The URL can be used to link to this page

12-13-2000 ARC Packet1 � �• • 'r . ,� -. , � . . � �, � � � _ � _� _�_ December 13, 2000 -- I.�arge Conference Room Call to Order - 7:00 p.m. 2. Roll Ca11 3. Approval of November 8, 2000 Minutes ' 4. ITnfinished and I�ew �usiness: ' a. ` Airport Noise Video Workshop Follow-Up 5. Acknowled�e Receipt o� Various 12eports/�orrespondence: a. MASAC Operations Committee Agenda for November 9, 2000 b. MASAC Agenda for November 28, 2000 c. October 2000 technical Advisor's and Corridor Reports d. Notice of Aviation Policy Plan Task Force Meeting on November 29, 2000 e. Agenda for MAC Planning and Environment Committee Meeting on December 5, 2000 � f. MASAC Operations Committee Agenda forDecember 8, 2000 g. MAC 2001-2007 Capital Improvement Program h. Eagan ARC Agenda for December 12, 2000 i. SMAAC Newsletter Fa.112000 � j. Airport Noise Reports 0 � Other Comments or Concerns Ad,journ , Auxiliary 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 contuct City Administration at (651) 452-1850 with requests. ; CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINI�SOTA AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER S, 2000 � The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on Wednesday, November 8, 2000, in the Large Conference Room at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. . The following Commissioners were present: Chair Scott Beaty and Commissioners Elizabeth Petschel, Ellsworth Stein, Gregg Fitzer, Joe Leuman, John Roszak, and George May. Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister took the minutes. IT�l-iJ1-M �I.� Commissioner Petschel moved approval of the October 11, 2000 minutes as amended. Commissioner Leuman seconded the motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 .AIRPORT NOISE VIDEO WORKSHOP SCHEDULING The Comrnission discussed the upcoming workshop for the production of the Airport Noise Issues Video. Mr. Hollister reminded the Commission that the Council had approved an expenditure of up to $5000 for the production of the video. The Commissioners compared calendars and decided on Saturday, December 2, from 8:00 am to 12:00 noon in the Coun.cil Chambers at City Hall for the workshop. The Commission asked Staff' invite Ad Hoc Commissioner Jill Smith and Chad Leqve of the MAC to also attend the workshop. The Commission also appointed a subcommittee consisting of Chair Beaty, Commissioner Petschel, and Staff to meet with Consultant Dave Sabastian to agree on a nominal fee for his services on Saturday morning and to determine the structure of the workshop. The Commission decided on a general outline for the video as follows: 1. History of the Airport Noise Issue 2. Definitions: Dual Track Process, etc. 3. Issues affecting Mendota Heights 4. Airport Noise Plan of Action 5. Conclusion: What can you do as a Citizen? ' ) r� t . C C� REPORTS/CORRESPONDANCE The Commission acknowledged receipt of the following reports ancUor correspondence: a. MASAC Agenda for October 24, 2000 b. September 2000 Technical Advisor's Report c. September 2000 MA.SAC Eagan/Mendota Heights Depariure Corridor Analysis d. MASAC Operations Committee Agenda for November 9, 2000 . e. Environmental Review Process, MA.0 Capital Improvement Program f. MA.0 Preliminary 2001-2007 CIP g. Air International September 2000 Article: Facing More Growth h. Invitation to November 8 and November 9 Part 150 Hearings i. Eagan Airport Relations Commission Agenda for October 30, 2000 j. MASAC News k. Airport Noise Reports ADJOURN ` Motion made to adjourn by Roszak and seconded by Leuman. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 The meeting adjoiuned at 8:00 p.m. C CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO December 1 l, 2000 TO: Airport Relations Commission FROM: Patrick C. Hollister, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Follow-up to December 2, 2000 Video Workshop lDiscussion The Airport Relations Commission held a very productive workshop on Saturday morning to outline the content of the Airport Noise Issues Video. Seven Commissioners were in attendance, including Ad Hoc Commissioner Jill Smith, along with Facilitator Dave Sebastian and Chad Leqve and Amy Von Walter from the Metropolitan Airports Commission. Chair Beaty and I would like to thank everyone for attending. Mr. Sabastian has provided us with the attached content outline for the video based upon our input to him at the workshop. , Action Required � Review the attached outline. Discuss the next steps in the production of this video. C DAVID T. SEBASTIAN 3546 WIDGEON WAY EAGAN • MINNESOTA 551 23 (612) 961-0848 DCPESEBASTIAN�Q MN.MEDIAONE.NET December 4, 2000 Mr. Patrick Hollister City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Subject: Airport Relations Commission Work Dear Patrick: Enclosed are the items I promised to deliver. They are as follows: • A first draft of the outline for the video — It includes both an�amended set of general considerations and a content outline to use as a starting point. Both of these result � from the session we conducted on Saturday morning. i � A diskette — It contains the document noted above in MS Word format. (If you need the document in a different format, let me know.) � An invoice — for our agreed upon fee. I genuinely enjoyed working with Scott, Liz, you and the rest of the commission (+ guests). Please keep me apprised of your progress. If I can be of further assistance, don't hesitate to give me a call. Re rds, 0 David T. Sebastian attachments C � ,i .,� � �;, . �,;�. . �� '• , � � � Airport Noise Informational Video General Considerations and Initial Content Outline General Considerations: Target Audience for the Video • Primary audience: Residents of northern Dakota County, especially residents of Mendota Heights. • Other audiences: Other residents in the surrounding communities (entire Twin Cities community is affected by the notion of equitable distribution). Prospective residents considering a move to Mendota Heights. Governrnent and public o�cials in the surroundina communities and at the MAC. Community and other groups (distributed by video cassette). Broad Goals for the Video o To provide a solid foundation of facts and context to the viewer — making them well- informed citizens • To present considerations and options to the viewer with regard to their own, personal situation relative to airport noise — equipping them to take appropriate action with regard to their individual needs and interests and/or to become involved in the community effort. • To present the Mendota Heights' position with regard to the issues generally impacting the City and its residents as a whole — soliciting input and support for the Airport Relations Committee's advocacy in these matters. General Organization of Video Categories of content include: • History � Background/Situation Overview e Conclusion (See outline for details) Tone of Video � Overall, the tone should be positive and suggest that things have and will continue to improve over time. The audience should get the sense that, while airport noise is not a desirable thing, with mitigation and continued support for the Mendota Heights agenda airport-related noise can be effectively managed, making Mendota Heights great assets that much more valuable. (Note: care should be taken not to imply too much "improvement" as airport noise is known to be a very subject thing. When "improvement" is cited, it should be tied to a specific measure or result, not something vague or subjective.) � Factual content should be presented in a clear, matter-of-fact tone emphasizing clarity over advocacy of a particular interpretation of the facts. • When interpretation and advocacy are called for, the case should be made with appropriate vigor tempered by clear evidence of respect/acknowledgement of other points of view. (The � � "fairness" of our position must emphasized.) MHARC Video Outline Page 1 of 4 `.a C Measurement of Success - In the end, we will judge the success of the video through the following measurements: ! • Number of viewers and/or showings • Number of callers • City Council comments/support Miscellaneous Considerations and Priorities • Overall, the "theme" of the video is "fairness" embodied in the notion of equitable distribution of noise. � Video should be very visual with pictures, footage of airplanes, diagrams and animation • Consider using humor selectively s Consider using a professional narrator (seek possible pro bono and/or Brown Institute) � Overall, keep things positive Content Outline Follows: MHARC Video Outline Pa�e 2 of 4 (' i � bA � N � �..i �.; � O +�-~+ .-. , �" O ,� � L�. O .� O � � � �cd O � � v � �'' cd .� O � ti.., � � � •� .�y � O N.� � c�n � }, � `� O v� 4-� � � �.'� � � � �+-' 4-+ .� �, � „� c�C 0 � � O .-� 0 � � � � ,b � U ' y N„� .� cd O <y �-" � '+-' N '+' , o . � .� � �+., a� ..� �s 0 0 � ..� � .� o .� � � ,-� i � `'� � .� � o � ' � � � � '�7 n o 0 � � cc3 a-+ j .� � U ^� � qwj � � a) � O � � �, +� ^+ .�.., `� ,� � � � '-' t,�.� +' � O r��i �"O � � +'�'' N u ��-' •+-+ , O� � � r-+ p � � .,�'�'� -� L�. .� �+ .N �,, � � � U � � .� � � a3 � � � � O bA � ct3 '� O cci ..� v� . � N'L3 �, � ,-� � .... -�-� CC3 .—� � •,� � �„a tc3 � 'r3 � N � � 4�"''' � � � .� . v V � bA � � cn � "CJ � � � � '� � 'b c� • � � c� � � � •—, -C� O O � � . � r� ..-� � � � ..� � U � i�-+ +^�''.+ �i cd �¢±' '.d N "� r+�n ''� �. � �" 'r� V � O � 4�.., bA ' � -fl � -�--+ bA i'-+ • .�"-i �'i 'fl � � � � `r�{ � �" � Q'' � � U � � � cd N cC3 O .—� � �-1 • � '� � � � � -� ,� '� � � � ,;� � ( � � ,.� .� O r/+ � `y�' O � cd �3H� ��H��; a� �nW o �f�HH �QC�WH�(� � �� /� n H n n n n P�-� n n � P�-+ /� /� n O n n n h n n v � � � � � [H r�' � � � p-+ • � � � � � � � � G O h y U � � O� G � � ,� � �� ,... � �o �i q�N �.� �, � . � � � � � � � � � •� � o � � o � ,� � ry ,r, �o'� ?mti �, .�rn ;� ��. � `tio' G� '��„ � � o .o�i :ti °> ~ � o � 0 0 o a o�� ° 'a � ti � �� `� � �.�.�''�j� ^� °�' � ,� •� � � G ,G � � '� � C� � O� O'Q�O' �v�C� rr � 0 M N c� � .� � O a� � U � � 0 a�n , �" .� hA � '� O � V � � � � �'i O � � � � � .O � � '� •� � � � cci � v �O � N I � � I U p � � .O O � � � � .cn '� � � .� � O � � � � ai � O +-� �+-' t� .�-�, b�A O V' O � •� � � � U � � O � cG � , � � � '''�'O ,� � � ,d' � s-� v� s-� � ' � � rn � �.�., ,4? y �, v� ...� � • � ��, v� «3 � a" � . � • � f3+ a3 • r+ � t�-� v U +�"'-+- � � � � N O � � `� i'' "," � � � � Q� '� ,� v^� � O � '� � '"��.,," O '� �' � � V U 'L7 � � � , � �" � , O at � � p 4�,, � � � � �' N . � � � � � +�-' Q.+ � � +�-� � • � � � � O N � � v � � � •� � � � � � 0 � � ,� � � UU � O p ,� � � � � �' '." � dq , y�.� A" • O *—� `Q" � a � N � � � .O r�i � � cci p ,� � � .� 4� �O 'i `� v � � p .� � � � � M M � p � � v U � � , � � P-i "� �i '� V -F-� � �i p 'Cf -S"', � ' � � � � p ,'� CC! ^� ''"' � � b0 b�A � N 4� t"� C� � � N �� a � ■ �■ s ■ e � p U cci cc3 +' ��"� � N c� � O O"� ,+_+-`a, � ci� ci� w �'� w�� y O U n n �'-' � �-o a? � � "c� i ��., fi, � o o O.,� o • � • �' • • C� o U O .� ti O ��., a � �' O "` O � .� � � C O `� � ..., � y°�,�,� � � V •'��' c�. � o� . � o � .� o � � � � � � o � � � � � � `�, � •� " ^ »� o � � , � � °�' sy � �' � o o � ° � � � � ,.°� 'o � � ° � a�, 2 '� � o a, C�, -6 � From: David T. Sebastian To: Patrick Hollister Date: 11/19/00 Time: 6:48:38 PM Page 2 of 8 1 � � /. 1 ' .� � � � . ' ; ,� .�, i , ., i 1 1' 1 /1 "11 . . t•1 ' ♦ •`I a T.. � � . � . � •; t . � Satu�day, December 2, 2000 8:00 am — 12:00 pm Councii Chambers, City I�all Topic �'iming General introductioll I)iscuss and agree on the goal for this meeting Discuss and ag�ee on general framework elements of the video concept Review, augment, select and categorize video content Discuss and agree to next steps 8:00 — 8:15 8:15 — 8:30 8:30 — 9:30 9:30 — 11:30 11:30 — 12:00 � i �2000 — David T. Sebasfian. All Ri�hts Reserved. Page 1 of 7 From: David T. Sebastian To: Patrick Hollister Date: 11/19/00 Time: 6:48:38 PM Page 3 of 8 Diseussion Guide Proposed Goal for this Meeting To ehplore, agree upon, organize and document in sufficient detail the concepts and supporting facts/illustrations tive believe appropriate to an informational video such that a solid, first draft of a script for the video can be developed as a next step. Any cornments, concerns or proposed revisiofz to the goal for this meetzng? Proposed Target Audience for the Video � Primary audience: Residents of northern Dakota County, especially residents of Mendota Heiglzts. a Other audiences: Other residents in the surrounding communities. Prospective residents considering a move to Ivlendota Heights. Government and public officials in the surrounding commuiuties and at the MAC. Are there changes to the above that we shotild corzsider? Are there ather important target aztdiences we shoatld consider? Who are they? Can we all agree to these target audiences (as amended or appended by oair disctcssion)? Broad Goals for the Video • To provide a solid foundation of facts and conte� to the vie�ver — making them �vell- uiforined citizens + To present considerations and options to the vie�ver �vith regard to their o�vn, personal ( '? sihiation relative to airport noise — equipping them to take appropriate action with regard to '- their iudividual needs and interests. • To present the Mendota Heights' position �vith regard to the iss.ues generally impacting the Ciiy and its residents as a �vhole — soliciting input and support for the Airport Relations Coirunittee's advocacy in these matters. Are tlsere chafzges to tlse above that tive shaatld consider? Are tlsere otlzer broad goals tive slzoxtld ca��sider? yVhat ar•e they? Can tive all agree to these goals (as amended or• apperzded by our CIZSC Zl SS 10J2� ! General Organizntion of Video Proposed categories of content include: • History • Definitions and Tenns � Statenlent of Issues 0 Conclusions Are th�re changes to the above that we should conside�•? Are there other organizational schemes tive should consider? LVl�at are they? Can we all ccgree to this organzzation scheme (as anzended or appenclec� by oa��• cliseussion)? � � C�2000 — David T. Sebastian. All Riahts Reserved. Page 2 of 7 From: David T. 5ebastian To: Patrick Hollister Date: 11/19/00 Time: 6:48:38 PM Page 4 of 8 Tone of Video • Overall, the tone should be positive and suggest that things have and will continue to improve over time. The audience should get the sense that, while airport noise is not a desirable thing, �vith mitigation and continued support for the Mendota Heights agenda airport-related noise can be effectively managed, making Mendota Heights great assets that much more valuable. • Fact�ial content should be presented in a clear, matter-of-fact tone emphasizing clarity over advocacy of a particular interpretation of the facts. + When interpretation and advocacy are called for, the case should be made with appropriate vigor tempered by clear evidence of respect/acknowledgement of other points of vie�v. (The "fairness" of our position must emphasized.) Are there changes to the above that we shoacic� consider? Are there other issztes of tone we should conszder? What are they? Can tive all agree to the above (as amended or appended by oacr discussion)? Measurement of Success In the end, we will judge the success of the video through the following measurements: • Number of viewers • Number of callers e Number of applicants Ar� there any other measures tive shoa�ld conszder? Miscellaneous Considerations and Priorities � Video should be very visual �vith piciures, footage of airplanes, diagrams and animation s Consider using humor selectively • Consider using a professional narrator (seek possible pro bono) • Overall, keep tllings positive Any other general co�2siderations or priorfties? � � �2000 — David T. Sebastian. All Rigtits Reserved. F'a�e 3 of % - From: David T. Sebastian To: Patrick Hollister Date: 11/19/00 Time: 6:4838 PM Page 5 of 8 Definitions of Evaluation Criteria Average Level of Understanding amon� Target Audience (A) To �vhat degree does the average citizen know about and understand this subject? 1= Very widely kno�vn and understood 2= Most affected people kno�v and iinderstand 3= Some affected people kno�v atid understand 4= Few affected people kno�v and understand �= Very �videly unknown and/or misunderstood Zmportance to Individual Citizen Tnterests (B) To �vhat degree is this subject important to individual interests of a significant portion of the target audience? 1 = Lo�vest importance 2 = Relatively low importance 3 = Average importance 4 = Relatively high importance � = Highest importance Importance to Nlendota Heights Community Interests (C) To �vhat degree is this subject important to collective interests of the citizens of l�iendota Heights? 1 = Lo�vest importance 2 = Relatively lo�v importance 3 = Average importance 4 = Relatively high unportance 5 = Highest importance ( i / �2000 — David T. Sebastian. All Ri�tts Reserved. Pagz 4 Of % From: David T. Sebastian To: Patrick Hollister 0 0 0 O I a �. a � CT� CT m � � � � G Date: 11/19/00 Time: 6:48:38 PM a `' � � .".,�' . r .,'.� .��; ` ". 3 r; � ' , �. y y •; ti 9. � - � • � r � �� '�i • � • 1• � �� (7 • �� • • r +� � . 1= ,+ • ; Y � • � • • • • _ u 4 .:t f ' • p • F X�z • • • '(2 y i � • � � � � �� E � • � � �' 'iC ' ` ' k,.�'�`: �z � s , � i�.�:.� .�,1,;r, • k,. � � � � � � � • � ,� • �� 3 � ,+ J �t Dy" U.' ,..Sw..�' � �ry • <� • � � � � ( :' 4 J G • � � � � S a Z r t � �t �� • • r��-' s �� t ��r, } a ; . �,' . _ � �� y r ^ � �I ; ' ! y t y � ,y � ,�p y �;� s� ''0 �: tF '*'r lC,-,4. ,�,,;: {';. �Y,+�` l.t sr'�.?r;.. �.� �xr r�i+ i �„i �f .c��f , "� :a'.�. �-�': t� s,� + �, �*��C C�v � k .b� r;w� .s, �� , v.!rr+�, u}.. '�'S�d'�''� t rr�: � �,:j-..��.i} trs�:; �� %�'. ft ! + 3 . k�I � �«�S}z: Y��di� -7� i s! " y"f� � �i% i[.� �� r �� P 7� M1� -y � �pz �; � , �x � c'�' � �: � t�: iF �r y � ��t�� c�-�� Pi�f: � ;� � nr� h� �d' �� `�� 4 �� ,.i� .;nca:�,�x{ � x� � t;�`'; n��, � �^�.r°e �af�,$ � u � x� ��.x„y �1 , R�}.� 1.� '1�y' �'��:�}q +� =: Page 6 of 8 From: David T. Sebastian To: Patrick Hoilister Date: 11/19/00 Time: 6:48:38 PM Page 7 of 8 t $, . .: . ,�'` �x i ; � ++�: �`_�.... _ ;:�J':i: `; ir�r.:, .r'� '? 7.i :. :y ^ 1 � �.,� • • • + ' [ � • ` ' ' • �� — 1• • � _ • `. ,� �. �. � ,' � 1 r � • ; x 4 , �F �. • � � �,��'� `�: :" �f'` ii s. �� • i � � � �� . , • "� • 7 t • . ; � i" • r � • • E ", �� r j7 , � � . , r ' ` .r � r � . �...., .,,„.. t,.:,,, - 1� i f 2 �. µ ,. ,.,,. � � _:.F.. ��", . ly 2 j [ �, �: 9 � s'! p ;v; Z "r-"" ! � ` i � ; k�"� �'` < �,i �, y I,'x �:4G �', � � 4� � zf� �'1 , S ,��.;�'�""�.,< r i c y � �'�� ~ i �fi� .T . E F 1 � } ' �,�� '1�,��y�. i�� ~,/a�`d�.�� S��rv �� , s }�l�,. i� �� a7k'��S�f. ` �� ' z � S,LL7� t �„(�,�i �. `�t� ' ��,��1 x3$ ' k�,5 �tY, ��m § �.Ll��}�i «. �.t "'' t�. ��:�� E rc a�. � rr t��+ ��phrY.;.<`;. y�ir �. ��iy.,�.l � '�: ;;t,�ys� f � � +,,� t,�r i� 'k� t W U`„�` r;a. Q. From: David T. Sebastien To: Patrick Hollister Date: 11/19l00 Time: 6:48:38 PM Page 8 of 8 �� ^yy,5 :'�V: T� 4 �� { 1�,� �..'. U `�' � �: �� ' r + 4'� : � .. „ �.r: ' � ; :` ;�D :: _ �: �� "� �_LL -� ;;� . �, } 4 f�� {"� L � : :t^ t h ` f', i y t }^� 1' �r e �,! t {'35•i '; r y,`� ,. ; � avs�= ; 7 t.ti ` =.'h r t�. �h� .~�� 5 k ;np r. x ? 4 v�} N. r 4 n � �� ry 4 r ' �� J ;/ V S r_ .�,,. ;�� ,�-� i ' E : �1 , NY i , y r 5 s� ' i '..i �»r �'f: „W ��4x 3y ��y!+F': ��nr �' .�,�,�, .r� 4 "`C`��`�� , : w r �., �� __ 1 `;l :�r t �=t jr; ��'�^ �'�- �1:'��` . '� � fs �; i �a�F�l : �1 ��56'.S!�'�' ��: ;w-.x:r�w3,:..k .;?r,uY.�.lr ti�'�L``� K'�i t �`t`" : �� t ��'�t `r .�„ �.�..s� a�:,4�i':. ,t„t a� bxn � -`�•� �,,, } t ..� ��r�. .-�s�4t 4� �dl"�''F � F �'�55 ��=". �• �'t,'t'ie � � �. �� t,,: �y K�r,.C�. '�� ^.�,�;s: ��-"� G 4� t � � � e� r°�� : ?�,..�Y; �,�;:`��.�: i s � r�� r z�i �{:,A_M �4r dx.s� � ` �r e.r��x± �"�� cx -� `1��y?'�j' �v�4�h 1T i�� '� r��'�'` � � �� ,�� i :{-� �q�� '`'"� M�-�"�1,, yn� '�;;ktsr;, a>:._.. � ;xv,; J � p ,: �� Metropolit�n Air�rc�ff S��n�i Aba�ement Councii (MASAC) 6040 28th Avenue South • Minneapoi(s, Minnesflta 5�450 •(642) 72b-8141 Chairperson: Mayor Charles Mertensoito Past Chairs: Robert P. Johnson, 1995-1999 Scott Bunin, 1990-1995 Walter Rockenstein, II, 1982-1990 Jan Del Calzo, 1979-1982 Stanley W. Olso�, 1969-1979 Technical Advisor: Chad Leqve 1111EETING NOTIG� `� �� NIASAC CIPERATIONS CON11�lITTEE The Operations Committee will meet THURSDAY November 9, 2000 — 9:00 a.m. in the Large Consiruction Trailer of the Metropolitan Air.ports Commission, 6040 28�' Avenue S., Minneapolis if you are unable to attend, please notify the committee secretary at 612-726-8141 with the name of your designated altemate. PLEA►SE NOTE DAY and DATE ' ' '� ' '� `, 1. Roll caii 2. Approval of the October �13, 2000 Minutes NEW BUSINESS 3. Preliminary Report of MSP Part 150 Update Public Workshops/Hearings � 4. Review of the FAA Part 150 Update Document Approvai Process. 5. Discuss Draft 2001 MASAC Goais and Objectives 6. Other Items Not on the Agenda � 7. Adjournment MEMBER DISTRIBUTION Chairman Charles Mertensotto Bob Johnson, MBAA Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan Ron Johnson, ALPA Brian Bates, Airbome � Mary LoefFelhoiz, NWA Dick Saunders, Minneapolis Pending, Bloomington Roy Fuhrmann, MAC Advisory: Chad Leqve, MAC Ron Glaub, FAA Cindy Greene, FAA � Keith Thompson, FAA Jason Giesen, MAC Shane VanderVoor�, MAC Glen Orcutt, FAA Mark Ryan, MAC Joe Harris, MAC 9:00 9:05 9:10 9:20 9:40 10:15 10:30 A cc: Patrick Holiister, Mendota Heights Charles Curry, ALPA Will Eginton, IGH Jennifer Sayre, NWA Pam Dmytrenko, Richfield Tom Laweii, Appie Valley Tom Hansen, Burnsville Jan DelCalzo, Minneapolis Glenn Strand, Minneapolis � .. ., -- s . �� .. � �F ._. -,. � 0' C C ' ' ♦ � , � � � �' ,! 1• �•�� L5 'r � ♦.. ♦. �'o: MASAC Operations Commiitee �'RolV1: Roy Fuhrmann, Manager, Aviation Naise and Satellite Programs STT�,jECT: ' Preliminary Report of MSP Part 150 Update Public �� Workshops/Hearings & Review of the FAA Part 150 Update Document Approval Pracess DATE: October 31, 2000 Preliminarv Report of MSP Part ISO Update Public Workshops/Heririn�s The Part 150 Update process requires adequate public involvement. as part of the document preparation. In an effort to ensure such involvement occurs, MASAC is sponsoring two public workshops/hearings on the Draft Part 150 Update document. The public workshops/hearings have been scheduled for two dates, one on November 8, 2000 and one on November 9, 2000, both-�the Thunderbird Hotel, 2201 78`� Street East, � Bloomington, Mi.nn: 55425-1229. A public workshop will be held each day from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. with the public hearing beginnin� at 7:00 p.m: � Both written and verbal cornm.ents will be taken at the hearing. Written comments will aIso be accepted until 5:00 p.m. on November 15, 2000. At the November 9, 2000 MASAC Operations Cammittee meeting, staff feedback will be provided relative to the November 8, 2000 workshop/hearin�. If you have any questions or comments regarding this topic please contact me at 612-�25- 6326. Review of the FA.A. Part Z50 Update Document Approval Process Upon comple�ion of the •Part 150 study update and public hearin�, the document as submitted to the FAA for approval. After determin�ng its adequacy, the FAA has 180 days to approve or disapprove the document. The FAA can approve or disapprove individual mitiaation measures proposed in the document. In most large-scale Part 150 programs, sound mitigation is included as one of the mitigation measures. The MSP Part 150 Update provides a current assessment of today's noise environment and a projection of the impact for 2005. The document contains all of the data and supportina information relative to updated No,ise Exposure IViaps (I�tEMS) and a Noise Compatibility Pro�ram outlining 17 noise mitigation measures and lO land use measures. The updated MSP Noise Compatibility Program goes beyond typical NCPs. This program recommends noise miti�ation for single-family and multi-family dwellings �, I located in the 60 DNL contour. Tn addition, the updated NCP calls for the miti�ation of _.- low frequency noise as deternuned by the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee ;. recommendations. Other measures include operational procedures that address aircraft departure procedures and RUS preferences. The federal approval of such a document is substantial. The FAA will ensure, throu�h (, detailed evaluation, that all of the provisions included in the Part 150 Update document meet all federal criteria for the development of NEl�Is and an associated NCP. At the November 9, 2000 MASAC Operation Cominittee meeting Mr. Glen Orcutt, Federal Aviation Administration, will provide a summary of the FAA approval process associated with the MSP Part 150 Update document. If you have any questions or comments regarding this topic please contact me at 612-72�- 6326. � I j ' � t , ,; � � � , ,: r + i�` �� • - t�;` � � : � . , '•, r ` '' � a ;� . :� . ,,, 'i• _ MA.SAC Operations Commit#ee Chad Leqve, MASAC Technical Advisor Focusing 2001 MASAC Goa1s & Ohjectives October 31, 2000 At the (Jctober 13, 2000 MASAC Operations Committee meeting, the Committee reviewed the 17 noise mitigation measures and 10 land use measures included in the Part 150 Update document. The review focused �on the implementation of mitigation measures. Once noise mitigation measures are established, implementation is essential to achieving the noise reduction benefits a Noise Compatibility Prograni can offer via Part 150. The review focused on Noise�Compatibility Probram (NCP) measures that could be pursued prior to FAA document approval. . As a result of the above-mentioned review, five Part 150 NCP-related topics and associated efforts were approved by the MASAC Operations �Committee. The proposed efforts were forwarded to MASAC for review and approval as primary topics to be included in the 2001 MASAC Goals & Objectives. Following Council review of the proposed topics at the October 24, 2000 MASAC meeting, the followirig five Part 150 NCP-related topics and associated efforts were approved by 3VIASAC for inclusion as part of the 2001 MASAC Goals & Objectives. e Metropblita.n Aircraft Sound A�sateme�t Council (A�ASAC): Focus efforts on ensurin� appropriate representation on MA.SAC and investigate ways to increase membership participation on behalf of the a.irlines and communities, ensuring a balanced perspective o Operating Procedures: Pursue the implementation of the Distant N"ADP off Runways 30L and 30R � Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System: Focus efforts on maximizin� system capabilities and ensuring new Remote Monitoring Tower (RMT) locations are properly selected relative to Runway 17/35 operations � � Future Te�hnQ�ogy and Global Positioning System Initiatives:� Foster NIASAC involvement in the development of•GPS technology at MSP including briefinQs and updates on the Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) up�rade to the GPS �round station at MSP and the possible iesultant capabilities � Establish a public information program incorporating state-of-the-art technology and other ma�liiznedia resources: Continue to pursue enhancements to the MAS:-�C News, Internet information dissemination pro�rams and possible distribution of infoz-mation to public access channeLs In addition to approval of the above Part 150 NCP-related topics and associated efforts, the Council added a provision calling for dascussion anti agre�ment on the , progra�nsulation standards for multi-family housing structures within the 65 DNL contour. Additionally, input was received from the Minneapolis Delegation for consideration as part of the 2001 MASAC Goals & Objectives. T'he attached Draft 2001 MASAC Goals & Objectives Calendaz represents a culmination C, � of the Council approved topics and associated efforts, taking into consideration other input received from 11�IASAC members. A review of the Draft 2001 MASAC Goals & Objectives Calendar will be provided at the November 9, 2000 MA.SAC Operations Committee meeting. If you have any questions or comments regarding this topic please contact me at 612-725- 6328. COMMITTEE ACTION REQUESTED The 1VIASAC Operations Commiftee review and finalize the attached Draft 2001 MASAC Goals & Objectives Calendar and forwazd it to MASAC_for approvaL . � � � January 12 January 23 February 9. February 27 �� _ March 9 March 27 April 13 Apri1 24 May 11 May 22 June 8 � ) 2001 IYIA�AC �oals and Ulbjectives Caiendar ♦ Investigate Enhanced Membership Involvement Strategy � � MSP DGPS Local Area Augmentation System Operations Committee �� o��s Report _ . �_ Briefing on the Status of the 2000 FAA Noise Abatement Policy � _.. _ ♦ MASAC Ct�air Election ♦ ' Review Enhanced Membership Involvement � Strategy . MASAC � Review Draft Technical Advisor's Report __..._ .. _ _.. 0 Review of Mitigation Package in the 2005 � " 60 DNL Contour � ♦ Provide �nai Comments on Technical Advisor's Report Operations Committee ��ulation/Prograrn Standards for Multi-Family Housing S�ructures Within the 1996 65 DNL � Finali2e Technical Advisor's Report , ♦ 2Q00 MASAC Year in Review MASAC 0 Discussion of InsulationlProgram Standards for Mulri-Family Housing Structures Within the 65 , - DNL, � Develop Distant NADP Implementation Strate�y Operations Committee for Runways 30L & 30R ♦ Guest Speaker - Jeff Hamiel MASAC � Status Report on the Development of Stage 4 Standards � Evaluation of New RMT Locations Relative to Operations Committee �e Norti�/South Runwa - �0 Evaluate MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite MASAC Pro�ams Web site to Enhance Information and Dissemination � � Finalize New RMT Locations relative to the Operations Committee North/South Runway � Review and Finalize New RMT Locations . MASAC relative to the North/South Runwa � Review of FAA Part 150 Update Document Review Scatus Operations Committee � Review of Environmental Analysis Ne�zied for Part 150 MitiQation Measure Implementation � ♦ Review of FAA Part 150 Update Document Review Status June 26 MASAC � Briefing on the FAA's Switch to ARTS 3E Radar Technology and the Resultant New ANOMS Flight Track Acquisition System m R rt on GAO Stud of FAA's Noise Policy July 13 Operations Comrnittee ♦ Regort on the Status of National Aircraft Fleet GPS Integsation July 24 MASAC ♦ MSP 2� 10 Construction U date August 10 Operations Committee 0 MSP Stage 3 Fleet Activity Report ♦ Airline Briefina on Future Fleet Mixes Au�ust 28 MASAC � Briefina on MAC's System of Reliever Airports and T'heir Role in the Airport System: Guest ' Speaker — Gary Schmidt, MAC Director of Reliever � orts September 14 Operations Committee � Investigatian of Possible Community Out-Reach Program Providing Information on the Current � and Future Operation of MSP and the ResuItant acts September 25 MASAC 0 Review of Membership Composition per the , MASAC By-Laws �� Global Positior�inQ S stem (GPS) BriefinQ October 12 _ Operations Committee 0 Discussion of Aircraft Departure Time Separation at MSP October 23 MASAC Off-Site Nieetin� � Guest Speakers — Representatives from ACI or ATA and the FAA � ♦ Receive Input for Year 2001 Goals and Objectives - . _ November 9 Operations Committee ♦ Focus Activities for U cominQ Year 2002 November 27 MASAC 0 Finalize 2002 Goals and Ob'ectives December 14 Operations Committee ♦ Organize Year 2002 Goals and Objectives Calendar C �'EDERAL AVI�TIOP3 ADMIPIIST�..�ITION FAR., PART 150, AIRP�RT NOISE COMPATIBIY�ITY PROGRApi PART 150 STANDARDS OF REVIEt�' `The FAA. shares the publics' concerns that the standards of review which are applied to Part 15d studies must be fair, objective, and applied equally to all airpert operators. The FAA has accordingly written the standards governing approval into the Part 150 regulation. Ta gain approval, a Part 1:50 noise compatibility program must: * contain measures which are reasonably consistent with achieving the goals of reducing existing noncampatible lancl uses around the airport and of preventing the introduction of additional noncompatible land uses; * not crea�e an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce or be unjustly discriminatory; * not derogate safety or adversely affect the safe and efficient use of airspace; * to the exten� practicable, meet both local needs and needs of the national air transportation system, considering tradeoffs between economic benefits derived from the airport and the noise impact; * provide for revision if made necessary by the revision of the noise exposure map; and * not adversely affect any other powers and responsibilities of the Administrator prescribed by law or any other program, s�.andard, or reauirement established in accordance with law. itihen issuing determinations on a Part 150 study, the FAA makes « conscientious effor� to identify in writinq for the airport operator the particular standard cr standards which failed to�be met and thereby generatsd the FAA's disapproval of individual measures within a Part 150 study. f ) f C PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW AND APPROV.AL OF PART 150 STUDIES The FAA's review and approval procedures for Part 150 studies were designed to achieve dual objectives. The first objective is to place substantial review responsibility ancl authority at regional levels of the rAA, which are in direct caniact with airport onerators and have mare extensive knawledqe of local noise and land use situations. The second objective is to retain enough oversiqht review and dec.isian-making authoriiy at the Washington level to assure national consistency of the.F.A.A`s Part 150 determinations. Rdditionally, the FAA.'s review includes a broad spectrum of professional skills�so that technical, policy, and legal issues receive due consideration. The FAA Regional Administrators reeommend to the Administrator anproval or disapproval of each ind?vidual measure presented in a Part 150 siudy, based on a tharough review by all applicabl.e FAA urogram areas (e.g., Airports, Air Traffic, Flight Standards) within the region. The Regior�al Administrators` recammendations are then subject to concurrence at the Washington level by the FAA Assaciate Administrator far Airports, the Associate Administrator for Policy and International Aviation, and the Chief Counsel, based on oversight reviews by their respective staffs. Fina1 a�proval or disapproval authority resides with the Associate 'r�dministrator for Airports. Each airport noise compatibility program developed in accor.dance O with Part 150 is a local �ragram, nat a Federal t�rogram. In the review process, �he FAA does not substitute its judgment for that of the airport anerator with respect to which measures should be recommended far action. Neither do��s the FAA. supplement a local program by praviding analysis in order to approve a program recommendatian when the airport aperator has either failed ta analyze a program recammendatian ar has analyzed it inadequately or with faulty methadology. The FAR's approval ar disapproval of Part 150:pragram recamrnendations is measured according to the standards expressed in Part 150 and delineated in the above standards of review. If the Part 150 documentation does not adequately support the determinations required by one or more of these program standards, the FAA will disapprove the relevant recommendation pending the submission of additional information to satisfy the standard or standards. January 12 January 23 February 9 February 27 (� j March 9 March 27 April 13 April 24 May 11 May 22 June 8 � ), 2001 MASAC Goals and Obiectives Calendar Operations Committee MASAC Operations Committee M�SAC Operations Committee MASAC Operations Committee MASAC Operations Committee MASAC Operations Comrnittee ♦ Investigate Enhanced Membership Involvement Strategy ♦ MSP DGPS Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) Progress Report � Briefing on the Status of the 2000 FAA Noise Abatement Policy ♦ MASAC Chair Election ♦ Review Enhanced Membership Involvement Strategy ♦ Review Draft Technical Advisor's Report ♦ Review of Mitigation Package in the 2005 60 DNL Contour ♦ Provide Final Comments on Technical Advisor's Report ♦ Insulation/Program Standards for Multi-Family Housing Structures Within the 1996 65 DNL ♦ Finalize Technical Advisor's Report ♦ 2000 MASAC Year in Review ♦ Discussion of InsulationlProgram Standards for Multi-Family Housing Structures Within the 65 DNL � Develop Distant NADP Implementation Strategy for Runways 30L & 30R 0 Guest Speaker - Jeff Hamiel 0 Status Report on the Development of Stage 4 Standards � Evaluation of New RMT Locations Relative to the North/South Runway � Evaluate MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Pro�ams Web site to Enhance Information and Dissemination 0 Finalize New RMT Locations relative to the North/South Runway ♦ Review and Finalize New RMT Locations relative to the North/South Runway 0 Review of FAA Part 150 Update Document Review Status 0 Review of Environmental Analysis Needed for Part 150 Miti�ation Measure Implementation ♦ Review of FAA Part I50 Update Document Review Status June 26 MASAC � Briefing on the FAA's Switch to ARTS 3E Radar Technology and the Resultant New ANOMS Flight Track Acquisition System 0 Re ort on GAO Stud of FAA's Noise Polic July 13 Operations Committee ♦ Report on the Status of National Aircraft Fleet GPS Integration July 24 MASAC ♦ MSP 2010 Construction U date August 10 Operations Committee ♦ MSP Stage 3 Fleet Activity Report � Airline Briefin on Future Fleet Mixes August 28 MASAC ♦ Briefing on MAC's System of Reliever Airports and Their Role in the Airport System: Guest Speaker — Gary Schmidt, MAC Director of Reliever ' orts September 14 Operations Committee ♦ Investigation of Possible Community Out-Reach Program Providing Information on the Current and Future Operation of MSP and the Resultant Im acts September 25 MASAC ♦ Review of Membership Composition per the MASAC By-Laws � 0 Global Positionin S stem (GPS) Briefin October 12 Operations Committee 0 Discussion of Aircraft Departure Time Separation at MSP October 23 MASAC Off-Site Meeting ♦ Guest Speakers — Representatives from ACI or ATA and the FAA 0 Receive Input for Year 2001 Goals and Objectives November 9 Operations Committee 6 Focus Activities for U comin Year 2002 November 27 MASAC 9 Finalize 2002 Goals and Ob'ectives December 14 Operations Committee ♦ Organize Year 2002 Goals and Objectives Calendar � C a- '- r � :'I'�� l�ET'12.�PC)I�IT'�1 �l�Cl�;..��'T SO�TI�.i ; _. , , . .�. - � .�.A�'El��l�'I' CO�CIL ; . . . _ , _. : � .:. .1� �°.t��GE �i�R. THE. �: . . . ; /� . �l�T��.' _ . . A/�Tg,{'�� g�y//��y�{,�/��/7p�/,p�gg��@'yy'Tp7�� //� ` �. . �� .,. '.'.. ' '. ..�.�..' . .�' I�Ioo� f...,: M1 . .. . . ::1 O V' ;� "' _lY1C�LVJL/lC � ; : ' . .. ,.�:':. ... .. � .. , , . ...... . (y � . . . �. ,..,., . . . .. ;.. . (� ��/� g�� ' ' ,.; A �p �''g� V� " { , � ' �, - �.C�� 'lYA re �.��. ..- �� AJ • f ' j ! �.,' ❑ MASAC,mee�ing agenda, cover memo(s) and correspondence for ' � November 28; 2000 , � _: , : ,; :; , , , . . . C] ..Minutes �of the September 29, 2000 Special MASAC meeting `; - ❑ Minutes of tlie October 24, 2000 MASAC.meetmg ❑ 1Vlinutes �of the October l3 and November 9, 2000 Operatioris Comiilittee .� - meetings � � �� 0 Blank Noise Monitoring and Information Request Form : ❑ Blank MASAC News Feedback/Input Form ❑ Monthly Part 150 Residential Sound Insulation Program Update � ❑ October 2000 Technical Advisor's and Corridor Reports � r[ 'i . . . ' � � � . ..- . . . . .. . . . . _. _ .. . ' . . . " � . . � . - -` - . . .... ... . . . . . . . . . .. ; . .. � � . ._._. . � . _ . . .. ..,. ..�::..�. . '; .;;. , �.; .�.,. �. : '. .. .. .. ' ',.�r. y '.':. . . �,�� .. . . . � ., .._�. .^ .; '.: . . �.. . �. , .,,' .,.� ; - � :� . '� �i, ', ...'��.' .._ ..:. . . .. ... . .. :: �' ,�,; .�� 1 . } -�. ..�_ .i:� .. i'_ . .�: ;. �� .. ' � , '��' ` � Y: � i ) .. . :� ,: .. ..+; . - .y; , .._ . .. .,.... �� ! . , � �..;...., ,.. _.�... ,..,-.� .. . .: _. .;,` .,._ . . _. ...: �... �. .. . . '... _ . . �.... . ., ...-.. . ,.�-:. .. - - . . .. ... � „ ...,..... . . ,._.,, ... ,. •..: .:�.-. : . �:��... ..�� ..:�_ ... , , ..:_, ..r,-. . �.. . ..!,�.�: ,.... . , �., ..:�. _... t .. ., ... : _ . -:: : � "; _��. � . .:i� . ... ..�. . . �- fy ", ,. .� � _.,, .. . . ..:: �..,. .; . ..', :. :..� / ' t ,r Y ti �_ i i i - =; � , � r t ' j - . : . . ' �� : . . . ... .. " . ' . . .: , .:':.. _ . ' '.,' �� " . 1 . .. . ' ", .. .. 1' � r "' ��.� �� E��y �� . �� .� �� .. _ , _ � . . ,. " , � I�O� ER. ��, 2000 : _ ,- ; __. ; , .: , ; - - � _ � �� ;: ; ., , , . _. , _ . .. _ : . .. _ ., . . _ _ _ � . . . . , ,� � � � , - .; . . _, . . ; ,. . ; :: � , _; ,: , . ; _ (. , - .� _ , _ . , . : .., � ..,: ; ,. � -,. .. . . _ � ,� `; - .. . r, : _ -_ . ... .. .. ; . . �_. d . �. lO�TR�JPOLIT.AN AII2CRAFT SOZfND ABATE1Vl�N7C COUNCIL General Meetin� November 28, 2000 7:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 28te Avenue S. Minneapolis, Minnesota 1. Call to Order, Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes of Meeting October 24, 2000 3. Introduction of Invited Guests Receipt of Communications - Airline User Letter 4. Receive Input on Technical Advisor's Report and Possible Formation of a Technical Advisor's Report Revision Subcommittee 5. Review of Draft MASAC 2001 Goals and Objectives Calendar 6. Briefing on Part 150 Public Workshops/Hearings Review and Action 7. Report of the November 9, 2000 Operations Committee Meeting 8. Report of the MAC Commission Meeting - Chairman Mertensotto 9. Technical Advisor's Runway System Utilization Report and Complaint Summary 10. Persons Wishing to Address the Council 11. Items Not on the Agenda 12. Adjournment Next Meeting: January 23, 2001 � � ,� : , �. �•.a , � � � ; . . ., . , , ��: I'lZ(�IVI: SZ.TBJEC�': ;1 • 1 ; MASAC Members Chad Leqve, MASAC Technical Advisor - Council Input on the Technical Advisor's Report Revision �and Formation of a Technical Advisor's Report Revision Subcommittee November 17, 2000 At the October 24, 2000 MASAC meeting the review process for the Technical Advisor's Report began with a briefing on the MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Program's information and reporting capabilities. The presentation focused on information and reporting capabilities relative to three main informationaUreporting technologies, which included the Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System (ANOMS), Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and the Internet. The intent of the briefing was to provide the Council with an all-encompassing perspective relative to the information available and reporting capabilities of the MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Prograrns. Following the presentation, a discussion ensued relative to the formation of a subcommittee to address the Technical Advisor's Report review and revision process, in addition to bringing in an outside perspective through the involvement of a contractor/consultant with extensive experience in such matters. No formal action was taken on October 24 by the Council on the subcommittee discussion. The next step in the revision process, as previously approved by the Council, is to receive input from members on the Technical Advisor's Report revision. MAC staff has enlisted the services of Padilla Speer Beardsley Inc. (PSB), a highly respected, international public relations fum, to assist with the Technical Advisor's Report revision. Through consultation with PSB (including their graphics sub-consultants), the attached questions were developed to aid in the process of receiving input from Council members. The questions focus on determining important information, what information members use most, desirable ways to receive the information, presentation of the data and identifying confusing elements. Please review and formulate answers to the attached questions prior to the November 28, 2000 MASAC meeting, to facilitate the input process. In addition to the membership input which will occur at the November 28, 2000 MASAC meeting, the Council could consider the formation of a Technical Advisor's Report (' i Revision Subcommittee. The Subcommittee, with consultation from PSB and their graphics sub-consultants, could work out the finer details of the report content and format considering the input received from the Council. Upon conclusion of their deliberations, the Subcommittee would report back to MASAC w�th a draft document proposed for approval. � , If you have any questions or comments regarding this topic please contact me at 612-725- 6328. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED The Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council establish a Technical Advisor's Report Revision Subcommittee to review Council input and provide additional insight into the development of a draft Technical Advisor's Report to be presented to the Council upon the conclusion of the Subcommittee's deliberations. �, r Questions to Consider for Mt1SAC Input on the Technical Advisor's Report ♦ What information is most important? ♦ What information do you read most? ♦ What information, if any, do you ignore? ♦ What purpose does the Technical Advisor's Report serve for you? ♦ How do you think others use it? ♦ How would you like to receive this report — Web site, mail, etc.? o How often do you read it? (Do you keep it and refer back to it?) ♦ What, if anything, keeps you from reading the reports? ♦ How wouid you like to see the data presented? ♦ Are any graphs/charts particularly clear and/or helpful? o Are there any pieces of information or graphics that are conf.using and/or unnecessary? 1 ♦ Can you easily find what you are looking for within the document? 0 What, if anything, would you like to change? ( ; '� L,: h, ,�,_ � '� . .: ��: F+ 12C)IVI: Si.T�JEC�': DATE e MASAC Members Chad Leqve, MASAC Technical Advisor Review of Draft MASAC 2001 Goals and Objectives Calendar� November 17, 2000 At the October 13, 2000 MASAC Operations Committee meetulg, the Committee reviewed the 17 noise mitigation measures and 10 land use measures included in the Part 150 Update document. The review focused on the implementation of mitigation measures. Once noise mitigation measures are established, implementation is essential to achieving the noise reduction benefits a Noise Compatibility Program can offer via Part 150. The review focused on Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) measures that could be pursued prior to FAA document approval. As a result of the above-mentioned review, five Part 150 NCP-related topics and associated efforts were approved by the MASAC Operations Committee. The proposed efforts were forwarded to IVIASAC for review and approval as primary topics to be. included in the 2001 MASAC Goals & Objectives. Followirig Council review of the proposed topics at the October 24, 2000 MASAC meeting, the following five Part 150 NCP-related topics and associated efforts were approved by MASAC for inclusion as part of the 2001 MASAC Goals & Objectives. � Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (IVIt�.St�C): Focus efforts on ensuring appropriate representation on MASAC and investigate ways to increase membership participation on behalf of the airlines and communities, ensuring a balanced perspective � Operating Procedures: Pursue the implementation of the Distant NADP off Runways 30L and 30R � Airport Noise and Operations Ii�Ionitoring System: Focus efforts on maximizing system capabilities and ensuring new Remote Monitoring Tower (RMT) locations are properly selected relative to Runway 17/35 operations o Future 'Technology and Globai Positioning System Initiaiives: Foster MASAC involvement in the development of GPS technology at MSP including briefings and updates on the Local Area Augmentation System (LA.AS) upgrade to the GPS ground station at MSP and the possible resultant capabilities a Establish a public information program incorporating state-of-the-art technology and other multimeclia resources: Continue to pursue enhancements ta the MASAC News, Internet information dissemination programs and possible distribution of information to public access channels In addition to approval of the above Part 150 NCP-related topics and associated efforts, � the Council added a provision calling for discussion and agreement on the `• program/insulation standards for multi-family housing structures within the 65 DNL contour. Additionally, input was received from the Minneapolis Delegation for consideration as part of the 2001 MASAC Goals & Objectives. At the November 9, 20Q0 MASAC Operations Committee meeting the attached Draft 2001 MASAC Goals & Objectives Calendar was reviewed. The draft calendaz represents a culmination of the Council approved topics and associated efforts, taking into consideration other input received from MASAC members. Following discussion and review of the 2001 MASAC Goals & Objectives Calendar, the attached Draft 2001 MASAC Goals & Objectives Calendar was approved by the Operations Committee and forwarded to MASAC. A review of the Draft 2001 MASAC Goals & Objectives Calendar will be provided at the November 28, 2000 MASAC meeting. If you have any questions or comments regarding this topic please contact me at 612-725- 6328. COUI�ICII, ACTION REOUESTED �' a � The Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council review and approve the attached Draft 2001 MASAC Goals & Objectives Calendaz. :i s January 12 January 23 February 9 February 27 March 9 March 27 April 13 April 24 May 11 May 22 June S 2001 Il�A�AC Goals and 4��jectives Calendar � Investigate Enhanced Membership Involvement Strategy Operations Committee � MSP DGPS Local Area Augmentation System AAS Pr ess Re rt MASAC Operations Committee MASAC Operations Committee MASAC Operations Committee MASAC Operations Committee MASAC Operations Corrunittee (I- ) ��' Po ♦ Bri�ng on the Status of the 2000 FAA Noise Abatement Policy 6 MASAC Chair Election ♦ Review Enhanced Membership Involvement Strategy 6 Review Draft Technical Advisor's Report ♦ Review of Mitigation Package in the 2005 60 DNL Contour ♦ Provide Final Comments on Technical Advisor's Report 0 Insulation/Program Standards for Multi-Family Housing Structures Within the 1996 65 DNL � Finalize Technical Advisor's Report ♦ 20�0 NIASAC Year in Review ♦ Discussion of Insulation/Program Standards for Multi-Family Housing Structures Within the 65 DNL 0 Develop Distant NADP Implementation Strategy for Runways 30L & 30R ♦ Guest Speaker - Jeff Hamiel ♦ Status Report on the Development of Stage 4 Standards 0 Evaluation of New RMT Locations Relative to the North/South Runway 0 Evaluate MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs Web site to Enhance Information and Dissemination � Finalize New RMT Lacations relative to the North/South Runway ♦ Review and Finalize New RMT Locations relative to the North/South Runway � Review of FAA Part 150 Update Document Review Status � Review of Environmental Analysis Needed for Part 150 Miti�ation Measure Implementation ♦ Review of FAA Part 150 Update Document Review Status � June 26 MASAC � Briefing on the FAA's Switch to ARTS 3E Radar . Technol�gy and the Resultant New ANOMS Flight Track Acquisition System ♦ R ort on GAO Stud of FAA's Noise Polic July 13 Operations Committee ♦ Report on the Status of National Aircraft Fleet GPS Integration July 24 MASAC ♦ MSP 2010 Construction U date August 10 Uperations Committee ♦ MSP Stage 3 Fleet Activity Report ♦ Airline Briefin on Future Fleet Mixes August 28 MASAC 0 Briefing on MAC's System of Reliever Airports . and Their Role in the Airport System: Guest . Speaker — Gary Schmidt, MAC Director of � Reliever rts September 14 Operations Committee 6 Investigation of Possible Community Out-Reach Program Providing Information on the Current and Future Operation of MSP and the Resultant Im acts September 25 MASAC ♦ Review of Membership Composition per the MASAC By-Laws ♦ Global Positionin S stem (GPS) Briefin October 12 Operations Committee 0 Discussion of Aircraft Departure Time Separation at MSP October 23 MASAC Off-Site Meeting ♦ Guest Speakers — Representatives from ACI or ATA and the FAA ♦ Receive Input for Year 2001 Goals and Objectives . November 9 Operations Committee ♦ Focus Activities for U comin Year 2002 November 27 MASAC 0 Finalize 2002 Goals and Ob'ectives December 14 Operations Committee ♦ Organize Year 2002 Goals and Objectives � Calendar r � i �: : ., , � � Irr � �t :. v_ F . E � , � � , .. . , ; � ,.; , , , . MASAC Members Roy Fuhnnan�l, Manager, Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs Part 150 Public Workshops/Hearings Review and Action November 17, 2000 The Part 150 Update process requires adequate public involvement as part of the document preparation. In an effort to ensure that such involvement occurs, MASAC sponsored two public workshops/hearings on the Draft Part 150 Update document on November 8 and 9, 2000, at the Thunderbird Hotel, 2201 78�' Street East, Bloomington, Minnesota. A public workshop was held each day from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. prior to the public hearing, which began at '7:00 p.m. Both� written and verbal comments were taken at the hearings.. Written comments were aLso accepted until 5:00 p.m. on November 15, 2000. The workshops/hearings were well attended with 290 attendees on November 8 and 251 attendees on November 9. A total of 111 (42 verbal and 69 written) comments were received throughout the comment period. The next step in the Part 1S0 Update process is to forward the Draft Part 150 Update document to the Metropolitan Airports Comrnission's Planriing and Environment Cominittee for review and consideration. The comments received during the public comment period will be included in the Final Part 150 Update document with responses. The work that has been completed to date by MASAC has been a monumental task. The MAC Commission recognizes MA.SAC's efforts and encourages all parties, both users and communities, to continue their efforts to address the noise issues at MSP. At the November 28, 2000 MASAC meeting, HNTB will provide a surnmary of the public comments received and feedback regarding these workshops/hearings. If you ha.ve any questions or comments regarding this topic please contact me at 612-725- 6326. ACTION REQUESTED MASAC FORWARD TI�E DRAFT PART 150 UPDATE DOCUMENT APID PUBLIC COMMENTS TO THE METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION'S PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMII�ITTEE TOR CONSIDERATION, REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE RECOMMENDED 1VOISE COIVIPATIBILITY PROGRANY AND ASSOCIATED NOISE EXPOSURE MAPS. �� ,, '/ � ;�� • •, ��: F'RC)1VI: S�.JJ�JECT: �1�'.�"E: MASAC Members Chad Leqve, MASAC Technical Advisor Notification of Upcoming (January 2001) MASAC Chairperson Nominations and Election November 17, 2000 The MASAC Bylaws state that the Council shall appoint a Chairperson who shall serve for a two year term or until his/her representation on the Council terminates, which ever occurs first; and until a successor is elected. Consistent with the provisions of the MASAC Bylaws, nominations and election of the MASAC Chairperson will occur at the January 23, 2001 MASAC meeting. This is an informational item only in an effort to notify members of this important upcoming election. , � , ; .h . , � � � T�: MASAC Members F+ROIV�: Chad Leqve, MASAC Technical Advisor S.LTBJE�'T': Communications: Letter Regarding Airlines' Resignation from MASAC D1��'E: November 17, 2000 The past few MASAC and MASAC Operations Committee meetings have been marked by minimal airline representation and participation. The attached letter provides insight and clarification on the current and future airline involvement with the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council. Please refer to the attached letter. A special meeting of the MASAC Executive Committee is tentatively planned for December l, 2000. The intent of the Executive Committee nneeting will be to discuss the airlines' position relative to MASAC and possible steps to address Airport User membership concerns. . October 31, 2000 Mr. Chaxlcs Nichols Chairman Me#ropolitan Airpotrs Commission 6040 28`� Avennc South Minneapolis, MN 55450 Mr. Jc$Hasn�icl Executivc Dirc�cf�or Metropolizsa .Airporis Co�mission 6(}40 28'�' Avemze 5auth Ivtinneapolis, MN 55450 Re: MSP Air Carriers R�si�nation Fzom MASAC Dcar Mssrs_ Nichols and Sami�ei, We, ihe carri�rs identificd an the attachui ugnature page, a� noufying you of our resign,ation from the MctzopoIitan Aircra$ Sound Ababement Couz�cil (I�[ASAG�, effeciive immzdiately. Tlus very difficult decision is not taken Iightly. Inde�i, it was made afier the camulative evaluation nf several rccent issues inciuding but not limit�d to the Part 150 �iing' process, e.g., ``voluntary" difl'ercnrial ]anding fee mitigaiion measvz� and commenis developed for tha dra:� FAA A�viation Noisc Abatement policy 2000. Specifically, the procrss has 6een i.nadequate and ihe following cxaruples arc provided: 1. �'roccss: The MASAC was established as a� committee wmpriscd equally of useis and community membcrs. �t dces noc zecognize, hnwever, that the carriezs have multiple resnonsibitities at airports around Nozth t�nexica.. All airline =epresentatives canuot be pr£sent at cvery �meeung, even though we aciively coznmunicate thz�ough qch othcr wheze thcrc is a couunon viewpoir�t, nor are tfiey alIowcd to vote in prvxy. Z. Ground Runup Enclosure: T�,is measuze was votcd dovvn in the MASAC Operations, Committc�, yer the mcasure was sr.ili prrsentcd w the fuli MASAC, Noricc nf acfion on this i#em was provided �ess than 4 woriQng days prior to thc meetin� Carc�ers, wirh an obviaas interest in t6e capital project, �who coutd not attend the mccting due to tht sbort naticr, too�C the opparteinity to rcd ster their apSzuon and vote by proxy against t6a project. Tflcsc "prqxy votcs" �rere ignorui and siuce the commuuity repc�sentativcs aulnumbcrc.�i the users present, the MASAC OpezatiQns Commi�tce �cammendation was ovcr�rned. Therc was a i'ailure ofbas.ic notice and no oppartunity iar ail carriers ta be heard ' 3. DraS FAA Aviation Noise Ahatement Pnlicy 240a: This comment letter was drafted without any prioz nouce w the carriers, �et the draft lctter pnrpancd to be supporteci by all mcrnbezs af MASAC. �arthezmorn, LUe comments, zfimpiemcnted, would have drastic economic and campciitive conscqucncxs on thc aviazion industry. 4. Part 1So 1��easures: A volunrary diffezential Ianding �ee for Stage 3 manufaeiurest and Stage 3 hushkiu�d aircraft wds presentod in the documez�t, again, wittaout discussing it wirh the carriers and ful2y evaluating thc le;al and ceonomic issucs. T1�sc ex,uuples dcmonst�atc that M�4SAC has bccomc a community advocary grauP and no iongrz provides aviabk firarneiwric for a thoraugh asu3 balan�d review af technically r.ampi« issacs witf► s b,z�ific�nc icgal, eszvizonmrntaI and xonomic irnplications for cn**•�,�^;urs and the indusay. Zn dosing, we n,itezate that this was a very difficult d�cision and in no way si�ould be interpreted as a lcsseais�g of our nsdlve to address thcsa complicatcd issucs in a batanccd fonun, Ac3diriQnally, it mvsz aiso be recogniz.ai t6ac wiuZe all carriers ran nae be present at every mciing wc aciiveiy commuaicstc through +�,ch athrr and Wc r+cgzet t�at we must takt this actioa Howcur.r, we wiIi contznue, and remain wtnznirtcd, to coopezativeiy work with thc MA.0 as wcil as thc surrounding communitic3 in tF,c {utnrc i�, ad+3�css thrse impozrant noisc rcia[ed issues. SincrseiY, rr:..""�:.'�!'^ � � ��!! = . �s l�ortirw�,yt �3�sriin� �� .>. • � ..