \ � r. C�- ------�-- - _ - .� , `� J""_'_— -r- ". . _ _ _�_ 4 - ;� �- . __ - - .�...� - � - . _� . _ ;., ' -- �--- - --- -- � - --�_ .' i• - — - ' �;. � °-.'...,�.. � ��, _ - --- =`$Ioomin ton-- '� . '; _ _ �� 5� `�Y� �-_:.. �� - - ,�:� , -- - -- g -- _ _ _ , � =- -- _:�'--_ '- � —=" -- _ - � - � �_� -. _ _._ -- _ .. _ ,�7 ' _ - - - - \• �-�a.-:. _ ` '�i_ .. . f r + __ � 1� ^ t r _,�_ - . .� _ i • �� _ ----_ _� -_ ,, /� - — - _ ti�`:-`M1 `�'�gan- -- ° �R" �'- }a�,�- -- - --. - _1 � . . _ �� - . -_� , �� -. � --� - �� .-- - -�- ',,'� .- _ --_ `"'��; __ __ _-- _;�•--.,::.� - ��.; . . - - j� _ : `- f � ;' � _ — � � �- _ J - � ° _ ...._ . ..: , _ _ _ . - '-,< .- -. � - i ._. ' _ _ •__ �. - - . , ' - - . ' - - _._ _ - - -�----- --� _ - _ -. - -- _ �:, _ — - . � .'� - - -- . - ` - . ' . . - �' -`:i `� - - - -= • _ —_"' • - - � - _ • __' M - ` i �— -- -- _ - ��4.— - � --- _ —'—.- _.• �r._. �.;, -" " � � - - . � . F -_ u� •• =.ti I'�'y-�i'� ,. - �---�=-s-%Y � - `' - -- • - - - - - ----- - -= 3 � r' __ y ._ - : _ -- � 'Sc`-- : _ •- _ _ _ _ =.,�� `��U �- - 't - _ --"- � .. - _ • � .. •• C_ S�:c.. e^ ' -_ �.� �, ; . ..�.�� - ._ ' �� ' _._ Y,I'��^ - �\�___ _ , - _ —'__ `, l - _.. : � �1 `� .�' .`i . _ � - . _ -- _ Fr. ' _. ' �...*: . � . •� '� � )— '�.+;;...�� ..,.--. ,� ' ' . ` ' - _ � .r' . �� 7 � �.` -- -'. � LeQend ('� ) " Remote Monitoring Tower A Prociuct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�ram 15 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Regort . . . � . . � � , . . . . ' ��1 _ ; .. ArrivaI `ArrivaI �rrival Ariival . RM.T ..: :' ,,� -:` .. ::� �: , : EYenf� �lEtients', :�Ei=ents E�ents :: , , :. _,.,. .- ID City , . . Addr+ess '>65dB... >SOdB' _.;>94dB >100dB ;. 1 Minnea alis � Xerxes Ave. & 41st St. 5008 ( 47 0 0 2 Minnea olis 1 Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 4208 310 3. 0 � 3 Minnea olis I West Elrrnvood St. & Beimant Ave. 4�W0 1643 15 0 =� Niinnea olis � Oakiand Ave. & 49th St. 4417 92? 3 0 5 Minnea olis 1?th Ave. & i�th St. 4689 3-�16 311 0 6 Minnea c�Lis I 2ith Ave. & �7th St. 4705 � ;750 S02 1 7 Richfield I Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. ?00 � 2 0 I 0 8 Nlinnea olis � I.on fellow A��e. & 43rd Sc. 13� 3 0 0 9 Sc. Paul � Sazato a St. & Hanford Ave. 103 � 47 � 0 I 10 Sc. Paul � Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 119 67 15 0 1 I Se. Pau! i ' Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 26 1 0 0 1? St. Paul i Al�on St_ & Roci.tivood Ave. 26 1 0 0 13 Mend��ca Hei�hcs � Sou[heast end of Muhican Coun 114 I� 3 � 0 0 l� Ea�an � lst St. & Mcl:ee St. 8379 97 0 0 1? Mendc�ca Heiohcs Cullon Se. & L.e:dneton Ave. 374 9 0 0 16 Easan j Avalon Ave. & V'ilas Lane 6�03 2598 12 1 j 17 Bloorrrin�tun � 8�th St. & 4th Ave. 182 �3 0 0 j 1� ( RichField ( 7�th St. & 17th Ave � 163 � 24 0 0 19 Blcx�rrrineton ! 16th Ave. & 84th St. 51 I 8 0 0 � ?0 Richtield 7�th St. 8� 3rd Ave. 20 � 2 � 0 0 � ? 1 Inver ('sdve I-{eishts ; Barbara A��e. & 67th St. ?S? 0 0 0 '?'' In��er C�rc�ve I-IeiUhts' Anne M�-ie Trail �-i71 j 129 79 0 ?� � Mendota F[ei�h�s Fnd of Kenndon Ave. ( 2y�4 � 27 ? 0 ?-� I F;:i�<u� Cha el Ln. � Wren In. ( 8'_43 ; 211 1 0 �� ! I:Ze�u� ivio��nshine Park I�?1 Jurdr' Rc1. i �x � 7 1 0 �'t5 ( ln�'erCir'c�ve f[ei��hts 6796Ari;ansas Ave. W. 1h90 i 2� 1 0 . -----_.�. - ------- __ `?7 � Minnca i�lis Anthany School �7�7 Irvine Ave. S. � 96 2 1 0 "+ �--- Richlield 6fr4� 16th Avenue S. I 4'?3 ! iO ? 0 � � ?�� i Minnea ulis Fricsson Elem-School431i 31st A��e. S. � 21 � 4 0 0 ! Ti1ta1 Arri�al Nnise E�:ents fi�33f} 13=�1$ 9�1) � 16 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Prosram ��. Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Carrier Jet Departure l�elated 1�loise Events June 2000 _ Departwre Departure Departure Departure RMT - :. ' _Events , :.� Events Events. , -,-Events ..;,. ;.,:.. _ . , _ _.: ; : : .:. - . . ,, . .. .. , ID City Address;; ` : >65dB . ° >80dB >94dB >100dB I I Minnea olis � Xerxes Ave. & 41st Sc. 1?9� � 280 0 0 2 Minnea ulis i Fremont Ave. &�3rd St. 1763 4�7 20 0 3 Minnea olis ( West Ef�rnvood St. & Belm�nt Ave. 34� 701 49 0 4 Minnea olis � Oakland Ave. & 49th St. 4336 � 1142 110 0 ; Minnea olis � 12th Ave. & 58th St. 7271 � 3006 7�2 19 6 Minnea olis � ?Sth Ave. & 57th St. 9027 � 3638 1480 248 7 Richfield Wentwonh Ave. & 64th St. 4547 � l�� 86 0 8 Minnea olis ( Lon rellow Ave. & 43rd S[. 3117 880 4? 0 9 St. Paul ; 5ara�oea St. & Hartford Ave. 80 ( 8 ' 0 10 St. Paul � Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 7� i i� 9 6 11 St. Paul I • Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 7Q � 14 i 0 12 St. Paui � Aicon St_ & Rockwood Ave. 69 ( 3 0 0 13 Mendoca Heishcs � Southeast end of Mohican Coun 2949 4'_'� 18 0 14 Eaean ( ist St. & Mckee St. 4268 I 1220 133 0 iS Mendo�a Heishts Cullon St. & I.exin ton Ave. 3�29 � 633 �0 0 16 Eaean � Avalon Ave. & V'ilas Lane 4116 ( 1624 4�1 0 17 Bic�orruneton I 84th St. & 4th Ave. 29? ( 92 43 0 18 Richt7eld i 7ith St. & 17th Ave 432 � 174 98 9 19 Bloorrrin�ton ! 16th Ave. & 84ih St. 278 � 10� � i � 20 Richfield ! 7��h St. & 3rd Ave. �j3 � ?3 Z 0 � ?1 InverGrove Hei�hts `:. Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 1j83 � 114 0 0 ' ?2 Inver Grove Heish�s ; Anne Marie Trail 1603 � 119 19 0 i ?3 Mendo�a Heiehts End of Kenndon Ave. 4t3» 1768 7�6 2 ?� E:� an Cha el Ln. & Wren Ln. �0 607 13 0 �'� f:a�an Moonshinc Park 13?1 Jurdv i2�i. � 2096 � 3; 1 0 ?6 [n�•erC'ac��•e fIei�hts 6796Arl::insas Ave. W. I 2_'�7 207 1 0 _'7 Minnea oGs Anthon � School �T7Irvin Ave. S. 3010 698 '_3 0 Z� Richtielc� C�r1i 16th A��enue S. i011 237 � 0 ?�J Minneapolis ' Fricsson.Elem.School43ti 31st Ave. S. 1791 2.36 3 0 i Total De rture Noise Events 771.1 l 200I5 411� ?81 A Prcxiuct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 17 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Top �'en Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP Jun-oo (RMT S �e# 1) Xerxes Ave. & 41 S` SL, M�neapolis Date/Ticre Flight Number Aucraft Type ArrivaU Runway De artute 6/2?J00 t 0:23 SCX715 B72 D 30L 6/ 16/00 9:53 NW A671 B72 D 30R 6/8/0012:19 Unimown Unlrnown A 12L 6/10/0018:30 NWA611 Unlrnown D 30L 6/ I 3100 23:47 NW A689 B72Q D 30L 6/M00 21:23 NW A689 B72 D 30R 6/210011:4'7 NWA619 B72 D 30R 6/ i$/00 I 1:37 NW A 1271 B72 D 30L 6/23/00 9S7 NW A 1061 A 12R 6/ 16/00 14:53 NW A675 B720 D 30R Date/Time 6✓29/00 20:04 6/27/00 8:07 6/8/00 12:20 6/16/00 9:17 6/ 18/00 7:41 �✓�sioo zo:2� 6/2 I /00 9:56 6J 19/00 16:51 6/30/00 9:11 G/2M00 1527 Date/Time 6/20/00 12:?4 6/23/00 8:00 6/2J00 1 d:�? 6/2J00 15:29 6/1/00 12:11 6✓30/00 20:03 6/ 17/00 7: I 5 6/5/00 l t :42 6/J00 15:40 6/?9/00 i 1:16 (ItMT Srte#2) Fremont Ave. & 43rd Si., Minn Flight Number Air�craft Type ArrivaU De artur DAL1683 B72 D UAL1473 B72Q D Unlmown Unlmown A SCX715 B72Q D UAL14�3 B72 D DAL1683 B72 D UAL1519 B72 D NW A 1046 A SCX715 B72 D NW A675 B72Q D (l2M'I' Site#3) West Ehnwood St & Behnont Ave., : Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU De arture NWA23 B742 D DAL941 B72 D SCX715 B72 D SCX748 B72Q D NWA23 B742 D DAL1683 B72Q D CCP 101 B72 D NW A 23 B742 D NWA83 B742 D SCX715 B720 D Runway 30R 30R 12L 30L 30R 30R 30R 12I.. 30R 30R �eapolis Run way �:lL Imax (dB) 88.2 88.2 88.2 87.6 87S 87S 87S 87.4 87.4 Imax (d B) 95 93.3 93.1 929 92.1 91.9 91.7 � � Imax (d $) 98:4 96 95.9 95.8 95.? 95.4 953 95.2 95.2 18 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program t Date/Tur�e 6/21 /00 9S6 6J2fa/0012:00 6✓27/00 20:03 6/22J00 7:42 6✓1M0016:05 6/25/QQ 19:08 6/18/00 7:40 �r2s�oo Zo:zs 6/2MQ015:27 6/29/00 20:(}4 Date/Time 6/26/00 9:17 6/28/00 9:22 6/2M00 9:20 6✓29/00 11:15 6/ 10/00 20:07 6/5/00 9:35 6/ 1M0014:54 6/29/00 7:12 6/ 15/00 9:00 6/ 1 M00 7:45 Date/Time 6/8/00 12:21 6/ 1 �/00 9:45 �rlaoo ao:m 6✓30/00 15:41 Ca/ 18/00 21:23 6/15/00 17:14 6J29/00 14:27 fa/23/00 21:34 6/ 15/QO 1524 6/2/00 9:55 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for 1VISP ��-oo (RMT Srte#4) Oakland Ave. & 49`h St, Mu�n Flight Nurrd�er Air�craft Type ArrivaU Departun UAL1519 B72 D NWA23 B742 D DAL1683 B72 D UAL1473 B72 D DAL1624 B72 D SCX792 B72Q D UAL1473 B72Q D DAL1683 B72Q D NW A675 B72Q . _ D (]ZMT Sitee#5) 12`h Ave. & 58`h St, Mmnea F7ight Nu�er Aircraft Type ArrivaU De �artun SCX407 B72 D SCX407 ..., B �.,.,_,_ ,..,,.,._ D SCX409 B72 _ D SCX715 B72 D Unlrnown LTnlmown D SCX715 B72 D NWA592 B72Q D CCP124 B72Q D CCP 124 B72Q D i)At 94.1 B720 D (RMT Site#6) 25`h Ave. & 57`h St, Mmne� Flight Number � Aircraft Type ArrivaU De artun Unlmown Unlmown A SCX409 B72 D Unlmown Unlrnown D Unlrnown Unlmown D NW A 1049 B'12Q -- D NWA611 B72Q D NW A624 B72 D NW A689 B72 D NW A675 B72 D s�x7 t 5 B720 D Runway 30R 30L 30R 30R 30R 30L 30R 30R 30R 30R Runway 30L 30L Runway 30R 30R 30R 30R 30R 30R 30R 30R Lmax (dB) 102 101.4 101.3 101.2 101.1 101.1 ' 101 100.9 100.7 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 19 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Top Ten I�oudest �lircraft Noise Events for MSP Jun-oo (RMT S�e#7) Wentworth Ave. & 64`h St, Richfi�ld Date/Tur�e Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway Lmax(dB) - De arture 6/22/00 9:14 SCX79 ( B72Q D 30L 97.1 6/26/00 0:16 SCX711 B72 D 30L 96.8 6/I/0018:10 SCX785 B?2 D 30L 959 6/30/0015:22 SCX748 B72 D 30L 95.7 6/26/0017:27 SCX403 B'12 D 30L 95.6 6JIM0015:04 DAL1731 B72 D 30L 953 6/2/0016:17 UALI103 B72Q D 30R 95.3 6J23/0017:39 SCX785 B72 D 30L 95.1 6/M0017:32 UAL1103 B72Q D 30L 95 6✓ 1 b/00 16:05 NW A616 B�2 D 30L 94.9 Date/Time 6/5/00 7:24 la/ 14/00 15:59 6/ 18/00 16:40 6/27/00 9:42 6/3/00 7:28 6✓20/0016:08 6/2Ea/00 18:21 6/5/00 15:35 6/ 17/00 9:45 6/ 14/00 726 (RM'T Srte#8) Longfelbw Ave. & 43rd St�, Mu Flight Number Aircrafr Type ArrivaU Departun SCX710 B72 � D SCX741 B?2 D SCX743 B72 D RYN323 BiL D SCX712 B72 D SCX743 B72Q D SCX741 B72Q -111_��_D SCX741 B72Q ��_ D SCX409 B72 D SCX710 B720 D Runway 30R 30R 30L 30R ' 30R 30R 30L 30R 30R (}2MT Si�e#9) Saratoga St & Hartford Ave., St Paul Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway De arture 6/11/00 15:32 NWA (9 B742 D 4 6/4/00 15:42 NW A 19 B742 D 4 6✓ 10100 i l:10 NW A 84 B742 A 22 6/l0/0013:03 NWA24 B742 A 22 6/ 10/00 4: l 6 RYN610 B72Q A 22 6/10/005:39 ABX354 DC8Q A 22 6/ 10/00 0:4b - SCX404 B72 A 22 6✓21/001131 NWAS$4 B72 A 22 fa/ 10/00 I I:14 NW A 127 A 22 6/21/00 12:05 _ NW A 1044 B72Q A 22 Imax (dB) 7J./ 95.4 95 949 94.8 94.7 94.3 94.1 94 93.6 Lmax (dB) 94.3 90S 90.1' 899 89.8 _. 89- 88.4 88.3 88..1. . 20 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Top 'I'en Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for N1SP .1 un-0o (RMT Site#lOj Itasca Ave. & Bowdom St, St Paul Date/'Time Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway Lmax(dB) De artu� 6/1/00 15:18 NWA 19 B742 D 4 104.6 6Jlfa/0012:03 NWA23 B742 D 4 104.6 G/22/0015:17 NWA19 B742 D 4 102.1 6/4/0015:41 NWA19 B�42 D 4 lOQ4 fa�ll/0015:31 NWA19 - B742 D 4 100.1 Ea/24/0012:00 NWA23 B742 D 4 100.1 6/5/0015:13 NWA19 B742 D 4 99.4 6/2/0015:31 NWA19 B742 D 4 98.1 6/10/00524 FDX1407 DC10 A 22 96.1 6/10/0011:10 NWA84 B742 A 22 96.1 (RMT S�e#11) Finn S� & Scheffer Ave., St Paul Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway Imax(dB) De arture 6/2I001531 NWA 19 B742 D 4 97J 6/4/0016:19 DAL1624 B72 D 4 97S f/24/0012:01 NWA23 B742 D 4 94.8 6/5/00 15:13 NW A 19 B742 D 4 88.4 EJ28/0013:�5 DAL1859 B72 A 30R 87.9 6/1/0015:18 NWA19 B742 D 4 86.9 Ea/1Cti/0012:03 NWA23 B742 D 4 85.3 6/12/00 75� Unlmown BE18 D 12L 852 6/1/00 8:14 Unimown BEl8 D 12R � 84.6 6/7/00 6:49 Unlrnown BE18 D 12R 83 (RMT Srte#12) Alton St. & Rockwood Ave., St, Paul Date/Tirt� Flight Number AircraFt Type ArrivaU Runway Lrnax(dB) De arture 6/6/00 9�>9 UAL1917 B73 A 12L 89.3 6/4/001452 NWA592 B72 D 4 84.8 6/8/00 22:29 MFS3313 SF34 D 12L 80.7 6/4/00 15:42 NWA 19 B742 D 4 �79.1 6/20/00 6:45 BMJ48 BF.80 D 12R 78.4 6/7/0011:0� Unimown H25B D 12L 78.3 6/23/0010:21 XSMOS Unirnown D 12L 78.3 6/1OJ007:i8 BMJ66 BE80 D 12L 77.4 6/18/00 9:57 NWA619 DC A 30R 77.1 6/23/00 8:21 NW A 148 A320 D 12L 77.1 A Prcxiuc[ of the Metrapolit�v� Airports Commission ANOMS Prc��ram 21 Date/Tur�e 6/7/00 7:18 6/ 15/0011:34 6/7/0016.�06 EJ10/0011:39 Ea112/00 11:40 6/7/00 9:21 6/20/00 8:18 C'i/1?J0016:04 6/6/0012:17 6/�/0013:4� Da[e/Time 6/7/00 21:09 6/15/00 13:59 6/3/0014:15 6/25/00 16:11 6/8/0011:44 6/8/00 9:32 616/00 7:15 6/7/00 16:37 6/25/00 7:07 6/11/00 7:17 Date/Tune 6/ 13/00 19:46 6/20/00 9:26 6/ 1/00 8:29 6/23/00 8:37 6/7/00 7:08 b/23/00 22:21 C�/ 13/00 22:02 6J13/00 18:23 6/19/00 7S2 6/ 1/00 9:03 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technicai Advisor's Report _ Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for NISP .r�,►�-oo (RMT Sitee#13) Southeast End Of Mohican Court, Mendota Heights F7ight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway De arture SCX710 B72 D 12L NW A619 B72 b 12L DAL1624 B72 D 12L NWA619 B72Q D 12L NWA619 B72 D 12L RYN323 B72Q D 12L SCX227 B72 D 12L DAL1624 B72 D 12L NWA619 B72 D 12L NWA 1270 B72Q D___-__ 12L (RMT Site#14) lst S� & Mckee St, Eagan Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway De arture • NWA615 B72 D 12R NW A 1296 B72Q D 12R NWA446 B72Q D 12R DAL1624 B72Q D 12R NW A 1271 B72 D 12R SCX791 B72 D 12R CCF'101 B72 D 12R CCP 101 B72 D 12R CCP124 B72 D 12R CCP124 B72Q D 12R (RMT S�.e#15) Cullon S� & Lexington Ave., Mendota Heights Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrivall Runway De arture NW A 1252 B72 D 12L NW A1045 B72 D 12L SCX710 B72 D 12L SCX749 B72Q D 12L UALb92 B72Q D 12L NW A 1079 DC9Q D 12L I{f�IA 1772 B72 D 12L NW A 1589 B72 D 12L SCX710 B72 D 12L SC'X749 R72(� D 12L Lmax (dB) 92.2 92.1 91.9 91J 91.6 91.6 91S 915 Lmax (d$) 96 95.9 95.7 95.7 955 95.4 I.rnax (dB) 93.3 933 93.2 92 92 91.9 91.7 91.6 913 22 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Cammissian ANOMS Pro�ram � ; 1 � Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Cauncil (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP .t��-oo (RMT S�e#16j Avalon Ave. & V�7as Lar�e, E Date/Time Flight Nurr�er Aircraft Type ArrivaU De artun 6/2/0015:03 Unlrnown BE20 A Ea/11/0012:01 NWA23 B742 D 6/9/00 9:14 5CX791 B72 D 6/19/00 9:12 Unlrnown Unimown D 6/ 1/00 8:15 CCP 124 B72Q D G/15/0014:54 DAL1731 B72Q D 6/7/00 21:12 NWA56 B742 D 6/15/0013:23 NWA584 B�2 D 6/20/009:43 NWA671 B72 D 6/23/0015:59 SCX74$ B72 D (RMT Site#17) 84th S� & 4th Ave., Bbomir Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU De artur C/24/0016:08 NWA83 B742 D fa/10/0012:48 NWA23 B742 D 6/29/0012:17 NWA23 B742 D f/24/0015:23 NWA19 B742 D 6/20/0015:39 NWA 19 B742 D 6/3/0012:19 NWA23 B742 D 6/18/0013:56 NWA23 B742 D 6/8/0012:36 NWA23 B742 D fai2210012:03 NWA23 B742 D Ea/13/0015:05 NWA19 B742 D (RMT S�e#18) '75th St & 17th Ave. Richfield Runway Runway L.max (dB) 100.1 99.3 98.6 98S 98.4 983 97.9 97.6 Imax (dB) 98.6 98.4 981 97.9 Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway Lmax(dB) De arture 6/3/0012:18 NWA23 B742 D 22 102.4 C�12?J0012:03 NWA23 B742 D 22 101.8 Ea117/0013:49 NWA23 B742 D 22 101.3 6/1M0012:10 NWA23 B742 D 22 101 E�29/0012:16 NWA23 B742 D 22 101 6/ 18/00 16:12 NWA 19 B742 D 22 100.6 fa/30/0012:15 NWA23 B742 D 22 100.4 6/ 19/00 15:12 NW A 19 B742 D 22 100.2 fa/ 10/00 12:47 NW A 23 B742 D 22 100.1 6/9/0015:36 NWA83 B742 D 22 100 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program �3 Date/Tirrie 6/21/00 12:16 6/18/00 15:28 6/25/00 6:15 6/9/00 18:50 6/ 18/00 6:17 6/ 10/0011:06 6✓ 18/00 10:43 6/21 /00 0:41 6/26/00 8:39 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP ��,-oo (RMT S ite# 19) 16th Ave. & 84th St, Bbommgton Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway De arture NWA23 B742 D 22 RYN323 B72 D 22 NW A592 B72 D 22 S(.'�C463 B72Q D 22 NWA44 DCIO D 22 SCX537 B72Q D 22 NW A217 D 22 NW A410 D 22 RYN710 B72 D 22 UAL1956 B730 D 22 (RMT S ite#20) 75th St & 3rd Ave., Richfield Date/T'iir►e Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway Lr�ax(dB) De arture � 6! 10/00 15:51 HIsv1664 B743 D 22 95S 6✓10/0014:�� NWA627 Unlatown D 22 92.8 6/30/00 23:16 NW A649 DC9Q D 22 89.2 6/21/005:28 RYN610 B72Q D 22 87S 6/27/00 2Q:48 NW A709 D D 22 85.7 6/ 13/00 23:24 NW A 1049 B72 D 22 84.8 6/4/0011:59 NWA624 B72 A 12R 84.7 6J21/00'13:19 NWA945 DCIO D 22 84J 6✓27/0013:05 NWA549 A320 D 30L 84.5 612b/0019:17 Unlmown QF4 D 30L 84.4 Date/Time 6/ 13/00 12:� 6J 10/00 11:49 6/6/00 I 8:16 6/25/00 15:09 Ea/ 19/00 16:06 6/ I M00 13:� 6✓19/00 14:10 6/3/00 23:48 6/7/00 19:54 E,/ 15/00 I 1:5 ( (RMT Srte#21) Barbara Ave. & 67th St, Inver Grove Hei Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU De artute NWA23 B742 D NW A585 B72 D NW A61 I B72 D SCX748 B72Q D DAL1624 B72Q D NW A 1044 B72Q D NWA23 B742 D NWA56 B742 D DAL1683 B72 D NWA� B7_42_.__ D Run way 12R 12R 12L 12R 12L 12R 12R 12R 12R Lmax (dB) 88.2 86.8 85.6 85.5 85 84.9 84.6 84.5 84.4 24 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program C' Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Repc�rt Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP .i un-oo (ItMT Srte#22) Anr�e Mar� Tra�1, Inver Grove l Date/Tirr�e Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU De artun 6✓ 11/00 10:07 DALb38 MD80 A 6J13/0012:17 MFS3512 BA46 D 6/14/00721 NWA1515 A 6/22/00 6:27 NWA418 DC A 6/11/007:27 NWA828 D 6/21/006:16 NWA1088 E1 6/11/009:26 NWA189 A320 A 6/16/008:23 NWA193 A320 A 6/10/00837 NWA601 D 6/24/00 6:06 NW A 1805 1X.'9Q �► Date/Time c�llioo io:m E�! 13/0012:17 6/14/00 721 6/22l00 627 6/11/00 7:27 6/21/00 6:16 6/11/00 9:26 6/16/00 8:23 6/10/00 8:37 6/24/00 6:06 Date/Tur�e 6/11/00 12:01 C,/21/00 22:59 C,/ 15/00 14:4i3 G/23/0015:07 6/9/00 1357 fa/23/00 14:45 6/10/00 6:09 6/11/00 7:18 6/3/00 23:47 6/8/00 21:11 (RMT Si�e#23) End of Kenndon Avenue, Mendota Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU De ar[ure DAL638 MD80 A MES3512 BA46 D NW A 1515 A NWA418 �1 NWA828 D NWA1088 A NWA189 A320 A NWA193 A320 A NWA601 D NW A 1805 LX.'4Q �► (RMT S �e#24) Cha.pel L.ane & Wren Lane, E Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU De arcur NWA23 B742 D NWA358 A320 A NWA592 B72 D NWA315 B72Q D NWA1270 Unlmown D DAL1731 B72 D SCX461 B72 D CCP124 B72 D NWA56 B742 D NWA625 B72Q D Runway fGtj • Runway Lmax (dB> 95.6 .93.7 93.7 93.6 933 93.1 93 93 92.9 Imax (dB) 95.6 93.7 93.7 93.6 93 93 92.9 92.9 A Prcxiuct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS ProQram 25 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) TechnicaJ Advisor's Report Top 'I'en Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for 1VISP ,( un-00 (RMT Sitee#25) Moonshme Park, 1321 Jurdy Rd., Date/Tirr� Flight Nurr�er Aircraft Type Arrivall De arture 6/4/00 17:19 NW A218 DC A 6/11/00 8:19 OAE62 DC10 D 6/4/0012:25 NWA23 B742 D 6/8/00 6:40 BMJ46 BE80 D E✓ 16/001026 VGD608 B73Q A 6/4/0014:15 CCP9690 B72Q D Gl19/0017:ll NWA105 A320 D 6/4/0011:42 NWA627 B72 D 617/001020 SCx721 B72 D 6/19/00 725 VGn404 B73Q D (RMT Site#26) 6796 Arkansas Ave. W., Inver Grove DatelTime Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU De arture EaJl?J0011:58 NWA23 B742 D 6/5/00 7:30 NW A 1468 DC A 6/10/0011:49 NWA585 B72Q D 6/8/0015:22 SC�715 B72Q D 6/9I00 9:16 SCX715 B72 D 6/15/0011:51 NWA23 B742 D 6l25/00 17:29 NW A331 DC D E✓ 11/00 11:45 NW A585 B72 D 6/19/009:11 SCX715 B72 D 6/5/007:51 NWA193 A320 A (RMT Site#27) Anthony Middle School, 5757 Irvmg Ave. S., Dace/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU De arture 6/7/0012a8 Unlaiown DC A 6/24/00 9:21 SCX409 B72 D 6/28/00 9:16 SCX791 B72 D 6/23/00 7�7 NW A401 DC9Q D 6/ 18/00 7:14 CCP 124 B72Q D 6/28/00 923 SCX407 B72Q D C�/2i3/00 23:3� SCX711 B72 D 6/�/00 8:(ki SCX227 B72 D 6/26/00 9:11 SCX791 B72 D _ Ea/2?/0017:32 _ SCXZ85 _ B72Q D Runway Lmax (dB) 91.7 86.6 85.8 85.6 85S 855 84.9 84.8 84.7 . .: � '1: •1 :• 88.7 88.6 88.4 882 26 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Prosram C� Meuopolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Top Ten Loudest A,ircraft Noise Events for MSP Jur,-oo (RMT Snte#28) ��45 1 Fth Avenue S.. Richfield Date/Tune 6/21/00 19:41 6/1/00 19:30 6✓ 16J00 15:49 6✓15/00 17:40 6/21/00 t�:02 EJ I M00 I 837 6/2/00 8:53 6/22100 9:24 C�/28/00 15:56 fi/ 16/00 15:03 (RMT S i�e#29) Ericsson Elementary School, 4315 31st Ave. S., Mnnneapohs Flight Nurr�ber � Aircraft Type SCX792 NW A407 SCX743 SCX792 NW A480 NW A 1284 SCX741 NWA1892 ArrivaU Runway 30R 30R 30R 30L 30R 30R June 2000 Remote Monitorinq Tower Top Ten Summary Imax (d B) 90.1 89.9 89.8 89.6 89.3 88.8 88.1 87.9 The top ten noise e�ents and the event ranges at each RMTfor June 2000 were comprised of 84.9% departure operations. 11ie predominant top ten air�raft type was the Boeing 727 Hushed with 54.1% of the highest Lmax ev�ents. Noie: Unknown fields are due to data unavailability in FAA flight track data. June 2000 Technical Advisor Report Notes Note: Missing FAA radar data for'02 days during the month of June 2000. A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Prograrn 27 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events - Aircraft Ldn dBA � June 2000 Rermte Monitoring Towers Date . ;; #1: #2: : #3 #4 . ;#5 #6;: #7 .�#S `.'#9 #1d :#11 .#12:: #13�; #14 ,#1�. 1 62.6 6�.9 68.7 66a 74.8 74.7 69.4 63.� 47.7 60.? 48.7 49.7 57.1I 6�.6 61.0 ? _59.6 61.8 6�3 68.0 73.8 75.8 70.7 66.9 38.8 �4.9 5�.2 403 42.8 � 6�.6 =�.8 3 �9.4 60.1 6�.8 63.0 70.4 71.7 61.8 592 35.8 40a 37S 40.1 62.0 68.7� 63.2 4 62.0 6�1.1 67.0 67.9 73.3 74.0 67.7 61.8 53.8 �8.9 5�.7 46.0 58.=� 68.2 61.2 � 59.0 60J fi�.8 � Er�.9 72.6 7�.5 65.9 63.4 475 56.2 46.9 40.0 �8.8 � 66.8 �9.9 6 61.4 60.6 67.2 62.4 71:3 695 41.5 423 40.3 49.1 34a 483 ( 64.2 � 69.3 6�.7 7 i9.�1 6?.3 66.2 ( 63.4 70.9 � 69.9 44.1 I 43.9 433 �0.9 52.1 43.5 ( 64.6 70.0 6�.9 R 5g.p bl.i 6i.8I63.1 70.4 71.1 43.2I36.2 33.8 32S 41.0 46.2 62.0 71.3 64.� 9 58 i 61.2 6�.7 63.9 69.7 69.6 4�.8 31.9 392 45.0 4�? 46.4 62.4 ( 69.8 6�.8 10 �bJ 60.9 6�#.5 ( 64..8 71.6 73 � 63.1 61.9 65_1 68.2 40.7 44.4 ( 59.1 ( 67? �9.0 11 j7.7 60.0 I"6�.� 62.2 69.8 69.0 �6.8 54.0 �3.8 �6.9 43.3 45.8 60.7 69.4 62.4 L 61.4 62.4 68J 63.9 71.9 69J 47.2 4�.8 38.6 49.2 49.6 34.� 63.9 68.2 64.7 13 6�.� 64.2 70.3 � 66S 74.1 72.8 613 58.6 42J 36.4 39J 40.1 643 67a 67.� 1� 61 i 63.2 68.2 68.8 76.2 76.9 69.7 65J 52.9 39.0 48.4 38.2 573 65.9 57.9 IS �9.� 61.9 66.8 66.� 74.8 74.9 68.1 61.8 36.8 34.4 n/a 35.2 63.8 70.6 65.0 16 61.4 6�.3 66.8 68.4 75.6 76.4 71.3 66J 48.8 60.7 48.1 30.6 38J 66.2 49.2 17 >9 i 61.8 66.0 663 72.8 74.9 67.0' 63S 48.7 495 41.8 303 60.4 66.1 63.2 1�3 Fi0.3 62.6 66:1 67.3 74.4 77.6 67.7 64.� 5?.6 �3.4 543 39.0. 47? 62J 50.9 � 1�) 61.2 6�.� 65.7 � 66.8 693 72? 33.� �.4 36.3 4b � 39.8 39.9 61.9 68 ? 64J � '_() 6?.-� 6>.3 68.9 � 68.1 7�.3 76.0 66.1 64.6 j� 2 43S �3.3 46.i 59_3 67.7 61.1 `? 1 56.� I C�.6 62.7 � 6i.9 73.� 763 68.6 � 63.6 57.6 60.1 36.0 34.4 49.2 � 65J 52.1 � ?? 61.9 63.� 67.7 � 67.0 7�.8 77.8 70.6 66.7 4�.9 58.1 40.4 33.5 37.2 � 63.6 36.8 i �; f0.1 � 6;.-� � F6.3 � 66.8 � 72.� 7�.7 60.3 � iy.0 47.7 39.1 �t.7 47.1 64.4 t 69.0 67.0 ?-� ��).-�' 61.9 6;.9 ' 63.3 � 7�.3 76.0 67? � 63.9 4?.9 I 57.8 Si.O 47.? ( 46.3 � 61.0 46.6 '?� � 6Q.� I 6'?.7' 6�.� ' 6i.9 71.7 7�.6 63.4 i 61.Q 41.9 41 i 39.6 47.2 _59.1 i 67.7 � 60.1 . '(� ��).l 61.� Er�.i � 67.7 73.9 76.1 71.0 � 66.� 41.3 �.6 32.3 38.2 j 36.8 � 64.1 (�3.3 �7 61.-� ( C,�.K I 66.1 ! 68.6 74.4 7h.K 69.? i 67.-� 41.2 3�3.1 43.0 36.i I 51.7 � 6�.9 �i? I ,Y I b l.;i 6�.1 I 66? ' 6ti.0 74.? I 77.7 69.3 � 66.i I 39.4 41.� 47.3 �.4 � � l.l I 64_4 i�.l '�> 61.-1 6?.8 67.0 ' 68.9 7�.9 77.8 6y.fi � 6�.2 46.0 4i.7 49.6 41.6 30.8 i 6�.9 �b.0 ; I � i :�) C�).� � C l.�) 1 6�.9 ' 66.6 74.� 76.3 68.0 � 6i.5 493 �.4 50.4 38.6 I 59_3 f 62 ;;7.0 NI��. I1dn Cif).7 6?.7 66.6 66.6 73.� 71.1 67.Q 63.4 �.?.? �+6.6 �9.1 �3.6 .�0.1( 67.4 62.1 � 28 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�ram Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report '� Analysis of Aircraft 1�loise Events - Aircraft Ldn dBA June 2000 Remote Monitoring Towers Date _ #16 #17 #18 #19 #2[! `#21 #22 #23 #24 #25 #26 #2i #2� #29 1 69.7 �3.3 53.6 �.6 57.2I48.9 58.3I66.0) 63.7 �9.3 �.8 61.5 66.0 61.1 2 70.0 47.9 49.9 �.3 51.8 42 5 58.5 I 5�.3 64.1 49.7 59.0 6�.0 6�.7 .60.6 3 71.0 62.6 63.� I � 1.1 �.-F 60.7 �9.7 71 a I 66.3 58.1 61.0 57.9 60.3 51.2 4 71 � 62.1 58.4 � 41.6 4=�.? 53.1 �9.9 69.3 ( 64.8 58.6 �7.2 62.4 63j �3.0 i 68J 59.? �4.9 48.4 41.3 �5.4 56.5 68.6I639 54.1 63.0 62.7 61J 57.4 6 70 � ��.6 >6? 4b.i 383 61.0 61.0 I 735 66.6 �9.2 61.8 34.� 52,7 n/a 7 71.� 55.2 �6.9 48.0 36.? 59.7 68.6 73.7I6�.8 62.8 62.4 68.5 47.7 n/a 8 71.6 �6.1 58.� I 45.9 �1.2 58S 6�_7 I 72.3 I 67.0 �8.4 62.7 39.0 50.0 37.4 9 71.0 ��.� �8.� � 1.0 38.4 60.1 64S I 73.9 66._' �9.2 62.4 39.1 42.6 33.9 10 68.3 61:0 66.0 I ��.7 i8•� ��•3 70.1 I 68.3 I 64.1 �8.4 59.3 �9.8 62.3 �9.6 I1 71.�3 64.� 60.5 ( 4-�.6 40.1 �8.3 67.� ( 72.6 6�.1 60.0 62.8 54.4 57.0 40.8 12 71.7 63.7 �9.3 � 40.4 n/a i8.? 61.� ( 73.6 64 5 61.6. 61.5 4�.8 60.2 39.6 � 13 71.1 6�.4 72.3 C�.1 �9.8 58.1 60.9 ( 73_5 I 63.9 61.2 58.3 5�.8 60.6 49.4 i I l� 70.8 �8.9 � 63.3 5�.6 499 �1.6 70.4 6�.1 ( 6�J �2.1 �6.? 64.9 63.8 60.1 ( 1� T.? 56.4 60.3 � 51.0 47.1 _>7.4 70.6 ( 73.2 ( 67.6 56.4 61.3 64.6 63.1 ��.1 � 16 70.7 �6.2 i79 I 48.6 � 1.9 �? 64.0 I�9.9 66.7 �0.0 ».6 66.3 65.8 62.0 � 17 71.1 ;9.7 61.6 �7.0 49.0 i7.8 62.4 � 70.2 � 643 ��.3 �7.9 62J 602 5�.9 ! 18 66. ] 61.9 I 67.1 I 63.7 �2.I 47.3 i7.� � 56.6 � 61.3 I 4b.5 �9J 65.2 60.8 �9.4 I l�) 70.1 ��.�i 57.1 � 4�.3 38.� �7.9 i7S ! 7?.3 ; 61.7 62.0 6?.� 39.7 53.7 42.9 ' �0 70.0 �6.2 I i7.7 47.8 47' j�.8 i9.1 i 69.3 6j.4 i9 i j8.9 62.9 60J 62? � 21 6�Y.H ��.5 66.1 I 6?.1 ��).6 41.6 73' � 60.1 j 67.3 ;0.2 �6.9 63.3 66.0 63.3 „ F7? 6?.> I 66.6 � i 3.i 5?.? -36.3 7�'.0 ��7? � 63.9 �6.9 ��.2 64.8 6�.1 62.1 �; 70.� �fi.1 j 60.9 � 49.-1 I-�?.fi �7.6 6'_.7 I 7�.4 ' 66.4 j8J 6�.4 ��).7 >4.7 49.4 ?-� 66.1 �9.1 Crt�.-1 � 4y.Y ��.4 �().6 6�.9 ! 60.8 � 61.1 �1.3 �0? 64.4 I 61.6 60.0 ?� 71.0 I�9.�) � 67.4 j 6�2 -�9.4 i6.7 fi0.� ' 69.-1 � 63.9 ��.0 ( 60.0 62.8 59.9 �3.0 � ?F I fi8.7 =K.7 i��.8 ��2.-� �?.7 I 39 i 6?.6 �7.1 ! 6�.0 I 37.4 53.? 63.� ( 64.9 62.0 �7 F6.fi I� 1.1 � j23.j i��i.3 I i0.y ��3.8 I SK.3 � 62.� � 6j.3 �.8 ( i6.� 66.6 I 64.4 62.1 _'� I F7.fi i�.6 I>7.7 �>0.4 I; 3.7 I�1.1 E�.3 � 63.6 ! Er�.7 43.2 I i7.3 66.6 � 64.6 61 � 'y 67.6 ��I.? � 60.3 I i2.6 ( i-�.7 (-1t).�3 i9.4 60.i : Cx�.i I�1.7 �3.3 6�.7 I 62.8 �7.4 � � .�) ( fiF., I 61.0' 6�).3 ��.7 I i8.� I�3.8 (�8.6 67.1 6?.6 �0.7 �.�9_2 I 64.7 I 61.9 I i8.0 NIo. I.cin 7{).1 59.6 63.6 5�.9 13.0 56.1 65.8� 70.1 � 6�.1 57.1 59.8 63.3 62.3 �8.�. A Prcxiuct of ihe Met�opolitan Airports Comrnission ANOMS Program 29 , .�, '.. �'; � ( ` � � , `� , � :, .' . ,�: � : � , • ,: _� � � � �' . '� � ; � � � � , ,. � .;�D9� If'eadin r r ;� s;,/ �k� ' l _ _ � a,/ ' ! "ia',`r :!' _ . ., � . . . — . � ._. .�� , ';.. � -� li�`"�;' , ' , � `� � �,,' � . _". � . . Q til�trci��crli(;�n ,airi�uc�ti C��.Hl:illl�.tii„n ?7 ��.��/d�� a�m��y ��I. °�� 12�� r�-�� J�� L➢��t�u�� orth o� �� 90° �o�� or �oun�ary �urfl�� Jua�� 2U�� Minneapolis-St. Paul Penetration Gate Plot for Gate North_Corridor 06/01/2000 OQ:OO:OQ - 07/09/2d00 00:00:00 27 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 5(18.5%), Right = 22 (81.5%) ^ saQa d d � 5d00 c 0 co 4000 � ' W 3000 � � 2000 Q > 1000 0 .fl d n .................:..................:..................:.................. ................. ' ..............:........... 0.... � o................ ,:O O ,O � . f�. . .�j�' � ; O —2 —1 8 1 2 (Runway End) Deviation From Center of Gate (Nautical Mile��°md°r End) + Arrival O Departure ❑ Overfiight ._ Page 2 Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis �� lr.tn ��u �litan :\ir�u,rts C'�,ilim is.i� �n �9+� (�.� �� ) R.�n�ay 1�L and 12� CarB ier �et I��a.fl�e ��e� ��s �ve� e S�uth of the �orridor {S�e�th of 30L I,ocal�z�r} I�urin� .��e 2�0� Minneapolis-St. Paul Penetration Gate Plot for Gate South_Corridor 06/01/2400 00:00:00 - 07/01/2000 00:00:00 298 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left =194 (65.1%), Right =104 (34.9%) ^ 600Q d d �' S000 c a �0 400U > a► W 3000 � � ZQ�� Q 0 1000 .� a 0 � • � A I' � •ts� `�. � � � i .��a� � �� , �i'�••�i:~�! � 'tt�� :��i �� "' y •.+�'�y �.�.. � '' � 'r: �: ` �� v � � �� ; �' i � -,, , -.: a�i � ► � � � •� W l •.� -i �+ - . .�,:�'. .J. . -' :' . .r'.�!..li � • � ' � : ,; �.�::;,� ,. J, :>� M -2 -1 0 1 2 (Corridor End) Deviation From Center of Gate {Nautical Mi��s�Y Mid-Poin : �6��'� �,�r�a s". ��mi �-..:� ��.� _..�i..�=`��:-'1. »._._, i`+ ....1� . . _ i .. ..:'2.r J°�i r_:;,., � i.. . �� r.... ,. .