< , � r/ � !. ��. • . .. • ... :.. . �\� ` � � �+ � � :� • . . • . w,. .r � �� r. rr.e �. u� No est Aiclines: Mary Lo�ffelhalz Uait�d PazcrI Ssrvice -"��1`i` l,r PL� LC'YC:fYT�i3rG '.e't/��i�,";�,�'L- .�O�III M. �IIS5�CZ PederaI E�r�ss 'TWA `-��.� Debbie GQ�' � iJS .Air4va�ys: f� . P�rnando TQoo1ete � �.T�'E� F T' E�EP'I'E E 29, 2000 . SPEC SAC ET_ . G- : , . =�� - - =, � r t ' 4 f � ,i+ _ � c i ..,. .�- ..�� .;.- ' r - �.` - _ . . :. . . �. �.'�. ; . _ . . . .. ,: . : �. ., ... ., . . . .'. �. . . . .�.' . ': . _r: . . .'�'. . . . . -_ :.•. ...:: :..:� �.�... ,.. . �.. _� . , . . . . ... - . ..,- . . ... .. - . .. . . , ..�: �. . .., , � " .., . . �� . � � . . . . ,. . �. `',� ' ' � . '. .... . .- . � : ' � � .. .-., ._. _ . . . - .'. _ .. �' ... . -.:' ;.. ".:.:.� . �. , ,.� . . �. :' .., r. . .. .t .:.` . :.: ... . , � ; � . .... . . . :_ . . . � � . � � .: .: , ' ' �: . �. .. ' � . '....'. . ,. . :. . .. '. . " : . .'•.' t ,'. \ � �I . . �. . '. �. � . . �. . ' � . . . ' � . . . . . . � � .. � . m _ . . _ _ . _. , . _ ( ; . v: _ ,:. ....,, _ . ,t. _ . , ;' _ ; i,� _ - , . z. . , ,, , ;_. . ; : . ;: : .;. _ ,, _ ,. . . . . . ., . . . r ;' _ _ - �' � - -�.; � i: , - . . . . , , .. . . .. . . � _ + ,.... ._ __ _ . . _ . , . ,, . _ ,, . � - � - � �:. .�. ., ; .: ,-r _ _ �. -1 t .. � .. �- . ._�� :' . �.. '. . '. : �, : � : '.:. . . . . . :.. _ .. . .:' ,. � � . .. .. .� ..: .. . � �..:. . '.. . .�. .': f . .. .'. � � .. �. ( � �: . . � . � �. . • � ' � ' ' , -:. , .�: . . .-= ' ". .. . .'�� . �. . . . „ �.. . .. . � . , ... - . . .. ,. . . . � . . , � �.� ' .. 4 \ METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETIl� September 29, 2000 9:00 a.m. 6040 28`h Avenue S. Minneapolis, Minnesota Call to Order, Roll Call The meeting was called to order by Chairman Mertensotto at 9:00 a.m. The following members were in attendance: Charles Mertensotto, Chairman Jennifer Sayre � Roy Fuhrmann Bob Johnson Petrona Lee Vern Wilcox Larry Lee � Jamie Verbrugge Patrick Hollister Will Eginton . Neil Clark Glenn Strand Dean Lindberg Joe Lee Pam Dymtrenko Advisors Chad Leqve Shane VanderVoort Joe Harris Kim Hughes Glen Orcutt Cindy Greene Visitors None Mendota Heights NWA MAC NIB A.A Bloomington Bloomington Bloomington Eagan Mendota Heights Inver Grove Heights Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis Richfield Technical Advisor MAC MAC HNTB FAA FAA Discussion of Part 150 Update Measure #3 and an Additional Measure "Noise Mana�ement Pro�ram„ Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, explained the events leading up to the discussion. He noted that at the Tuesday, September 26, 2000 regular MASAC meeting, members approved staff s recommended modiiications to the language for Measure #3 that was included in the distributed draft of the Part 150 document. Along with some material changes in the language, the title of the measure was changed from "Noise Management Program" to "Measures to encourage use of Manufactured Stage 3 Aircraft." At that same meeting, members proposed that an additional measure be included as part of the Part 150 Update that would encompass a wider range of options for reducing aircraft noise under a Noise Management Program. The new measure -�vould have MASAC consider possible {- voluntary incentives and disincentives for encouraging a reduction in aircraft generated noise. This measure was approved in concept and the consultants were asked to formalize the language for final approval at this meeting. Mr. Leqve went on to say that the consultants had crafted language for this additional measure, which was distributed at the meeting as Option 1(Noise Management Program). However, the consultants had also attempted to combine the new measure with measure three (Measures to encourage use of Manufactured Stage 3 Aircraft), which was referred to as Option 2. Kim Hughes, HNTB, explained both options and what tnay be possible. She noted that both options would be based on voluntary participation by the airlines. She said the consultant's recommendation was to adopt Option 2 as a combination of ineasure 3 and the new measure. She said it was possible that the FAA would take issue with Measure 3(Measures to encourage use of Manufactured Stage 3 Aircraft) as it stands because it is specific to a type of aircraft and because the FAA does not differentiate between manufactured and retrofitted aircraft that fall under Stage 3. Disczrssion Jennifer Sayre, NWA, said she had not known that there would be a vote at the September 26, 2000 MASAC meeting regarding adopting Measure #3. She said she had assumed the Operations Committee would be discussing it and making a recommendation before it was taken up at the full MASAC meeting, as has been the custom in the past. She said that NWA was concerned that they had not been notified there would be a vote either at the September 26 or September 29`t' meeting and was upset with how the procedures had been ch�nged. She suggested that the item �•�' be tabled until the Operations Committee had a chance to review it. �., � Chairman Mertensotto explained that it is not required that an issue be discussed by the Operations Committee before corning before the full body. He said the full body can always take action without notification except for on certain items outlined in the bylaws. He noted, too, that both Measure #3 and the two options being presented could only be implemented with voluntary participation. Ms. Sayre said she could not think of any voluntary measure an airline would agree to that would include a disincentive. Chairman Mertensotto said the measures leave the options open for a variety of voluntary incentive or disincentive programs. He also noted that the document was still in draft form and that comments could still be made once the draft is published for the public. Dean Lindberg, Minneapolis, said an example of an incentive that would have no monetary affect on the airlines would be for MASAC to award an airline with a"Quiet Airline Award." Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, noted that the recommended Option #2 (the combination of the original Measure 3 and the new measure) did not include the words incentive or disincentive. Glenn Strand, Minneapolis, said he felt it would be better to keep the two measures separate and suggested that Option #1 be adopted as a separate measure from Measure #3. Chairman Mertensotto said adopting them separately would be more in line with what was discussed at the regular MASAC meeting. � �� , Jennifer Sayre, NWA, asked if inembers were aware-�hat a vote could be taken at the current meeting. Chairman Mertensotto said the members present at the regular meeting on Tuesday lrnew a vote could be taken at the current meeting. He said the full body can vote at any time on any issue (except for those outlined in the bylaws) without notification of the full membership. Dean Lindberg, Minneapolis, noted that the timeline for completion of the Part 150 Update is corriing to an end and that members should be maldng every effort to attend the scheduled meetings so that they do not miss important discussions and votes. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said that staff and consultants had met with representatives of Northwest Airlines on the morning of Tuesday, September 26, 2000 after the Friday, Septernber 22, 2000 meeting in order to come to more agreeable language for Measure #3. He said it was discussed at that meeting that there would most likely be action taken at the evening meeting. He said he also had contact with other Northwest Airlines representatives after the regular meeting regarding the outcome of the rneeting and 'that they were aware that a vote could be taken at the current meeting. Joe Lee, Minneapolis, said he felt the measures, as written, were not onerous for the airlines because they would be voluntary and urged Ms. Sayre to accept the measures, without umbrage, as the airlines representative. He said the airlines should accept these measures as a measure of good citizenship in the community. Jennifer Sayre, NWA, noted that Northwest Airlines has contributed in several ways to noise reduction initiatives and has signed a lease agreeing to a$410 million budget for noise abatement mitigation. �' ��1 Ms. Sayre said Northwest Airlines is and has been committed to attending both the MASAC and MASAC Operations Committee meetings and only missed the Tuesday meeting because of a concern with a particular issue. She said Northwest Airlines is concerned that decisions are being made without the due analysis that is needed and that the airlines are having decisions forced on them. She said these decisions should not be rushed and should be fully analyzed through the Operations Committee. Pam Dymtrenko, Rachfield, said she was discauraged witl� the airlines makirig a conscious decisiori not to attend a meeting. She said she believes the measures are "watered down" considerably. Ms. Sayre said the measure's statement that there could be potentially higher ticket prices was of particular concern. Chairman Mertensotto said another statement should be substituted for this phrase and suggested "dependent upon the incentive or disincentive agreed to." Jennifer Sayre, Northwest Airlines, said she continues to be concerned with the fact that there was no indication on the agenda that a vote would be taken at the regular MASAC meeting. Pam Dymtrenko, Richfield, reminded her that anything can happen in a meeting and that attendance is important if a member wants to keep track of what is happening. Ms. Sayre said she understood Ms. Dymtrenko's point but that because Northwest Airlines is one of a very few users that show up at the meetings, the airlines' point of views are not always carefully considered. ' Joe Lee, Minneapolis, reminded the members that the measure does not require anyone to take action and that it is based on voluntary participation. He said he did not understand why the issue would be contentious. • Dean Lindberg, Minneapolis, asked Glen Orcutt, FA.A, if he thought there would be any � problems with changing the language under "impacts to airport users." Mr. Orcutt said as long as the incentives/disincentives were implemented on a voluntary basis, there should be no problem. GLENN STRAND, MINNEAPOLIS, MOVED AND VERN WII.COX, BLOONIINGTON, SECONDED, TO ADD MEASURE NIl�TE, NOISE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, TO THE PART 150 UPDATE WITH THE "IlVCPACT ON AIRFORT USERS" SECTION CHANGED TO "DEPENDENT UPON THE INCENTIVE OR DISINCENTNE AGREED TO." THE MOTION WAS APPROVED ON A VOICE VOTE WITH TWO DISENTIONS. Comments to the Draft Part 150 Update Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said the purpose of the meeting was to take comments from MASAC members regarding the draft document and to be sure the document reflects the decisions of the council and committee and the spirit of the discussions over the past 18 months. Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, asked for an explanation as to what happens with the document once it is submitted to the FAA for approval. Kim Hughes, HNTB, said after the document is submitted in December or January, the FAA will review the document for adequacy. If changes need to be made during this time, the FAA will work with the airport. Once the FAA has deemed the document adequate, there will be a 180-day public comment period, which is published in the Federal Register. She said once the public comment period is completed, the approved noise exposure map becomes the official map and implementation of the measures can % occur. She said HNTB will work with ATC to develop tower orders for those measures that �,, require them. Chairman Mertensotto asked if the public comments from the hearings would be included in the submitted document. Kim Hughes, �INTB, said they would be included. Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, asked if every airport in the United States was required to submit a Part 150. Kim Hughes, HNTB, said Part 150 is a voluntary program and airports are not required to submit a Part 150. She also noted that airports that do submit a Part 150 are not required to hold public hearings or workshops but are simply required to give reasonable notice to the public that a Part 150 is being submitted and establish a way to solicit comments. She said some smaller airports simply place an ad in the local newspaper and ask for comments. Glenn Strand, Minneapolis, asked if it was possible that a home within the current noise exposure map that had not yet been insulated could be disqualified from the program after the new contours are approved. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said in this case all of the single-family homes within the current noise exposure map are anticipated to be completed before approval is received on the next noise exposure map. He also noted that the priority schedule for the sound insulation program has been set up so that those homes (multi and single-family) within the current noise exposure map will be compieted first before moving on to the next phase. Dean Lindberg, Minneapolis, asked if the public comments from the workshops were available to look over. Kim Hughes, HNTB, said the public involvement appendix would be available soon and would be two to three volumes. Mr. Lindberg also asked about his request that a 2- ( 4 minute departure rule be analyzed. Ms. Hughes said if he submitted his comments as part of the scoping document comments, they would be included in the Public Involvement appendix. She said she believed there was a written response to those comments and would make sure it is included in the appendix. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said-the Public Involvement appendix would be available at city offices, local libraries and at the MAC for review on paper and on CD. He said the appendix would also be available on the web site. Kim Hughes, I-�NTB, said in response to his comments, the 2-minute rule would substantially affect capacity and that is why it was not considered. Dean Lindberg, Minneapolis, said he was not aware of any discussion regarding his suggestions, nor had he received a response. Cindy Greene, FA.A, said she had attended a meeting where the subject had been discussed at length. She said a 2-minute rule would considerably slow capacity at the airport. Mr. Lindberg asked that a written response to his comments be made available. Ad�ournment Chairman Mertensotto adjoumed the meeting at 10:00 a.m. He encouraged anyone with comments to the draft document to stay and discuss them with the staff and consultant. Respectfully submitted. Melissa Scovronski, MASAC Secretary � �.T'I'ES O�' 'I' �CT��E 24, 2000 S�.0 ETI�TG � . : ,,. : . - � ; . � _ . . . ._. _ . ,.. . : > - :. __ . ; �. � .: .. :. .. . _.. ... _ .. _. :_ _ ..__.... _ , .. : . ,.; . � .: - - - . , �: ,, . . ..,. �... . , . ,. , .. . , . , ., : _ : ,, , , , _ . . - : : . , _. . , , - , , �. , �. _ , �. � . ., - , , : �. i� . - � � - - : ,_ _ _ .; _.. -.. . . , � ,: - �� . . 1 , . , .. ,. . . ... , : ,�� _ t _ , t. ':': . . ' : I ` � � ' : _' :'; : _ , - � „ - _ (;' _ �\' 1. 2. METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SO�TND ABATEMENT COUNCIL GENERAL NiEETIl� October 24, 2000 �:30 p.m. 6040 2$th Avenue S. Minneapolis, Minnesota Call to Order, Roll Call The meeting was called to order by Chairman Mertensotto at 7:35 p.m. The following members were in attendance: Charles Mertensotto, Chairman Roy Fuhrmann Petrona Lee Larry Lee Jamie Verbrugge Lance Staricha Jill Smith Will Eginton Glenn Strand Dean Lindberg Dick Saunders Mike Cramer Joe Lee Neil Clark Sandra Colvin Roy Jeff Bergom John Halla Pam Dmytrenko Kristal Stokes Advisors Chad Leqve Mark Kill Shane VanderVoort Jason Giesen Joe Harris John Nelson Visitors Jan DelCalzo Lynae Jacobson Ron Seymour Approval of Minutes Mendota Heights MAC Bloomington Bloomington Eagan Eagan 1`�Iendota Heights Inver Grove �Ieights Minneapolis � . Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis Burnsville St. Paul Richfield Richfield Technical Advisor MAC MAC MAC MAC MAC City of Minneapolis Port of Seattle Port of Seattle The minutes of the September 26, 2000 MASAC meeting were approved as distributed. � Introduction of Invited Guests Chairman Mertensotto asked Chad Leqve, Technic� Advisor, to introduce Ron Seymour and Lynae Jacobson. Mr. Leqve introduced Mr. Seymour and Ms. Jacobson and said they were visiting from Seattle and worked for the Port of Seattle. Chairman Mertensotto then asked John Nelson, former Bloomington MASAC alternate, to come forward to receive a letter of thanks for his seven months of acting as interim chair to the MASAC Operations Committee, along with a plaque commending him for his work on MASAC as the alternate representative for the city of Bloomington. Mr. Nelson thanked the Council for the aclrnowledgements and encouraged the members in their future endeavors. Receipt of Communications Chairman Mertensotto noted that the final MASAC letter to the FA.A in response to its update of the Aviation Noise Policy had been included in the agenda packet. • A letter was received from the City of Inver Grove �Ieights requesting that Representative Will Eginton be placed on the MASAC Operations Committee. Chairman Mertensotto said the matter would be forwarded to the Executive Committee, which is scheduled to meet in mid-December. Larry Lee, Bloominb on, asked about how the City of Bloomington should go about replacing John Nelson on the Operations Committee. He asked if the City could assume that a replacement needed to be appointed. Chairman Mertensotto noted that when Jon Hohenstein left the MASAC Operations Committee and the City of Eagan, Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, had automatically taken his place. He said, although the Chairman has the authority to appoint members of the Operations Committee, in the case of Bloomington, he expects that the City should be able to appoint a new member to represent Bloomingtori. Chairman Mertensotto asked Mr. Lee to write a letter to him with a recommendation as to who should take Mr. Nelson's place on the Operations Committee. Review of Aviation Noise Office Reporting Capabilities for the Technical Advisor's Report Revision Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, gave a brief background on the development of the draft Technical Advisor's report and noted the following three steps were agreed upon for the finalization of the report: l. An evaluation of MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Program reporting capabilities would take place first. 2. Comments will be received and reviewed 3. MAC Staff will develop a draft report incorporating the comments Mr. Leqve also noted the following: m Aircraft operation and noise impact analysis/reporting has become an integral function of the MAC Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs office. • The office continually makes an effort to maintain a high degree of analysis/reporting capabilities through the implementation of new and available technologies. 0 C r"� �, � o Access to tl�is iype of information is an important consideration. o MAC Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs relies on three technologies for its reporting capabilities: — l. Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System (ANOMS) , 2. Geographical Information Systems (GIS) 3. Internet Web site (w�ww.macavsat.org) ANOMS • Installation of the .ANOMS began at MSP in 1991. • It was operationally approved in 1993. • In 1998, the ANOMS flight track acquisition function was updated to an Optical Disc Reader (ODR). � The office staff also began extensive ANOMS internet integration in 1998. • In 1999, the ANOMS software was upgraded to version 6.3 and became Y2K compliant. s Five new RMTs were also added in 1999. • In 2000, the ANOMS software was upgraded to version 6.5. • New RMT sites will be added in 2002 to supply data relative to Runway 17-35. a The system is comprised of three main components, including a central computer that warehouses the software, an optical disk subsystem that acquires the flight track data from the FAA's radar and 29 Remote Noise Monitoring Towers that collect noise level data around the airport. Airport Operations Information _ • ANOMS provides airport operations information, such as runway use data and operation-, specific information (aircraft type, airline, flight number, origin/destination, stage length, i ! scheduled and actual departure and arrival times, aircraft stage, etc.) Noise bzfornzation • Specific noise event information: Aircraft noise event (defined as events above 65 dBA for eight seconds or greater) information per RMT tied to the operational information including: event Maximum Sound Level (Lr„a;�), Sound Exposure Level (SEL), Equivalent . Sound Level (Leq), time of event and duration. � Summary noise event information: Noise sur�mary infoxmation includes daily or monthly averages of the specific noise information. Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) is also available on a daily or monthly basis relative to aircraft events, community events and total noise events per RMT. Larry Lee, Bloomington, asked Mr. Leqve to explain the reason for an 8-second or greater time period. Mr. Leqve explained that the 8-second rule is a criteria used to weed out erroneous noise events that are not aircraft-related. He said that after various evaluations by the ANOMS technology vendor, it was determined that one of the characteristics of an aircraft event is that its duration is at least 8 seconds Noise events are tied to specific operations information. Daily average noise levels at each RMT can be calculated. The relational database in ANOMS allows the user to query using any of the available operation-specific and noise data. Flight Tracks and Spatial Analyses r' ��'� � Flight Track Maps - Maps providing depiction of flight tracks in two-dimensional or three-dimensional formats color-coded by arrivaUdeparture or by altitude ranges . Gate Analysis — A gate (plane in space) can be constructed in the ANOMS map server environment and spatial analyses can be condticted relative to flight track locations as (� they pass through the gate. Information such as track penetration, aircraft altitude, deviation from the gate center and speed are available relative to the point of gate excursion. Corridor A�zalysis — A three-dimensional corridor can be constructed in the ANOMS map server and spatial analyses can be conducted assessing flight tracks that remain within the corridor and flight tracks that deviate from the corridor. For flight tracks that deviate from the corridor, information is available on the side penetrated, aircraft altitude, deviation from the center of the side penetrated and speed relative to the point of corridor excursion. • PCA Analysis — The Point of Closest Approach (PCA) can be calculated to any poirit on the ground defined by a specified latitude and longitude. This analysis provides the altitude, distance and slant range distance of the point of closest proximity along a flight track relative to the location of interest. GIS • MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs procured a Geographical Information System (GIS) in the early 1990s. m Since that time, multiple software upgrades have occurred. • A significant amount of geographic data has been collecied from the counties and cities around MSP. � • ANOMS-to-GIS flight track importing functions have been developed. • Several new GIS analytical software tools have been acquired —(Spatial Analyst, 3D Analyst and Arc-TMS). � � � � • GIS and Internet integration is currently under development. • GIS ties tabular data to geo-referenced map layers . Mapping . e Fliglit Tracks — Detailed flight track mapping with various other map layers can be produced. • Noise Complaints — Detailed complaint address matching and complaint concentration information can be mapped • Three Dimensional Mapping of RMT Noise Data — Data relative to the various RMT locations, providing noise levels and location information in a graphical format rather than in a tabular format as it is currently. � I�zcorporati�:g Otlier Geograpl:ical Map Layers — All maps can incorporate a multitude of geob aphic data available as part of the Aviation Noise and Satellite Program's GIS. An example of how GIS can depict information in a graphical format in contrast to the usual tabular format was .displayed. It showed the 24 original RMT sites, the monthly DNL levels (represented at each location with a bar above the RMT location, with the height of the bar predicated on the magnitude of the DNL values) for a month, and the density of flight tracks off each runway end. Spatial Analysis e Community Overfliglzt Analyszs — Analysis of community overflights can be conducted via GIS capabilities. � � � ��•� 4 • Fligitt Track De�zsity — A density grid analysis can be conducted providing maps with color-coded overflight impact assessments delineating the areas of overflight concentration. Flight Track Density maps for both arrivals and departures were displayed. INTERNET • MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs began operating and maintaining a Web site in 1995. • Various server and software upgrades have occurred since then. • Extensive Web site development has been conducted. • The Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs Web site has become an essential information dissemination tool relative to all MAC noise issues and associated topics. � Interactive ANOMS reporting functionality on the Internet has been developed by MAC staff. bzteractive Runway Use Ouery Modacles There are five interacdve runway use modules that can be used to produce individualized runway use reports. Users can query by the following types of operations. • AllOperations • Camer Jet Operations e All Operations Nighttime o Nighttime Carrier Jet Operations • Operations by Runway Interactive Noise Query Modzrles � Aircraft Noise Event Sumraary — This query module provides the total number of noise events, logarithmically averaged I�x, Leq and SEL levels and the average event duration for a user-submitted timeframe, aircraft type and RMT location. ! � • Noise Events — This query module provides the number of aircraft generated noise events greater than 65, 80, 90 and 100 dBA per Remote Monitoring Tower (RMT) relative to the user's submitted date range and �arrival or departure selection. (This is the same information cunently available through the Technical Advisor's Report.) • Top Te�z Events — This query module provides the top ten aircraft noise events at each RMT location relative to the user's submitted date range and RMT number. (This is the same information provided on the Technical Advisor's Report.) o Top Te�z Eve�zts by Airli�ze — This query module provides the top ten aircraft noise events at an RMT for a specific airline relative to the user's submitted date range, RMT number and three-letter airline identifier. • Daily RMT Noise Level Report — This que .ry module provides daily noise summary data for a selected RMT providing the Leq and DNL information for aircraft noise events, community noise events and all noise events relative to the user's submitted date range and selected RMT. Screen captures for each type of report were displayed. Aircraft Types/Fleet Mix Module o Aircraft Type Couftt - Provides camer jet aircraft images, aircraft stage, and count of operations at MSP Fligl�t Tracklnfor�nation 0 AZtitude-Coded Flight Track Maps — Flight track maps depicting arrival and departure ��, flows into and out of MSP are available, color-coded by altitude ranges. • Airspace a�:d Noise Analyses Docunients • Radar Track Replay Depictio�z — A replay of MSP airspace use can be viewed via the Web site. The replay timeframe is fixed, although the application still provides a sense of how aircraft operate around MSP. � — �� All of the above functionality is currently available on the Web site. OtJ:er Airport Reports A handout Iisting the various types of reports available at different airports around the country was distributed and discussed. Sttm�nary o Report information and format should be reviewed from a perspective that considers the office's reporting capabilities. s Consideration should be given to optimizing the effectiveness of the information being presented by reducing unneeded or unwanted content. • Duplication of information should be reduced and the use of the available dissemination technologies maximized. o Essential information (as defined by MASAC) should be the focus of a monthly printed report. Discacssion Kristal Stokes, Richfield, asked if run up information was available for reporting. Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, said the Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs office does receive run up logs, but no noise monitoring takes place for those run ups. Larry Lee, Bloomington, said the City of Bloomington receives calls regarding ground noise and said it may be helpful to provide the run up log information on the Internet. Ms. Stokes said she simply needs somewhere to send people for information about run up activity. �� Neil Clark, Minneapolis, asked about Runway Use Information - what it is, how it is reported and if specific time periods can be queried. Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, said runway use data can be queried for specific time periods during a day or over whatever time period the user submits. Chairman Mertensotto said it is important to focus on the essential information to reduce the time spent reviewing it. He said he would like to have a system of reporting that would allow MASAC to easily track whether or not the projections used for the Part 150 Update for 2005 were in fact accurate. He said the system should also track changes in runway use pattems from what would be expected so that the staff and council members could determine what caused the change. I3e said it would also be beneficial to know if there were deviations in the projected contours. Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, said the staff has the ability to analyze the data, but that it is not an automatic function of ANOMS. He said he also did not think it would be feasible to run DNL contours on a continuous basis to assess congruity with the projections in the Part 150 Update. Glenn Strand, Minneapolis, asked who the audience is for the Technical Advisor's Report. Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, said the main audience is MASAC members. Mr. Strand said he thought there were other audiences, as well. Mr. Leqve said that was true and that it will be a challenge to make it presentable and understandable to the general public. He said that is why he is looking for the Council's input. i ,, Glenn Strand, Minneapolis, said he thought there was too much data and not enough lrnowledge (insight, undezstanding) contained in the document. He said it would be better to work at a level where knowledge and understanding could be obtained. Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, said he agreed and that the Council needs to cut through to wha� is essential and wanted. Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, said he thou�ht it would be helpful to have an executive sumrnary of the document each month in a couple of parab aphs. Jill Smith, Mendota. Heights, said she sees the project as a three-step process. The first step is to gather the available information, the second step is to better utilize the information, and the third step is to put the information into a context that has meaning. Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, suggested that the members reference the memo included in the agenda package and bring ideas for what they would' like to include in the report to the next meeting, as was previously agreed to by the Council as part of the review process. Dean Lindberg, Minneapolis, suggested hiring a graphic artist �consultant to make recommendations on how to best communicate the information the council wants to include in the report. He said he thought the council may be too close to the process and a consultant could bring a fresh perspective. Neil Clark, Minneapolis, said he would like to have a noise trend analysis included in the report. Glenn Strand, Minneapolis, suggested that a separate group be established to explore the options for the report. Chairman Mertensotto suggested that the Executive Committee take it up as a discussion item at its next meeting. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, suggested that the Council define what information is important at its November 28, 2000 meeting so that a separate group would have direction in its discussions. Joe Lee, Minneapolis, said he agreed that the Executive Committee should discuss how best to proceed. Glenn Strand, Minneapolis, said he felt it did not need to go to the Executive Commitfee and that he was willing to lead an ad hoc committee to develop suggestions for the report. Chairman Mertensotto said he had no problem with an ad hoc committee bringing recommendations to the next meeting. Input on Possible Topics and Discussion Items for the 2001 MASAC Goals and Obiectives Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, gave a presentation on five possible topics and associated efforts for the 2001 Goals and Objectives, which are consistent �vith some of the measures in the Part 150 Update and were endorsed by the Operations Committee at its October 13, 2000 meeting. Mr. Leqve noted the following: 0 Part 150 mitigation measure implementation is essential for the success of a Noise Compatibility Program. � Upon deternunation of document adequacy, the FAA has 180 days to approve or disapprove the documenf or elernents of the document. , , a It is estimated document approval could occur around January 2002. � 7 0 • Mitigation measures that can be considered prior to document approval should be considered for implementation by MASAC during the approval process time period. The five Part 150 measures that could be considered fo�-implementation prior to FAA approval � include: Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council • Ensure appropriate representation on MASAC a Investigate ways to increase membership participation on behalf of the airlines and communities to ensure a balanced perspective Operating Procedures — (NADPs) o Pursue implementation of the Distant Noise t�batement Departure Profile off Runways 30L and 30R Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System • Maximizing system capabilities � Ensure new Remote Monitoring Tower (RMT) locations are properly selected relative to future Runway 17-35 operations Future Technology and Global Positioning System (GPS) Initiatives • Fostering MASAC involvement in the development of GPS technology at MSP including briefings and updates on the Local Area Augmentation System (ZAAS) upgrade to the GPS ground station at MSP and the possible future resultant capabilities Establish a Public Information Program Incorporating State-of-the-Art Technology and Other Multimedia Resources • Continuing to pursue enhancements to the MASAC News, Internet information dissemination (� programs and possible distribution of information to public access channels � ROY FUHRIVIANN, MAC, MOVED AND WII,L EGINTON, SECONDED, TO ENDORSE THE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE RECOMI��NDATION TO ESTABLISH THE LISTED PART 150-RELATED TOPICS AND EFFORTS AS A PRIlVIARY PART OF THE 2001 MASAC GOALS AND OBJECTIVES. THE MOTION WAS APPROVED ON A VOICE VOTE. Sandra Colvin Roy, Minneapolis, suggested that an additional topic should be to establish a program and insulation standards for multi-family structures within the 65DNL contour. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said MAC staff has begun work on developing a pilot, program for multi- family housing and that a presentation would be made to the Council soon. SANDRA COLVIN ROY, MINNEAPOLIS, MOVED AND DICK SAUNDERS, MINNEAPOLIS, SECONDED, TO ADD THE FOLLOWING TOPIC TO THE MASAC 2001 GOALS A.ND OBJECTIVES: DISCUSS AND AGREE UPON A PROGRAM/Il�TSULATION STANDARDS FOR MULTI-FAMII.,Y HOUSING STRUCTURES WITHIN THE 65 DNL CONTOUR. THE MOTION WAS APPROVED ON A VOICE VOTE. Larry Lee, Bloomington, noted that the City of Bloomington had been receiving a lot of calls regarding the noise impacts of the new runway. He suggested there was a need for a good "customer service" person to take calis on this subject. (� Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, listed 14 additional topics for consideration: (see attached submitted list) 1. Finalize the insulation package for homes within the 60 to 65 DNL contour. 2. Begin discussions regarding a voluntary ab eement to limit hushkitted aircraft during the nighttime hours with the airlines. 3. Begin a study of berms 4. Begin discussion regarding a 2010 operations estimate 5. Discuss the possibility of having a rolling, one-year 65 DNL, update 6. Monitor operating levels and fleet mix compared with the Part 150 document 7. Monitor the evolution of Stage 4 aircraft an discuss MASAC's possible participation in this effort � 8. Monitor FMS/GPS technology 9. Discuss the possibiliiy of a 2-minute departure rule 10. Establish multi-family insulation standards 11. Follow the FAA Noise Policy process 12. Pursue an incentives/disincentives discussion 13. Explore the wider usage of SEL contours 14. Continue involvement with the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee and its recommendations for mitigation standards Petrona Lee, Bloomington, asked if the year 2000 goals had been met and if there tivas anything on that list that needed to be completed. Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, said, except for the Technical Advisor's report revisions and a GPS briefing, all of the topics for 2000 had been addressed either directly or through the Part 150 Update process. Re�ort of the October 13 2000 Operations Committee Meetin� Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, gave a presentation on the Operations Committee's recommendation to include a new measure in the Part 150 Update referred to as the Runway 35 River Visual Approach Procedure (RVAP). The Proceda�re o The purpose of the RVAP would be to route arriving aircraft on Runway 35 over the Minnesota River area and reduce overflights of residential areas. � The procedure would essentially involve having aircraft o'verfly the Minnesota River on a 065° heading until reaching a point at which it would turn onto its finaI approach and align itself with Runway 35 approximately 2 n.m. from the end of the runway. The 2 n.m. approach would allow for a stabilized approach and for the aircraft to use the Run�vay 35 IL,S approach for final course guidance. • The procedure described is an overview of a possible procedure. Over the course of an investigation a more refined procedure tivould have to be written by the Flight Standards District Office (FSDO). . o RVAP instructions would be given to pilots in the form of a visual approach plate, similar to instructions used for ILS approaches. • Air Traffic Control (ATC) would guide the aircraft onto the initial approach course. Factors a�zd Considerations • Since current airspace design assumes a straight-in approach to Runway 35, an airspace design study would have to be initiated by the FAA. _ __ The FSDO is responsible for ensuring the safety of the RVAP and would have responsibility for designing the procedure. Flight testing would be necessary in order to develop and refine specific procedures. Flight testing would also determine the potential for using-�he RVAP during darkness. Noise Analysis • Two scenarios were considered - a"daylight only" and an "all hours" scenario • For the daylight scenario, 75% of the daytime (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) Runway 35 arrival traffic and 11% of the nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) traffic were modeled to use the RVAP. The 11 % of nighttime traffic would on average occur during the 6:30 to 7:00 a.m. timeframe. • For the all hours scenario, 100% of the arrivals on Runway 35 were modeled using the RVAP. . • A contour map showing each scenario was displayed. o There would be no changes in the population and dwelling counts within the 60 DNL contour for the daylight only scenario. However, there would be a reduction in the number of overflights for residences beneath the straight in arrival path. o There would be a reduction of approximately 400 people, or 190 dwellings, in the city of Eagan with the all hours scenario within the 60 DNL contour when compared to the mitigated 2005 contour. • GPS/FMS technology is not required for the RVAP. It is possible that the'technology could be used in the future to augment the procedure, however aircraft without "FMS may not be able to use a GPS RVAP since many older autopilot systems cannot fly a curved approach without substantial upgrades and retrofits. - • Several factors, including airspace design, FSDO and flight testing, must be addressed before implementing such a procedure. � • Based upon existing and planned airspace design, ATC estimates that no more than 10% of Runway 35 amval traffic would be able to use the RVAP. Anything more than this would require a fairly detailed airspace redesign. �' • Coordination and the timeframe for analysis required are outside the scope of this Part 150 process. . o The RVAP measure in the Part 150 Update does not implement the procedure but requests the MAC and FAA to investigate the feasibility of the procedure. • Upon successful implementation and use of the RVAP, updated NEMs would be required to deternune the noise impact areas. Petrona Lee, Bloomington, asked what the impetus was for developing the .RVAP. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said the RVAP was essentially conceived with the idea of having the same benefits received during arrival operations as are received from the Runway 17 2.Snm departure procedure. Ms. Lee also asked if the Runway 35 RVAP would eliminate the need for straight in amvals on Runway 35. Mr. Fuhrmann said the RVAP would not eliminate the straight in arrivals on Runway 35 and that use of the RVAP would be dependent upon the origination of the aircraft. Jeff Bergom, Burnsville, asked how accurate the procedure would be. He said he was concerned about people living along the river, specifically in North River Hills. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, noted that the people in the North River Hills area of Burnsville would be about equidistant from a straight in arrival as they would be with a RVAP arrival. He said he believed aircraft flying the Runway 35 RVAP would be able to navigate the river rather easily and noted that there are procedures that can help pilots stay on course. Larry Lee, Bloomington, said he would endorse the measure but wanted to have assurances that the communities impacted by the procedure would be consulted during the investigation. Roy ( 10 Fuhrmann, MAC, said the communities impacted by the procedure would certainly be consulted. Neil Clark, Minneapolis, said he did not think the poss�ble benefits of the procedure outweighed ! the time and expense. Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, disagreed and said he thought it would make a lot of difference to the people living under the straight in arrival flight path 7. LARRY LEE, BLOOMINGTON, MOVED AND JANIIE VERBRUGGE, EAGAN, SECONDED TO INCLUDE THE RTTNWAY 35 RIVER VISUAL APPROACI3 AS A MEASURE IN THE PART 150 UPDATE. THE MOTION WAS APPROVED ON A VOICE VOTE WITH ONE DISSENTION. . Report of the October 11 2000 Communications Advisorv Board Meetin� Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, reported that the group had met on October 1 l, 2000 to discuss initial topics for the first quarter 2001 newsletter. The next meeting will be held on December 13, 2000 at 3:30 p.m. when the topics and content will be finalized. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, noted that the fourth quarter newsletter had been distributed. Pam Dymtrenko, Richfield, asked who and how many people received MASAC News. Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, said the approximately 3,900 people receiving the newsletter were culled from several sources, including people who attended the Part 150 workshops, people on current lists and from the noise complaint line. Ms. Dymtrenko asked how residents could request being placed on the mailing list. Mr. Leqve said any resident wishing to receive the newsletter can call the MASAC secretary at 726-5141 and be placed on the mailing list. Report of the MAC Commission Meeting Chairman Mertensotto reported on the October 16, 2000 MAC Commission meeting. The following items were mentioned: • MAG now has uniform leases for its Reliever Airport tenants. He noted that the leases allow for reasonable, unannounced inspections of the leaseholds and a three-strike lease termination rule. Technical Advisor's Report Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, noted that the number of complaints in Inver Grove Heights had dropped significantly. Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, also noted that of the 383 complaints from Maple Grove, 348 were filed over the Internet from one complainant. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, noted that the number of nighttime operations had dropped significantly from 2700 in 1999 to 2000 in 2000. Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, said, typically, such operational changes during the nighttime hours are a result of weather conditions. He said he would look into the anomaly. Persons Wishin� to Address the Council There were no persons wishing to address the Council. Items Not on the A�enda 11 MASAC Executive Committee Members Chairman Mertensotto asked that the council endorse his Executive Committee member recommendations: Reappointment of Jennifer Sayre-NWA, Barret Lane-Minneapolis, and Lance Staricha- � Eagan Appointment of Roy Fuhrmann, MA.C, to replace Dick Keinz, no longer with MAC or on MASAC PETRONA LEE, BLOOIVIINGTON, MOVED AND KRISTAL STOKES, RICHFIELD, SECONDED, TO APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT OF ROY FUHRMANN, MAC, AND THE REAPPOINTMENT OF JENNIFER SAYRE, NWA, BARI2lET LANE, M[IVNEAPOLIS AND LANCE STARICHA., EAGAN, TO THE MASAC EXECUTIVE CONIMITTEE. THE MOTION WAS APPROVED ON A VOICE VOTE. Chairman Mertensotto noted that the next meeting of the Executive Committee would be held on Friday, December 15, 2000 at 9:00 a.m. Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, said he was concerned about the fact that there were no airline industry representatives at the meeting and wanted to know if their absence was calculated or coincidence. He said he thought if the airline industry representatives were going to a part of the Executive and Operations Committees they should be required to attend the full Council meetings, as well. Chairman Mertensotto noted that the airline industry representarives' absence does not prevent the body from conducting business. He also noted that many of the airline industry representatives are station managers and have a difficult time attending the � meetings. However they do receive the agenda packages and should be aware of the decisions being made without them. Chairman Mertensotto said, however, that he was surprised that , there were no representatives from Northwest Airlines at the meeting. ��, Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, asked if a quorum was required to conduct business and what that number is. Chairman Mertensotto said the bylaws state that a quorum constitutes 7 user and 7 community representatives. Jill Smith, Mendota Heights, said she was concerned about the Council's ability to conduct business without a quorum. Chairman Mertensotto said, unless someone objects, it is business as usual. Petrona Lee, Bloomington, said she agreed that business should continue with or without the airline industry representatives, however it would be better to have them present. Mr. Verbrugge also asked if it would be possible for MAC to fund trips for the MA.SAC Chair and possibly the Operations Chair to attend an annual noise conference. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said it has been the practice of MASAC to offer the Chair to attend the conference, however the option was not exercised in 2000. Mike Cramer, Minneapolis, asked how soon the Chairman would be replacing the Operations Committee Chair. Chairman Mertensotto said it was under consideration at this time and did not lrnow when an appointment would be made. He said he hoped to have a new Operations Chair in place by January 2001. 12. Adj ournment Chairman Mertensotto adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m. 12 Respectfully submitted. Melissa Scovronski, MASAC Secretary 13 From: "Dick Saunders" <dsndrs@gateway.net> To: "Chad Leqve" <cleqve@macavsat.org>, "Roy Fuhrmann" <rfuhrmann@macavsat.org>, Cc: "Mike Cramer" <MCramer@aol.cam>, "Leo Kurtz" <lckurtz@usjet.net>, ��Joe Lee" Subject: 2001 MASAC Agenda Topics Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 14:53:16 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 � X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Dear Gentlemen: The Minneapolis delegation herewith submits a list of suggested topics for discussion or study during 2001 at MASAC (not prioritized): 1) The final 60 DNL home insulation package (if not resolved by MAC by 12/31/00); 2) Periodic updates on the progress at Stage 4 standards development, including a possible public forum with important national speakers; 3) Periodic updates on the evolution of GPS/EMS, and adoption schedules by MSP aircraft; � � 4) A report on the outcome of F.AA's appeal for public response to its noise management policies; 5) A report on the GAO study of FAA's noise policies due out in April 2001 as part of the 2000 FAA funding bill; 6) A study of the applicability and costs of berms to minimize ground noise around MSP; 7) Explore the adoption of the SEL metric at MSP where possible; 8) Begin discussions of voluntary night-time schedule modifications; 9) Continue discussions toward accelerated phaseout of hushkits; 10) Continue discussions of incentives/disincentives; ' 11) Establish construction standards for multi-family dwellings in 65 DNL�, 12) Explore construction standards for homes and apartments in 78 and 70 LFSL contours; 13) Develop methodology for rolling one-year 65 and 60 DNL contour changes vs. 2000 base; 14) Report once a year on fleet mix changes vs. 2005 forecast; 15) Create a metric that expresses total cumulative noise energy at MSP monthly vs. same month a year earlier; 16) Create other at-a-glance graphics for the TAR. through the task group; 17) Explore a two-minute departure separation rule during peak hours; 18) Hold briefing on role of relievers vs. MSP and projected impacts on 2005/2010 fleet mix; 19) Explore role of MASAC in any future US- or state-led health studies; Thank you for the apportunity to share ideas for the 2001 agenda. Please call if any questions (612/861-1061). Dick Saunders Convenor Minneapolis MASAC Delegation lJ�� .�� . .1.� . _ . I�� E 4, 2000 S.A.0 PE 'TIOl�S _. _ _ . .. . - , CO {. , TTEE : ET'�C�S . ,; . _ - :, r , i, - � � - ,� - _ _ . - , . � � ;; , - � . ,. . , � ., _ , _ , . : . . .: .. . -. x 1 1 - ' " , _ j � ' ' .:. -. :'.. . .�, . �. �. . . : ' ' �- � .._, .-. ... .,..�. . .. .: i. . �.. ': . �� .. . , . �. . , �. .. f , � . . . . . � . . . , . . . . � . . �I' . �. ' � . � . . . � .. _ ; . , ,. . , , . . .. . . .� ,... : ;.. . . _ .. ;. .,. _ � . , - . . t - . , . ,•, ., , . - , - - ,; - I _ , } � �' ;. ,-.' . • . , '.._' ..,..-'. .:..: ....:. ...:�_ ...-'. _ . ... .. .. ',.. ,. . :.., _ ��'. _ ' _ l 3; _ f ' .:, ',' . � , ' -^, _ ;y �:;. `. � '�: .:.: -..-_ ,.... ' ' �-.. .� �'�. ... : . .. -. .'.� . . ... . . - . . .. - .. .� . . .. _ . _ . , _ . , � . . . , f� .. . . . . . _.. , ... , . .. . . . . . , _ .. . . . ... ... �. \ ' � A:�PROVED IVI I N U T E S , i MASAC OPERATIONS COI�IlVVIIITTEE C)ctober 13, 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 Mertensotto called the meeting to order and the roll was taken. The following members were in attendance: . Members� Charles Mertensotto, Chair Petrona Lee Dick Saunders Bob 7ohnson Jamie Verbrugge Roy Fuhrmann Advisorv Chad Leqve Mark Ryan Mark Kill Shane VanderVoort Joe Harris Kent Duffey Glen Orcutt Visitors • Will Eginton Andy Pederson Jan DelCalzo Patrick Hollister Paul Teske Mendota Heights Bloomington (alternate) Minneapolis MBAA Eagan MAC MAC MAC MAC MAC MAC IINTB FAA Inver Grove Heights Apple Valley City of Minneapolis Mendota Heights Resident of Eagan � � ;�: . Approval of Minutes The minutes of the September 22, 2000 meeting were approved as distributed. Runway 35 River Visual Approach Procedure Kent Duffy, HNTB, briefed the members on what an investigation of implementing a River Visual 1 Approach Procedure (RVAP) (measure 7E of the draft Part 150) for runway 35 involved. He noted the following: _ , �� The Procedure • The purpose of the RVAP would be to route arriving aircraft on Runway 35 over the Minnesota River area and reduce overflights of residential areas. • The procedure would essentially involve having aircraft overfly the Minnesota River on a O65° heading until it reached a point at which it would turn onto its final approach and align itself with Runway 35 approximately 2 n.m. from the end of the runway. The 2 n.m. approach would allow for a stabilized approach and for the aircraft to use the Runway 35 ILS approach for final course guidance. Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, asked how much time a 2 n.m. approach would give pilots to decide whether or not to land. Kent Duffy, HNTB, said pilots would have approximately one to one-and-a-half minutes on a 2 n.m. approach. • Mr. Duffy said the procedure described is an overview of a possible procedure. He said that over the course of the investigation a more refined procedure would have to be written by the Flight Standards District Office (FSDO). s RVAP instructions would be given to pilots in the form of a visual approach plate, similar to instructions used for IL,S approaches. The difference between an ILS and visual approach plate is that with an IL,S approach plate a pilot uses navigation aids and with a visual approach the pilot uses his/her sight. � e Air Traffic Control (ATC) would guide the aircraft onto the initial approach course. • The decision to use a visual approach is ultimately made by the pilot, however, it is initiated by the controller. � * Factors and Considerations s Since current airspace design assumes a straight-in approach to Runway 35, an airspace design study would have to be initiated by the FAA. • The FSDO is responsible for ensuring the safety of the RVAP and would have responsibility for designing the procedure. • Flight testing would be necessary in order to develop and refine specific procedures. Flight testing would also determine the potential for using the RVAP during darlrness. Noise Analyszs o Two scenarios were considered - a"daylight only" and an "all hours" scenario • For the daylight scenario, 75% of the daytime-(7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) Runway 35 arrival traffic and l 1% of the nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) traffic were modeled to use the RVAP. The 11 % of nighttime traffic would on average occur during the 6:30 to 7:00 a.m. timeframe. s For the all hours scenario, 100% of the arrivals on Runway 35 were modeled using the RVAP. • All aircraft slated to land on Runway 35 would be capable of performing the procedure. • A contour map showing each scenario was displayed. Bob Johnson, MBAA, asked if a RVAP would be feasible during the hours of darlmess since the aircraft would be flying over a largely unlighted expanse. .Mr. Duffy said that this is one of the questions 2 that has not been answered as of yet. � Glen Orcutt, FAA, asked if straight-in and RVAP approach modes would be mixed or if only one approach mode would be used at a time. Kent Duffy, �INTB, said the modes would most likely not be mixed. He said ATC would most likely prefer to use one or the other at a time. Mr. Duffy also cautioned that there are many questions still to answer regarding if, how often and when the RVAP could be used. There would be no changes in the population and dwelling counts within the 60 DNL contour for the daylight only scenario. However, there would be a reduction in the number of overflights for residences beneath the straight.in arrival path. There would be a reduction of approximately 400 people, or 190 dwellings, in the city of Eagan with the all hours scenario within the 60 DNL contour when compared to the mitigated 2005 contour. GPS/FMS technology is not required for the RVAP. It is possible that the technology could be used in the future to augment the procedure, however aircraft without FMS may not be able to use a GPS RVAP since many older autopilot systems cannot fly a curved approach without substantial upgrades and retrofits. Petrona Lee, Bloomington, asked how well pilots would be able to stay over the river using a visual procedure. Kent Duffy, HN'I'B, said there is a high probability, in theory, that the aircraft would be able to stay over the river. � • Several factors, including airspace design, FSDO and flight testing; must be addressed before implementing such a procedure. • Based upon existing and planned airspace design, ATC estimates that no more than 10% of Runway 35 arrival traffic would be able to use the RVAP. Anything more than this would require a fairly detailed airspace redesign, o Coordination and the timeframe for analysis required are outside the scope of this Part 150 process. However, an analysis could be completed by the year 2003 when the runway opens. • The RVAP measure in the Part 150 Update does not implement the procedure but requests the MAC and FAA to investigate the feasibility of the procedure. • If the RVAP is determined to be feasible, MAC will coordinate with the FAA to implement it. • Upon successful implementation and use of the RVAl', updated NEMs would be required to determine the noise impact areas. Recornmendation Because the RVAP has the potential to substantially reduce arrival overflights of residential areas, the recommendation is that measure 7E (River Visual Approach Procedure) be included as part of the proposed Part 150 Update noise compatibility program. Chairman Mertensotto asked if any environrnental studies would be necessary. Kent Duffy, �INTB, said if there is a need for environmental work it would most likely be an environmental screen. Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, noted that 10% of the daily amvals on runway 35 equates to about 13 flights per day. Mr. Eginton also asked if the aircraft would need to apply power at the turn point onto final approach. Kent Duffy, I�1TB, said it would not be necessary. 3 � _ Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked if the Black Dog power st�.ck could be used as a visual reference point. Kent Duffy, I�I'TB, said the stack is probably too low to be of much use and that it would not (� pose any obstruction problems, as well. Petrona Lee, Bloomington, asked when the measure would become part of the Part 150 noise compatibility program if it is deemed feasible. Kent Duffy, HNTB, said that once all parties involved are satisfied with the procedure, it would become an implementable noise mitigation measure outlined as part of the NCP. Jan DelCalzo, City of Minneapolis, asked if the procedure would have an impact on the airport's capacity. Kent Duffy, HNTB, said it would not have an impact on capacity at the airport. Chairman Mertensotto noted that the RVAP is essentially the reverse of the 2.5 NM departure procedure for runway 17 and said the procedure would offer relief from repetitive overflights for residents directly below the approach path. Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, asked if Mr. Duffy could estimate the decibel reduction benefit for a single event for the areas directly below the straight-in arrival path. Mr. Duffy said:.he could not answer that question without further, in depth analysis. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, noted that 100% usage is not feasible and therefore the green contour line associated with the all hours scenario would not be feasible. � Andy Pederson, Apple Valley, said he strongly supported inclusion of the measure because it has the potential to reduce repetitive overflights over the city of Apple Valley. �, . Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, confirmed that the 10% estimation is based on. the current planned airspace design. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said a large factor as to whether or not the RVAP can be used is where the aircraft are coming from. Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, asked if it would be possible to route arrival traffic from other runways onto this visual river approach procedure. Kent Duffy, F�1TB, said it was not likely that arrival aircraft bound for other runways would be rerouted to runway 35 due to wind and weather lirnitations. JAMIE VERBRUGGE, EAGAN, MOVED AND PETRONA LEE, BLOONIINGTON, SECONDED, TO RECOMI��ND TO THE FULL MASAC BODY THAT THE INVESTIGATION OF TFIE FEASABILITY OF IlVIPLEMENTING A RIVER VISUAL APPROACI� PROCEDURE BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE PART 150 UPDATE NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM. THE MOTION WAS APPROVED ON A VOICE VOTE. Evaluation of Part 150 Mitigation Recommendations for Impleznentaiion Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, briefed the members on the Part 150 Update measures that do not need FAA approval for implementation and suggested five measures that could be considered as part of the MA.SAC 2001 Goals and Objectives. � 4 Mr. Leqve reviewed the noise abatement and land use measures contained in the Part 150 Update and the schedule for complerion and submission of the Part 150 Upda�te to the FAA. The five measures contained in the Part 150 Update that could be implemented before the projected January 2002 approval from the FAA are: 1. Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MA.SAC) - NA-1 - MASAC should continue to be the official vehicle for addressing airport noise at MSP. Its objectives are to study and evaluate noise complaints, implement effective noise abatement measures, and provide public education in current noise abatement policies and possible future programs. o MASAC could focus efforts on making sure there is appropriate representation on the Council possibly adding members from communities that will be newly impacted by noise with the introduction of runway 17/35. MASAC could also focus efforts on ways to increase participation on behalf of the airlines and cornrnunities to ensure a balanced perspective. 2. Operating Procedures (Noise Abatement Departure Profiles (NADP) - NA-7 - This measure designates the Distant NADP for use on all Runways at MSP. The measure formalizes the existing use of the Distant NADP on Runways 12L, 12R, and 04-22, formalizes the use of the Distant NADP on Runway 17-35, and changes the NADP on Runways 30L and 30R from the Close-In NADP to the Distant NADP. (The airport operator has the authority to choose, at any time, which NADP should be used off each runway end.) • MASAC could pursue implementation of the Distant Noise Abatement Departure Profile off Runways 30L and 30R in 2001. Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System (ANOMS) - NA-9 -Designed to provide MAC officials with accurate runway use counts specific to aircraft type, aircraft flight path information, and 24-hour noise monitoring data at selected sites within residential communities.. The FAA has agreed to provide the MAC with computer-processed Automated Radar Tertninal Systems (ARTS IIIA) data from Minneapolis TRACON. In addition to providing reliable airport operations data, ANOMS archives data for future airport decisions, validates complaint information, tracks effects of RUS operations, tracks effects of air traffic routing procedures, and valida;tes computer-generated noise models. � MASAC could focus on maximizing the system capabilities o MA.SAC could begin the process for deternuning the appropriate locations for the runway 17-35 RMTs. 4. Future Technology and Global Positioning System Initiatives - NA-16-MAC will continue to actively investigate the use of future technologies, including GPS, for noise mitigation purposes. As future technology noise abatement measures are identified, MAC will coordinate with the FAA and other agencies to implement the procedures at MSP. 0 • MASAC could focus on fostering MASAC involvement in the development of GPS technology at MSP including briefings and updates on the LocaLArea Augmentation System (LAAS) upgrade to the GPS ground station at MSP and the possible future resultant capabilifiies. (� Continue Public Information Program/System - LU-4 -This measure proposes to develop and distribute infornnation concerning aircraft noise and NCP elements, utilizing state-of-the-art information technology and other multimedia opporluniries to their fullest. MASAC could continue to pursue enhancements to the MASAC News newsletter and the Internet information dissemination programs and the possible distribution of information to public access channels. Staff Recommendation The MASAC Operations Committee forward the five mentioned Part 150-related efforts to MASAC for consideration as part of the 2001 MASAC Goals and Objectives review process. Discussion Glen Orcutt, FAA, explained the Part 150 Update approval process and schedule. He said throughout the process the FAA and the airport operator are in communication regarding possible inadequacies, etc. that may need to be addressed. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked if there was an appeals process for the sponsor if it disagrees with any of the FAA's rulings. Mr. Orcutt said the FAA attempts to address those concerns during the process and emphasized that there is an ongoing interchange of information throughout the process and that it is a cooperative effort. Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, asked if the Remote Monitoring Towers (RMTs) for runway 17-35 were funded with Part 150 monies. Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, said the RMTs have not, in the past, been paid for through Part 150 monies (PFCs), but that PFCs could be used once the FAA approves the document. However, the process of detemiining the locations for the RMTs will take approximately one year. It is anticipated that by the time the RMTs are ready to be installed, FAA approval or disapproval would have been made. Petrona Lee, Bloomington, asked about the Part 150 noise abatement measure number 5 regarding the eng-ine run up field rule. She asked what the indicated change in the field rule was. Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, said the field rule was updated in 1999 to reflect the new nighttime hours of 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. (previously 11 p.m. to 6 a.m.). He said the measure ensures that there is consistency between the Part 150 Update and the existing policy. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked if the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee (LFNPC) had considered changes in operational procedures to mitigate low frequency noise. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said operational procedures have not been analyzed by the LFNPC to mitigate low frequency noise. J IV� VERBRUGGE, EAGAN, MOVED AND ROY FUHRIVIANN, MAC, SECONDED TO RECOMIVLEND TO THE FULL MASAC THAT THE FIVE MEASURES DISCUSSED ABOVE BE INCLUDED AS PART OF MA.SAC'S 2001 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES. THE MOTION WAS APPROVED ON A VOICE VOTE. L•'� Items Not on the Agenda Chairman Mertensotto announced the following: s A tentative date has been set for the next Executive Cornmittee meeting. The date is Friday, December 15, 2000. o He is considering increasing the number of inembers on the Operations Committee to 10 and that the City of Inver Grove Heights has requested that Will Eginton be appointed to the Committee. The item will be discussed at the next Executive Committee meeting. • He will be appointing a new member to the Executive Committee to replace Dick Keinz. • There will be an election of o�cers (Chairman, First Vice Chair and Second Vice Chair) in January 2001 and nominations will be taken at the November 28, 2000 MASAC meeting. • The Executive Committee will be considering the possible addition of Apple Valley as a MASAC member with his recommendation that Northwest Airlines be given an additional member to keep the membership equal. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, said he is interested in the interrelationship between MSP and the Reliever airports. He said he plans to suggest at the October 24, 2000 MASAC meeting that MASAC include a briefmg on the lon;-term planning for the Reliever airports as part of its 2001 schednle. ( ) The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 a.m. The next Operations Committee meeting will be held on Thursday, Noveznber 9, 2000 at 9:00 a.m. in the Large Construction Trailer of the Metropolitan Airports Cominission. Respectfully Submitted, Melissa Scovronski, Comrnittee Secretary ' � 7 . � , . �, ,�, � , , �, •, ;� ��,� � � . ��. � ill The meeting was held in the Large Construction Trailer of the Metropolitan Airports Commission and called to order at 9:00 a.m. Bob Johnson, MBA.A, called the meeting to order in the absence of the Chair and the roll was taken. (Chairman Mertensotto arrived after the approval of the minutes.) The following members were in attendance: Members• Charles Mertensotto, Chair Petrona Lee Dick Saunders Bob Johnson Jamie Verbrugge Roy Fuhrmann Advisorv• Chad Leqve Mark Ryan � � Mark Kill Shane VanderVoort Joe I�ams Glen Orcutt Visitors• Andy Pederson Jan DelCalzo Will Eginton Kent Duffy Kim Hughes Patrick Hollister Mendota Heights Bloomington (alternate) Minneapolis MT3AA Eagan MAC MA.0 MAC MAC MAC MAC FAA Apple Valley City of Minneapolis Inver Grove Heights �INTB HNTB � Mendota Heights �l�:�i►`i 17�\ Approval of Minutes The minutes of the October 13, 2000 meeting were approved as distributed with the following corrections: Page 2: Fourth bullet point on this page reads, "RVAP instructions would be given...that with an ILS �1-approach plate a pilot uses navigation...." _ �, Sixth bullet point on this page reads, "The decision to use a visual approach is made by the pilot, however, it is initiated by the controller. " Italicized portion added. Preliminary Report of MSP Part I50 Update Public Workshops/Hearings Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, reported on the November 8, 2000 Part 150 Update public workshop and hearing. He noted that the workshop was held from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. and the public hearing lasted from 7:00 to 9:15 p.m. Approximately 275-300 people attended the hearing/workshop, rnany of who attended previous meetings. The same format was planned for the evening of November 9, 2000. Elected representatives from the city of Minneapolis spoke and were generally supportive of the measures being proposed. � Chairman Mertensotto said he thought the negative comments made about the airport �at the hearing would help with the approval of the 60 DNL contour for mitigation. Review of tlae FAA Part I SO Update Document Approval Process - Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, noted that once the document is completed, including the �comments and responses to the document, it will go before the MAC Commission for approval and theri on to the FAA. Glen Orcutt, FAA, outlined the Part 150 Update document approval process. Mr. Orcutt distributed a two page document entitled Federal Aviation Administration - FAR; Part ISO, Airport Noise Con:patibility Progrmn, which covered the FA.A's Part 150 Standards of Review and Procedures for Review and Approval of Part 150 Studies. �Ie noted that the document outlined some of the criteria the FA.A uses when evaluating measures. Mr. Orcutt also noted that the local District Office has more � oversight than what is referred to in the distributed handout. Mr. Orcutt went on to explain that the first objective for the FA.A is to determine whether or not the document meets the requirements of a Part 150, particularly the Noise Exposure Maps (NEM). Once adequacy is deternuned, a notice is placed in the Federal Register announcing that the NEMs have been accepted and that the FAA is taking comments on the document. Mr. Orcutt said he expects to receive a larger than usual number of comments to MSP's Part 150 Update, particularly regarding the Low Frequency Noise and 60 DNL issues. The FAA has 180 days to review the document beginning with a regional review. This is the time when problem areas are identified and hopefully resolved. A Record of Approval is also started at this time, which keeps an ongoing record of the FAA's approval process. When it reaches FAA Headquarters level, the review becomes more about policy and legal issues, rather than the details. Mr. Orcutt noted that the FAA has committed to Rep. Martin Sabo that the low frequency noise measure will receive an expeditious review. Therefore, the FAA will be putting together a team to specifically review the measure. He said it is possible that the measure would be defened from the rest of the NCP so as not to hold up the approval process for the remainder of the document. Mr. Orcutt also noted that the FAA considers MSP unique and understands that the Update will be 2 breaking new ground. He said he expects there to be a lot of communication exchange between the FAA and the airport community. _ Once a final decision has been made, a Record of Approval is issued. Once the Record of Approval is published in the Federal Register, the Final Part 150 Update is considered approved and the airport is free to proceed with its program. Discussion Chairman Mertensotto said he feels the Low Frequency Noise measure should be funded separately from the Sound Insulation Program. Glen Orcutt, FAA, noted that sometimes eligibility issues can be dealt with after approval is obtained. Mr. Orcutt noted that the Cleveland Airport has received approval for its 60 DNL contour. However, it will be a number of years before the airport can complete sound insulation within the 65 DNL contour. He said eligibility issues for the 60DNL contour, in this case, have not been worked out, but will be dealt with through a separate process. Chairman Mertensotto noted that there has been discussion and an attempt to obtain funds for the low frequency noise mitigation with Tax Increment Financing ('TIF') funds. He said the legislature was reluctant to fund mitigation with TIF' monies. He said it would be better to give the MAC authority to issue the bonding rather than individual municipalities. He said it would be more efficient to keep.Part 150 monies separate from the low frequency noise mitigation. Glen Orcutt, FAA., said the MAC and the State could make that decision, but said he thought it could be possible that the FAA would reimburse the cost of the Low Frequency Noise mitigation if it ultimately deems those areas eligible. ( ) Petrona Lee, Bloomington, asked Mr.. Orcutt to discuss the possible outcomes of the approval process. -- Mr. Orcutt explained that each of the noise abatement and land use measures are subject to approval or disapproval. I3e said it is also possible for the FAA to disapprove a measure for lack of information, but then approve the measure once the information is provided. Ms. Lee asked if triere were time constraints placed on the document sponsor when additional information is requested. Mr. Orcntt said there are no deadlines imposed when additional information is requested for approval. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked when the topic of low frequency noise mitigation funding would be discussed and decided upon. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, noted that the funding issue for low frequency noise mitigation has not been fully taken up, but said he believes it will be taken up sometime during the Part 150 Update approval process. Mr. Fuhrmann said the Commission would be briefed on the Part 150 Update in the month of November and then taken before the Cornmission for approval in December. He said it is the staffs intention to submit the document to the FAA in 2000 but that Commission approval is needed first. Dick Saunders, MinneapoIis, asked how the Commission views its responsibiliiy toward the City of Richfield in obtaining funding. for low frequency noise mitigation. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said he could not speak for the Cominission. Glen Orcutt, FAA, clarified that measures that include proposed changes to air traffic procedures are not subject to the 180 day review timeframe. 3 Chairman Mertensotto made some comments about the public hearings, including that there were questions about the number of operations expected in 2005 and the validity of the contours. He said ( there was also a request for an additional noise monitor. Chairman Mertensotto said the submission and approval timelines are crucial to the noise mitigation program continuing. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said over the next several weeks the consultants will be taldng the comments received through the public comment period and writing responses to them for inclusion in the fmal document. He said he expects that many of the comments will be similar to each other and would be able to be answered in groupings by topic. . Glen Orcutt, FAA., noted that a compact disk is an acceptable medium for a Part 150 document. Discussion of the Draft 2001 �IASAC Goals and Objectives Calendar Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, reviewed the Part 150-related topics and associated activities that were approved at the October 24, 2000 MASAC meeting for inclusion in the 2001 MASAC Goals and Objectives. He also noted that an additional goal, outlining the consideration .of insulation standards/program for multi-family structures, was approved at the meeti.ng. -�.. Mr. Leqve said the City of Minneapolis has also submitted 19 suggested topics for the Goals and �- Objectives calendar, nine of which have been incorporated into the draft calendar. Mr. Leqve then proceeded to note where on the Draft 2001 MASAC Goals and Objectives calendar those 9 topics were located. Mr. Leqve also noted that the draft calendar had been included in the agenda package. Discussion Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, brought up the topic of the Technical Advisor's Report revision and said he thought forn�ing a small working group to work with the staff on the report was a good idea. He noted, for example, that the Communications Advisory Committee has worked well. Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, said it was important to receive comments from the full MASAC body as to what elements of the Technical Advisor's Report are important. I-ie said once that information is gathered, it would be a good idea to from a working group. Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, said his Inver Grove Heights airport group feels the calendar is laden with information gathering and educational opportunities but lacks topics or rneasures that would abate noise. He said MASAC needs to concentrate on ways to abate noise, rather than talldng about it, regardless of their popularity or cost. Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, noted that there were some noise abatement measures that were incorporated into the draft calendar, such as the change to the Distant Noise Abatement Departure Profile off runways30L and 30R. He also noted that the Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) included as part of the Part 150 Update would be the road map for MASAC over the next several years, however approval of that document is not expected early within 2001. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, noted that some of the items on the calendar were topics from the 2000 Goals and Objectives calendar. Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, said he would like, then, to establish 2001 as a year for preparing for 4 technical report has been produced that includes a point by point discussion of the differences between the Andy Harris and majority conclusions. _ Chairman Mertensotto said someone could read the report and then report back to MASAC rather than distributing it to everyone on the Council. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, noted that both the Harris and majority conclusions were incorporated into the final report. He also offered to have staff brief the Comrnittee on the new addendum. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m. The next Operations Committee meeting will be held on Friday, December 8, 2000 at 9:00 a.m. in the Large Construction Trailer of the Metropolitan Airports Commission. . Respectfully Submitted, Melissa Scovronski, Committee Secretary 7 , , ;� i; ; �• , �; ; �, , � . �. ;� ' ' , PLEASE COMPLETE THIS FORM AS ACCU]EtA�.TELY AND THOROUGHLY AS POSSIBLE AND ATTACH ANY LETTERS OR FORIVIAL RESOLUTIONS. (� ) IDate: Name: Address: Phone: Is this a one-time request? Yes or No Un whose behalf are yon requesting?: Yourself City Council Mayor Citizen Organization Other Beginning Ending If no, what is the expected time frame for this request? to Which of the following best describes the nature of yaur request: (Circle all that apply) Ground Noise Overflights Run-Ups Contours ]Part 150 Other PLEASE WRITE OUT YOUR REQUEST HEI2E �ND/OR ATTACH ANY LETTERS OR FORMAL 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. ' 1 ` • • : � � ,' � 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 ❑ Mayor ❑ Citizen ❑ Name: Organization � Name: Other � Name: Circle the desired publication date: 2°d Qrt. 2000 3rd Qrt. 2000 4th Qrt. 2000 15` Qrt. 2001 Reason for request: Please provide a description of the article's focus and content: Please send your request via mail to: MASAC 5ecretary, 6U4U ZtSth Avenue �., Minneapolis, MN 55450 or fax it to: (612) 725-6310. �-� _� �� • 1 Ir fl:� e � ° _ � � . �� -•�_,�� . �� ,---��t�.a. - _ -. .. .� - --_ �--' — _� .. '�,�. - �� ,�„ _�,� _. _ � �� e- :. � �� . � � � ,, `• �+ � �� = Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council • � �,� �� • � ,'/'' � � ��' � I � C. C � � MASAC Members cho�,mo,,: Charles Mertensotto (Mendota Heights) Firsr Vice Charrncan: John Nelson (Bloomington) MASAC Operations Comminee Chairmun and Second Vice Chairman: John Nelson (Bloomington) Airbnme Express: Brian Bates ALPA: Ron Johnson City of Blonmingfon: Petrona Lee Vem Wilcmc CiN of Burnsvi(!e: Charles Van Guilder City nf Eagan: Jamie Verbrugge Iance Staricha Cirv nf Inver Grove Heighrs: C6arles Eginton Citv of Mendom Heights: Jill Smith Kevin Batchelder City of Minneapolis: Barret Lane Dean Lindberg Jce Lee Glenn Strand Sandta Colvin Roy Mike Cramer Cirv ojRichfield Kristal Stokes va.� we;�� , crrv ofsr. tou,s PQ� xo��c nna,�� City of St. Pau(: ,io� x� Ciry ofSunfirh Lake: Cynfhia Putz-Yang Delta Airlines lnc.: Larry Goehring DHL Ainvays: Brisn Simonson Federal Express: Jo6n 5chussier Ma c srag.• Roy Fu6tmann MBAA: Robert P.Johnson Mesaba Narthwesr Airlink: Phil Burke Northwest Airlines: Jennifer Sayre Mary Loeffelholz Steve Hotme Nancy Stoudt Sr. Paul Chamber of Commerce: Rolf Middleton Sun Caunrrv Airlines: Gordon Graves United Airl ines lnc.: Kevin Black United Parcef Service: Michael Geyer U.S. Airways Inc.: Larry Yandle MASAC Advisors Metropnlimn Airpons Commissian: C6ad Leqve Metrnpnlitan Airports Commissir�n: Commissioner Alton Gasper Federal A viativn Adminisrratinn: Ron Glaub Cindy Gteene Air Transparratinn Associarinn: Paul McGraw MN Air Natia�al Guard: Major Roy J. Shetka U.S. Air Fnrce Reseme: Captain David J• Gcrken Secretarv: Melissa Scovronsio Metropolitan Airports Commission Declaration of Purpose l.) Promote public welfare and national security; serve public interest, convenience, and necessity; promote air navigation and transportation, international, national, state, and local, in and through this state; promote the efficient, safe, and economical handling of air commerce; assure the inclusion of this state in national and international programs of air transportation; and to those ends to develop the fuil potentialities of the metropolitan area in this state as an aviation center, and to correlate that area with all aviation facilities in the entire state so as to provide for the most economical and effective use of aeronautic facilities and services in that area; 2.) Assure the residents of the metropolitan area of the minimum environmental impact from air navigation and transportation, and to that end provide for noise abatement, control of airport area land use, and other protective measures; and 3.) Promote the overall goals of the state's environmental policies and minimize the public's exposure to noise and safety hazards around airports. Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council Statement of Purpose This corporation was formed in furtherance of the general welfaze 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 �lircraft Sound Abatement Council Representation The membership shall include representatives appointed by agencies, corporations, associations and governmental bodies which by reason of their statutory authority and responsibility or control over the airport, or by reason of their status as airport users, have a direct interest in the operation of the airport. Such members will be called User Representatives and Public Representatives, provided that the User Representatives and Public Representatives shall at all times be equal in number. This report is prepared and printed in house by Chad Leqve, ANOMS Coordinator and Shane VanderVoort, ANOMS Specialist questions ar comments may be direcCed ro: MAC Aviation Noise and 3atellite Programs Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport ' 6040 28�' Avenue South Minneapolis MN, 55450 Tel: (612) 725-6328, Fax: (612) 725-6310 MAC Environment Department Home Page: www.macavsat.org The Airpor[ 24-hour Noise Hodine is 726-9411. Complaints ro the hodine do not resuit in changes in airport activiry, but provide a public sounding board and aiiport information outlet. The hotline is staffed during business hours, Monday — Fridoy. �. C � Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report .� ' • • ` � '�' t•'' �'�� Complaint Summary Noise Complaint Map FAA Available Time for Runway Usage 3 MSP A11 Operations Runway Usage MSP Carrier Jet Operations Runway Usage 0 MSP Carrier Jet Fleet Composition 6 MSP All Operations Nighttime Runway Usage MSP Carrier Jet Operations Nighttime Runway Usage � 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 Rernote Monitoring Tower Site Locations Map 15 Carrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events 16 Carrier Jet Departure Related Noi�e Events l� MSP Top Ten Aircraft Noise Events per RMT, 18-27 Analysis of Daily and Monthly Aircraft Noise Events Ai.rcraft Ldn dBA 28-29 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program (� w Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report �• , � , � � � '/ ; ,�' i 1 ' ''� �. �' Numt�er of Numbe r of �o of Total Cit3 Arrival Departiue Complaints Complainants C��mplaints Apple Valley p � , 0 3 � 0 3 2 � � 0?% Bloomington i k"' 0 9 i � 10 7 C � 0.790 Burnsville p �_:-- :': 0 i I 0 1 1 � � 0.1% Eagan 4 `: ': 57 I2 I 437 510 10 � 4 36.2�/n Eden Prairie p I.:. 0 0 j 2. _. 2 p � 1 0.1�7c Edina p �° 0 1 I 4 5 1 j 1 0.4�/e Inver G'ove I , Heights 2 � 0 51 0 53 14 � 0 3.8�10 r.�� i � o o � 0 1 2 �: o o.i% Maple Grove lg � ;.0; ., 14 � 33 6� 2 �' 1 4.6% Mendoca Heights p E 0.: .: ; 16 � 1 17 12 I. 1 1.2�10 Minneapolis Sp �::367: 109 � 1� 632 73 � 26 41.9�I� Minnetonka 2 . 0 ' 0 � 0 2 2 ( � 0.1 �lo Plyrmuth 2 � 11 ,, 0 � 0 13 2 (, 1 0.9�Io Richfield p 0, .,,. 4 I :,::0 4 5 `� . 0.3�0 South 5[. Paul p � 0':�. :; 1 ( ':0 : 1 1 `� 0.1% St. Louis Park 4( � 0. 4 I °'0 50 4 `� 3.6% S[. Paul 24 � 2; 7 ( 0: 33 24 `.. l 2.3% SunFish Lake p � 0:.' 1 � 0'' 1 1 I p 0.1% West St. Paul i I 0:, 4 I 0 $ 2 ( �' 0.3�/0 � 1�08 ,2(�1 100.O�1a . Total ,; 588 " 8�0 Nature of M5P Complaints Tin�e of Day� � Complaints by Airport Nature 'of - , Complaint To#al �"ime I Total Airp�rt Tatal ExcessiveNoise 299 f 809 . C000-05�9i 32 26 MSP j 1414 Early/I.ate 6j ` 38 0600 - 0659 � 17 �9 Airlake � 0 Low Flying 4 (,':52 0700- 11�9 j 101 165 Anola � 3 Structural Dist. 1 �' 11 1200- 1559 i �2 91 Gystal � 0 Helicopter p �, � 160p- 19�9 � 66 248 Fiying Cloudi 3 C�ound Nois e ( I 0 2000 - 2159 ; 75 �3 La�:e Elm4 i 0 Fngine Run-up ( p I. 0 22pQ - 2259 ; 41 1� St. Paul 1 Frequency i9 I 109 � Other 0 � 1 ?.300 -2359 ; 10 33 Misc. j 0 'i'otai 141� Total 1� 14 Tota] I 1421 Note: Shaded Columns represent MSP complaints filed via the Internet A Prociuct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program C( �' Metro htan Aircrafr Sound Abatement Council (N(ASAC) Technical Advisors Report �'' O tn o ►� �° . �.' �n° O Cy •� � O N � � �.:: te1 � �O �r � � � � N � / �'� o � I I�� 2 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Progr�n � Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Rep�rt . - Available 'I'ime for Rur��vay Use October 2000 (FAA Runway Use Logs) October 2()UO F�-1 Airport 1'raf�ic Record Counts � (19y9 Dailv Counts 2000 Uailv Counts` ' Air Carrier � 745 I 809 Commuter � 334 ; 360 General Aviation I 401 � 366 Militarv 11 11 / ; Total 1491 j 1546 �, A Prc�uct of the Meuopolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 3 ` Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report All Operations � , • '� • ;� � �� • 1 1:i� Ari��vaU , , ; . RWY ; ':I3e ariure . < ..Civer$i ht 4 � An ; So. R�chf'�ekUB 12L � Arr i So. Minnea lis/No 12R ( Arr ( So. Minnea lis/No � 22 � An I St. Paul/Hiahlan ; 30L Arr ; Ea an/Mendota j 30R � Arr i Eaaan/Mendota � ( ` �'�ital Arri4�als : i 4 � De � St. PauUHi n ( 12L � De i Ea an/Mendota ! 12R ; De ': Ea an/Mendota 22 I De � So. Richfie�/B ' 30L ; De � So. Minnea lislNo I 30R I De � So. Minnea lis/No � Tota1 De artures i Tatai 4pe rations i 1 ' Last:Year Last<' Count Count Year Area O rations 1'er�cent O'rations Percent loomin�ton � 28 0.1% 95 0.590 . Richfiekl 5476 2b.8°In 4140 19.8%a . Richfi�kl 5385 26.4% 4261 20.390 d Park ' 84 0.4°Io 89 0.4�'l0 Heia ts � 4b03 22.5°I� 6547 31.2�7'c Hei ts 4$52 23.8�'/c 5831 27.8°Io 2()�28 10{i.i}�la 2{}963 1(?U.{i% d Park � 30 0.1% 53 0.3% Hei ts � 5432 27.0�/0 4030 19.5�'l0 � Hei ts i 5569 27.7% 4442 21.490 bomin on � 272 1.4% 406 2.0% . Richfi�ki 4353 21.690 6075 29.3% . Richfield � 4469 22.2c10 5703 � 27.S�10 2()12� lUti.l}% 2{)709 1()U.t}�7c � 40553 . �1672 4 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Proaram Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report ° �arrier Jet Ope�ations Rumway IJse i�epori C7ctober 2000 (, __. Last.�'ear Last , , ,. . ,. , ,.., �.rriyalL.: , Connf ' Count. Year : � R�VY ' De arEure -. O�rerEli hi A.rea C? erations Percent (} rations Percent � 4 � An' ! So. Richfieki/Bloomin on ( 24 0.290 72 0.5�/� � 12L � An ; So. Minnea lis/No. Richf�ekl 3989 26.6% �86 19.2°Io i 12R � Arr � So. Minnea lis/No. Richf�ki 4018 26.8% 3151 20.9% ; 22 j Arr St. Paul/Hi nd Park � 45 0.390 67 0.5°Io � 30L I Arr i Ea anlMendota Hei ts � �440 � 22.9�/0 4795 � 31.8�10 ! 30R � Arr ! Ea an/Mendota Hei ts � 3481 23.2% 4087 27.1% ( _.. Total Arti�'als 14y97 1O{}.t)m/e 1�0;8 1{)O.Q% . � 4 � De St. Pau]/Hiahland Park � 15 O.1�Io 25 ! 0.2�/0 i 12L � � De ; Ea an/Mendota Hei hts I 39�0 � 26.690 2926 � 19.5% 12R i De ' Ea an/Mendota Hei ts i 4234 28.4�0 3305 � 22.09'0 ! 22 ! De ; So. RichfieldBloomin on , 67 O.S�o 157 ; 1.0�% i 30L � De i So. Minnea lis/No. Richf'�eld ; 3542 23.8% 4714 � 31.4�0 I 30R � De � So. Minnea lis/No. Richfiekl � 3074 20.6�0 3893 ( 25.9% ! T��t�l De artures 149(}2 1O{}.tl�Jo 15t)2(} 1{}{).0%a ; _ Tota! � erations �9899 ' .30U'78 �� A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 5 � � Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report ��; . ' t i :' � � �` `� .. . : . . . � '�, � � ; F�R Part 36 Take I T�• e Off Noisc LevcI Ainratt Descri tl()ri Sid e COIlIIf Percent B742 110.0 Boeing 747-200 3 160 O.S�c ; ; B741 ? 109.4 Boein 747-100 3 1 0.0�% DC8 � 1055 McDonnell Dou las DCS-500/600 i 2 0 O.O�Io B743 � 10�5 Boein 747-300 I 3 48 0.2�10 DC10 103.0 McDonnell Dou las DC10 I 3 1091 3.6�70 B727 102.4 Boein 727-200 � 2 0 ': 0.0�'/c B744 { 101.6 Boein 747-400 � 3 12 O.O�Io DCBQ ( 1005 � McDonnell Douglas DC$ (Modified St . 3) 3 15 i 0.1�70 � L101 ; 993 L.ocl�eed L-1011 - i 3 6 j O.O�Io DC9 98.1 McDonnell Douglas DC9 2 0 i 0.0�7c B732 97.7 Boein 737-200 � 2 0 � 0.0% � BA 11 97.0 British Aeros ace (BAG� 1-11 � 2 0 0.0�% A340 ( 96.2 � Airbus Industries A340 � 3 0 ' 0.0% MDil � 95.8 McDonnellDou las MDll ( 3 8 i 0.0% B763 95.7 ( Boein 767-20Q�300 � 3 0 0.0°/0 DC87 94.� McDonnell Dou las DC8-700 3 167 i 0.6�10 B72Q 94.5 Boeing 727 (Modified Stg. 3) 3 3362 � 11.290 B772 94.3 Boein 777 � 3 0 ; 0.0% A306 94.0 Airbus Indusuies A300B4-600 3 110 ; 0.4�/0 F28 92.9 FO�IC@t ZH ��empcfrom ANCA (< 75,00016s.) 2 151 � O.S�Ie A310 92.9 Airbus Industries A310 3 7 � 0.0% B73Q � 92.1 Boein 737 (Modified St . 3) ' 3 683 � 23% MD80 91.5 � McDonnell Dou las MD-80 � 3 768 , 2.6�Io B752 91.4 Boein 757-200 � 3 2973 � 9.9�10 DC9Q � 91.0 McDonnell Dou las DC9 (Modified St . 3) 3 9595 � 32.1% B734 88.9 Boeing 737-400 3 61 � 0.2% A320 87.8 Airbus Industries A320 3 4736 ; 15.8% B738 87.7 Boeing 737-800 3 1 � 0.0% I B73� 87.7 Boein 737-500 3 507 ; 1.7�10 B737 87.5 Boein 737-700 3 0 � 0.0�70 B733 � 87.5 Boein 737-300 � 3 670 �' 2.2�10 A319 � 87.5 Airbus Industries A319 I 3 998 � 3.3°Io BA46 � 84.9 British Aeros ace 14b � 3 2152 I 7.2% B712 ( 83.0 ( Boein 717-200 � _i 389 I 13% F100 81.8 Fol;.l;er 100 I 3 829 j 2.8% E145 ( 81.8 Embraer 145 , 3 132 i 0.4% F70 80.1 Fokker 70 � 3 0 j 0.0% CIZT 1 i 79.8 Canadair Re ional Jet 3 267 i 1.1% , Totals ': 298y9 ` °i00.4% . Note: Stage III represent aircraft modified to meet all stage III criteria as outlined in Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 36. This Indudes hushkit engines. engine retrofits or aircrafi operational flight confgurations. •The Provided Noise levels from FAR Part 36 aze the loudest Ievels documented per aircraft type during take-off measured in EPtiL dBA (Effective Perceived Noise Level). �/ � •EPNL is the levei of the time integral of the antilogarxthm of one-tenth of tone-corrected perceived noise level of an aircraft flyover measured in A- -' wei�hted decibels. { A Product of the Metropolitan Airpozts Commission ANOMS Program Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Councii (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Repoit `�, ,. .; ��. , � � � � �,� �� , ' , . �•�i � ��• I1,1' ; _ ' . ' ' Last`;Year � .Last;:: _ `:�rrivaV . . - Count ' � Coiunt i�ear �`: . _ , . , :. ;. .. _:,-. ;.,,; . RtiirY : De arture :(.Ove ''ht Area 4 erations ` Percent Q rations Pei�cent 4 � An ( So. Richf'�ekUBbomin on 23 2.09'0 86 � 8.1% 12L ( Arr � So. Minnea lis/No. Richf'�eki 226 20.1% 37 3.5% 12R ( An , So. Minnea lis/No. Richf'�eYi 151 13.49� 1$2 17.3% 22 � Arr i St. Paul/Hi nd Park ( 48 4.3% 61 5.8�I� 30L ( Arr i Ea an/Mendota Hei ts 242 21.490 607 57.5% 30R � Arr � Ea an/Mendota Hei ts � 437 38.$�'0 82 7.8°Io : , ' Tota1 Arri�'als " - ' 1127 ,. 301}.0�'/c ;10�5 _10{).1)% . 4 i De � St. PauUHi nd Park 5 Q.6% � 2.9% 12L ( De � Ea an/Mendota Hei ts � 293 34.6�� 155 16.0% 12R � De � Ea an/Mendota Hei ts ( 183 21.6�0 264 ( 27.4% 22 I De � So. Richf'�ekj/Bborrun on 42 S.OIo 68 7.1�0 30L j De � So. Miruiea lis/No. Richfield 177 20.9�0 257 + 26.7% 30R I De � So. Minnea ]is1No. Richfieki � 146 17.3�% 192 � 19.9% Tot�il De artures 8�6 1(N}.{F�`lc 964 1{}O.O% Total Qperations 19'73 2019 , ( A Prcxiuct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�ram 7 Metropolitan Aircrait Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technicai Advisor's Report � . � , ' • ,`� � • , � ; � � �' "1 1 `I �"�` .. ,. , . ,� . � � .� ,� �� . �� ,�; ;�; , _ , t �'ear : .: . : : .. Las Las t . ; _ . .. , tirrivaU � ":. : Caunt. , ' ,Count . Year ; ` , . > .:. R�'VY De arture (?�rerfli htAr�a t7 rations Percent O rations Percent j 4 � Arr � So. Richf'�eki/BloominGton ( 22 2.590 66 � 7.890 � 12L j Arr ( So. I�tinnea lis/No. Richfieki � 199 22.590 35 4.1% i 12R ( Arr ( So. Minnea lis/No. Richf'�eld � 132 14.9�Io 160 18.8% ; 22 I Arr i St. PauUHi nd Park 25 � 2.8�Io 50 � 5.9�Io � 30L � Arr i Ea an/Mendota Hei ts � 190 21.5% 467 54.9�Io i 30R � Arr � Ea an/Mendota Hei ts � 317 35.8�0 73 8.5�% � _ Tc�talArri��als 88� `•` 1t){}.{t�/o 851 I{it).0°Io � 4 ( De � St. PauUHi hland Park � 0 � O.O�o 13 2.4% � 12L � De � Ea an/Mendota Hei ts � 158 �.9�'0 66 12.O�Io 12R i De I Ea an/Mendota Hei ts � 146 26.7% 171 31.2�Io � 22 ( De ; So. Richf'�ekUBloomin on � 27 4.9% 32 5.890 ! 30L ; De � So. Minnea lis/No. Richf'�eld ( 149 27.490 201 ( 36.7°Io � 30R � De ! So. Minnea lis/No. Richfield � 66 12.190 65 11.9% ' TotalDe artures � �46 1{)t}.{?°% 5�8 � 1{)f).1?% ; 1'otalO erations � 1431 ' 1399 � l ) g A Product of the Metropolitan Airpqrts Comcnission ANOMS Prosram Metropolitar� Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Repcirt _ October 2000 'Top 15 .t�ctual 1�lightti�ne Jet Ope�raiozs by Type 10:3U p.m to 6:40 a.m Total Nighttime Jet Operations by Hour Hour : � ' Count ' 2?30 � 451 2300 � 443 2400 135 �� ; Northwest NWA 3 B744 2 100 ( 48 j ' Northwest NWA 3 B752 272 2� � 8 i Nor[hwest NWA 3 DC10 4 300 � 13 � ! Northwest NWA 3 117 400 j 110 � � Onaii Air OAE 3 DC10 12 500 � 223 j R an RYN 3 B72Q 82 � Sun Coun SCX 3 B72Q 89 � Sun CounW SCX 3 DC10 3 ' Air Tran TRS 3 B712 26 � Trans World TWA 3 B712 3 i Trans World TWA 3 MD80 3 _ � Trans World TWA 3 � 25 United UAL 3 B73Q 4 � United UAL 3 B72Q 63 , UPS UPS 3 B72Q 3 � UI'S UPS 3 BT2 7 UPS UPS ( 3 DC�Q 58 _ � Tatal 13;3 No1e: The top I S nighttime operators represent 94.6�10 of the total nighttime operations. American American � Airborne � Airbome � Amrica West � America West ; America West � Champion i ComAir � Delta I! Del[a Delta FedEx FedFx FedEx FedEx North wes t North wes t Nonhwest North wes [ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 FDX 3 NWA 3 NWA 3 NWA 3 NWA 3 F100 MD8C DC8� �-� A319 A320 B733 B72Q CRJ 1 B72S B733 MD80 A310 DC10 MDi l A319 A320 B72Q B742 Count 30 30 20 35 3 37 1 30 45 28 1 21 12 26 3 1 169 38 A Prcxiuct of the Metrqpolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 9 �. �: Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report October 2000 Nighttime Fleet Stage Mix for T'op 15 Airlines 10:30 p.m to 6:00 a.rr�. �~' P�� P�� 4 G�� 4� �C��P �� 4"�� SG� `4¢� `S�P �� 45 Airline � Sta.ge 2 � Stage 3 0 Manufa.ctured Stage 3 Octob�r 2000 Nighttime F'leet Stage Mix for Top 15 Ainlines 10:30 m. to 6:00 am. 1Vlantrfacture d :, :... Airline 'S �,2 .. S e 3 St e 3_ Tfltal AAL 0 � 0 ( � � ABX 0 55 I 0 55 AWE 0 0 ( 41 41 CCP 0 30 � 0 30 COM 0 0 ; 45 4� DAL 0 I ?� � ?? 50 FDX 0 12 j 69 81 NWA 0 155 � 458 613 OAE 0 0 ; 12 12 RYN 4 � $2 I 0 82 SCX � 0 � 89 � 3 92 TRS 0 � � � 26 26 TWA 0 � 25 I 6 � 31 UAL 0 � 67 I 0 67 UPS 0 I 61 7 68 Tc�tal () 604 749 1353 10 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pra�ram Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Repott � Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks Carrier Jet Operations — (>ctober 2000 (' � Oct 17 thru 23, 2Q00 — 3368 Carrier Jet Arrivals Oct 17 thru 23, 2000 — 3354 Carrier Jet Departures Oct 17 thru 23, 2000 — 203 Nightlime Carrier Jet Arrivals Oct 17 thru 23, 2000 — 114 Nighttinne Carrier Jet Departures A Prcxluct af the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�ram 13 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Counci! (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Reptirt � • � . ` : � � � � • • �, . 1 Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Le�end Remote Monitoring Tower A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 15 ,— . � ' Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report . , . , , � � . ,' . �' � . . �� 1;r • I 1,1 � Arrival Ar�ival Arrival Arrival RMT ,; -... ._- Events - Events EFents Events 'ID . ``` City < ,. - `'Address -;.::>GSdB >80dB ; >90ciB >100dB i Minnea olis � Xences Ave. & 41st St. 6408 � 51 3 I 0 2 Minnea olis � Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 5394 � 364 2 � 0 3 Minnea olis i West IImwood St. & Belmont Ave. 5�02 ; 1982 I 9� i 0 4 Minnea olis � Oal:land Ave. & 49th St. 5678 � 1074 0 ( 0 5 Minnea olis ( 12th Ave. & 58th St. 5931 ! 4101 310 � 0 6 Minnea olis � 2�th Ave. & 57th St. 5999 i 4593 377 ( 0 7 Richfield � Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. 196 � 4 0 ( 0 8 Minnea olis � L.on fellow Ave. & 43rd St. 252 � 2 0 I 0 9 St. Paul � Sarato a St. & Hartford Ave. 99 � 41 2 0 10 St. Paul i Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 107 ; 47 16 0 11 St. Paul j Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 1� i � 0 0 l� St. Paul ( Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. 20 ( 4 0 I 0 13 Mendota Hei hts � Southeast end of Mohican Court 51 � 0 0 0 14 Ea an lst St. & Mckee St. 5932 ( 35 2 0 1� Mendota Heights � Cullon St. & I.e�on ton Ave. 157 5 0 0 16 Ea an � Avalon Ave. & V'ilas Lane 4838 � 1681 3 0 17 Bloomin ton ; 84th St. & 4th Ave. 56 � 11 0 0 18 Richfield j 7�th St. & 17th Ave 53 � 9 0 0 19 Bloorrrin ton � 16th Ave. & 84th St. I 29 � 1 �0 0 20 Richfield j 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 25 � 3 0 0 21 Inver Csove Heights ( Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 13� I 1 0 0 22 Inver Grove Hei hts � Anne Marie Trail 3107 � 4 0 0 � 23 Mendota Hei hts I Fnd of Kenndon Ave. 1�54 21 1 0 24 Ea an Cha el In. & Wren Ln. 5997 � 104 0 0 25 Fa an � Moonshine Park 1321 Jurd Rd. � 380 ( 6 0 0 26 InverCsove Heights � 6796Arl�nsas Ave. W. 733 17 2 0 i 27 Minnea olis i Anthon Schoo15757 Irvin Ave. S. 133 2 0 0 28 Richfield � 6645 iCxh Avenue S. 671 � 32 ( 1 0 29 Minnea olis ; Fricsson F1em Schoo14315 31st Ave. S. 11 I 3 0 ( 0 Total Arrival Noise E�ents 5946i) ,� 142t)3 . 7�8 t} 16 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Repiirt � . '' ,' �'''�. • �•'�, •�' �, • • � � ,,1 1' � �;� Departure'Departure Departure Departure Rl1�IT Events Events E�rents Events , � ' City Address >bSdB >SUdI3 >94d13 >140d13 1 Minnea olis Xerxes Ave. & 41st St. 856 119 0 ' 0 2 Minnea olis Fremont Ave. & 43rci St. 115� 249 6 0 i 3 Minnea olis � West IImwood Sc. & Belrr�ont Ave. 2411 379 l� , 0 ( 4 Minnea olis � Oak]ar►d Ave. & 49th St. � 3108 i 657 42 0 � Minnea olis i 12th Ave. & 58th St. ( 561� i. 2028 438 � 4 6 Minnea olis � 25th Ave. & 57th St. I 7261 � 2706 94� 84 7 Richfieid ( Wen�worch Ave. & 64th Sc. 3567 � 1ll0 80 0 i 8 Minnea olis � L.on fellow Ave. & 43rd St. 2348 ! 644 31 0 9 St. Paui � Sarato a St. &�iartford Ave. 93 � 8 2 � 0 10 St. Paul i Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. � 76 i 16 14 3 � 11 St. Paul ; Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 4b. i 16 8 I 3 12 St. Paul � Aiton St. & Rockv✓ood Ave. 89 j 8 0 0 13 Mendota Hei hts i Southeast end of Mohican Coun 3720 � 377 2 0 14 Ea an � lst St. & Mckee St. 5272 � 1152 77 0 15 Mendota Heiehts I Cullon St. & Lexin ton Ave. ( 4408 � 702 16 0 16 Ea an � Avalon Ave. & V'�las Iane 5139 � 1717 356 0 17 Bloomin ton I &kh Sc. & 4th Ave. 20� i 28 12 0 18 Richfield i 75th St. & 17th Ave 320 62 28 4 19 Bloomin �on � 16th Ave. & 84th St. 186 I 41 4 0 20 Richfield I 7�th St. & 3rd Ave. 40� � 11 0 0 � 21 Inver Grove Hei hts ; Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 1799 i 145 0 0 22 Inver Grove Hei hts ; Anne Marie Trail 1847 i 112 0 0 23 Mendota Heights i Fnd of Kenndon Ave. 5783 j 2106 719 0 24 Fa�an � Cha el Ln. & Wren In.. 4143 ; 562 4 0 i � 25 Ea an i Moonshine Park 1321 Jurd Rd. 2280 I 26 1 0 26 Inver Grove Hei hts i 6796 Arl�nsas Ave. W. ( 2331 i 203 0 0 27 Minnea olis � Anthon Schoo157�7Irvin Ave. S. 219� i 444 1� 1 � 28 Richfieid 6b45 16th Avenue S. 4201 ; 224 5 0 j 29 Minnea olis ' Fricsson Flem Schoo14315 31s[ Ave. S. 1416 ! 162 2 0 _ Tt�tal De arture Noise E��ents 7227� � 16{t14 2821 '99 �;. A Product ot the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�ram 17 i Date/Time 10/9/00 9:37 10/9/0010:40 10/24/00 6:22 10/9/00 10:47 10/9/00 11:34 10/5/00 16:01 10/11/00 1758 10/27/0012:34 10/15/00 16:10 10/2J0015:15 Date/Tur�e 10/16/00 8:03 10/29/00 23:13 10/27/0016�7 10/5/0016:01 lO/l8/00 9:24 10/5/00 11:36 10/17/001629 10I14/0011:33 10/29/00 8:0� 10/4/00 16:03 Date/Time 10/23/001033 10/27/001024 10/14/00 10:18 10/29/001357 10/3/00 8:33 10/15/00 15:16 10/15/00 20:08 10/31/0018:24 10/29/0017:02 10/7/00 21:19 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC> Technical Advisor's Report 'l['op Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for 1VISP t)ct-OU (RMT S�e#1 j Xerxes Ave. & 41�` S�, Minneapolis Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway De arture NW A 1233 A 12L NWA379 B752 A 12R NWA680 DC9Q A 12L VC�410 B73Q A 12L NW A 132 DC9Q A 12R DAL1624 B72 D 30R SCX408 B72 A 12R NWA1271 B72 D 30R DAL1624 B72 D 30R SCX715 B72Q _ ___ D 30L � (RM'I' Site#2) Fremont Ave. & 43`d S�, Minneapolis Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway De arture NWA671 B72 A 12R CCP202 B7�,Q A 12L DAL1624 B72Q D 30R DAL1624 B72Q D 30R UAL1133 B72 D 30R NWA1271 B72 D 30R DAL1624 B72 D 30R NW A 1271 B72 D 30R NWA767 B72 A 12L DAL1624 B72Q _ D 30R (RMT Site#3) West Ehnwood St & Belmont Ave., Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU De artur SCX715 B72 D SCX715 B72 D SCX715 B72 D BSK620 B72 A CCP101 B72Q D SCX715 B72Q D DAL1683 B72Q _..,.,,.__..._D NWA55 B742 A NWA568 B72 A ('('Pf,�2 B720 D Lmax (dB) 99.1 95 . 90 89.1 87.7 87.6 87S 86.4 86.4 I.max (dB) 92.8 92.6 91.7 91.6 90.9 Lmax (dB) 94S 93.9 933 93.2 92.8 92.4 92.4 92.1 92 lg A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program Metropolitan Aircraf[ Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report . Top `Ten lLoudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSi' o�t-oo (RMT Site#4) .� DatelTime 10/19/00 14:16 10/5100 11:47 10/23/00 10:33 10/6/0010:55 10/M0010:37 10/18/00 820 10/18/0011:48 10/18/00 10:42 10/18/00 10:07 10/26/001459 (RMT Site#5) 12`h Ave. & 58`h.St, Minneapobs Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU De arture SCX748 B72 D SCX407 B72 D SCX715 B72 D SCx407 B72 D NWA117 UNt�10WN D CCP203 B72 D NWA1271 B72 D RYN738 B72Q D SCX407 B72 D DAL1731 UNKNOWN D Lmax (dB) 101.2 101.1 100.7 100.1 995 993 993 992 (itMT Srte#6) 25`h Ave. & 57`� St, M�neapohs Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway Lmax (dB) De arture 10/18/0019:26 SC�'713 B72 D 30R 106.4 10/2/00 11:45 NW A 1271 B72 D 30R 104.5 10/26/001451 NWA581 LJNKNOWN D 30R 104.1 10/10I0016:45 NWA735 B72 D 30R 104 10/19/001455 NWA686 DC9Q D 30R 1039 10/26/001453 NWA686 DC9Q D 30R 103.4 10/18/0019:56 DAL1683 B72Q D 30R 1033 10/17/0018:37 SCX714 B72 D 30R 103.1 10/ 19/0018:46 NW A 1198 B72 D 30R 102.8 10/17/0021:16 NWA1273 B72 D . �:30R _ . 102.8 _ �; , A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 19 � Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for 1VISP t )ct-00 (RMT S�e#7j Wentworth Ave. & 64`h St, Richfield Date/Tirne Flight Nu�er Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway Larrax(dB) De arture 10/14/00 9:59 SCX791 B72Q D 30L 97.9 10/20/00 8:10 SCX227 B72Q D 30L 96.9 10/14/00 13:1� SCX748 B72 D 30L ' 96.4 10/27/00 9:18 AMT525 . B72 D 30L 95.6 10/27/001351 AMT255 B72 D 30L 95.4 10/ 15/00 7:23 DAL.897 B72 D 30L 95.3 10/27/0017:43 SCx537 B72Q D 30L 95.1 10/M0010:17 SCx785 B72Q D 30L 95 10/15/00 9:27 UAL1133 B72Q D 30L 94.6 10/2/00 9:11 SGX403 B72 D 30L 945 (RMT Site#8) � LongfeIlow Ave. & 43rd St, Mir Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU 10/26/0019:45 10/5/00 17:51 10/ 19/0017:45 10/16/00 9:12 10/21/00 7:49 10/26/0017:34 10/Ea/0017:43 10/3/00 13:47 10/27/00 7:24 1 SCX741 UAL1452 SCX589 NW A752 SCX743 NW A 1810 Runway Lar�zx (dB) 95.2 95.1 93.8 93.7 93.6 93.4 93 (RMT S�e#9) Saratoga St, & Hartford Ave., St Paul Date/Tirne Flight Number Aircraft Type AmvaU Runway Lmax(dB) De arture 10/20/0015:43 NWA83 B742 D 4 92.1 � 10/3/0015:05 NWA19 B742 D 4 92 10/26/001:19 MUA865 DC8 A 22 91.7 10/26/0018:44 NWA55 B742 A 22 90.4 10/25/00 4:58 FDX1718 DC10 A 22 89.7 10/15/0017:15 NWA776 DC9Q A 22 89.7 10/25/00 5:11 FDX1407 DC10 A 22 89.6 10/26/00 5:11 FDX1407 DC10 A 22 89.4 10/26/0018:52 SCX792 B72 A 22 89.3 10/ 17/00 23:48 RYN710 B72 A 22 88.7 20 A Product oF the Metropolitan Airparts Commission ANOMS Program Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP Oct-l)0 (. (RMT S ite# 10 j Itasca Ave. & Bowdom St�, St Paul Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway Lmax(dB) De arture 10/3/0015:05 NWA19 B742 D 4 103.4 10/20/0015:43 NWA83 B742 D 4 100.6 10/15/001550 NWA83 B742 D 4 100.4 10/23/001524 NWA19 B742 D 4 99.7 10/181001550 NWA19 B742 D 4 99.6 10/M0015:06 NWA19 B742 D 4 99.1 10/15/0015:40 NWA19 B742 D 4 98.8 10/27/0015:09 NW A 19 B742 D 4 98.3 10/fa/0015:13 NWA19 B742 D 4 97.8 10/7/0015:31 NWA83 B742 D 4 97 — (RMT Site#11) Finn S� & Sche�er Ave., S� Paul Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway Lnrax(dB) De arture 10/7/0015:16 NWA19 B742 D ' 4 100.5 10/15/0015:40 NWA 19 B742 D 4 100.3 10/27/0015:09 NWA19 B742 D 4 100.3 10/23/001524 NWA19 B742 D 4 99S 10/6/0015:14 NWA19 B742 D 4 97S 10/27/0015:32 NWA83 B742 D 4 96.8 10/7/001�:31 NWA83 B742 D 4 94.7 10/18/OO15S1 NWA19 B742 D 4 92 10/6/0015:29 NWA83 B742 D 4 � 89.8 10/19/0021:12 NWA649 B72Q A 30R 89.7 (RMT S�e#12) Alton St. & Rockwood Ave., St Paul Date/Tur�e Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway Lznax(dB) . De arture 10/11/00 8:24 ITNKNOWN BE18 D 12R 855 . 10/24/0011:16 UNKNOW N UNKNOW N D 12R 84.9 10/16/0017:12 NWA784 DC A 12L 84.8 10/12I0015:30 NWA212 DC9Q A 12L 82.7 10/30/0016:19 LTNTQ�TOWN IJNKNOWN D 12L 82.4 10/26/00 7:07 BMJ48 BE80 D 12L 82.3 10/30/007:39 NWA1278 DC9Q D 12L 82.1 10/25/00 7:49 UNKNOWN BE20 D 12L 82 10/9/00 8:15 tTNKNOWN BE18 D 12L 81.9 10126/0018:47 I.TNKNOWN C650 A 22 80.6 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 21 . Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Top 'I'en Loudest Aircraft Noise Events far I��ISP o�t-oo �) (RMT Srte# 13) Southeast End of Mohican Co�t, Mendota Heights Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrivall Runway Lmax(dB) De arture 10/11/0010:19 SCX715 B72 D 12L 92J 10/ 13/00 8:01 SCX227 B72 D 12L 90J 10/12I0010:21 SCX715 B72 D 12L 89.3 10/12/00 7:03 SC3�621 B72Q D 12L 89.3 10/17/0011:41 NWA1271 B72Q D 12L 89.3 10/9/0021:01 NWA677 B72Q D 12L 89.1 10/9/00 21:23 NW A 1273 B72 D 12L 89.1 10/12/00 7:44 SCX749 B72 D 12L 89.1 10/17/0011:16 iJNKNOWN LJNKNOWN D 12L 88.2 10/31I00 7:19 DAI.897 B72 D 12L. 88.2 (RMT Site#14) lst S� & Mckee St, Eagan Date/Tune Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway Isnax(dB) De arture 10/28/0015:43 NWA83 B742 D 12R 97.1 10/5/0010:05 SC�791 B72Q D 12R 96 '. � 10/12I0012:40 CQ'905 B72Q D 12R 95.7 10/1/00 721 CQ'104 B72Q D 12R 95S 10/28/0010:26 SGX715 B72 D 12R 9�.4 10/1l0020:4$ NWA67� B72 D 12R 95.3 10/25/0014:34 SCX74$ B72 D 12R 95.1 10/26/00 6:07 CCP104 B72 D 12R 95 10/ 17/00 8:08 SCX227 B72 D 12L 94.8 10/11/0015:29 NWA19 B742 D 12R 94.5 (RMT Site#15) Cullon St & Lexington Ave., Mendota Heights Date/Tinne Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway Lrraax (dB) De arture 10/31/0010:07 SCX715 B72 D 12L 96.6 10/12/0018:31 NWA678 B72 D 12L 942 10/12I0014S6 NWA581 B72 D 12L 92.6 10/22/0019:20 SCX408 B72 D 12L 92.4 10/25/0011:41 NWA1271 B72Q D 12L 923 10/29/00 20:0� DAL1683 B72Q D 12L 91.8 10/12/00 22:25 NW A 15ll DC9Q D 12L 91.1 10/29/0019:12 SCX714 B72 D 12L 91 10/31/0017:12 NWA746 B72 D 12L 91 10/31/0019:43 SCX714 B72 D 12L 91 i ) 22 A Praluct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program Metropolitan Aireraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Repcirt Top �'en Loudest Aircraft Noise ]Events for MSP c��t-uo � Date/Tune 10/16/00 11:14 10/24/0014:40 10I1/00 13:49 10/12J00 10:17 10/ 13/00 9:58 10/1010016:16 10/26/0010:03 10/13/00 9:13 10/23/00 2057 10/30/0012:08 (RMT Site#16) Avalon Ave. & V�as L_ane, E Flight Number Aircraft Type �� ArrivaU De artur CCP230 B72 D BSK621 B72 D NWA584 B72 D SCX'791 B72Q D SCX791 B72Q D NWA19 B742 D SCX790 B72 D SCX403 B72 D NWA1273 B72 D CCP230 B72 D (RMT S�e#17) Runway 12R 12R 12R 12R 12R 12R 12R 12R Ltnax (dB) 98.1 98 97.7 97.3 972 97 97 969 84th St & 4th Ave., Bloomington Date/Time Flight Nu�er Aircraft Type Arriva]/ Runway Lmax (dB) De arture 10/19/00 15:18 NWA19 B742 D 22 98.1 10/8/0015:50 NWA19 B742 D 22 96.6. 10/1410015:16 NWA19 $742 D 22 96S 1OJ31/0013:13 NWA19 B742 D 22 96.1 10/17/0015:16 NWA19 B742 D 22 95S 10/14/0015:40 KLM664 B743 D 22 94J 10/25/00 15:07 NWA 19 B742 D 22 94.7 10/29/001320 NWA19 B742 D 22 94.6 � 10/2/0015:47 NWA19 B742 D 22 942 10/16/0016:02 NWA19 B742 D 22 94 (RMT Site#18) 75th St & 17th Ave, Richfield Date/'I'ime Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway Lrnax(dB) De arture 10/5/00 15:05 NWA 19 B742 D 22 1023 10/12/001523 NWA19 B742 D 22 100.7 10/25/00 15:07 NWA 19 B742 D 22 100.3 10/29/0013:19 NWA19 B742 D 22 100.1 10/1/0015:33 NWA83 8742 D 22 99.7 10/16/0016:01 NWA19 B742 D 22 99S 10/31/0013:13 NWA19 B742 D 22 99.4 10/19/0015:17 NWA 19 B742 D ' 22 99.2 10/19/0015:37 KCM664 B743 D 22 99.1 10/1/0015:07 NWA19 B742 D 22 98.7 �� A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 23 Date/T'irne 10/12/� 15:23 10/ 16/0016:56 10/15/00 6:32 10/ 15/00 6:58 10/4/00 0:32 10/ 15/00 5:58 10/18/00 5:49 10/ 15/00 6:20 10/3/00 23:54 10/20/00 6:46 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatemeni Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report 'Top 'I'en Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP Oct-00 (RMT Srte#19) 16th Ave. & 84th St, Bloomi Flight Nu�er Aircraft Type ArrivaU �artur NWA 19 B742 D NWA563 B72 D SGX463 B72 D SCX621 B72Q D RYN710 B72Q D DAL253 MD80 D NWA9846 B742 D RYN9006 B72 D NWA211 D BMJ56 BE80 D (RMT Srte#20) 75th St & 3rd Ave., Rict�ki Runway 22 22 22 22 � 22 22 22 22 22 22 . .: 933 93.1 90.3 89.8 88.9 87.4 87.4 Date/Tirne Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway Lrr�ax (dB) De arture 10/19/0015:38 KIM664 B743 D 22 89.6 10/5/00 15:06 NWA 19 B742 D 22 88.1 10119/001431 NWA134 DC9Q D 22 $4.6 10/3/00 5:11 RYN610 B72Q D 22 842 10/14/0016:00 NWA563 B72 A 30L 82.2 10/17/0023:00 NWA9787 B72 D 30L 81S 10126/0017:09 NW A 13� D D 30L 81.3 10/18/0011:36 NWA1270 B72 A 30L 81.3 10/18/0011:48 NWA150 DC10 A 30L 81.2 10/8/0015:32 NWA83 B742 D 22 81.1 Date/Tirre 10/13/00 4:59 10/26/0010:24 10/12/00 7:03 10/12I00 10:21 10/10/00 22:47 10/29/0014:02 10/29/00 13:49 10/16/0016:16 10/18/0016:01 � (RMT Site#21) Barbara Ave. & 67th St, Inver Grove Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU De arture SCx227 B72 D RYN610 B72 D SCX715 B72 D SCX621 B72 D SCX715 B72Q D NWA56 B742 D NWA84 B72Q D NWA566 B72 D DAL1624 B72 D DAL1624 B72Q D Runway 12L 12L 12R 12L 12I., 12R 12L 12I.. 12L 12L Lmax (dB) 88 86.8 86.2 85.6 85.5 85.1 85.1 85 84.5 24 A Praduct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission f1NOMS Procram Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Repo'rt Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for NISP o�t-oo (RMT Srte#22) Aiuie Octie Tra.il., Inver Grove H� Date/Tur�e Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU De arture 10/12/00 629 SCX463 B72 D 10/13/00 6:12 CCP230 B72 D 10/16/00 8:07 SCX227 B72 D 10/28/0013:44 NW A 1296 B72Q D 10/28/00 9:09 AMT525 B72Q D 10/11/0016:32 PIZ241 B72Q D 10117/00 8:09 SCX227 B72 D 10/5/00 8:02 UAL389 B72 D 10/6/0021:44 NWA751 B72 A 10/1L00 21:16 ' NWA56 B742 D (RMT SiTe#23) End of Kenndon Avenue, Mendota Date/T'ime Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU De arture 10/11/0010:19 SCX715 B72 D 10/13/00 8:01 SCX227 B72Q D 10/9/0019:09 SCX714 B72 D 10/25/001454 NWA581 B72Q D 10/24/00 2052 NW A 1273 B72 D 10/26/0010:13 DHL1741 B72 D 10/22/0020:46 NWA677 B�2 D 10/23/00 22:17 KHA709 B72 D 10/16/0021:1� NWA677 B72 D 10/9/0017:44 SCX743 B720 D (RMT Site#24) Runway 12R 12R 12R 12R 12L 12R 12L 12R 30L 12R Runway 12L 12L 12L. 12L 12I. 12L, 12L 12L 12L 12L Ianax(dB) 85.4 84.8 84.8 84.8 84.7 84.4 843 842 . .: .. . .. �: : .; .; . .; . .; .; .; Chapel Lane & Wren Lane, Eagan Date/Tirne � Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway Iamx(dB) De arture 10/12I00 629 SGX463 B72 D 12R 93.7 10/17/00 8:08 SCX227 B72 D 12L 91.1 10/26/00 7:14 SCX749 B72 D 12R 905 10/1/00 7:21 CCP104 B72 D 12R 902 10/17/00 6:40 UAL341 B72Q D 12L 90 10/1/00 754 UAL3$9 B72Q D 12R 89.8 10/13/00 9:35 UAL1133 B72Q D 12R 89.4 10/16/00 8:06 SCX227 B72 D 12R 893 10/19/00 7:19 SCX501 B72 D 12R 892 10/25/0014:35 SCX748 B72 D 12R 89.1 �� ' A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 25 ; Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Top Ten Loudest Aircraft I�Ioise lEvents for NISIP o�t.��u (RMT Site#25 j Moonshine Park, 1321 Jurdy Rd., ] Date/Tirne Flight Nurrd�er Aircraft Type ArrivaU De ar[ure 10/10/0016:16 NWA19 B742 D 10/2/0018:09 ICE653 B752 A 10/27/0011:49 NWA20 B742 A 10/2/0017:03 NWA398 A320 A 10/16/0013:31 NWA574 A320 D 10/23/00 7:44 NWA738 B72Q D 10/28/0018:43 SCX537 B72 D 10/23/001356 NWA1096 DC A 10/27/0018:5� AMT334 B72 D 10I21/00 823 TWA494 MD80 D (RMT S�e#26) 6796 Arkansas Ave. W., Inver Grove Date/Tiir�e Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU De arture 10/6/0010:27 LTNF�tOWN UNKNOWN A lO/fa10010:25 NWA945 DC10 A 10/26/0010:24 SCX715 B72Q D 10/16/OO11S2 NWA271W B72 D 10/19/00 8:14 TWA494 MD80 D 10/16/0015:03 NWA686 DC D 10/13/0010:07 SCX715 B72 D 10/9/0011:37 NWA1271 B72 D 10/11/0015:29 NWA19 B�42 D 10/5/007:59 NWA570 A320 D Date/Time 10/4/0013:00 10/18/0010:43 10/19/0014:16 10/23/0010:37 10/6/00 10:56 10/19/001555 10/5/0011:4$ 10/18/00 8:21 10/23/00 10:36 10/27/00 9:16 (RMT Si�e#27) Anthony Middle School, 5757 Irvmg Ave. S., Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU De arture AAL515 F100 D RYN738 B72 D SCX748 B72 D SCX791 B72 D SCX407 B72Q D CCP201 B72Q D SCX407 B72Q D CCP203 B72 D SCX407 B72 D SCX403 B720 D 12R Runway Lmax (dB) 90.2 88.4 85S 85.4 84.3 83.7 83.3 82.7 82.6 Iarrax (dB) 93.6 91.4 90 89.7 89.6 89 88.9 88.9 88.8 88.6 Lrnax (dB) 96.3 96.2 96 94.1 93.8 93.3 92.9 92.2 92.1 91.7 ( ) 26 A Product of the Metropoliran Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�ram Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Top Ten I.audest A.ircraft Noise Events for MSP o�c-oo (RMT Srte#28) ��.� � � ��r, e.,P,,,,� c u;,,�,�W .,�-�., ..... ., _ �......_.