�.. .. ,.' � + Arrivai O Departure � Overfiight' �,Y�,� Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor An�ilysis Page 3 Mclrup��litan Airlu�rls Ccmunissic�n 31 (0.5%) �2u��vay 12L a�cl 12It Ca�r�� J�t I)epart�� C�per��fl��s vve�� 5° South of ihe �orr�dor {5° Sou�h of 30I, Local�z�r) �uri�� Jun� 2�00 Nlinneapalis-St. Paul Penetration Gaie Plot for Gate South_Corridor_5deg 06/01/2000 OQ:00:00 - 07I01/'2000 00:00:00 31 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left =17 (54.8%), Right -14 (45.2%) ^ raua m d V 5000 c 0 � 4000 > d W 300Q � � 2000 d � 1000 0 Q n :� � . ..... 0 .� O ......�.d....�... O.. ..0 ........... ................. ................. ' ...� � �...�• • ' ...._........... - . O. � ...��...0.. —2 —1 0 1 2 (Corridor End) Deviation From Center of Gate (Nautical Mi`�� Mid-Poin ti � t i II811MA�:.Y;A;�.i: "•..� y� 4�. rY-M as z�yz at�„F�J,g� �, �� .r,.q �i',!. c �y wt. � t :n�Ls.x x'f.�i:�l.hj'[G+�.,'f;�!�Y_ �Y.tiak}—:.6.i'"�"�r::w'F..-`ci"6"�,�.w..C*r_.u1;;''a.;�.M>cui.a:�.3'a"nYYi.�..�.t�.,r.w�F1 .�rl.�._._ ��y11�� s + Arrival O Departure O Oyerfi�ght �: �� Page 4 Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis C �, � Nlclr�,��litan Airl�urt� C��nu»issiun Top 15 �2�n�vay l�I� a�� 12R ��r� �c�s��na�g��s �o� J�n� 2000 , � , i ,. ' ,0r m ORD Chicago - O'Hare 124� 289 4.6% STL St. Louis 160" 185 3.0% DEN Denver � 237� 173 2.8°Io DTW Detroit 1QSo 168 2.'7% ATL Atlanta 149° 155 2.S°!o MDW Chicago - Midway 124� 137 2.2°l0 DFW Dallas - Ft. Worth 193° 124 2.0°l0 MCI Kansas City lggo 122 1.9°Io BOS Boston q�� 115 1.8% CVG Cincinnati 127� 10$ 1.7°10 PHX Phoenix Zgl� lOS 1.7% SEA Seattle z�go 103 1.6% MEM Memphis 162� 99 1.6% FAR . Fargo 312° 9� 1.6% LAX �..os Angeles 238� 98 1.6% Montl�ly Eagan/Mendota Heiglits De�arture Corridor Analysis Page 5 cc: Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights Charies Curry, ALPA Will Eginton, IGH Jennifer Sayre, NWA Pam Dmytrenko, Richfield Tom Laweli, Apple Valley Tom Hansen, Bumsville Jan DelCalzo, Minneapolis Glenn Strand, Minneapolis C. � MASAC OPERATIDNS C0IVIMITTEE � ' � 1 • •. TO: MASAC Operations Committee FROM: Roy Fuhrmann, Manager, Aviation Noise and Sate3lite Proarams SUBJECT: Runway 17 Flight Tracks DATE: July 20, 2000 Per the direction of the MASAC Operations Committee at the July 14, 2000 meetin�, MAC, HNTB, and the FAA are reviewing additional Runway 17 flight tracks alternatives. Specific points considered in this analysis include: • The use of a River Departure Procedure, in conjunction with the 2.2 Turn Point Alternative, as an additional mitigation measure. • The inclusion of a second turn point within the 2.2 Turn Point Alternative • An additional Turn Point Alternative, with a turn point located at 2.5 nautical miles from the start of takeoff roll. • The impact of Runway 12L and 12R arrivaLs on Runway 17 departure fliQht � track use. • The feasibility of Runway 17 flight track alternatives, given FA.A and ATC operational requirements for safety and efficiency. HNTB will present the results of this analysis, and a recommended Runway 17 fli�ht alternative. If you have questions, please contact me at 725-6326. MASAC O.PERATIONS CO�MIT�'EE TO: �'IaOM: SUBJECT: DATE: MASAC Operations Committee Roy Fuhrmann, Manager, Aviation Noise and Satellite Pro�rams Contour Boundary Adjustments July 17, 2000 In November, 1996, the MAC adopted the "MSP Noise Mitigation Program which requested that MAC and the affected Communities seek approval from the FAA to develop neighborhood and natural boundaries that reflect current conditions at the outer edge of the expanded contour to the maximum extent possible." T'his guidance is a departure form the current MSP/FAA policy of granting eligibility to only blocks that aze intersected by the outermost contour boundary. To establish a boundary adjustment proposal, MASAC and Staff would be required to conduct a study that defines neighborhood and "natural boundaries" in portions of Minneapolis, Ricbfield, Bloomington, Eagan, Mendota Heights and Inver Grove Heights using criteria that is applied consistently throughout all eligible communities. During the last MSP Part 150 Update review process, the FAA rejected a boundary proposal that included blocks outside of the DNL 65 contour boundary. These areas included natural boundaries, such as rivers, lakes and major community roads. Due to this initial request and subsequent rejection, final FAA. review and contour edge approval encompassed a period of eighteen months. Due to the upcoming expected completion of single fatnily homes within the 1996 DNL 65 contour in early 2002, an approved Part 150 document will need to be available in mid-2001 to continue an uninterrupted residential sound insulation program. In addition to the critical timing issues, the FAA will also be considerizig the appropriate area for consideration beyond the DNL 65 contour. This will most likely be a national case settin� request with considerable implications throughout the entire nation. Blocks that are intersected by the 1996 DNL 65 contour define today's approved Part 150 contour boundary determination method. Please recall that in the previous Part 1�0 submittal, FAA stron�ly considered rounding off eligible properties that were completely within the DNL 65 contour. The MAC and MASAC then developed a compellinQ case to the FAA to finally approve the intersecting block method as the preferred boundary determinant. In order to avoid a similar delay, MAC staff has completed a series of options for �' � consideration by the MASAC Operations Committee. The following scenarios will be presented at the July 28, Z000 Operations Committee meetin�: ...... .. _. ................ .:..0 ...:. ....�........�......., .._.. , . ... .... .....,....- .._..�z-�-.:> ^r.'..::l�s_li l. Blocks that are Completely within the DNL 60 Contour 2. Half Blocks that are completely within the DNL 60 Contour 3. Blocks that are intersected by the DNL 60 Contour 4. Half blocks that are intersected by the DNL 60 Contour 5. Pazcels that are intersected by the DNL 60 Contour 6. Natural Boundaries The scope of the proposed expanded sound insulation program could include requestin� approval for an additional 12,000 to 17,000 single-family homes. If the noise environment to MSP remains constant during future Part 150 Update submittals, the potential completion date could extend to 2015 to 2018. Extending the program beyond the currently approved block intersection method to natural boundaries could pose two potential issues. First, approval of the Part 150 Update by the FAA. to continue the residential sound insulation program could be placed in jeopazdy if the review process extends beyond mid 2Q01. Second, future Part 150 Updates will have the opportunity to better define the noise impacts for updated fleet mix considerations and operational levels. T'he future Part 150 Updates or Noise Exposure Map Updates will then enable MASAC and MAC to continue to make informed decisions that reflect the noise environment durin� the FAA Part 150 recommended five-year plannin� cycle. Based on the above considerations, FAA guidance, community input and the critical nature of the sound insulation program construction scheduling, staff is recommending the followin�: Action Requester3 That the MASAC Operations Committee continue to use the current FAA endorsed Intersecting Block Con[our Edge determination method at MSP for this Part 150 Update and forward this recommendation to the full body of MASAC for endorsement. If you have any questions concerning this request, please contact me at 612-725-6326. r r,J l MASA C OPERATIONS CO11�MI�'TEE •` � � , � •. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MASAC Operations Committee Roy Fuhrmann, Manager, Aviation Noise and Satellite Pro�rams Sound Insulation Priorities July 20, 2000 With the 1996 legislative decision to keep the airport at its cunent location, the MAC and the legislature agreed to provide sound insulation out to the DNL 6Q contour area. The legislature also established a working group of representatives .from MAC, Met Council, NWA, affected communities and legislative stafF to develop an initial prioritization for continuin� the sound insulation program. As part of the 1991 MAC MSP Part 150 update process, the communities endorsed an implementation strategy to sound insulate single family residential properties within the 1996 DNL 6� noise" contour first and then concentrate on� multi-family residential properties. MAC expects to complete sound insulation of the single-fam�ly residential homes within the 1996 DNL 65 contour by eazly 2002. With the current construction schedules, existin� homes scheduled for March or April of 2002 must begin homeowner orientation by July 2401. Therefore, new residences within the expanded DNL 65 and the DNL 64-b0 contour areas will have to begin the sound insulation process by late summer 2001 in order for single family construction to continue in the spring of 2002. The scope of the MSP 2000 Part 150 Update contains unprecedented noise abatement measures. The FA.A will have to be on an a;gressive schedule to review and approve the Noise Exposure Maps (contours) and the Part 150 Update by mid 2001. In March, the MAC sent letters to communities within the 2005 DNL 60 Contour, requestina each city to provide MAC and MASAC with city specific sound insulation priority recommendations. Each city has provided the .MAC with their individual priorities. Those priorities in addition to the 1996 MSP Noise Mitigation Program priorities (listed in the left column in order of precedence) are provided in the following table on paQe n2. The columns in the table list the communities' order of priority by type of residence (Sinsle Family, Multi-farnily, etc.). During the Part 150 Scoping Process, the FAA asked the NIAC and communities to be mindful of potential environmental injustices if the insulation pro�ram were to continue beyond the DtiL 6� contour for sin�le family residenees only. It is important to note there are an estimated 2371 multi-family residences within the 2005 Base Case DNL 6� contour as the Operations Committee considers insulation priorities out to the DNL 60 contour. This issue is a primary concern for FAA and needs to be stron�ly considered with the expanded insulation program. � �1996 MSP Noise � $�ppmjn�ton I Ea�an Mitigatioo Committee IPrioritization Sequence #t Priority Single #t Priority: Insulate �1 Prioriry Family/Duplex within 75 homes in 1996 1996 DNL 65-75 65 Contour Inver Grove Nfendota Hei�hts Hei�hts #( th;�ty ( �t �;m;ty 1Ylinneapoiis � RichFeld �1 Pcioriry #2 Priority Multi-Family #4 Priority: MF in �4 griority: #( Priority equal Simultaneously #2 Priority wi�hin I996 DNL 65-75 DNL 60 and g�eacer Provided no to SF in 1996 with �l azea impact to SF DNtL 65+ Ptiority Insulation #3 Priority Single �2 Priaity #2 Priority #2 Prioriry #2 Priority �3 Priority Family/Dupiex wi[hin 2005 DNL 65-75 #4 Priarity Muiti-Family #4 Priarity: MF in #4 prioriry: #2 Priairy equal Siatuitaneously �4 Priority witivn 2Q05 DM. 65-75 DNL 60 and �eater Provideci no to SF in 2005 wi[h #2 area irsq�att to SF DNL 65+ Priaicy Insuladon #5 Pria-ity Singie �3 Pria-ity: SF/MF #3 Prioriry #3 Priori[y #3 Priarity #5 Prioricy FamilylDupiex within & Duplez for 17l35 2005 DNL 60-64 pria to Runway 17/35 Opening �_ .� #6 Prioriry Multi-FamiIy �4 Priarity: MF in #4 prioriry: #3 Priority equal Simultaneously n6 Priority �within 2005 DNL 60-64 DNL 60 and �eater Provided no to SF in 2005 with #3 area impact to SF DNL 60-64 Priority � Insulapon #7 Priorities 'Ihen in ader: Nursing Homes, Churches with DaycarelNursery Schoois #4 Priority ��4 Priority I#7 Priority #2 Frioriry: Homes with High & Low Freq. Noise #5 Priarity: #3 Priority: Homes with High & Low Freq. Noise #b Priority #4 Prioriry: Homes with High & Low Freq. Noise �b Priariry #7 Priority #1 Priority: Low Freq Noise area within LFSL 87dB The Part l50 Update schedule anticipates that a draft document will be available in late Au�ust, a public hearina in late September and a final submittal to the FAA in December of this year. The FAAvcan take up to 180 days to accept the document and then take additional time for review and approval. During the 1992 Update, the FAA took eijhteen months to review and finally approve the document. Durina this update process, the t�IAC and the I�iASAC Operations Committee have been worki.n� very closely with the FAA. to identify potential issues, such as insulation priorities, to reduce the approval time. This is an extremely compressed schedule and continuation of the insulation program will require all party's most diligent actions. �, � Based on the above community preferences, past FAA precedence, construction scheduling, Part 150 Update submittal timin� and expected approval by FAA, the followin� is a summary of an approach for sin�le family and multi-family insulation priarities: � 2 '��, 3 v� 4. � � 8' Complete the sound insulation of single farnily and duplex homes within the 1996 DNL 6� and greater DNL noise contours; Complete the sound insulation of multi-family residential structures within the 1996 DIVL 65 and greater noise contours in conjunction with priority #3 and then sequencing to #5 below upon FAA approval of the Part 150 Update Document; Complete the sound insulation of single family and duplex homes that fall within the 2005 DNL 65 and greater DNL noise contours; Complete the sound insulation of multi-family residential structures within the 2005 DNL 65 and greater DNL noise contours in conjunction with priority #5 below upon FAA approval of the Part 150 Update Document; Complete the sound insulation of eligible single family and duplex homes that fall within the 2005 DNL 60 to DNL 64 noise contours; Complete the sound insulation of multi-family residential structures within the 2005 DNL 60 to DNL 64 noise contours. . Complete the sound insulation of homes exposed to low frequency sound levels within the 87dB LFSL area on a schedule established by the Low Frequency Policy Comrnittee. ' Complete the sound insulation of nursing homes, churches with regular weekday daycare/nursery school programs within the 2005 DNL 60 contour. The above priority sequence takes into consideration the recommendations provided by the majority of the communities, FAA environmental justice issues, the availability of Part 150 Pro�ram implementation team (consultants, contractors; and suppliers), Part 150 implementation schedules, and the MAC Part 150 funding levels. All of these factors must be carefully weighed in order to continue with a smooth transition from the existin� insulation proQram to an approved expanded program. Action Requested That the MASAC Operations Committee endorse the above sound insulation priority recommendation, that is consistent with the 1996 MSP Noise MitiQation Pro�am and forward this recommendation to the full body of MASAC for endorsement. If you have any questions concernin� this request, please contact me at 612-725-6326. C. c� DATE: July 20, 2000 TO: MASAC Operations Committee FROM: Steve Vecchi, Terrell Hundley & Carroll RE: I. Multi-Family Sound Insulation Issues II. DNL6460 Single Family Insulation Option Update As HNTB and MAC Staff strive toward the completion of the MSP Part 150 Update Document and corresponding 2005 DNL60 Base Case Noise Contour, the MAC Commission will be required to reach a resolution regazding several new Part 150 policy issues relatin� to the expansion of the Part 150 Sound Insulation Program from the DNL75-6� to the DNL64-60 mitigation area. These decisions must be made before the MSP Part 150 Update Document can be completed and submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). -- Consistent with history, MASAC will act as the primary advisory body to the MAC � �� Commission with regard to Part 150 Update recommendations. This memorandum outlines some additional information as it relates to both multi-family and single family Part 150 insulation issues in the following order: I. Multi-Family Sound Insulation Issues A. Multi-Family Insuiation Package Modifications B. Impacts of Prioritzation on Current MA.0 Program C. MAC Single & lYlulti-Family Prioritization Options D. Multi-Family Sound Insulation Remaining Tasks II. 200� DNL60 Residential Sound Insulation Strategies A. 2005 DNL75-6� strate�es B. 2005 DNL 64-60 strategies I. Iylulti-�'amily Sound Insulation Issues In November, 1996, the N1AC adopted the "MSP Noise Nlitigation Program" (see Attachment 1) which stated "the prioritization of the expanded pro�ram should be to initiate sinjle fami.ly homes upon completion of the currently approved schedule, and beain work on the followin� newly eli�ible dwellin�s/buildings, beginnin� with the hi�hest noise exposure leveLs, in accordance with a schedule agreed upon with each city -- multi- family dwellinQs, nursin� homes and churches with regular weekday daycare/nursery school types of operations." Based on this directive, the City of Minneapolis recently passed a resolution requestina that NIAC provide sound insulation modifications for multi-family structures within the 2005 DNL75-6�, before continuing the insulation of single family homes in the 2005 DNL6460. A Multi-Familv Insulation PackaQe Modifications Based on MAC Part 1�0 Pro;ram history and FAA's 5-decibel reduction goal, a proposed multi-family Part 150 sound insulation package should consist of the following modifications: - window and door treatments (STC/ANLR to meet acoustic reduction goal) - required ventilation rnodifications - baffling of existing wall A/C units - A/C modificatiorrs (optional; depending on Commission directive) Note: Air conditioning modiftcations in multi family units may include mechanicaUelectrical design work, "ductless" cooling units, multiple-zone DX units, central chiller systems, electrical modifzcations, structural modifications and ductwork modi�cations. 1'he Commission will need to reach a resolution whetherAJC modifications are applicable to Part 150 Nlulti-Family insulation objectives. B Impacts of Prioritzation on Current MAC Part 150 Pro�ram The priority approach outlined in Roy Fuhrmann's memo is consistent with noise exposure sensitivities. It also addresses issues associated with developing MSP's Part 150 ProD am implementation schedule that could potentialy create a series of additional impacts relating to overall Program implementation, scheduling, contractor impacts and funding that depends on MAC's prioritization plan. Accordinj to the most recent 1996 DNL65 Residential Sound Insulation Proaram completion schedule, it is estimated that MAC will reach completion of single family homes as early as February, 2002. At this time that MAC will be in a position to either: 1) complete insulation of multi-family units within the 1996 DNL75-6� 2) continue insulation of sin�le family homes; first, within the 2005 DNL7�-65, and second, within the 2005 DNL64-60 3) continue insulation of sin;le family homes (2005 DNL75-65, DNL64-b0) and beQin insulation of multi-family units (1996 DNL75-65), simultaneously \ a Due to the size and momentum of the current MAC Part 150 Resident•ial Sound Insulation Program, it is aLso critical that the Commision's final prioritization decisions do not negatively impact Program momentum and the Program implementation team (consultants, contractors and suppliers). Any interruption to Pro�ram continuity would have a negative effect on public relations and the public's perception of MAC's continual Part 150 commitment. C. NIAC Sin�le & Multi-Familv Prioritzation Options Option 1• Completion of Multi-Familv within 1996 DNL75-65 If N1AC elects to halt the insulation of single family homes and begins the insulation of multi-family units within the 1996 DNL75-65, there will be sign�cant impact on the cunent consultant team, general contractors, subcontractors and suppliers who are configured to implement single family structures. Based on recent estimates, Staff is of the opinion that only a few of the current Part 150 Residential Sound Insulation Program general contractors would have the capability to insulate smaller multi-family structures. It is estimated that of the 177 Multi-Fam.ily structures (approximately 2,371units) within the 2005 DNL75-65 contour, only 118 structures (464 total units) could be completed by these contractors, due to capacity limitations. The remaining majority of multi-family structures (59 structures; 1,908 units) would require the capabilities of commercial general contractors. Under this scenario, the current single family implementation team of consultants, general contractors, subcontractors and suppliers will be severely impacted as a result of the single family program shutdown. In order to complete the irisulation of multi-family units, MAC will be required to add the services of larger (commercial type) general contractors. Furthez-more, Staff estimates that given a number of challenDes ranging from the number of different multi-family structure types, number of units, staging and scheduling challenges, it would take approximately a 24 month period to complete the insulation of multi-family units within the 1996 DNL75-65. Since the single family insulation process would halt durin� this time period, this scenario poses a sign�cant ne�ative impact to MAC Part 150 Proa am continuity. Option �• Continuation of Sinale Familv Within 2005 DNL75-60 If IbI�.0 elects to bypass the insulation of multi-family structures within the 1996 DNL75-65 contour and elects to continue the insulation of single family homes within the 2005 75-60 contour e;cclusively, the current Pro�ram momentum will not be affected. However, bypassing the insulation of multi-family units within the DNL75-6� will, most likely, be challenged by FAA'durin� the Update review process due to environmental justice and discrimination issues (single family vs. multi-fam�ly priorities). This could have a major impact on the approval of the entire �IAC Part 1�0 Update Document and the approval of the 2005 DNL60 NEi�i. Option 3• Simultaneous Insulation of Multi-Familv and Sin�le Familv It is critical that MAC choose an insulation prioritzation scenario that avoids ne�ative impacts to the cunent Program (consultant team, contractors, suppliers) and possible rejection from FAA during the Update review process. It would be advantageous for MAC to begin simultaneous implementation of both multi-family insulation (within the 1996 DNL75-b5) and single family insulation (within the 2005 DNL75-60) insulation as soon as the MAC Part 150 Update Document is approved by FAA. Choosing this scenario will: - cuazantee minimal disruption to the current Program & momentum - - guarantee a seamless transition for single family homes - insure commitment to multi-family units within the DNL65 - maintain opportunities for current contractors and suppliers - minimi�e the opportunity for environmental justice issues . - offer additional opportunities for larger contractors - insure continued public confidence in the MAC Part 150 Insulation Program Based on the current MSP Part 15Q Update Document schedule, it is estimated that MAC may submit the completed document to FA1� by December, 2400. Given the precedent-setting nature of this document, it is almost assured that FAA's review will be extremely detailed and will require a long review period. During the last MSP Part 150 Update review process (Decer�ber, 1992 to March, 1993), FAA review took a total of eighteen (18) months. Given this history, the MAC should be prepazed for a review period equal to or greater than eighteen (18) months. Therefore, the earliest MAC should expect approval from the FAA for the MSP Part 150 Update Document and 2005 DNL60 contour is June, 2002. Since the current 1996 DNL65 Part 150 Program insulation of single family homes is anticipated to be completed by February, 2002, there will most likely be a "waitinD" period of a minimum of four (4) months, where MAC will have to temporarily halt single family home insulation while waiting for FAA approval of the Part 150 Update Document. During this period, MAC could begin insulation of the smaller multi-family units (approximately 118 structures; 464 total units). Upon FAA approval, MAC could then begin simultaneous implementation of both sin�le family insulation (within the 2005 DNL75-60) and multi-family insulation (within the 1996 DNL75-65) insulation, given the annual budget of $36.SM. D Nlulti-Farnilv Sound Insulation RemaininQ Tasks In addition to selectinQ the preferred multi-family acoustic packa;e, MAC will need to develop solutions to the following tasks before a Part 150 Multi-Family Program can begin at MSP, pendinj FAA approval of the 2005 DNL60 noise contour: Multi-Familv Tasks• 2000-2001 time period - Development of MAC Multi-Family Program Policies, and Spec�cations j' � - Development of MAC Nlulti-Family Acoustic Goals '-- ' - Address Consultant Team Staffing Needs �� C Multi-Fam� Tasks• 2001-2002 time period - Development and Implementation of a"Pilot" Program In order for MAC to be in a position to begin the insulation of the smaller multi-family units (approximately 118 structures; 464 total units) during the February, 2002 — June, 2Q02 "waitin�" period, these above tasks must be completed prior to February, 2002. MA.0 will need to define an a�gressive schedule in order for completion of the above tasks to occur. II. 2005 DNL60 Resident�al Sound Insulation Issues In November, 1996, the MAC adopted the MSP Noise Mitigation Program which directed "that the program be expanded after completion of the current program to incorporate the area encompassed by the 2005 60 DNL". Expansion of the MAC Part 150 Sound Insulation Program to homes within the 2005 DNL60 contour raises several new policy issues. Based on the draft "base-case" 2005 DNL60 contour boundary, Staff estimates there may be approximately 15,820 additional single family homes between the 2005 DNL64b0 contour azeas that may be eligible to receive Part 150 sound insulation modifications. Given the precedent-setting nature of this Part 150 Update Docuinent, there will be several issues that MAC will be required to address in order to secure FAA approval of the MSP Part 150 Update Document: Given the differences in noise exposure between the DNL75-65 and DNL64-60 contour areas, it is certain that the FAA will expect insulation solutions that differ from past DNL75-65 packages with reduced components to reflect reduced noise exposure levels and environmental justice issues. Given the uniqueness of this Part 150 Update Document, it will be imperative that the proposed residential DNL64-60 mitigation options reflect a variety of "menu" options that reflect noise exposure levels, housin� diversity, and proposed implementation schedules. Given the large number of eligible homes, it will imperative that the DNL64-60 insulation options reflect Program funding levels. A. 200� DNL 75-6� Residentiai Sound Insulation Strateaies Based on the past nine years of NfAC Part 150 Pro�ram history, I recommend that i�IAC continue to provide homes within the DNL75-65 contour areas with the same 5-Decibel Reduction Packa�e offered to eli�ible Homeowners within the in the 1996 DNL6� contour. These mod�cations should include: - rvindow and door treatments (STC 40, ANLR 31) - tivall c�C attic insulation - roof vent baffling - requlred ventilation modiftcations - air conditioning (A/C) modifications Note: It should be noted that azr conditioning modifications in single family homes may include mechanicaUelectrical design work, addition of an air condirioning condenser, addition of supplementary ductwork, furnace replacement, asbestos removal, electrical modifications, installation of "ductless" cooling units and/or installation of "cooling- only"furnaces with independent duczwork The above would represent a continuation of the current MAC Part 150 insulation package to homes within the 2005 DNL75-65 noise contour azea and would match past Program acoustic reduction levels (6 decibel average) quality levels. B. 2005 DNL 64-60 Residential Sound Insulation StrateQies Given the variety of home sizes, property values, azchitectural characteristics, types of existing heating and Homeowner prefezences, I recommend that MAC develop a"menu" format for eligible Homeowners wishing to participate in the MAC Part 150 Program in the 2005 DNL64-b0 contour areas. This "menu" could consist of the following three (3) options: 1. Sound Insulation Modification Package (without Air Conditioning Modifications) 2. "Air Conditioning (A/C) Only" Modification Package 3. Avigation Easement Cash Payment Offering a"menu" of these three (3) 2005 DNL64-60 Program options would provide MAC with the following: Consistericy with FAA's piobable DNL64-60 concerns; relatin� to the development of Part 150 package options that are consistent with the reduced noise exposure levels in the DNL6460 contour area (when compared to the higher noise exposure levels of the DNL75-65 areas). Increased mitigation choices among participatin� Homeowners, given the projected increase of individual preferences and housinQ styles within the DNL64-60 contour area. - Superior ProQram cost value and efFciencies . Based on budget concerns ( � from FAA, airlines and MAC related to the lar�e number of eligible ''" properties within the 2005 DNL64-60 contour, it will be critical that MAC develop mitigation options that e�ciently match annual Part 150 Pro�ra.m funding levels. In addition, providing three (3) di.fferent Part 150 mitigation options will help to reduce overall Part 150 Program construction costs � and potential construction liability issues. ' - Improved distribution of Part 150 construction labor force amona certified Program general contractors, sub-contractors and suppliers. Having two (2) Program options that require different construction services (Sound Insulation Program Package &"A/C onl}�' Packa�e) will more effectiveiy distribute carpentry, insulation, mechanical and electrical services amonj available contractors. This specialization will provide MAC with the ability to implement different Part 150 Programs, simultaneously, resulting in the hi�hest monthly and annual Program implementation rates. This will, in turn, help to maximize monthly capacities among Part 150 contractors. Provide an opportunity for more specialized consultant construction management responsibilities, due to specialization of construction services. While Option 1(Sound Insulation Modification Package) will require construction and insulation services, Option 2("A/C Only" Package) will require primarily mechanical and electrical services. Provide greater protection for MAC against environmental justice and discrimination challenges from past 1996 DNL75-65 Program participants due to better selection and variation of mitigation options, reduced package components and cost "CAP" options. The followin� is a brief summary of the three (3) proposed 2005 DNL64-60 mitigation program "menu" options: Option One• insulation 11�Iodification Packa�e (without AIC) Based on options identified in my May 23, 2000 memo (see attached), I recommend that MAC maintain the current STC40 and ANLR31 acoustic goals for all Program window and door nnodifications. This would maintain conformance to FAA's "minimum of � decibel" goal and would avoid the need to do further costly and laborious research in the identification of reduced STC and ANLR goals. In addition, this strategy would maintain continuity in past MAC Part 150 Program modifications and� products, as well as the continuation of Program quality standards. PackaQe Elements The proposed Insulation Nlodification Package should include: - window and door treatments (S7'C 40, ANLR 31) - wall c� attic insulation - roof vent baffling - required ventilation modifications Similar to the current 1996 DNL75-b5 Part 150 Pro�ram, Homeowners electing this mitigation option would be required to sign a Work Agreement Contract and Avigation Release. 