� Date/Time Fight Nurrd�er Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway Irnax (dB) De arture 10/ 15/00 22:11 ITNKNOW N LJNKNOW N D 30L 93.2 10/4/0013:02 MES2798 SF34 D 30R 91.8 10/8/00 1 Q:57 RYN738 B72 D 30L ' 91.1 10/ 16/00 7:12 FFT653 B73 D 12R 90.4 10/3/00 21:44 KHA 1772 B72 D 30L 903 10/23/OO 11 S8 NW A672 B72Q A 30L 90.2 10/2/0019:03 AMT'334 B72Q D 30L 89.9 10/M0012:59 AA�515 F100 D 30L 89.6 10/4/0013:U0 AAIS15 F100 D 30L 88.8 10/16/007:16 SCX529 B72 D t2R 88.6 (RMT Srte#29) October 2000 Remote Monitorinq Tower Top Ten Summary The top ten noise events and the event ranges at each RMT for October 2000 were comprised of 87.9% departure operations. The predominant tap ten aircraft type was the Boeing 727 Hushed with 61.4% of the highest Lmax events. Alote: Unknown fields are due to data unavailability in FAA flight track data. October 2000 Technicai Advisor Report IVotes Note: Missing FAA radar data for 1.1 days during the month of October 2000. A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 27 �g Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report .:: . 1 '' .' `` � . .. ..,;, . �;: ; �: �;�,., �ctober 2000 Remote Monitoring Towers Date #1 #2 #3 � #�1 #� #6 #7 #$ #9. #14 #11 #12 #13 j #14 #1 a 1 58 60.4 64.4 j 64.2 � 69.4 71.4 I 61.8 57.4 48.8 49.9 n/a 38.2 � 61.4 ; 67.6 � 63.4 2 SSS 58S 62 � 65.3 � 71.6 75.7 68 6�J 44.6 n/a 32.3 31.1 j 30.4 : 60.7 38? 3 57.8 59.7 64.1 � 65.5 � 72.6 75.5 68.1 67.2 58 62 � 1.6 42.2 � 39.7 ! 62.3 45 � 4 57.8 59.8 62.6 ; 66.� I 72.8 74.9 68.4 66.6 44.8 56.3 44.2 40.4 I 43.8 i 622 47.4 5 60.4 63.3 65.4 ; 66.4 i 72.1 73.8 68.7 659 � 47.7 41.6 41.3 4�.6 i 57.6 ! 67.7 � 59.9 6 59 605 64.3 � 66.4 � 72.2 7�2 69.3 65.8 52.9 58 I 56.3 41.5 � 35.7 I 63.1 4?.2 � i 7 57.1 58.2 63 � 64.6 � 71.8 72 68.1 66 435 57.7 5$.6 423 34.1 I 60� 39.7 8 59.6 60.3 65.4 ! 6� ( 72.4 73.7 68.4 64.2 47.3 36.4 41.2 353 � 383 i 60.2 33.8 9 75.1 593 62.3 I 62.1 � 66.4 ( 68.8 5�.6 52.9 I 41.2 41 S 40.4 48.9 61.3 � 66.9 63.1 10 59.8 60.7 62.6 � 63.4 66.8 71 57.8 ( 58.1 43.1 305 33.9 39.1 i 59.9 ; 64.4 62.8 11 57.6 61 64.6 t 635 68.3 70S 47 42.9 475 41.3 45.3 47.6 633 I 68? 66.3 12 59.6 62.9 6�.7 � 65.3 I 69.4 71 41.3 45 ( 4�.4 46.7 37.1 47.7 I 63.8 � 69.7 675 13 56.4 59.4 62.9 62.1 663 68.2 46.9 31.9 n/a n/a n/a 39.9 60.5 ( 68.4 60.4 14 56.9 583 60.2 I 63 69 5 72.4 66.2 63.8 323 44.6 45.2 45.6 I�.4 � 59.8 39 15 60.8 62.4 65.9 � 67.3 I 73.9 75.6 68.6 66.3 522 59.8 58S 36.7 I n/a � 64.6 40.5 16 60S 64 65.81 64.3 69.8 70S 54.7 55.1 43.4 42.7 38.7 4b.6 62.8 70 64.6 � 17 62.6 62.6 65.4 � 66.2 72.4 743 65.5 6S 58.8 58 32.2 45.4 59.7 I 68 61.1 18 59 61.9 65.1 � 663 ( 74.8 76 67.2 64.4 53.7 603 50.7 37.7 58.9 6�.8 60.1 19 56S 59.4 63.5 i 66 72.4 7�.2 62.8 64 I 30.6 44.2 47 44.4 I 53.8 I 63.9 56.2 20 56.8 59.1 63.9 ! 67.8 I 73.6 7�.1 69.3 6�.7 50.8 58.3 48.5 34.1 I 36.1 � 61.8 37.7 21 57.4 59.6 6�.5 I 64.9 723 70.6 60.9 ( 57.6 I 39 40.9 n/a 32.7 ' S8 j 64.8 60.9 I 22 585 60.9 66.6 ; 62.6 70.2 68.9 38.1 46 35J n/a n/a 34.8 60 ( 66.6 6� 23 60.6 63.7 65.8 � 64.8 I 71.2 I 72.3 60.4 55.7 403 56.7 57.4 39.2 j 60.1 66.4 625 24 64 64.9 66.8 ' 6�.9 � 705 71.2 4b.6 49.1 I 42.4 I 48.4 45.2 47.7 62.8 � 68 > I 65.4 2� 61.3 6�.8 68.5 I 659 � 71.9 70.3 39 44 645 4b.8 32.7 40.4 62.8 � 67.9 66.7 26 60.4 62.4 66J I 66.3 ( 72.9 74.3 66.8 65.2 67.2 69.8 41.6 42.2 � 57.9 ; 70 62.4 � 27 59.1 60.4 66.7 i 66S � 75.2 � 74.4 I 69.4 63.1 30.6 58.4 59.6 32.4 � 58.7 I 66:? 61J 28 62.1 I 63 68.3 � 63.2 � 70.9 69.4 42.8 43.6 38.6 43.4 38.9 41.6 � 609 � 68.1 63.4 29 62.8 6�.4 68.7 ! 65.9 ; 71.6 70.4 42.4 483 44.2 46.9 n/a 33.2 62.4 � 66.3 64.7 30 62.2 64.9 67.4 � 66S j 70.8 71.4 44.? 48 40.9 47.4 46.8 44.5 � 64 � 67.3 � 66.7 31 62.2 63.2 67.4 � 64.7 ! 70.7 70.6 45.7 47 � 39.4 47.7 31 46.8 64.2 � 68.3 I 67.3 IV10. Ldn 63.4 6Z.0 65.5 � 65.3 ( 71.� '73.0 65.� 62.5 55.4 17.$ 5.1.1 43.2 � a"9.8 � 66.6 52.6 A Praduct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�ram Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisc�r's Repori ' �� Analysi� of Aircraft l�oise ]Events - Aircraft I.dn d�A October 2000 � Remote Monitoring Towers � Date. _ #16 #17 #18 .#19. �#?A: .#21 .#22, #23 `#�4 #25 #26 `#27: .#2S #29 1 68.7 53.8 58.6 47.1 48.6 58.1 583 � 71.6 63.7 53.9 61.7 57.2 56.6 52.4 2 6�.1 52.8 58.5 50.8 46.7 39S 54.7I54.4 61.1 47.4 49.4I61.8 62.4 59.9 i � 3 6�.7 57 63.8 58.6 58.2 4b2 58.7 545 � 62.1 42.1 52.3 623 63.6 61.8 i 4 64.7 51.5I62.2 602 44.8 39.8 55.5 615I61.1 495 49.9 66.6 63.3 58.7 � 5 713 62S 65.8I55.7 54.1 55.8 61.1I67.9 64.9 59.1 60,2 62.4 65.4 63.6 6 675 55.4 54.8 54.6 54.6 432 58 56.7 632 50.2 59.6 62.6 64.9 62.6 7 66.1 45_6 4b_5 40.7 S1S 363 54.6 51 60.6 39 48.4 61.8 63S 60.9 8 6�.6 56.2 56.5 49.1 523 35S 5�.7 53.8 61.1 32 50 61.6 63.1 62.8 9 68.8 42.6 37.2 34.7 45.9 57.8 60.5 72 64.7 54.1 603 49.1 53 56.6 10 673 40..1 30.5 39.1 36.1 57 56.8 � 69.9 61.7 605 59.8 55.9 50.8 49.3 ll 68.6 369 45.8I31.6 37.4 59 61.1I72.6 65.7 615 60.8 32.4I48.7 n/a i - 12 71.4 37 57.3 54.8 35.8 60.1 63.4 ( 74.1 675 62.7 62.8 34.b 47S 332 I 13 ` 693 35.9 n/a n/a 34.5 58 61 702 64.9 57.3 61.7 n/a 30 373 � 14 643 59.2 58.8 48.7 53.7 39.4 56.6 52 ( 60.3 48.7 48 58.4 59.6 59.8 15 66.4 58.4 67.4 663 51.9 38.8 57.6 � 53.8 I 62.2 33.9 54.4 63.6 67.2 62.2 16 712 54 58.9 54.1 47.2 61.1 61.3I73.1 67.4 59.9 62 51.8 63.6 47.8 17 70.1 56.2 57.9 52_7 56 58.9 60.7I705 66.1 59.7 61.2 62.2 605 56.9 18 68.4 52.5 61.2 58S 46.4 565 59.1 69.9 � 64•8 61.2 58.1 64.5 63.9 55 I 19 66 9 5�.4 60.1 472 50.8 4b.2 55.8 67.3 62.8 64.1 57.1 63.6 565 60.1 20 68.4 493 51.7I5�2 48.8 46.7 56.9 53.4 61.8 49 50.5 63.6 64.7 60.4 21 68.2 53.6 623 55.8 45.4 55.8 56.1 67.6 625 57.6 57.6' 62.7 62 51.3 � 22 67.9 n/a 39.4 n/a n/a 54.1 56.7 69.9 64 53.4 60 32.6 52.1 39.8 23 70.6 59.3 583 44.6 37.3 58S 563 73 62.6 56.1 58.9 58.7 57:1 4�.3 � 24 70.4 56.3 58 54.9 n/a 59.6 59.9 72.9 64.2 58.3 61.2 44.9 56.1 36 � 2:5 70 533 57.2 46 38.2 60.1 60.5 733I64.1 59.8 61.7 45.9 46.9 n/a 26 70.7 52.4 57.3I525 49.9 543 60.9 68.4I65.8 56.9 60.3 62.6 62 62.9 � 27 70.7 46.6 46 44.9 45.8 562 60.9 68.1 � 65.4 62 58.5 63.5 64.8 54.9 ! 28 � 69 43 46.5 375 36 58.7 60.5 � 70.3 65.1 61.6 63.5 ( 34.4 59.7 33.9 � 29 6$.l 51.2 Sb 45.8 39S 58.9 57.6 I 71.1 � 63.3 61.4 62.4 36.5 58.7 n/a i 30 68.7 40.7 45.6 37.4 35.1 60.7 60.7 73 � 64.3 65.6 61.3 � 36 58.2 44.3 j 31 702 54.2 56.3 445 39.4 592 61.9 � 72.4 66.3 65.8 60.8 483 58.3 37.8 ; l��Io. I.cln 68.8 5�.6 59.2 55.0 �9.8 56.8 59 3 69:9 64.2 59:4 59.7 60.4 '61.5 �+8.0 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 29 � :�� f i V ,•r � ��,� �� a b;. y _� g 1�. La � � � � �-�� }�. "� 1 �. � t � � . t n 1 7 l ��' � �t �g }�. � tr �Y' �� h f Y m Y f 4. � �I, � � '!i. j, , J ti �t�1 � i � � � � f� '. .tb � �t ' 4 y�1� �' :�y. �. . t `�,�: � �� w �.t a. 'i� a�. -- - 17 � -,�,. �.� � �.�i h 1: ' [ $ t �. e aA" a �, � i; ` i�`� )� �� I: ?.'� t�,l •i� � ; /H � �4 � a�� , _ �4� �,��.��.4� :�� :�,,�. n_::: _ : ��,;�t,i : ,l�c,r ;s,�- � . � 's � � r �` i.�.°�Tw7�� .; :ir 1�� . -�.� �� '� s_�".�.��.��.r�.� �� . :�� '� _ __ "� _ ��t „y,�, r . . �z ��'�!� ��s��d��ru , �: , E� � � s�� r ` 1 �' "w-�.R� � "� '' �.�.:� � 4"-L`?1,,� 7Yf,:�3E'n Y'. •. � ' ��:;.� .`.` =�. _ J; �� `� � ,-� ' :,� , +--:� -�� ; � �-� �'"��' � CJ ( +,r-'�,�-, � �_ 1�3 :`��.••,• `a. .� v� �2� �'t. , y� �� t� a l ,�, �.�'� t� ��r �i,^?Y i��' r.�'x' . . +y }'�.'�` ?.: . `��f.ti��l.• -�;.r. C Nletropolitan Airports Corninission 2� (Oe3'%m ) l�unway 12I.� and 12R Carrier Jet I)eparture C)peraiion� were �orth o� the 090° �orrid.or �ound.ary Dur�ng Oc�ober 2000 Minneapoiis—St. Paul '. . . � Penetratian Gate Plot for Gate North_Corridor �' 10/01/2Q00 Od:08:1}0 —11/01/2000 00:00:00 ' ' '. 25 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left =1 (4.0%), Right = 24 (96.0%) :, ,. , . ... ;. ,. , <. , . ,; _..... . _ , , ,,; ....�._ ... . , ..._ .::: ;. � . .. . � 600Q . . . i.`. � . � 5000 ................ . ............... ................ ................ - o . . - c4000 ................ ............... : ............... ................ a��i • W3000 .................. ................ ..................�43.............. � . . o �o �- 2000 .... ............ ..... ....... ... ..� ...�...��a� .�. . ... .. ... a : Q;� : ; l000 ................ : ......... .... ................ ................ o � • . .a Q p : : . _2 _1 a i 2 , (Ru❑way End) Deviation From Ceni�r of Gaie (Miles) (Corridor End) O De ar#ure ❑ Overfli hi � : -!- Arrival p 9 � .�� / t Page 2 Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Conridor Analysis " Meiropolitan Airports Commission 325 (4a0%� R�nway ��L and.12R �ar��er �e� Depa�t��e ��e�a��n� ��r� �outh oi ��e �orrgd.or (�outh o� 30I, I�ocal�z��) Du�� ctober 200� ._ . _ � . _ .. . . . .:. . .. .:.. : . iUlinneapolis-St. Paul Penetration Gafie Ptot for Gate South_Corridor 10/01/200Q Od:00:00 -11/01/2000 OO:OQ:00 325 Trac�Cs Crossed Ga�e: L�ft = 204 (62•8%), Righi -12'i (37.2°/a) ; ;�:{ ,� 6000 . — . _ . �1 � 5000 ................ ............... : ................ : ................. '�� 4000 ................ : ............... : ............... . ................. � O � .................................... ,; a� • • ,'� W 3000 • , • �. . . . .. . .:. . . .p . . . . . . .. . .. . . .:. o� �,.,�?_� S�S�....�._.....0.......... ' ................. Q- 2000 . ' Q '> > 1000 .......... 0 ,:' � O -2 �' (Conridor End) `; ; �t• f.,;-�iry��,�«.s�1�`.:: • • _ " � s�S�i�?�� ,,'ilts�l,��r�'2�j.� eq t,7�`� z � e �r��,;�,.��,.�,;e��a"`'�'�� '�:'� ' J,'.��"`! � . � a � � �. w :��`a �`� k ` • • � � � t . •. � ,�- . ,. _ .. - 4 + �►rrival O Depariure � C2vee�light 119A1'Lu19'3WiF'� Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Deparhu'e Corridor Analysis Page 3 Metropolitan Airports Commission 11 (�el �lo) Run�a� 12I, and. 121� Ca��ier Jet De�ar��.re Opera��ons v��re 5° South oi ihe Corr�d�r (�° South of 30I. I,oca�izer} liur�ng �ciober 200� <� ;. � 6 ;°t' tv :1 �, 5 C �`� O :_ � q a� � 3 0 � Q 2 zt � 1 0 .st � . _ Minneapolis-St. Paul . �': Penetration Gate Plot for Gate South_Corridor 5deg 10/01/2Q00 O�:OO:Od -11/01/2000 00:00:00 = '' 11 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 7(63.6%), Right = 4(36.4%) �`��- - - _2 (Corridor End) Arrivai � . ,.. , , . , ;�. Page 4 Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis -1 0 1 2 Deviation From Center of Gate (Miles) �RWY Mid-Poinc) O Depae�ure � Overilight � �r� Metropolitan Airports Commission Top �.5 i2unway 12L, and 12R �epariur� Dest�na�flons f�r �ct�be� 2000 �-3;� Fss�&�....��r,. ��4� r-��'zT�tl ,7z1c}��'�..:if'.r"K'�+y'�z"�xfi�lt,G.'4yi"Q',.�5� ��i-'',�¢tie�,F,�`�7�''sw,{..��y-a�.hki"'�^�X rI� �I,�t'k 1'4a��`'t � r,�� .;� � .� r� �� . ��.��t� -�'�' ��r€��K`ea�rn ��! t�fi�,�..z��,��t� �Percent,Q��! �� tn,'^��`�' i �,,,. �Y � ,n` '"�`�`t3a�, P �, E�L�' }�y f _,, '�" I � r �� r:-•'• G c�ri � � �� #��S f � ?.t'�a 1 �5"'�` ur�' ,. 4,� '� Ct s t � �' �]' r ir p� t ,� ta �t � � E f �� L� Ol'tr' � � ' � �t r� `�'liy 7 ��h��'F;�f�. 4� f� � f,.z-�r , '� , � i t� 'i� �� Gt F�'Fi3 t,�' 7'. ��.N 5 i� ,y C•yy^} ..�L'-r� B TZ iCLQ.��'- a�.'� ��i� �X� �',a �f �IfS�Q��s� � �q=�`'��s i�, � ? y�+a= � s �. �ii��t.�`r,�1w�3 G��'��'��_��'-'_�� i�i' .A�.i�"3�. �''�'�.�k . . _:�'ui _ rE��`v`�L. ift��',�;�'�� TM�t�s � . , � � , � i � ... , � �� .. k � � , � • � /i�/ � � ; ; � . � ; � ' N. ` � �,..�'1��.��' �- � ; + , . ; ', • ' ti } ; ' ; I, � ��E�`� • '�,� 1� � ) � � � • � r � � • � �� i � �� ;��; • � � �� '� i � � �i � � � i � �.i: ;. i � ( ' ! � �I � �I �{ ' ir � i : 1 ;�k i „ � i s r � � t • I ( _ � { � ��±�I�( ' • , ` • - ` i • i k � • • - (I �; • I ,' , � � f F � � � ( ` , n, i �.t � � � Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Conidor Analysis Page 5 ,� � C _ AVIATION POLICY PLAN UPDATE 2000-2020 November 29, 2000 8:30 to 10:30 a.m. Council Chambers Metropolitan Council Offices Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101 1. Call to Order — Review Minutes of October 1 l, 2000 Meeting (encl.) 2. Overview of Federal & State Airspace/Airport Safety - FAR. PART 77 - State Aizport Zoning Legislation - Aeronautics Rules & Regulations - Model Airport Zoning Ordinance 3. Review Issue Paper on Land Use Compatibility for Safety (encl..) - Major Airport — MSP - Intermediate & Minor Airports 4. State Airport Zoning Legislation, Rules & Regulations - Status 5. Background Information: (handouts) 6. Other Business AVIATION POLICY PLAN UPDATE 2000 — 2020 TASK FORCE MEETING OF October 1 l, 2000 1. The fourth meeting of the Aviation Policy Plan Task Force was called to order by chair Todd Paulson . Minutes of the August 9, 2000 meeting were reviewed and approved. 2. Larry Dallam of HNTB presented an issue paper concerning modifications to the regional Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Aircraft Noise. The proposed modifications would clarify the application and review of land uses designated as "conditional" under noise compatibility guidelines. In addition to defining noise metrics, the proposal modifes several tables in the Aviation Policy Plan. In Table 1 the heading for in-fill is changed to read In-fill Development and Reconstruction or Additions to Existing Structures. The term consistent is replaced with cornpatible, and inconsistent with incompatible. Replaces provisional, with conditionalfor [new] transient lodging in noise exposure zone 2. Treats conditional land uses, whether under New Development or In-fill development, the same. No changes are proposed for Table 2. Table 3 replaces the existing conditional review factors. Also, proposes that affected communities provide notification for review of conditional land use developments to Metro Council and the MAC. There was considerable discussion of the proposed changes to the compatibility guidelines. It was questioned if the heading on In-fill development includes "small" redevelopment parcels. In figure 1 of �'" �� the issue paper it was questioned if the information was only from the U.S. AIRFORCE, since '._ expectations concerning aircraft noise may be different between civilian and rnilitary residents. It was pointed out that the information came frorn the Federal interagency Committee on Noise and was based upon earlier work by Schultz. It was also pointed out that at MSP noise levels above 80db occurs basically on-airport, that land in 75 to 80db areas is generally open to acquisition, that the existing Part 150 program insulates homes in the 65 to 70db area, that the updated Part 150 proposes to insulate between the 60 to 65 db; and, that outside the 60db noise contour aircraft noise operations abatement and land use zoning rneasures apply. It was also questioned how the figure would be different assuming � windows open or closed. Several comments were made on Table 3. It was suggested that an additional colurnn on land use types be included for Schools, Hospitals and nursing Homes. Mr. Dallam clarified that if a conditional land use was found to be incompatible for only one land use review factor, it is considered incompatible. Under the planning review factors it was questioned if consideration is given to other noise sources in the area (e.g. freeway). Under method of disclosure it was questioned if it applied to commercial/industrial uses. Also under method of disclosure, what is responsibility of a city versus a realtor? When does the method of disclosure happen? What is appropriate method? Seems that notification would need to be different between selling an old home versus a new home. Airport conditions can change, how is notification handled? Concern was raised about situations where noise-impacted land is not acquired, but is use-restricted, how is this addressed? Does a home under a flight track take precedence in overall noise exposure situation? How is low frequency noise addressed? The issue paper will be redrafted as appropriate to respond to the suggestions prior to final review. 3. C. Case updated the task force on continuing work to: ;' � m Define individual airport service areas. It was indicated that the types of services and users allowed the `' -- ' Minor, Intermediate and Major airports to be assigned separate service areas with minimal overlap. The criteria used to establish each service area was discussed. The location of based aircraft users in re(ation to the ground travel time to their airport was plotted. About 50% of Minor airport pilots are within 15 minutes ground travel time, for the Intermediate airport this is 25 minutes. About 75% of pilots are captured within 25 minutes drive of Minor airports, and 30 minutes of the Intermediate airport. (� Work is still in progress on defining the MSP service area. A draft map of the Minor metro airports and ' adjacent county airports service areas was discussed. Concern was again raised over airports that provide metro service but are not appropriately funded. It was indicated that specific airport service maps and physical/economic characteristics of each service area are being prepared. The aviation planning and coordination process and use of the "airport influence area" was also reviewed. Referral reviews, planning review documents, and the Council's Citizen Participation Plan were discussed. The need for including more text and diagrams concerning the planning process was examined. An evaluation ofthe 1996 Aviation Policy Plan indicated several areas where improvements in the Guide, WEG page, and use of GIS were needed. A map of the key communities affected by airport system planning considerations and identified by an airport influence area was explained. A memo on the airport zoning issue paper was also discussed as a preview to the next task force meeting. Aviation safety is a major area of responsibility for the FAA and State Aeronautics and the Councii references the various rules, regulations and legislation that applies to protection of the region" airports, aircraft operations, and community land use. Regional policy concerning ta11 towers appears adequate. Improvement to the noti�cation system for potential airspace obstructions needs to be further explained in the Guide. Application of State airport zoning requirements at metro-area airports is not being adequately implemented. Specific land�use safety issues have become problems at several airports as experienced in development of airport ]on�-term comprehensive plans and review of community comprehensive plans. A number of proposed actions and changes were outlined, including: - Further clarify the "Notification" process, - Further assess operational and development in runway safety zones (issue paper on safety), � - Establish goals for airport/runway instrumentation capabilities [relates to safety zones], - Formalize and coordinate recommendations on airport safety with the FAA and MnDOT. 4. Background information was provided on the 1999 MAC report to the Minnesota legislature concerning air service and the planning, development, and operational activity at both MSP and DTW airports. Information was also provided on an industry viewpoint on airline deregulation. Earlier, a copy of the FAA report on airline deregulation was provided. 5. The Chair reviewed a tentative agenda for the next Task Force meeting, scheduled for November 29, 2000. � � . ,�' � :I , � I � � 1996 Aviation Policy Plan LTpdate Issue Paper 2— I�and �Jse Compatibility for Safety SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ANI) CONCLUSIONS l. Absolute safety for the individual is an ideal that has ever been sought but never attained. Because we do not have full control over our environment, the very function of living has inherent hazards, which become more pronounced as the scheme of living grows more complex. Thus, since absolute safety is a theoretical concept, one can speak only of relative risk. Calculated risk is an American concept that gives mobility to the whole social skucture. It means a willingness to embark deliberately on a course of action which offers prospective rewards that outweigh its estimated dangers. 2. Application of the Mn/DOT zoning standards in the metro area has had no impact on the prevention of incompatible development in the safety zones since the passage of the Airport Zoning legislation in 1945. The MAC has had no success thus far in implementing/enforcing the Mn/DOT rules on zoning regulations at any of its airports. The affected rnunicipalities have either refused to adopt and enforce the zoning regulations or to participate in the process of establishing airport zoning. Major Airport - MSP 3. Based on 1982 to 1998 national statistics, 89% of cargo and scheduled commercial aircraft accidents within 25,000 feet of a runway at a major airport occurred on airport property; at MSP, 100% occurred on MAC property. ', � 4. The risk of a cargo or scheduled cornmercial aircraft crash off the south end of Runway 17-35 in Safety Zones A and B is extremely low — once every 21 S years in Zone A and once every 328 years in Zone B. 5. Based on 1982 to 1998 national statistics, the risk of a fatality from a cargo or scheduled commercial aircraft crash off the south end of Runway 17-35 in Safety Zones A and B at MSP is once every 662 years in Zone A and once every 1,010 years in Zone B. There were no fatalities at MSP. 6. The risk of an accident off the south end of Runway 17-35 in Safety Zones A and B is acceptable based on the FAA criterion of a maxirnum of 1.0 per 10,000,000 -- 0.286 accidents per 10,000,000 operations in Safety Zone A and 0.187 accidents per 10,000,000 operations in Safety Zone B. 7. It is concluded that development that would not constitute a severe hazard to aircraft and would not concentrate a large assembly of people is appropriate in Safety Zones A and B off the south end of Runway 17-35. Intermediate and Minor Airports 8. From 1982 to 1999, 90.7% of the reported accidents occurred.outside the Mn/DOT safety zones — 82.4% on airport property and 8.3% off-airport property outside the NIn/DOT safety zones. 9. 9.3% of the reported accidents occurred off-airport property at unlrnown locations because of insufficient information. No accident could definitively be located in a Mn/DOT safety zone from 1982 to 1999. i j .. .- �., /� i/ 10. No person on the ground was injured as a result of any of the accidents. 11. There is no evidence that existing structures or land use in the Mn/DOT safety zones either caused or �'' contributed to a reported accident from 1982 through 1999. 12. The accident rate per operation at a GA airport is higher than at MSP. However, GA aircraft are much smaller than commercial aircraft and in many emergency situations are able to avoid collisions with objects on the ground because of their size and maneuverability, whereas the larger aircraft are much Iess able to do so. Also, the size of the area affected by a crash is much srnailer for GA aircraft than for commercial aircraft, and therefore the consequences of a GA crash to people on the ground are much less severe. � 13. It is concluded that development that would not constitute a severe hazard to aircraft and would not concentrate a large assernbly of people is appropriate in Safety Zones A and B at the Intermediate and Minor Airports. Regional Blueprint Effects 14. There are approxirnately 1,794 acres of developed and vacant developable land in the Mn�DOT safety zones outside the RPZ at the Metro airports. 15. Mn/DOT zoning standards prohibit the development of vacant, developable land and the redevelopment of existing land in the airport safety zones 16. The prohibition of development or redevelopment of the 1,794 acres �in the Metro airport safety zones would result in the following costs: The costs of acquiring the land (inverse condemnation) since the land owner would be denied � developmendredeveloprnent of the land The loss in tax revenue to the affected municipalities and school districts The costs of supplying urban services to accommodate the displaced development outside the MUSA 17. Minnesota law states that proposed zoning regulations that do not conform to Mn/DOT standards are allowable if it can be demonstrated that the social and economic costs of restricting land uses in accordance with the standards outweigh the benefits of a str-ict application of the standards. 18. Minnesota law states that the elimination or removal of existing land uses, particularly established residential neighborhoods in built up urban areas, or their designation as nonconforming uses is not in the public interesf and should be avoided whenever possible consistent with reasonable standards of safety. 19. It is concluded that the economic costs of prohibiting development and redevelopment that would not constitute a severe safety hazard to aircraft in the Metro Area airport safety zones far outweigh the potential safety benefits. Not allowing future development and redevelopment in these zones within the MUSA is considered not in the public interest as much as the elimination or removal of existing land uses in these zones. � 2 � ,, ; ,, ,�•� , � •�� •. � � �� / � / / RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that this issue paper be submitted to the Council for review and transmittal to the commissioner of MnlDOT for his consideration on revisions to the Mn/DOT rules on zoning standards as they apply to the Metropolitan Area, which are cunently under review. BACKGROiTND In 1945 the Minnesota legislature enacted a law on Airport Zoning for airports owned or controlled by a municipality, county or the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). The law enables affected jurisdictions to establish a Joint Airport Board with zoning regulations that must be approved by the commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/UOT). Mn/DOT subsequently adopted rules that restricted development within two miles of the runway end. However, in 1978 the legislature amended the law and exempted existing land uses, particularly established residential neighborhoods in built up urban areas, from these standards unless they constituted a severe safety hazard. The legislature also enacted a law that required Mn/DOT to withhold state aid to airports that do not have airport zoning approved by MnlDOT. The rules were later revised to define safety zones off the end of each runway. Mn/DOT rules define the safety zones as a trapezoid with a total length equal to the length of the runway. Safety Zone A is two-thirds the length of the runway and Safety Zone B is one-third the length of the runway. The widths of the trapezoid vary according to the type of navigational aids provided for operations on the runway (visual or instrument). The Mn/DOT rules contain zoning standards for allowable land uses and densities within the zones. Mn/DOT standards prohibit all buildings or temporary structures in Zone A, and uses in Zone B shall be on a minimum 3-acre site with a maximum density of 15 persons per acre. Mn/DOT is currently in the process of reviewing the rules. Application of the Mn/DOT zoning standards in the metro area has had no impact on the prevention of incompatible development in the safety zones. South St. Paul Airport has a zoning board and the City has adopted overlay zoning regulations. Of the MAC airports, MSP and Crystal Airport have joint airport zoning boards with zoning regulations approved by Mn/DOT, but no affected municipality has agreed to adopt and enforce the zoning regulations. All of these three airports' safety zones were essentially fully developed with existing land uses that were exempted. Application of the zoning regulations to the south end of new MSP Runway 17-35 would prohibit�development on prirne vacant land in Bloomington, including land adjacent to the Mall of America. MAC has had no success thus far in implementing/enforcing the Mn/DOT rules on zoning regulations at any of its airports. The affected municipalities apparently are unwilling to assume potential liability for resfiricting use of the land or to aclrnowledge that the affected area is unsafe. . Neither MAC nor Mn/DOT has been willing to adopt and enforce the zoning regulations in the metro area, which they could under the law. ISSU]ES � The issue is whether or not the risk of an accident in the Mn/DOT safety zones is such that otherwise compatible development/redevelopment should be prohibited. Cunent state lativ states that MnlDOT may approve zoning regulations that do not conform to its standards — if a municipality/joint airport zoning board "demonstrates that the social and economic costs 1 j I f • :I' � R �; ' � I � � of restricting land uses in accordance with the standards outweigh the benefits of a strict application of the standards".i Would the safety benefits of the Mn/DOT zoning standards outweigh the social and economic costs to the �,, Metro Area of prohibiting development or redevelopment in the runway safety zones where regional investments have been made — when compared to the costs of this development occurring outside the urban area where regional investments for roads, transit, water and sewer would have to be made? Is this consistent with the mission of the Council's Regional Blueprint? ANA�YSIS APPROACH The analysis of risk is based on historical records. The prirnary source of aircraft accidents is the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). 'The N'TSB has statistics on accident rates per 100,000 flights for scheduled commercial flights and accident rates per 100,000 flight hours for general aviation (GA) flights. Forecasts of flights or operations are available but not flight hours. Therefore, the analysis of risk will be performed differently for the Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport (MSP) and the GA airports. Analysis of Accident Risk at MSP `� The probability or risk of an accident for a specified runway is based on the forecast of aircraft operations off the runway end and the average accident rates and the locations of accidents based on historical data. The analysis uses available national accident records to determine the potential for an aircraft accident and the most likely location of an accident if it were to occur. "Accident" is defined by NTSB as an occurrence where any person either on or in contact wiih an aircraft with the intent to fly are killed or seriously injured, or where the aircraft is destroyed or suffers substantial damage. Sources of data on aircraft accidents used in the analysis are the NTSB and the Airline Pilots Association (ALPA). The NTSB data include the number of accidents compared with the total number of aircraft flights, as well as the phase or stage of the flight in which the accidents occurred. The ALPA data shows the locations of � accidents that occurred during landing or takeoff within 25,000 ft. of the runway end. The MSP analysis will be for the south end of new Runway 17-35 because the area in Bloomington within the safety zones is largely undeveloped and application of the Mn/DOT zoning standards would have a greater impact on land use than in any other runway's safety zones, which are fully developed. The analysis first examines the overall potential for an accident in the area off the sauth end of Runway 17-35 utilizing the NTSB data, and the-�uses the distribution of accidents provided by the ALPA data to assess where in this area accidents are most likely to occur. It must be noted that these are national averages and it is assumed that the potential for an accident and the location of an accident off this runway end will be consistent with the national averages. The results are then compared with MSP accident data. Analysis of Accident Risk at Intermediate and Minor AirUorts Accident rates are provided for the number of GA flight hours flown instead of the number of operations, which greatly restricts the ability to perform a risk analysis at a GA airport to the same degree of accuracy as at MSP. Also, the reported number of historic annual GA operations are estimates and therefore much less accurate at these airports than at MSP because either there is no air traffic control tower or the tower is not in operation throughout the 24-hour day. Therefore, the GA analysis will evaluate the history of reported accidents at each airport and the reported location of the accidents. � Minnesota statute 360.065, Subdivision 2. � � �` • � I,' � ' /� // Analvsis of Effect on Regional Blueprint The number of acres of developed and vacant developable land within the Mn/DOT safety zones will be determined and the costs of prohibiting development or redevelapment of theses acres discussed. .ANALYSIS OF ACCIDENT RISK AT 1VISP Mn/DOT currently defines the safety zones as a trapezoid with a length equal to the length of the runway (5,000 feet for Runway 17-35). Safety Zone A is two-thirds the length of the runway, or 5,333 feet in length, and Zone B is one-third the length of the runway, or 2,667 feet in length. T'he FAA Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) encompasses the first 2,500 feet of Zone A. The location and dimensions of the zones are shown in lEigure 1(at end of report). Note that the analysis for the 8,000-foot safety zone will overstate the risk of an accident if the 7,000-foot safety zone in the existing zoning regulations at MSP were used. National Accident Rates The NTSB is the federal agency responsible for the monitoring and investigation of aircraft accidents nationally. The currently available NT"SB data for commercial turbine aircraft (turboprop and turbojet) is shown in Table 1. When averaged over the 17-year period, the accident rate for Part 121 and Part 135 carriers was 0.367 and 0.653 per 100,000 flights, respectively. The combined average accident rate was 0.4414 accidents per 100,000 flights (total accidents divided by total flights) or 0.2207 accidents per 100,000 operations (since a flight consists of two operations — a takeoff and a landing). I / �I � ,' � �: � � � � Table 1 Number of Accidentsi and Accident Rates Nationwide (1982 -1998) Part 121 Carriers Part 135 Carriers a'or Airlines/Car o Scheduled Commaters Year Accident Accident No. of No. of Flights Rate per No. of No. of Flights Rate per Accidents (x100,000) 100,000 Accid�ents (x100,000) 100,000 Fli hts** Fli hts2 1982 18 53.51 0.336 26 2027 � 1.283 1983 23 54.44 0.422 16 23.28 0.687 1984 16 58.99 0.271 22 26.77 � 0.822 1985 21 63.07 0.333 18 25.61 0.703 1986 24 72.02 0.333 14 27.99 0.500 1987 34 76.01 0.447 33 28.10 1.174 1988 29 77.16 0.389 18 29.09 0:619 1989 28 76.45 ` 0.366 19 28.19 0.6�4 1990 24 80.92 0.297 15 31.60 0.475 1991 26 78.15 0.333 23 28.20 0.816 1992 18 78.81 0.228 23 31.11 0.739 1993 23 80.73 0.285 16 36.02 � 0.444 1994 23 82.38 0.279 10 35.81 0.279 1995 36 84.57 0.426 12 � 32.20 0.373 1996 38 &2.29 0.462 11 35.15 0.313 1997 49 103.00 0.476 17 13.95 1.219 1998 48 103.18 0.465 8 7.91 1.011 Total 479 1305.68 301 461.25 Avera e 0.367 0.653 Soarce: National Transportation Safety Board; HN'I'B analysis '"AccidenY' is defined as an occurrence where any person either on or in contact with an aircraft with the intent to fly are killed or seriously injured, or where the aircraft is destroyed or suffers substantial darnage. Z Includes suicide and sabotage incidents, which are excluded from NTSB rates 3 Includes aircraft with 10 or more seats formerly operating under Part 135, effective March 20, 1997. Probability of an Accident at the South End of New Runway 17-35 The probability of an accident off of this runway end is assumed to be directly proportional to the national average accident rate and the proportion of total accidents that occur on-airport and on landing and departure flight segments shown in Figure 2. The number of operations used for the analysis is the year 2010 MAC High Forecast shown in Table 2. , Table 2 2010 MSP High Forecast Operations - South End of Runway 17-35 O eration Pro eller Turbo-'et Total Landing 20,500 30,800 51,300 Takeoff 44,700 67,000 111,700 Total 65,200 97,800 163 000 Source: Dual Track Airport Planning Process Fuial �;i5 0 .. .- �-•= i,i�' The accidents recorded by NTSB occurred in every segment of a flight — from pushing back from the gate and taxiing and takeoff at the departing airport, through en route to landing and taxiing to the gate at the ) amval airport. The NTSB breaks down the overall occurrence of an accident on any flight into the relative frequency of occurrence on each segment of the flight. The currently available data is shown in Figure 2. � This data indicates that 61.5% of all accidents from 1982 to 1996 occurred in a total of the following segments of a flight — on the airport, on the landing segments consisting of Final Approach Fix to Threshold and Final, and on departure segments consisting of Takeoff and Initial Climbs.Z The landing segments extend 8 nautical miles from the runway end; the departure/takeoff segments extend 5 nautical miles off the runway end. The value used in the following analysis for the propensity for an accident on any commercial aircraft flight is 0.2207 accidents per 100,000 operations. Applying the proportion of accidents that occurred during landing and takeoff, as defined above, to the average accident rate, yields a probability of 0.136 accidents per 100,000 operations (61.5% of 0.2207). For Runway 17-35 this would be 0.221 accidents in 2010 (0.136 times 163,000 divided by 100,000) or an average of one accident every 4.5 years. Estimated Location of Accidents off the South End of Runway 17-35 The ALPA data identifies the locations relative to runway ends of 706 commercial aircraft accidents. Only accidents which occurred in the U.S. between 1974 and 1997 and for which ALPA was able to obtain accurate location data are included in the database. 'These are shown in Figure 3 and the distribution by aircraft category and type of operation are shown in Table 3. Table 3 ALPA Accident Data by Commercia� Aircraft Type and Type of Operation ation Takeoffs Unlrnown ( Total �, Source: ALPA 1974-1997 Data. 399 110 0 514 Jet 154 37 0 192 Total 553 147 706 Applying this distribution to the south end of the proposed runway, the bulk of these accidents have occurred in areas under the control of MAC. Table 4 gives the distribution of the accidents in areas inside and outside of Safety Zones A and B represented graphically in Figure 4. Area 1 represents the area adjacent to the Runway Safety Area (RSA), Area 3 the area adjacent to Safeiy Zone A and Area 5 the area adjacent to Safety Zone B. � � ' NTSB data for 1997 and 1998 was unavailable as of February 25, 2000. , . , , � . , /� // Table 4 Distribution of ALPA-Recorded Accidents Applied to the South End of Runway 17-35 ( � Area Number % i ure A-4 RSA + RPZ 630 89.24 1 25 3.54 2 (Zone A, 26 �_ 3.68 not includin RPZ 3 2 0.28 4 Zone B) 17 2.41 5 0 0 South of MnlDOT 6 0.85 Zones Total 706 100 Sources: ALPA 1974-1997 data; HN'TB analysis It is noted that 89.2% of the accidents recorded by ALPA occurred on the airport or in the RPZ. Of the rernaining accidents, over half occurred in a narrow strip centered on the extended runway centerline. Only 3.7% of accidents occurred in 1VInDOT Zone A(outside of the RPZ) and 2.4% in MnDOT Zone B. The probability of an accident in these areas is calculated by applying the percent distribution of accidents in Table 4 to the overall probability of 0.221 accidents in the year 2010. T'he analysis is presented in ( Table 5. Table 5 Projected Probability of Accidents in 2010 In Areas South of Runway 17-35 Area Avg. Accidents Avg. Years (Fignre A-4) In 2010 between an Accident RSA + RPZ 0.197 5.1 1 0.00782 128 2(Zone A, not 0.00813 123 includin RPZ) 3 0.000619 1616 4 Zone B) 0.00533 188 5 0 00 South of Zone B 0.00188 532 Total 0.221 � Sources: NTSB data; ALPA data; HN"1'13 analysis All of the probabilities are calculated for 2010 forecast traffic levels. Any increase or decrease in operations off the runway end would proportionally increase or decrease the probability of an accident. It `, : � r . ,+ � �`., , /� �/ is further noted that the areas addressed by the ALPA data (25,000 feet off the runway ends) and the dimensions of the flight segments used in the allocation of accidents by NTSB (8 nautical-miles or 48,642 ; feet for arrivals, and 5 nautical-miles or 30,401 feet for departures) are dissimilar. It was conservatively assumed in the above analysis that all of the accidents included in the NTSB data occurred within the smaller area encompassed by the ALPA data. Historical Accidents at MSP All of the preceding analysis assumed that accidents to traffic landing on Runway 35 and departing Runway 17 would occur at the average rate of accidents at all domestic U.S. airports. This is considered a logical approach in addressing the probability, given the infrequency and random nature of aircraft accidents — but the unusually good safety record of MSP shown in Table 6 must be aclrnowledged. In the period 1982-1998 there were only 4 accidents involving Part 121 carriers and 3 involving Part 135 carriers, all of which occurred on-airport (none in the Mn/DOT safety zones). The combined average of Part 121 and Part 135 carriers for the 17-year period at MSP is 0.127 per 100,000 operations (7 = 55.27) — compared to the national average of 0.2207 per 100,000 operations. There.fore, the probability of an accident at MSP is 0.575 of the national average (0.127 = 0.2207) and the average number of years between an accident at MSP would be about 1.74 times the national average (1 = Q.575). Therefore, the probability of an accident in Safety Zone A outside of the RPZ would be 0.00466 or one every 215 years based on historical MSP accident data, compared to 0.00813 or one every 123 years based on the national average. The probability of an accident in Safety Zone B would be 0.00305 or one every 328 years compared to 0.00533 or one every 188 years based on the national average. 0 ' i i►��i1! �:' i i��' / r/ l Table 6 Number of Accidentsi and Accident Rates at MSP (1982 —1998) Part 121 Carriers Part 135 Carriers a'or Airlines/Car o Scheduled Commuters Year No. of No. of Accidents No. of No. of Accidents Accidents Operations per 100,000 Accidents Operations per 100,000 x 100,000 O erations g 100,000 O erations 1982 0 1.56 0 0 � 0.228 0 1983 0 1.77 0 0 0.339 0 1984 0 1.99 0 0 0.359 0 19$5 0 230 0 1 0.315 3.174 1986 0 2.47 0 1 O.SOS 1.980 1987 0 2.33 0 0 0.564 0 1988 2 2.33 0.858 0 0.589 0 1989 0 2.39 0 0 0.593 0 1990 0 2.48 0 0 0.744_ 0 1991 . 0 2.52 0 0 0.759 0 1992 0 2.69 0 0 0.859 � 0 1993 0 2.80 0 0 1:082, 0 1994 1' 2.86 0350 0 1.152 0 1995 1 3.06 0327 1 1.068 0.936 1996 0 3.27 0 0 1.059 0 1997 0 3.21 0 0 1.020 0 1998 0 3.11 0 0 0.904 0 Total 4Z 43.129 32 12.141 Avera e 0.092'7 0.247 Sources: National "i'ransportation Satety Board; Metropolitan Airports Commission; HNTB analysis 1"Accident" is defined as an occurrence where any person either on or in contact with an aircraft with the intent to fly are killed or seriously injured, or where the aircraft is destroyed or suffers substantial damage. Z Accident(s) occurred on the airfield; no passengers injured. Analysis of Fatal Accidents The analysis of safety should also consider the severity of aircraft accidents in terms of the loss of human life. The NTSB provides this information as a part of their database, and the 1982 — 1998 data is included in Table 7. The combined average of Part 121 and Part 135 carriers' fatal accidents was 0.0821 per 100,000 flights [(71 + 74) =(1305.68 + 461.25)] or 0.0410 fatal accidents per 100,000 operations over the 17-year period. Using the 2010 MSP forecast, the probability of a fatal accident in areas affected by Runway 17-35 is 0.0411 (61.5% of 0.0410 times 1.63). Assuming the ALPA disiribution of accidents in Table 4, 3.68% of 0.0411 or 0.00151 would occur in Zone A outside the RPZ — which is a probabiiity of one fatal accident every 662 years. In Zone B, the probability is 0.000991 (2.42% of 0.0411) or once every 1,010 years. T'here were zero fatal accidents at MSP in this 17-year period. 10 �' :�� ' �� •� .�" ,'� '', r � l '� �I , Table 7 Number of Fatal Accidents and Rates Nationwide (1982 -1998) Part 121 Carriers Part 135 Carriers a'or Airlines/Car o Scheduled Commuters Year No. of Accident No. of Accident Fatal No. of Flights Rate per Fatal No. of Flights Rate per Accidents (x100,000) 100,000 Accidents (a100,000) 100,000 Fli hts Fli hts 1982 5 53.51 0.093 5 20.27 0.247 1983 4 54.44 0.073 2 23.28 0.086 1984 1 58.99 0.017 7 26.77 0.261 1985 7 63.07 0.111 7 25.61 - 0.273 1986 3 72.02 0.042 2 27.99 0.071 1987 5 76.01 0.066 10 28.10 0356 lggg 3 77.16 0.039 2 29.09 0.069 1989 11 76.45 0.144 5 28.19 0.177 1990 6 80.92 0.074 4 31.60 0.127 1991 4 78.15 0.051 8 28.20 0.284 1992 4 78.81 0.051 7 31.11 0.225 1993 1 80.73 0.012 4 • 36.02 0.111 1994 4 8238 0.049 3 35.81 0.084 1995 3 84.57 0.035 2 32.20 0.062 1996 5 82.29 0.061 1 35.15 0.028 1997 4 103.00 0.039 5 13.95 0.358 1998 1 103.18 0.010 0 7.91 0.000 Total 71 1305.68 74 461.25 Avera e 0.054 0.160 , r,,.,T„ ,. .,r. Source: Nanonai iransporcai�on oaL��y 1-%V111LL� 111� 1✓ ......-,..-- Findings on Accidenf Risk at MSP Nationwide Avera�;es Applied to MSP The following findings for the south end of Runway 17-35 are averages of nationwide operations by Part 121 and Part 135 carriers (major airlines, cargo and scheduled commuters) at major airports from 1982 to 1998. 1. 89.2% of all accidents within 25,000 feet of the runway end occurred on the airport or in the RPZ - with the probability of occurrence of 0.197 per 163,000 operations. This equates to a risk of occurrence of once every 5.08 years (827,411 operations) based on the 2010 high forecast of operations on Runway 17-35. 2. 3.7% of all accidents within 25,000 feet of the runway end occurred in Mn/DOT Safety Zone A for an 8,000-foot runway outside the RPZ -- with a probability of occurrence of 0.00813 per 163,000 operations. This equates to a risk of occurrence of once every 123.00 years (20,049,000 operations) based on the 2010 high forecast of operations on Runway 17-35. 3. The probability of a fatal accident occurring in Mn/D4T Safety Zone A for an 8,000-foot runway � � outside the RPZ is 0.00151 per 163,000 operations. This equates to a risk of occurrence of once 11 '; fiTi�:��%"/ �: ' l� /l� every 662.25 years (107,950,000 operations) based on the 2010 high forecast of operations on Runway 17-35. 4. 2.4% of all accidents within 25,000 feet of the runway end occurred in Mn/DOT Safety Zone B for an � 8,000-foot runway -- with a probability of occunence of 0.00533 per 163,000 operations. This equates to a risk of occurrence of once every 187.62 years (30,581,614 operations) based on the 2010 high forecast of operations on Runway 17-35. 5. The probability of a fatal accident occurring in Mn/DOT Safety Zone B for an 8,000-foot runway outside the RPZ is 0.000991 per 163,000 operations. This equates to a risk of occurrence of once every 1,009.08 years (164,480,000 operations) based on the 2010 high forecast of operations on Runway 17-35. MSP Historical Data 6. 7 accidents were reported at MSP from 1982 to 1998 — all on the airport (none in Mn/DOT Safety Zones). The accident rate at MSP was about 43% lower than the national average. 7. The probability of an accident at MSP in Mn/DOT Zone A for Runway 17-35 outside the RPZ is 0.00466 per 163,000 operations or once every 214.6 years compared to the narional average of 0.00813 or once every 123 years, based on the 2010 high forecast of operations on Runway 17-35 and the average location of national accidents. � 8. The probability of an accident at MSP in Mn/DOT Zone B for Runway 17-35 is 0.00305 per 163,000 operations or once every 328 years compared to the national average of 0.00533 or once every 188 years, based on the 2010 high forecast of operations on Runway 17-35 and the national average of accident location. {" 9. There were no fatal accidents at MSP. Acceptable Risk at MSP FAA Criteria The FAA Flight Standards Division ernploys a collision-risk analysis of some proposed Instrument Landing Systems (ILS) to determine ihe probability of a collision on approach. 'The FAA has a threshold probability of 10"7 or one incident per 10,000,000 happenings. If the collision-risk analysis determines there could be more than one collision per 10,000,000 landings then the proposed project is not approved. Apply'rng this criterion to the risk of accidents south of Runway 17-35 in Mn/DOT Safety Zones A and B for the 2010 activity level of 163,000 operations gives the following resuIts. • Zone A outside the RPZ — The probability of an accident is calculated as one per 20,049,000 operations or 0.488 per 10,000,000 based on the national average �accident rate, which is less than the FA.A allowable criterion of a maximum of 1.0 per 10,000,000. Based on MSP historical accident rates the probability of an.accident is one per 34,978,541 or 0.286 per 10,000,000 operations. � Zone B-- The probability of an accident is calculated as one per 30,581,614 operations or 0.327 per 10,000,000 based on the national average accident rate, which is less than the FAA allowable criterion of a maximum of 1.0 per 10,000,000. Based on MSP historical accident rates the probability of an accident is one per 53,442,623 or 0.187 per 10,000,000 operations 12 .. ,;• f:•,i l� ll United Kingdom Criteria Public Safety Zones (PSZs) with recommended land use restrictions were established for airports in the United Kingdom (UK) in 1958. The ITK Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) commissioned a team of consultants to determine if there were sufficient evidence to support a risk-based approach to appropriate land use in the PSZs — and advise DETR as to what level of risk would be acceptable. The consultants calculated third party risk contours for sample airports in the UK based on the forecast of airport rnovements (operations) and the average crash rates, the location of the crash and the size of the area affected by the crash based on historical data. The calculated third party risk contours represent the probability of death from an aircraft crash to a person present in the area 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The consultant team completed its report in October 1997 3 The consultants' report used the usual definition of individual risk (the probability of death per year to a representative individual or rnember of a group as a result of some activity) and recommended the following individual risk criteria for aircraft activity: a The conventional upper level (maximum tolerable risk) of 10� or 1 death per 10,000 movements, which happens to equate to the average annual risk of dying in a traffic accident in the UK, and is 10 times the "widely-accepted upper limit to the tolerable risk for employees of death of 1 in 1,000 per year or 10"3s • A lower level (acceptable level of risk) of 10"6 or 1 death in 1,000,000 rnovements as recommended by the Royal Society Study Group and the Health and Safeiy Executive (HSE). DETR issued a consultation document in late 1997 based on the consultants' report and consulted with a wide range of interests on the findings of the report — including airports, airlines, aircraft manufacturers, local authorities and groups representing local communities around airports. Following the consultation, ! ) the Government announced in July 1998 that it had decided to adopt the basic principles of the report. The basic principles are the following: l. Require the removal of existing housing and other development occupied by third parties for a high proportion of the day from within the 10� individual risk contour (i.e., the risk/probability of a death to a third party from a crash occurring once every 10,000 operations on the runway in question). 2. No case for removing existing housing outside the 10� individual risk contour. 3. Inhibit new housing as far as the 10"5 individual risk contour. 4. Permit extensions to existing housing within the 10�5 individual risk contour. 5. No case for removing existing non-housing existing development outside the 10� individual risk contour. 6. Inhibit most new non-housing development, including transport terminals, as far as the 10"5 individual risk contour, but not beyond — except new development with a low density of human occupation averaged over the day is allowed between the 10� and 10-5 individual risk contours. 3 Third Party Risk Near Ai�ports and Pcrblic Safety Zone Policy, R& D Report 9636, A W Evans, P B Foot, S M � 1 Mason, I G Parker, K Slater, October 1997. 13 ��' ;I. : - - i: :! .I :.I � . . � �� 7. No case for diverting existing transport links near airports, and probably no case for diverting proposed links (though proposed links should be considered on their individual merits). Low cost measures to prevent vehicles routinely coming to a stand within the 10-5 individual risk contour might be worthwhile. 8. It might be sensible to restrict development of new, sensitive or high density land uses — such as schools, hospitals or places of assembly — somewhat beyond the new, sensitive or high density land uses — such as schools, hospitals or places of assernbly individual risk contour. If the LTK PSZ policies are applied to Mn/DOT Safety Zones A and B for the area south of Runway 11-35 in Bloomington, there is no case for restricting new development or extensions to existing development with the possible excepiion of new, sensitive ar high density landuses such,as schools, hospitals or places of assembly — since the risk of an accident or crash in Zone A outside the RPZ is estimated at 0.488 x� 10"' or 0.00488 x 10"5 and 0.187 x 10-� or 0.00187 x 10"5 in Zone B. These probabilities are much less than the UK maximum limit of 1.0 x 10"5. ACCIDENT RISKAT INTERMEDIATE AND MINOR AIRPORTS The NTSB data on general aviation (GA) accidents is not available to the same level of detail as comrnercial aviation. Accident rates are provided for the number of flight hours flown instead of the number of operations, which greatly restricts the ability to perform a risk analysis at: a GA airport to the same degree of accuracy as at MSP. Also, the reported number of historic annual��GA operations are estimates and therefore much less accurate at these airports than at MSP because either there is no air traffic control tower or the tower is not in operation throughout the 24-hour day. The assessment of risk af minor airports and the intermediate airport is based on the N'TSB history of the number and location of reported accidents, and the nuinber of existing and. projected operations on the ,. runways. � � � ��,.. The accidents reported to NTSB from 1982 through 1999 at each airport is presented in Table 8. As shown in the table, a total of 108 accidents were reported at the GA airports in the 18-year period at the 9 metro airports, of which 89 (82.4%) occurred on the airport property and 9(8.3%) occuned outside the Mn/DOT safety zones. (Note: MSP accidents are included in the table for comparison.) There were 10 (9.3%) crashes/emergency landings where the location is unlrnown because the accident report did not contain sufficient information to deternune the locarion. No person other than the pilot and passengers was injured in any of the accidents. There is no evidence that existing structures or land use in the Mn/DOT safety zones either caused or contributed to a reported accident frorn 1982 through 1999. The accident rate per operation at a GA airport is higher than at MSP, as shown in Table 8 by comparing #he average accidents per year with the estimated 1999 operations �for each airport. However, GA aircraft are much smaller than commercial aircraft and in rnany emergency situations are able to avoid collisions with objects on the ground because of their size and maneuverability, whereas the larger-aircraft are much less able to do so. Also, the size of the area affected by a crash is much smaller for GA aircraft than for comrnercial aircraft, and therefore the consequences of a GA crash to people on the ground are much less severe. 14 .. . ;• � � . /� // Table S Total Reported Accidents at Metro Airports —1982=1999 Number of Re orted Accidents Totai Year St. Flying Anoka Lake So. St. Forest GA MSP Paul Cloud Co. A.irlake Cr stal Elmo Paul Lake Benson Air ort 1982 � 1983 1 1 3 1 6 1984 6 1 1 2 1 1 1 13 1985 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 9 1986 2 2 2 1 1 6 1987 3 1 4 1988 2 1 2 1 2 1 7 1989 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � 1990 1 3 1 1 2 � 1991 1 1 1 l 4 1992 2 2 1 1 1 � 1993 2 1 1 4 1994 1 1 2 2 1 6 1995 3 3 1 3 1996 1 1 1 3 1997 1 1 1 3 4 1 2 13 1998 3 1 4 1999 2 1 1 1 1 3 Total Accidents 13 8 30 13 15 18 8 10 2 4 108 On Airport or 13 4 29 11 12 15 6 6 2. 4 89 RPZ (airport (100%} (50%) (97%) (85%) (80%) (83%) (75°/a) (60%) (100%) (100°/n) (82.4%) (._ e - 9 � �.�i`f- Airport � � Outside Safety (3%) (8%) (20%) (25%) (20%) (8.3%) Zones2 p Off- Airport in 0% Safe Zones2 10 Off- Airport 4 1 3 2 Unknown3 (8% 17% 20% 9.3% Avg. accidents 0.722 0.444 1.667 0.722 0.833 1.000 0.444 0.556 0.111 0.222 6.0 er ear Total number of p persons on the 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ound in'ured Estimated 1999 510,421 148,600 192,700 148,600 76,700 178,300 75,100 60,000 6,250 700 o erations 2010 forecast of 603,800 222,900 242,200 190,000 76,900 222,500 75,100 60,000 6,250 700 o erations "Accident" is defined as an occurrence where any person either on or in contact with an aircraft with the intent to fly are killed or seriously injured, or where the aircraft is destroyed or suffers substantial damage Z Off airport in Mn/DOT safety zones outside the FAA RPZ 3 Insufficient information to deternvne location of crash/emergency landing 15 ,' . � ,/ ' • /� // Findings on Accident Risk at Intermediate and Minor Airports 1. There were 10$ accidents reported from 1982 through 1999 at Intermediate and Minor GA Airports. � 2. 90.7% of the reported accidents occurred outside the Mn�DOT safety zones — 82.4% on airport � property and 83% off of the airports and outside the Mn/DOT safety zones. - 3. 9.3% of the reported accidents occurred off of the airports at unknown locations because of insufficient information. 4. No persons other than pilots and passengers were injured in any of the accidents. 5. There is no evidence ihat existing structures or land use in the Mn/DOT safety zones either caused or contributed to a reported accident from 1982 through 1999. 6. The accident rate per operation at a GA airport is higher than at MSP. However, GA aircraft are much smaller than commercial aircraft and in many emergency situations are able to avoid collisions with objects on the ground because of their size and maneuverability, whereas the larger aircraft are much less able to do so. Also, the size of the area affected by a crash is much srnaller for GA aircraft than for commercial aircraft, and therefore the consequences of a GA crash to people on the ground are much less severe. EFFECT ON REGIONAL BLUEPRINT' The estimated number of acres of developed and vacant developable land in the Mn/DOT safety zones outside the RPZ is given in Table 9. There are approximately 1,794 such acres. . Table 9 �. . Acres of Developed and Developable Land in Mn�DOT Safety Zones Acres of Develo ed and Develo able Land in Mn/DOT Safe Zones outside RP'Z St. Flying Anoka Lake So. St. Forest Total MSP Paul Cldud Co. Airlake Cr stal Elmo Paul Lake Benson 856' 238 14 37 77 198 191 145 25 90 1,794 Assurries total length of each runway's safety zones is 7,000 feet Mn/DOT rules do not explicitly address the treahnent of existing land uses, other than established residential neighborhoods in built up urban areas, or the redevelopment of land within the safety zones. The zoning standards prohibit all buildings in Zone A because they are considered to constitute an airport hazard with the exception of established residential neighborhoods in built up urban areas. The law prohibits the granting of a permit for the construction of new structures that would establish or create an airport hazard 4 This would not allow for the redevelopment or replacement of land uses in Zone A. However, the Minnesota legislature has determined "that the elimination or removal of existing land uses, particularly established residential neighborhoods in built up urban areas, or their designation as nonconforming uses is not in the public interest and should be avoided whenever possible consistent with reasonable standards of safety".5 The legislature also determined that proposed zoning regulations that do 4 Minnesota statute 360.067. Subdivision l, (1) 5 Minnesota statute 360.062 16 r i .: ;� %: � . ' � 1 � � not conform to MnlDOT standards are allowable if it can be demonstrated that the social and economic costs of restricting land uses in accordance with the standards outweigh the benefits of a strict application i of the standards. It is not in the public interest to prohibit the development of vacant, developable land and the redevelopment of existing land in the safety zones at airports within the MUSA — especially if that development/redevelopment is then forced to occur outside the MtTSA. T'he costs of this prohibition would be threefold — 1. The costs of acquiring the land (inverse condemnation) since the land owner would be denied developmendredevelopment of the land 2. The loss in tax revenue to the affected municipalities and school districts 3. The costs of supplying urban services to accommodate the displaced development outside the MUSA It is believed that these costs would greatly outweigh the safety benefits of a strict application of the Mn/UOT zoning standards = especially in light of the above findings on the risk of accidents at MSP and the GA airports. Findings on Regional Blueprint Effects l. There are approximately 1,794 acres of developed and vacant developable land in the Mn/DOT safety zones outside the RPZ at the Metro airports. 