4ption Two• "Air Conditionin� (AJCI Onlv" Packa�e The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA.) recently approved a similar "A.ir Conditionin� Onl}�' Part 150 mitigation pacicaQe for eligible homes surrounding the Los Angeles International Au-port (LAX), setting the presidence for other Part 150 Programs. In addition, It is estimated that as high as 80% of 2005 DNL6460 homes may not have a pre-eaci.stin� central air conditioning system. This figure is based on data of predicted 2005 DNL6460 homes derived from city records: . -existing gravity heat (10% occurance rate) -e�ci.stina hydronic (radiator) heat (30% occurance rate) -ex.i.sting forced air; without existing AJC (40% occurance rate) -existin� forced air; with existing A/C(20% occurance rate) Given these above projected figures and the fact that some Homeowners may prefer A/C moficiations over a Sound Insulation Modification Package (option 1), it appeazs there may be a si�nificant need among eligible Homewoners for this mitigation option. Given the predicted hijh occurance of the lack of pre-existing central air conditionina systems, this option would provide sianificant acoustical reduction benefits to Homeowners during the"open window" months (May through October). � PackaQe Elements The proposed "Air Conditioning Only" Mod�cation Packa�e should include the following, depending on existing heating types: Homes with forced air heat - addition of central air conditioning coil and condensor - furnace replacement (if required) - addition of ductwork (if required) - electrical modifications (if required) Homes with .�ravitv heat - addition of central air conditioning coil and condensor - addition of forced air furnace - addition of ductrvork (if required) - electrical modifications (if required) Homes with hvdronic (radiator) heat - addition of independent cooling furnace - addition of ductless coolin� units (if required) - addition of duct�vork (if possible) - electrical rnodifications (if reqc�ired) Ontion Three• Avi�ation Easement Cash Pavment Consistent with many U.S. Part 150 Proarams, MAC has the option of establishing an ' avication easement mitigation option in addition to offering sound insulation and air conditioning modifications. Although this option does not involve actual treatments to the home, it still allows an additional mitigation program choice to eligible Homeowners. Due to the lower cost of an avigation easement (as compared to sound insulation and air � conditioninQ modifications), offering this option to eligible Homeowners would allow MAC the ability to ma,rimi.ze annual Part 150 funding and Program completion schedules. PackaQe Elements An avigation easement requires that Homeowners: - grant passage of aircraft through airspace - restrict all property structure height to 100 feet - prevent aircraft interference to navigation and communication systems - release all legal claims and actions pertaining to aircraft noise exposure AviQation Easement Cash Pavments The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) currently requires that aarports determine avigation easement cash payments based on either current appraised property values or proven demunition of property value resulting from aircraft noise impacts. On averaje, most avigation easement cash payments offered in U.S.Part 150 Probrams are $2,500 (or less) for eli�ible homes within the DNL75-65. ( ) For airports wishin� to purchase avigation easement for greater that $2,500 (primarily due to higher property values), the FAA requires that the easement cash payment be based on a formula detemined by 1) individual property appraisaLs; and 2) a pre-determined percentage based on either airport direction or other deterniining factors. This percentage ran�es between 2% - 6% in most U.S. airports that offer an aviaation easement cash payment option. C UNAPPROVED lY1 I N U T E S �� ' NIASAC OPER�.TIONS CONT�VIITTEE July 14, 2000 The meeting was held in the Large Construction Trailer of the Metropolitan Airports Commission and called to order at 9:00 a.m. Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order and the roll was taken. The following members were in attendance: 1�Iembers• John Nelson, Interim Chair Kevin Batchelder Dick Saunders Bob Johnson Jamie Verbrugge Mary Loeffelhalz Roy Fuhrmann Advisorv• Chad Leqve � Jason Giesen ` Shane VanderVoort Mark Ryan Joe Harris Cindy Greene Glenn Orcutt Visitors• Kim Hughes Kent Duffey Andrew Harris Robert Itililler Richard Hinz Andy Pederson Patrick Hollister Glenn Strand Jan DelCalzo Paul Teske Bloomington l�Iendota Heights Nfinneapolis NIBAA. Eagan NWA MAC MAC MAC MAC NiAC MAC FAA FAA HI�1TB HN'I'B HNIl�L�-I � 1Cy1�I NWA Apple Valley Mendota Hei�hts Minneapolis City of iYlinneapolis Resident of Eagan AGEND� Chairman Nelson noted that Kevin Batcheider was leaving his position �vith the City of �Iendota Heiahts and movin� to Colorado and recognized Patrick Hollister as Nlendota Heiahts' interim 1 representative at the NIA.SAC Operations Committee. Chairman Nelson also directed staff to draft a � letter of commendation for 11�Ir. Batchelder's service on the 1�LASAC Operations Corrunittee. Receipt of Communications There were no communications. Introduction of Invited Guests iVlary Loeffelholz, NWA, introduced 1�Ir. Richard Hinz of Northwest Airlines' aircraft flight crew. Approval of l�Iinutes The minutes of the June 9, 2000 meeting were approved as distributed. Special NIASAC Operations Committee iYleeting Chairman Nelson directed the rnembers' attention to the first staff inemo reQarding the addition of a Special Operations Committee meeting scheduled for July 28, 2000 at 9:00 a.m. Chairman Nelson asked if there were any scheduling conflicts for this special meeting. IYIary Loeffelholz, NWA, said both she and Jennifer Sayre, NWA, have scheduling conflicts. She said she would attempt to reschedule her other appointment in order to make the meeting. Chairman Nelson said he would not be able to attend the meeting, as well. In his absence, he said staff would ask Charles 1Vlertensotto, Chairman of 1�IASAC, to chair the meeting. If Chairman 1�Iertensotto is unable to chair the meetinQ, Bob Johnson, MBAA, would chair the meeting and if Mr. Johnson is unable to chair, Roy Fuhrmann, 1bIAC, would chair the meeting. Part 150 Update Progress Report � � Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, gave a brief progress report on the Part 1�0 Update. He noted that the topics for the special July 28, 2000 meeting would be the sound insulation packa.ge options, the contour boundary definition, and the multi- and single-family priorities. He said a draft Part 150 Update should be completed by late August with a public hearing set for late September or early October. The final report is expected to be completed and submitted by December or January 2001. � Runtivay 17 Departure Fliaht Tracks Kent Duffey, �Ni TB, gave a brief presentation on the history of the Runtivay 17 departure track discussions and decisions to date. He noted that at the June 9, 2000 Operations Committee meeting the FAA had expressed concerns about the method used to define the tivestem flight track tum points necessary to keep aircraft along a route that impacts the fewest people. He said since that meetinQ, HNTB, the FA.A and the NIAC have worked to establish a procedure that is acceptable to the FAA and that maintains the intent of the comrnittee's recommendation. vlr. Duffey reminded the members that flight tracks are estimates based on typical destinations and ATC routing procedures and that the FEIS flight tracks represent the best information available at the time. l�Ir. Duffey also noted that: �� c� • Dispersion off each track should be expected. i • The use of ANOI�IS, AutoCAD and GIS software has allowed more precise development of projected flight tracks. The Inte�ated Noise Model (]NM) now also has the ability to model dispersed flight tr-acks. • The increase in usage of hieh-performance aircraft means that aircraft are taldng off at shorter distances, climbing higher, and ultimately turning sooner than what was modeled in the EIS. Mr. Duffey said, in light of continuing discussions with ATC and the carriers, some changes have been ma.de in regards to runway 17, including: Change in flight tracks due to the earlier turns that can be expected with the new high-performance aircraft. Some propeller aircraft in the projected fleet mix have been replaced with regional jet aircraft. These changes have resulted in a change in the unmitigated Z005 contour and the ultimate number of people included in it. When these changes are applied, approximately 2,870 people are added to the 60+ uiunitigated contour (new contour vs. Mazch 2000 contour). (A graphic depicting both the March 2000 and July 2000 Unmitiga.ted contours was presented.) l�Ir. Duffey then reviewed the goals of the runway 17 departure flight track analysis and explained the concerns the FAA had with the use of one DME turn point in addition to a second turn point used in the initial analysis. Turn Point Alternatives � ) iYlr. Duffey explained the three turn point alternatives for westbound aircraft. For each alternative, the aircraft would be 7iven a 170° (straight out) heading and then be turned on their assigned heading at a specified distance from start of take off roll. The three distances analyzed were 1.7 miles, 2.2 miles and 2.7 miles from start of take off roll. The 2.2-mile turn point alternative was determined to be the alternative closest to the initial analysis. The follotiving reasons were �iven for this detern�ination: • It reduces the impact with.in the 60-'- DNL contour, while avoiding increased overflights of other communities. • It is simple and easy to implement. • It maintains the intent of the Cominittee's original recommendation (105° hybrid fan). • West bound aircraft will be at a slightly higher altitude than the ori�inal recommendation (105° hybrid fan) before turnin� over populated areas. • It allo�vs for future transirion to GPS/FI�IS navigation. A Qraphic sho�ving the contours associated with each turn point alternative was presented. The 2.2-mile turn point alternative, like the previous recommendation; reduces overall run�vay capacity by 3� departures per hour but is still with�n the runway's projected capacity as outlined in the FEIS. Overall, the use of the 2.2-mile turn point alternative would eliminate appro:cimately 13,900 people from 3 ; the July 2000 unmitigated 200� 60-f- DNL contour. With this altemative, an additional 510 people are eliminated from the contour compared with the original recommendation (105° hybrid fan). It was also recommended that a river departure procedure be developed using e:cisting technology, for use during low demand periods. I{evin Batchelder, 11�Iendota Hei;hts, asked how the northern movement of the 095° flight track would � affect departures off runways 12R/12L. He said he was concerned that the 095° flight track, which now crosses into the path of flights departing off runway 12R/12L, would interfere with deparhzres. on the south parallel runway a.nd would therefore force additional flights onto the north parallel runway. Kent Duffey, �3N'I'B, said the new 095° flight track crosses into the 12L/12R contour after the 3-mile mark of the corridor. Cindy Greene, FA.A, said interactions with the 095° track should not affect runway choice for either the north or south parallel runway because runway choice decisions would be made prior to lrnowing whether there would be a departure scheduled for runway 17 at the same time. Kevin Batchelder,ltilendota Heights, clarified with the consultants that the reduced capacity for runway 17 associated with the 2.2-mile turn point alternative was no different than what was projected for the original recommendation, and that the overall capacity of the runway was still within the projected capacity listed in the EIS. Cindy Greene, FAA, noted that the projected capacity reduction would only affect the user (airlines) with possible time delays but would not change the runway use system (RUS) percentages. Chairman Nelson asked l�Ir. Duffey to esplain the reason for the northerly shift of track A(09�°). Mr. ( � Duffey said the track shifted north due to better modeling of e:cpected turn ra.tes. He explained that the -' newer technology aircraft are able to climb faster and turn sooner than what was projected in the EIS. I3e noted that information regazding tum rates for all the other nmways was gleaned from the Ai.'�tOMS data and that data was now being used to predict turn rates for runway 17. Jamie Verbrusge, Eagan, asked whether or not it could be predicted how often the 095° heading tivould not be used because of subsequent departures off of the 12's. Cindy Greene, FAA, said there was no way to predict because it would depend on what other activities are occurring at the airport. She said, hotivever, that if aircraft were landing on the 30's, ATC would not use the 095° heading for departures off runway 17 due to the interaction with arriving traffic on the 30's. Roy Fuhrmann, MA.C, noted, too, that the RUS percentages tivould not change with the location change of the 09�° flight track. Chairman Neison asked why tracks H and I were included in the mitigated flight tracks and not in the unmiti�ated. Kent Duffey, Hl�I'i'B, said the H and I flight tracks were part of the 10�° hybrid recommendation and have always been part of the miti�ated modeling. Chairman Nelson then asked about flight tracks F and G, rvest of ivn�vay 17 centerline. He noted that both tracks are also no�,v modeled at a more northerly location. Kent Duffey, HN'I73, said the tracks are further north because it is eYpected, and thus was modeled, that aircraft will be able to turn sooner than what �vas previously projected. Chairman `�telson said the City of Bloomington is very concemed about the more northerly tracking of tracks F and G and asked if there �vere any other possibilities for moving the tracks further south closer (�. C� to the original recommendation (105° hybrid - May 2000). 1VIr. Duffey said several turn point distances 1 were analyzed and the 2.2-mile turn point was chosen because it represented a balance between providing noise miti�ation for Bloomington and not increasing aircraft noise eYposure over other communities further to the south. Chairman Nelson asked if it would be possible to look at a location between the 2.2 and 2.7-mile turn point alternatives. Cindy Greene, FAA, said tum point locations between these two points have already been analyzed and that the FA.A feels the 2.2-mile tum point is as far out as they would be comfortable turning aircraft. l�Is. Greene said the FA.A balanced their safety, runway capacity and user impact concerns with their desire to be noise friendly and feels the 2.2-mile alternative is the best compromise. Chairman Nelson asked if there were any other possibilities for reducing the impacts over the more residential areas of Bloomington. Kent Duffey, HNT'B, noted that the new recommendation includes the developrnent of a low-demand river departure procedure using e:cisting technology. He said other than this he had no other suggestions. Cindy Greene, FA.A, also noted that when aircraft are arriving on the 12's, ATC will not be able to utilize the 285° heading for departures off runway 17, which will reduce the amount of time that the 285° heading is used. • Chairman i�telson suggested that the runway 17 departure flight track analysis be held over for further study and review by the interested parties (city councils and commissions) and then taken up and completed at the Auwst 1l, 2000 Operations Committee meeting. Chau-man Nelson also asked the staff and consultants to continue to explore other potential alternatives that would accomplish further ' � noise mitigation. He said if no other alternative can be found, then he would like to see a"bundling" of other mitigation measures that would reduce the impacts, such as fleet mix restrictions, low demand flight tracks and the placement of hsrbo prop and regional jet aircraft flights. He suggested that these, along with a river track deparlure procedure, be pursued in order to further reduce the impacts on residents in Bloomintr on. Kevin Batchelder,l�Iendota. Heights, asked if the original recommendation of a 105° hybrid fan, which was presented to the public in May, would be changed. Chairman Nelson said that was correct and noted that the issue of the runway 17 depar�iue flight tracics have not been presented to 1�1ASAC for a vote. He also noted that the reason for the changes was because the FAA felt it could not implement the original recommendation that essentially included two turn points. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said he felt the additional analysis requested could be completed by the July 28, 2000 meeting and could be presented at that time, which will give the cities two weeks to revie�v the information before the August 1 l, 2000 meetin�. Vlary LoeffeIholz, NiNA, said she did not understand the need for addirional analysis. She said it seemed to her that all of the analyses and information had akeady been presented but a�eed that the cities may want the time to review what had been presented. Chairman Nelson said the City of Bloomin�on feels the recommendarion as presented represents insufficient mitigation and wants to be sure all possibilities are e:chausted. He said� he recognizes that the recommendation may not change. Roy Fuhrmann, �L�C, said the reason he feels comfortable bringing a final recommendation to the July 5 28`� meeting is because the consultants, staff and the FAA have thoroughly analyzed the possibilities and � it should not be di�cult to put together a comprehensive recommendation at that time. Jamie Verbrugae, Eagan, said he supported Chairman Nelson's recommendation and posed the question as to whether additional public workshops need to be held in light of the new information. He said residents will be upset if what they were presented in May is changed without the ability to comment. He said he highly recommended having an additional workshop. JOH�i t NELSOi�T, BLOONIINGTON, 1VIOVED A1�TD JAIYQE VERBRUGGE, EAGAl�t, SECONDED TO FOR�i'ARD THE RUNWAY 17 DEPARTURE TRACK ANALYSIS AS A STUDY ITEIVI TO BE PRESENTED AIVD DISCtTSSED AT T'� AUGUST 28, 2000 SPECL4L OPERATIONS COI�IlVIITTEE NIEETI�YG AND AS Aiv ACTION ITEM FOR T'ffE AUGUST 11, 2000 OPERA.TIONS COiVf�i IITTEE MEETIN'G. THE MOTION CA�RRTED ON A VOICE VOTE. Fleet NLis Aiternatives Kent Duffey, HNTB, reviewed the two scenarios of eliminating all hushkit aircraft operations at MSP or eliminating all hushlat aircraft opera.tions during the nighttime hours at MSP. He noted that for several reasons neither of these alternatives is viable. He said there are limited options for imposing restrictions at the local level on hushldt aircraft opezations due to: • A Part 161 Study would be required, with little chance of successful implementa.tion. • Manufacturers would be unable to produce the number of aircraft needed to provide for an all manufactured Sta�e 3 fleet. ! �• There would be adverse economic impact to the carriers and associated industries if a mandatory no hushkit operations rule were to be applied. Therefore, alternatives for reducing the use of hushlat aizcraft have been analyzed with the assistance of the carriers at MSP. Moving some ni�httime operations into the daytime hours was analyzed using SIlV]NIOD - it �vas determined that this schedule shift would not be feasible. Accelerating aircraft purchases - it was deternlined that the noise benefits of buying new aircraft would not offset the costs of purchasing new aircraft (i.e. the reduction in the number of homes �vithin the contour and the associated costs for sound insulation would not make up for the cost of purchasing ne�v aircraft amortized over time). i�Ir. Duffey noted that, althou�h the airlines' plans for purchasing new aircraft in the future show�s promise, it would be difficult to precisely estimate the number of new aircraft purchases. Therefore, these estimates should not be used for generatin� the contours. Recommendation The recommendation from the staff and the consultants is to institute a voluntary nighttime a�eement with the carriers, much like the previous a�reement for Stage 2 aircraft operations. The a�eement would state that: 0 • The airline aerees not to operate or schedule hushkit aircraft during the nighttime hours of 10:30 ) p.rn. to 6:00 a.m. • E:cceptions are permitted for emergencies, mechanical problems, ATC delays and weather. .Discussion Dick Saunders, vLinneapolis, asked why it was so difficult to ensure 6 to 8 nighttime operations, for NWA, are manufactured Stage 3 aircraft. 1VIary Loeffelholz, NWA, said NWA estimates that it would cost the carrier $8 to $10 million per year to swap hushldtted aircra.ft with manufactured Sta�e 3 aircraft during the shoulder hours. She said NWA should be able to work within the 10:30 p.in. to 6:00 a.m. timeframe but that eliminating hushkit operations before 10:30 p.m. and after 6:00 a.m. would be impossible for the carrier. She also noted that NWA is not the most significant contributor to nightrime operations at MSP. Jan DelCalzo, City of Nlinneapolis, said she was disappointed that the alternatives discussed previously had not come to fruition. Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, said NWA had hoped that a compressed schedule would have worked but that a S1M�bIOD analysis has shown that the airport could not run with a compressed schedule. She said, also, that shifting aircrait around to take all hushldtted aircraft out of the 10 to 7 timeframe resulted in an$8 to $10 million cost increase with no appreciable change in the contour. Jan DelCalzo, City of Minneapolis, also asked which carriers have the most significant impact on the contour for nighttime operations. Kent Duffey, HTTI�7B, said the cargo carriers have more of an effect on the contour because they operate primarily during the nighttime hours. He also noted that because of the physical location of the car;o facilities, many of the flights aze concentrated on the south parallel runway whereas NWA usually uses the north parallel runway. He said this type of split is common throughout the day but is more pronounced at night because the major carrier does not operate during the nighttime hours as it does durin� the day. He noted, too, that some car�o carriers have all hushldtted fleets. Roy Fuhrmann, I�JAC, noted, too, that there are significant numbers of operations during the 5:45 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. and the 10:00 to 10:30 p.m. timeframes, which is the timeframe that affects the nighttime contour the most. He said there simply is not enough manufactured Stage 3 aircraft to fill those time slots. vlr. Fuhrmann also noted that because of the nature of the cargo carriers' business, they must operate at night and thus completing a successful Part 161, which would unduly restrict their businesses, is unlikely. He said that the cargo operations during the nighttime hours typically make up a little less than 50% of the total niahttime operations. Glenn Strand, l�Iinneapolis, noted that the reduction or elimination of hushldt aircraft operations was the most si�ificant noise mitiQation measure discussed thus far and expressed concern that there had not been sufficient evidence presented or discussion regardin� the inability of the airlines to reduce or eliminate their hushkitted fleet. He also sugoested that the conclusion that a Part 161 could not be successfully completed at YSSP should be investigated further. Chairman Nelson noted that iYlike l�Iahoney of Northwest Airlines at the May Operations Comrriittee meeting had discussed and e:cplained in detail the reasons for the airline's inability to replace their hushkitted aircraft with manufactured Stage 0 r' ( 3 aircraft. Roy Fuhrmann, IvIAC, again noted that even if the airline was financially able to replace all � of its hushkitted aircraft with new Sta�e 3 aircraft the manufacturers have indicated that they would not be able to produce the number of aircraft needed. Mr. Fuhrmann also noted that the cost to NWA to replace all their hushkitted aircraft would be approximately �.5 to �4.6 billion (173 DC9Q aircraft x $32 million for an Ai20 or A319). Glenn Strand, Itilinneapolis, asked if there had been any discussion on establishing incentives or disincentives to replace the hushkitted aircraft and suggested that there be discussion on this subject. He also said he did not believe that a voluntary a�eement would work because the airlines would have no incentive to abide by it. IVlary Loeffelholz, NWA, asked Roy Fuhrmann, MA.C, how well the StaQe 2 Nighttime Voluntazy Agreement had worked. Mr. Fuhrmann said the Stage 2 Nighttime Voluntary Agreement was very successful in reducing the number of Stage 2 aircra$ operating at ni�ht Jan DelCalzo, City of l�Iinneapolis, asked for more information as to why a compressed schedule was deemed impossible, as weil as for an estimate as to how much it would cost and how long it would take to conduct a Part 161 study. Kent Duffey, HN'TB, said a compressed schedule would result in delays during the peak hours at the airport. He said at this time there is time between the "banks" but when the schedule is compressed, the banks begin to overlap causing capacity constraints and delays. Bob l�Iiller, Htii IlyLH, said in their esperience a Part 161 can cost anywhere from $500,000 to �4 million, depending on the complexity of the study. The more comples the study is the longer it would take. �Ie noted that their San Francisco study had cost between $500,000 and $600,000 and took less than a year. Dick Saunders, l�Sinneapolis, noted the expected change in the number of cargo and passenger l ) operations between 1999 and 2005. He said the number of nighttime flights is expected to grow from 43,000 in 1999 to 76,000 in 2005 with cargo operations expected to grow from 2,000 to 8,000 during the same time period. He also noted that the predominant passenger aircraft flying at night in 2005 will be the hushkitted DC9 and that the largest number of cargo flights at night will be flown using DC8-6 hushed aircraft. iYlr. Saunders said he was concerned that the number of nighttime flights represented in the projected fleet mi�c did not represent the number of "renegade" flights - flights that are not scheduled durinj the nighttime hours but are forced, for one reason or another, to operate during those hours. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said these so-called "renegade" flights are factored into the projections using existing ANOI�SS data. He also reminded Mr. Saunders that the projected ni�httime fleet miY and aircraft operation levels he quoted were from the 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. timeframe and not the 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. rimeframe that is used at NISP to define nighttime hours. He also noted that the DC8-6 is a hushkitted aircraft but the DCS-7 is a re-engined aircraft that has an A320 en;ine. Chairman Nelson recapped the discussions regarding the fleet mix alternatives to date. He said the question for the Operations Committee is whether or not an a��essive timetable for the phaseout of hushkitted aircraft at VISP should be included as part of the fleet miY considerations and whether there should be a voluntarv niahttime a�-eement between the hours of 10:30 to 6:00 for hushkitted aircraft. Chairman �telson then confirmed �vith l�Iary Loeffelholz that Northwest Airlines plans to phase out its BoeinQ 727 fleet over the next two to three years. He also confirmed that within the next 7 to 9 years Northwest Airlines �zZll be�-in phasing out its DC9 hushed aircraft over a 7 to 10 year timeframe. 1 Chairman Nelson said he also felt that the Operations Committee should pursue discussions regarding possible incentives/disincentives for the airlines to reduce or eliminate hushkit operations and noted that a presentation of the FAt�'s Part 161 was on the agenda. for October. Chairman Nelson said in the meantime, he feels 1�IASAC should pursue a Nighttime Voluntary Agreement with the cazriers at MSP. Chairman Nelson commented that in the previous Part 150 Upda.te the FAA rejected mandatory restrictions on nighttime Stage 2 operations and would likely not approve any manda.tory restrictions on hushldtted aircraft operations, as well. He noted, however, that the FAA did approve and endorse a voluntary program. He also noted that there aze other mechanisms outside a Part 150 Update, such as a Part 161, that can and should be explored. JOHN NELSON, BLOOiYILiVGTON, MOVED Ai.YD BOB JOHNSON, 1V�AA, SECO'�tDED TO RECOIYIlVIEND TO NIASAC THAT A VOLUNTARY NIGHTTIlYIE AGREEIYIENT, tiVffiCH WOULD REQUEST THE CARRIERS AT MSP TO vOLUNTARLLY LIMIT ST�GE 3 HUSHKITTED OPERATIONS BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 10:30 P.M. AND 6:00 A.iVI., BE Pi TCLUDED IN 'I�E PART 15q UPDATE AS A MITIGATION MEASURE. THE iVIOTION CARI2I]�D ON A VOICE VOTE. GPS/F1VIS Assessment Roy Fuhrmann, NIAC, introduced Andy Harris and Bob l�Iiller of �I�vLNL�I who have been working on the GPS assessment for I�ISP. Both men introduced themselves, as well, and gave the members a brief e:cplanation of their back�ounds in acoustics and aviation. � Andy Harris, Hl�i fvlH, said for MASAC he would concentrate on what Global Positioninj System (GPS) technology can do for noise reduction at an airport and what a GPS/FMS mitigation measure would consist of for inclusion in the Part 150 Update. He said the purpose of developing a GPS plan no�v is to make sure that when the technology becomes widely available the benefits also become available. YT�hat's Happening with GPS Today o The best precision GPS is now available to all users (previously it was only available to the military with a de�aded si�al available for all other users). • The Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) is e:cperiencing a delay in its development and implementation schedule. • The Local Area Au�nentation System (LAAS) is moving ahead at an accelerated pace. • MSP will soon replace its Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) with a higher precision system (LAAS). • The signal precision has improved from 100 meters horizontally and vertically to beh,o•een .16 and .20 meters horizontally and .2� meters vertically. YYhat are the Potenrial Bene�ts of GPS • It allo�vs for precise location lrnowledge. • It �vill ultimately supplement the radar system now in place. • It will reduce the amount of communication (tallang) between the pilot and the air traffic system. • It �vill allo�v for curced approaches 0 What are the Barriers for Implementation • Absence of an FA.A implementation policy. • Although the newest aircra$ are able to make the best use of the technology, it is also the most expensive to make it available on these aircraft. • Some of the current noise mitigation procedures at airports today will not be able to be duplicated using GPS technology because GPS operates under different rules for the development of procedures. 1VIr. Harris said one of the �oals for the meeting was to present information regarding the noise benefits that could be expected with improved adherence to current noise abatement flight tracks and corridors. l�Ir. Harris then explained the difference beiween planned and unwanted dispersion. He said planned dispersion reduces concentration of noise over any one area and optimizes an airport's capacity. Unwanted dispersion is the "drift" that happens when aircraft move off of a specified path. Unwanted dispersion increases noise impacts in areas that the airport is trying to avoid. The causes for unwanted dispersion include: • Existing ILS environment is a fan shape • Radar accuracy - sweep times • A.irline procedures and pilot techniques • ATC fiechniques • Limited departure path guidance in older aircraft • Limitations of current design procedures for area navigation 1VIr. Harris then presented, in graphic form, the geometrical differences between an IL,S signal and a GPS si�al. Bob vliller, HNliI�IH, presented information about Boston-Logan's application of an FNIS procedure on one of its runways to illustrate how GPS can benefit an airport community, as well as some of the problems associated with implementation of the technology. A graphic showing the area in which aircraft equipped with FiYIS were supposed to stay within was presented. It illustrated how the use of FI�IS waypoints can help concentrate aircraft over a very specific area. He noted, however, that there are limitations associated with using waypoints. For instance, there are procedural limitations on how far the first waypoint must be from the end of the runway. There are also limitations associated with how much distance there is between subsequent waypoints. �Ie said this illustrates how it would be possible that a current noise abatement procedure might not work with FNIS/GPS technolo�y. He also noted that even �vith the use of the waypoints, there is a lot of variability to the location of the flight tracks. IYIr. 1�Iiller then presented an analysis that illustrated how a GPS noise benefit analysis might be performed for e;cistin� procedures at i�ISP. Using IvISP flight track data from days when there were either strong right or strong left crosswinds, HN tt�t�I determined how far to the right or left of centerline, for both depariures and arrivals in the Eajan/Nfendota Heights Corridor, aircraft would drift without the benefit of GPS technolo�y. l�Ir. l�liller noted that the arrivals kept much closer to the centerline than departures. l�Ir. iVliller e:cplained that there was an approximate 2° shift of flight tracks to the north as a result of the ) cross�vinds. And, using an SEL contour, he illustrated how this "drift" might affect the area of impact on the �-ound compared with where the area of impact would be if an aircraft were to use GPS technology. The ultima.te difference in noise levels between the two scenarios is approximately one to two decibels. He said the difference would be even less on days with lighter or no crosswinds. 1VIr. iVliller then showed what would happen if the dispersion inherent to each flight track in the INl�I were to be narrowed with either 70% or 100°/a of the GPS/FMS capable aircraft using it. The results showed less dispersion of noise imgacts (more concentration) and a lengthening of the contour's "Iobes." In fact, at almost every level there was an increase in the amount of land encompassed by the contour. l�Ir. Miller said these analyses show that GPS/FMS technology will not necessarily provide larje, overall benefits but that it could be applied in specific areas, such as with a river track. He said the purpose of the GPS assessment is to determine in which areas GPS/FMS technology may benefit the communities. Pnul Teske, resident of Eagan, asked several technical questions regarding GPS and MSP's system . Dick Saunders,ll�Iinneapolis, said the most difficult question to answer is who will receive the benefit from the technology and who will not. Bob Miller, I�MMH, said MASAC will need to decide, as in the past, who will benefit from this technology and who will not. He said GPS/FiY1S technology is simply a tool to ensure that the decisions made by MA.SAC for noise abatement procedures can be implemented as precisely as posslble, but that it does not take away the question as to how and where to apply the benefits. ) Chairman Nelson asked when GPS/F11�IS.technology would be widely available and widely used. Bob i�liller, FIVIlVl�3, said the technology would not be fully implemented within five years, but that it is still an ideal time to include the technology in the Part 150 Update as a precedent so that the airport is prepared for future Updates. He said this gives the airport the opportunity to continue to e:cplore the technology and its potential benefits even before it can be fully implemented. A brief discussion took place regarding the possible wording that would be included in the Part 150 Update regardin; the future use of the GPS/FMS technology for noise mitigation purposes. Chnirman NeIson then asked l�Ir. Harris and iVlr. IYliller what possible applications the technolo;y could be used for at l�ISP, specifically during low demand periods. I�Ir. 1Vliller said one possible area that the technoloQy might be applied is over the river. He also noted that the technolo;y is most applicable to depa.rture procedures rather than approach procedures since serpentine approaches can be difficult to perform and are usually uncomfortable for passengers. AlthouQh a curved, up-river, approach may be possible. Roy Fuhrmann,l�Lr1C, noted that the current GPS system at NISP (SCAT) will be updated over the ne�t six to eight months to a LAAS system. He also noted that the FAA plans to have 160 LAAS stations up and nuu►in� by the end of 2002. ROY FUFTRtiL��iV, I�I�C, iYIOVED AND BOB JOH�i tSON, lYIBAA, SECOr�ED TO 11 C �� RECOiVIlV�ND TO 1VIASAC THAT T'HE PART 150 UPDATE INCLUDE THE � EYPLORATION OF GPS A.�.�tD F'MS TECH�i TOLOGY TO EVALUATE EXISTIlYG A�YD PROPOSED NOISE NIITIGATION PROCEDURES AS A F'U7CURE NOISE NIITIGATION 1VIEASURE. THE MOTION CA,I2R�D ON A VOICE VOTE. Roy Fuhrmann, NLAC, suggested having Mr. Harris and tl�-. ibliller make a presentation at the July 25, 2000 MASAC meeting. Chairman Nelson asked if I�Ir. F3azris and Mr. Miller were available to make that presentation. NIr. IVliller and Mr. Harris said they would be happy to present the information at that time. Other Items Not on the Agenda Jamie �Verbrugge, Eagan, presented a map that depicted the runway 17 flight tracks over the city of Eagan's residential land use and noted that he planned to revisit the issue of the runway 17 low demand flight tracks at the next MA.SAC meeting. He noted that the City of Eagan believes that the 170° flight track, which was not included as a recommended low demand flight tracl� is the better choice because it overflies the Cedar Avenue corridor and avoids residential land uses. Chairman Nelson noted that Mr. Verbrugge ma.y be able to revisit the issue at MASAC if someone on the prevailing side of the vote wishes to bring it back for further discussion. He also sugoested that he consult with MAC staff or the Chauman as to the proper procedure for revisiting the issue. Kent Duffey, HNTB, noted that the reason the 170° flight tra;.k hac� not been recommended was to avoid further overflights of the areas already affected by the straight in arrivals. IIe also noted that the recommended low-demand flight tra.cks were chosen because, based on an SEL analysis, they would impact the fewest people. 1'I'he meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m. A Special MASAC Operations Committee meeting will be held on Friday, July 28, 2000 at 9:00 a.m. in the Metropolitan Room at the Lindbergh Terminal. Respectfully Submitted, l�Ielissa Scovronsld, Committee Secretary � � � C C C C C C: C Q- ( C. � o o�;. :,R c..s.o- o -a;'. , :%p �n... �: �-.�. � �..:: u�. �!- �, ; �'.�:;: �..�.�p Z 'iff,��0''�. •. '�. w O .Z�: ta.,, , V/ � ' �. , ::�..t�. : ..' .. '.'-.�_u . . ..,.: �-� v; � -;.::� : . ., . c��.:•� .. MSP F*ut I50 Update fair and equitable eligibility �ents for Part 150 Sound m Program FAA review delay residential sound insulation without interruption MSP Part I50 (Jpdate MSP Part t50 Update uested MAC 8� communities seek , approval to develop �hborhood and natural ndaries in contour boundary istment procedure. arture from current MSP/FAA MSP Part 150 Update rejected a 6oundary proposal that ded blocks outside DNL 65 contour icated on natural boundaries Part 150 Update: FAA will consider ficant area beyond DNL 65 contour ppropriate sound insulation area C MSP Pat 150 Update compietely wllhl� the DNL 60 coMour f Blaeks comp�etety wilhln the ONL 60 Contaw � � . - t13 chs IMerseded by the ONl 60 Cantour . #4 • f 8loeks Mlersected 6y the ON� 60 CoMour � � 'cals intersaded by the DNl 60 Co�ta�a " #6 vral Boundaries MSP Part I50 Updatu chnology used for analysis of contour dary aiternatives al information sources nnepin County �� kota County � - ' tropolitan Council id Surveys (1rt quarter 2000) ted data aliows for more accurate block ition and contour boundary adjustment � J MSP Parc 150 Update single family homes incfuded in :ntial Sound Insulation Program (5382 �nal to 1992 Sound Insulatio� Program) m of program = approx. 6 years es time for completion of program by ;. 4.7 years les many homes physically located DNL 60 cootour o- c� a� � s.—:,+a+. e. .... _.._r.�..__.___.. . _....-_--" — -- caue :.��or�..,. yr_.. 1..nv - -- ;i- �t� ��—� - 'a � . y + �. o - , � . . i; , : ... � . � ; j .', ' , a , t y ' .�w.�1.+�....rwv. � 1 ' - . E �. S _ � I . � .. . . . � N ; _ � . • . ' , _ �. . 1. � . � .. . . ' i ' .. . 1 1 . . � . � (� ' . , ! . i � . y� � . ' . � . . � � • �' . . ^' � � _ • � � . - � . =J . . _ . .. . "'; . . . . . � . _ .. ' I� ctic�'��.:p.A.�:�L��J�7,• •u�•� O� V 1i� 1�;�.�+ +ffi� tlr ____ � � ........____.�...____......_. "_.___�__ . �Gii6�l0>.••�•5� J�A.XP tr. • ^ I�. ' w. (-13 ' ,".+ j r, i` � . . . . . I �I � � • in 't :i.:.,:z�: H �. � . ;-�; �, W �i "'� y::2_r_. ' t L� �1 ,, � « . . , �n�-� � � �p . i�lif(�1 � _ ._../-''�, r. a -�.�• ,. , , ,. • �. _ ._;�: , � , . , ,_ � y�, ,. �� ...._ c--..___.,, r�. i;� �; ; � ,\ ��.,'�._:. / u,'1:��j � t�` �� \� v� . � �m�'� � . _.. �- T��; � �,�: a. �,:::;� �� 11;��, --� ` . � � � � , ,-� ,� >9� .o'� o-a-:tr—�:�•�v1....,�.3. ..... R t� l� �r i++ :.� tb� Tw CdGA..�.�•mr..,.iy...n :1AN r.; : t .:.i'.' .�:. � .. �—p - y �— y .� c..� +,� _ . A � �`` i+•, �'-J ..; � �\ _ •i'^ ' � � — . _ _ A _ . �� ._ a _i� M �\ �\ ��, :- v' ' _�^P�^�yy\ ` "1•':,i . . _ -+...:1^�•�,� . \� .. -. - - —_• ':_I �J ._;- � _ —.i_ �y_ � ' . � ' -^}� r� i ; �- . = ,r' �;,;:�. �o.... :��• s- -�- MSP Part I50 Update idential Sound Insulation �ram boundaries defined by half :ks completely within the DNL 60 tour biocics — blocks subdivided by /s into at least two smaller parts �moniy found in Minneapolis, �field, and Bloomington E MSP Part I50 Upd�te t75 single family homes included in identiai Sound Insuiation Program (5575 itionai to 1992 Sound Insulation Program) ation of program = approx. 6.2 years luces time for compietion of program by rox. 4.5 years ludes many homes physically located iin DNL 60 contour iibility area not as c►early defi�ed as 61ock o- u v. �.r a.�;�.. a.- o-0 . .._..---_.. .. .._._.... --'----'--- area�� ^a>�i�'�..w��:tti+r� � . "_'._'....r'_� .... (—� �. � ' A �s i�'..`�i .�.._ � .. . .. � G i. r' ' i �\, ` . _ ' mu�......�..... . -- ...�..� , ` , j� ''� ; o-....:1� o.A.�:: r^�I� . � n •-n._._.. � a:.r—ry.�-�.v tw ._. . ...... . . . ..._._.'_—_ _'.__.'.._'__'_..__ .._... �a�GA'%�mX•., •,w sw�'.�I�:iHYr' . . ...1�... �0 �'� ��a � �.. �.-. . � � , ��a �L �h � i ry I� ;l.i ;[i70 T �, �,�1.�:... .rJ.; ��L'� o...•R�o.,..: r u � r �'r ,� , r Lw., � ... .�. , S li4 � '' - . ..--�^ � • ` �� , r.� _ a '� .... r• ..... — ; � : � v�`.'\ • � �� '� �. � �� -..r � ?� . .,� ;,..�...��. �„ ,�� Lm:. '�\` I� �,�.�\\\ J —7�.�an .�.�._. l� � � o- n a. � a�+� :.+�n+- a. � � � OaIGi:lt�OmX�••�••.i�n.:�A�.K—_'—"-- " .n�_,�--D ..�. ... . � ,~� `:�� ^ .� �G �`\ : . a _ _ ir- \ �� i i �, �. .. . � .� � �FF i � '. • . . « f 1 :1,f,: w �" • i � �: \ ;c=d�.;l ,i � � ` _t�rn,. e M ij�; � ' �� ;i�" 3 ;r � .._. , P�i i -. iY'-'� `�; � ., j :;. i�' � � r""'i .,i'�. ,�4� J �f'::, - ,-r=1��' � � , ,�. o-.�.-RF1�o.A.::i---�h�7..� c.p. �.�.,�.: a u i.- ►. a�.� id a+� w _, �0�1oii �Ov;....�.s.h�.�,r� � . _ �� O �� . ; O ��•�� -{�,�,. _ J ... ... A .c�` '` � ` -� :w � . �. �� _'-�'`�'-" , _ , \ - _ �;—,-�: a I \ \``' ~� ^ a . . , .-.L:, _. ., ,. . , � � •.` . " _ � - r . , , yy .. • .. . ,.. . ,�r •. � � C ��+ i .._ � � �� ^ Y�.- , `,' ' ` y,_ , , . �`.'.�_1 P �-' �:. = i j_—'''�. +�' rJ `-- �" "I_`-'t�� c.�� -.1 � 0 . � - ::: � f�' � 1 C � .. � . . . .. .... ..._... .. NSP Patt I50 Update dential Sound Insulation ram boundaries defined by ks intersecting the DNL 60 our block touched by the contour is ided 7 MSP Part 150 Update 002 single famlty homes Included In Residentlal und �nsulatlon Program (9702 addklonal to 1992 und insulaticn Program) � ration of progrem = approx. 10.T years Ing utllized (n curtent Part 150 sound InsWatlon yram wRh suacess � � �ulres more Ume for campietlon than any other ease eluding natura! boundarlesj ludes homes physlcaliy outslda DNL 60 �tour s histarfealty been considered fair and o-n�.r.taa.a+.do OSIBai%4CX��•i+!��•lA�K: � � _ ._ :.'r,y�� 't � '� '� _ ` . . . , � P ' ' . ; , i : . :� � . : . i, . . � r ' :'('��'1` � ' ' nnnW��.�..�...� . • 0 — .. �� 1~�� a �� ;� � „ _ � �.,� , , _ , a �� ,. � ' ��- f �i . \ ' � _ . .� � '. � . �•� . � . . , I' \�'i ' �"";�.: _. r� } ��"'�.� ,�\ .._..: _ �, j � \`\ • .. � - �'�'�- � \ � � .. ._ . , � � .•J � ' � -�(l��•l.::N �(�'itY�.4.�.• o- c. x. �.+ s...-... �a+- b. _. _ ...._.__...._...----- - - `—' ------'- DiiQA�%4i6Ki....�.e:�1.�'N' tm . .i. . (..,.-..:.,.�. J r �—� :� a �{,J.I:�T�, �'!T�'.,"'hi 'i.•"•��!•tr Q { ., t.' ,7}�;;-�2n,��. :-f �;;,�� : ^ i f ' 1 ' .r=;.. [ `� �' J �, \ _.. / ` ' �1 �� Y �� .�._ � � �� ':\...._ C",... ��r i) � �^' �, i" ` `�., �.,.,,�., ��".�� i � �� "�`�� ,�r�( ;�� v` � -..,... �;� � �� ` �`: -; -,,=; .:.,`� ��i:��:r � ` � .. ��. :�-;=� . ��1 i"�—.�.\�. �., .�J' �.w.lff1�.A.i:N �p:::�tu'�.l.�.�.� lSJ o- t. n- r.. a�+..,� xw. u. __....._...__.....___�_ .... _ ..__. DyOdli�Ot6K�•,.•�2�'�':L N'Rrt y"�. � ..r�':.�.�(� ..I:i� i 'f 4 a ,., Ic � O `� .;i: ;` `� _ .. :: _ �-�� , , , -�, ::::�::::::� n i �-•— , ; `. � « :rt; qL; , , � -;� � � � I•L , ; , w �: : �J � - .��.,,......._. ; �; ',. � ,-. �. . � � ( - .,;,�; � . ,�,^, �__.�-� ;:�>, '� i � . J - �"' - 1'.r'''U� J"i o...-�►(•1�o.a.r:�h+7.ie �.n.,t._.: t.ua��.a...±..aa-w . .... . ......._.. . _. .'. ____�"_��'_._'_" �a�ob:Y9YK�., •i•A�n-vtn:tt' . . ... ....._ . ...._. u� • �,,,,..,,,_,_. , , f__—� '� � 0 � � �.�\''-3j .-- -.. . � �,_ � r, ` . �\ i= I t':: .. J C\ ` \ �` ` - w � '�� ,-..,,_ , `�. — o ` � '\`'', \ — X i '\, � ,, � :�� .�' ,, .:� �:—�ai :.: � -'��, �`.� — �� _..�`�,. �; ��:�`` �.. l . _ ; t.—_ , ` � . � `J `� i.... — _ `J �.� w...��461•0.�.:<i-1�= •ica.+..L._,. . MSP Purt I50 Update dentiai Sound insulation �ram boundaries defined by half ks that are intersecting the DNL �ntour half block touched by the our is included 0 MSP Pazc 150 Update 159 single family homes inciuded in idential Sou�d Insulation Program (9559 itional to 1992 Sound insulation Program) ation of program = approx. � years y little impact on time for completion ot nd insulation program (0.1 year reduction) udes homes physicaliy located outside . 60 contour ibility area not as cleariy defined as block F:J `}.1� i�w� b br p� ' _'_""".._.._.._._ ...... . _... _ "_.��___._....�. _.. 051G8,* `Or;....1�•G. a-7:i.�K' �, _;'�'_.�-0 ,a � •i: i•r - �-�' ' Q � '' ,{.�' '-`,t�� J > i' ('.:.. . . :';, _ �.� ; w � ' � r a M ' �/ �. . � m(�t��l�.��.�.�.. . �\.. .. _,f• � . �\ .�.` -..�...�.� � ' \�\ . . ' `��\ .. . � . ; . \ � ` .. . � J .a uJ � J 0..�-1 O A-:{I"�f��l¢�•if,�,�.� (w •a Y 1�+ i+� •.w YR+� tY� •... ..--.. ... � ...._.. . . _'_"'_'�______'_�'__"" _'".........._.... D�iG8:34�X.n.'�w.�:yrAH; ' y . .� j....;.�..:„ , . I�-f]' : � ..+ '� � `� y�_'"r ' x ,n� _ i:,IIW �.. � 4 JJT`. � `'`n � L,':u'?'��tI ..�ij�•^ ... � A UL �:� ,� " I �.' \ M ;',' '`'r�-'� -/�_�' .. _''tr _ : 73 = � o � ,1,�', � \ ... .. C�- . .. . . ' ��'.'�ni,��- i % � :i^��:° • �,� \��`.��..J / 4��.'�t, : ' ` � v��` �,c` � ..i ,; '`�-.� \ � r1 � \ \ i^ .� ' �i� •�,!-iL' W�.��1.�L � . 1 i 1 � \�\�. ' :J � u....4C1O-A•':+--��-��0 � ' _ _ � 0 i D�N'Yn+}��+Sr1b+b+� . _ D a1Q�l�) 4m%'•. .�I�j(�5nT�;�!�n;'1}� w "rr�� ' J�i�� 1f�'.. .._... ��1� � ; \ 1+--�� L M 1 � \ ` r � 1 1 '. � ,! . + ',� ',,, �� ' ' _:...1. �: _'_i�, { �J s �! � �s � `� ;:..�'� � .�x ni ��...�..e. �; i :Y. ��. �' �.'�' '� ,�-i•.' � �\ 'f� ' C..1;,a'.o.�'1.�L � ...�..:,.� e:..-i��a-w-r: ��...�._.��-.t � � -----.---_' .. .. . . ....._. . ._ . _..__... . . ......... :Oa�qilY90Xtn �.fwi�iuw�� dN'M� � _. _.....—.,;. � . . �a � \stt��. "'�I,a . 9 ll : J ♦ ' `\ ` � r C\ ` ` �L . N �'� 1 -Wi�i_�-=" � _ ` ' \ �� "—t., o .�, \ � . w I ��... '� ' ,. '. � _ ) , . - ��; �� - ! '� � �. .. _.r_.�1+4 � �• — `` \\ _ . _�: .='f ��,��\�' �` I � � �-�` \ ;-�1 ,� :T 'a , 4 :\. �?. . :v:� .,,. , ....�.._ r=:;� � -�. �, `� � , , ..,... . . , . . , � .. +J , _ :. � ` l :..� ; � ._._ �. ��v�aJ • p�.:l�'R-O-A.iLl� �r�:��v i . �. MSP Part 150 Update dential Sound Insuiation Program �daries defined by individuai parcels secting the DN� 60 contour inates usage of the block as the Ilest geographic u�it for contour idary determination parcel touched 6y the contour is 11 MSP Part I50 Update 271 single fam�ly homes included In Residential md Insulatlon Program (7971 additlona� to 1992 ind Insulatian Prcgram) � ration of program = apprcn. years iuces time for completlon of pragram by appro�c. 1.9 irs wldes prog2m boundarythat mare accurately acts DNL 60 contour � ' � �Ibility aroa Ilkely to 6e considered unfalr and �Jective by homeawners at edge af coMour o- c. n.� t-+:..r. �+n+. a. . _..._._ ..._ .._.. .._.. . . .. _"_._ __ DyG81xWOx;..:.•i:c��73F�Ri ' .__._._ .... _ . ... . ___ . �� .. r—(� . � � ----•+--___'Z_.,�`� [.—� .... �_:i..^; �= d 'i-� �a _ ''i_ �j> "� .1 :!j :�.:�.� : � �y�=� >}- -�'�:Cr.=. _ ��:??. Tt.v� .��}"!� ^�a,J' _ '�i�.'��Yh ��'t,a'�' •ri' ""'...r�. �:��., ..�..` _`��j±�'-r. ^ �1 . '_'�;�,<—�0 � � . �A _ i.._�..�-.Et,l. '�, � 'C � J /� � ,� � �� t ' . i,rL � - � "�.`' '+ � .� \ . . . , ;��;:'r.,' ... �\ "'�.:� `\\\ �� r„M1(.µ;�' �� . ..�' f'� lJ � ~ �. . , . , ��.��', _ ,. 1•\l `�� ";:J` ; .. �..'i"�7iiS�_ : � �, 1� /.��:\\ \�. 1:7 �,4 n o. w.:: ��,. � v._. n.l. y. w c. n� �. �. s.. a+- e. . . ._ __. _... .. ..-_.. .__.____.-------- Da108�i416XIn�.jq.iFc�J N'K' t.r •�7 '• r—� :ia � :�R � .c3.�i .s� ✓"' 11 �' \ �. ' � c1'�=�i'y4�:.L:;i�He"�' � �. . �:`, �. - ... ;s..;:�r � � t �� .,_ . '=G ' ��i �=;ie.i .uf�.:i�+ �l 1 � { 1 � ^ `\: <... . .:..._. - �'—' i i . � , '\�� "=";•�^• i '- � i _u_ � `P�;7 �. � � ' � ^� ;;,'.,.�` , �• J� � �� . - 4: �.r.. _.«, �;n. ` ; � �,::' ;_�„� � J� .._. ; i-:,-- - � �`� �: :i,� - :� ,r � -- :=,r ;;...:- , � ,�:� .�,�I:�; '°_ ,; _ �� .: _�:� � hi•1M� t C.� �^'�: o- u n. r.. r..:+m. u. . .. _.. ... __.._... . _... _ . . .. _'__ __.�.' � YGdiY 46Xj��....�.n •!. A' N� ��__i.l�"� r�-13. ::� y �\ �\\� •�, :- . . - _ .. . • F .J� i � ' '.�i - � \ �_ C �\\Y•�`�\`�� ^ `1\ . \,,�. _ , `+ � � \� ` � ' . .. � \ r-..... \•` �`_• ,,� ` . � � �'� •�_ C ... i \ `\ �.. •� M . `� \ � � , \ _ ! ` � ' � � ' ��_� .. `\... \````� � � , J/ - _ .- . !�T^ -. .. -�..� \ `� �'—`,' � 0_.-'1n.o. A-r•: �7.-.. r u C MSP Part I50 Update identiai Sound insulation �ram boundaries defined by iral boundaries outside the DNL ontour where it is feasible iinates usage of the block 13 MSP Part I50 Update ology for Natural Boundaries: aily occurring features (i.e. Iakes, creeks, , open/green space) within reasona6le �ce from contour edge throughfares with wide rights-of-way (i.e. ays, highways, raiiroad, county roads city streets = no reasonable natural boundary exists: DNL 60 contour line MSP Pazt I50 Updare 928 single famity homes included in Residentlal ond Insulatlo� Prcgram (19,62B addftfonal to 1992 und insulatlon Program) ration of program = approx 1 years igthens program completlon time by approrz. 