2. Mn/DOT zoning standards prohibit the development of vacant, developable land and the redevelopment of existing land in the airport safety zones 3. The prohibition of development or redevelopment of the 1,794 acres in the Metro airport safety zones would result in the following costs: The costs of acquiring the land (inverse condemnation) since the land owner would be denied development/redevelopment of the land . The loss in tax revenue to the affected municipalities and school districts The costs of supplying urban services to accommodate the displaced development outside the MUSA 4. Minnesota law states that propased zoning regulations that do not conform to Mn/DOT standards are allowable if it can be demonstrated that the social and economic costs of restricting land uses in accordance with the standards outweigh the benefits of a sfirict application of the standards. 5. Minnesota law states that the elimination or removal of existing land uses, particularly established residential neighborhoods in built up urban areas, or their designation as nonconforming uses is not in the public interest and should be avoided whenever possible consistent with reasonable standards of safety. THE CONCEPT OF �.CC�PTA�LE RISK The following discussion is taken from Airport �and Use Handbook, December 1993, prepareci for California Departme�zt of Transportation by Hodges and Shutt in association witlz Flight Safety Institzcte, Clzris Ha�nter & Associates, and University of Calrfornia, Berkeley, Institacte of Transportation. 17 i r . :� �' � ' � I � f Definition of appropriate safety zones is one side of the safeiy compatibility equation. The other, even more difficult side is establishment of suitable land use criteria to be applied within each zone. The basic objective of safety compatibility criteria is to minimize the risks associated with potential aircraft accidents. This objective has two components: �,. � To protect people and property on the ground when accidents occur; and • To minimize injury to the occupants of aircraft involved in accidents. For both of these components, the fundamental question to be answered when attempting to set land use development criteria is how much risk is acceptable? Answering this question is made particularly difficult by the fact that aircraft accidents occur infrequently and, for any specific location, probably will never happen. Yet, when an accident does take place, the consequences can be great. The balancing side to the question of acceptable risk is how much protection can be afforded? When an airport is situated in a rural area, well away from development pressures, the cost — to the landowner, the community, and the airport — for a high degree of protection may be low. Important land use development can usually be redirected toward areas where the prospects of an aircraft accident are minimal. At the other end of the spectrum, the need for developable land around urban area airports typically is such that avoidance of only the most risky forms of development — those in the most accident- prone locations or ones that greatly increase the potential severity — may be affordable. The problem with �' � accepting the latter concept, of course, is that an aircraft accident in a developed area hardly ever results � in pressure to eliminate the conflicting land use; rather the pressure inevitably is to restrict or close the . airport. Some perspective on this tradeoff can perhaps be gained from a study that examined the implications of another type of hazard — the threat of volcanic eruption (William Spangle and Associates — 1987). A volcanic eruption can reasonably be considered an ultimate example of an event that occurs with very low ( frequency, but can have catastrophic results when it does occur. 4ne of the responses considered in the report was whether anything at a�l should be done to protect against such an event given its extreme rarity. On the other hand, the report notes that "the potential for a major catastrophe which could be averted begs for some kind of public response" (page 86). As for where to strike the balance between acceptable risk and affordable protection, the report concludes: "Do what you can, politically and fiscally, to reduce the exposure and provide for effective emergency response and that becomes, by definition, acceptable risk. An official who proposes to go farther than his constituents want will find out quickly what the limits are" (page 86). With respect to airport-related risks, the assessment presented in the 1952 Report to the President's Airport Cornmission remains valid today. The report remarks that: "Absolute safety for the individual is an ideal which has ever been sought but never attained. Because man does not have full control over his environment, the very function of living has inherent hazards, which become more pronounced as the scheme of living grows more complex. Thus, since absolute safety is a theoretical concept, one can speak only of relative risk" (pages 47-48). The report goes on to say that: "... `calculated risk' is an American concept which gives mobility to the whole social structure. The phrase simply means a willingness to embark deliberately on a course of action which offers prospective rewards outweighing its estimated dangers" (page 49). _ � : .; . .i ; �,/ . �� J ��. ,� i � , ,� ,, �: . \ • �4 � � ! yM1 � �� %�w� � J . �,�`� ,,� � ,,`�� y! _ " '.\ % '� � �`�� .� � "f '� ' ' � M"**rs � :� ."s_.; 1 , ` � /i ,." ` � l � „�� f �.,;�%� .� ,� ,� � r7Way]tswAtivt@n � wna n.is or.maris tyof � . '�' � � �� uu!msa sn � � ,�,�� ,.,�u,,, .� �. .�r. ��. �a��' 1; . _ ..� �� ' �� . 11� �� C�',i ' � �' �i �m ' ...i:D �il . ��i��: ,!� �'7{�tT'f��ii11;�+�!-t i . t�Y G^ k � @a . {y�' �=:�� i � �iLtllM7. I� a -M""�� ''��'� ' t.�7��= . �� •a ,, - �� --! ., I �-- _ ='-'�� '� ' � �: N � � � ' ��iH ' �,� �� Li7� � ��.�' I �` ' �'t i rt + � � � �� SN�t��fsr�t�z .I �+;:,_, �. ��' �' ; .ia�� :� 13f�'J/ �1. ,�,:�.,-j;;a _-i----f�"�f �� :a:'� , ,- ` �'{ �� .:i�a.��- ��I,..��I �'�li�" 7[� N ,.� , � � �'-- n ��,;!�,� i�r'��,�+��''�I�I��i1�.t�:+,��: �`�i`;. �;. �-� �.� ,Ic_ 1�,._�c .e u � � � .._,i � ; ;,,,.��.T; i ..• .:v ; - ' �` y 2-.�.,:�.� :: ��' - , i -� � ' �; �' \ _ i i;;,�`�i`;U �J%ir' __ .� � ,/� � y��; J_';' ;•' 'c: �: : � o-�:��r::cb��..':��`" —I ""4 (J�l+'G%a�`�. ..� � '\\ "'�...:`• �a`4.� �,,� �, . "`=*�•sy \, i '^.: .�-;, �. '� ��' :I .�" uu,.rxe '.'n a �v �. :. . /, ' — _—" + �`i� , �,.4 � , ' _ll_'—=--�- � -�. ` '- ;'��' a'�'i � . �� ' ��''`�� -� �� - - =��"=_ `'�;._"�� -..�-. .. r;: �.��;.,.:.,- ; `J;/ j �� , C� :1%� ilX � � r 6`"'�' `��,�c .�i i"� `� � � .� I;I� � .. {,T:-� \'`. „�..�� :^�' I�� '; li --�, ` ��'�` �,�'�. � � i " �.__,: �'t,�� . r/)�" y :� ' `"` i �..a� J 7 .�; 3vri) VT1ta; .i�� '�.l ( ��G'�'- ��:'""''$'L� ' . ��J'' - , � � �-t� L-h �!�` ,�� ,r �+..-a� � '�.r a . �.: �� T �� ; � ir41i��i�1� ; Jt6� ��' il}! �3,; !� ---� v»en�u.n i i I � �� o � _ f ~ x � I � Z�N I �ap ¢ _� � 0 � z n��rn r�) �m�v' zI ��-J+o a oZ x � ZX�O Q Fr42 O � wg c o e� Y a �� --I \� a o0 � , N . \ � I � �� m �I �� nl ( ous. .� , iI F-W z ( mcnm _ .� i I �� r ��; ni i i ': 1 .( o� Z� � O f�v I � Il.l () V] Q I Z� I, O�� .L L p� � rn (J O .- fY Z � �('� N n� u"m J ^ 3�N w �.,�z� � �'r.o�n 5 Gii��=> iev�(t ¢ a � N O ¢ F :J Kn"i2 Z m�i �'� �;±z� � ��'I � � i tl , r C � S C a 1 I C 00 `�s� 00 �� ❑I �i � � o � � � � o � � o at9 t� ��f9 � o aG� � �- � �e— �- 1 ) , � (��) ��a�.��aa� ��an.� �o.�� s��-� PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE . Roger Hale, Chair � Alton Gasper, Vice Chair Coral Houle Dick Long Bert McKasy Georgiann Stenerson Paul Weske METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE Tuesday, December 5, 2000 1:00 p.m. Room 3040 Mezzanine Level Lindbergh Terminal, Wold-Chamberlain Field AGENDA CONSENT 1. FINAL PAYMENTS — MAC CONTRACTS a. 1999-2000 Part 150 Sound Insulation Program (Joseph Shortreed, Landside Project Manager) 2. BIDS RECEIVED — MAC CrJNTRACTS a. Lindbergh Terminal Electricai Modifications — 2000 (Todd Oetjens, Facilities Architect} b. Lindbergh Terminal Mechanical Modifications — 2000 (Todd Oetjens, Facilities Architect) c. Service Center Fit-Up and Retail Merchandising Units (Dennis Kowalke, , Landside Project Manager) d. Ciara Barton School - Noise Abatement (Joseph Shortreed, Landside Project Nlanager) e. Part 150 Sound Insulation Program — November Bid Cycie (Joseph Shortreed, Landside Project Manager) 3. REVIEW OF UPCOMING CONSTRUCTION PROJECT BIDS Robert J. Vorpahl, Program Development Engineer 4. OCTOBER 2000 ACTIVITY REPORT FOR METRO OFFICE PARK Eric L. Johnson, Manager — Commercial Management & Airline Affairs 5. CHANGE MANAGEMENT POLICY AND PROJECT STATUS REPORT Nigel D. Finney, Deputy Executive Director — Planning and Environment 6. HEARING OFFICERS REPORT/FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER — FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT LAND ACQUISITION i � Mark J. Ryan, Airport Planner � � C� C Metr�polific�n Aircraff Sound Abatement Counci� (1ViASACJ 604Q 28th Avenue Saufih � Minneapol(s, Minnesota 55450 �(612) 726-8141 Chairperson: Mayor Charles Mertensotto Past Chairs: Robert P. Johnson, 1995-1999 Scott Bunin, 1990-1995 Walter Rockenstein, I1, 1982-1990 Jan Del Calzo, 1979-1982 Stanley W. Olson, 1969-1979 Technical Advisor: Chad Leqve iVi��TING NOTIC� MASAC OPERATIONS COIVIMITTEE � .. . ' � . �` : -� _ ;.. :: ... � � �: ` �< , ir _ ... �; � �; � ,�� . � — �� . � � f ' � :i, t i � � r- `�. � .. �L� �.. � j� r._,. � � � • � d ;,,�i MEMBER DISTRIBUTION Chairman Charles Mertensotto Bob Johnson, MBAA Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan Ron Johnson, ALPA Brian Bates, Airborne Mary Loeffeiholz, NWA Dick Saunders, Minneapolis Pending, Bloomington Roy Fuhrmann, MAC cc: Patrick Hollister, Mendota Heights Charles Curry, ALPA Will Eginton, IGH Jennifer Sayre, NWA Pam Dmytrenko, Richfield Tom Lawell, Appie Vailey Tom Hansen, Burnsville Jan DelCalzo, Minneapolis Glenn Strand, Minneapolis Advisorv: Chad Leqve, MAC Ron Glaub, FAA Cindy Greene, FAA Keith Thompson, FAA Jason Giesen, MAC Shane VanderVoort, MAC Gien Orcutt, FAA Mark Ryan, MAC Joe Harris, MAC I I , `� ' �' � , , l�'�.�1�'.1.� 1'� � Q..J l�'.� li'�.�►7�1.. TC�: MASAC Operations Committee �+ 12�1VI: Chad Leqve, MASAC Technical Advisor SUB,�ECT: Cancellation of December 8, 2000 MASAC Operations Committee Meeting DATE: November 29, 2000 At the November 28, 2000 MASAC meeting Mr. Jeff Hamiel, MA.0 Executive Du-ector, addressed the remaining MA.SAC members with respect to the airline resignation letter dated October 31, 2000. The letter signatures included Airborne Express, DHL Worldwide Express, Federal Express, Mesaba, Northwest Airlines, Trans World Airlines, United Airlines, United Parcel Service, US Airways and the Airline Pilots Association. Concerns focused on the MASAC process and procedures. Spec�c topics sighted included the Part 150 Update drafting process, the non-use of proxy votes in the evaluation of possible improvements to the Ground Run-Up Pad and comments developed for the draft FAA Aviation Noise Abatement Policy 2000. _ ;" � Mr. Hamiei explained the importance of airline involvement with MASAC an t e -- critical nature of the situation relative to the future vitality of MASAC and the success of Council initiatives. Of immediate concern is the Part 150 Update that MASAC was � facilitating. Because MASAC is an organization built upon equal representation, which is a necessity for the Council to conduct business per the bylaws, resolution of this issue may be paramount in the progression of the Part 150 Update and any other MASAC activities. As a result of the critical nature of the airlines resignation, Mr. Hamiel proposed the formation of a Blue Ribbon Panel comprised of three airline and three community representatives with a third party facilitator. The intent of the Panel is to reestablish a dialogue between the airlines and communities and resolve the MA.SAC operational issues resulting in reestablishment of airline participation. Chairman Mertensotto appointed the following members to sit on the Panel: Barret Lane — Minneapo7is Jamie Verbrugge - Eagan Jill Smith — Mendota Heights It was deternuned at the November 28 MASAC meeting that until this matter is resolved, MASAC cannot conduct business. Therefore, any MASAC or MASAC related committee meetings will be cancelled, pending the outcome of the Panel's deliberations. � As a result, the December 8, 2000 MA.SAC Operations Committee meeting is cancelled. Future meeting status and updates on the Panel's deliberations will be provided as appropriate. UNAPPROVED M I N U T E S MA.SAC OPERA7['IONS COMIVLCTTEE November 9, 2000 The meeting was held in the Large Construction Trailer of the Metropolitan Airports Commission and called to order at 9:00 a.m. Bob Johnson, MBA.A, called the meeting to order in the absence of the Chair and the roll was taken. (Chairman Mertensotto arrived after the approval of the minutes.) The following membe�s were in attendance: IVlembers: Chaxles Mertensotto, Chair Petrona Lee Dick Saunders Bob Johnson Jamie Verbrugge Roy Fuhnnann Advisorv' Chad Leqve ��_ �� MarkRyan ` Mark Kill Shane VanderVoort Joe Harris Glen Orcutt Visitors • Andy Pederson Jan DelCalzo Will Eginton Kent Duffy Kim Hughes Patrick Hollister Approval of Nlinntes The minutes of the October corrections: Mendota Heights Bloomington (alternate) Minneapolis 1VIBA.A_ Eagan MAC MA.0 MA.0 MAC MAC MAC FAA Apple Valley City of Minneapolis Inver Grove Heights HN'TB HN'I'B Mendota Heights AGENI)A 13, 2000 meeting were approved as distributed with the follo�ving Page 2: Fourth bullet point on this page reads, "RVAP instructions would be given...that with an II,S �i��l-approach plate a pilot uses navigation....° � Si��cth bullet point on this page reads, "The decision to use a visual approach is made by the pilot, however, it is initiated by the controller. " Italicized portion added. Prelzminary Report of MSP Part 150 Update PacbCic �Vorkshops/Hearzngs Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, reported on the November 8, 2000 Part 150 Update public workshop and hearing. He noted that the workshop was held from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. and the public hearing lasted from 7:00 to 9:15 p.m. Approximately 275-300 people attended the hearing/workshop, many of who attended previous meetings. The same format was planned for the evening of November 9, 2000. Elected representatives from the city of Minneapolis spoke and were generally supportive of the measures being proposed. Chairman Mertensotto said he thought the negative comments made about the airport at the hearing would help with the approval of the 60 DNL contour for mitigation. Review of the FAA Part I50 Up�late Docacment Approval Process Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, noted that once the document is completed, including the comments and responses to the docuxnent, it will go before the MA.0 Cominission for approval and then on to the FAA.. Glen Orcutt, FA.A., outlined the Part 150 Update document approval process. Mr. Orcutt distributed a two page document entitled Federal Aviation Administration - FAR, Part I50, Airport Noise Compatibility Proo am, which covered the FAA's Part 150 Standards of Review and Procedures for Review and Approval of Part 150 Studies. He noted that the document outlined some of the criteria the �� FA.A uses when evaluating measures. Mr. Orcutt also noted fihat the local District O�ce has more oversight than what is referred to in the distributed handout. Mr. Orcuit went on to explain that the first objective for the FAA is to deternlizie whether or not the document xneets the requirements of a Part 150, parfiicularly the Noise Exposure Maps (NElV�. Once adequacy is deternvned, a notice is placed in the Federal Register announcing that the NEMs have been accepted and that the FAA is taking comments on the document. Mr. Orcutt said he expects to receive a larger than usual number of comments to MSP's Part 150 Update, particularly regarding the Low Frequency Noise and 60 DNL issues. The FAA has 180 days to zevizw the document beg7susing with a regional review. This is the time when problem areas are identified and hopefull.y resolved. A Record of Approval is also started at this time, which keeps an ongoing record of the FAA's approval process. When it reaches FA.A Headquarters level, the review becomes more about policy and legal issues, rather than the details. 1VIr. Orcutt _ noted that the FAA has committed to Rep. Ma.rtin Sabo that the low frequency noise measure will receive an expeditious review. Therefore, the FAA will be putting together a team to specifically revierv the measure. He said it is possible that the measure would be deferred from the rest of the NCP so as not to hold up the approval process for the remainder of the docurnent. Mr. Orcutt also noted thai the FAA considers MSP unique and understands that the Update tivill be t, 0 brealdng new ground. He said he expects there to be a lot of communication exchange between the FA.A. and the airport community. Once a final decision has been made, a Record of Approval is issued. Once the.Record of Approval is published in the Federal Register, the Final Part 150 Update is considered approved and the airport is free to proceed with its program. Drscz�ssion Chairman Mertensotto said he feels the Low Frequency Noise measure should be funded separately from the Sound Insulation Pro�am. Glen Orcutt, FAA, noted that someiimes eligibility issues can be dealt with after approval is obtained. Mr. Orcuit noted that the Cleveland Airport has received approval for its 60 DNZ contour. However, it will be a number of years before the airport can complete sound insulation �vithin the 65 DNL contour. He said eligibility issues for the 60DNL contour, in this case, have not been worked out, but will be dealt with through a separate process. Chairman Mertensotto noted that there has been discussion and an attempt to obtain funds for the low frequency noise mitigation with Tax Increment Financing (TIF) funds. He said the legislature was reluctant to fund rnitigation with TIF monies. He said it would be better to give the MAC authority to issue the bonding rather than individual municipalities. He said it would be more efficieni to keep Part 150 monies separate from the low frequency noise mitigation. Glen Orcntt, FAA, said the MAC and the State could make that decision, but said he thought it could be possible that the FAA would reimburse the cost of the Low Frequency Noise mitigation if it ultimately deems those areas eligible. Petrona Lee, Bloornington, asked 1V.Lr. Orcutt to discuss the possible outcomes of the approval process. Mr. Orcutt explained that each of the noise abatement and land use measures are subject to approval or disapproval. He said it is also possible for the FAA to disapprove a measure for lack of information, but then approve the measure once the information is provided. Ms. Lee asked if there were time constraints placed on the docurnent sponsor when additional information is requested. lYlr. Orcutt said there are no deadlines imposed when additional information is requested for approval. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked when the topic of low frequency noise mitigation fimding would be discussed and decided upon. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, noted that the funding issue for low frequency noise mitigation has not been fully taken up, but said he believes it will be taken up sometime during the Part 150 Update approval process. 1VIr. Fuhrmanu said the Commission would be briefed on the Part 150 Update in the month of November and then talcen before the Commission for approval in December. He said it is the staffs intention to submit the document to the FA.A in 2000 but that Commission approval is needed first. Dick Saunders, Mirmeapolis, aslced how the Commission views its responsibility toward the City of Richfield in obtaining funding for low frequency noise mitigation. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said he could not speak for the Comrnission. Gien Orcutt, FAA, clarified that measures that include proposed changes to air traffic procedures are not subject to the 180 day review timeframe. 3 Chairman Mertensotto made some comments about the public hearings, including that there were �� questions about the number of operations expected in 2005 and the validity of the contours. He said � there was also a request for an additional noise monitor. Chairman Mertensotto said the submission and approval timelines are crucial to the noise mitigation program continuing. Roy Fuhrmann, MA.C, said over the next several weeks the consultants will be taking the comments received through the public comment period and writing responses to them for inclusion in the final document. �Ie said he expects that many of the comments will be similar to each other and would be able to be answered in groupings by topic. Glen Orcutt, FAA, noted that a compact disk is an acceptable medium for a Part 150 document. Dzsczcssion of the Draft 2001 MASAC Goals anc� Objectzves Calendar Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, reviewed the Part 150-related topics and associated activities that were approved at the October 24, 2000 MASAC meeting for inclusion in the 2001 N1�SAC Goals and Objectives. He also noted that an additional goal, ouilining the consideration of insulation standards/program for multi-family structures, was approved at the meeting. Mr. Leqve said the City of Minneapolis has also submitted 19 suggested topics for the Goals and Objectives calendar, nine of which have been incorporated into the draft calendar. NIr. Leqve ihen proceeded to note where on the Draft 2001 MASAC Goals an.d Objectives calendar those 9 topics were located. Mr. Leqve also noted that the draft calendar had been included in the agenda package. Discussion �' Dick Saun.ders, Miimeapolis, brought up the topic of the Technical Advisor's Report revision and said � he thought fomzing a small working group to work with the staff on the report was a good idea. He noted, for example, that the Communications Advisory Comrnittee has worked well. Chad Leqve, Technical Ad-visor, said it was important to receive comments from the full MA.SAC body as to what elements of the Technical Advisor's Report are important. He said once that information is gathered, it would be a good idea to from a worldng group. � Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, said his Inver Grove Heights airport group feels the calendar is laden with information gathering and educational opportunities but lacks topics or measures that would abate noise. He said MaSAC needs to concentrate on ways to abate n�ise, rather than talldng about it, regardless of their popularity or cost. Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, noted that there were some noise abaternent measures that were incorporated into the draft calendar, such as the change to the Distant Noise Abatement Deparil.u-e Profile off runways30L and 30R. �Ie also noted that the Noise Compatibility Pro�am (NCP) included as part of the Part 150 Update would be the road map for MA.SAC over the next several years, however approval of that document is not expected early within 200 L Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, noted that some of the items on the calendar were topics from the 2000 Goals and Objectives calendar. '4Vill Eginton, Inver Grove I3eights, said he would like, then, to establish 2001 as a year for preparing for future noise mitigation efforts. He also suggested reviewing and updating the Council's purpose and mission statement. Chad Leqve, MAC, said he thought that type of discussion could be included in the discussions regardin; enhancing MASAC membership involvement and other related topics. Chairman 1VIertensotto said it is difficult to affect major change in noise mitigation because the rnost effective and popular proposals, such as eliminating nighttime flights and moving the airport, are simply not feasible. He noted that MASAC and the airport work under rather strict limitations. Dick Sannders, Minneapolis, said one of the major goals for noise abaiement is the voluntary accelerated phase out of hushkitted aircraft and asked if this could be addressed in 2001. Cliad Leqve, Technical Advisor, said a review of operaiional fleet mixes at MSP and a status of airline fleet migrations to newer aircraft is included under the August 10, 2001 MASAC Operations Committee meeting. A discussion regarding the feasibility of evaluating the use of the Mirineapolis Straight Out Deparh,ue Procedure ensued. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked if there is any way to track the procedure's usage. Roy Fuhrmann, MA.C, said the FA.A tower indicated when the procedure was being considered that there would be no way to establish evaluation criteria. Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, said, like the head-to head variable with the Crossing in t11e Corridor procedure, it would be very difficult to establish evaluation cziteria for determining the procedure's usage. 1VIr. Saunders said the reason he mentioned the subj ect is that there is a sense in the community that it is not being utilized as often as was hoped. He said, however, that the procedure is paradoxical in that when an aircraft that would nortnally have been given a runway heading is given another heading close to that heading, it impacts people who are.not included in the contours and noi eligible for sound insulation. 1VIr. Fuhrmann noted that the annual weather change in the Fall and the associated shift in traffic direction may be contribut;ing to the community members perceptions. Petrona Lee, Bloomington, mentioned the calendar topic of a 2-minute departure rule and said she thought it was antithetical to the airlines' goals for on-time performance. Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, said a 2-minute departure rule, even for one runway, would impede traffic and stretch out the departure banks. �Ie said the FAA has stated that, capacity wise, this type of procedure would be infeasible. He said the airlines would most likely not support such a rule, as well. Keni Duffy, HNTB, said a 2-minute departure rule would significantly impact capacity at the airport. He noted that during departure banks at the airport aircraft usually depart one every minute (60 operations per hour). He said inereasing that time to two minutes would essentially cut capacity in half during those times. It was also noted that the procedure would not only lengthen the depart-ure banlcs, but that it would also lengthen the day - and nighttime operations would increase. Chaitrman Mertensotto said repetitive overflights on a single track can be very annoyin.g, however, now that a fan is in place at IVISP, the repetitive overflights have diminished. He said although aircraft are departing more often noti�, they are not all on the same flight track. Bob Johnson, MBA.A, asked if staff lrnew how many Remote Monitoring Towers (RMT) would be needed for runway 17/35. Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, said the specific analysis on the RMT placements had not begun yet, but said he expects there will be a need for 8 to 12 RMTs. Mr. Johnson (� asked if the vendor was aware of the project and if they would be able to meet the need. Mr. Leqve said the vendor, Larson/Davis, knows about the project and discussed it preliminarily with stafF when the additional five RMT sites were added. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked about the guest speakers and off=site meeiing forthe October 23, 2001 meeting. Chad Leqve, MAC, said he did not have any one person in mind, but that a speaker or speakers would discuss current noise abatement issues from their different perspectives. Mr. Saunders said since ii is an off-siie meeting a special effort should be taken to promote attendance by the community. DICK SAUNDERS, NZ]Q�INEAPOLIS, MOVED AND PETRONA LEE, BLOOIVIlNGTON, SECONDED, TO APPROVE THE DRAFT 2001 MASAC GOALS AND OSJEC' ES CALENDA.R AS PRESENTED AND TO FORWARD IT TO THE FULL MASAC BODY. TH� MOTION WAS APPROVED ON A VOICE VOTE. Items Not on the Agenda • Chairman Mertensotto said he has concerns about a volunteer group meeting to discuss the changes to the Technical Advisor's Report rather than having a MASAC sanclaoned group. Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, said his airport group in Inver Grove I�eights thought it would be helpful to lrnow how and why each section of the Technical Advisor's Report was included. He said he thought it would be important to know how long ihe data had been collected because, even if no one uses the specific information, a historical perspective could be important to analyzing trends. C. Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, said he feels it is more important to understand horv the members use the report and to get their feedback before a revision is at�empted than to be concerned with how long a specific data set has been in existence. Chairman Mertensotto said he has no problem with establishing a new temporary committee to address the revision of the Technical Advisor's Report. Petrona Lee, Bloomington, said she supported the idea of forrning a separate cominittee, but feels that a specific deadline will need to be set. She also said she agrees that how the members are using the report is more important than the history of the data. Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, said it may be advisable to establish a Technical Advisor's Report Revision committee at the November 28, 2000 MASAC meeting that would rneet two to three tirnes and come back with suggested changes. Will Eginton, Inver Grove �Ieights, said he feels it is important to have a more thorough discussion of the report at the full MASAC meetings. He said he understands that the Part 150 Update discussions have pre-empted the discussions, but felt that more discussion and analysis was important. Dick Sannders, Mi.nneapolis, noted that an addendum to the Low Frequency Noise Policy Comznittee's � technical report has been produced that includes a point by point discussion of the differences between , the Andy Harris and majority conclusions. Chairman Mertensotto said someone could read the report and then report back to MA.SAC rather than distributing it to everyone on the Council. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, noted that both the Harris and majority conclusions were incozporated into the final report. He also offered to have staff brief the Cominittee on the new addendum. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m. T'he next Operations Cominittee meeting will be held on Friday, December 8, 2000 at 9:00 a.m. in the Large Construction Trailer of the Metropolitan Airports Comirlission. Respectfully Submitted, Melissa Scovronslci, Coxnmittee Secretary C TO: Planning and Environment Committee FROM: Nige! D. Finney, Deputy Executive Director — Planning & Environment (726-8187) SUB.IECT': 2001 - 2007 CAPITAL IMPRO!!EfllIENT PROGRAM b. Adjacent Community Review Process D/�TE: November 21, 2000 . Legislation concerning local review ofi the CIP (MS473.621 Subd 6 as amended} requires the Commission to cornplete a process to provide "affected municipalities" surrounding the airport the opportunity for discussion and public participation in the Commission's CIP process. An "afFected municipality" is a municipality that is either adjacent to a MAC airport, is within the noise zone of a MAC airport as defined in the Metropolitan Development Guide, or has notified the Commission that it considers itself an "affected municipality". The legislation requires that the Commission provide adequate and timely notice including a description of the projects in the CIP to each affected municipality. The notices must include agendas and meeting minutes at which the proposed CIP is to be discussed or voted on in order to provide the municipalities the opportunity to solicit public comment and participate in the development of the CIP on an ongoing basis. Comments received from the affected municipalities will be reviewed and a response retumed. Staff therefore developed a schedule that outlined the dates/actions required for the development of the CIP and the local review by °affected municipalities" process. This schedule included a date for submiftaf of comments. One letter was received by the deadline of November 20, 2000 providing comments on the CIP: A copy of this letter is attached as well as a response. The list of "affected municipalities� is also attached. THIS ITEM IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. NO ACTION IS REQUIRED. C� �. � c�� 1 � � R�G�» �u NOV 0 8 2000 Airport Developrnent 8080 Mitchell Road • Eden Prairie, MN 55344-4485 a edenprairie.org • 95?J949-8300 November 7, 2000 Mr. Robert J. Vorpahl, Program Development Engi:neer Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 28�' Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 � . SUBJECT: NYetropolitan .A.irports Commission's 2001-2007 Capitai Improvement � Prograrii . Deat Mr. Vorpahl: The City of.Eden Prairie has completed its review of the Metropolitan Airports Commission's (MAC) 2001-2007 Capital Improvement Piogram and offers the following comments regarding Flying Cloud Airport: .. The 2001 Capital Improvement Projects list should include funding for the acquisition of undeveloped property that underlie the existing and proposed Safety Zones on the east .� side of the airport. The CIP does not address this funding. The Metropolitan Airports Commission held a public heari.ng on November 6, 2000, regardi.ng the acquisition of the east side Safety Zones affecting an undeveloped phase of the North Bluffs residential development. The Airports Commission will be reviewing the acquisition proposal at its December 18, 2000 meeting. If approved, the funding for this acquisition should be reflected in the 2001 Capital Improvement Project list. The MAC has already acquired the majority of the Safety Zones on the west side of the auport for airport compatibility. Thank you for the opporlunity to comment on the 2001-2007 Capital Improvement Program. Sincerely, L�� _ Scott A. Kipp Senior Planner � RecyclaUle Pa�er Respo�lse: Comment is noted. The acquisition of the land in the east approach has been added to #he Capital improvement Program in 2001. �,. ' 1 , . . , � ' .�. � :oger Fraser, Manager :ity, 3laine �15G �eniral Ave. NE 3laine, MN 55434 �ichael McCauley, City Manage� �ity of Brooklyn Park 3301 Shingle Creek Parkway 3rookiyn Center, MN �55430 Ann Norris, City tVlanager City of Crystal 4141 North Douglas Drive Crystal, MN 55422 Chris Enger, City fl�anager City of Eden Prairie 80' � �itchell�Road Eo�. � Prairie; MN 55344-2230 Robert Erickson, City Administrator City of Lakeville 20195 Holyoke Ave.� Lakeville, MN 55044 Jim Danielson, Administrator City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Cunre Mendota Neights, NtN 55120 Kathleen Miller, Ciiy Administrator City of Moundsvieuv 2401 Highway 10 P°'� indsview, MN 55112 i . Mark E. Bemhardson, City Nlanager City of Bloomington 2215 West Old Shakopee Road Bloomington, MN 55431 Curt Boganey, City Manager City of Brooklyn Park 5200 85th Ave. North Brooklyn Park, MN 5544�3-43Q0 Tom Hedges, City Administrator City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Mary Kueffner, City Administrator City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laveme Ave. North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Mike Delmont, City Coordinator City of Lexington 4175 Lovelt Road, Ste. 140 Lexington, i1�N 55014 Joyce Rhyan, Deputy Di�ector City ofi Minneapolis Planning Department 350 South 5th Street-Room 210 Minneapolis, MN 55415-1385 Samantha Orduno, City Nlanager City of Richfield 6700 Portfand Ave. Richfield, MN 55423-2538 C )ouglas S. Reeder, City Administrato� ;ity ' South St. Paul 25 _..! Ave. North �o. St. Paui, MN 55118 �on Fredkove, Superintendent 3aytown Township 4220 Osgood Avenue North 5tillwater, IUIN 55082 Jon McPherson, Town Board West Lakeland Township 2398 Stagecoach Trail North Stillwater, MN 55106 Gordon Hughes, Manager City of Edina 48�'"�� West 50th Street Ec, ,� MfV 55424-1330 Bernard Weitemen, Clerk City of Lilydale 855 Sibley Memorial Highway Lilydale, MN 55118-1709 John Willis, Administrator � City of Inver Grove Heights 8150 Barbara Ave. Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077-3410 Brian Sweeney, Director of PED City ofi.St. Paul 25 West 4th Street St. Paul, MN 55102-1634 Cheryi Schindeldecker, Town Board Chair Eureka Township 26600 Ipava Ave. West � Lakeville, MN 55044 Gienda D. Splotta, Administrator Ciiy of Sunfish Lake 369 Salem Church Road Sun Fish Lake, MN 55118-4720 Greg Konat, City Manager City of Bumsville . 100 Civic Cen#er Parkway Bumsviile, MN 55337 Joan Olin, Cierk City of Mendota P.O. Box 688 Mendota, NiN 55150-0688 Chauncey Case, Metropolitan Coul�cil Mears Park Centr 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Q__ C� � l��E'��.,��1�.� 1�.��'� ��1�'�1�,S��I� ��>PtiS 5q-�rq Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport 2 t � 60�0 - 28th Avenue 5outh • Ntinneapolis, YIN �54�0-2799 i-'�`- Z Phone (612) 726-3100 - Fax (612) 726-5296 �t ° D t N � , O � u1 _.. O�q t � CO<< ~'Q�RPORY� Novernber 29, 2000 Jim Danielson, Administrator City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Dear Mr. Danielson: Enclosed piease find the agenda for the December meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee. At the meeting, the Committee will make a recommendation to the full Commission to approve a final version of the 2001-2007 Capital Improvement Program. � Also enclosed is a copy of the pertinent Committee memo regarding the CIP for your information. SinceGe y, -�� . �`'�-j-�--G `� ��J t Robert J. Vorpahl Program Development Engineer Enclosures RJV/Irk cc: Nigel Finney, MAC Denny Probst, MAC The �Ittropolitan Air�urts Commission is an affirmati�'e activn empluy�er. �awtiv.mspairport.com Peliecer Ai:-Forts: .�IRL�KE •.��OI:.� COli\7'1'/BLAINE + CRti'ST:�L • FL1'"I\G CLOUD • LA,L'E ELbiO • Sr\i�iT P:�UL DOR%NTO�V\ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE Roger Hale, Chair Alton Gasper, Vice Chair Coral Houle Dick Long Bert McKasy Georgiann Stenerson Paul Weske METROPOLITAN-AIRPORTS COMMISSION � NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONPVIIENT COMMITTEE Tuesday, December 5, 2000 1:00 p.m. Room 3040 Mezzanine Level Lindbergh Terminai, Woid-Chamberiain Fieid AGEAIDA CONSENT 1. FINAL PAYMENTS — MAC CONTRACTS a. 1999-2000 Part 150 Sound Insulation Program (Joseph Shortreed, Landside Projeci Manager) 2. BIDS RECEIVED - MAC CONTRACTS / a. Lindbergh Terminal Electrical Modifications — 2000 (Todd Oetjens, Faciliiies l Architect) b. Lindbergh Terminal Mechanical Modifications — 2000 (Todd Oeijens, Facilities Architect) c. Service Center Fit-Up and Retail Merchandising Units (Dennis Kowalke, Landside Project Manager) _ d. Clara Barton School - Noise Abatement (Joseph Shortresd, Landside Project Manager) e. Part 150 Sound Insulation Program — November Bid Cycle (Joseph Shortreed, Landside Project Manager) 3. REVIEW OF UPCOMING CONSTRUCTION PROJECT BIDS Robert J. Vorpahl, Program Development Engineer 4. OCiOBER 2000 ACTIVITY REPORT FOR METRO OFFICE PARK Eric L. Johnson, Manager— Commercial Management & Airline Affairs 5. CHANGE MANAGEMENT POLICY AND PROJECT STATUS REPORT Nigel D. Finney, Deputy Executive Director — Planning and Environment 6. HEARING OFFICERS REPORT/FINDINGS CONCLUSiONS AND ORDER — FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT LAND ACQUISITION Mark J. Ryan; Airport Planner C 7. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT PROPERTY ACQUISITiON Mark J. Ryan, Airport Planner 8. REQUEST FOR AUTHC�RITY TO HOLD PUBLIC HEARING — ST. PAUL DOWNTOWN AIRPORT LONG TERM COMPREHENSIVE P�AN UPDATE Mark J. Ryan, Airport Planner 9. PART 150 UPDATE — PUBLIC HEARING REPORT Roy Fuhrmann, Manager — Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs 10. MASAC ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES Roy Fuhrmann, Manager — Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs DISCUSSION 11. 2001-200? CAPITAL IMPROVEN9ENT PROGRAM a. Environmentai Review b. Adjacent Communiiy Review Process c. Program Funding d. Program Approval e. Project Labor Agreements Nigel D. Finney, Deputy Executive Director — Planning and Environment 12. LRT UPDATE � Nigel D. Finney, Deputy Executive Director — Planning and Environment ITEM 11 d i. TO: Planning and Environment Commiites FROIVI: Nige! D. Finney, Deputy Executive Director — Planning & Environment (726-818?) SUB�ECT: 2001-2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEiVIENT PROGRAM d. PROGRAM APPROVAL DATE: November 21, 2000 Concurrent with the public review process pertaining to the environmentaf review of the proposed 2001-2007 CIP, addiiional information has become available regarding the timing and estimated costs for several projects.listed in the preliminary CIP, new projects have besn identified and projects have been removed or combined with other projects. A revised copy of the CIP spreadsheei and narratives are attached for review. The following is a listing of all CIP adjustments thai have been made since the Commission approval of the preliminary CIP for environmental review purposes in September. A. Projects with Timing Changes 1. Runway Deicing/Holding Pad Program � a. 12R Deicinq/Holdinct Pad — Taxiwav B Consiruction This project has been rescheduled to start in 2002 rather than 2001 io coincide with the closure of Runway 4I22 for reconstruction of the northeast segment. �� 2. Runway 17/35 Program a. Infield Fuelinq Facilities This project has been rescheduled to start in 2002 rather ihan 2009. Project cost has been reduced from $3,000,000 to $2,850,000 based on current project cost estimaies. � b. Infield Site Preaaration � This projeci has been split between 2001 and 2002. Projeci costs are $1,400,000 in each year. c. MAC G1Ycol Facilities This project has been split between 2001 and 2002. Project costs will be $5,000,000 in 2001 and $1,500,000 in 2002. d. Runwav 17I35 Intersection Site Preparation/Pavinq This project has been rescheduled to start in 2002 rather than 2001 based on the current pavement construction schedule. e. Snowmelters � Snowmelters will be installed in 2001, 2002 and 2003 rather than all in 2�03. Project costs will be $1,500,000 in 2001, $800,000 in 2002 and $2,600,000 in 2003. f. Sun Counirv/Mesaba Apron Construction This project has been rescheduled to stari in 2001 rather than 2002. C 3. Runway 4/22 Development Program �a. Runwav 4/22 Reconstruction — Seqment 3 This project has been rescheduled to start in 2002 rather than 20Q1 and the project cost has been increased from $9,800,000 to $10,0OO,OQO based on current project cost esiimates. b. Runwav 4/22 Road Relocation This project has been rescheduled to start in 2002 rather than 2001 and the project budget has been increased from $'I,000,000 to $1,400,000 based on current project cost esiimates. � . � 4. Public Pa�king/Auto Renial Expansion Prograrn a. Pubiic Parkinq Roadwav Landscapinca Phase 3 This project has been �escheduled to start in 200'1 rather than 20�2 based on the current project schedule. � 5. Green Concourse Extension Program a Concourse C Apron Expansion This project has been split befinreen 2001 and 2002. Project costs will be $1,900,000 in 2001 and $2,900,000 in 2002. 6. Lindbergh Terminal Rehabilitation and Development Program a. North ?errninal Addition This project has besn spl'rt befinreen 2001 and 2002. Project costs will be $31,500,000 in 200'i and $4,500,000 in 2002. 7. Reliever Airport Program a. Buildinc�Area Annex — West (Airlakel � This projeci has been rescheduled to start in 2002 raiher than 2001. b. Buildinq Area Developmeni — East (Anoka � This project has been rescheduled to start in 2002 rather than 2001. Project cost has been increased from $500,000 to $750,000 based on current project cost estimates. c. Airfield Siqnaqe and Elecirical Uparades (Flvinq Cloudl This project has been rescheduled to start in 2002 rather than 2001. d. Runwav 9R/27L Reconstruction/Extension (Flvinq Cloudl This project has been rescheduled to start m 2002 rather than 2001 and the projeci cosi increased from $8,500,000 to $10,500,000 based on current project cost estimates. e. South Buildinq Area Development (Flvinq Cloud) The projects scheduled to start in 2001 and 2002 have been rescheduled to start in 2002 and 2003 respectively. B. Projects with Revised Scopes/Budgets 1. Runway Deicing/Holding Pad Program a. 30R DeicinqJHoldinq Pad Project cost has been increased curreni project cost estimates. from $19,000,000 to $'19,500,000 based on 2. Runway '17/35 Program . a. Airbome Apron Construction ( • Project cost has been increased firom $5,400,000 to $5,600,000 based on curreni �- project cosi estimates. b. Airfieid Liqhtinp Control Center , Project cost has been increased from $3,500,000 to $3,750,000 based on current project cost estimates. , c. Infield Service Road Projeci cost has been increased from $7,600,000 to $7,800,000 based on current project cost estimates. d. Runway 17/35 Construction -- South End Project cost has been increased from $10,800,000 to $11,000,000 based on current . project cost estimates. .. e. RunwaV 17/35 Site Preparation Projeci cost has decreased from $17,500,000 to $16,000,000 based on current project cost esiirnates. , f. Runwav 4122 Tunnel Projeci cost has been increased from $43,328,000 to $46,450,000 based on current project cost esiimates. � � g: Taxiwav M Project cosi has been increased from $3,800,000 to $4,600,000 based on .current cost estimaies. h. Taxiwav W- Y Tunnel �� Project cost has been increased from $14,434,500 to $15,600,000 based on current� project cost estimates. . i. Trunk Storm Sewer — Phase 2 �. Projeci cost has been increased from $5,158,000 to $�,900;000 based on current project cost estimates. . j. Trunk Storm Sewer — Phase 3 Project cost has increased from $5,680,000 to $12,150,000 based on current project cost estimates. k. Trunk Storm Sewer— Phase 4 Project cost has increased from $3,948;000 to $8,200,000 based on current projeci cost estimates. I. Y-3 Connector Tunnei Projeci cost has been increased from $�6,301,000 to $17,451,000 based on current project estimates. . � 3. Airfield Rehabilitation Program a. Pavement Rehabilitation — Aprons The projeci scheduled for 2001 has been delayed and has been rescheduled as part of the projects for 2002 and 2003. Project costs for 2002 and 2003 have been increased from $4,000,000 to $6,000,000 each to accommodate the increase in project scope. 4. Environmental Remediation Program � a. Stormwater Collection/Detention Ponds Project cost has been increased from $5,500,000 to $8,000,000 based on current project cost estimates. i 1 , C. Projects Added to the CIP 1. Runway 17/35 Program a. Runwav 17/35 Lease E�ctincluishment in addition to the acquisit�on of property for the construction ofi the runway and the clearing of the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ), there wiil be a requirement to buy out existing leases of some of the properties to be acquired. Therefore; $4,400,OQ0 will be added in 2001, $2,300,000 in 2002 and $3,800,000 to coverthese costs. b. Wetland Mitiqation This project includes 5.5 acres of mitigation for wetlands irnpacted by the Runway 17/35 construction. The mitigation site, called Sergeant's Lake, is located in the Fort Snelling State Park on property owned by the Department of Natural Reso�rces. Mitigation involves the restoration o�f the wetland site, clean up ofi contaminated soils, and the relocation of a fiber optic cable. $500,OOQ will be added in 2001 to cover the costs of the wetfand mitigation. � 2.� Environmental Remediation Progcam a. Supplemental Environmental Proiects These projects include construction ofi a siorm waier infiltration basin at Flying G1oud Airport, participation in a water quality improvement project at �ake Nokomis and participation in the Metro Greenways project in Washington County. These projects were scheduled to be implemented in 2000, however, were delayed and wiil therefore be added to the 2001 CIP at a cost of $300,000. 3. Lindbergh Terminai Rehabilitation and Development Program a: Terminal Blast Mitiqaiion Curtain Wali SecuritY Enhancement This project will apply plast�c film to the giass surfaces ofi the curtain wall system adjacent to the upper and lower level roadway systems and to the s4cyways. This film will hold ihe giass iogether in the event oi an explosion. This project was to be implemented in 200efohe beenraddedto he 2001y�CiP at a co t ofr$900,000 2001. This pro�ect has ther 4. Reliever Airport Program a. Obstruction Removal(Airiake Air ort The Watkins Pattem uilding I ted very close to the end ofi Runway 12 within the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). FAA requires that ali obstructions be removed from the RPZ. The building is currentiy for sale and it is prudent that MAC buy the buiiding and clear the runway approach. The cost of this acquisition is estimated �at $'1,300,000 and has been added to ihe CIP in 200'I. b. Propertv Acauisition tFivinq Cloud In August 2000, the City of Eden Prairie approached MAC asking what our intentions were �elative to acquiring a tract of privately owned proper�y east and south ofi the Runway 27/L approach zone. Part of this proper�y was considered phase 2 of a residential development initiated in 1999. . Given that pari ofi this property is within the runway approach zone, and given that the city has no intentions of limiting such development, MAC initiated the acquisition process. In April 1998, the Commission acted to acquire property west ofi Eden Prairie Road from continuing encroachment by residential development. The Commission aciion (� was to acquire the property in fee or by easement for the planned extended runway approach zone. Part of the property considered in the action involved seven existing residential lots on the northwestem comer of the approach zone, in an area where a simple height easement would, in staff s opinion be acquired with little impact of the horneowners. Unfor�unately, severai of the affected homeowners perceived a sign�cant impact from the planned airport improvements and chose to seek acquisition instead. : � The cost of the above property acquisitions is estimated at $5,600,000 and has been added to the CIP in 2001. 5. Reliever Airports Utility Extension Program a. Plane Wash 8� Restroom Facilities (Airiake) This project will provide for the construction of-a plane wash and public resiroam � facilities. The cost of this project is estimated at $150,000 and has been added to the CIP in 2001. 6. Miscellaneous Landside Program a. Emeraencv Power Modifiications � This project wiil �evise the existing Lindbergh Terminal 480v emergency power � distribution as a coniinuation of revisions to the terminal complex emergency power system. The Emergency Generator project ('1999) installed and revised the 416�v emergency distribution system to the main terminal. This project wili revise and expand the subdistribution within the main terminal and Concourses F and E to � allow for future additional elevator loads and to further separats the generator loads to Life Safety and Equipment branches. . This project was scheduled for 2000 but is being delayed unti12001. The estimated projeci cost is $950,000. 7. New Projects Program a. Runwav 30L Snow Storaqe/Meltina Area This project will provide for the construction of a snow storage/melting area, including one 80-ton snow melter, located east of Taxiway AI. This project will also include an aircraft fueling truck meter proving stand to be constructed an the edge ofi the snow storage area. Estimated project cost is $3,800,000 in 2001. b. HumphreY Terminal Airline Operations Space This project will provide fo� a one-story extension to the east of the current ground handling spac� for future airline operations. The extension will be structured to receive future gate-hold space. D. Proje�ts Which Have Been RemovedlCombined Wiih Other Projects 1. Concourse Expansion Rehabilitation a. Concourse E Infill This project has been removed from the CIP. The preliminary CIP had shown $2,500,000 in 2002. 2. New Projects Program a. Common Curbside Check-in Stations This project has been included with the Terminai Miscellaneous Modificatians projeci in 2001. b. ParkinQ Ramp Escalator This project has been incfuded with the Parking Structure Rehabilitation proje�t in 200'1. c. Police Department Facilities Modification This project has been included with the Terminal Miscellaneous Modifications projeci in 2001. d. Securitv Breach Notifiication Svstem ihis project has been included with the Terminal Miscellaneous Modifications project in 2001. � e. Special Needs Passenqer Assistance Area ... :- . This project has been included with the Terminal Miscellaneous Modificaiions project in 204'1. . - "The Commission need noi prepare an assessment for an airport when the Capital lmprovement Program and plan for that airpo�t has not changed from one adopted the previous year or when �ihe changes in the prograrn and plan will have only trivial environmental effects." Forty-one of the above referenced projects. are merely being shifted in time or have revised estimated project costs from that shown in the preliminary CIP. The projects added to the CIP have no significant environmental impact. Therefore, addiiional environmental review is not required. � COMMITfEE ACT10N REQUESTED . � RECOMMEND TO THE FULL COMMlSS10N ADOPTION OF THE 2001-2007 CIP AS MOD1FlED; AUTHORIZE STAFF TO HAVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.PREPARED�AND ADVERTISE FOR BIDS FOR THE 2001 PROJECTS; AUTHORIZE STAFF TO CONDUCT FURTHER STUDIES AS APPROPRIATE AND DEVELOP PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE 2002 PROJECTS, UT1LiZING CONSULTANT SERVICES, TO REFlNE THE PROJECTS FOR INCLUSION IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR'S PROJECT CAiEGORY; AUTH�RIZE STAFF TO CONDUCT STUDIES AND DEVELOP PRELIMINARY PLANS AND SPECIFICATiONS FOR THE 2003 PROJECTS UTiLIZING CONSULTANTS AS NECESSARY; AUTHORIZE STAFF TO INITIATE APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION TO APPLY FOR FEDERAL, STATE AND PFC FUNDING; RECOMMEND TO THE COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (2003-2007) AS A GU1DE TO THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL FOR THEIR REVIEW, PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE METR(OPOLITAN INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK GUIDELINES; AND AUTHORlZE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. � 0 0 N tt� O O N Z � a � z w � w � O o a �+ a � � H a ¢ v v 0 0 N M O N �"' _t(Z � � ? � a p v�a Cl. � H Z w "' ajw vaa � tA O � i � 0 a Q � 0 c�d I�' I�' O O ti n f!i 69 0 0 0 0 O O O CJ t� N tt� N u3 � » � O O O O O O Q O O O O N O st O CO T W r7 O tt) r M � (fT E!T r- b �' Vi O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C7 O O O O O O O �� O O O � O�O O O O O O O O p ^ tn M tt� O O O � O st st O O p (.. T T tt') O O � O tD O O O C� . M W �T M c0 tC) t[') a7 O ll] cri (O . N t!') N. N� t0 �' �' � O t� tA EH � ff3 EH d3 64 4H EH 64 N �- 69 tfT p o� o 0 0 0 0 0 Q�j � 1� M �N 4 Q 00 O �4�' � � � � � � � � � � 0 0 0 O O O 0 v � � 0 � m m m a c m 0 rn > o ` � � a � � � u Z E o o m o °� V �.. � � � o E � m -o m m o W n, � t'p � �y O� ._ .0 m N p C� ro n. N� � ti � a N o a 3 rn m.c �' � 2� � N •` X C N U �" C N � � :a � � � � o � m~ o a c o a�i ��a`� � �o Cj o c"n E Z , U =- — o � a� � m m c�°a m rn cu � 2 o N c �� c�v � c'�a ` � � > � a. a a a= rn c �? o c�° m ti � 4. m Q z �° � � c c� L° o� .� � o o� o � ro�� a� �°: m c m � � a o v a v-a 0 rn;a �.¢�c V V�o � u�. � a m � � ��u� CJ � C� �..t0.i � v� p S Z 2 S� a m� N o�� m �� a� >� u_ ti � � c*�'i m i*�i � C � m c� c u) � � �- a� � c a� �'c m �¢ a� w�� t� h �.F=- N O �./U X �� r r m U U U:c� � n y�� a� -� m.. LL. tA tA W o Q' �' o°> >, >. >. >, � � p m m a� a� r. > � v c �- w w C� . cn � m m m m :? �, �. C] C� C] � m KC tA Vl `o �'o v v v v N� U U C� m 3 3 3 3 � ; � N N N o .� 3 v c�i ti '`` � �� y � c c � � ¢ <c � � � � � a o ,- c� � c cv m n Q ¢ m -� -� �� O tY CC � fZ m a � v' a o � 0 0 N � 0 0 N ZQ J a H Z W � � � N a � � � a �L V v 0 0 N O O O O � N �j 64 ~ O Z ,_.� w �.� o �j(�.9 0 0 V � � N � a n- � f-- Z W � a>W � N vaa�. � O O O O � � c�� t�D N � . � � � � � � � O � O O o ,n 0 p � O � O � N � � O � � 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0�n o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,= r; o 0 0 0 0 o c� o� o o u� ca Q o O tf) O tD c0 O? N�<t h: tn O � 4A T IA � fR T ff3' ��— (D � lCi � y� �, is, �tr �r' 9 c 0 � � � ` � � v N � i � � c � � o E a � c � O p U ' N M�t' c`6 O N � C Q, � •U C N N N � O. •L7' � R �p tU �� tC tq f6 � '�'� L V� C '� a, � a .� .c .c !1 C w c '� � N � m m ¢ a n. 0. ,n m 3 0 �, a �a >-=C m c m � a`> w m c� r o � m a �� 3 3 3 0�'� ,a '€ x� m c tn tn tn F' � � �' jj � t!1 t° '- m > o L!J Q. �� m � � N N N C� �� N t�ri � � } � E € m C � � N N N� T T T y� � �" C � � O O O � � C � N 'p � � �� T T?+ ?s � m. � � � fn fn tl�. C O 'V' � N N N ii 3 3 3 3 3 V� 3 c c c f9 V o c7o � c c c'c_ m � � � � aZi c � m m � i � °� �'' .� 3 0 � � _ o � tr � tr cn cq cn i- F-- F- F- i- 'S >- � = Z cL c� t� � a` � O O O O O tc') 69 O a O O V � � 0 0 0 0 u> tt) � 1� v N � 0 0 O O O � � ch � � `o N m Q! m a. 0 0 0 0 0 � � M V� 0 0 0 0 0 � tfl M � 0 0 0 0 0 � m � � O O O O O O � � 'V' � � O O O �a o � i � � � � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � o u�i o 0 'V' N N � � � � � J � r Z tt� � tD � � N 'n v m @ J � � p �" 2 c 'j'� � N o � � `° m o c m m �' d cv o � � � � o co t6 m�� a�i o N � � CO O O a� � f9 N N C m � E 'c � � � �u E o � � c c c � � Z � "' C7 �+ O � C C C m C � � � o 0 0 `{ m � 0 o cn C%i cn y E... �. i6 c6 iC p O '� p m m � N p «3 C � o a +� v o = •- c, m ai v m o m�- y LY � CC � tIJ � �? Z (� Z g a H Z W � > 0 � 0. � J H n. V 0 0 0 0 o ��r, o � N � {f} O O O t0 � O � O � N cp � a 0 0 o � N � �} 0 0 0 � 0 �o � o 0 � � � O O O O O � 0 p p O O O '�t C/ - � � p p O � � O O � � � N � Q1 � � � 69 69 LH O O O � O O � O � N �p � � Q J W � O ¢ � � N O ¢ � � N M U � a v�,, � H 0 �WF o �j� o � O N p ��a � � ..i u 0 0 4 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O p O O O t!) O O � � (p �F O � � � Q � � Q � o � tti � � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tf) � b3 � O � O O O O O O 'V' `t � � 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N O O � � 0 0 0 0 m � � � H} Ei3 0 0 0 0 1`r V3 � 0 ch m m m d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a 0 0 0 0 0 tA � N�{ � � tt'! tf} 4A � . � m N N � m O fA fA � � p � � � � '= N Y J C . p Q O Q. C cD � Z M� N O n` � p, �y O �� a� Na@ �.