4.4 �re :ends program boundarles weli beyond ONI. 60 rtour in some locatlons s hlstoricalty caused slgnfflaant revlew delay i reJectlon by FAA � uld place approval of contlnuing sound ulatlon program In Jeopardy 14 (� 15 16 C i Low-Demand Flight Track Alternative MSP Part 150 Update July 27, 2000 The goal of this alternative is to designate specific flight tracks for preferred use during low- demand periods. The alternative is intended to give ATC guidance on selection of appropriate fiight tracks during low-demand periods that will impact the fewest people. Deviations will occur due to safety, aircraft performance, pilot compliance, weather, and tra�c conflicts. SEL DC9Q 90dBA contours were used in this analysis. Flight tracks, by runway end, that impact the fewest people were considered for designation as low-demand flight tracks. Dispersing departure traffic away from the runway centerline flight track was also a priority, in order to avoid concentrating both arrival and departure traffic on the same flight track and impacted the same people with both operations. For modeling purposes, a low-demand period is said to exist whenever there are less than 3.5 operations in a 15-minute segment, or 14 operations in an hour. Low-demand periods occur primarily at night, and vary by day of the week and month. On average, low demand periods occur between 12:15am and 5:30am. Low-demand periods for a single runway may occur at other times, even though the other runways are considerably busier. It is important to note several considerations: ■ Aircraft will not be rerouted severely away from their destination. I.e, a westbound departure will not be rerouted to a southbound flight track; in the absence of a designated and applicable low-demand flight track, ATC will assign the departure to whatever flight track deemed appropriate. • When applicable, ATC will select a low-demand flight track that routes the departure on the most efficient course available. I.e, a Runway 17 departure that would have been assigned to track F under normal conditions would be assigned to Track D or the River DP during a low-demand period; it would not be assigned to Track A or B. ■ Because minimal operations will be rerouted to low-demand flight tracks, this alternative does not impact the noise contour. • The absence of a designated low-demand flight track over an area does not prevent overflights of that area during low-demand periods. � Runway selection is independent of this alternative. Runway selection is determined by the priorities set forth in the Runway Use System (RUS); aircraft will not be rerouted to a different runway for use of a low-demand flight track. I.e, a Runway 17 departure would not be rerouted to Runway 22 for a Cedar Avenue DP. m Runway selection takes priority over low-demand flight track use. The use of a low- demand flight track comes into consideration only afier Runway selection is made by ATC. Using this alternative, ATC will be able to slightly reroute a departure to an area with less impact. I.e, during a low-demand period ATC may, at its discretion, reassign a Runway 17 departure from Track F to the River DP. • Because of the low utilization of this alternative, and given the other factors in the determination of assigned flight track (such as safety, aircraft performance, pilot compliance, weather, and traffic conflicts), monitoring ATC compliance and low-demand flight track use will not be practical or possible. Exampie scenario #1: ■ An aircraft is scheduled to depart @ 2am for Phoenix. • Runway 12L/12R, 17, and 22 are available for takeoff, given the current winds. • Low-demand conditions exist. • The RUS takes priority over low-demand flight track procedures. Following RUS priorities, the aircraft is assigned to Runway 12R for takeoff. ■ Per low-demand flight track procedures, the aircraft is assigned to a 105d heading. • If Runway 12V12R were not availabie, the aircraft would be assigned to Runway 17 for departure per ihe RUS, and directed to the River DP or Track D. • If Runway 17 were not available, the aircraft would be assigned to Runway 22 and use the Cedar Ave DP. Example scenario #2: ■ An aircraft is scheduled to depart @ 2pm for Phoenix. ■ Runway 30U30R, 22, and 17 are availabie for takeoff, given current winds. ■ Low-demand conditions do not exist, as the Airport is in the middle of an arrival bank. • Fer RUS priorities, the aircraft is assigned to Runway 17 for takeoff. • The aircraft taxies to Runway 17, and is ready for takeoff. • Although severai departures are taxing to Runway 17 for takeoff, the next departure wif( not be ready for takeoff for another few minutes. • As a result, low-demand flight track procedures can be used for this fiight, assuming there are no other traffic conflicts. • The aircraft could be assigned to low-demand Track A, B, D, or L(River DP). Track L is assigned, because it is the most efficient low-demand routing for that flighi. C MSP Part 150 RurnNay 17 Flight Track Use Jet Turboprop Base Adjusted Use River DP All Track Heading Day/Ni ht Day/Ni ht Da Ni ht Day/Night A 95 10.1% 10.1% 10.1% 10.1% 0.0% H 140 5.1% 5.1% 5.1% 5.1% 0.0% I 155 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 19.9% B 160 8.0°/a 8.0°/a 8.0% 8.0% 0.0% C 170 17.3% 17.3% 17.3% 17.3% 10.1 % D 185 8.5% 8.5% 8.5% 8.5% 30.0% E 200 22.3% 22.3% 22.3% 22.3% 0.0% K 215 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% L 230 0.0% 7.9% 9.4% 11.1 % 30.0% J River 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% F 245 11.6% 7.9% 7.2% 6.3% 0.0% G 285 13.1 % 8.9°/a 8.1 °/a 7.1 % 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% � 7127l00 5:53 PM r17trk_tp25_moduse.xls C C r � �� MASAC Operations Commiitee Meeting MSP Part 150 Update Study ]uly 28, 200U +; � �lgenda Low-Demand Flight Tracks Runway 17 Flight Tracks Track A - Shift North Track Use Update Tum Point Altematives River Departure Procedures (DP) Additional Points � Low-Demand Flig�t Tracics Additional detail on alternative provided in memo Low-demand period timing �ess than 3.5 ops in 15-minute segment, or 14 ops in an hour Occurs primarily at night, and varies by day of week and month On avetage, occurs between 12:S5am and 5:30am _ 1 Low-Demand F�ight 'iracks Key points: Aircraft wiil not be rerouted severely away from their destination Absence of a low-demand flight.track over an area does not prevent overflights of that area during low-demand periods Runway selection determined by RUS, not low-demand flight tracks � Low-Demand Fiight Tracks Key points: Runway use selection takes priority over low-ciemand flight track use Monitoring ATC compliance and low- demand track use wiil not be possible � Runway �f 7 Fleght Trac�Cs Track A - Shift North Concem expressed at 7u1y-14-00 MASAC Ops meeting about the north shiR of Track A ROD of the FEIS permits 190° fan, with tums immediately off runway end New location of Track A intended to better modei this trend, given high-pe�formance aircraft � 0 C � C � � � 92unvvay 17 ��eght Tracks ...___ - -...._. .. . �_. Track A - Shift North Note that INM flight track location is accurate oniy in tiie immediate vicinity of the Airpart Beyond the contour, aircraft continue to disperse and the INM flight tracks do not model this trend as it does not �mpact the contour � , Runway 17 Flight Tracks , Flight Track Use Update Arrivals on Runway 12L and 12R wiii ' restrict westbound deparlures from ' Runway 17 from using Tracks F and G I Aircraft wiii be assigned to Track L(230°) '�i instead Use of Track F and G reduced Contour change insignificant � 3 � � Runway '17 Flight Tracks Flight Track Use Update Track F (245°) Oid: 11.6°rb, New: 7.9%, Net: -3.7% Track G (285°) OId: 13.1%, New: 8.9%, Net: -4.2°� Track L (230°) Old: 0.0%, New: 7.9%, Net: +7.9% k j � � � Runway 17 Fiigtat Tracks Turn Point Alternatives �� Environmentai Impact Statement (EIS) Record of Decision (ROD) stated that noise abatement measures could be evaluated for Runway 17 deparlure tracks to avoid poPulated areas ctose to Airport Flight tracks and procedures must provide sufficient guidance to ensure that aircraft of varying Performance qpabilities avoid, as much as possi6le, populated areas enroute to their destinations � Runway '17 Fiight Tracks Goal- .._... _..._..._._ .._... _.. Reduce noise impact within the DNL 60 tontour Avoid increased overflights of other communfies Maintain runway capacity Feasible implementation 6y FAA/ATC Provide positive guidance to aircraft to reasonabiy foilow desired flight tracks Aliows for possi6le future transitio� to FMS/GPS navigation �a� > �T"��1-- Rumnray 1? Flight Tracfcs ,...:: �:.��..;.-:--:: .. Turn Point Alternatives East bound aircraft are able to tum immediately off runway end West-bound aircraft (Tracks D, E, F, and G) Depart on straight-out track (Track C) Upon reaching designated DME point, tum to assigned heading Three turn points co�sidered - 1.7 2.2 and 2.7 nauticai miles (from start of takeof� roli) r+ i —� :.�. C C ` ' � �� .�� Runway 17 Fiight Tracks West Fiight Tracks — Turn Points Tum point can be designated as part of a Departure Procedure (DP) for a specific heading, and as part of an FAA order for use by ATC Use of tum points may resu(t in a siight decrease in runway capacity in order to insure adequate aircraft separation Provide positive guidance of aircraft, using existlng tech�olo9Y Future use of GPS/FMS shouid be considered as * � the kechnology evolves > C�'a.`i I Runway �f 7 Flight TracScs Turn Point Alternatives Previously considered Tum Point @ 1.7nm, 2.2nm, and 2.7nm 2.2 Tum Point seen as best altemative Per the request of MASAC Ops, additional scenario considered @ 2.5nm Tum Point � Runway '17 Fiight iracics .. ...__.._...... _ .... Turn Point Alternatives Pros Reduces noise impact within 60+ DN� Simple, easily implemented Departure Procedure Maintains Interit of Operatio�s Committee's Previous recommendation 2.Snm Tum Point Altemative reduces, but does �ot eliminate, overflights of Bloomington bluff area � 3 ��"T. n y =7 5 Runway 17 Fiight Tracks Turn Point Alternatives Cons Reduces runway capacity by 3-4 deparlvres per hour (similar to 105° Hybnd Fan) Aitematives could potentially increase overflights of other communrhes � iZunway �17 Flight Tracics . ,......_��._._. Turn Point Alternatives ��" ---�.� 2Z Tum Point Popula4on impact as compared to the �uly-00 2005 Unmitigated DNl Contour DNL 70 dBA cantour - apptnximately 40 people added DNL 65 dBA conlnur - appropmately 1,160 people deleted DNL 60 dBA con Wur - approximately 12,780 peopie deleted Total change - approximately 13,400 people deleted (mm 60* DNL conlnur � Runway 17 Fleght Trac�Cs Turn Point Alternakives 2.5 Tum Point Population impact as compared to the ]uly-0o 2005 Unmitigated DNL Contour �NL 70 dBA cantour - approximateN 30 people added DNL 65 dBA contour - approximately 1,320 people deleted DNL 60 dBA contour - approximately 13,740 people deleted To[al change - approximately 15,030 people deleted from 60^ DNL con[our An additional 1,130 people deleted from 2.2 Turn Point �Altemative + � � � C C. i (� �') Runway 'li Fiight Tracics River Departure Procedure (DP) Published DP A3rcraft would fly to tum point � agprox. 3.Onm, and turn to head�ng of 245 to overfly river Can onIy 6e used during forecast low-demand period due ta ATC Ciearance Requirements Pro7'ected use: 0.2% of Runway 17 night traffic + y � Runway 17 Fiight '1'racks River Departure Procedure (DP) � ATC Assigned Heading Assigned heading of 230° from 2.5 Tum Point to overfly river Can he used during low and mid-demand periods Projected use: 1.5% of Runway 17 day ops, 3.5% of night ops � Runway 'f 7 Flight Tracdcs River Departure Procedure (DP) ATC would have discretion to use either procedure as appropriate No significant change in contour Potential to reduce overtlights of high impact populated areas r+ j � 7 Runway 17 Fiight Tracics Recommendation Implement 2.5nm Tum Point DP Implement River DPs as separate measure � Addlitional Points Restrict hushkit aircraft from using Runway 17 ATC will not permit runway use to be determined by aircraft type � Additional Points Regional .let Fiight Tracks Regional 'ets will fly on the same disperse� flight tracks as larger, modem jets Details on regional jet flight track use are contained in the March-DO 2005 DNL INM Input Data Padcage ,+ 3. . . . . . .. � 0 i�ldios! �� ❑� �y�}'1`��f s�x�s�uno� dod Wd 11�8 00lLZ/L 81NH 0964- OELSL- OEES- OLL£L- OL9- 06£�- 04- OE 0 0 ase8 SOOZ wo�� a uey� ObBLZ -0L40S O6ZSl 09ZS£ OE4S O48ZL OZII. Ob£Z 0 0 Ielal 064£ OSSL OSBZ OOZ9 OL9 OEEt OE 09 0 0 pIaJ4�!a OOBbI 04ESE 0686 06b£Z 086E 0986 OE6 066L 0 0 s��odeauuty� Ol£ 06S OLZ 084 04 OL6 0 0 0 0 s�y6�aH e;opuaW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e;opuay� 04 Ot t 04 0� L 0 0 0 0 0 0 s�y6iaH ano�� anu� � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e�!P3 096 OZ9Z 006 Ob4Z 09 OBL 0 0 0 0 ue6e3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a��inswng 04ZZ OLL4 04E1 04SZ 04L 0££L 09l OOE 0 0 uo16u�woo�g s u��amo uo�le�n od s u��an�p uoi�e�n od s u��a,�o uoile�n od s uiparnp uoile�n od s u��arnp uoiie�n od lelal 49-09'1N0 69-59 lNa 41-OL lN4 +SL lNa �l!� OO1SL/9 a�eQ wu��Z luiod wn,�,/M�no�vo� pa�e iiiw euiw��a�d "INQ SOOZ ase� 06E5- 006£L- OS84- OSLZL- OL9- 0911- 0£- 04 0 0 aseg SOOZ wa� a uey� 0£6ZZ 04915 OLLSL OSZ9£ 0£SS Oti0£L 0£LL OS£Z 0 0 1e7o1 Q6tE 08SL OS8Z OOZ9 OL9 0££l OE OS 0 0 piaJ4�!2! 0094t 04£S£ 0686 O6bEZ OH6E 0986 OE6 O66L 0 0 si�odeauu�W Dl£ 065 OLZ 084 04 OLL 0 0 0 0 sly6�ay e�opuay� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 elopua�ry 04 0 L L 04 04 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 s�y6iaH ana� aanu� 0 0+ 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 eu!P3 OS6 009Z 068 OZ4Z 09 08l 0 0 0 0 ue6e3 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a��inswng ObSZ OZ45 0£BL OSS£ 049 0951 OLl OLE 0 0 uol6uiwoo�g s uipann4 uoile�n od s ui��an�o uoi�e�n od s u��a,�nd uoi�e�n od souipama uoile�n od s ui��an�p uoile�ndod �e;ol V9-09 lN0 69-59 lN0 4G-OL �N� +SL lNa �l!� 00/S�/9 ale0 wuZ�Z lwod wnym.tno;uo� pa�e ii!W ewwi�a�d lNa SOOZ ase� OLOL OLSZ OlZ OE£L 098 OV9L 09- OOL- 0 G uwu� 00-�ey� wa� a uey� OZBLZ ObSS9 OZ90Z 0£064 0409 OOZVI 09L1 OL£Z 0 0 lelol OOZb OH£6 OSLE 0££8 OS4 050L 0 0 0 0 p1a94�!21 0£Y8L 08Lb4 06SEL 064Z£ 0404 OZOOI 009 OL9L 0 0 st�odeaw�y� OBZ OrS OSZ OCS 0 Ol D 0 0 0 siu6iaH elopuaW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 elopuay� 04 OCl 04 0£L 0 0 0 0 0 0 s1y6�aHano��anu� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e�!P3 OL6 OB9Z 069 OItiZ 08 OLZ 0 0 0 0 ue6e� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a��insw�g 006£ OC99 OLOZ OhLS OLVL 099Z 09£ Ob9 0 0 uol6uiwoo�g s u��amp uoiae�n odI soui��an�4 uo��e�n od s ui��annp uo�le�n od s ui��a,v�Q uoile�n odI s uy�amd uoi�e�ndod lelol 49-09 lN4 69-49 lN4 4L-OL 1N0 +SL lNa �l!� 00!£l/L alep 00-In. ase� aseq pale il�wun gppZq� ase� s�s/�eu� sanrewa��y si�edw� 6u�snoH pue uo�ye�ndod }�e�a OSL Ued dSW Cl- C� MASAC OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEMORA.NDUl1�I TO: MASAC Operations Committee MASAC FROM: Kim Hughes, HNTB SUBJECT: Revised Graphic and Requested Comparative Graphics DATE: Au�ust 1, 2000 At the May 12, 2000 MASAC Operations Committee meeting a proposal for the use of a 10�-degree hybrid fan for departures off Runway 17 was endorsed. Due to FAA operational considerations, the 105-degree hybrid fan was found to be unfeasible from an FAA implementation perspective. As a result at the July 14, 2000 MASAC Operations Committee meetin; a sinale west bound DME turn point of 2.2 nautical miles from break release was proposed to provide an operational procedure which maintained the intent of the 105-degree fan via a single turn point. At that meeting it was requested that HNTB evaluate the possibilities of a 2.5 nautical mile turn point and report the findings at the July 2�, 2000 MASAC Operations Committee meeting. The additional analysis conducted as a result of that request found that the 2.5 nautical mile DME turn maintained the intent of the initial 105-degree recommendation in addition to removina an additional 1,130 people from the 60+ DNL contour as compared to the 2.2 nauticaly mile DNIE turn proposal. The consultant's recommendation at the July 28, 2000 MASAC meeting endorsed the use of a 2.5 nautical mile DME turn point for west bound departures off Runway 17. At the Au�ust 11, 2000 MASAC Operations Committee meeting a decision wiil be made relative to the two turn point alternatives (2.2 DME or 2.5 DME). Also, at the July 28, 2000 meeting, the graphic entitied Runway 17 Tum Point Alternative Flight Tracks had an error in the labeling of tracks. After further consideration the turboprop tracks have been renamed and all tracks have been correctly labeled. Additionally the track use table that accompanied the graphic has been updated to reflect the corrected track labeling. At the request of the committee we are providing t��o additional graphics that provide a visual comparison of the following alternatives: 10�-degree hybrid fan (Preliminary Recommendation for ivlay Public meetinQs) 2.2 nm tum point 2.� nm turn point Unmiti�ated conditions (Revised July 2000) The Runway 17 Alternative Contours graphic compares the DNL contours for each of the aforementioned alternatives and the unmitigated condition. The Run�vay 17 Alternative � Flight Track araphic compares the projected flight tracics alternatives and the unmitigated condition. y Please provide any comments that you may have on the alternatives considered to Chad Leqve via facsimile (fax number 612.725.6310) by August 9, 2000 (Wednesday) so that your comments may be provided Co the MASAC Operations Committee members prior to the August 11, 2000 meeting. If you have any questions or comments please contact Chad Leqve at 725-6328. ��, ti � � � � _'. "6 � � � j ' � L ` � `�� . _ � ~ � � � ~��i i.n � � �� c�-'� � N � O N N � � }�. J J--�, _J �' k—' Z Z Z z , -t �':� p � � p , ! �.5�".,�CF � in u� �n ;p°M�.:�.L c' o 0 0 ' .,,;.. N N N �N �.i�'ti: r - G � `:i +4'; . � �� r � � � f � � ��. : `� t � �'��; ; 1��' ,�, � ' ��"EY ,;': , � �.�; :�� •� �xL N �� Q% k't '7/u� � � 't -.�.� £ �M�j s' ti, �'�� _ � �; ' 4� ` ; ; r��,�"�,� � 3{�t•�7 �' U ' � �, �:r `�--� ; .;. ��I ti I l��' a y G j,•. '. �" ��{i t � �.1�x'• ,�y.,� I t C� YA � .WJ � I�� a,i. ` 4`�' :;,�r r�: ':� ` w � � �4� �� t ` R i � t;'., i: � �, s�_,. _. +�ll+l{�� \ � N > .� c a� oQ T C.) N � � � � ~ � U � m m � � � r T f6 3 C � � � v O > (9 �� p � o a o 0 0 0 0 o a � o \\\� � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O �O � Z O O� O`- � O O O O O O� O � O O O�j � O O � O�� O O O O O O� O� O O O O = Q � � F- _ Q 0 n- �° o 0 0 � o 0 0 ° o 0 0 0 ° o 0 0 o O p r s- O O m tn O O� O O O O `- O N c`') .- 0 � Z� �.1') �t CO �' o� CO O N O O O O r O O CD I� O > � � > � (� � ` � � � � Q � 0 C � o \ \ \ e \ \ \ o \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ � .O r o 0 o M o 0 0 �.,� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O `p � �- O.O �� O O O O O O �7' O O N r O 0- �L � O tn C' � r" c0 O O N O O O O QJ O O I� a0 O � � f � H E � � N � N � N � � L o � C o \ \ \ o \ \ \ � \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ � � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O �� Z`- .- O O � tn O O m O O O O�� O O� O) p �� t.C) �!' � � N O O N O O O O f� O O t`- c0 O m > 0 `_ �• Q ¢ a� � C .� N n- > � o � o \ \ \ o \ �\ \ o \ \ \ \ \ \ \ � � � (II � o 0 0 � o 0 o M o a o 0 0 0 0 � T O � C Z t-00 t.C)C�O 0000000 p �� t[)rt�rcOOONOOOOOOO�rO C Q 0 � N CV � � � � L \ � "'� o �\ \ \ a \ \ \ o \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ � f6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O T C z��-OO��.c>t�.c��O�c00000000� �� t!') rf � e�.. o� tl' �.c') N CO h- O O O O O O O O O Q � � � N � � a \ \ \ o \ \ \ o \ \ \ \ \ \ \ o � � Q> Z� o 0 0 � a o o � o 0 0 0 0 0 0� r O ,� <-ao �.noo 00000ao Q �� m � �� o� (O O N O O O O O O O r r O C 0 � � �, � � L � .n �n � �n u� � � � o� v m a- =p N N N N �- � O u') O O �� O O O �� O O j u7 � � 1.[) cf tfl CO (� � CO � O O O r r M Ch � rl' � _� i- �-- <- �- r r 1- N N N N N N N� N N � � �C� �C� � �-QS _mU�� W W W `S�JZ-�IlU` ia � � C O N '� � � � • � C � � � o Q ai � > � .� � E > a� � � L Q T w. � C � O _ � � m C O C � C � �- O � N � � N � � N � � � � � "� � U .� � � c c o- o � O � �m � � � Q V O � � � O N N � N � a� o axi `' � o � c c m � � � Q � O � � `m m O � � � � G C � � � y N U � � N � Y fl- U � � � i• +-� — � N � .r � tn w � 0" -C T � � � � C d L � .. ` � ¢ L N U � _ O C � 0.. � N � .� � E C � m ai E N .��' � Q � O N O � ? U � � �n > -o o_ o c O �n � L N ¢ '� ��.� -o � o � � � � � � � Q N C N �' N .L � L i--' T "' � o m � m a Z � .� � •" _ ,�W_, . Z _ MASAC OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEMOR.�NDUlVI i�1ASAC TO: MASAC Operations Committee FRONL Kim Hughes, HNTB SUBJECT: Revised Graphic and Requested Comparative Graphics - Addendum DATE: Au�ust 2, 2000 The Runway 17 Alternative Flight Tracks graphic, enclosed in the August l, 2000 information packet, contained an error in the depiction of Track C. Please note that Track C is the straight-out (heading 170°) departure track. A sub-track in the immediate vicinity and to the right (east) of Track C was incorrectly depicted as the core track. The enclosed �raphic corrects the error. Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience or confusion. If you have any questions or comments please contact Chad Leqve at 725-6328. y �. �. :.= �i.. �"�.1 . , .. . �. � : -..�L'.''t�{:.�F'ii� ' 4 2'C11i _. :' C7 � �. � ``" � � "' � �� -� -; �. �c . : _ li'.�3�.� ��a�S�`8d � �� 1'�I ��PP+'S SQ,� q Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport F� t°� 6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799 � o Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fax (612) 726-5296 At , � N o n o ' O �� t, '� G 9~ `�IRPORt� July 31, 2000 Kevin Batchelder City Adrninistrator City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 RE: Contract Pertaining to Limits On Construction of a Third Parallel Runway Dear Kevin: I received your letter of July 6 which included your draft of the revised Contract Pertaining to Limits On Construction of a Third Parallel Runway. We are willing to make rnost of the revisions suggested. However, we prefer to use precisely the same language in the revised Mendota Heights contract as was used in the City of Minneapolis contract. ; � I have enclosed a new draft reflecting the changes MAC is willing to make. In addition, I have included a redline copy of the contract that shows the changes that have been made in conformity with the Minneapolis contract. Please note that these changes refer to the original Mendota Heights contract, not your most recent draft. Let me know if these changes are acceptable and I will place the item on our Commission agerlda for approval. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (612) 726-� 178. Thank you. Very truly yours, S � ib�� •�'�'U Thomas W. Anderson General Counsel Enclosure Batchelder Letter.doc The Me[ropolitan Airports Commission is an affirmative action employer. Reliever Airports AIRL.�IKE �.'u'�IOKA COUNTY/HLAINE � CRYSTAL > FLYING CLOUD � LAKE ELNIO + SAINT PAUL D04VNT04VN CONTRACT PERTA,LNING TO LTMITS ON CONSTRUCTION OF A THIRD PARALLEL RUNWAY I• Recitals. 1• The Minnesota Legislature, at its 1996 Session, has enacted Laws of Minnesota, Ch�pter 464, Art. 3, Sec. 10 (hereinafter "the Runway Statute"), which amends Minnesota Statutes 1994, Sec. 473.508 to require the Metropolitan Airports Commission (hereinafter "the Commission" or MAC") to enter into certain contracts `�vith each affected city that provides the corporation [MAC] may not construct a third parallel runway at the Minneapolis-St. Paul international airport without the affected city's approval." 2• The Runway Statute defines "affected city" as being any city that would experience an increase in the area located within the 60 Ldn noise contour as a result of operations using a third parallel runway constructed at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (hereinafter "the Airport"). 3. The Commission has determined that the City of Mendota Heights (hereinafter "the City") is an affected city within the meaning of the Runway Statute. � 4. The Commission and the City have met and negotiated in good faith concerning ( the terms and conditions of the contract required by the Runway Statute, and have arrived \ at an agreement (hereinafter "the Agreement") which both parties desire to set forth in writing. II. Definitions. 1. The term "third parallel runway" shall mean any runway used for the arrival or departure of air traffic at the Airport constructed to the north and generally parallel to the existing parallel runways known as 30L/12R and 30R112L (based on the geographic location of the parallel runways at the time of execution of this Agreement). "Generally parallel", for purposes herein, shall include any runway that is constructed to the north and/or east of the existing parallel runways knows as 30L/12R and 30R/12L and that has a centerline within sixty (60) compass degrees of the centerline of the existing parallel runways at their present location. 2. The term "construct" shall mean physical construction and actions preliminary to construction, including land acquisition necessary for construction, inclusion of funds for construction in the capital improvement program budget or solicitation of bids for performance of physical construction provided that the term shall not include planning activity. The term "construct" shall not inciude land acquisitions by the Commission so long as the acquisition of any property to the north of and generally parallel to the existing parallel runways includes as a restrictive covenant in the deed of conveyance that the acquired land shall not be used for runway purposes during the period for which this Agreement is effective, provided that such restrictive covenant shall expressly run for the benefit of affected property owners and the City. 3. The term "approval" shall mean a legally binding assent occumng through action by which the City legally binds itself. 4. The term "affected property owner" means any owner (whether a legal owner or an equitable owner) of real property which property is within that part of the City which: a) would be brought into the 60 Ldn noise contour as a result of operations on the third parallel runway; or b) is within the 60 Ldn contour as determined without the third parallel runway and which would experience a 1.5 or greater Ldn increase as a result of operations on a third pazallel runway. The Commission and the City agree that a diagram which designates the area meeting this criteria shall be developed by the Commission not later than ninety days subsequent to execution of this Agreement by the City, which diagram will be subject to the City's review and approval. III. Terms. 1. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of approval by the City to ' � December 31, 2050; provided that, commencing on January 1, 2036, the provisions of this Agreement related to a third parallel runway rnay be ternunated by statutory enactment which contains an express fmding by the Minnesota Legislature that, in its judgment, taking into account the welfare of the State of Minnesota, there is no prudent or feasible alternative to construction of a third parallel runway. 2. During the period for which the agreement is effective, the Commission promises that it shall not, without the approval of the City, construct a third parallel runway. The Commission promises that prior to December 31, 2035, it shall not affirmatively advocate construction of a third parallel runway, provided that nothing in this Agreement shall prevent the Commission from responding to requests for information and advice made by the legislative or executive branches of state government, or their constituent parts or designees. 3. During the period for which this Agreement is effective, the City promises that it shall take no action to oppose the planning and construction of a North South Runway (Runway 17/35), as such runway is described in the Airport's 2010 Long-term Comprehensive Plan and the Dual Track Airport Planning Process Final Environmental Impact Statement, May 1998 ("DTAPP/EIS"), the implementation of which is directed by Laws of Minnesota 1996, Ch. 464, Art. 3, Subd. 24. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the City agrees: a) its approval of this Agreement constitutes a declaration of the City endorsing the construction of the above-described North South Runway; and b) it shall not institute, be a party to, financially contribute to or in any other manner support any legislation or legal proceedings (whether judicial, � administrative or other) which have as a goal or effect the delay or prevention of construction of the above-described North South Runway, including without limitation, proceedings asserting rights under environrnental laws or regulations. 4. It is intended by the Commission and the City that, during the period for which the Agreement is effective, the affected property owners shall have third party beneficiary rights to enforce the provisions of this Agreement in the event that a state law changes, supercedes or invalidates this Agreement or if a state law authorizes or enables the Commission to construct a third parallel runway without approval of the City. It is further agreed that this right of enforcement shall include the right to seek specific enforcement and injunctive relief. Said third party beneficiary rights shall cease upon the expiration of this Agreernent or its termination pursuant to paragraph III.1 of this Agreement. 5. The Final Record of Decision, Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, Dual Track Planning Process, New Runway 17/35 and Airport Layout Plan Approval (September 1998} includes the following language on page 56: Consistent with FAA commitments made to the City of Minneapolis, MSP control tower personnel will utilize Runway 17/35 in accordance with the conditions set forth in the Dual Track Airport Planning Process FEIS, Appendix A, page A.3-17. Therefore, tower personnel will utilize Runway 1'7/35 so that the runway is not used for departures to the north and arrivals to the south, except under the following limited circumstances, described on page A.3-17 of the FEIS: (1) safety reasons; (2) weather conditions; or (3) temporary runway closures due to snow removal, due to construction, or due to other activities at the airport. Subject to the above operational requirements, the Commission agrees that Runway 17/35, the North South Runway, should be operated in a mapner designed to maximize the airfield capacity of the Airport, while reducing noise in the Cities of Mendota Heights and Minneapolis and equitably distributing noise throughout the metropolitan area. 6. This agreement constitutes the entire understanding of the parties hereto and shall not be subject to any alteration, supplement or repeal except as agreed to in writing. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties and their successors and assigns. 7. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of any other affected city which, by formal action, approves its terms and notifies the Commission of said approval, provided that such affected city gives such notice to the Comrnission on or before July 1, 1997. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent the Commission and affected cities other than the City from reaching a separate agreement with separate terms. _ _ (, Dated: August , 2000 METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION C Dated: August , 2000 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS : Its Mayor CONTRACT PERTA.Il�tING TO LIMITS ON CONSTRUCTION OF A 'THIP.T, PA.P.ALLEL RUNWAY I. Recitals. 1. The Minnesota Legislature, at its 1996 5ession, has enacted Laws of Minnesota, Chapter 464, Art. 3, Sec. 10 (hereinafter "the Runway Statute"), which amends Minnesota Statutes 1994, Sec. 473.608 to require the Metropolitan .Airports Commission (hereinafter "the Commission" or MAC") to enter into certain contracts �`°�vith each affected c�es�:citv �:llat provicics tllz corporation [N�_�.C] mav nat construct a thircl paralle.l nin�t�av at the l��imieapolis-St. Paul inteniational airport ��ithout the affect�d citv's a��.ro��al.°, 2. The Runway Statute defines "affected city" as being any city that would experience an increase in the area located within the 60 Ldn noise contour as a result of operations using a third parallel runway constructed at the Minneapolis-St. Paul Intemational Airport (hereinafter "the Airport"). 3. The Commission has deterniined that the City of Mendota Fieights (hereinafter "the City") is an affected city within the meaning of the Runway Statute. 4. The Commission and the City have met and negotiated in good faith concerning the terms and conditions of the contract required by the Runway Statute, and have arrived (� at an agreement (hereinafter "the Agreement") which both parties desire to set forth in writing. II. Definitions. 1. The term "third parallel runway" shall mean any runway used for the arrival or departure of air traffic at the Airport constructed to the north and generally parallel to the existing parallel runways known as ''nT ", �' �„a '"'�"'r .;UL/12R a�lc� 30R!12L (baszd on the �eo�raphic lacation nf thc parallel ru114vavs at the tinie oF execution of this a�reenieiiil. "General��arallel" For pur��o5es 11�r.ein, sl�all .include anv zlinwav that is constructeii to the north and/or east o.F the existin.� paa�a1.1e1 ruili�-aYs kna�vs as 30L/1.�2R ��nd �OR;� 12I . and that has a cezlt�rli:rle ��ithili si�tv ((it)1 conlpass d��nces of the cent�,rlinc a( the e�isti11�7,_}aarall�l ru.n«��vs at tl�ei.r preseilt locat.ion. 2. The term "eonstruct" shall mean physical construction and actions preliminary to construction, including land acquisition necessary for construction, inclusion of funds for construction in the capital improvement program budget or solicitation of bids for performance of physical construction provided that the term shall not include planning activity. The term "construct" shall not include land acquisitions by the Commission .,.y.,,,,t, ;,,,.t.,a� , ( so lon�- �s th�. acquisitic�il of an�• properiv Co tl�e no.rtll of anti �enerall� parall�l to the L�is�in�� arallel run��avs inclu�lcs as a restrictive covenant in the deed of conveyance that the acquired land shall not be used for runway purposes during the �, period for which this Agreement is effective, provided that such restrictive covenant shall expressly run for the benefit of affected property owners and the City. 3. The term "approval" shall mean a legally binding assent occurring through action by which the City legally binds itself. 4. The term "affected property owner" means any owner (whether a legal owner or an equitable owner) of real property which property is within that part of the City which: a) would be brought into the 60 Ldn noise contour as a result of operations on the third parallel runway; or b) is within the 60 Ldn contour as determined without the third parallel runway and which would experience a 1.5 or greater Ldn increase as a result of operations on a third parallel runway. The Commission and the City agree that a diagram which designates the area meeting this criteria shall be developed by the Corrunission not later than ninety days subsequent to execution of this Agreement by the City, which diagram will be subject to the City's review and approval. II. Terms. l. The term of this Agreernent shall be from the date of approval by the City to ' ) December 31, ��-stt�eEt-#:e2��0_providzd that, colnmeilcin� 071 JanL�aiv 1, ?03G, the provisions o . -- � , � � � • 3-a��?E}?� this Agreement r�lat�� to a third �aralle] rumvav may be terminated by statutory enactment which contains an express finding by the Minnesota Legislature that, in its judgment, taking into accaunt the welfare of the State of Minnesota, there is no prudent or feasible alternative to construction of a third parallel runway. 2. During the period for which the agreement is effective, the Commission promises that it shall not, without the approval of the City, construct a third parallel runway. The Commission promises that prior to December 31, �8;2U3�. it shall not affirmatively advocate construction of a third parallel runway, �rovided that nothing in this Agreement shall prevent the Commission from responding to requests for information and advice made by the legislative or executive branches of state government, or their constituent parts or designees. 3. During the period for which this Agreement is effective, the City promises that it shall take no action to oppose the planning and construction of a North South Runway (Runway 17/35), as such runway is described in the Airport's 2010 Lon�-term l.��mprehenSive. Plan and ihe Di�a.l Track .?,i.rport Plailni�.iu Process'��n c-e��e�,�e-��Final E1lvironnlcl�tal Iinpacl Statenicnt. 1�-1av 199� "DT�PP;"EIS"). the implementation of which is directed by Laws of Minnesota 1996, Ch. 464, Art. 3, Subd. 24. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the City agrees: � a) its approval of this Agreement constitutes a declaration of the City endorsing the construction of the above-described North South Runway; and b) it shall not institute, be a party to, financially contribute to or in any other manner support any legislation or legal proceedings (whether judicial, administrative or other) which have as a goal or effect the delay or prevention of construction of the above-described North South Runway, including without limitation, proceedings asserting rights under environmental laws or regulations. 4. It is intended by the Commission and the City that, during the period for which the Agreement is effective, the affected property owners shall have third party beneficiary rights to enforce the �rovisions of this Agreement in the event that a state law changes, supercedes or invalidates this Agreement or if a state law authorizes or enables the Commission to construct a third parallel runway without approval of the City. It is further agreed that this right of enforcement shall include the right to seek specific enforcement and injunctive relief. Said third party beneficiary rights shall cease upon the expiration of this Agreement or its termination pursuant to paragraph III.1 of this Agreement. 5. The Final .Record ot Decision l��in.nea��olis-St. Paul Intenzationat Airport Dual Track Plannin� Process, Ncw Runw�.v 17135 and A.izport Lavout Plan A�proval (September 19981 u�clucies t11e :tollowii�U lan�uaee on �aae 56: Consistent �vith FA� conunitmeilts made to the Gitv of Nlirrneapolis.l�iSP control towc;r �ersomiel ti��i.11 utilize I2u.n��av 17135 in accardancz �v.ifll tlle conditions set forth in the Dual Track %ai.i-�ort �Planl.�.in� .P.rocess FEIS, Appen.ci.i� 4, pa�,e 4. �-1? Therefore, t�n��r persoru�cl ti��ill utilize Run��ayr 17/ �5 so th�t the nin��av is not used for dep�rtures to tlle iiortll and �1�-ivals to the south, except under the � follc�win�T l.inlited ci.c-cun�sta�lces, desc.ribed on pa�Te r'1.3-17 o.fi th� FETS: (l safetY reasons; (2) ��c�tther conditions; or (3 } tempararv runwav closures duc to sno�v reinoval. due to constructioi�. or due to other. activities at tht airport• Slibiect to the above operational rLquireinents, fhe Com�nission a��ees that Rt�n�vav 1?; 3�. tlle No1�th South Runti�ra��, should bc aperated in a.niariii�r desianed to nla�iniize the airfi�l.d capacitv of t�he Air��ort, ��:�hile redtccin�, tloise ii.� tlle C.ities of iYlendota Neii7hts ancl ti�tiirneapolis ancl �quitablv clist�-ibutiut..= noisc thrau�hout the nletropolitarl arc.a 6. This agreement constitutes the entire understanding of the parties hereto and shall not be subject to any alteration, supplernent or repeal except as agreed to in writing. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties and their successors and assigns. 7. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of any other affected city which, by formal action, approves its terms and notifies the Commission of (' � said approval, provided that such affected city gives such notice to the Commission on or •� before July 1, 1997. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent the Commission and affected cities other than the City from reaching a separate agreement with separate terms. Dated: August , 2000 Dated: August , 2000 METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION : CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS : Its Mayor � • I . • . � . � � A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments Volume 12, Number 2? Poticy FAA SEEKS COMMENT ON PROPOSAL TO UPDATE 1976 AVIATION NOISE POLICY For the first time in almost 25 years, the Federai Aviation Administration on Ju]y 14 proposed an update to its 1976 Aviation Noise Abatement Policy, intended to guide the agency in addressing aircraft noise in the beginning of the 2ls�century. W hile the document makes no changes to the basic tenets the original policy espoused to mitiaate aircraft noise (reduction of aircraft noise at its source, land use compatibility, and aircraft operational changes), the proposed update goes beyond them to encouraje local governments to establish noise buffer zones beyond the traditional 65 dB DNL boundary of compatibility, addresses the emergin; issue of noise from air route changes, and promises to seek innovative funding mechanisms to speed up the pace of noise mitigation projects. The FAA said that the 215� century will offer opportunities for additional aircraft noise reduction through improved aircraft design and refined airspace manage- ment procedures and from technological advances in navigation such as the � Global Positionina System, which can be used to keep aircraft tijhtly on noise abatement corridors. Bu[ the agency emphasized the need for compatible land use plannin�. W hen the original 1976 policy was issued, land use solutions "were to a large extent (Continuecf on p. 9S) Noise Certificatio�a FAA PROPOSES CERTIFICATION REVISIONS TO HARMONIZE STANDARDS WITH EUROPE On July i l, [he Federal Aviation Administration proposed chan�es to its Part21 and 36 noise certification standards for subsonic jet airplanes andysubsonic transport category ]arge airplanes to brinQ them in line with similar European standards. � The aeency said that the chanees i[ is proposin� are based on the joint effort of [he FAA, the European Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA), and the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory committee (ARAC). The chanjes are intended to harmo- nize U.S. aircraft noise certification reQulations with European Joint Aviation Requirements � The proposed chanses. the FAA explained, "would provide nearly uniform noise certification standards for airplanes certificated in the United States and in the JAA countries. The harmonization of the noise certification standards would simplify airworthiness approvals for import and export purposes." The FAA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) included chanaes to Part 36 standards in three major categories: i ) l. Substantive chanses to technical material, such as proposin; to revise -- the method for demonstratins the ]ateral noise certification noise level for propeller-driven IarQe airplanes; (Continuerf on p. 96) � July 14, 2000 In This Issue... FAA Noise Policy ... After being promised to the public for years, the FA.A finally proposes an update to its 1976 Aviation Noise Abatement Policy. The agency is seeking public comment on the proposal, which outlines six policy goals and emphasizes the need for compatible land use planning - p. 94 Noise Certification ... FAA also proposes changes to its Part 21 and 36 airplane noise certifi- cation standards to harmonize them with similar European standards. The proposed changes would affect the way aircraft noise certification testing is conducted - p. 94 Part I50 Program ... The noise compatibility program for T. F. Green Airport receives federal approval. It is comprised of 47 elements, includin� a voluntary nighttime use restric- tion for scheduled carriers and discoura�ement of en�ine run- ups between midnight and 6 a.m. - p. 96 Ft. Laziderdczle ... The city presents its third annual award recognizin� compliance with recommended noise abatement procedures at Ft. Lauderdale Executive Airport - p. 97 July 14, 2000 95 beyond the reach of local affected communities until effective aircraft source noise reduction was implemented," the FAA said. Bu[ with [he phaseout of Stage 2 aircraft, "compatible land use has become a viable, effective, and necessary solu[ion." "W ith the vast reduction in land area that is significantly impacted by aviation noise, the major actions needed at the beginning of the [21`�century] to achieve and maintain noise compatibility around airports are land use and development actions outside the airport boundary appro- priate to the airport's remainins and future noise," the ajency stressed. y Notin� that it does not control local land use, the FAA urged jurisdictions to refrain from permitting noise sensitive land uses to develop "ever closer" to airports and promised to "respect and support" locally-established noise buffer zones that Qo beyond the 65 dB DNL bound- . ary. The FAA calied its 1976 policy "highly successful," notin� that it has led to a reduction in the number of people living in the 6� dB DNL noise contour around U.S. airports from six to seven million in 1976 to about 500,000 now. In the futuie, the most severe noise will be limited to within or very near airport boundaries, the agency said, contending that the lone-term outlook is for "generally stable" noise contours and then reductions in them as hushkitted aircraft are retired. But aircraft noise will remain "a pivotal quality-of-life issue," the agency said, and unless addressed "with purpose and vigor it will likely become a potential impediment to the robust airport and aviation system growth and opera- tion that wili be needed as public demand for access to avia[ion services continues to arow." Public Comment Sought The FAA is seekins public comment on its proposed policy update and has siven the public until Aug. 28 to submit comments. The FAA published its proposed noise policy update in the 7uly 1=� Federal Register. The table of� contents to that reQis�er�can be found at www.access.g�o �ov/su docs/fedre�/�000714c.html.Once there, scroll down to the FAA headinQ and click onro Aviation Noise Policy. y The FAA said in its notice [hat the Depar[ment of Trans- portation is considerinQ issuins a revised policy statement that may cover ali forms of transportation noise (rail, avia[ion, and hiahway) in order [o provide policy direction over the next 2� years. The document will be divided into [wo parts: first, the secretary of Transportation will publish a policy statement broadly addressinQ noise concerns; then, based on this policy statemznt, the FAA administrator will issue aviatioo noise policy Quidelines. The FAA said that the publication of its draft policy on aviation noise abatement "represents a first step in a process to develop an aviation noise policy." It is intended to stimulate ideas that «�ill result in comments that wiil be evaluated in the development of a comprehensive policy statement and guidance document. The FAA offered no time line on how lon� this process will, take. W illiam Albee, the former FAA policy maker who � drafted the proposed policy FAA is seeking comment on, had hoped to get it ou[ in 1996, the 20"' anniversary of the issuance of the original aviation noise policy. However, the proposed policy revision got hung up For years in review by FAA attorneys and airports division personnel. Nevertheless, Albee, who now works for W yle Laboratories in Arlin�ton, VA, said tha[ the published document is essentially what he drafted. "All the elements are there as I envisioned," he told ANR, adding that he is very pleased with the document. Six Noise Goals The update noise policy proposes six aviation noise goals: 1. Continue to reduce aircraft noise at the source: The FAA promised to "aggressively pursue" more strin�ent aircraft noise standards, noting that it plans in the first decade of the 21'� century to take advantage of new noise reduction technologies being developed in a joint research program with the National Aeronautics and Space Adminis- tration (NASA). The goal of that projram is to deve]op technologies to reduce airplane noise levels by l OdB relative to 1992 technology. In addition, the�FAA said that it supports NASA's ambi- tious goal to reduce the perceived noise levels of future aircraFt by a factor of two by 2007 and by a factor of four by� 2022, compared to 1995 technoloay. Regardin� new supersonic aircraft, FAA said that any future standards for them would require SSTs to meet Stage 3 noise standards. 2. tJse new technologies to mitigate noise impacts: The FAA said it will examine new operational and navisational technoioaies "for their potential to mitiQate noise impac[s while maximizin� avia[ion system efficiencies. New technologies bring with them the challenge to inteerate noise pianning and mitiga[ion into their deployment," the agency said, notin� [ha[ the Global Positioning System (GPS), automated flight guidance, Free flight, and other innovations will all be examined for their potential to mitiQate noise impacts while improving safety and effi- ciency. Enhancemen[s ro the GPS wi11 permi[ greater precision in directing air traffic operations than currently available, the FAA said, adding that it anticipates [hat this increased precision will lead to refinement of procedures, particularly airport approaches and departures, to abate aircraft noise and minimize exposure levels in noise sensitive areas. 3. Encoarage development of compatible land ❑ses in areas experiencing signiFicant noise esposure around airports, to the eYtent feasibte, and prevent the develop- ment of ne�v non-compatible uses in these areas. In the yea� 2000, there are still an estimated �00,000 people residinQ in�. areas of significant noise exposure, the agency noted. It said AirportNoiseReport July 14, 2000 96 that a top priority of its policy will be to achieve compat- ibility in these areas and to protect these gains by prevent- ing new noise sensitive land uses from becoming estab- lished. The FAA said that when locally-established noise compatibility standards are more stringent than the agency's own, it "will respect those local standards in its actions which could cause growth of the airport's noise contours through appropriate mitigation actions." This appears to mean that the agency will fund noise mitigation measures beyond the 65 dB DNL contour. 4. Design air traffic routes and procedures to minimize aviation noise impacts in areas beyond the legal jurisdic- tion of the airport proprietor, consistent with tocal consensus and safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. The FAA said that where air traffic changes are not necessary for operational purposes, the agency "is willing in the appropriate circumstances [which it does not define] to consider chan�es for noise abatement reasons for communities at greater distances from airports that are outside the airport proprietor's legal area of interes't and already at noise levels consistent with federal land use compatibility guidelines." In these cases, the FAA said, proposed changes "must first be consistent with safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace, and also reflect local consensus. Final decisions will then reflect the FAA policy that operational changes made for noise abatement reasons must reduce the number of people affected by noise and the severity of the effect, without increasing noise effects in natural environments with unique noise sensitivities." 5. Provide specific consideration to locations in national parks and other federally managed areas having unique noise sensitivities. The FAA noted that the secretaries of Interior and Trans- portation are join[]y developing a national policy on overfligh[s of national parks with the goal of identifying how best to provide access to the airspace over national parks while ensuring park visitors a"quality experience" and protectinj park resources. 6. Ensure strong financial support for noise compatibil- ity pianning and for mitigation projects. The FAA said [hat in the last two years it has explored innovative financin� proposals and will continue doing so in [he future. The a�ency pledQed to work with state and local governmen[s and the private sector "to create new partner- ships and opportunities to increase reliable sources of fundin� and to accelerate adequate financing of noise mi[i�a[ion projects." Further Information Additional information on the proposed policy update can be obtained from Thomas L. Connor, Noise Division, AEE-100, OFfice of Environment and Energy, FAA, 800 Independence Ave, SW, Washinaton, DC 20591; tel: (202) 267-8933;fax:(202)267-5594. Comments on the proposal should be mailed in triplicate to FAA, Office of the Chief Counsel, Attn: Rules Docket (AGC-200), Docket No. 30109, 800 Independence Ave, SW, W ashington, DC 20591. Noise Standards, from p. 94 2. Changes to regulatory text that would serve to minimize the language differences between Part 36 and JAR 36 but would have no substantive effect on the Part 36 standards; and 3. Changes to the section designations of current appendices A, B, and C of Part 36 and JAR 36 formats that would make no substantive changes to the rules. The public has until Oct. 10 to comment on the chances to U.S. airplane noise certification standards proposed in the NPRM, which can be obtained from the FAA's web site at www faa�ov/avr/arm/n�rm/n�rm htm or from the Govern- ment Printing Office's web site at www.access.�o.ggvinara. Further information on the proposal can be obtained from James Skalecky, AEE-100, Office of Environment and Energy, FAA, 800 Independence Ave, SW, W ashin�ton, DC Part I50 Program � . . . � � . � � � � � � , T � � r � � , � � , • On July 12, the Federal Aviation Administration an- nounced its approval of the Part 150 Airport Noise Compat- ibility Pro�ram submitted by the Rhode Island Airport Corporation for T. F. Green Airport in W arwick, RI. Of the 47 proposed program elements, the FAA approved 40 and acknowledged that the remainina seven needed no federal approval. The 40 program elements approved included: - Construction of a parallel taxiway and noise barriers; - A voluntary nighttime use restriction between midnight and 6 a.m. for scheduled air carriers and discour- agement of engine maintenance run-ups during this period; - Discouragement of engine start-ups and auxiliary power units prior to the end of the 6 a.m. voluntary use restriction period; - Desi�nation of close-in noise abatement departure procedures for various runways; - Establishment of air traffic control procedures for noise abatemen[; - Voluntary acquisition of approximately ?10 residences wi[hin or adjacent to the 70dB DNL noise contour; - Sound insulation oF approximately 830 residences between the 6�dB DNL and 70dB DNL noise contours; - Implementation of a formal Fair Disclosure Policy for real estate within the 65dB DNL noise contour; - A recommendation that the City of Warwick update its Comprehensive Plan to address the influence of AirportNoiseReport July 14, 2000 ANR EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Steven R. Alverson Manager,Sacramento0ffice HarrisMillerMiller& Hanson John J. Corbett, Esq. Spiegel& McDiarmid Washington,DC James D. Erickson Director, Office of Environment and Ener�y Federal Aviation Administration John C.Freytag,P.E. D irector, Charles M. Salter Associates San Francisco Michael Scott Gatake, Esq. Gatzke,Dillon & Ballance Carlsbad, CA Peter J. Kirsch, Esq. Cuder& Stanfield Denver Suzanne C.14cLean ChiefDevelopmentOfficer Tucson AirportAuthority John M. 1�feenan Senior V ice President for Industry Policy AirTransportAssociation Vincent E. Mestre, P.E. President,Mestre Greve Associates NewportBeach,CA Steven F. Pftaum, Esq. McDermott, Will & Emery Chicaeo Karen L. Robertson M anager, Noise Compatibility 0ffice Dallas/Fort W orth Internationa) Airport Nlary L. Vigilante President, Synerey Consultants Seattle V Lisa Lyle W aters Manager,Noise AbatementProgram Palm Beach County DepartmentoFAirports 9� the airport on surrounding community land use; - Investiga[ion into the sound insulation of two schools outside of the 65dB DNL noise contour; - Installation of a permanent noise monitoring system; � - Implementation of a Fly Quiet public relations program; - Establishment of a continuing noise abatement committee to monitor and assist in the implementation of various noise abatement m easures; - Further study to analyze the possible extension of Runway 16- 34 for noise abatement purposes; and - Continuation of various program measures from the 1986 approved noise compatibility program. Further information on the program can be obtained from John C. Silva, FAA, New England Region, Airports Division, 12 New England Execu- tive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; tel: 617-238-7602. Ft. Lauderdale Executive � � u , � � � � ' . , , . � . . . � � � . � The City of Fort Lauderdale, FL, recently presented its 2000 Achieve- ments in Community Excellence (ACE) Award to A-OK Jets, Inc., for consistently complying with recommended noise abatement procedures and educating other airport users on noise issues at Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport. The Award was presented at a luncheon attended by Mayor Jim Naugle, as weil as several airport commissioners, neighborhood representatives, and past recipients. Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport implemented the ACE Awards �` Program in 1998 to provide pilots and aircraft operators with an incen- tive to fly their jets as quiet]y as possible. The award formally recognizes individuals and businesses that make exceptional efforts to comply with the elements of the airport's noise abatement program throughout the year. A-OK lets has been a tenant at the airpor[ since 1987. The charter and aircraft management company operates a fleet of nine aircraft, including six jets and one helicopter. In addition to on-demand charters for business executives, celebrities, and individuals, the company manaQes corporate aircraft. "The City of Fort Lauderdale is gra[eful for the sienificant efforts A-OK Jets and Tom Baur [president of the company] have made over the years to help Executive Airport achieve it's goal of being a�ood neighbor to nearby residential communities," said Bill Crouch, mana�er of the airport. "We look forward [o their continued cooperation�and support in helping us keep our tenants readily aware of noise-related concerns." AIRPORTNOISEREPORT Anne H. Kohut, Pubiisher Published 46 times a year at 43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 20147; Phone: (703) 729-4867; FAX: (703) 729-4�28. e-mail: editor@airportnoisereport.com; Price $549. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by Airport Noise Report; provided that the base fee of US$1.03 per pa�e per copy is paid directly to Copyright Ciearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. USA. � I � �` , � '� ' •� � � A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments Volume 12, Number 23 Seattle-Tacoma Int'Z CITIZEN GROUP SUES PORT OF SEATTLE OVER REJECTION OF AIR ROUTE CHANGE A Seattle-area citizens group filed suit against the Port of Seattle July 20 alleging that the Port Commission violated the State Environmental Policy Act and federal Part 150 regulations by failing to study all options to reduce aircraft noise over Seattle neighborhoods. In announcing the litigation, filed in King County Superior Court, Citizens for Airplane Noise Equity (CANE) claimed that the Port "led citizens through a three- year process that did not consider several common sense solutions." The process refers to a citizens advisory eommittee set dp'�by the Port to consider noise mitigation remedies that might be included in the Port's update of its Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program. "' The process "was doomed from the star," said CANE President Janet Johnston. "The Port gave us one option to consider and then told us it was unacceptable. They didn't solve the problem and they wasted our time. And that is unaccept- able." According to CANE, the Port directed the citizens advisory committee to consider only the controversial "split-east" turn, which would have divided northbound takeoffs into two paths over Seattle-area neighborhoods, instead of (Continued on p. 99) Fiedmont Triad Int'1 ' EPA OPPOSES EXPANSION OF TRIAD� TO REGIONAL SORTING HUB FOR FEDEX The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has come out against the proposed expansion of Piedmont Triad International Airport in Greensboro, NC, to become the mid-Atlantic sorting and distribution cargo hub for Federal Express. "EPA ... believes that in order for an overnight air express operation to be reasonable environmentally, it would need to be removed from areas of public development — particularly residential communities — where the airport is surrounded by compatible land use with minimal sensitive noise receptors. This does not appear to be the case at [Piedmont] where single family residences exist in the area, in both the southwest (scattered) and northeast (concentrated) sec- tion," Heinz J. Mueller, chief of the Office of Environmental Assessment in EPA's Atlanta regional office, said in comments to the Federal Aviation Administration on its Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the proposed project. The airport wants to place the new parallel runway in a southeast/northwest direction and require both takeoffs and landings to the southwest, which is sparsely populated. EPA said it is "concerned that the parallel runway proposal would not only increase overall airport noise, but that new intrusive noise would be introduced (Continued on p. 99) � July 21, 2000 In This Issuee � e Seattle-Tacoma Int'Z ... After the Port Commissioners reject an air route change proposed by a citizens advi- sory panel, a community group that would have ben- efitted from the change sues the Port alleging that its action violated the State Environ- mental Policy Act and FAA's Part 150 program - p. 98 Piedmont Triad Int'Z ... The EPA strongly criticizes the Draft EIS on the expansion of Triad International into a major cargo sorting hub for Federal Express. The agency said the Draft EIS does not adequately describe the proposed nighttime air cargo operations, their noise impact, or the mitigation of the noise impact - p. 98 Sleep Research ... The British Government has com- missioned two research projects to deternune if it is feasible to ' expand its landmark 1992 study on the impact of nightti.me aircraft operations on sleep, which concluded that aircraft noise has little impact in waking people from sleep. The govern- ment says it is time to change the focus of its research from sleep disturbance to other affects - p. 100 July 21, 2000 99 '' the one path currentiy flown which directs aircraft over neighborhoods CANE represents. Although the citizens advisory committee recommended that the split-east turn be implemented as part of the airport's Part 150 program, the Port commissioners rejected the idea by not bringing it up for a vote. In its resolution on the flight track issue, which the lawsuit challenged as : being arbitrary and capricious and illegal, "the Port commission said that it did not want to merely shift noise from one neighborhood to another," Johnston said. CANE's lawsuit "should send a clear message to the Port that we're not going away until the jet-noise goes away," she added. CANE supports short and long-term noise mitigation efforts, including use of quieter aircraft, expanding and enforcing nighttime flying restrictions, implementation of new technology, "diversifying" flight paths, maximizing landing altitudes, and use of other airports. Port Still Workirig on Yssue Ron Seymour, director of Part 150 program update process at Sea-Tac, could no[ comment on the litigation . because he has not yet seen it. But he told ANR that CANE has acted too hastily in filing its lawsuit because the Port is still working on the flight track issue and may be able to reach the group's goal of reducing current northbound overflights by half through means other than the split-east turn. Next week, Seymour said, the Port plans to write the FAA to get a determination on the feasibility of sending half of the airplanes that would have gone on the split-east turn to an overwater path over Ellio[ Bay. If that is feasible and does not increase noise impact on communities on the shoreline, then it would achieve the goai of reducing noise impact on current communities by half without increasing it for others, he said. Aiso, Seymour said the Port expects that Horizon Air will replace all its noisy Fokker 28s, which are used in 30-40 operations per day at Sea-Tac, with quieter Bombardier regional jets by December 2001. That change to quieter aircraft will be significant and noticed by communities, he said. Seymour said it is misleading for CANE to contend that the citizen advisory committee was set up only to consider air route changes. It was established to look at all kinds of noise mitigation measures for the Part 150 program update, including sound insulation and engine run-up facilities. The Port is spending $1.4 million on its Part 150 update, which, as far as the Port staff knows, makes it the most expensive Part I50 effort in the country, Seymour said. The Port is considering establishing some kind of permanent committee to continue addressing noise , mitigation after the Part 150 update is over but has not yet decided what the committee structure would be or.what matters it would address. Seymour said the Port is studying successful standing committees set up to address airplane no'rse problems around San Francisco International and Minneapolis-St. Paul International airports. The lawsuit, Cane v. Port of Seattle, was filed in King County (W A) Superior Court. Triad, from p. 98 C almost daily due to the proposed air cargo express flight operations during sensitive late-night and early-morning time periods." "The DEIS proposes that all FedEx landings and takeoffs would come from and go toward the southwestern section, which would impact those scattered residents located there and avoid the more concentrated single family homes located in the northeastern section," Mueller wrote. "As a FedEx hub, we believe the potential is great for operational expansion on the new parallel runway beyond the proposed 48 daily operations, which would then generate even more noise during this nighttime period. In addition, as capacity �� eventually grows at PTIA and use of the cargo runway for FedEx as well as other commercial airlines increases, we anticipate that the single family residences in the northeast- ern section of Greensboro (which are currently not forecast in the DEIS to be located within the DNL 65 contour) could receive greater noise impacts and ultimately be included in the DNL 65 dB contour.". Regarding the DEIS, Mueller said the EPA does not feel it fully describes the proposed air cargo operations and the j associated potential noise impacts, or the mitigation of �, those impacts. The DEIS, he said, does not provide a detailed description of the proposed air cargo facility and its impacts from a day-to-day operational point of view. The Fina] EIS should disclose detailed operational information, such as when the FedEx cargo flights will be arriving, how long that will be on the ground, and when they depart, and how many days of the week they will operate, EPA said. Noise Metric Criticized The Final EIS also should inciude a noise metric more specific to the relatively short four-to-five hour time frame during which FedEx operations will occur at night, the EPA official said. The Draft EIS uses DNL and a nine-hour Leq, which the EPA contends are inadequate to show the noise impact during the four-to-five hour time frame that FedEx will be operating in and are averaged over 365 days per year instead of just over the days FedEx will be operating each year. � EPA strongly recommended that there be an aggressive home buy-out and sound insulation program for homeowuers to the southwest of the airport who would get the most noise impact. The agency also recommended that the airport participate in the FAA's Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program in order to allow the pubiic to become involved in a formal noise mitigation process as FedEx operations increase in the future. AirportNoiseReport July 21, 2000 100 The EPA also recommended that FAA reassess it's Environmental Justice assessment after it incorporates the information sought by EPA into its Final EIS. The Environ- mental Justice analysis "should insure that affected minority and low-income populations in the area are not disproportionately impacted through alternative selection, runway orientation, flight paths, hours of operation, and other operational and land use consideration," EPA said. Research UK STUDYING FEASIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL SLEEP STUDIES The British government, with the advice of expert advisory groups, has decided to commission two short research studies and a public attitude survey to determine whether it should expand its 1992 study on the effects of nighttime aircraft noise on sleep. The 1992 field study, conducted on residents near London airports, concluded that aircraft noise had little ' impact on waking people from sleep. The key finding of the study was that, at outdoor noise event below 90 dBA SEL (approximately 80 dBA Lmax), average sleep disturbance rates were unlikely to be affected and, at higher noise event levels (mostly in the range 90-100 dBA SEL), the chance of the average person being awakened by an aircraft noise event was about 1 in 75. Finding Misinterpreted This finding has been "widely misinterpreted as an affirmation that aircraft noise does not disturb sleep," said British researchers Nicole Porter, Andrew Kershaw, and John 011erhead in a report done for the British National Air Traffic Services Ltd. (NATS). The report discasses the follow-on sleep research the government is considering. 011erhead was the principal author of the 1992 study and, along with Porter, has been transferred from NATS to the Environmental Research and Consultancy Department of the UK Civil Aviation Authority. Kershaw works for the Safety Studies Section in NATS. The researchers said in their report "even though the likelihood of an individual being awakened by one individual aircraft noise event appears to be relatively low, it does not necessarily follow that the total incidence of sleep disturbance in a densely populated neighborhood overflown by nighttime aircraft is likely to be insignifi- cant." Applying the results of the 1992 field study directly to aircraft movements at Heathrow Airport during a typical 1997 summer night (1 I p.m. to 7 a.m.), the researchers estimated that the number of aircraft noise induced awaken- ings are approximately 8,700 per night. "Awakening from sleep is but one effect in the complex web of interactions that [can occur from exposure to nighttime noise], the researcher said, adding that it is now time to change the focus of attention from actual sleep disturbance to other affects. The 1992 field study provided little information about the effects of aircraft noise on sleep onset latency (the time it takes to fall asleep) or premature awakenings in the early morning periods, referred to as the "shoulder hours." � A limited social survey conducted at the time of the 1992 fieid study found that more than 20 percent of the residents at sites near Heathrow Airport and more than 30 percent of the residents at one site near Manchester Airport were "very much annoyed" by nighttime aircraft noise. "There appears to be no simple relationship between the proportion of people very much annoyed and noise exposure level Leg — either in general, or specifically at night," the researchers said in R&D Report 9964, "Adverse Effects of Night-time Aircraft Noise." "The level of annoyance was higher than might have been expected considering the relatively low rates of sleep disturbance physically measured [by awakenings] in the main study," they wrote. .: -"A goal of continuing research is to establish whether nighttime aircraft noise can lead to clinically significant impairment of health either directly, or indirectly as a result of chronic subjective reactions," such as anno.yance, they said. But they noted that "given that present understanding of the cause-effect web of night noise impact is fragmentary, it is evident that achievement of this goal remains some way off." Research Being Considered The British Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, has decided to commission two short research studies to investigate research options. The first study is being done to determine whether the methodology exists to extend the 1992 sleep study to the shoulder hours and to study sleep disturbance among noise sensitive people. The key objective of the shoulder hour study would be to answer the question: Could aircraft noise delay sleep onset and hasten final awakening and thus reduce quantity of sleep? The study would measure the acute effects of aircraft noise at the shoulder hours (such as sleep disturbance, changes in cardiovascular or immune systems, annoyance, changes in sleep duration or pattern) but also would try to relate these effects to those that occur the next day (such as sleepiness, performance decrements, moodiness, short-term annoyance) or to chronic effects of noise (such as high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, mental health effects, perceived health effects, chronic annoyance, or reduced quality of life). The report did not indicate what effects would be studied. Although the research would focus on the shoulder hours of sleep, it also would include monitoring of subjects during the course of the night to determine whether there are compensating mechanisms to offset the ]oss of sleep at the shouider hours. AirportNoise Report July 21, 2000 101 ANR EDITORIAL anvlso�Y soARD Steven R. Alverson M anager,Sacramento0ffice HarrisMillerMiller& Hanson John J. Corbett, Esq. Spiegel & McDiarmid W ashington, DC James D. Erickson Director, Office of Environment and Energy Federal Aviation Administration John C. Freytag, P.E. Direcror,Chades M. SalterAssociates San Francisco Michael Scott Gatzke, Esq. Gatzke,Dillon & Ballance Catlsbad, CA Peter J. Kirsch, Esq. Cuder& Stanfield Denver Suzanne C. McLean ChiefDevelopmentOfficer Tucson AirportAuthority John M. Meenan Senior V ice PresidentforIndustry Policy A ir T ransport Association Vincent E. Mestre, P.E. President, Mestre Greve Associates NewportBeach,CA Steven F. Pflaum, Esq. McDermott, W ill & Emery Chicago Karen L. Robertson Manager, Noise Compatibility Office Dallas/FortVJorth International Airport Mary L. Vigilante President, Synergy Consultants Seatde Lisa Lyle Waters Manager, Noise AbatementProgram Palm Beach County Departmentof Airports The 1992 sleep study found that people who are highly sensitive to noise were 2.5 times more likely to be disturbed than those with low susceptibility. Focusing research on the population of highly noise sensitive peopie would maximize the chance of detection significant noise effect relationships. But the report notes that it may be difficult to identify noise sensitive people prior to the study. Social Survey The British government also plans to conduct another survey of airport neighbors' opinions about nighttime aircraft noise and its impact on them. The researchers said that their report "has highlighted the draw- backs of continuing to focus attention on objectively measurable sleep disturbance. Subjective perceptions of nighttime aircraft noise effects may be equally important, if not more so." The social survey will attempt to look at the interrelationship of factors that influence subjective perceptions of nighttime aircraft noise and factors that modify people's response. New powerful statistical analysis tools are now available to handle such analysis, the report notes. „ Advisory Panels C The British "government set up three advisory groups to help it deter- mine how to proceed with its research on the effects of nighttime aircraft noise on sleep. A steering group consists of representatives of the UK Department of Health, the UK Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, three London airport consultative committees, Manchester Airport, the British Airports Authority, airline representatives, and the Airfield Environment Trust. A technical panel was formed of recognized UK experts in sleep, noise � measurement, noise and health effects, social statistics, medical doctors, � and psychologists. International contacts were primarily the members of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Noise (ICBEN) Team 5 on noise and sleep: AIRPORT NOISE REPORT Anne H. Kohut, Publisher Published 46 times a year at 43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 20147; Phone: (703) 729-486�; FAX: (703) 729-4528. e-mail: editor@airportnoisereport.com; Price $549. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is jranted by Airport Noise Report, provided that fhe base fee of US$i.03 per page per copy is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. USA. � • • I "' � �' � � A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments Volume 12, Number 24 Stage 4 Standard GLOBAL COALITION FORMED TO I�EI,P ENSURE STJCCESS OF ICAO STAGE 4 PROCESS At the request of U.S airlines, the Coalition for a Global Standard on Aviation Noise has been formed in an attempt to help ensure that the process of developing a more stringent International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Stage 4 aircraft noise certification standard has a successful outcome. The coalition, announced in early July, has 65 members, mostly airlines but also some airports, most aviation airframe and engine manufactures, and two pilot groups. Absent from the coalition are the U.S. Air Transport Association (ATA) and the Airports Council International (both the North American and European chapters). � W ith the United States and the European Union at loggerheads over the issue of hushkitted aircraft, there is concern that ICAO's Committee on Aviation Environ- mentai Protection (CAEP) could have a very tough time reaching consensus on the question of whether and how to phase out hushkitted ai'rcraft. U.S. airlines want CAEP to recommend a very stringent Stage 4 noise certifica- tion standard but do not want it to be accompanied by a phaseout schedule for Stage 3 aircraft. The European Union wants hushkitted aircraft addressed by ICAO and the EU's refusal to rescind its rule barring the addition of hushkitted aircraft (Continued on p. 103J Burbank Airport AIRPORT AUTHORITY UNVEILS PLAN FOR CONDUCTING FEDERAL PART 161 STUDY On July 24, the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority unveiled the "action plan" it intends to follow in attempting to impose the first restriction in the country on Stage 3 aircraft under the Federal Aviation Administration's Part 161 Regulations on Notice and Approval of Airport Noise and Access Restric- tions. The airport authority seeks to impose a mandatory nighttime curfew on Stage 3 airplanes. It plans to submit the Part 161 cost/benefit analysis supporting such a restriction to the FAA by September 2001and expects an FAA decision by early 2002. The Airport Noise and Capacity Act requires FAA approval of new airport noise or access restrictions imposed under the Part 161 regulations. The regulations have been on the books since 1991 but while the Stage 2 aircraft fleet was being phased out airports were not under strong pressure to restrict Stage 3 planes. Burbank has been an all-Stage 3 airport since 1987. It seeks to impose the nighttime curfew on Stage 3 aircraft in order to get approval of a replacement terminal it seeks to buiid within the jurisdiction of the City of Burbank, which has demanded that night operations cease. (Continued on p. 103) � July 28, Z000 In This Issue... ICAO Stage 4 Standard ... Former Virginia Gov. Gerald Baliles heads up a new coaltion formed at the airlines' request to help ensure that the process of developing a Stage 4 ICAO noise certification standard succeeds - p. 102 Burbank ... The Burbank Airport Authority uriveils the "action plan" it will follow in attempting to impose the first rest�iction of a Stage 3 airplane, a mandatory nighttime curfew, under federal Part 161 regula- tions - p. 102 New Jersey ... Common Cause NJ accuses Continental Airlines of making political contributions to "mute" the debate over aircraft noise and derail legislation - p. 104 AIP Grants ... FAA awards Airport Improvement Program grants to 11 auports for noise mitigation projects. Most of the grants are for sound insulation with Milwaukee Gen. Mitchell International receiving the largest, $6.6 million - p. 104 Briefs ... DC-9 hushlcit manufacturer ABS reaches milestone ... Tiered EIS to be done for scoping and site approval of new Chicago area airport - p. 105 July 28, 2000 103 in Europe threatens to toppie the whole ICAO process of internationa] aviation standards setting. The new coalition is being chaired by Gerald L. Baliles, the former governor of V irginia and a partner in the W ashington, DC, law firm Hunton & W illiams. He is a skilled negotiator with broad experience in aviation and transportation issues having recently chaired the National Commission to Ensure a Strong Competitive Airline Industry, which made recommendations to Congress on how to improve the financial stability and competitiveness of the industry. W hile the growing number of inembers signals a vote of confidence in the coalition and in Baliles' negotiating skilis, some industry observers are skeptical that much can be achieved in light of Baliles' lack of technical expertise in aviation noise and his strategy of trying to find some broad consensus on a new standard without getting involved in the technical issues. As one observer put it: The real issue is whether Stage 3 aircraft will be phased out and what the phaseout schedule will be and that requires getting into great detail. Another observer wished the coalition well but predicted their task would be very difficult. "The problem needs a techno- political approach. Baliles is a skilled negotiator but not strong in the technical issues and that may prove to be cruciai." Guiding Principles The coalition's work wiil be guided by three principles: 1. Preservation of the international principle of a single global certification standard for noise reduction; 2. Protection of the airline industry's investment in the Chapter 3 fleet; and 3. Development of an effective and technically feasible new aircraft noise certification standard. "The aviation noise issue must be addressed because it has the potential to disrupt the global aviation industry with dramatic economic consequences for companies, consumers, and communities around the world," Baliles said July 5 in a speech before the European Aviation Club Seminar in Brussels. "For more than 50 years questions of aviation noise standards have been determined by ICAO and that is where the current controversy over new noise standards must be addressed and resolved," he said. The new ICAO standard, he said, must be stringent enough to provide reaI noise reduction for airport neighbors and yet offer some certainty for the financial health and operations of the airline industry. On July 27, the coalition announced its 30-member advisory board, which includes 16 airlines, six airport operators, six manufacturers, and two pilot organizations. FedEx and Northwest Airlines, the two U.S. airlines with the most at stake in terms of the phaseout of hushkitted aircraft, are both on the coalition's advisory board. The list of advisory board members is available at the coalition's web site (www.forcha�ter4.or�), along with the fuil list of members. Click on to "Operating Principies" and scroll to the end of the text. Burbank, from p.102 Airports and communities around the country are closely watching Burbank Airport as it treads on territory others have feared to enter. The FAA has offered very little guidance to airports on how to conduct cost/benefit analyses under its decade-old but largely undefined Part 161 rules. Aware that the decisions it makes in reviewing the Burbank Part 161 study will become precedent setting, the FAA has warned the airport that it will hold it to a very high standard in evaluating the study. The Part 161 regulations require Burbank to demonstrate that the mandatory nighttime curfew on Stage 3 aircraft that it wants to impose will meet five criteria. It must (1) be reasonable, non-arbitrary, and non-discriminatory; (2) must not create an undue burden on interstate or foreign com- merce; (3) must maintain safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace; (4) must not conflict with any existing federal statute or regulation; and (5) must not create an undue burden on the national aviation system. Night Noise is Overriding Issue "It is clear to the [airport authority] that nighttime aircraft noise is an overriding issue to residents who live under arrival and departure flight paths and this study process is the one way open to us under federal law to secure hard and fast restrictions, such as a curfew," said Airport Authority President Carl Meseck. "W e encourage the public as well as the users of the airport to follow the study closely and get involved. W e feel that the thoroughness of the participation by all interests can and wiil have an impact on the FAA's willingness to consider our case." A key period in the study action plan will take place over the next two months as the airport authority begins an extensive public outreach program to coliect opinions and ideas about what should be done to combat noise. The outreach program will include a series of four public listening sessions in August which wili be extensively pubiicized. The airport authority said that in order to expedite the study process, the Part 161 study will focus on the elimina- tion or significant reduction of nighttime noise now and in the future. The FAA, it said, has made a commitment to consider that issue as quickly as it can. Noise issues beyond the scope of the nighttime curfew may be deferred for subsequent Part 161 studies. The airport announced that a major addition to its Part 161 study is a web site it set up (www.burbank�art161.oral, which will provide ongoing information about the study as it is compiled. It it expected to be on line within two weeks and will provide access to all documents submitted to the public docket over the life of the study. Airpor[NoiseReport C C C July 28, 2000 104 New Jersey - COMMON CAUSE TAKES UP � AIRPORT