�a Qa�; ��, �. N y N T m E O V C �1 C ti i � G 7' � t'�"0 (�'4 0 t��. . n' O O = N..�.. � � � N � o U c c� 0 3 3 a- Q � a � Q�° � o v"', c Q' � � x o a x a � __' c � ° 'a y� m pC a, �� c m � � E ci. m c o o' c:° °' w-� c c c� w E o : Q L � ¢ t- o � � � � � m � � � m � o � � � , a� n- c � p N c c� ° � �= � �� c 3¢ m V X�� o � a o � c o o�- G. a�� io " c' c'm m m� � � X n. o� � V m U �- Cj m m� c m m.c 'a �� tr o� � vmi c W Q= �ay x a � c N�= L o == m m U'> m o CC ''� t j t� o m o m o' m,� c� o ��:n °� �:o :o � E m c� 3 � n. m a a o �� y a o>, " o m m� _�� a W o ,¢ � � <C �� m m � Q V� '� �. m d� � a� a� y U m m c � L) U � � � � N v C] .x .p � GC Ce � m�� ,� w� c c-� �' o m m m c�.1- � o � U co � m c c Q m m a�i a m f0 E� � a�-' c >>>. U'� � z U @� � � E E m >, a�i a�i �° c € n. :° [L �:° C�j cQi c�i =� O c ��°. >, 3 0 'o `�> o m>> o 0 o n$ o�� c o�o �� o n. � 3�.m m �. a� c n. n. � � in v� � .o n- � � c� c> � c� a� c� � � v� t ¢ � � � _ � 0�. � C9 C� � a a W C �A � � �, ti 0 0 N � O O N Z g a E- z W � � W � � N a � J H d. Q U v 0 0 N M O O N ~ O J � � � !�¢- LSJ � p � , U � �'' N 6�4 n. n- � ~ o 0 W t� o 0 �..I F- O O � � 7 O O � N r O V a a � � � 0 0 O O t'� M � � O O O O O OO O O t() vi �r v� �rr v� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O� T� 6�4 6CV4 N O u� � 6s _ v3 �a E � m �° c a C W C O o � � 3 a :o o ' - c> .`-° m Q� � a=�i E o E 0 c � .`�✓ � m O �C '� U� m N. N ;n � ¢r a a—�c�, cxi o o c � � �m C ro ,p C 0 a) W Y� �,O •O �C � C � t j .�c � � m�' 1° c c�2 `L o C� m m m 'C N—'�c' t t,��.. N N � y � a c�o CD cUn mrn � o 0 o m o a c� .c �° o °�7 X m c�"o N f� ti ._.t Z F- N m� a � � � � — � � 'a > c c c c c G � � � LL" � C� c, c � c o�•`- E � E� 4` m p c � C � LL U � �. Q � � � . � � � t—y4 N � t=U 43 X G Ri � I� F- F- F' F-' fD lL N � C� p `� U ~•� � rn rn rn rn rn U Cn W m N � � � � � c � o ,� °' ro a`� m m m a� •- � o � � � ro a� � � .� .Q .a .fl .a 'E �E � m �+ y� o o� � o c c c c c a�i a`> a� �°� m Li � C V� 'a C� C.J J J_! .J [n F- I-' F- � p`, � U � .J � 0 0 0 � 0 0 o v o 'o o m 0 0 o rn v o u� m � ,: � p., EA O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ri' O � � T � ui 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0` o � � � O O O O O O 0 0 0 v o � . � r � �3 O O O O O O O O O ' 6Q'9 6�4 6�9� O. O O � O O � !� T +fl c�r 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O N � O O r N fh � C7 M v3 v3 tFs �r v� � � O tn a` � aa � N C �� c fp m O � y ¢ � N O m m o. o m '� U Q �' Rs W � � � � C � � � E--' ~ � � �+ v .c � � E 0 � c:� i � _ m 0 � � t/7 c�`o 0 0 � '� o O ._ N a` o � N .0 C � 2 � � N x� �' C O d � (�J °� �° o p = � m Z ..�. c C m � � N .f] � � U N � m ~ w � N tr � o� � d � � � � c ,� � � Ry a. J J d m � cn � � 2 g a � Z � � W O � a � � h a IU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r, o 0 0 0 0 0,n o c� o o� o o v N lH tfl' r fA tA tH � !FT O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O �p O O O O O O O p O O O� O O tCJ � O r�- e- tt N (A. fi} � 6F? lH 4A �rj vi � 000000� 000000� aoa000� ,n 000000c p o 0 o u'� o o� ,- .- o .- .- c N ({} {q � V3 69 d3 � �,q 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� ,�. o 0 0 0 0 0 0� o �o 0 o a� u� o a 0 O �� r N V1 Ki V! !,: H1 fA 69� , � O O O O O O O Q O O O O O O p p O O O O O � O O O O O O O p � O O �� N N fR V� V! r; d� 6H fR fhT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z o 0 0 0 0 0 0 �ul� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q�c" � �y O O O O O O O i- W o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a>O o °° y>�.� � n� N r. r ��a � � a � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 J W r . Q O O O O O C Q�U r o 0 0 0 0 o c �- w� a o 0 0 0 0�n c a �=v��"'-�"'-� � ' N c� .- V� � � � �' ( �a c 0 m U t� � � . m o � � ' c a t9 °�' = m �Q N N � ��p V � �T � � U � (4 •tif � O . '� `1 � � " 'p ac�' _ � � � � � c to' � � � m CG U c � X � � 'c m l'0 L1 '-• � -G U S � U m � ,� Q V Lll W � � c c c � c c U � �� 0 a` 0 0 0 0 0 r f�1 V3 O O O O O � tt) b3 r i 1 ► � o � o � o � o � o n tD ' N A � O O O O O � M tF3 0 0 o � 0 v � 0 0 0 O � � � c 0 0 0 0 M N � N � � � � O � O O O V N 6�3 0 0 0 0 0 0 c�S �i � O O O O N E!i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O tt� O tt] O O O co n ca cn o c*� o v��s�� 0 0 0 0 0 � � O O O tf') � EH ' 0 0 0 0 tt) tq � 0 0 0 0 o ��n � � E m rn � 0 d ' T C p C m 3 m m "m o n c � 3 c cy . _ a � � �, � �, X � j o25 C � � � t6 O ' C L3.1 � N C � C � N =L Z •C �' � N �� a m� � y c c �j 3 i c E � ,..�_.. � O /D C N 1'D m ?�' � •t4 C N � ? _:n > o Cj m ��i E E o o-� �- N o c m o Z � L � �� Ry � � � X o o@ c vai � > as m'a f0 m p T>� O d � C > 7—„�_, "� l�U 0.`p � C N `= v LL c a�i s•N ¢ °� Q � D.�c W� 0�. m.c .�d. � � y �� w� c m m ca m v r n n � m c� �c � C �.... ..� � �� C�m N � Q.'...N N� N G�� cU F'_ €� a -o o 'Q � � Q 4 Q G rn. rn rn o � co t,�. ,� `,.. J �- � N T= � p) � p7 Of G1 ?+ >. T i) m >, � m e`= 3` � m v c c c� m m cn ��•- c � m ,.. m N w a� � a� v v�a � c c c � m j c � • �o > m o .n'o � o 0 0 `� 'S � '� ca � � � �n .n co � w c .i� m ti O a a v� Q¢ m m m a c� � c� � O a� cn m t= m �t V � � 'o 0 N � O O N Z g � � Z W � W � � N a � � � � V 0 0 N 0 0 O O 0 tD V3 0 0 v � T T' 64 � � O0 M O � � N � V' �} 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O t� ,O �� tf� O � j� N r �' � O '�T C7 � � � � O O 0 O O o a 0 o � � � � N tCj � 64 0 0 O O 0 fR 0 0 0 0 0 � O O O O OO ....�,... � V3 O O 0 0 o � � N � O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u� o � o � � � lil � h N � � � � y � N C � O � • �t1f a' =� N c � o c a E _ _� O C1 � � N C V � C� U> N C V "' a � C �y o � � 2 p m� 2 0 :s� a�i c� � � .~.�. O y f0 Q.'�-' N C �. N �.'-� .... c� = c� o m m= o m m a o:a m m c'�u ��'Q m c'�n U X �� o�.�c � Q ,_• tu c v �y � `.�,�' � S � � M N v v .,�m., � � '� Cl � �� N � 'O C �r�- �V fl� Q O � c = tn m c� m� � �'� a� m� v m m a o � p� a V m � C 7 C�= 11.1 m j C C CO T� O�") � o c`C m m�� Z's' o � m m�.� a m � o'Q a Q 'T Q Z J II. �� tn � W n. a� � CO CO Lt � CL ` �y J a � 0 � m rn cn � O O O O O O O Q � � � � N b9 ' c0 N ¢ m C � =� C C V �� O O O m C C O a Z m � N G a�yi � W W N o -� c c N � r C V C � � � .i] a; ti c � � W � � m N > �� z � � �? N � � � .0 � �? (4 iD • '� � �` � ` � � o � �'w �m m = n- � u� v� u� � � � � � � ¢ m L m Q1 w r�.. ..�.. � m .`.� C. �C �4 C +�+ �C m � Q(� c VJ �" tn �,n . a Q Q C� nm 0 0 N CO O O N Z � �. � Z W �2 W O o �+ N a � J H a U 0 0 N M I O O N E-- J(Z(J� ~}� o a-pO N vaa � Z W � ajW o N vaa � w U 0 O d O O � o � � 0 0 o � 0 o v � � O O O � � � O O � � � o n c�v � 6�4 � N � � O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O � O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,� Q � �n o 0 0 0 �n 'r> N O st �!' r- r 1� T' (R tfl � �p N �' � 4R � � � � bg � � � � 0 r m m m a O O O O v o � � O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0-0 0 o u�i N �c}' N t[7 O O O tD CO 1��• �� t��") �fT �� 6�4 6�4 <- �r i� � � m o N �� C O :: � O � N 'V � � p •f9 � . C �= •N O. �.. = -�y � � (y_ (n �. p L lL (� �� V � t�`0 N � l9 O � N m � � V m � N �p tSf � � E O O � c � � 3 • � � 3 u. U o � � . cv x°� � H � p Y c d.c }' a. � o� � m W t j o � � � � m>, Q' m� o� �n ¢-mo O N c o v� � ca w (� � o � m-a ��- _ �-o m m �m � >, �� o � a-fl o c� a� m� m N c m c o� � rn m � �_ �s �� a i1. o c m m � � � o� m� � o o. c E � m � � a �� u. p' c � m m m"� �_ -f°-� 2 m o m c'"--a a E 4 0 �'C �. y= '1`' fUlf y m �p �Rf d(L� W y y N N � N O Q m � Z � c� m y m � � � ��u � rn rn o � c�> �� c� m� � d 'C � � o � o c � � �: o ' � c a v � � � o p � 'o � v�'7 C m o � ' -o a_ �' m C7 � V � � � R � Ll � _ � — � � ��.. N a. � lD � N 3 m u = � � .� � � � � m m � '- � � � 3 ti f�- � � t,p m o F- tn �¢ a� p Q a o m rn m`m � � m��° � n' `'` �o o � m.� C� m v � �u �� V V m > �' tl- _� a.c .c a? V�.�.°. m M �� w� � `¢ ��-�a U U o �� a� c� E E c �' �� m a Q N�= a � aci m c�i �' c Q�L � a�� m m o�� a- ?. fn � '�L �(n �� Ci W W 4L �� 3 M Co U U U U= z m L� CO � r � � � Z p � � �, � 0 0 N t0 O O N Z g �. � Z W � w > o � N d � .J H d U v 0 a N � � N O li 0 0 0 0 � N Vi O O � � Q 0 � O O 0 z .� O O O Q�� N � � Q F- � (7 p O O ' '� (dj�O N u3 � � �� Q. a � h- � W� o 0 0 0 0 a�Wj' � O p p O� t��7 N �rj u] Pl tCJ V � � � � � � � aa � 0 0 0 0 � v ri d' � O O O O � .r- t0 fD I EA 0 0 0 0 � c� O tD Fsi O 0 0 0 � r� m � !f3 O O T � Qi Q' fA O O cn �Y c0 � M m N �rs 0 0 � N O T ' �N � 0 0 0 � � rn i� 7� N . O '�t . � N C " 00 r� O b c0 �l' ('� tC � � �" C y.V_. 4H O .� ;� O .� G Q i+ � m C � 3 � � @ � U Q ~ U Q �` � n. c��, �Q m my o t° @ a o� ` � L'- c �, V m m m <t •� � Q] U VJ � a Q N tA N m GI m .� �D Ln � N tII [0 � 'C C ~ �L � .Z �p i'_ f- �"_ m o' c� m� c.� r. r � � ~' ¢ � 3 =° � o 0 0 '.�. �'i7 G �'7 U. D O N N N V � C � m C� fri � � � o S J:� Z� V1 � a ,- M+- �' � Q N N N a � � 0 � m rn m n.. O O O N � N � .Q � > O z a � � N m h a m a` m m ❑ Runway DeicinglHolding Pad Program 12R Deicing/Holding Pad This project will construct the airport's deicing/holding pad on Runway 12R to allow fo� the efficient deicing ofi aircraft and coilection of glycol as well as for the hoiding of aircraft for operationai reasons. ihis project wilt also include the construction� of Taxiway B between the deicing pad and Exit Taxiway 810. 2010 PROGRAM PROJECTS Year 200�1 �16,500,000 12R DeicinglHolding Pad - Buiidings Demolition $'f ,250,000 This project will provide the demolition of the Navy hangar, office and mator pool and the MAC Paint, Electric and Carpenter's shops to provide the area needed to construct Taxiway B and the Rur�way 12R deicing/holding pad. 30R Deicing/Holding Pad This project provides for the construction ofi the airporYs deicing/holding pad on Runway 30R to allow for the efficient deicing of aircraft and collection of glycol as well as for the holding of aircraft for operational reasons. This project will also incfude the construction ofi an adjacent snow storagelmelting area, blast fences, screen walls adjacent io Highway 5 and the Inbound Roadway and a Ground Service Equipment � (GSE) facility. � $19,500,000 Runway 17135 Program 66th Street Interchange - Phase 2 $3,950,000 This project provides for the construction of the final phase of the 66th Street interchange. Aifield Lighting Control Center $3,750,000 This project p�ovides for the airfield lighting control center which will house the electrical controls for the Runway 17/35 runway and tax'nrvay lights. Buildings Demolition $362,300 This project provides for the demolition of the Airport Medical Clinic and the McClay VFW.. In�eld Service Road $7,800,000 This project will construct the public service road from tongfellow Avenue east to the infield development area. Infield Site Prepara#ion $1,400,000 This project provides for the site preparation including grading and utility construction for the infield area bounded by the infie.ld apron, infield service road and Runway 4/22. � Lease Extinguishment $4,400,000 In addition to the acquisition of property fiorthe construction of Runway 17/35 and the Runway Pratection Zone (RPZ), there will be a requirement to buy out existing leases ofi some of the properties to be acquired. Longfieltow Avenue Landscaping $'1,800,000 This project provides for the landscaping ofi Longfellow Avenue from 66th Street to 77th Street t1�AC G1yco1 Facilities $�,000,000 This project provides for the construction of the pond system used to store the glycol impacted siorm water collected during the deicing season from the siorm sewers an the ramp areas. Printed 11/28/2000 11:28:26 AM Page 1 C;, Other General Construction $404,000 This project category is for miscellaneous construction related activities. Runway 17/35 Land Acquisition �40,000,000 - During 2001, the�e will be a continuation of the acquisition of offi airport land required to provide for the. Runway 17/35 Protection Zone (RPZ). Costs for the land acquisition will be deterrnined based on negotiations with the impacted property owners. i ) Runway 17/35 Site Preparation �16,OQ0,000 This project provides for the siie preparation for section of the runway and taxiway sysiem located befinreen 66th Street and the iRunway 17135 tunnel. Snowmelters $1,500,000 This project will provide for the installation ofi natura! gas powered snowmelters adjacent to the Sun Country/Mesaba and infield aprons to facilitate snow disposal by discharging the melted snow into the siorm sewer system, - Sun Country/Mesaba Apron Construction $'15,OOQ,�00 . This project will provide the grading and site preparation of the apron to serve the Sun Country and Mesaba developments. � Taxiway Rfl $4,600,000 This project provides fo� the construc6on of Tax'nnray M southwest from Taxiway W and includes Taxiway M3. Taxiway VV Y Tunnel $15,600,000. This project provides for the construction of the tunnel for ihe service road under ?axiways W and Y. Trun}c Storm Sewec - Phase 2 $5,900,000 This projeci provides for the constuction of the trunk storm sewer between 34th Avenue and Highway 5. Trunk Storm 5ewer - Phase 3 $12,'150,000 This project provides for the construciion of the storm water detention pond system which wil! serve the Minnesota South (Runway 17/35 development) as well as the the Minnesota North (existing terrninal area) drainage basins. These ponds will be constructed in the ravine adjaceni to Nighway 5. . Trunk Storm Sewer - Phase 4 $8,200,000 This project provides for the construction of the outfall from the storm water pond facilities under Highway 5. Wetland Mitigation �500,000 This p�oject provides for the mitigatiori of wetlands impacted by the runway construction. The mitigation involves the restoration of a wetland site on Sargeant's Lake. Y� Connector Tunnel $'i 7,45'1,000 Taxiway Y3 provides access for aircraft to the infield apron area. This project will provide a tunnel for the infield service road under this taxiway. Runway 4/22 Development Prograrn North Side Storm Sewer $v00,000 The extension of Runway 4/22 by 1000 feet io the northeast will require the construction of a new storm water drainage system. The new storm sewer will be constructed ftorr� the Runway 12U30R and Runway 4/22 intersection to Snelling Lake. This project will provide for the construction of the segment from Highway 5 to Snelling Lake.. Printed 11128/2000 11:28:26 AM Page 2 Runway 4/22 Property Acquisition $5,000,000 There will be a requirement to acquire property prior to proceeding with the extension of Runway 4/22. Noise Mitigation Program Remote Monitoring Unit lnstallation $500,000 This project wiil provide for the instaliation of addi6onal Remote Monitoring Towers (RMTs) to monitor the noise environment associated with the new northlsouth Runway 17/35. Residential Sound insulation (Inside 65 DNL) $34,000,000 An ongoing program to insulate residential houses within the certified 1996 DNL 65 noise contour. Residential Sound lnsulation =Multi-Family (Inside 65 DNL) $2,500,000 This is the first phase in a program to insulate multi-family dwellings within the certified 1996 DNL 65 noise contour. This project will be a pilot project which will establish the procedu�es to be followed in future projects. � School Noise Abatement Projects $2,000,000 This project will provide for noise insulation to Vsitation school in Minneapolis. Ventilation Testing/Remediation of Past Homes $1,000,000 � This is a continuation ofi the program to remediate problems associated with indoor air quality in houses � which were insulated in the period from June 1992 to April 1997. Airfietd Rehabilitation Program Airside Bituminous Construction � . � $500,000 An ongoing program to construci or reconstruct bituminous pavements within the Air Operations Area. � Inspection of the overiays on Runways 12R/30L, 12U30R, Taxiway C and the tunnel service road will be made in the spring of 2002 to determine whether or not a bituminous repair project is required. Environmental Remediation Program Stormwater Colleciion/Detention Ponds $8,000,000 A new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is expected to require additional storm water storage in order to control discharge of settleable solids to the Minnesaia River. This project vvill construct a new larger earthen dam and concrete spiliway in the ravine near the Highway 6 embankment to provide the required storage. Printed 11/28/2000 11:28:26 AM Page 3 Supplemental Environmental Projects $300,000 The Baytown Township Groundwater Contamination Site e�ctends from east of the city of Lake Elmo through Baytown Township to the St. Croix River, and is approximately bounded on the no�Eh by State Highway 5 and 40th Strest and on ihe south by 30th Street The site incfudes the Lake Elmo Airport. Groundwater of the Prairie du Chien and Jordan aquifiers is affected by a release of the volatile organic compound, trichloroethene (TCE) wiihin the Baytown Township G�oundwater Contamination site. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) believes that the release has occurred at the Lake Elmo Airport. The MAC has worked with the MPCA to conduct investigations and response actions at the Baytown Township Groundwater Contamination Site, and in so doing has agreed to terms under a Consent Order that requires the MAC to implement a Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP). The three projects proposed to saiisfy the SEP provisions of the Consent Order are: 1. Enlargement oi an infiltration basin at Flying Cloud Airpa�t. 2. Participation in the planned Water Quality Improvement project for Lake Nokomis in Sauth Minneapolis. � 3. Contribution to the Metro Greenways Project in Washington County. . Public ParkinglAuto Rental F�cpansion Program Public Parking - Roadway Landscaping Phase 3 $700,000 This �project wilt provide for the final landscaping landscaping of the Inbound/Outbound .Roadways. Green Concourse E�ctension Program Concourse C Phase '1 Concessions This project will add concessions build out on Phase 1 ofi Concourse C. Concourse C Apron Expansion $2,50Q,000 $1,900,000 This project includes the third of four phases of the apron construction associated with the expansion of the Concourse C. This project will include the construction of the pavement in the area of the existing Post Office once the new Airport Mail Center is in operation. .. Fuel Hydrant Loop Extension $4,200,000 _ -.� . This project is the last phase in the program to install a fue! main befinreen the Post Road fuel farm and the west end of Concourse C. This project includes installation of a 20-inch fue! line and communications duct bank from Gate Di to the,east end of Concourse A. Green Concourse APRA - Emergency 1�lal}cway $800,000 This project will provide for the construction of an emergency walkway from the Green Concourse APM to the terminal building. Post O�ce Demo�ition $400,000 This project will provide for the demolition of the existing Post Office once the new airport mail center is operationaL Regiona! Terminaf Demolition �. tti r�� This project provides for demolition of the existing Regional Terminal once the new facility is complete: Concou�se Expansion � Rehabilitation i i Printed 11/28/2000 11:28:26 A1V1 Page 4 Concourse F Infill $3,000,000 In order to maximize the capaciiy of the existing terminai complex, it will be necessary to expand Concourses E, F and G. This project will add additional space by filiing in the notch between gates 6 and 8 on Concourse F to provide for additional concession space, toilet facilities and phones and to provide storage space for the MAC and the airlines. �� Lindbergh Tetminal Rehab 8� Development Program Lindbergh Terminal Floaring Reptacement $1,000,000 This project is a continuaiion of the program to replace existing flooring throughou the terminai which has deteriorated in condition and appearance. This yea�'s project will replace the rubber flooring in the skyways and on the east meuanine. . . �. Lindbergh Terminal North Addition $31,500,000 This project will provide fior a two story expansion of the north end of the Lindbergh Terminal. The first story of the addition shall extend the existing retail mall space to the north while including new public restrooms, public elevator and stair to mezzanine and an entry lobby to finro second story airline prefened customers lounges. The second story of the addi6on shall consist of inezzanine office space as well as two airiine preferred customers lounges as well as additional MAC office space. Lindbergh Terminal Toilet Additions $'1,500,000 There are no toilet facilities within the ticketing area of the Lindbergh Terminal which has been a source of complaints from the traveling public. A projeci to add toilet facilities to the ticketing area will therefore be completed. . Security Camera Instatlation $500,000 This is a continuation of the security program to• provide for the installation of CCTV cameras throughout the . terminal complex. This project will instal! cameras in various locations in the terminal and on the concourses to enhance FAA security and public safety. These cameras will monitor and record events in areas that� currently do not have CCN coverags. � ( Terminal Blast Mitigation-Curtainwall Security Enhancement �900,000 The FAA has requested that the MAC review enhancing the safety of the curtainwall at the terminaL A report prepared by the FAA recommends that all glass at the terminal be treated to prevent scattering in the event ofi an explosion. This pracess was recently completed at Dallas-Fort Worth Airport where interior and exterior safety glass surfaces were covered with plastic treatments that adhere to glass to prevent scattering under an explosive fiorce. This project would provide this type of treatment to the glass surfaces in the Lindbergh Terminal adjacent to the upper and lower roadways. Study is needed to determine whether this would be effective; what areas are affected; should the area extend beyond the main terminal curtainwall. This project will also include the replacemeni of existing waste receptacles with new blast resistant trash containers for all public, non-sterile areas of the terminal building. Application ofi this window treatment, if justifiied, will proceed in two phases. Phase I application includes the Lindbergh Terminal glass surfaces adjacent to the upper and lower roadway and the Green and Gold Concourse glass surfaces adjacent to the roadway. Phase II will include the glass suriaces ofi the two skyways connecting the Gresn and Gold parking ramps to the Lindbergh Terminal. Terminal Elevator fV9odifications $250,000 This project will provide for the installation of an elevator to serve the Com/Ops Center as well as modifiy existing elevators/escalators to meet the current codes as required by the State elevator inspector. Tug Drive Floor Replacement � $2,000,000 This project is the third and final phase in the replacement ofi the concrete floor in the tug drive area which has deteriorated due to water from melting snow being brought in by the tugs. Printed 11l28/2000 11:28:26 AM Page 5 West Mezzanine Finishes $1,000,000 The new concession storefronts in the Lindbergh Terminal waiting area extend 15 feet beyond the line of the existing West Mezzanine. A floor structure hes been constructed over the extension with the concessions project completed in 1998. This project will expand the West Mezzanine to provide additional area for expanded office space. Humphrey Terminal Development Program Ground Services Equipment Building $'f,200,000 This project will provide for the construction of a building to house the equipment us�d for ground services at the Humphrey Terminal. Humphrey Terminal Concessions $2,000,000 This project will provide for the buildout of the concessions in the Humphrey Terminal. Landside Rehabilitation 8� Rgpair Program Landside Bituminous Construction !�400,000 An ongoing program to reconstruct the airporYs bituminous roadways and parking lots. This year's projects will include the rehabilitation and expansion of the parking lot at the General OfFce. Lindbergh Terminal lnterior Rehabilitation $3,000,000 An ongoing program to renovate the interior of the Lindbergh Terminal. This project will include the replacement of the flooring in the ticiceting area. Parking Structure Rehabilitation $3,000,000 An ongoing program to maintain the integrity of the multi-level parking structures. Projects typically include i � concrete repair, joint sealant replacement, expansion joint repairs, and concreie sea{ing. This year's project ' will include continued painting of the ramp ceilings, painting of the concreie face between the new and old paricing structures, the construction of a new entrance ramp from the upper level roadway to the Gold Ramp, repair of existing stair towers and the construction of an escalator from the second Ievel of short term paricing in the Green Ramp to the GTC in the terminal. Terminal Air Handling Units Replacernent $1,700,OOD A 1997 study ofi the existing mechanical equipment in the Lindbergh recommended that mechanical units that were installed in 1960 be replaced. Some of the units were replaced in conjunciion ith the developmentlrevision of the concessions area. This program will be continued with the replacer�ent of additional units on the center mezzanine. " Terminal Complex Sprinkler System 11�odificatior+s �� oo,00a An ongoing program to address areas in�the terminals which are not currently sprinklered. This item is programmed to allow for further analysis of areas, which, if sprinkled, would allow for insurance premium reductions. It will also allow for extension of sprinkled areas should space utilizaiion changes occur. Terminal Electrical Modifications �600,000 An ongoing program to address electrical issues in the Terminal Facilities due to the age and deterioration of the existing systems or modifications necessary for irnproved reliabiliiy. Projects to be completed in 2001 include installing switchgear meters and control packages on electrical substations, lamp and ballast retrofits throughoui the terminal and concourses and revising ground fault settings for relays and breakers throughout the terminal. Printed 11/28/2000 11:28:26 A�r1 Page 6 Terrninal Exterior Rehabilitation $3,500,000 __ _._ This is a continuation of the program to rehabilitate the exterior of the Lindbergh Terrninai including roofing and cu�tain wall sysiems. This year's project will include the repair of the curtainwall system on the airside of Cancourses D, E and F. Terminal Mechanical Modifications $300,000 �'� An ongoing program to address mechanical issues in the Terminal Facilities requiring attention due to age and deterioration of existing systems or modificaiions necessary for impraved reliabiiity. Projects to be completed in 2000 include replacing the sump pumps and controls in the Valet garage, installing new water meters, regulator valves and flow and pressure sensors throughout the Terminal, Concourses and Energy Management Center, and replacing steel waste and vent pipes in the tug drive area. Termina111�iscellaneous Modifications $1,550,000 An ongoing program to address mechanical issues in the Terminal Facilities requiring attention �due to age and deterioration of existing systems or modifications necessary for improved reliability. Some projects are small enough to be completed using purchase orders. There will be some larger projects, however, including the expansion of the Landside Operations Office, the construction of common curbside check-in stations, modifications to the Police Department space, installation of a security breach notification system and the construction of a special needs passenger assistance area West Terminal Area Rehabilitation � $200,000 An ongoing program to modifiy or remodel areas within the West Terminal Compiex to meet the needs of the various tenants/general public/MAC departments utilizing the facilities: � Reliever Airport Program Airlake . � Obstruction Removal � . � �1,300,000 This project provides for the removal of the Watkins Pattem building which is within the runway protection zone. � Pavement Rehabilitation . $1,230,000 . �, An ongoing program to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, tax'tways, aprons) through bituminous overlays, sealcoats, or in some instances, reconstruction, to restore the surfaces to a smooth, even condition and improve overall operating conditions. This year's project wi11 include the mill and overiay of Runway 12/30 and crack sealing in the North Building Area. South Building Area Development $2,100,000 This project is the second phase in the program to develop a new South Building Area and partial parallel tax'n�vay. This yea�'s project will provide for the installation of the pavements and taxiway lighting system. Anoka , Ai�eld Signage/Windcone Replacement $'1,250,000 ihis project provides for the installation of taxiway signage and a new windcone and segmented circle as well as the rehabilitation of the beacon and the furnishing of a backup ganerator for aifield lighting and MAC facilities. Pavement Rehabilitation $1,300,000 An ongoing program to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, taxiways, aprons) through bituminous overiays, sealcoats, or in some instances, reconstruction, to restore the surfaces to a smooth, even condition and improve overall operating conditions. This year's project will include the reconstruction of Runway 18/36 and the pavement rehabilitation of the Runway 18/36 parallel taxiway and the south. crossover taxiway. � Crystal Printed 1'1/28/2000 11:28:26 AM Page 7 Pavement Rehabilitation $500,000 An ongoing program to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, taxiways, aprons) through bituminous overiays, sealcoats, or in some instances, reconstruction, to restore the surfaces to a smooth, even condition and improve overafl operating conditions. This year's project includes the pavement reconditioning of the Runway 14R/32L parallel taxiway. Security Fence installation �150,000 The existing securifij fence in the wetland area on the northeast side ofi the airpo�t wiif be replaced wiih 12- foot high fence to prevent deer incursior+s on the airport Fiying Cloud Land Acquisition $5,600,000 This project wiil provide for the acquisition of several parcels of land adjacent to the Flying Cloud airport. One parcei is located east and south of the Runway 27L approach zone and seven parcels are located an the northwestem comer ofi the approach zone west of Eden Prairie Road. Pavemeni Rehabilitation $75,000 An ongoing program to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, tax'nnrays, aprons) through bituminous overiays, sealcoats, or in some instances, reconsiruction, to restore the surfaces to a smooth, even condiiion and improve overall operating conditions. This year's project will provide for the crack sealing and seal coating ofi the north parallel taxiway and connectors. Lake Elmo Pavement Rehabilitation �1,600,000 An angoing project to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, ta�ciways, aprons) through bituminous overlays, sealcoats, or in some instances, reconstruction, to restore the surfaces to a smooth, even condition and improve overall operaiing conditions. This year's project includes the mill and overlay of Runway 4/22, reconsiruction of the north side taxiway and rehabilitation or replacement of the airfield beacon. St. Paul Building Area Redevelopment $1,500,000 This project will re-develop the T-hangar area in the West Building Area to provide a buildable corporate site for St Paul Flighi Cenier. � � Flood Protection $2,000,000 � � This project is the second phase in the program to provide flood protection measures at the St. Paul Downtown Airpori. This project includes overtays on Taxiways E and A which will provide for par-tial 25-year fload protec6on. fViAC Building Modifcations _ $100,000 � An ongoing program to provide for facility modifications to ensure continued ef6cient operation of buildings or modifications necessary to meet the requirements ot the various tenants. This project will include rehabilitation of the front entrance and re-landscaping of the area around the building. Pavement Rehabilitation $2,000,000 An ongoing program to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, taxiways, aprons) th�ough bituminous overlays, sealcoats, or in some instances, reconstruction, to restore the surfaces to a smooth, even condition and improve overall operating conditions. This year's project will include the mill and overlay of Runway 13/31 and the southwestem portion of Taxi�vay D. Reliever Airports Utility Extension Program Airlake Plane liVash i� Restroom Facilities $'150,000 This project wiil provide for the construction of a plane wash and public restroom facilities. Printed 1`1/28/2000 '11:28:26 AM Page 8 Sanitary SewerlWatermain lnstall.-N. Building Area $2,000,000 Ai�lake Airpo�t is located on the south edge of the developed area af �akeville. A study has been completed evaluating alternatives for extending public utilities consisting of sanitary sewer and water main to the Northeast and Souihwest Building areas. This year's project will extend these utilities to the Nottheast Building Area Anoka Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extensions $200,000 This project will provide for miscellaneous sanitary sewer and water main lateral installations. Crystal Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extensions $200,000 This project provides for rniscellaneous sanitary sewer and water main lateral installations. Flying C1oud Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extensions . $4,500,000 Flying Cloud Airport is on the fringe of the developed area of Eden. Prairie. Studies have therefore evaluated alternatives for e�ciending municipal utilities consisting of sanitary sewer and watermain to the airport With the adoption of the Sewer and Water Installation Policy for the Reliver Airpo�ts, negotiations are continuing so as to reach final agresment on the altemative to be implemented. If agresment can be reached in 2000, the project will commence in 2001. Miscellaneous Field 8� Runway 12R/30L Tunnel.11nechanical Room Rehabilitation $2,250,000 The vehicfe tunnel under Runway 12R/30L was constructed in 1970. . Majoc rehabiliiation of the two mechanical rooms located adjacent to the tunnel is now required. Replacerrient ofi mechanical equipment , lighting systems and the fire protection system is required as well as replacement of the existing access. doors. Apron/ GSE Lighting Upgrade � � $2,000,000 This project will provide for the upgrading of the pole and building mounted light fixtures that serve the apron areas adjacent to the Lindbergh Terminal cornplex. � Miscellarreous Construction � : $400,000 An ongoing program to consolidate various incidental items beyond the capabilities of the maintenance personnel, projects too small to be accomplished independently, or to handle airside problems requiring repair which come up unexpectedly. Secured Area Access Control System Field Gate InstaHation $400,000 ihis project provides for adding two new electronically controlled field security gates and the rehabilitation of the existing airfield security access gates as required. , Utility Modifications $'1,100,000 This project provides for the slip tining of the 24 inch sanitary sewer between the Inbound/Outbound roadway and Highway 55. � � t�fiscellaneous Landside Program Central A1arm/ T►�onitoring/Fiber Optic Cabte Installation $12,700,000 This project is a continuation of the program to provide for the installation of the MUFIDS and BIDS systems, an ADA required visual paging system, a terminal complex fire annunciation system and a fully integrated centrai alarm monitoring system including all required fiber optic cable for the operation ofi the systems. - Printed 11128/2000 1'i:28:26 /�+1 Page 9 East Airport Water I�iain Loop ��QO� This project will complete the multi-phase program ta loap the waterrnain main on the east side of the airport to ensure that water pressure and service demands can be met This phase wiil provide for the finai � connections to the existing water main system and includes the installation of an 18-inch main under the Runway 30R deicing pad to the existing 18-inch main.at the south side of the 30R blast pad. EconoLotlEmployee Parking Structnre $160,000,000 The construction of the southeast se�ment of Taxiway W wiil impact approximately 300 parking spaces in the employee lot on Post Road. There is also a need to expand the EconoLot to serve the proposed Humphrey facility as well as provide additional public parking for the Lindbergh Terminal. A new parking structure to serve both nesds located at the south end of the Econolot site. The faciliiy will be sized to accommodate approximately 1800 empioyee spaces and 8200 public spaces. This project wil! also provide far the demolition of the existing Humphrey Terminal and for the upgrading/construction of the road system providing access to the Humphrey Terrninal as well as the new parking structure. �indbergh Terminal Emergency Power Modifications . �950,000 This project will revise the existing �indbergh Termina1480v emergency power distribution as a continuation of revisions to the Terminal Complex emergency power system. The Emergency Generator Project installed and revised the 4160v emergency distribution system to the Main Terminal. This project work will revise and expand the sub-distribution within the Main Terminal, Red Concourse and Blue Concaurse to allow for future additional elevator loads and to further separate the generator loads to Life Safety and Equipment branches. New Projects Program � 34th Avenue Reconsiruction $5,400,000 . This project provides for the reconstruction of 34th Avenue from 72nd Street to 1-494 in conjunction with the construction of the LRT tracks. � Buildings Demolition - Bureau of Mines . $200,000 As part of the purchase of the Bureau of Mines property�-The MAC agreed to demolish the buiidings on site to retum the property to a more natural�condition. This projectwill be the first phase in the demolition process. Cargo Projects Development Program $32,500,000 This program provides for the development of the building site and construction of the cargo buildings within the Runway 17/35 development area. These buildings include facilities for Federal Express, UPS, BAX Global, Emery Worldwide and DHL Wo�ldwide Express. Cat. Il/llla Systern Installations $8,000,000 This project wiil provide new instrument landing systems (ILS} to Runways 12L, 12R and 35 including navigational aids and in-pavement lights. This project will provide the ILS system on Runway 21 R. Concourse D Pod Modifications $4,000,000 This project provides for modifications to the Concourse D pod to accommodate the second bank baggage system. Ground Power/Preconditioned Air. �15,000,000 This project will add ground power/preconditioned air systems to all gates which will allow the airlines to shut down their engines when parked at a gate. The airlines will be respansible for their own ground power/preconditioned air equipment which would "plug in" to the MAC distribution system. Humphrey Fuei System Upgrade $3,600,000 This project includes connecting the Hurnphrey Terminal hydrant fuel line to the exisiing fuel tank farm along with the installation of five additional hydrant pits, a diesel fuel tank and all required controls. Printed 11l28/2000 11:28:26 AM Page 10 Humphrey Terminal -Airline Operationai Space $3,850,000 This project wiil provide for the construction of a one-story extension on the east end of the current ground handling space to provide future airline operationai space. This space will be structured to receive future gate-hold space above. Humphrey Terminal Gates Addition $3,000,000 �'' This project will provide for buiiding modifications and jetbridge installation to add two gates (gates 1 and 10) ' to the Humphrey i"erminal. Lindbergh Terminal Security Modificatians $1,000,000 This project pravides for the installation of a security barrier between the public space at the south end of the Lindbergh terminal ticketing and the sierile portion ofi the Concourse G as well as modifications to access points to further enhance security. . RAC Service Site Relocation $5,000,000 This project will provide for the relocation of the RAC service sites to a common location near the MTC bus garage on the south side of the airport � Snow Storage/flAelting Area � , $3,800,000 This project provides for the construction of a snow storage/melting area, including the installation ofi an 80- ton snow melter, located east of Taxn+vay A1. This project will also ir�clude an aircraft fueling truck meter -. proving sfand to be constructed on the edge ot the snow storage area. Printed 11/28/2000 11:28:26 AM Page 11 .<<-�- ;!'.x ::_ '�:'. �-=�i i�.:. +;r� :'�.�. ,.,. :i.. .:;4y "�� ' •: �_ ' � � �� _� i�� .'_ �y' �� ' � ./� �� :�. . � Y,.� � �� :: � =.:�: . m{ .... >. ` ". a: ' .,.. , "-�., ��F �.. ;5' a��rei � _' i ! +r� ..,�� a ` ��`r ��- ' '�� . � � � /� � �� i: � _ _ _`i e ��a �� , � r ,. a � ' 7 - '�� ::: 1 �� : w- � � � Q �� —� ,r3: _ ��: 'hl''• j.«.:.. *a ii` :; ' � �� ` I N �� `Q � � �� ,�CqS, W � � �- 0 �% �� 6�. � o ��— �; 20'10 PROGRAIi� PROJECTS Year 2402 ^�inway Deicing/Holding Pad Program i � $1 700 000 , 12R Deicing/Holding Pad - Taxiway B Construction > >. This project provides for the construc6on of Taxiway B belween Runway 4/22 and Taxiway M. Also included in.this project is the removal ofTaxiway T between Runway 4i22 and Taxiway M and the construction of taxiway filiets east of Runway 4/22. Runway 17/35 Program '_._l � j 24th Avenue Bridge $3,307,000 This project wiil provide for the construction ofi a bridge on 24th Avenue which wili ailow the frontage road traffic to pass beneath and keep the traffic on 24th Avenue free flowing. 77th St etl24th Avenue interchange $6,375,000 re This project wiil provide for the construction of the 77th Str.eett24th Avenue intarchange and roadway system. � Buildings Demolition $8,�123,500 This project provides for the demolition ofi the Freight Forwarders faciii�es, the MAC glycol faciiities, Federal Express, UPS and BaY Giobal. 1-494 Frontage Road $5,175,000 This project will provide for the construciion of the frontage road along I-494 from 77th Street to the east. infield Fueling Facilities $2,850,000 This project provides for fueling facilities withrin the midfield development for aircraft fueling. In�eld Site Preparation ��,�00,000 This project provides for the site preparation including grading and utility construction for the infield area bounded by the infield apron, infield service road and Runway 4/22. Lease Extinguishment $2,300,000 In addition to the acquisition of property forthe construciion of Runway 17135 and the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ), there will be a requirement io buy out existing leases of some of the properties to be acquired. MAC E uipment and Materials Storage Building a6,885,000 q This project will provide for the construction of a facility which will serve as both an equipment storage faciliy and a storaage facility for sand, salt, and other deicing agents to used on Runway 17/35 and the adjacent service roads. 11AAC Glycol Facilities $'1,500,000 This project provides for ihe constructian of the pond system used to store the glycol impacted storm water collected durina the deicing season fiom the storm sewers on the ramp areas. fViAC South Fueling Facility $564,000 To provide fuel to all the equipment operaring on and adjacent to Runway 17/35, this project will construct a new fueling facility on the airport service road near the MRC equipment/materials storage facility. Other General Construction $404,000 This project category is for miscellaneous construction related activities. Printed 1 1/2812000 1 1:28:26 AM Page 12 Runway 17 Deicing Pad Construction $20,000,000 This project will provide the paving of the deicing/holding pad for Runway 17. Runway �17/35 intersection Site Preparation/Paving $17,500,000 This project provides for the site preparation and paving of the Runways 17/35 and 4/22 intersection inciuding a section of Tax'�way N. �/_ Runway 17/35 North End Paving $25,000,000 This project wiii provide for tt�e concrete pavement installtion on the north end of the runway and taxiway system. � Snowmeiters $800,000 This project will provide for the installation of additional snow melters within the Runway 17/35 developmen�. Runway 4122 Development Program Runway 4/22 Reconstruction - Seg. 3 $10,000,000 This project provides for the reconstruction of the 2000 feet ofi Runway 4/22 and Taxiway C located northeast of Runway '12U30R. � � Runway 4/22 Road Relocation �'1,400,000 This project provides for the relocation of the Interbase (US AirForce - MANG)_roadway to maximize the expansion of the Runway Safety Area (RSA) and Object Free area (OFA) associated with Runway 4/22. Moise Mitigation Program Residential Sound Insulation (Betwesn 60 and 65 DNL) $9,500,000 . This is the first phase in the program to insulate residential homes between the 60 and 65 DNL. � � Residentia► Sound Insulation (Inside 65 DNL) $8,100,000 This is the last phase in the program to insulate residential houses within the certified 1996 DN� 65 noisa contour.l � Residential Sound Insulation -Multi-�amily (lnside 65 DNL) $18,900,000 . This is the second phase in the program to insuiate multi-fami(y residences within the 1996 DNL 65 noisa contour. � � Ai�eld Rehabilitation Program Airside Bituminous Construction $500,000 An ongoing program to construct or reconstruct bituminous pavernents within the Air Operations Area. Inspection of the ove�lays on Runways 12R/30L, 12V30R, Taxiway C and the tunnel service road will be made in the spring ofi 2002 to determine whether or not a bituminous repair project is required. Pavement Rehabilitation - Aprons $6,0OO,OtlO An ongoing program to replace sections of concrete pavement in the aircraft operational areas that have deteriorated to a point where maintenance is no longer a viable option. .This year's project will include the reconstruction of the apron adjacent to Gates C1 and C10 on Concourse C and Gates D4; D5 and D6 on Concourse D. Gresn Concourse E�ctension Program Prinied_11/28C2000 11:28:26 AM Page 13 C Concourse C Phase 't Concessions $'1,250,000 This project will provide for the development of concessions in Phase 2 of the Concourse C project Concourse C Apron Expansion $2,900,000 ;" This project includes the final of four phases of the apron consiruction associated with the expansion of the Concourse C. � Lindbergh Terminal Rehab 8� Developmenf Program Commerciai Roadway B�g Belt 51,000,000 There are cuRently discussions taking place on how to better utilize the easi upper level roadway to alleviate traffic congestion on the upper leve! roadway adjacent to the terminai. One issue which must be resolved is the movement of baggage from the east roadway to the terminai bag make-up area. A project to provide the required bag belt and sortation facility is being considered. -- International Arrivals Facility Expansion . $2,000,000 The success of the Interna�onal Arrivals Facility-(lAF) has prompted the Federal Govemment to add additional staff to the IAF facility on the Gold Concourse. There is therefiore a need for additional affice space and faciliiy expansion to house the staff. In addition, it is proposed to modify the secondary inspections area by installing new Agriculture and Customs inspection counters and modifying the passenger pick up area located on the baggage claim level by adding additional sea#ing and signage. The success of the IAF facility has also prompted a request for a study of how to expand the capacity ofi the _ entire facility to handle addiiiona1747 aircraft simultaneously. � �indbergh Terminal Bag Nlake-up Area Addition 52,000,000 The bag make-up area in the Lindbergh Terminal is very congested. The addition ofi gates on the Green Concourse will put additional pressure on these faciliiies. A study will be completed and a project to increase the bag make-up space will commence in 2001. L9ndbergh Terminal Loading Dock Relocation $1,000,000 The existing loading dock behind the terminal is congested and is becoming a focus of FAA from a security stand point. This project will relocate and expand the loading dock to a location outside ofi security. Lindbergh Terminal North Addition - $4,500,�00 This project will provide for the development of the concessions in the North Terminal addition. Landside Rehabilitation � Repair Program Landside Bituminous Construction � $400,000 An ongoing program to reconstruct the airporYs bituminous roadways and parking lots. Projects will be evaluated in 2001 and presented for approval when the CIP is updated for the 2002 construction season. Lindbergh Terminal Interior Rehabilitation $'1,000,000 An ongoing program to renovate the interior of the �indbergh Terminal. This project will include the upgrading of the bag claim area corridor flooring, ceiling and toilet facilities. Parking Structure Rehabilitation $1,000,000 An ongoing program to maintain the integrifij of the multi-level parking structures. Projects typically include concrete repair, joint sealant replacement, expansion joint repairs, concrete sealingand lighting improvements. This year's projeci will provide for upgrading the lighting system on the seventh level ofi the Green and Gold ramps to provide light levels equal to those on the new Red and Blue ramps. Printed 11/28I200011:28:26AM Page'i4 Terminal Air Handling Units Replacement $'l,800,000 A 1997 study ofi the exisiing mechanical equipment in the Lindbergh recommended that mechanical units that were instailed in 1960 be repiaced. Some of the units were repiaced in conjunction with the development/revision ofi the concessions area. This program will be continued wiih the replacement of additional units throughout the Terminal Complex. Terminal Complex Sprinkler System Modifications $100,000 An ongoing program to address areas in the terminals which are not currently sprinklered: This item is programmed to allow for further analysis of areas, which, if sprinkled, would allow for insurance premium reductions. It will also allow for extension of sprinkled areas should space util'�zation changes occur. Terminal Electrical Modi�cations $600,000 An ongaing program to address etectrical issues in the Terminal Facilities due to the age and deterioration of the existing systems or modifications necessary. for improved reliability. Projects will be evaivated in 2001 and will 6e presented for approval when the CIP is updated for the 2002 construction season. Terminal Exterior Rehabilitation $1,000,000 This is a continuation of the program to rehabilitate the exterior of the Lindbergh Terminal including roofing and curtain wall systems. Projects will be evaluated in 2001 and will be presented for approval when the CIP is updated for the 2002 consstrvction season. ' � Terminal Mechanical Modifications � $300,000 An ongoing program to address mechanical issues in the Terminal Facilities requiring attention due to age and deterioration of ezisting systems or modifications necessary for improved reliability. Projects will be .. evaluated in 2001 and will be presented for approval when the CIP is updated fior the 2002 construction season. � Terminal Miscellaneous Modifications . $100,000 An ongoing program to address mechanical issues in the Tenninal Facilities requiring attention due to age and deterioration of existing systems or modifications necessary for improved reliability. Projects will be evaluated in 2001 and will be presented for approval when the CIP is updated for the 2002 construction season. West Terminal Area Rehabilitation . $100,000 An ongoing program to modify or remodel areas with'in the West Terminal Complex to meet the needs of the various tenants/general public/MAC departments utilizing the facilities. Reliever.Airport Program Anoka Building Area Annex - West $800,OOq This project will provide for the construction of the West Building Area including sanitary sewer and water main, accomodation of storm water drainage and all required wetland mitigation. Buifding Area Development - East $750,000 This project provides for the relocation of Xylite/95th sireets as the first phase in the construction of the East Building Area. Construction of a berm and wetland mitigation are also included. Building Area Development - Northwest $s,soo,000 This project provides for the constructian of one-half of the Northwest Building Area including all wetland mitigation for the eniire building area. Printed 11/28/2000 11:28:26 AM Page 15 Pavement Rehabilitation $3a0,000 An ongoing program to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, taxiways, aprons) through bituminous overiays, sealcoats, or in some instances, reconstruction, to restore the surfaces to a smoottt, even condition and improve overall operating conditions. This year's project will include the reconstruction . of the East Building Area taxiway and access road and crack repair and sealcoating of the East Buiiding ' Area taxilanes. Runway 9/27 Extension�dening �6,004,000 This project will provide for the widening and extension to 5000 feet of Runway 9l27 including all required wetland mitigation. Runway 9/27 NiALSRl1LS $2,300,000 This project provides fior the installation of the ILS and MALSR systems for the nw 5000 faot tvnway. Runway 9/27 Parallel Taxiway/Extension $'�,000,00� This project provides fior the extension of the parallel taxiway to Runway 9127 to match the extension of the runway. - Crystal Runway 6U24R Reconstruction . This project provides for ttie reconstruction of Runway 6U24R. $850,000 Flying Cloud � . . Ai�eld Signage and Electrical Upgrades $'1,000,000 This project provides for instailation of signage on Runway 18/36 and the instaflaiion of a new beacon and windcone. � Pavement Rehabilitation � � $100,004 An ongoing program to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, taxiways, aprons) through bituminous overlays, sealcoats, or in some instances, reconstniction, to restore the surfaces to a smooth, ( ) even condition and improve overall operating. conditions. This yea�'s project will provide for crack sealing - and seal coating ofi various airfield pavernents to be determined. Runway 18/3S Reconstruction 57�0,000 This project provides for the reconstruction ofi Runway '18/36 from the Runway 9R/27L taxiway to the 36 end of the runway. . . . ..- . Rwy 9R/2iL Reconstruction/E�ctension � Rwy 9L/27R E�ension $10,500,000 �. This project provides for the reconstruction of Runway 9R/27L and the extension of Runways 9R/27L and 9U27R. The project includes pavement construction and reconstruction, VOR and MAI.SR light relocations, glideslope rerplacement and signage changes to reflect the renumbering of the runways to 'i0/28. A backup generator for airfield lighting and for MAC facilities will also be provided. � South Building Area Development $4,900,000 This project wi11 provide for the first phase in the construction ofi the new South Building Area and will inciude grading and utility installation. f1FL� �CiL:7 East Building Area Development $3,500,000 This project involves the site development of the new East Building Area including grading, demoliiion of abandoned buildings and all earthwork associated with the ne��v taxiways, taxilanes and roedway access. St. Paul MAC Building �lodi�caiions $'f OO,fl00 An ongoing program to provide fior facility modifications to ensure continued et'ficient operation of buildings �� or modifications necessary to meet the requirements of the various tenan#s. Printed 9 9/28/2000 1 fi:28:26 ANI Page '16 Pavement Rehabilitation $2,150,000 --- An ongoing program to rehabilitate aircrafk operational areas (runways, tax'nn�ays, aprons) through bituminous overiays, sealcoats, o� in some instances, reconstruction, to restore the surfaces to a smooth, even condition and irnprove overall operating conditions. This year's project will include the rehabilitation of Runway 9/27 and the reconstruction of the blast pad. C Nliscellaneous Field & Runway Miscellaneous Construction $400,000 An ongoing program to consolidate various incidental iiems beyond the capabilities of the maintenance personnel, prajects too small to be accomplished independently, or to handle airside problems requiring repair which come up unexpeciedly. Miscellaneous Landside Program Fire/Rescue Station Replacement Facility $'f4,500,000 This project wiil provide the construction of a new fire/rescue facility on 34th Avenue north of the Humphrey Terminal. � � MAC Cargo Buildings - Air Freight Facility $4,000,000 In conjunction with the construction of Runway17/35, new building areas will be developed. The MAC will. construct two cargo buildings which will be leased out to airport tenants. This project will provide for the construction of an air freight facility including all required aircraft ap�on and autoltruck parking areas to accommodate non-anchor carrier cargo activity as well as for cargo operators who operate to and from MSP on an infrequent basis.. � MAC Cargo Buildings-Airline Befty Cargo Facility $4,700,800 ' In conjunction with the construction of Runway17/35, new building areas will be developed. The MAC will construct two cargo buildings which will be leased out to airport'tenants. This project will provide for the � construction of a"belly" cargo building including all requi�ed aircraft apron and auto/trucic parking areas. Presently; a majority of MSP's airiine belly-cargo is accommodated within a 36,000 sf multi-tenant cargo facility owned by Standard Air Cargo (Standard Cargo Facility). This fiacilify is scheduled to be removed to accommodate the consiruction of the Humphrey Terminal and its associated infrastructure. Additionally, Delta Airlines has indicated a desire to move inio the proposed MAC owned belly cargo facility. Currently there are no other existing facilities at MSP that can accommodate the.required airline belly-cargo operations. Therefore, a new facility must be constructed to replace the Standard Cargo Facility and house airline belly-cargo operations. New Projects Program Buildings Demolition - Bureau of Mines $400,000 As part of the purchase of the Bureau of Mines property, The MAC agreed to demolish the buildings on site to return the p�operty to a more natural condition. This project will be the final phase in the demolition process. � Cat. ll/llla System Installations $9,000,000 This is a continuation of the program to install new ILS systems on Runways 12L, 12R, and 35. This project will provide for the installtion of ILS systems on Runways 12L and 35. Maintenanee Building Addition � $10,000,000 This projeci will provide for the expansion of the maintenance area including additional maintenace bays, expanded par�s and receiving areas, expanded shop offices and support facilites and storage areas. ( Printed 1 1/28/2000 1 1:28:26 AM Page 17 New Air Traffic Control Tower $1,000,000 With the construction of Runway 17/35 and the development of the adjacent buiiding areas, there will be a need to construct a new tall Air Traffic Controi Tower in order to see ali parts of the runway and taxiway surfaces. This project will commence with a conceptionai study in 2002. Printed 11128/2000 '1 `i :28:26 AM Page 18 . 0 0 .—,, ; -� ❑s V �*� �� r .." � f� , r , %ti��'�` � <� � _ � �� : l: �� ,�r � G�'" k� <✓ .r�w�: :R�...� ::� `t�i 4.� � ... � y �. �� e� S �' `p/ s` �s �* ,� 0 . . � 0 � •, - ♦ % ►; ; � �� Y. ' ��►. � �� . . s � r ;�� ,'; � 1 t ,\ ,:�� •� � �1►`� . � � � � . , � ��t � ,� 1 �. /� r�I!• �• : '� `,� �'�" ■: i 'i i !el . ,: %..� .--i ,� . � � --�-- � � 1 � ./�j/'' ♦% '/,,. i �� " �.* ,1 � _ �� p b o �l °Q � 0 0 O <% O O O C�7■ AGENDA REGULAR MEETING EAGAN Ag2PORT RELATIt�NS COMMISSION EAGAloT, MINNESOTA EAGAN CITY COUNCLL CHAMBERS TIIESI��i.Y, DEC�+ MB]ER 12, 2000 7:00 P.M. I. ROLL CALL AND A.DOPTION OlF AGENDA II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1t •' �: :1•'/ IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Commission �ippointments B. MASAC Update V.� OLl) BUSINESS � �� A. Airport Commissions Program . VI. STAFF REPORT A. Part 150 Update VI. FUTURE MEETING AND AGENDA A. Negt Commission IVleeting — 7:00 p.m. Tuesday, January 9, 2001 1 - i � ' Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities will be provided upon advance notice of at least 96 hours. If a notice of less than 96 hours is received, the City ofEagan will attempt to provide such aid. C � ��;r�- �� ::�: �. �,� � "`�f�:'a W'�w;:_.,_ ; -.,�! .: v,,F�r $ ti��, � 2 C� C `�� '�c ' - !7C nneapolis, MN . � ,. �. -,y � _ � j v�.. '�, � t 2�.�x� �� .. �,. '� ;r •k � y* �'' :�'t S_a` �.i � 1 1' q+ i .% � f 't +�t V'r� ' ��YYf h+ 3�' - ,..�"_'�`��., � _ , ,� . � . �..�. • • � . �� t3�ater Pumping Episode: What Have We .Learned? - This susnmer's i�ridespread public concerns over possible threats to surface and subsurface water levels from ttulnel construction at �Iinneapolis-St. Paul International Airport have been allayed for the moment largely by safeguards adopted by the Metropolitan Airports Commis- sion (MAC) to monitor ti�ater levels closely. Details of the fmal mitigation plan have not been widely disseminated, nor has there been much public discussion of any necessary changes in the dewaterina permit process between con- struction project managers and the state water- shed distriets and the Department of Natural Resources (Di�R). For a closer look at the process and the results, the Fall Forum of South Metro Airport Action Council (SMAAC) will feature a panel of participants in the permittin� process. Please join us at 7 p.m. ti�Tednesday, Nov. 15, 2000 at May- flower Congregational Church, 103 E. Diamond Lake Road, to contribute your reactions. Panelists will include Pam Blixt, presideni of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD); Ro�er T�ale, chair of the MAC's Planning and Environment Committee, and Gary Warren, MAC airside engineer. Moderator will be Jim Spensley, former manager of MCWD and a Sl�SAAC director. 7E'inal ][�earangs Set Nov. �-9 for Part 150 Noise Program Update . Citizens will have their fmal chance to com- ment on proposed aircraft noise abatement and land use recommendations for Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport through 2005 at public hearings at 7 p.m. Wednesday, Nov. 8 and Thursday, Nov. 9. at the Thunderbird Hotel Conference Center, 2201 E. 7$th St., . Bloominb on. Open houses to view contour maps and other materials will be,gin at 5 p.m. each night. The public hearings are part of the steps required by the Federal Aviation Administration (F1�.A) before receivin� proposals from airports for updates in Part 150 noise compatibility pro�ams. The maj or proposal in the 2000 MSP update is to extend home insulation to residents living in a ne�v 60-decibel contour over the ne�.t decade or longer. The update also defines the noise contours and planned usage of the .ne�v north-south runti�ay slated to open in late 2003. The MSP proposals can be vie�ved at local libraries, city o�ces, and at the lyIAC General Offices, 6040 28th Ave. S. The docusnents also can be browsed on the Internet at «nvw.macavsat.or�. and on cornpact disk upon request to 612/726-8141. S�tAAC Newsle �er,Fall 2000 Richfield Starts Home BuyoutsNear New Runway VVith �5-lYb�illion State Grant Richfield has begun buyin� the first 24 homes alon� 18th Ave. S. beh.veen 63rd and 6bth Sts. in the Cedar Avenue Airport Impact Area under a $5-million grant from the 2000 Legislature. The homes are among 206 single-family and 231 multi-family units that fall within a new 87-decibel lo�v-frequency noise contour to be crzated by aircraft usinj the ne�,v north-south .. runway upon its opening in late 2003. After the first 24 otivners are relocated by December, the city plans to clear, seed and hold the property for future redevelopment. " The next phase of home acquisition in the 60-block Cedar Impact Area tivill depend on funding from state and federal sources. Sources said $10 million may be in the new federal budget, and additional funds will be sought frorn the 2001 Legislature, the MAC and the FAA. Thzee low-frequency noise contours-87, 78 and 70 LFSL—were established by a joint MAC/ Richfield Lotiv-Frequency Noise Policy Cominit- tee set up to explore the nature and extent of rattlin� and vibrations from tl�e rumblings of an estimated 400 daily takeoffs and landings on the ne�v runtivay. The low-frequency contour names are roughly equivalent to the 75, 70 and 65 decibel measures used to define high-frequency home insulation pro�rams around airports. The IvSAC Noise Policy Committee recom- mended that homes and apartrnents: l� in �he 87 DB zone be acquired, 2) in the 78-86DB zone should receive some type of lo�v frzquency noisz sound insulation, and 3) in the 70-77DB zone rzceive traditional sound insulation if not previ- ously eligible under the hi�h-frequency prob am. The formal recommendations will be sent to the FAA for review in late 2000 as part of the IvSAC's Part 150 Update..If approved, the FAA �vould be seen as adopting national standards for low-frequency noise and appropriate mitiaation measures. The revie�v is expected to take a year. At present, the only l:notivn sound insulation to decrease low-fr�quency noise impacts calls for addin� a heavy layer of stucco or gypsum board on the outside or insidz of a residence. For maximum protection, a brick �ti�all t��ith minimal openin�S tOlvard the noise sourcz and a separate � r�, t,r r- .� � i u r 87dbA and Greater ' 76 - 86 dbA � 70 - 77 dbA . Low Frequency Sound Level NYitigation Areas New Runway I�ome Acquisition Zone In Richfield interior layer of insulation is utilized. Some 7,705 living units in all-4,990 in Minneapolis, 2,683 in Richfield and 32 in Bloomington were found in the three LFN zones. Richfield's Cedar Ave. master plan calls for eventual redevelopment of vacated residen- tial property with hotels, office buildinQs, to�vnhomes, apartments and condominiums built to tivithstand low-frequency noise. Neither � Minneapolis nor Bloomin�ton has adopted lotiv-frequency noise mitigation policies or plans. S�t:�AC I�c��'sictter, Fall 2000 p1�Z 2 � ) tssues Unresolved on Stormti�ater Management Plan at TvISP By Jim Spensley The recent alarnz that IvISP "dewaterin�" could adversely afFect Lake Nokomis is a small part of a much larjer issue. Grade rnodifications, larae increases in hard-surface area, and large decreases in storm�vater stora�z all �vill ad- versely affect flood control, tivater quality, habitat and recreation. Existing tivetland stora�e areas are to be, or have been, filled. Simply put, MSP expansion causes large increases in run-off, and plans to manaae it are inconzplete. If the project �vas being undertaken by a private developer, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) tivould have rzquired a very detailed permit application; probably one for the �rading and site preparation and another, later, for the actual construction. Stormwater rnanaQe- ment plans are often crucial to envisonmental protection as tivell as flood control and water resource conservation. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and a MCWD permit application pretty much cover the same water resource issues. ivICWD formally commented that a much more detailed plan was necessary to determine the extent of environmental impacts and the feasibility of rule compliance. The MC�VD mana�ers and engineers doubted that the IviSP site tivas large enough for the proposed ne�v north-south runzvay and other construction and adequ3te flood control and �vater quality facilities. The environmental impacts included filling in ttivo significant wet- lands, potefitial da�nage to and pollution of , lakes in rnczjor•stof-n: orflood events, contamina- � tion of ground w3ters and aquifers (by infiltra- tion or flood-flo�ti• through �vells), etc. 1��1AC responded that they tvould meet State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and �vatershed district rules and submit permit applications in a timely manner. They haven't. True, some applications tivere submitted, but the rec�uired plans, dra�Z�inas, calculations and other exhibits �tirere incomplete. Nevertheless, MAC started moving earth, iillin� �vetlands and chang- ing plans. At one point, MA.G proposed on-site storaQe-aild-treatment areas des�gned to c�llotit= storrntii�ater� to "i��li�-ate " gi�otrnd tii�nler� o�' P3Q2 � evaporate. No calculations �vere available showin� that this storage would be adequate for flood conuol. NiAC ar�ued that the ponds pretty much tivorked like the existing tivetland areas (itilother and Duck Lakes). The ratio of drained area to stara�e volume was greatly different, as �,vere the underlying soils, and the ability of the� system to filter the tivater was questioned. Last fall, MA.0 announced these plans were bein� abandoned. With major construction under tivay already, MAC is now sug�esting some kind of draina�e solution, involving off-site treatment �vith almost all of the runoff zouted to the Iv1in- nesota River. As a whole, the new plans are grossly tardy, �vould not be permitted under existing watershed rules, do not represent the best engineerin� practic�s, and exacerbate problems by large increases in drainaQe to off=site jurisdictions. After expansion. MSP tivill have nirioff from previously land-locked areas. Because the site is too small to allow for storage, treatment or even effective rate control on-site, tivhat happens to this run-off is a crucial issue. As yet, no rate and volume calculations or drainage contours have been submitted. . As construction proceeds, old storage areas are being filled, old drainage boundaries are being penetrated, and old dzainage patterns modified. The tunnels also must be drained, probably by lift-stations, and runoff and ground- �vater seepaae can be sent in any direction. MAC is rapidly backing away from water quality and flood control projects that they S�t.�,:�C i�e'.csletter,Fal! 2000 Dean Lindb Stormwater Nlanagement (cunt. from pa�e 3) themselves proposed durinQ rzvie�vs of the EIS, that they promised to flesh out in permits, probably because compliance �vould have greatly chan�ed the cost, confi�uration or capacity of the airport. Ordinarily, none of the adjacent �vatersheds �vould permit an increased rate oirunoff from the airport property, �.vhich currently drains to the Lo�ver Minnesota River, Nine Ivlile Creek, and Miruiehaha Creek Districts. The Lower Minnesota River ��atershed District (LNIRWD) stands to wind up with a s load of dirty runoff tivhich they haven't planned for. As a point of lati�v, they can refuse to permit the exp�rt into their area. The rate and volume tivill eYacerbate flooding and tivater quality is suspect at best. Netvly formed and �vithout time to review the situation fully, the LMRWD is not in the best position to decide hoti�t to r,efuse or to permit the draina�e. MCWD should; on principle, rzfuse its permit to export the de�vatering dischar�e or the runoff. The very idea that one district can dump its problems into another is counter to the very basis of watershed managernent and la�v. How �vould MCWD managers rzact to a proposal to divert the Cro�v River into Lake Minnetonka temporarily, say, to dztivater the stream bed for a brid�e or levee project? Storm`vater I��Ianag-ement Prixner A tivatershed is an area that either drains into a navigable �,vaterbody throuah a single effective outlet or holds all of the runoff from a 100-year stoini. Duck La�e and Mother Lake, on the airport property, u�ere land-locked �vatersheds, lo�,ver spots that accumulated (stored) rain and snow melt ti��ithout overflowin�. Other lakes and �vetlands -- Lake Nokomis, for e:�ample -- provide storm�vater storage until they overflo�v into a ditch, stream or stornl sewer. Stonn�vater ponds, tivetlands and lakes with fixed outlet sizes and levels hold or slo�v do�vn runoff depending on both their tivater level and the intensity and duration of the storm or snotiv melt causing runoff. Sometimes, the otitlet size and level can be seasonally adjusted. Lake Minnetonka, for e;cample, has the Gray's Bay Control Stnicturz and MCWD uses the lake to store large rnelts and spring rains to prevent floods down ivlinnehaha Creek. Later, durinQ tlie �! usually Iow rainfall months (July to October), �,vater is metered out to prepare for the next year. A principle of watershed law is development (chan�e) should not flood upstream or down- stream or drain existing waterbodies more rapidly than under prior (existing) conditions. If a dzvel- opment increases runoff, the lando�vner (devel- oper) must plan facilities to store the increased runoff so it does not increase the rate of drainage downstream. ti�/atershed rules enforce this prin- ciple by specifyinj outlet levels and stornz events �vith tivhich to "test" stormwater management designs using engineerinQ data, formulae and calculations. y A second principle is �vater quality. One party's runofFis a second party's amenity. For exarnple, you swim at Lake Hia�vatha in water II that fell on my roof, ran over my la�vn, dotim a j street gutter, through a catch basin and storm �� se�ver into Minnehaha Creek. Water quality is � harder to reQulate, but to a deQree, stormwater � storage facilities can be used to entrap dirt or skim�, I leaves and "clean" runoff ��, A third principle is conservation of water ' resources. It is in the public interest to have ', flowin� streams, pretty lakes, clean tivater and ', recreational areas. - '' (Spefzsley is fof�j�iei=Marzager and Boat-d ' President, Nlinnehaha Creek t�fatershecl Dzs- I tr•ict.) ', Glycol Pollution Suit at Bti�I Settled A consent decree a�ainst the Baltimore - bVashin�ton Airport (BWI) has been issued in a la�vsuit brought by US-Citizens Aviation Watch Association, of tivhich SIviAAC is a menber_ The suit alle�ed that BWI allotived excess Qlycol deicina fluid spillaae into a nearby crzzk, violatina the federal Clean �Vater Act. � The settlement agreement includes: 1) injunc- tive provisions desi�ned to reduce the amount of deicin� fluid discharged; 2) a penalty payment.of $50,000; 3) an environmental project to perform �' fish study valued at $90,000, and �) ��0,000 to ' the citizen plaintiffs for attorne}�s' fees and costs. S�\tA:�C �e�csletter.l�all 20UU Pa�� 4 Y RE C 0�2MENDATI ON S PART 150 UPDATE The Ivletropolitan Sound Abatement Council fASAC) has released its recommendations on � 2005 Part 150 sound abatement progzam .for blic comment in November. These recommen- tions address sound insulation of houses, land e measures and runtivay usage plans once the w runway 17/35 opens. The recommendations The new runway to be completed in 2003 is �ected to relieve some traffic off the north end the rivo parallel runtivays. Noise to the south 11 be minimized by allowing some flights to ike westbound turns over the Minnesota River d avoid residential areas. Nighttime operations at MSP between the ours of 10:30 p.m and b:00 a.m. remain strictly oluntary, but the airlines �vill be encouraged to se Sta�e 3, non-hushkitted aircraft to the reatest extent possible. The distant departure procedurz used on all ther runways �vill be adopted on the ttivo paral- ;l runtivays for northbound takeoff's. This is a hange from the closz-in departure plan previ- usly used. Use of the Global Positioning System (GPS) � an aircraft navijation aid to avoid more opulated areas �vhen ground fzatures.are not �- isible �vill be eYplored as the technology volves. The present 65 DNZ. (day-night level) contour ��ould be expanded to the 60 DNL boundary orzseen in 200� for home insulation. As is done low, any part of a block touched by the DNL 60 :ontour �,vould qualify the r,�rhole block for sound nsulation. The question of the extent of the iome-insulation package installed (currently a 5- �B reduction) remained to be resolved by MAC. The folloti��in� priorities hati�e been established Page 5 for insulation of structures within the 65 DNL and proposed 60 DNL contour [in order of priority]: (1) Single-family and duplex homes in the 1996 desib ated 65 DNL contour; (2) Multi-family residences in the 1996 desi� nated 65 DNL contour; (3) Single-family and.duplex homes in the designated 2005 6� DNL contour; (4) Single-family and duplex homes in the designated 2005 60 to 64 DNL contour. (5) Multi-family residences in the designated 2005 65 DNL contour; (6) Multi-family residences in tbe 2005 desig- nated 60 to 64 DNL contour; (7) Nursing homes, day-care centers in churches and stand-alone day-care centers in the designated 60 DNL contour. Low Fre�uencv Noise Abatement A set of three contour lines reflectina predicted low-frequency sound patterns from aircraft using the north-south runway has been developed. Appropriate mitigation measures are being ex- plorzd. (See article page 2.) . Land Use Measures Modification to �the Metropolitan Council's Aviation Policy Plan and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines is proposed to reflect the DNL 60 line as trhe land use planning standard for all correc- tive and/orpreventative Part 150 measures. Land use planning languaje would thereby become consistent for all communities tivithin the Part 150 land use and impact areas. Public Hearina A public hearin� will be held on these draft Part 150 updates at 7 p.m. Nov. 8 and 9 at the Thunderbird Hotel, 2201 E. 78th St., Bloomington. Informal �vorkshops t�ill be�in at 5 p.m. $220 Nlillion Budgeted for Cargo Expansion by 2002 Air freight facilities at Minneapolis-St.Paul International tivill be expanded nearly t��o-fold under a$220-million project to be completed in 2002. Plans call for the IYSAC to build and o�vn some 682,000 square feet of carjo space for FedEx, UPS and other carriers, up from 355,000 square feet notiv. Parking spaces �vzll be enlarged to hold 24 planes vs.10. Se�ver, pavement and other cargo-related infrastructure improvements will run about � 1 SO million. 5�t�1r1C Ne�cslctter, Fall 2000 Dr. Bronzaft Urges U.S. In Noise Mana�ement By Dean Lindberj Take Preveniative Action "Do you wait 12 years� -- when children are displaying hyperiension markers -- to find out if there's any permanent damage?" The Chair of the Noise Pollution Committee of the New York City Council for the Environ- ment, Dr. Arline Bronzaft, posed the question at the SMA.AC spring membership meeting May 18. The anstiver of course: No. Dr. Bronzaft used the question to illustrate a point.-- that FAA "standards" for corrimunity health, which demand proof of damages inflicted, differ significantly from the accepted medical 'practice of preventive care. Additionally, the a�ency used its clout to prevent research on noise and health impacts, instead of preventing the development of damagin; noise levels around �airports. � . "The Federal government set up the Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC) to carry out a znandate that citizens should be protected from noise," Dr. Bronzaft explained. "Then there was no question over tivhether noise had a nega- tive impact on people. ONAC sent out bra chures on the harmful effects of noise. Officials did not say 'we need more studies' to document that noise harms us. But, when ONAC said 'noise harms us' it made the FAA uncomfortable." Industry Stopped Progress . "So while goveznment was moving in a direc- tion to protzct us, the tivay for industry to stop noise pro�ress �vas to close down ONAC," Bronzaft noted. She suaQested that tive need to figure out hotiv to "�et back to the 70's" -- tivhen thz goveznment considered noise a serious issue. Accordina to Dr. Bronzaft, part of that task �vill be to re-assemble and update the body of evidence the government once had. She sumrna- rized recent research on children done by Dr_ Gary Evans of Comell University tivhich repli- cated studies done in the 70's. Dr. Evans docu- mented increased hypertension marl:ers in children livina around the airport in Munich, Gerniany. In addition, rzading levels in sixth �raders have be�n found to be dotivn by one year, and mathematics scores have slipped. Dr. Bronzaft has mixed feelin�s concerning Evans' findings. While his research corroborates hers -- adding to its credibility -- Bronzaft is disheartened that some 25 years after her initial findings, the same levels of noise impact indicators are still being found. GAO Study Important � One step totivards getting "back to the 70's" has been made because of Dr. Bronzaft's lobbying efforts in Washington, D.C. The recently passed FAA refunding bill contains a requirement that the Government Accountinj Office (GAO) conduct a siudy on aircraft noise in the United States. The Controller General is to examine: (1) the selection ofnoise measurement methodologies � used by the Administrator; (2) the thrzshold of noise at which health begins to be affected; (3) the effectiveness of noise abatement pro�ra.ms at U.S.airports; (4) the impacts of airport noise on communities, including schools; (5) the noise assessment practices of the FAA and t�hether such facilities fairly and accurately reflect the burden of noise on communities. The GAO is to report the � results to ConD ess in April 2001. Support for the GAO study has been very strong, according to Dr. Bzon.zaft, who stated that to zesearchers, public demands for health investiga- tion are "an affirmation that something is going on." Dr. Bronzaft urged citizen �roups such as SMAAC, Residents Opposed to Airport Racket (ROAR) and Citizens Concerned about Richfield's Environment (CARE) to continue their collabora- � tive efforts, and press Minnesota Congress mem- ��, bers to demand the GAO study be tivell executed,' �' with the highest level of professional crzdibility. , Bronzaft noted that well-intended legislati��e ' directives can fizzle witithout public support. "Let your congress people know a study is �oina on. They do react, and are more likely to do a good j ob." Readers interested in startina a health research volunteer group can contact Dick Saunders at dsndrs@gateway.net or (612) 569-1�01. ( StitAAC t�e«•slett�r, Fall 2000 Page 6 ./ IT.S. Begins �iscussions on �'tage 4 I��se Stanc�ards The U. S. govemment has beaun discussions �vith foreign governments to establish Stage 4 noise standards for the next ?eneration of aircraft, with a aoal of bringinj a bill before Conaress in the fall of 2001. Stage 4's evolution is one of SMAAC's most important objectives for the next several years.The potential noise reduction benefits would be significant to the millions of citizens living near airports �vorld- wide. � Airline industry opposition to the advancements is eYpected to be si�nificant in light of the heavy investrrients made to upb ade fleets to Stage 3 stan- dards in the past decade. (Sta�e 3 noise emission levels on takeoff ran;e from approximately lI0 dBA for a ne�� fully-loaded Boeinj 747 to 83 dBA for a new Boein� 717-200. Hushkitted Boeing 727s average about 94 dBA and DC-9s about 91 dBA. Hushkits make up about 4� percent of the MSP fleet, and generate about �5 percent of the noise. (Stage 2 aircraft can continue to operate if they weiQh less than 7�,000 pounds. Although they make up less than 1 percent of the total operations, they account for about 40 percent of the noise.) The Clinton Administration has set an aircraft noise reduction goal of � dB by 2007 and 20 dB by � 020 if research is fully funded. The plan is to contain the 55 Di'�iL zone within airport boundaries by 2022.The FAA has proposed the folloivina eight options: PROPOSED NOISE CERTIFICATION STANDARDS FOR AIRCRAFT Opt. db belotiv Yr.begin Phase Out Requirments No. Stage 3 (1 � g 2002 none (2) 11 2002 none (3) 14 2002 none (4) s 2002 all AJC within -8db of Stg. 3 from 2006 to 2013. (5) 8 200b all AIC ��ithin -Sdb of St�. 3; 2006-2020; -8db from 2013 to 2020. (6) 11 2006 all A/C tivithin -Sdb of Stg 3; 2006-2013; -14db frorn 2013-2020. (7} 14 2006 all A/C within -�db of StD. 3; 2006-2013; -14db frorn 2013-2020. (g) S 2002 al1.AlC within -Sdb of Stg. 3; -8db, 2006-2013. The above eiQht options were proposed in a paper presented to a steeririg group of the International Civil Aviation Organization's (ICAO) Comrnittee on Avia= tion Environment Protection meeting in Seattle Sept. 2�-29. . . In mid-November the U. S. must submit its . position on a new ICAO Stage 4 noise standard and a phaseout schedule for Stage 3 aircraft in time for a full CAEP committee meeting in Montreal Jan. 8-17, 2001. There has been no a�reement beh,veen the FAA, airports and the aircraft industry as to which option the U. S. will rere recornmend. SMAAC ur�es the Ivlinne- sota delegation in Congress to support a Staae 3 hushkit phaseout schedule and an aQaressive Sta�e 4 development schedule. Proposed Departure Flight Tracks From I'�teti�v Run��vay 17 in 2003 __.. _.� � .-�..:,� �z �gSg % S�tAACNe�cslctter,Fail 2000 �earing �e�d C�n �b-I�][illion l�[ines Pxope�%y Sale to I��.A.0 Representatives from the MAC, National Parks S ervice and the Department of the Interior rnet with more than 100 residents Aug. 28 to discuss intended uses of the former Bureau of Mines campus property near Hwys. 62 and 55 after its $6-million sale to the MAC. The assessment is requized by the federal National Historic Preservation Act. A National Parks Service (NPS) official summarized the process as similar to an Environmental Impact Statement, but focusin� on the cultural and historic aspects of the affected property. While many South Metro rzsidents feel the B OM campus and its Camp Coldwater-era archeological resources meet qualifications for inclusion in the National Historic Register, the NPS has not taken an official position on the maiter. . Archeological evaluation of the property presently under tivay may be the most extensive ever undertaken in the Camp Coldwater area, �vhich envelops and includes the BOM property. Findin�s of the study may determine provisions in a conservation Memorandum of A�reement wriich will be attached to the purchase agree- ment_ Concerns that terms of the Memorandum of Agreement may bz unenforceable in practice may be addressed in the document if MAC and the NPS can agree on enforcement language. A chief concern among residznts and area park users is a proposed seven-acre parking lot for MAC em- ployees �vhich NPS officials committed to op- pose. A draft of the conservation agreement, which NPS offici3l John Anfinson predicts will allay concerns of residents and organizations opposed to the transfer, was expected to be circulated in late October. The document includes comrnents submitted by the general public and the Mendota Mdewakanton Cornmunity, �vhich claims the area is a sacred native sitz. � � , � w�� ER�T 5�ir"S1�FC�' �t� ; � �4 �. � . � � ��:, �-t� ►;o��,or� �. �Z -� _� i -. c � � �. y.,.�� ' �„�-'f�hht�,,,,� .5 - Eri 7G h��[�,4: � �:, � � _ ,,,.•,� L� F�yc ,� •. �� `O ,�- ?`...7 J �~ r. C. L1..,..i� � B' lil..i�k.nuth ~ .�_''1;.w,n�. CKu��WWN �--� . . . H{, f3AKER 4��<<n �-1 NO7EL it� `,Y ./ _ � , �: Ct.�.t t� N.+rfih � r�:�� th. Bureau of 11�Tines Property Sho�vn in Diagonal Lines Wildlife Refuge 1Vlitigation Case Settled by MAC for �26 IYlillion The MA.0 has ab eed to provide �26.09 million to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a settlement over the potential impact of aircraft noise from the ne�v north-south runtivay on visitors to the 11,500-acre Minnesota Valley � I�ational Wildlife Refu�e. The proceeds of a trust fund tivill be used to buy more land and establish a visitor education center. The refuge's present center and 34 miles of tivildlife habitat attract some 2�0,000-300,000 visitors annually. Ttivo Join SIYIAAC Board ' Jim Spensley, a Hale nei�hborhood resident and long-time critic of the I�SAC; and Ron Lischeid, a Windom residenf and candidate for the State House of Representatives, have joined the SItiSAAC board. Spensley is a fozmer manager of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). Lischeid is president of the Windom Neighborhood Association. Page � S�(AAC Ne�ti'slettzc,Fall 2000 (� �I 1ISP Traffic Up �.4 Pct., Passengei-s Up 9.3 Pct. Through August Aircraft and passenaer traffic at Nlinneapolis-St. Paul Interna- tional Airport continued to gro�v faster than forecasts in the first ei�ht months of 2000. '� 4Takeoffs and landinas in- creased 4.4 percent to 3�2,363 from 337,4=�3 in the same period a year earlier. At this rate, operations tivill exceed 530,000 in 2000 versus a 1�1AC forecast of 522,000. Passengers surged 9.3 percent through AuQust 31 to ��.2 million from 23_0 million a year earlier. Tf this rate holds, passenQer counts ti�%ill top 3% million this year, compared tivith the previous record of 3� million in 1999. Northtivest Airlines continued its dominance of the IvSSP market with 79.1 S percent of all passen�ers. Sun Country ti�as seeond �vith 3.96 pereent; followed by United (2.81 per- cent), Delta (2.66 percent), American (2.3� percent), Conti- nental (1.74 percent); TtiVA (1.47 percent), US Air��ays (I. 3 5 percent), American Trans Air (. 81 percent), ILL?�-1 (.79 pzr- cent), America ��'est (.76 per- cent), Vanguard (.%3 percent), AirTran Airways (.�7 percent), Frontier (.34 percent), . Icelandair (.31 percent) and Canadian Re;ional (.17 per- cent). � AirTran began sen•ice June 10 and ATA stated 7uly 10 SkytiVest Airlines is schzduled to begin t�vice daily service to Salt Lake City in December. Pa�e 9 Discount carriers now handle approximately 7 percent of all 1��iSP passengers. Cargo tonnaae rose 4.2 percent for the f rst eiQht months, increasin� to 166;9�0 metric tons frorn 160,286 metric tons the vear before. Mail tonnaQe decreased 1.74 percent to 74,19� tons from 75,509 tons a year earlier. Cargo fliQhts rose 6.0 percent to 11,735 from 11,071. �4001YIillion l��Iore Proposed in Parlcing Ramps by 2004 The surge in passenQer traffic has kept parkinQ space at IviSP scarce on certain days in spite of the opening of t�vo new rarnps costing about � 12� million and holding about 5,000 spaces at the Lindbergh Terminal over the past 1 S months. Notiv, a $19�-million six- story ramp with 10,000 spaces is planned adjacent to the netiv Humphrey Terminal for 2003, replacing 2,759 spaces lost in the Econolot and in an employee lot alonQ the Post Road. Lastly, the MAC is proposing to build a�200-million ramp on airport property near Cedar Ave. and H�vy. 4�=� by 2004 to replace rental car check-in and stora�e space lost to thz extension of the Green Concourse and currently housed in the Lindber�h Ramp .This step ti�rould open up about 3,000 more public spots in the Lindbergh Ramp, and pro- vide parking capacity of 17,000 spaces through 201 �, MAC says The 1996 plan foresaw a need for about 1,500 more spaces at about $25 million as part of its �2.7-billion price tag. If ap- s�,i.-�:�r h:�,:�i�«.�, F�ii �000 up �vith about %,�UO public space: at a cost of about S�00 millian. The surge is belie�ed due in part to a} continued economic Qro�vth and b) the advent of lo�v-cost carriers, bringin� market expan- sion. Hushl:it Phaseout Petitions Go to St. Paul, tiVashington SMAAC members collected more than 300 sijnatures this summer on a petition urging the Mayor and City Council of: Minneapolis to press for the early phaseout of hushkitted aircraft. City Councilmember pore Mead sent them on to Gov. Veniura and President Clinton. j The sianatures were collected ', at summer festivals in the � `Vindom, Bancroft, HalePage- , Diamond Lake, Lynnhurst, Longfello�v and Nokomis neigh- ', borhoods and at Minnehaha ' Creek tiVatershed District hearinas in Minnetonl:a and at Roosevelt High School on MAC tunnel construction plans. City Airpor•t Policy Goals Formulated for 2001 SMAAC mernbers participat in the formulation of first-ever airport policy Qoals for 2001 adopted by the City Gouncil in October. The Qoals include: 1) Lobbyina for the early phase out of hushl:itted aircraft. 2) Establishina a city environ mental noise policy; 3) �h'orking �vith a�encies to . provide alternatives to flights after 10 p.m.; 4) Participating in any state discussions on the airport's role in the region's economic (cvrit. o�i pag� 10) City Policy Goals (cont. from p 9) �ro�vth plans; 5) Establishing the city's vie�vs on airport alternatives once full capacity is reached; 6) Seekin� studies on the health impacts of the airport on nearby residents. The council's Transportation and Public Works Committee separately recommended creation of a full-time position for an�airport staff person in the 2001 city budget. Mayor Speaks in Washingfon On Airport Parterships Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton, nearly invisible on airport issues since 1997 until the dewaterina issue this summer, popped up in Washington in October to talk about her views on solving airport environmental issues throu�h community links. She cited the Metropolitan Aireraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) at I�ISP and similar joint industry/public forums in San Francisco, Oakland and Chicago as ex- amples ofpartnerships needed by airports to address thz pervasive struggle bettiveen economic growth and citizen discomfort. Among FAA noise abate- ment policies she recommended are: � A�gressive pursuit of Staae 4 engine standards; �o Phaseout of Stage 3 hushkits and the immediate acceptance of only manufac- tured or "pure" Staae 3 aircraft during night-time hours; Legislators Appeal for Congressional Revieti�v of 199b Espansion Decision Fourteen state leQislators and one Itilinneapolis city council member have appealed to the Minnesota congxessional delegation to investigate the FA.A's actions in approving the 1996 decision to expand MSP rather than building a new airport. They specifically charged that the FA.A: overlooked the "unques- tionably wrong" baseline proj ection for 2020 operations (of 520,000 flights per year); substituted in the final record of decision IviAC's highest scenario projection of 640,000 fli;hts.per year) without telling the Minneso#a Legislature; accepted MAC's hi�h projection tivhen even that tivas "only roughly half ' the FAA's o�vn projection (of about 800,000 flights per year). The result, they asserted, is an inadequate airport expansion plan that brings about monopoly air fares, excessive fliaht delays, rising night flights, a serious lack of cargo capacity, excessive neighborhaod noise and declining air quality. "Since the FAA. has endorsed MAC's 2020 plan," they said, "the federal government must help with the problems" in part by provid- ing matching funds for Iandbankin� for a new airport. �. Signing the letter were Senators Jane Ranum, Carol Flyrin, Linda Berglin, Richard Cohen and I;arry Pojemiller, Representa- tives Jean Wa�enius, Bernie Lieder, Matt Entenza, Mark Gleason, Wes Skoglund, Michael Paymar, Myron Orfield, Phyllis Kahn, and Len Biernat and Minneapolis council member pore Mead. �Extension ofhome insula- tion programs beyond the proposed 60 DNL zone and the retention of air conditioning as a key component in the current prab am; �Allo�vance of local entities to determine other measures necessary in community stabili- zation programs; e Allowance of local airports to implement night flight restric- tions, particularly on hushkits; t�Allosvance for local jurisdic- tions to create incentives and disincentives to encourage use of quiet aircraft and operating techniques; �Development of high-speed rail lines bet�veen cities 500 miles apart; S�IAAC Nc��•sletter. Fall ?000 � o Funding of studies of health impacts, especially on children and seniors, through a multi jurisdicfional consortium. "We need airline services, but we must use every available channel to require airlines and airports to minimize the envi- ronmental pollution and disrup- tion of quality of life," she said. Gleason �uit Rejected by Appeals Court IVlark Gleason's lawsuit against the IvlAC for an inad- equate and illeQally approved Environmental Impact State- ment on the ne�v north-south run�vay was turned dotivn by the Minnesota Court of Appeals in June for lack of "genuine issues of material fact." � Paae 10 � Airti�ays Nlerger Seen �ikely to be Approved Two airline industry observers predicted the proposed merger of No.l-ranked United Airlines and No. 6 U.S. Ainvays will likely be approved, forcing competitors American Airlines (No. 2), Delta Airlines (No_ 3), Northtivest Airlines (No. 4) and Continental Airlines (No. S) t� consider pairing off to protect market share_ Kevin Mitchell, founder and chairrnan of the Business Tzavel Coalition, told a Turin Cities symposium on air travel Oct_ 20 that "staffers on the Transportation Committees of Congress feel that this is going to be approved" by the Justice Department. Terry Trippler, a travel industry commentator who was interviewed by aoverrunent attorneys reaarding the mer�er, said "I'd bet the rent the merjer tiviil go throuQh," bringin� the prospect of hiaher ticket prices. � On the other hand, Rep. James Oberstar (D., Minn.) has asserted Con�ress tivill fi�ht the merger over concerns of industry consolidation and service issues. Minnesota Attorney General Ivlike Hatch and the IvIAC also have spoken out ajainst the combination. If the UAL merger aoes throu�h,l�Iitchell said home-based Northtivest Airlines faces three op- tions: acquire Continental (in tivhich it holds 55 percent of the voting stock), mer�e with another of the BiQ Three, or shrink to become a less viable carrier. � � If American �vere to acquire North�vest, some �vorry the Northtivest hub at Iv1SP �vould be closed in favor of AA hubs in Chicago and Detroit, and internation3l service tivould decline.That move would also imperil MSP's bond zating. Others assert the 16-17 million passengers generated by MSP is a maj or plum to any acquiring carrier. Izonically, if in the unlikely event #hat MSP lost its hub status, an N`VA consolidation might lead to greater noise rzlief.than any other noise abatement strategy in place or contemplated. � � ;` , . �`'��, , -,-�-�- �- G. " i "�:;;,,�� Pa�e 1 ] Retiring Sen. Flynn Urges Land Ban�ng for New Airport Sen. Carol Flynn, chair of the Senate Trans- portation Committee, tivill retire in December after 11 years in elected office and a stint on the Metro- politan Council. In a departing inter"view with the St. Paul Leaal Ledger (Aug. 10, 2000), she urQed that the state start setting aside land for a newV airport, preferably near St. Cloud. "We should at a minimum be landbankin� sornewhere so tivhen this one (MSP) is really a problem, tive've got a place to build a new air- port," Flynn said. "It (the ]and) could still be farmed, or used for all kinds of other things, but you could restrict (airport incompatible) develop- ment." Flynn blamed lack of e:cpansion space at the present site for restraining competition, allo�ving Northwest to char�e monopoly prices (which some say approaches $500 million a year), and restrictin� Minnesota's economic future. Even thou�h MAC is investing $2.7 billion- plus to add 23 premium-fare, loti�v-cost fare and regional jet gates, expanded car�o facilities and a new nuzway, "it will be totally inadequate when they're done," she said. (SIbIAA.0 estimates that, barrinQ a recession, MSP could reach its 2005 interim target of 575,000 operations a year by 2002 and its 2020 forecast of 640,000 operations by 2010.) C\ t A:S r' K=,.cct- tt�r F�11 2�1i`0 SMAAC Neti�vsIetter Published intermittently by the South Metro Airport Action Council (SMAAC) � 116 Columbus Ave. S. Minneapolis, I�1i�J �5417 (612) 822-811S FAX (612) 861-1061 e-mail dsndrsCgateway.net Board of Directors: Dick Saunders: Presidznt Neil Clark: Vice President Eileen Scully: Treasurer Dean Lindberg Gree Bastien C.B. hfamer Meg Parsons Russell Schrozdl Jim Spensley Ron Lischeid ----Credits---- Dick Saunders: Editor Repor�er: Dean Lindbera Eileen Scuily: Disiribution Layout: N�il Ciark SOUTH METRO AIRPORT A�CTION COUNCIL SMAAC 5116 Columbus Ave. S. Minneapolis, I�TI�15�417 (612) 822-8118 Bulk Rate U.S. Postage Paid Minneapolis, NN Permit No. 20245 �, � SMAA:C Enrollment/Renewal Form Send to: SMAAC 5116 Columbus Avz. S . Minneapolis, MN 55�17 General ($1 �) - Supporting ($25) Name: Address: City: _ State: Phone: Zip: ContributinQ (�50) E-mail address � I am willina to serve on a SMAAC committee. The number on your mailin� label indicates the last year of paid membership. Please renew if not current. Si�•IAAC is a volunteer citizens' group and your participation is vital. Your dues provides the funds to inform elected leaders in government, the StifAAC menbership, and the general public on airport matters. S�1.4,4C t�e�vslettzr,Fall 2000 ; � dt � a ; � �i i�"�'" U 5y ��rv - -a.. R �.., �'q, T � �^vr .��a x ;�� k� d�' e � d �,.-. �+. -��i, �� r,�7 �,�v f�•a� � }".�- ,.�. 7y'� 51,� ��. �.� "r � ,�51,. }�f.: �., i�,,? ��,,a�r' �,'3�. 4,.,,,� T p� Jv . �:. A weekly update on litigation, re;ulations, and technological developments Volume 12, Number 38 Noise Policy NORT�IWEST DISAGREES WITH FAA THAT NOISE IMPACT IS SIGNIFICANT Northwest Airlines told the Federal Aviation Administration that it "fundamen- tally disagrees" with the agency's contention in the proposed update to its aviation noise policy that the number of Americans impacted by aviation noise remains significant and that "aggressive new measures," such as adoption of more stringent aircraft noise standards or the phaseout of hushkitted airplanes, are needed. "As it develops its future aviation noise policy, the FAA must maintain a realistic perspective on the true extent of the population exposed to si�nificant levels of aviation noise in the United States currently and inio the future," the airline, which has a relatively large.number of hushkitted airplanes, said in comments submitted to the ajency. "The FAA's assertion that a large number of people in the United Sta[es remain substantialiy impacted is overstated and FAA's plan to reduce community noise �� exposure by a�gressively pursuing further aircraft source noise reduction is not supported by the evidence," the airline asserted. Northwest noted that the FAA stated in the proposed update to its noise policy [hat the number of Americans exposed to significant aviation noise (65 dB DNL and greater) in the yea= 2000 totals less than 500,000. This is l:ess than.2O PCLCBIIt (Coniinued oi: p. 159) Noise Policy POLICY PROPOSAL SENDING ME��SA�GE THAT CURFEWS ARE ILLEGAL, FAA TOLD A Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority commissioner accused the Federal Aviation Administration of sending an "improper" message in the proposed update to its 1976 aviation noise policy that it is ille�al to impose blanket nighttime curfe�vs on aircraft operations. "Is tha[ the in[ent of the FAA?" Philip E. $erlin, commissioner for the airport authority, which is in the process of trying to impose a nighttime curfe�v under the FAA's Part 161 process, asked the agency in comments submitted to the docket on its proposed policy update. The seven-page leQal analysis in the policy proposal cites court decisions, including a 1983 Ne�v York district court decision, "to support the belief of some, and presumably the FAA, that a blanket nighttime curfew was illegal," Berlin tvrote, adding, "tiVith due respect, when the FAA cites a 17-year-,old court decision that only has legal precedentia] value in the southern district of.�N•ew York, an improper message is sent to airports, the communities surrounding those airports and its residents and businesses tha[ there will never be a curfew." . The airport commissioner asserted that this "improper" message "is com- pounded" when the policy summarizes the extent of the power of state and ]ocal (Coritinued o�i p. 160) � November 10, 2000 In �'his Issue... FAA Noise Policy ... At the reguest of subscribers, ANR is devoting another issue to suinmarizin� sozne more of the almost 350 comments the Federal Aviation Administra- tion has received on its proposal to update its 1976 aviation noise policy. Northwest Airlines says that it "fundamentally disa�rees" with FAA's assertion that the number of Americans im- pacted by aviation noise remains sianificant. Hotivever, others disa�ree and contend that the agency has vastly underestimated the numbez of people si�nificantly impacted by aviation noise. A Burbank Airport commis- sioner asks the FAA to clarify whether it is stating in its policy proposal that blanket nighttin�e curfews on aircraft operations are ille�al ... The City of Bridgeton proposes that airports be required to contractually a�ree to carry throuaht �vith their noise miti�ation comir�.itments before they can receive federal grants ... AOPA says the agency should encourage noise buffer zones around general aviation airports. November 19 2000 159 of [he es[imated U.S. population, the airline noted. "Even assumin� that the General Accounting Office's es[imate that 67�,000 people in the Uni[ed S[ates are currently exposed to significant aviation noise is correct, only approximately :l5 percent of the resident population is exposed to a sianificant ]evel of aviation noise," the airline added. Moreover, many of the people residing � within the 65 dB DNL noise contour have received or will be receiving sound insulation, it said. Da[a from FAA's Model for Assessing Global Exposure to Noise of Transport Aircraft (MAGENTA) clearly shows that, even in the absence of any action to establish new noise standards or to phase out existing aircraft, the total number of people within the 65 dB DNL noise c�ntour will decrease by nearly 40 percent in the United States and Canada between 1998 and 2020, according to Northwest. Because of this trend, the airline said, it opposes further tiehtening of aircraft noise certification standards and the "suggestion" that hushkitted Sta;e 3 airplanes be phased out before the end of their useful life. Northwest said its opposes any strin�ency increase in an international Sta?e 4 aircraft noise standard of greater than 8 EPNdB (the smallest increase being considered); is opposed to any phaseout of hushkitted Stage 3 aircraft; supports the continued use of the DNL noise metric to assess community impact and the b� dB DNL threshold of si�nificant noise impact; and aarees with FAA that further research is needed before taking any regulatory s[eps to address low freguency noise. � The airlines said it opposes approval by the FAA of any Part 150 airport noise mitigation pro�ram that attempts to rejulate and address low frequency noise and urged the FAA [o prohibit the diversion of airport revenues, includ- ing Airport Improvement Pro�ram (AIP) grants and passenger facility charges for low frequency noise-related projects and programs. North�vest's main hub is Iviinneapolis-St. Paul Interna- tional Airport, which entered into an agreement with the nearby ci[y of Richfield, MN, in December 1998, in conjunction �vith the environmental revie�v process for a new runway, to study lo�v frequency noise impact. Scientific Basis for 65 dB DI�1L tiVhile North�vest contended that there is strong scientific basis for usina 65 dB DNL as the threshold for determining significant noise impact on a popula[ion, many community groups and governmental bodies disagreed. Although the 6� dB DNL criterion has been codified in statute, "i[ is based on erroneous data," said the W ashing- ton, DC, Citizens for the Aba[ement of Aircraft Noise (CAAN). "In [he no�v famous 1978 paper of Theodore Schultz, he made a forgivable errorby combining [data from studies on] aircraft noise with rail and automobile noise. The result �vas a curve [the "Schultz Curve] which was biased towards a lower noise value for aviation. It has taken 20 years to expose Schultz' biased pres'entation. Dutch scientists re-plotted the curve for aviation alone, usin? Schultz ori?inal data sets, and found that the 12 to 15 percent poin[ of "highly annoyed' people occurs at the 57 dB point of the curve, not 65 dB. W ith aviation data alone, the curve has shifted upwards. The 57 dB value is only 2 dB�- above the 55 dB value the Environmental Protec[ion pgency originally recommended 2� years a�o." ' CAAN continued, "If one wishes to retain the 65 dB value, it should be understood that the percentage of `highly annoyed' people rises to 27 percent, a far more significant number. Applying that 27 percent to the people in the tiV ashington, DC, area who are directiy impacted by aircraf[ noise, yields a`highly annoyed' population of nearly a quarter of a miliion people. Apply 27 percent to the other aviation impacted areas of the country and one sees a much different picture than what the FAA is portraying." Similar criticism of the 65 dB DNL criterion for determin- ing significan[ impact was made by attorney Barbara Lichman of the Irvine, CA, law firm Chevalier, Allen & Lichman, who submitted comments on behalf of six cities (Olmsted Falls, OH, Medina, WA, and Foster City, Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, and Rancho Palos Verdes, CA). �� The 65 dB DNL criterion oFsignificance was selected by the FAA but has been demonstrated to be "both arbitrary and unrepresentative of the significance of airport noise," she said. The FAA "has never given a coherent rational or provided defensible scientific data to support the 65 dB ]evel as a benchmark of significance," she wrote. Impact at Boston �_ . . Massachusetts State Reps. Eugene L. 0'Flaherty and Robert A. DeLeo,also took issue with the FAA's contention that only 500,000 people nationtivide are sijnificantly impacted by aircraft noise. They conserva[ively estimated that in their ttivo districts alone, near Boston Logan In[erna- tional Airport, 35,000 people are si�nifican[ly impacted by aircraft noise. "Given that these people represent only a fraction of those who live with the cons[ant drone of aircraft noise over their heads due to residency in the Greater Boston area, it is difficult to see how the FAA's number of 500,000 can constitue a reasonable determination of those �vho experience si�nificant levels of aircraft noise," they told the FAA. They rold the aaency that community involvement in airport noise compatibility must be substantive in nature. "By substantive, tive mean to suggest that the public ' perception has been that noise abatement, and airpor[ plannin� in general, has been carried out with only limited involvement which occurs after the fact, leaving the public to offer somewha[ impotent comments on projects Fvhich have already been substantially created." It is important, they said, "for the FAA to remain cognizant of the fact that the nation's airports are guests in their respective communities" and tha[ the FAA, state, local and airpor[ authorities are primarily responsible for curtailing � noise ..." - AirportNoiseReport � � November 10, 2000 Noise Policy, from p. l�8 governments and plannin; agencies as being limited [o "provide for land use planning and development, zoning, and housing regulations that are compatible with airport operations." "The ambi�uity of the policy statement sends a message that the FAA disagrees with [a California Supreme CourtJ decision upholding the City of Burbank's authority to review the Burbank Airports' plans to replace the existing terminal. Is the FAA stating that the Burbank Airpor[ does not have to submit its plans to the City of Burbank?" the airport commissioner asked. He noted tha[ the proposed policy also states that "resi- dents and prospective residents in areas surrounding airports should seek to understand the noise problem and what steps can be taken to minimize its effect on people ... Prospective residents of areas impacted by airport noise thus should be aware of the effect of noise on their quality of life and act accordingly." But, asked the airport commissioner, "Will the FAA he]p Burbank Airport make residents more aware? How wil] the FAA do that? How should these residents `act accordingly' when they do become aware?" ' Noise lYlitigation Coznmitments The City of Brid�eton, IvIO, which lies in the path of the proposed expansion pian for Lambert-St. Louis Interna- tiona] Airport, arjued tha[ airport proprietors should be required to make firm commitments regarding noise mitigation efforts. The city proposed that the policy update specify that airport proprietors are ineli�ible [o receive discretionary federal funding for capital projects unless they have first demonstrated throuoh substantial evidence (not merely by assertion) that they are cooperating �vith neighboring jurisdictions on land use, noise abatement, and mitigation. The policy update also should require that a cooperative arrangemen[, such as an interlocal aareement, contract, ordinance, or statute, be in place to ensure that the airport proprieror is bound to its mitigation commitmen[s before it seeks FAA grant funds. In addition, the policy should require airports to demon- strate through subs[antial evidence, and not mere assertion as allowed under the curren[ FAA policy, that they have complied with and will continue to comply with local land use decisions. "�Vithou[ such a commitment, ]and use planning by airport neighbors to ensure compatibility with the airport �vould be reduced to a mere empty exercise," wrote Bridgeton ivlayor Conrad 1V. Bowers. AOPA Concerns The Aircraft O�vners and Pilots Association (AOPA) told the FAA that its proposed update should encourage the ' development of noise buffer zones around general aviation airports, �vhich face the same problems of nearby non- 160 compatible ]and use as larger airports do. AOPA said that general aviation airpor[s around the country "are fran[ically trying to miti�ate noise problems that may very we(I have been prevented if adequate land use planning had been applied." General aviation airports have his[orically been unable [o use the FAA's Part 150 airport noise compa[ibility planning process to protect them from non-compatible development, AOPA said. At many GA airports, the 65 dB DNL contour, FAA's threshold for compatible residential use around airports, is with9n the airpor[ boundary. Because of this, GA airports "have found it practically impossible to fund mitigation efforts in close proximity' [o the airport simply because they could not prove a significant impact to non- compa[ible ]and uses existed," AOPA explained. But regardless of the leve] of significant impact tha[ FAA chooses, "these airports are facing ever-increasing demands for noise mitijation and pressures to develop residential and other noise-sensitive land uses closer to [he airport," the association said. Noting that the FAA's proposed policy update il]ustrates the agency's willin�ness to provide support for lar�er airports wishing [o create land use buffers outside the 65 d$ DNL contour, AOPA said the policy "shouid consequently open the door for smaller airports — facing identical problems from nearby non-compatible land uses as lar;er airports do — to receive the FAA's encouragement and support to establish noise buffers." The association said it believes there are two primary reasons why FAA's land use compatibility planninj efforts have not been successful: lack of clear federa] advisory Quidance outlinin� the FAA's recommended ]and use planning measuies and policy; and lack of federal oversi�ht of actions taken by federally-obiiga[ed airpor[ sponsors to be.in compliance with the federal grant assurance to foster compatible land use. Advisory Circular Recomrnended AOPA recommended [hatFAA strenathen its policy stateritent to require that airports and local communities assume responsibility to prevent non-compatible encroach- ment around airports as a prerequisite to the a�ency approvinj noise miti�ation measures in a Part 150 program. This requirement is alluded to by the FAA in its policy statement when it refers [o a requirement in the Part 161 process to first analyze non-restrictive airport measures [o mi[igate noise prior to analyzing proposed access res[ric- tions, AOPA said. However, it is not directly sta[ed in the policy particularly in regard to the establishment of noise baffer zones beyond the 6� dB DNL contour, AOPA added. I[ urged the FAA to detail its land use policy and guidance in an agency advisory circular and noted that a report published by the FAA's Southern Regio❑ last year on land use compatibility could serve as a[emplate for the AC. Regarding the promul�ation of more stringent aircraft noise standards, AOPA said there is no evidence to support AirportNoiseReport November 10, 2000 AI�R EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Steven R.Alverson M anager,S acramento 0 ffice Harris M illerM iller& Hanson John J. Corbett, Esq. Spiegel & McDiarmid Washington,DC � James D. Erickson Director, Office oFEnvironment and Energy Federal Aviation Administration John C. Freytag, P.E. Director, Charles M. SalterAssociates San Francisco hiichael Scott Gatzke, Esq. Gatzke,Dillon & Baliance Carlsbad, CA Peter J. Kirsch, Esq. . Cutler& Stanfield Denver Suzanne C. IYIcLean ChiefDevelopmentOfficer Tucson AirportAuthority John M. lYieenan SeniorVicePresidentforIndustry Policy AirTransportAssociation Vincent E. Niestre, P.E. President, M estre G reve Associates NewportBeach,CA Steven F. Pflaum, Esq. McDermott,�Vill& Emery Chicago Karen L. Robertson Mana;er,NoiseCompatibility Office D allas/Fort W orth International A irport 14i ary L. V igilante President, Synergy Consultants Seattle Lisa Lyle 1Vaters Mana;er,Noise AbatementProgram Palm Beach CountyDepartmentof Airports 161 the inclusion of lar�e propeller-driven aircraft in such re�ulatory efforts. ALPA Comments The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) expressed concern about FAA� statement in its proposed policy update that "sta[e of the art navi�ationnl technology will enable [the agency] to refine the ability to design, and the pilot's ability to fly, flight tracks with increased precision in the noise sensitive areas." The airport trade groups in comments reported earlier (12, ANR, 15�) warned the FAA not to hold out hope that such technologies will be "magic bullets" [o solve air routing problems when their use may be very limited, especially very near airports. ' ALPA said that the use of these new navigational technologies for noise mi[igation purposes has some merit but must be evaluated very closely. The pilots association requested that it be involved in any future attempts to minimize noise impact via pilot procedures. While acknowledaIilb that the noise miti;ation procedures that pilots use do play a role in noise abatement, the association said it does not favor such an.approach. "Our position is that developing special proce- dures for different airports is not the best way to combat noise. W e strongly believe that flight safety is enhanced through standardization of procedures and not the development of many different special proce- dures. Human factor studies sho�v us thaC the more often a pilot is required to deviate from normal procedures the more likely he/she is [o make a mistake." This concern for safety, ALPA explained, is why the aviation industry developed FAA Advisory Circular 91-53A, which requires that only two standardized noise abatement departure procedures be used by the airlines: one to mitigate noise close in to an airport and the other to i�� mitiga[e noise farther out. But many local governments and community groups strongly urged the FAA to make full use of new navigational technolo�ies to route aircraft on tightly defined noise abatement paths. Such action would further concentrate aircraft noise over narrotiv strips of land, a consequence that some commenters acknowledged would have to be addressed. In Brief ... ARN has learned that James Erickson, director of the FAA's Office of Environment and Energy, will soon retire from the agency. Ho�vever, he was unavailable to confirm this information. Further de[ails will be provided in next week's issue. AIRPORTNOXSEREPORT Anne H: Kohu`t; Piiblisher Published 46 times a year at 43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 20147; Phone: (703) 729-4S67; 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 page per copy � is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rose�vood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. USA. (' l fi: .._ �� + � � : � ��.ik! � t .