NOISE ISSUE IN NJ Continental Airlines' political contributions to New Jersey politicians have "muted the debate over the health risks of aircraft noise and caused the public's interest to be ignored," the New 7ersey chapter of the citizen lobbying organization Common Cause asserted in a report entitled "The Toxic Mixture of Political Money and the Environ- m en t." The non-profit organization cited Continental Airlines along with Ocean Spray and the Mills Corp., as examples of companies that have bought influence with New Jersey politicians. "The political game of `pay to play' has seriously damaged efforts by environmental organizations to protect the environment and represent the public interest," said Harry Pozycki, chairman of Common Cause New Jersey at a July 19 press release announcing the report. It claims that Continentai , the largest carrier at Newark Airport, has tried to derail efforts to mitigate aircraft noise by giving thousands of dollars to New Jersey politicians, particularly Democratic congressmen Donald Payne, who represents the state's Tenth Congressional District, which includes Newark Airport, and Robert Menendez, New 7ersey's senior elected official on the House Aviation Subcommittee. Menendez opposed the "Bi-State Noise Correction Act," introduced by NJ Rep. Bob Franks and supported by other members of the state's congressional delegation, which would have imposed significant aircraft noise reductions over northern and central New Jersey. The bill never even reached a committee vote, the report noted. Payne did not support a request by New Jersey's senators that the Federal Aviation Administration consider routing aircraft departing Newark over the Atlantic Ocean to mitigation noise before turning them back over land. It is estimated that such a requirement would cost Continental one dollar per seat on flights out of Newark, the report noted. Payne and Menendez defended their actions, saying they did not support some of the proposals put forth to reduce aircraft noise because they would have rerouted airplanes over low income communities in Newark and Elizabeth, NJ. The Common Cause report said that over the last five election cycles, beginning in 1992, �ontinental coqtrib- uted $11,650 to Payne and $9,663 to Menendez. Continental Airlines spokeswoman Katherine Stengel the airline does not sugport any politician on a single issue. It support them for their leadership in domestic and international aviation issues. Continental, she said, supports legislators representing districts in which their hub airports are located. AIP Grants FAA AWARDS GRANTS FOR NOISE MITIGATION The Federal Aviation Administration recently awarded grants under the federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP) to the following airports for projects relating to airplane noise mitigation: - The State of Alaska was awarded a grant of $650,613 to update the noise compatibiliyt plan and airport master plan for Fairbanks International Airport and to conduct a pavement maintenance plan study: - Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport was awarded a grant of $650,000 to update its airport master plan and to conduct a noise compatibility plan study; - The County of San Mateo, CA, was awarded a grant of $100,000 for noise mitigation measures for public build- ings (Belle Air Elementary School in San Bruno); . - The County of San Mateo, CA, was awarded a grant of $150,000 for noise mitigation measures for residences - The City of Santa $ arbara, CA, was awarded a grant of $270,000 to conduct a noise compatibility study update; -The Monroe County (FL) Board of Commissioners was given a grant of $2,703,855 for several projects, including the design of noise mitigation measures for residences within the 65-69 dB DNL noise contour of Key W est Interna[ional Airport; - The City of Chicago was given a grant of $440,000 for sound insulation measures for an elementary schooi; - The City of New Orleans was awarded a grant of $2,090,970 to acquire land for development and relocation assistance near New Orleans International Airport; - The City of Manchester, NH, was awarded a grant of $2.5 million for noise mitigation measures for residences within the 65-69 dB DNL noise contour of Manchester Airport; - The Pease Development Authority was given a grant of $65,000 to install noise moni[oring equipment at a general aviation airport - The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey was awarded a grant of $350,000 for noise mitigation measures for a school. The Port Authority was given two additional grants: $550,�00 and $350,000 for the design of noise mitigation measures for a public buildings; - The City of Cleveland was awarded a grant of • $2,432,211 for noise mitigation measures for residences within the 65-69 dB DNL contour of Cieveland Hopkins International Airport; - The County of Milwaukee, W I, was given a grant of $6.6 million for noise mitigation measures for 215 residences within the 65-69 dB DNL noise contour of General Mitchell International Airport. AirportNoiseReport July 28, 2000 105 - ANR EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD 5teven R.Alverson M anager,Sacramento0ffice HarrisMillerMiller& Hanson John J. Corbett, Esq. Spiegel& McDiarmid Washington, DC James D. Erickson Director, Office of Environment and Energy Fedecal Aviation Administration John C. Freytag, P.E. Director, Chades M. Salter Associates San Francisco Michael Scott Gatzke, Esq. G atzke, D illon & B allance Carlsbad, CA Peter J. Kirsch, Esq. Cutler & Stanfield Denver Suzanne C. McLean ChiefDevelopmentOfficer Tucson AirportAuthority John M. Meenan SeniorVice PresidentforIndustry Policy Air Transport Association Vincent E. Mestre, P.E. President, Mestre Greve Associates NewportBeach,CA Steven F. Pflaum, Esq. McDermott, W ill & Emery Chicago Karen L. Robertson Manager, Noise Compatibility Office Dallas/Fort W orth International A irport Mary L. Vigilante President, Synergy Consultants Seattle Lisa Lyle W aters Manager, Noise Abatement Program Palm Beach County Departmentof Airports In Brief ... � , ABS Delivers 500th Hushkit Sparks, NV-based ABS Partnership announced July 17 that it has reached the milestone of delivering its 500°i DC-9 airplane hushkit to Legend Airlines, a Dallas-based new entrant. The company has 33 customers using its DC-9 hushkit. The first kit was installed in 1991 and has had over 100,000 trouble-free operation cycles, ABS said. Airlines that have purchased the ABS hushkit include Airborne Express, Northwest Airlines, USAirways, TWA, AirTran, Midwest Express, Spirit Airlines, Air Canada, SAS, and Finnair. ABS Partnership has certified every configuration of the DC-9 aircraft at the manufacturer's original maximum gross take-off weights and said it continues to develop product improvements. Noise Training Course The acoustical consulting firm Harris Miller Miller & Hanson, Inc., announced that for the first time it is opening its Noise Office Manage- ment Training Course to the general public. The course, to be held Sept. 11-12 in the company's Burlington, MA, headquarters, will focus on aircraft acoustics and terminology, aircraft noise effects, federal aircraft noise regulations and their application, noise monitoring systems and techniques, and community invalvement programs. HMMH also is offering its Integrated Noise Model (INM) Training Course on Sept. 13-IS in Burlington. It will cover the basic steps needed to develop noise contours using the INM, Version 6. �, Additional informaiion about the courses and registration is available online at www.hmmh.com/inm.html. EIS for New Chicago Area Airport Site The FAA announced July 28 that it intends to prepare a Tiered Envi- ronmental Impact statement and to conduct environmental scoping for site approval and the proposed acquisition of land by the State of Illinois for a supplemental air carrier airport to serve the Northeast Illinois/ Northwest Indiana metropolitan area. The agency said the scope of this study is significantly different from earlier scoping compieted in May and September 1990, January 1995, and April 1997 that considered development of aviation facilities in addition to site approval and land acquisition. Further information on the EIS can be obtained from Denis R. Rewerts, Airport Capacity Officer, FAA Chicago Airports District Office; tel: (847) 294-7195. AIRPORT NOISE REPORT Anne H. Kohut, Publisher Published 46 times a year at 43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 20147; Phone: (703) 729-4867; FAX: (703) 729-4528. e-mail: editor@airportnoisereport.com; Price $549. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific ciients, is granted by Airport Noise Report, provided that the base fee of US$1.03 per page per copy is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. USA. . , , � _, � _ ,, - - . - ' Par� i 50 Upda�e The I�LAC is idencifying new noise miti- gation initiauves and is validating e,Xist- ing procedures as ic updaces the Parc 150 program ac the Minneapolis-Sc Paul Incernauonal Airport (MSP). Using new cechnology, che MA.0 is increasing noise modeling accuracy and actempcing to extend noise insulation boundaries beyond present federal guidelines. As a result, the MSP Pazt 150 Update is prov- ing to be a precedent-setting inivauve. As rhe Part 150 Update conunues, a ; �mprehensive noise compaubiliry pro- aram is being developed. The noise com- patibilicy program includes provisions for operacional noise mitigation and land use measures (including sound insulation). The a.ircrafc and airport operational noise mitigation initia�ives include: • Noise Abatement Departure Profzles (NADP}, distant NADP procedure off all runways ac MSP thac removes approxima[ely 9,800 people from the 60+ DNL contour. • Runway Use System: runway use configurations tha� help reduce noise impaccs during lo�v, medium and high traffic volume periods. Mitigation Measures continued on page 4 �. ■' � .i . � '��'�� e ederal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Pan 150 is a Federal Aviacion Administration (FAA) program chat makes aviation-generaced revenues available for airpon noise reducuon iniciatives. The Pan 150 process provides airporc operacors wich the procedures, standards and methodology governing �he developmenc, submission and review of airport noise exposure maps (rypically referred co as concours) and airpon noise compaubilicy proerams. The manner in which an airpon and aircraft aze operaced have a direa effect on che noise impact around an airport. As a resulc, operarional procedures in a noise compaubiliry program can have a direct effect on che shape and size of rhe noise concours. The resulung noise contours rhen define che areas eligible for sound insulation. While the Parc 150 program is most of�en associaced wirh sound insulacion (usually the most significan� ponion of a Par� 150 program), there are many other components. A noise compaubiliry program can con�a.in a mulucude of noise compatibiliry measures. These measures rypically focus on airport or aircraft operacional noise mitigation measures, land use measures and other noise ieduction iniciauves. Parc 150 operational inivacives usually include mitigation measures such as: • Aircraft Departure and Arrival Procedures • Rrcnway Use Selection • Flight Track Zlsage • Airpon Use Coruiderations - which can include aircraft type-specific provisions or time of aircra.ft opera�ion considerarions Part 150 land use inicia�ives usually include mitiga�ion measures such as: • Preventative Land UselYleasz�res- effores to prevenc che introduction oE incompatible land uses, where applicable, around the airport • Corrective L�end Use Nteasz�res - efforts to correcc e:cisting incompatible land uses around the airport Other mi�igation measures noc directly related �o opera�ional procedures or land use measures, which focus on reducing or quantiFving noise around an airporc, can include: • Airport Impravements Helping to Reduce Noi.re - induding new noise- reducing or measurin� �echnologies The FAr\ evaluaces a noise compa�ibiliry program based on several different criceria, including the burden on in�ersta�e or foreiPn commerce, reduccion oE exiscing non-compatible land uses and prevention oF addi�ional non-compacible land uses. Addi�ionallv, che Ft1A reviews �he use oF new or modified fli�h� procedures to control the operacion oEaircraft For the purposzs oEnoise mitigacion. The Fr1A comprehensively esplores the objectives of the program and any measures used to achieve the noise mi�igaCion �oals. Through this process, the Fri,� accepts or rejects any or all oE the mi�igacion measures outlined in the program. MASAC N e w s Volume 1, 3rd Quarter 2 0 0 0 A Ne 'lletropalstait Atr, ,o • , �' � � � � � � � , � � � � i �, � ! �`. � � � " • •'' • ' • � ,, � A Noise Abatement Depar�ure Profile (NADP) is a complex sec of procedures chat a piloc follows co con�rol che way thac an aircrafC climbs away from an airport during cakeofF: These procedures deal wich che climb arcirude of rhe aircraft as well as power and flap seccings. In the early 1990s, che FAt1 conduaed several studies to develop standardized departure profiles co minimize aircrafc noise. The incention was to provide standazdized depac�ure profiles for all airporrs around the counuy. Prior to standazdizacion, NADPs were developed on an airpoct specific basis. This resulted in a variery of profiles chac risked compromisin� the pilot's accencion to cockpic decails, uaffic ; avoidance and ocher associaced ; safery funcuons. Under �he FAA's standardized rules, � chere are cwo deparcure profiles chac : airporc operacors can use to reduce : aircrafc noise around airporrs. Each ; procedure is ouclined in detail> : providing accepcable criceria for speed, � chrust sectings and airplane ; configurations associaced wirh �wo : NADPs (Close-In and Disranc profiles). � The Close-In Deparcure ProfiIe is : intended to reduce noise impacrs on : communiues wichin approximacely ; 1.5 miles of the airpon. The o�her : NADP, che Discanc Depar�ure Profile, is : incended to provide noise reduaion for ; all orher noise-sensiuve azeas beyond the : 1.5-mile area. �ocaq =- . 95t10�.�. � �. �g , , .',:;) . s-�a 9caa ._� I r ; � ( . / . ,: ;<�F,,, �`s� �` �� ;� Singie event level noise contour inr a OC9 departure operatinn displaying the areas of naise �eduction 6enefits irom the Distant vs. the Ciose-in Departure protiles. When the airport operator selecrs a : departure profile, air carriers are required � to use the selected NADP for rhe ' ; specified runways. In pazallel runway : situa�ions, such as che case ac MSP, rhe � same procedure musc be used when ; departing in rhe same direcuon off the : pazallel runways. One aircrafc operauonal procedure ' rhaz provides subscanual noise reducuon : is the implementation of rhe Distant ; Noise Abatemenc Deparcure Profile : for all runways at MSP. This MASAC � acuon represencs an endorsement oFthe : Discanc Deparcure Profile procedure, : which is already in use on runways 12L, ; 12R, 22, and 04. Addiuonatly the use of : the Distant Depazcure Profile ofF runway : l� is consiscenc wich �he procedures ; modeled in the Environmental Impact : Statement prepared for the developmenc � of the runway. The change is over the : South Minneapolis area where the Close- : In Departure Profile is currently used. � This recommendacion reduces the : number oFresidencs wi�hin che 60+ � DNL con�our by approximacely 9,800. The decision Lo implement the : Distant Departure Profile on all run�vays, � through the Par� 1�0 Updace process, ; is a result of signiticant review and : analysis by the Vletropoli�an Aircrafc ; Sound Abatement Council (MASt;C), : local governmen�s, �he VfAC and � HTNB, the Vft1C's consulcan�. ; Implemencacion oF che procedure can be � pursued concurrendy �vith �he submittal � and approval of che Parc 1�0 Update. For addi�ional informacion on chis • _ : copic visi� �v-,v�,v.maca��ac.orz/ PART ; 1�0 UPDATE on the Web. �_ .,,1 C, - Volume i, 3rd Quarter 2 O U 0 MASAC N e w s A Newslester From Quiete�9 Nlore Effic�ent Air�r�ft 11Ve►w pe�°atin at �P New Boeing 717-200 aircraft, represencing the next-generacion in quiecer aircrafc technology, have begun re7ular operauons at the Minneapolis-Sc. Paul Intemauonal A.irport (MSP). The Boeing 717-200, the newest airliner in the 100-seat class, features significan�ly lower noise levels chan any orher aircrafc in its class, as well as lower fuel consumption and reduced �chaust emissions. On Mazch 2, 2000, Trans World Airlines (TWA) flight 130 from St. Louis, Mo. arrived at MSP. The flight represenced the firsc Boeing 717-200 revenue flighc for TWA and rhe f rst 717-200 operauon ac iVISP. Since chac time, TWA has used the new aircraft for one arrival and departure per day, on average. Evencually, TWA plans co replace its encire DC-9 fleec wich the new 717-200 aircraft. Anocher airline, AirTran Airways, uses the Boeing 717-200 aircrafc on all of its flighrs ac MSP. AirTran began serving iVISP on June 10, 2000, with four da;ly non-scop flighrs between MSP and Chic�go's Midway Airport. Trans World Airlines 717-200. IVi�.1S�iC's Roie in Par� 150 11Ai�igation 1Vleasu�e �,�'1�2�E,l��"�D�c�$9AB'� When the i�L4C and Metropolican .�ircraft Sound Abacement Council (ytASAC) complece �heir �vork on che Parc 1�0 Updace, they will submic it co che Federal Avia�ion Adminiscracion (F.�;1) For approval. �lfter approval, MASAC will help implemenc che noisz reduc�ion measures, as contained in che Parc 150 Updace documenc. Vf�S�C will help �c•ich anv additional evalua�ions or communications necessarv to initiate che miti�a�ion measures as oudined in the Part 150 Upda�e. i�L�SrIC is uniquely qualiEied for �his cask bzcause of ics varied composicion of communiry, airline and airporc represencacives. The public is �velcome co attend iVL�S`1C mee�ings, held on che fourch Tuesday �,._� ery mon�h. For addi�ion:�l informacion, p(ease call Melissa Scovronski, �tASAC secrecary, a� 61?-%26-S1�1, or visic che VIr�SAC Web si�e a� www.macavsat.orQ. MASAC N e w s Volume 1, 3rd Quarter 2 0 0 0 : /Q► a11R� ��A► : �eceive �►v�rard : for A, O S rogra : The Metropolitan A.irports Commission : (MAC) and the Federal AviaCion ; Adrninistrauan (Ft1A) recendy received � the Governor's Commendacion Award at = the "Paztnership Minnesota con£erence. : The conFerence was held ac the : Universicy of Minnesoca in late April. ; The incenc of Partnership Minnesoca is ; to promote enhanced cooperauon among � federal, stace and local governmenc agen- :� cies, to provide bercer service to the cici- ' zens of the state. The awazd recognized a daca-sharing � agreement between che MAC and rhe -- � Ft1A. This data shazing agreement allows : che MAC to use Ft1A flighc crack data For : i�tAC's Airport Noise and Operations ; Monitorin� System (.�t�101�fS) program. Since rhe earl,v 1990s, the FAA has � alfowed the VtAC co use its Elight track : data coflecced at �he �1SP air traFi-ic ' control to�ver. The'tiL-iC uses this Eli�h� ; crack data in its ,Si�iOL1S program for � airspace, aircraft opera�ions and noise � analyses. In addition, a variery oE : applica�ions providin� aircraFt operations : information �o the public are available ; on the Interne� aC «��zv.macavsat.or� as ; par� oE the .�NOt� tS program. . . '.:.��1�_; : ', -'- - r A Newsletter From The tYtetropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Cauncil _�: Miiigatinn Measures from 1 • Departure Flight Tracfu: departure paths off all runways chac reduce noise impacts during low craffic volume periods, deparcure paths off che new north/south runway (17/35) and provisions for rhe future development of more precise Elighc pachs using advanced navigacion technologies. • Aircraft Fleet Mrx Consideratio� possible voluntary agreements with che air carriers to minimize the use of noisier aircraft during the nighrcime hours. The currenc land use noise mitigacion iniciarives include: • Cnntinuing and e.rpanding the Part 150 sound insulation prograrrx provide sound insulacion in coordination wich ocher operational mitigacion measures (ouc �o che 60 DNL contour). � Bringing local land use plans inta compliance with Metrapolitan Council Noise Compatibility Guidelines: provide language (developed by che Mecropolitan Council, MAC and MASAC) designacing the DNL 60 as the land use planning standard, enabling communities Co apply consistent prevencauve and correcuve land use measures under Pan 150. � Zoning for compatible developmenr encourage communiues co adopt zoning classifications and ordinances that prevent funue incompacible land use based on the Metropolitan Council's new land use planning language. • Applying zoning performance standards: develop new ( model ordinances for home construction consiscent wich \. rhe FAA land use policies for aircrafc noise reduction � • Establzrhing a public information program: continue to provide informauon ucilizing new cechnologies and multimedia capabiliues, such as che In�ernec. • Revzsing building codes. suppon rhe revision oE sta�e and local building codes to ensure incerior noise level reducuon as a result of new building cechniques. • Acquiring developed property in incomputible use. review rhe possible practical applica�ion of.rhis measure as part of rhe progcam, in coordinacion wirh ocher micigauon measures. • Investigating the application of a property purchase guarantee. develop this program in coordinacion wirh ocher mitigacion measures. • Creating sound bu, ffers/barriers. investigate azeas where sound buffers/barriers 'va4d be constructed to reduce ground noise from the airport. Using inpuc from the Mecropolitan Aircrafc Sound Abacemenc Council (tiIASAC) rhe MAC will finalize the operauonal and land use measures listed above, with possible addiuons or modifica.tions, prior to rhe Pan 150 Updace public hearing. Additional informauon is available on the Web site ac wwwmacavsar.org./PART 150 UPDATE. Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abutement Council 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 5 �450 LARRY SHAUG�[NESSY, JR.. OR CITR.I.ZENT RESIDENT 27 DORSET ROAD MENDOTA HEIGHTS, i�IN 5� i 18 Volume 1, 3rd Quarter 2 O 0 0 � � � ��._., .,� ` .� , 1,�,','� ,a � 4•�-_`j�i.a.:�Cv" :f�',;'�' ; JUl 1 8 'Lp �':1 `A-�! + �,y:.�' -� � ;.� � ; _ ��\�17•:�i / . '9i � �� I � f!� .R :.ti: t � 3 tl ;: 1 153 . . �:: MASAC N e w s _. -_ � •, � ;, �:� = � ... __ . � .-. ..\..`,�„if��lil��f,�„flis(<<��IIi�:1��,1,1L��f��l,il —-—_�—=='— —_ . � � � � . �� i NOTICE OF A MEETING OF TI-�E AVIATION PC�LICY PLAN TASK F4RCE August 9, 2000 8:30 —10:30 a.m. Council Chambers Metropolitan Council Offices Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101 AGEll�TTDA 1. Call-To Order - Introductions (Membership Listing Atta.ched) - Minutes of July 14 Task Force Meeting - Summary of Aviation Policy Plan Update 2. MSP Aviation Forecasting Evaluation : MSP International Airport 3. Presentation/Discussion of Land Use Compatibility Guidelines - 1999 Aviation Guide Amendment - Council Action on MSP FAR Part-150 Update - 1999/2000 Legislative Action 4. Airport System Inventory & Capability Assessment (2000) 5. Next Meeting/Adj ourn 0 AVIATION POLICY PLAN UPDATE 2000 - 2020 Metropolitan Council Offices Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, Minnesota (NOTE: Public Entrance is on 5`�' Street [Mears Park]; Please check in with the reception desk. The Chambers are located down one floor, use the stairs or elevators — Thank You) Two-Hour Metered Parking is available on street, A Pazkin� Ramp is located immediately behind the Council Offices with entrance on 4 street. Additional parking is available at the Galtier Ramp with entrance on S�' street. AVIATION POLICY PLAN UPDATE 2000 - 2020 TASK FORCE MEETING OF JL1NE 14, 2000 The first meeting of the Aviation Po(icy Plan Task force was called to order by chair Todd Paulson. The chair welcomed those present and introductions were made, inctuding project staffand consultant. It was indicated that all meetings of the Task Force would be hetd in the Council Chambers from 8:30 to 10:30 a.m. Meeting dates have been scheduled for the following dates: • August 9, 2000 • October 1 1 • November 29 � o De�emEer 13, and • February 2, 2001 A number of the groups were invited to participate on the task force, a copy of the membership wilt be available at the next meeting. The task force was established to inciude both policy and technicat representatives, and involve a broad cross section of the many different audiences and interests potentially affected by the update. Mailing lists have been prepared for other interested parties to provide for the greatest participation possible in the update process. Because of the diverse groups represented on the task force two informational packets were prepared to provide some background on the Metropolitan Council and Air-Transportation for the task force members: Information packet number one, was presented by the Chair, and included discussion of the following items: - Overview of Metro Council role and activities highlighted in its 1999 Annual Report, - Pamphlet on region's "Smart Growth" iniriative (to be included in Aviation Policy Plan Update); - Copy of Council Directions newspaper, this document will be changing primarily to a WEB page communication for metro communities. It may include progress articles on the aviation update. - Summary pamphlet on 1999 S1ate of the Region Report on competing in the 21 � Century, includes an air service element; and, - A copy of the Metropolitan Development Guide (MDG) "Regional Blueprint" chapter which provides overal( policy direction and implementation strategies celated to regional growth. - Presentation maps of regional airport system & metro growth management were also discussed. A second packet was handed out; it consisted of information on the region's aviation system and air- transportation activity. Council staff handed out an aviation folder that provided quick information on the regional airports, characteristics of inetro airport facilities, overall air traffic activity and a section that highlighted the various federal, state and local agencies and their role in regional aviation planning and implementation. Several general interest articles were included as background for issues that will be discussed in the update; also included were other Council aviation publications: The 1995 Contingency Assessment Report - indicating what issues were being examined and industry conditions as the major airport dual-track process finished up in 1996; The FAA report on Twenty Years of Deregulation:1978 to 1999 and including an attachment from the Wall Street Journal concerning the latest proposed domestic airline consolidation; and, A copy of Flight Plan, an overview by State Ptanning concerning recent discussions on airline competition in Minnesota � • A copy of the Economic Impact vf GeneralAviation in the Twin Cities Region that identifies the benefits of the regions retiever airports and general aviation at MSP International airport. � • A copy of the 1996 Aviation Policy Plan was also made available for future review. �' n �,� In addition to the two handout packets the agenda included a staff presentation on Metro Aviation Planning and Regional Airport System. The tasks/schedule for the Aviation Policy Plan Update were atso discussed. 1fie update schedule and work flow items, especia((y ihe issues papers, were reviewed. A copy of the State Airport System Plan (SASP) [Executive Summary] was also distributed and a short overview provided by the MnDOT Aeronautics representative on the task force. Implications of the SASP will be considered in the regional airport system update. One suggestion was that the general aviation forecasts be sure to inciude sport aviation since it shows the greatest growth segment by recreational users. Task force members raised general questions for the Councils consultant concerning aviation forecasts. It was indicated that surveys and inventory work tasks on based aircraft data, airport service area definition, airport facility information, and socio-economic data are almost completed. A presentation on the forecast process will be addressed at a future task force meeting. The two information packets will be made available for those task force members unable to attend the initial rneeting on the policy plan update. There was no ott�er business i��troduced and the meeting was adjourned.