� E '.Y, ^�',r.�, `1L ; r � �� Rt a ^��. i�� :i,� � + j � �+ � �?r i x x TF �1.,, ,.�1'r f,�"y ��f F�♦ E!r,,,: f .'4'�^k �.r �� n+ ..�., i' 4 F �,a�T h�.,r, � ,:�, ��, A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technologicai developments Volume 12, Number 39 Naples AIRPORT BECOMES FIRST IN COUNTRY TO IMPOSE NEW NOISE RULE SINCE ANCA On Nov. 16, the Naples Airport Au[hority became the first airport proprietor in the country to impose a new noise restric[ion since passage of the Airport Noise and Capacity Act in 1990, ratifyin� by a vote of four-to-one a ban on the opera- tion of Sta�e 2 aircraft under 7�,000 lb., effective Jan. l, 200I. Naples' restriction is significant in several other ways. It is the first in the country to ban the operation of Staje 2 business je[s under 75,000 lb., which were excluded from the phase out requirement for heavier Sta�e 2 planes manda[ed by ANCA; it is the first to address noise impact in the 60-64 dB DNL noise contour, which is beyond the Federal Aviation Administration's traditional 6� dB DNL threshold of compatible residentia] use; and it is the first to result from a federal Part 161 study, althou�h the FAA contended the study was inadequate. The airport authority's action is certain to put other airports under increased •. public pressure [o impose noise and access restrictions, especially additional bans on the operation of Staae Z aircraf[ under 7�,000 1b., which are becoming a growing noise problem a[ Qeneral aviation airports. tiVhile these liQhter StaQe 2 aircraf[, mainiy business jets, comprise only 1 percent of the operations at Naples they are the cause of approximately 3� percent ' (Continued on p. 163) Van Nzcys LOS ANGELES SEEKS TO DISMIS� LAWSUIT CHALLENGING STAGE 2 NON-ADDITION RULE On Nov. 20 a U.S. district court judge wi11 consider a motion by the City of Los Angeles to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the ]egality of a controversial noisz res[riction adop[ed by the city in April that prohibits the noisiest Stage 2 �eneral aviation airplanes from usinQ Van Nuys Airport for more than 30 days in any calendar year unless the aircraFt tivere previously parked, tied down, or hangared at the airport for more than 90 days in 1999. On Au�. 29, five fi.r•ed based operators at the airport and three aviation trade Qroups (the Na[ional Business Aviation Association, the General Aviation D�fanufacturers Association, and tliz National AirTransportation Association} filed suit in U.S. Dis[rict Court in California challen�ing the ne�v restriction, which the city considers to be an amendment to an earlier noise restriction that is srandFathered under the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990. yThe avintion interests argued that Los An�eles violated the Supremac�� Clause of the Constitution by enactins a reQulation regardin� the use of naviQable airspace that.is unreasonable. arbitrary and discriminatory; that [he ci[y violated [he Commerce Clause b}� enacting an unreasonable and arbitrary localized noise reQime that is undulv burdznsome to interstate commerce; and that the city (Co��tinued on p. 76�) November 17, 2000 In �'his �sstce... Naples . .. Naples Airport Authoriry ratifies a ban on the operation of Stage 2 aircraft under 75,000 lb., becomin� the first airport authoriry in the country to impose a new noise restriction since passa�e of the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 199Q - p. 162 Van Nzsys ... Court to con- sider motion by Ciry of Los An�eles to dismiss lawsuit filed by aviation interests challengin� legaliry of controversial restric- tion on noisiest Sta�e 2 aircraft at Van Nuys Airport - p. 162 Hcz�zsconz Fiel�' . .. A preser- vation �roup asks a federal appeals� court to stay a FAA order permittin� shuttle service between Hanscom and LaGuardia. The action brin�s to a head a debate over �vhether FAA approvals of amendments to airline operatin� specifica- tions allowin� additional opera- tions are subject to revietiv unde the National Historic Preserva- tion Act - p. 163 Ne3vs Briefs ... Erickson to retire on Nlarch 3; Phoenix Sky Ha1•bor noise maps meet federal requirements; FAA. announces lottery to reallocate exemption slots for re�ional jet operations at LaGuardia - p. 164 November 17, ?000 of the noise complaints received by the airport, the airport's consultants concluded in a federal Part t61 study done to support the new restriction. No FAA�Response Yet The airpor[ authority's action comes despite the FAA's contention that the restriction appears to violate federal grant agreemen[s (12, ANR, 134). The FAA did not respond by deadline to calis from ANR seeking comment. Both [he National Business Avia[ion Association and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, which strongly opposed the restriction, told ANR that the baIl is now in FAA's court and they wi11 �vait to see how the agency responds to Naples' action before considerinn whether to challenge the restriction. NBAA had urged the Naples Airport Authority to reject a mandatory restriction, offering to work closely with the airport to make pilots more aware of fly quiet techniques, explained Jeff Gilley, NBAA's point man on noise issues. He said a"very �ood, non-confrontational dialogue" occurred at a recent metin� between NBAA officials and Naples' officials and their noise consultants. The authority was very cordial, he said, but felt they had to do somethin� to appease the community. Lisa LeBlanc HutchinQs, Naples' noise officer, said the airport foundNBAA's input regarding fly quiet techniques very helpful: For e;cample, she said, the airport learned that char[er operators cannot currently use fly quiet technigues because they are not included in their operatin� manuals. In August, the FAA declared Naples' Part 161 study deficient and told the airport it must provide additional analysis rejardine its efforts to first use non-restrictive means to address noise problems before resortin� to i[s operational ban (12, ANR, 11 S). Naples did provide that additional analysis to the aQzncy. In September, the FAA told the airport authority tha[ its proposed restriction also appeared to violate federal gran[ agreements. The a�ency also seemed to be ar�uin� that, to the exten[ that an airport authority has the authority [o control land to the 60 dB DNL contour (which Naples adopted as a noise buffer zone in an update to its Part I50 noise compatibility pro;ram), it must sho�v it has done so before pursuin� a Par[ 161 study. Ho�vever, the Naples Airport Authority is somewhat unique in tha[ it has no control over land use. Va�z Nzrys, frona p. 162 violated the equal protection of la�v under the Fourteenth Amendment by discriminatinQ between classes of airport users �vithout a rntional basis. Los AnQeles seeks the case dismissed on three grounds. First, it ar�ued, the plaintiff have not exhausted their administrative remedies and the complaint should properly be submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration for administr;�tive re��ieu•, not to the distric[ court. The Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA) requires that 163 challenges to local airport noise la�vs be lodaed �vich the FAA, the city told the court. y The lawsuit, it said, "is deFtly crafted" to zxclude any allejed express violations of ANCA and i[s Part 161 ( re�ulations, federal grant assurances, or federal preemption of airspace, routes, ra[es, traffic re�ulations and services "in an attempt [o circumvent the requirement to petition the FAA for administrative review." Los Angeles aiso argued that the complain[s presen[ed in the lawsuit are "complex, complicated, and difficult" and [hat their resolution "will require the expertise of the regulatory agency charged with the oversi?ht of America's aviation system — the FAA." Once adminis[ratively reviewed and determined, the court "will have amp]e time to review and judge the constitutionality and legality of the rule," the city said. Los An�eles also argued that the case should be dismissed because the plaintiffs have no[ demonstrated that they have been harmed by the noise restriction, or that they are currently in viola[ion of the noise law, or that the city intends to enforce its noise law a�ainst them. The ordinance adopted by the Los An�eles City Council caps the number of Stage 2 aircraft opera[ions at Van Nuys — the busiest �eneral aviation airport in the coun[ry — at their present level of about 50 (12, ANR, 53). Airport neighbors felt the rule was not strin�ent enoush, while main[enance operations based at the airport saidyit would hurt their business. . Hanscom Field - �. FAA COMPLIANCE WITI� PRESERVA.TION ACT QUESTIONED Save Our Heritaje, a non-profit Qroup established to preserve historic si[es of the American Revolution and environmental and literary movements near Lexin�ton and Concorde, NSA, asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Nov. 2 to stay a Federal Aviation Administra[ion order givinj Shuttle America permission to operate daily shuttle fli�hts be[tiveen Hanscom Field and LaGuardia. The action brin�s to a head a debate bet�veen the FAA and the federa] Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, �vhich determines compliance tivith the Nationa] Historic Preservation Act, as to tivhether FAA approvals of amend- ments to airline operating specifications allo�ving additional operations are "federal undertakinas" subject to revie�v under Section 106 of the act. y Section 106 prohibits federal asencies from en�aQin� in any federal under�aking (or federally assisted or licensed undertaking) unless the a�ency first (1) [akes into account the eFfects of the undertaking on historic properties; and (2) affords the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertakinQ. The council established a three-step process that aQencie� must complete before approvinR anv undertaking. The ' federal a�ency must consult �vith the State Historic Preser��a- Airport�oise Report November 17, 2000 tion Officer (SHPO); must make ;� "reasonable and good Faith effort" to identify alI historic properties that may be affected by the under[aking; and must assess the effects of the project on [hose properties. If the effects of the project will be adverse, the agency must seek ways to avoid, minimize, or mitioa[e those ePfects in consultation with the 5HP0 and the Advisory Council. Typically, adverse effects are resolved through the execu- tion oP a Ivlemorandum of Agreemen[ between the agency, the SHPO, and the Advisory Council detailina measures to miti�ate impacts on historic properties. Gro��ing Commercial Service The FAA decision under challen;e here was preceded by several actions that have transformed the airport over the past year from a �enerai aviation facility to a rapidly arowing commercia] airport. � In September 1999, the FAA approved an application filed by the Massachuset[s Port Authority to upgrade the airport operating certificate for Hanscom to enable Shuttle America to initiate commercial passenger air service. At the same time, the FAA Qave Shuttle America approval to amend its operatin� specifications to allo�v scheduled operations usins aircraft with �0 seats out of Hanscom. In response to public complaints about the airport's expansion, the Ad��isory Council on Historic Preserva[ion began a formal inquiry into FAA's role in approvin? passen;er service at the airport and the status of the aQency's compliance �vith Section 106 in connection tivi[h that action. On Sept. 15, the F�A formally began a 5ection 106 process in connection with a ne�v application by Shuttle America to add 7-10 flights a day at Hanscom and made a proposed findinQ tha[ there tivould be "no adverse effect" on historic properties from [hat increase. The National Park Szrvice stronoly disputed FAA's conclusion, arQuins that the ac[ion would increase the levels of both noise and ground traffic, especially on the historic and environmentally-sensitive two-lane Battlefield Road leadinQ to the airport. tiV i[hin the 30-day [ime frame provided by ]aw, the b�Iassachusetts State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) no[ified the FAA that additional analysis of noise and [raffic impacts was needed in order for the SHPO to be able [o determine if it could concur with the FAA's finding. The FAA had based its conclusion of no adverse affect on noise and traFfic analyses extrapolated from data collected in 199� in connection �vith a oeneric environmental impact report prepared by llassport pursuant to s[a[e law. On Oct. 12, the SHPO told the F;�A that documentation tivas insufficient and asked the asency to prepare project- specific studies of the potentia] noise and traffic associated �vith the expansion of szrvicz at Hanscom. On Oct. 27, the F�.� informzd the Advisory Council that it did not believe that ftirther delay in the start up of Shuttle america's operations for a continuinQ revie�v Section 106 164 process could be justified and it approved the amendment to the airline's operations specifications. On Nov. 1, Shuttle America beoan operating seven daily flights to LaGuardia and plans toyadd five more. On Nov. 2, Save Our Heritase filed its motion for emer- �ency s[ay of the FAA's order pending appeal. I[ said that FAA's action "permits virtually unlimi[ed increases in Shuttle America's air service at Hanscom in the future without the necessity of any further FAA approvals." The �roup araued th�at FAA's view [ha[ i[s approval of [he amendment [o Shuttle America's operations specifications is not an undertakin� under the National His[oric Preserva- tion Act "has been resoundin�ly rejected by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation." The Advisory Council also rejected the FAA's view that because operation specifications were "categorieally excluded" from National Environmental Policy Act review these actions were also exempt from any review under Section 106, stating an action ca[ejorically excluded Erom review under NEPA "can nevertheless qualify as an undertakin? requirin� review under Section 106." Save Our Heri[aoe also ar�ued that [he FAA failed ro complete the Section 106 process prior to approving the amended operations specifications because it did not respond to the 5HP0's request for additional noise and traffic analysis. FAA's determiriation of "no effect" on his[oric resources is arbitrary and capricious, Save Our Herita�e asserted, because "it is direct]y and specifically refu[ed in [he record" by the Director of the National Park Service. The FAA opposed the motion by Save Our HeritaQe to stay its action, arguing that the increase in shuttle opera- tions would have "no potential to cause effects" on the historic sites near the airport. But Save Our Herita�e told [he court that F? A is trying to "]a�vfully evade" any review of its approval of amendments to operations specifications by reasoninQ that if it finds that its action has "no potential to cause effects on historic proper[ies" it is absolved of any further obliQations under Section 106. "The FAA's position lacks both legal and factua] support," the group told the court. Ira Brief ... Erickson tiVil] Retire 1Vlarch 3ra On Nlarch 3, 2001, James Erickson, director of the Federa] Aviation Administration's Oificz oFEnvironment and Energy, �vill retire from the aaency� to accompany his wife, also an FAA official, to SinQapore wherz she �vill head the FAA's Far East Office. � The early March 2001 retirement date was selected to give Erickson time to help lead the U.S. deleoation to a crucial 7anuary meetinQ in A�Iontreai of the Committez on Aviation Enviro.nmental Protec[ion (CAEP) of the International Civil AirpurtNoise Report November 17, 2000 ANR EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Steven R. Alverson btana;er,Sacramento0ffice Harris Ivi iller�i iller3c Hanson John J. Corbett, Esq. Spie;el3c McDiarmid Zi�ashin;ton, DC James A. Erickson Director, Office of Environmentand Eneray FederalAviationAdministration � John C. Freytag, P.E. Direcror,Charles M.SalterAssociates San Francisco NTichael Scott Gatake, Esq. Gatzke,Dilion Rc Ballance Carlsbad, CA Peter J. Kirsch, Esq. Cutier & Stanfield Denver Suzanne C. �icLean ChiefDevelopmen[Officer Tucson AirportAuthority John l�t. l�Ieenan SeniorVicePresidentforIndustry Policy AirTransport Association Vincent E. ��festre, P.E. President, Ivf estre Greve Associates NewportBeach,Cr1 Steven F. Pflaum, Esq. hf cDermott,lV ill R Emery Chicaeo Iiaren L. Robertson hlanager,Noise Compatibility Office Dallas/Fort�VorthInternational �irport itilary L. Vigilante President, Synzrey Gonsulcants Seatde Lisa Lyle SVaters hi anaeer, Noise Abatement Prosram Palm Beach County Department of Airports 165 Aviation Oroanization (ICAO). International participants at tha[ meeting wil( consider whether to recommend a ti�h[er "StaQe 4" international airplane noise certification standard and whether any Stage 3 airplanes,,.. particularly those hushki[ted, should be phased out in conjunction witl( more strin�en[ standard. It is unclear at this point who will replace Erickson as head of the FAA office, which is in the process of developin� an update to the agency's 1976 noise policy. In one of life's little ironies, however, he and his wife just purchased a home near Naples Airport in Florida where they will live after their return from Sinaapore. Naples just became the first airport in the country to impose a new noise restriction in a decade and did so in defiance of FAA threats tha[ such action may be illegal (see related story in this issue). Phoeni�� l�Toise Maps The FAA announced Oct. 25 that noise exposure maps submitted by the Ci[y for Phoenix for the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport are in compliance with federal requirements. For further information, contact Brian Armstrona, an airport planner in the FAA's tiVestern-Pacific Re�ion; tel: (310) 72�-3614. LaGuardia Slot Lottery The FAA announced Nov. 15 tha[ it will hold a lot[ery with the Por[ Authority of New York and Netiv Jersey in la[e November or early December to reallocate exemption slots for new re�ionai jet operations at LaGuardia Airport that �vere authorized under the "AIR 21," the W endell H. Ford Pviation Investment and Reform Act o£ th= 215� Century. ConQress's decision to encoura�e more reaional jet operations at the , four slot controlled airports in the cou�[ry (LaGuardia, JFK, Reasan � National, and 0'Hare) precipitated a capacity crisis at LaGuardiaVwhere the FAA had approved hundreds of new operations that the Port Author- ity said i[ could not physically handle. Ne�v York City officials have already sued the FAA for Qivina "blanket slot exemp[ions" to all carriers that appiied for the new slots (12, ANR, 126). The Port Authority moved to impose a temporary moratorium on new peak hour fliQhts by regional jets at LaGuardia, lvhich threatened to move the complicated ]ega] questions the issue presented into court. The lot[ery is a[emporary measure designed to �ive the FAA [ime to develop a new policy on measures available to airport operators for manaQement of conjestion. Public comment on the FAA announcement til�ill be accepted until Nov. 20. For further information, contact David L. Bennett in the FAA Office of Safety and Standards; tel: (202) 267-30�3. The notice appeared in the Nov. I � Federal Register. AIRPORT NOISE REPORT Anne H. Kohut, Publisher Published 46 times a year at 43973 Urbancrest Ct., Ashbum, Va. 20147; Phone: (703) 729-4S67; FA.t�: (703) 729-4�28. e-mail: editor@airportnoisereport.com; Price a��49. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, (.. is aranted by Airport Noise Report, provided that the base fee of US$1.03 per paQe per copy �. is paid directl}' to Copyri�ht Clearance Center, 222 Rose�vood Drive, Danvers, l�lA Ol9?3. USA. �`.t� k` ,j� 1, t }j, '~. � 'aS.,-Y�. �,j�� u £��41 ^�-� � �� Ui "' � �' r�� j'�! � 1, �j � �, Rl �L'�`�"-• ..a. � f i ; ' +�,,, ., �� f ��k � # r '�H `� r i� '�� 6'� �� ` � s a . , `�" ti 4 , t il.. �'� w:.,,� ,.n.� �'.-. �: ��. �..w h t„ �X ..., A�veekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developm ents Volume 12, Number 40 Special Report USING 'REAL' NOISE INFORMATION TO ASSIST NOISE SENSITIVE II�DIVIDUALS by David Southgate Australian Department of Transport and Regional Services In coramon with tnany countries Australia has n long established equal energy noise contouring system tivhich delineates areas with `acceptable' and 'unaccept- able' noise e�tvironnaents aroi�nd airports. Ho}vever, in recent times noise cornplaints nrid pressures to impose ope'rational restrictio�is on airports have b.een comitrg over�vltelmingly from residents of areas tivhich the 'officiat'system defines ns `acceptable'. Ninn}� of rhese people believe that they are the viciims of raisleadi�tg nircraft noise iiiformatior:. This paper describes the approaches thnt are being adoptecl bti� the Austrnlinn Depnrhnent of Trnnsport a�:d Regional ' Services to address this problem. Changing Situation In the early 1980s the Australian Noise Ezposure Forecast (ANEF) System �vas established as the basic too] for describin� and assessin� aircraft noise in Australia [1]. This is an equal enerQy descriptor wNich is essentia]ly similar to other aircraft noise contourinQ metrics such as the DNL and Leq. ANEF contour maps are used to describe aircraf[ noise exposure patterns around an airport with the outer contour beins the 20 ANEF (�vhich approsimates to 5� Leq). The outer contour has been set at 20 ANEF as this has been determined to be the ' 10�o seriously affected' line [2]. In a similar manner to other noise contourin� systems, under the ANEF system areas outside the outer contour are taken to be `acceptable' as far as aircraft noise exposure is concerned. In line �vith this determination of `acceptability' the focus of noise amelioration strate�ies and environmental assessment has conventionally been on the `unac- ceptable' arens �vi[hin the contours (ie areas �vith an aircraft noise exposure exceedinQ 5� Leq). Until recent times very ]ittle noise exposure information has been produced for areas outside the contours and very little reco?nition has been Qiven to the proportion of the population outside the contours which considers itself `seriously affected'. Hotivever, our experience is that noise complaints, and pressures [o place res[rictions on airport operations, increasingly come from residents of areas outside the noise con[ours. These people are tivhat the noise practitioner �vould conventionally define as noise sensitive individuals ]ivinQ in areas receivino low levels of aircraft noise exposure. This chanQina situation has seen the Australian Department of Transport and ReQional Serviczs reassess its aircraft noise strategies and it has recently released a major discussion paper on its proposed approaches for dealing �vith this issue [3]. (Conlinued on �. 167) � November 24, Z000 In .�'his� :Issue. . . Noise Descriptors ...In this ANR special report; David South�ate of the Australian Department of Transport and Regional Services discusses a new approach to describin� aixcraft noise in a way that is understandable to communi- ties near airports.. This advance in the way aircraft noise exposure infor- mation is conveyed to the public came in response to recommendations made in 199� by the Australian Senate Select Committee on Aircraft Noise, which identified many deficiencies in the way in which aircraft noise informa- tion had been conveyed to the public through reliance on the Austrialian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF) System in the EIS for the tYiird runway at Sydney Airport. The developing Australian descriptors are not meant to replace ANEF, which like DNL is considered a valuable metric for land use plannin�, but to provide a new tool for airports to use in helpin� individuals form a mental picture of the aircraft noise impact that can be expected at a particular location. November 24, 2000 Unfulfilled Expectations While there are cleariy many reasons why residents of areas outside the con[ours complain about aircraft noise, monitoring of the reasons for this discon[ent reveals a stron� recurrin� theme - people in these areas believe they are bein� misled by `official' aircraft noise int'ormation. In essence it appears tha[ the `acceptable'!'unacceptable' concept underlyin� the noise contourin� system is generating expectations �vhich are not being met. In these circumstances it is not surprisin� that people feel aggrieved and put pressure on airports. For example, people have accep[ed the advice of published ANEP material and moved into houses in the `acceptable' areas onty to find that the noise ]evels are not acceptabie to them. Similarly people have claimed that the noise exposure levels �enerated followinj an airport development have not been `acceptable' as indicated in the project EIS. In particular, there are many areas under, or close to, busy flight paths which are subject to noise exposure patterns which are hi�hly annoying for some people, but which have a noise exposure of less than 5� Leq. Under the ANEF system these areas are not differenti- ated from areas which are remote from flight pa�hs — they are all `acceptable'. Clearly therefore there is a need [o re-evaluate the [ype of aircraf[ noise information that is currently produced. In simple terms if we are to address [his problem we need to ensure that people are not surprised when exposed to `new' aircraft noise and we need to develop approaches which assist noise sensitive people to avoid livin? near flight paths. If there are to be `no surprises' then people need both to have access to aircraft noise information for the area they are interested in and the information also needs to be comprehensible. To address the first issue aircraft noise information clearly needs to be produced and made available for areas �vhich estend �vel] beyond conventional noise contours. To make the information comprehensible tive believe that we need to take, tivhat is for some, a radica] new direction and move ativay from using conventional equal eneray noise contours as an information tool. `Real' Aircraft Noise Information The deFiciencies �vith the ANEF system first came to prominence in 199� tivhen the Australian Senate carried out a Public Inquiry into aircraft noise in Sydney. This Inquiry was established as a result of the public outcry tha[ follo�ved the openinQ of a ne�v runway at Sydney Airport. A large number of submissions to the Inquiry were from people who believed they had been misled by the ANEF information in the EIS for the project. The Inquiry lar�ely aQreed �vith the thrust of these submissions [4]. As a result of the Senate Inquiry the Department be�an to explore al[ernatives to ANEF contours Eor advisin� non- experts about aircraft noise erposure patterns. The broad I67 ;, conclusion we reached was that if [he public is un�cilling or unable to accept the noise specialis['s wav of presentina information then we should start producina inform'a[ion using [he layperson's language. I l A person experiences aircraft noise as a series of separate' events and this clearly influences the way they communi- cate on aircraft noise. 1�Vhen members of the public talk to each other, and make a complaint to the authorities, they focus on the location of flight paths and on the number and times of aircraf[ movements. For example, they use lan- gua�e such as `[he flijh[ path has moved rieht over my house today; there have been 50 flights [his mornin� and they started before 630am'. In order to be able to communi- cate effectively with the community the Department has therefore attempted [o model its new information strategies on this type of language. 'Picture' of Aircraft Noise Aircraf[ noise information that the Department is now using to replace cumulative noise energy contours combines information on fli�htpaths and numbers of movements and provides a`picture' of aircraf[ noise which experience has shown to be very useful to non-experts. These aircraft fli�ht path movement char[s are very simple and quick to produce and have achieved tivide acceptance with the public, elected representatives, and the media. The 20 ANEF (55 Leq) contour can be superimposed on these charts for comparative purposes. The char[s �ive aircraf[ noise information over a much ( tvider area than the ANEF contour and they show the very \, poor correla[ion between the noise contour and the flight paths - this has been a constant source of public dissatisfac- tion tvith noise contours. The charts also provide basic inFormation on daily variations on noisz exposure and do not just refer to the `average day'. Describin? aircraft noise solely by reference to the `annual avera�e day' has been another key area of dissatisfaction with conventional information. Due to the tivide temporal variations in aircraft noise from hour to hour, day to day and season to season the `avera,e' day is very rarely a`typical' day. In order [o address this issue, additional charts are bein� routinely produced for Sydney Airport that sho�v �vhen there are periods of `respite' alonQ each of the flight paths for parts of the day or for particular days. A statement in one of the boxes on these charts, such as `respite hours �O�Ic', means that for half of the clock hours o�•er the period in question there tvere no jet movemznts on that fliQht pa[h. The `respite' metric has been developed in response to strona community demands for this type of informa[ion and it is considered very likely that i[ �vill become an important `noise' indicator in the future as the number of aircraft movements at airports begins to aro��. It is note�vorthy that neither of these ne�v descriptors is ( based on sound pressure levels. \evertheless it has become�. very evidznt that representing `noise' in this �vay gives AirportNoiseReport (, � November 24, 2000 members oF the public and decision makers a much better pic[ure of tivhat is. or �vill be, happening than can be achieved usinj conr•entional noise contours. bVith the in[roduc[ion of [hese `new' descriptors only a small propor[ion of the public now appears to show an interest in receiving inFormation on noise levels per se. This seems [o be because people are familiar �vith the sounds at their homes and [hey generally think in terms of either moving fliQht paths or reducina the number of movements, particu- larly those at sensitive [imes. The focus on individual noisy aircraf[ has diminished in recentyears in Australia notiv that movements are almost exclusively by high by- pass ICAO Chapter 3 aircraft. Individuals that do shotiv an interest in sound pressure levels invariably �vant to koow about single event, not ]o?arithmically averaoed_, noise levels_ In order to provide an aogrejated form of this information the Department produces N70 charts - contour maps showing the number of events louder than 70 dB (A). This type of presentation has proven much more acceptable to the non-expert than conventionnl cumulative noise ener�y contours since it reports the noise i❑ the way that a person experiences i[ - as a number of noise evzn[s. The contou�s are also arithmetic, not lo?arithmic, which is aiso very attractive to the layper- son. Using the `Real' Information It was arQued earlier in the paper that we need to move to an aircraPt noise regime based on `no svrprises'. tiVe believe that the `real' informa[ion now being produced �vill enable this type of approach [o be implemented. In essence there is a need to establish a system based on full `disclosure'. Conventionally airports have solely seen `disclosure' as a leQislative requirement beinj placed on a homeo�vner to tell a prospective house purchaser about aircraft noise exposure. �Vhile this type of approach is usefu] and worth pursuing, it does not address the current problem because such rules can only feasibly apply to areas �vithin the noise contours and also they only apply in circumstances of house sale or rental. If the concep[ of `disclosure' is to be taken further the onus must be placed on airports to produce aircraft noise information that rela[es [o the areas where the main pres- sures are comine from - that is to areas outside the contours. This would then facilitate `disclosure' both in the circum- stances of house salzs involvinQ noise sensitive people and also in situations ~vhere proposed opera[ional chan�es at an airport would alter noise exposure patterns. In the context of this paper �ve �vould argue [hat `disclo- sarz' cannot be achieved �vith conventional noise metrics - `real' information alon� the �ines of thatdiscussed in the previous section has to be used. Once everyone in the community has full access to the `real' information then the individual is [hen in a posi[ion to decide for themselves �vhether to move into an 1re.a �vhere there is audible aircrafe noise or tvhether t� become in��ol�ed in an EIS process on a �: proposed development at an airport. An aircraft noise system which results in an airport tellina a noise sensi[ive person that i[ is `acceptable' to purchase a house a[ a particular location simply because it is outside the noise contours is clearly not rational if the aim of the sys[em is to achieve compatibiliry between the community and the airport. If the house in question happens to be under a busy flight path both the individua] and the airport are hiQhly likely ro lose out. 1�ith `real' information we can turn this into a`winl�vin' situation. The onus is now on all concerned to reco?nise that if aircraft noise issues are to be effec[ively managed we have to move beyond conventional egual energy noise contours and start showing the `real' picture. 12eferences (1) Acoustics - Aircrnft noise ilitrusiolt - Buildiitg sitirtg a�id co�isrruction, Australian Standard AS2021-1994, Standards Australia, Homebush, Appendix C, 199�. (2) Hede A J and'Bullen R B, Aircraft noise in Australia: A survey of comm[rnity reaction, NAL Report No 83, Na[ional Acoustic Laboratories, Australian Government Publishinj Service, Canberra, Chapter 9, 1982. (3)Expancling bVays to �escribe nnd Assess Aircraft Noise, Discussion Paper, Dept of Transport and Regional Services, Commonwealtfi of Austra]ia, Canberra, 2000. (=�) Falling on Denf Ears?, Report of the Sena[e Select Committee on Aircraft Noise in Sydney, Commontivealth of Australia, Canberra, 199�. [Follo�ving is an escerpt from another paper prepared by l�ir. Southgate tivhich discusses the ne�v descriptors that have been deti�eloped to help indi��iduals determine noise exposure at particular locations. A more detailed discussion of these descriptors, and charts that have been developed from them, is included in the Departm ent of Transport and Regional Serti�ices' report, "Espanding ti�'ays to Describe and Assess Aircraft Noise," tivhich appears on the department's tiveb site located at w�v�v.dotrs.go��.au. That report also appears on the tiveb site of the Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN) at wtivw.fican.org and Fvi11 be discussed at a public session on the adequacy of noise metrics that FICAN will hold in k'ebruary in San Diego.] Ne�i� Descripiors The Department has developed a packaQe of three `products' - the fli;ht path moveme.nts chart, the respite chart and the N70 - to enable the individual to ascertain what noise exposure is like at a particular location. These three prodiicts in effect provide informntion on the number, Airport i�oise Feport November 24, 2000 169 � times, location and loudness of aircraft oise events and are illustrated in [the report on the web sitesJ. These fiQures are similar to those attached to a paper iven by the author in 1998. Feedback since that [ime has reveale the flight path based maps to be most popular with non experts while most,- noise specialists [end to focus their inte est on the noise contour. Ideally the charts are best considered as a packad they are intended to be complemen[ary to each other and if they are examined in isolation important information can be lost. Using the N70 to See a Different Picture The use of N70 contours led to the Department developing two new aircraft noise assessmen[ tools - the Person- Events Index (PEI) and the Avera�e Individuai Exposure (AIE). In essence the PEI is a measure of the community noise load jenerated by an airport (or some movements at an airport) computed from `number of noise even[s' and population information. The AIE gives the average individual noise load across [he exposed population expressed in number of even[s above a specified noise level (de[ails of the deriva[ion of the PEI and AIE can be found in the `Espandin� tiVays' discussion paper). The PEI and AIE are useful when comparin� operational options at an airport since they very readily show whether, say, a reduction in the number of persons esposed has been achieved by reducing [he total noise load (e� by moving operations over non residential land or usinD guieter aircraft) or whether it has simply been achieved by concentra[- in� the same, or even a greater, noise load over a smalier number of people. This PEI can also be used to easily assess the community noise load generated by a small number of fli�hts at an airpor[. For example, a PEI analysis shotivs that the community noise load generated when one B747-200 takes off to [he north from the main runway at Sydney Airport is about the same as the total noise load genera[ed by one day's movements at Brisbane Airport. Role of the ANEF It is important ro emphasise that the above criticisms relate solely to the tivay ANEFs have been used to convey information on aircraft noise exposure and it is problems specific to this area that the Department is endeavouring to rectify. The Dzpartment has no proposal to move away from the ANEF as a tool for land use planninQ around airports. In fact it is proposin� chan�es to Australian Standard A52021 designed to �ive the Standard more clarity�r^ assist land use planninQ agencies. The Future The Department is currently developin� a compu[er paeka�e to enable rapid production of the `products' men- tioned in this paper - the Transparent Noise Information Packa�e (TNIP). The Departmen['s inten[ion is to make the package freel�� available to any interested party in order to assist airpor[s to generate aircraft noise inform ation for as li[tle cost and effort as possible. Ultima[ely the Department tvould like to see airports producing comprehensive reQular reports on airport ac[ivities, using metrics that the layperson can understand, and making these tividely available throujh channels such as the internet. It tivould similarly see such me[rics underpinning information in EISs so that the community can get a rea] feel for the likely effects of any proposals which tivould chanQe aircraft noise exposure patterns. The char[s produced to date are only intended to be prototypes - clearly they can be improved. The Department tivelcomes receiving any ideas on �vays in which current aircraft noise information can be taken for�vard. [Comments should be e-mailed to Ivlr. Southgate at: david.southQate@dotrs.Qov.au.] AIRPORTNOXSEREPORT Anne H. Kohut, Publisher Published 46 times a year at 43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 201=47; Phone: (703) 729-4867; F�Y: (703) 729-4�25. e-mail: editor(n�airportnoisereport.com; Price $�49. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is aranted by Airport Noise Report, provided that the base fee of US$1.03 per page per copy (, is paid directly to Copyri�ht Clearance Center, 222 Rose�vood Drive, Danvers, ibI.1019?3. USA. l ) !�^y rt " { ��_�� 4� �'� t.`� wa �t;. {i �4 f � a�.' `�.f' f�;i �a Fr.; �: �; '�',�.�• �Ir' ,{4�' i" `r Z ;''+` c.y,+, S.f `:�{f� ri ''��,'�. '� r" ]�� 7'" � �7 4 �.., t 3 .fF ..��. �1. f ��ty �'�:.:x�''a� � �� ..e.. �� s�n._.trt± :5. 'E,... �� .�R.l �� '°` .�r' {"� � %�..:i'� xY �c..: : �4. A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments Volume 12, Number 41 CAEP Meeting U.�. DRAIi'T POSITI(�N TO CA]EP° FAILS TO ADDI�.ESS 1'HASE �UT OF HUSHK�TS U.S. airports are sharply critical of the negotiating;position the U.S. government is developing for an upcoming January 2001�:meetirig in.Mo.ntreal o�_the Commit- tee on Aviation Environmental Protection (.CAEP):of.�h;e;;Int�inational_C'ivil �. :. Aviation Organziation (ICAO) during which representatives of governments �• around the world will develop a new,.more stringent"_Stage.4":airplane.noise .. certification standard and will consider whether hushkitted aircraft should be phased out of operation. The draft U.S. position does not call for th.e pfiase out of hushkitted.aircraft and only calls for a moderate increase in Ihe str►ngency of't6e noise certification standard ( 9-11 dB cumulative below Stage 3 standards). .. . U.S. airports want ail airplanes within 5 dB of Stage 3 standards phased out of . operation within five years and want the maximum increase in stringency for a� new ICAO standard (-14 dB cumulative below Stage �`sEandards):, The Airports Council International — North America,(AGI-NA) said•that "the i • t .t r�. � ; �', principle failure of the proposed U.S position is the abserica of any substantive discussion of transition schedules" for hushkitted aircraf[:"By:�ele�ating discus- sion of potential ICAO-sanctioned transition schedules�to.:foomo£e•status, the . � � ; :i �;'��,: '� ` ..:;,: s; . .. ._:: .(•Coiitinued on p. 171) Seattle-Tacornra Int'Z � � � - � � � � � � � � � JU�GE I�EJECT� F�l1El��L. JURI�DICTIOI� OVE12 ��TIZENS GROt1PS'��SIJI`I'�AG�IN�T POPT Two citizens groups figh[ing air route changes a['Seattle-Tacoma International Airport won what they term a key ruling in their lawsuit agains[ the Port of Seattle by convincing a federal judge to reject jurisdiction oyer.the ease:'•� U.S. District Court Judge Marsh Pechman ruled�that the�Poit wrongfully re- moved the groups' case to federal court and awarded th� gToups their costs and attorney fees in the matter, Citizens for Airplane Noise Equity (CANE) and Eastside Citizens A�ainst Aircraft Noise (ECAAN) announced Nov.�29. The groups had sued the Port of Seat[le in King Gounty=Supe'r'ior'Court in 7uly alleging that the Port of Seattle Commission violated the'State�Environmental Policy Act in the ti��ay it considered air route changes in an update`to the Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program for Sea-Tac. ' -'� ' - The commissioners failed to approve a controversial "split-east" turn procedure recommended by a citizens advisory com'mittee,.�v.hich �vould have divided northbound takeoffs into two paths over Seattle-:area.'neighborhoods instead of the one path currently flown, which directs airplanes over neighborhoods represented by CANE and ECAAN ' � The Port had removed the case from state court to federal district court on the . ��;;(Goritirt�recl o�i p. 171) � i' � December 1, 2000 �n �'has �I,ssue... IC.A.O ... A draft U.S. position paper for the upcom- ing�ineeting of ICAO's Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection does not call for the phase out of hushldtted aircraft and only seeks the mid-range of Sta�e 4 standard stringencies� being considered. U.S. airports sharply criticize the draft U.S. position, assert- ing that it "invites failure" of the CAEP meeting by relegat- ing consideration of a phase out of hushkitted aircraft to "footnote status." Airlines say the U.S..position must make clear why a phase out is not neecled - p. 170 Sea-Tac :.. Two citizens groups seeking air route changes at Seattle-Tacoma International ,Airport claim victory in a federal jud�e's ruling rejecting federal jurisdic- tion over their case - p. 170 News Brief ... Burbank, Louisville seek PFCs for noise; ROD for Cleveland runway approved; EIS for New Orleans runway; SEIS for Indianapolis terminal; RDU preparing specs for perxnanent noise monitors; No m:ore Arnerican Airlines hushkits at O'Hare - p. 172 December 1 2000 ' 171 ' position invites failure of CAEP-5 to reach agreement on a �'• dB cumulative below Stage 3 levels, which is the most �'� new international noise regime. Such a failure would be'a'.� ..:'�'"s'tringen[ new.production limit that is achievabie today. violation of trust with noise-impacted communities around `'�'• _ , Balanced Approach , the world." ' ' ' " " ' ' t � The Europeans confirm this fear. An official of the The European Union officiai also was critical of the European Union said that a new noise standacd, however "Balanced Approach" to noise mitigation proposed in the stringent, if not accompanied by a phase out'of H�ushk�itted ' draft U.S. position, which ACI-NA supports. This approach aircraft, is not sufficient to address the noise problein: � would essentialiy bring the rest of the world under a W hile the U.S. draft reflects the position on hushkitted regulatory structure similar to the FAA's Part 161 process, airplanes khat U.S. airlines had sought, it does not satisfy which requires that all non-regulatory measures be taken to them either because it fails to include a detailed discussion 'mitigate airplane noise before mandatory measures can be j of why a phase out of hushkitted aircraft is not needed. An,. enacted. The Part 161 process has eff.ectively blocked the industry source indicated that there is a strong belieF �`-' �` �'imposition of any new airport noise restrictions in the among the airlines that the U.S. posi[ion must address the' :: United States in the past decade and the Europeans are very phase out issue and make clear that it is not needed; rat6er— �`:"; aware of this. ( than ro simply not address it, as in the draft. .• '� '::fihe EU official said the "Balanced Approach" to noise ANR also learned tha[ the Department of Transportatiori�:��': .."m'itigation being proposed by the United States would be I recently took a more active role in the finalizing the.drafC:;`''` �'�«burdensome" on European airports, and noted that the costl � position, which was largely developed by the Federal •�` �'�benefit studies required under the Par[ 161 process have Aviation Administration. It is unclear whether DO•T made� been long, involved, complicated, and expensive. any significant revisions to what FAA had developed:. �': ' The Nationai Organization to Insure a Sound-controlled - • -,' Environment (NOISE) which largely represents smaller cities Airport Colicerlls : ,''. �' near U.S. airports, also expressed disappointment wi[h the ACI-NA said that failure to address the phase ou[ of ` draft U.S. position. "Although we applaud the.FAA's efforts hushkitted aircraft "will harm attempts to ameliorace the to establish a more stringent noise requirement, we strongly impacts of airpiane noise and wil] guaran[ee the prolifera=°' believe.the FAA.must continue to address the issue of tion of inconsistent and costly nationai, regional, or local�;: ,�:.�hasing out the.least compliant, or noisiest Stage 3 aircraft restrictions." And, ACI-NA, added, "It will fuither compli- .�,� including predominantly those Stage 2 aircraft that have cate the resolution of the pending Article 84 complaint"- .; :_:.b:een fi[ted with hushkits or other engine-quieting device l" before ICAO of a Europe Union rule barring the addition of NOISE said. �. hushkitted airplanes at European airports. 'The draft U:S. position for [he Fifth Meeting of CAEP was "Any U.S. positio❑ that fails to define a basis on which �;�: .�� ciicu.lated to.federal agency members of the Intera?ency noise impacted communities can act will only provide �'� � Group on International Aviation (IGIA), such as the State fertile ground for a crazy quilt of local and natiorial '�� 'Depaitment and the Environmen[al Protection Agency, as regulations around the �vorld, for complaints, fbr litigation, well as to U.S. aviation trade groups and environmental and for further dama�e to the aviation community's.,and the organizations who will hold officia] observer status at the U.S. government's already tarnished credib'ility in_ this . CAEP meeting. area," ACI-NA said. "The notion that existing approaches I[ was issued on Nov. 22 and they had until Dec. 1 to are suitable and sufficient to accomplish real improvements comment on it. a[ noise impacted airports is simply wrong and needs fo be addressed," the trade group asserted. ' � -�� SeCt-T[zC, fl'Om j1. I7� It also took issue with the position taken in the U.S. draft ;� �� '• • that consideration of a new stringency standar,d should be grounds that it involved federal issues, the Part 150 regula- limi[ed [o the — 9 to —11 dB range, noting that aircraft � tions.•,The citizens groups challenged this removal and, in substantially quieter than that are already being manufac= ' its Nov. 22 order, the federal court said that the Port had tured across [he entire weiQht and size spectrum. faiied to demonstrate that federal law completely preempts Advocating only the mid-level of s[ringency increase.for � CANE and ECAAN's claims. The court said that the Port a StaQe 4 ICAO standard reflects the concerns of airplane` � �'failed to show that the groups' claims are necessarily federai manufacturers B oeing and Airbus that derivative �lines of � `"�n character and failed to show that the groups' right to relief their current airplane designs be able to meet the neiv; :� :,. depended on a disputed issue of federal la«�. ti�hter standard. ,;��':' `��' '... CANE and ECAAN said the ruling is a victory for them However, ACI-NA said that "the inability of.selected because their elaims against the Port can now move for�vard modeis of aircraft to meet a more s[ringent standard should in state cour[ and be resolved under state la�v. not obscure the fact tha[ technological feasibility and :. A spokesman for the Port of Seattle said it thought it had economic reasonability of quieter airplanes is amply good reasons to remove the case [o federai court and notec� , demonstrated by current production aircraft." " thaC.the judge's action does not reflect on the merits of the' ACI-NA said [hat the U.S. position should advocate —14 case.. AirportNoiseFeport ( ) December 1, 2000 .In Brief ... Camariilo �'art 150 . . The FAA announced Nov. 20 that it is reviewing a� proposed Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program submitted by Ventura County, CA, far the Camarillo Airport in Camarillo, CA. The FAA said i[ will complete its review of the proposed proaram by May 4, 2001. Public comment on the proposed Part 150 program will be accepted until 7an. 4, 2001. Fur fur[her informa[ion, contact Brian Armstrong, an airport planner in FAA's Western=' '-" pacific Region; tel: (310) 725-3614. Louisville P7EC The FAA announced Nov. 29 that it is seeking public comment on an application to impose and revenue from a Passenger Facility Charge at Louisyille Internationa] Airport for various projects includina acquisition of a flight track monitoring system. The airport seeks ta impose a a�3 PPC from Jan. l, 2015, thorugh April l, 2018, for a total estimated net PFC revenue of �16.39 million. Comments on the application will be accepted until Dec: 29. For further information, contact Jerry 0. Bowers, program manager an FAA's Ivtemphis Airports District - Office; tel: (901) 544-3495, ext. 21. ' '' ' Burbank PFC The FAA announced Nov. 22 that it is seeking public , comment on a proposal by Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport to impose a$3 Passenger Facili[y Charge from'7uly l, 2010, through April 30, 2021, for a total estimated ' � reve�ue of $73.8 million to fund various projec.ts, in�cluding residential and sound insulation programs. . � Public comments will be accepted until Dec. 22. For fur[her information, contact Ruben Cabalbag, and airports program engineer in the FAA's Lawndale, CA, office; tei: (310) 725-3630. Cleveland ROD Approved � On Nov. 22, [he FAA announced its approva] of the. Record of Decision on the Final Environmental Impact Statement for proposed development at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport. The ROD approves the construction of a replaceinept' 9,000-ft. runtivay and associated taxiways, development of a 2,250-ft. extension and shift to an exiting runway to a length of 11,250 f[., installation of navigational aides; � aarspace use, and approach and departure procedures associated with the runway development, improvemen[s to [he terminal area, road�vay improvements, and implementa- tion of noise abatement measures recommended in the 2000 Part 150 Airpor[ Noise Compatibility Plan update prepared 172 for the airport, including flight track changes associated � with the replacement tunway. ' The City of Cleveland, the airport proprietor, also �committed in its Part 150 update to funding sound insula- tion to the 60 contour. Some 8,249 homes are located in the 60-6� DNL, although some have already been insulated. For further information, contact Ernest Gubry in FAA's Great Lakes Re�ion office; tel: (734) 487-7280. New Orleans Ynt'1 EIS � The FAA announced Nov. 28 that an Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared and considered for •�proposed runway construction at New Orleans Internationai �Airport. � A� The FAA, in coopera[ion with the City of New Orleans �and'the New Orleans Aviation Board, p]ans to prepare an 'EIS'for the proposed construction of a new 8,000-ft. long air ,.carrier�runway and associated taxiways, conversion of an east/wast taxiway into a 6,731-ft. parallel Visual Flight Rule general aviation runway, construction of a new parallel taxiway, and redesignation of an existing runway to a taxiway. The existing north-south runway does not provide full instrument capabilities nor is it feasible to expand that runway to meet design standards because of its proximity to roadways, the agency explained. �Public scoping meetings on the project will be held on 7an.'8, 9, and 10, 2001, For further information, contact 7oyce M. Porter, an environmental specialist in the FAA's Southwest Regional Office; tel: (817) 222-5640. `'. . . Tndianapolis Supplemental ]EIS •• On Nov`: 28, the FAA announced that it plans to prepare a Supplement to the 1992 Final Environmental Impact Statementfor the masterplan d_evelopment of a mid-field terminal complex a[ Indianapolis International Airport. The ajency also �vill hold public scoping meetings in conjunction �vith the preparation of the SEIS from Nov. 24, through Dec. 29. .� In 1992, a Final EIS and Record of Decision were com- pleted for the proposed master plan development at In'dianapolis. �Vhile the majority of this development has b�een'completed, the mid-field terminal complex and associated developrnent have not yet been constructed. �:The 1992 plans called for a 680,000 square foo[ mid-field terminal �vith 45 air carrier gates and 28 commuter spaces to accommodate the aircraft fleet projected at that time for 2005. The current proposal calls for a 1,210,200 square foot mid- field terminal �vith 40 air carrier gates and t�vo turbo-prop commuter gates. The difference from the original plan is due to changes in terminal design guidelines and updated fleet forecasts and mixes, the FAA explained. It also ref]ects the na[ional change from turbo-prop aircraft to regional jets for commuter operations, which has not been anticipa[ed in 1992. AirportNoiseReport Decerr�ber l, 2000 � �' � = ` 173 ANR EDITORIAL � ADVISORY BOARD Steven R.Alverson Manager,Sacramento0ffice HarrisMillerMilter&Hanson . . John J. Corbett, Esq. 5piegel & McDiarmid W ashington, DC James D. Erickson D irector, Office of Environment and Energy Federal Aviation Administration John C. Freytag, P.E. Director,Charles 2vi.SaiterAssociates San Francisco hiichael Scott Gafzke, Esq. Gatzke, Dillon & B allance Cadsbad, CA Peter J. Kirsch, Esq. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld Denver Suzanne C. McLean ChiefDevelopmentOfficer Tucson AirportAuthority John bi. Meenan Senior V ice PresidentforIndustry Policy AirTransport Association Vincent E. lYiestre, P.E. President, Mestre Greve Associates NewportBeach,CA Steven F. Pftaum, Esq. IvicDermott,tiVill & Emery Chica;o Karen L. Robertson M anager, Noise Compatibiliry Office D alias/Fort�V orth International A irport hiary L. Vigilante President, Synergy Consultants Seatde Lisa Lyle �Yaters Manager,Noise AbatementProgram Palm Beach County Departmentof Airports For further information, contac[ Prescott C. Snyder, airports environ- mental program manager in FAA's Chicago Airports District Office; tel: (847)294-7538. Grand Canyon Air Tour Routes �� The FAA announced Nov. 20 that it is delaying until Dec. 28 the date on which new air tour routes over the Grand Canyon National Park become effective in order to investigate some safety concerns raised by air rour operators. For further information, contact Howard Nesbitt in FAA's Flight Standacds Service Division; tel: (202) 493-4981. RDU Noise Monitors .._ On Nov. 1_6�[he Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority approved a $210,000 budget to fund preparation of specifications for the purchase of a perm,a'nerif rioise monitoring system around Raleigh-Durham Interna- . �.. �:; • , tional�Airp9rf, : ' The airpott's consultant, Harris Miller Miller & Hanson, Inc., has recommended that a p.assive radar permanent noise and operations monitoring system be purchased and installed at the airport. The airport's noise abatement committee recommended that a permanent system be pure}iased over two years ago. ' RDU International has experienced a rapid growth in passenger traffic in the past year due, in part, to the arrival of low-fare Southwest A.irlines. Tfie airport has been making noise measurements with portable noise monikors. It"is not elear how long it will take to install the permanent monitors. . _ . . � � O'I3are Noise Commission The'0�'Hare,Noise Compatibility Commission announced Dec. 1 that i� is'encouraging ali air carriers to phase out noisier hushkitted aircraft at 0'Hare as'quickly as possible. It noted that American Airlinas eliminated •all bf its-hushkitted Boeing 727 aircraft at 0'Hare in Au�ust and that United Airlines has phased out of operation at 0'Hare its noisier 747-200 and DC-10 aircraft. "We t6ank'the two major airlines at 0'Hare for these efforts and their ongoing coopera[ion with this Commission," said Commission Chair Arlene Mulder who also serves as mayor of Arlington Heights, IL. AIRPORT N,01'SE REPORT Anne H. Kohut, Publisher 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 page per copy '" is paid directly to Copyright Ciearance Center, 222 Rosetivood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. USA. � i' � �Z" 4 � .,� .. ,",��,' . .x � rt��^�. '� ..i3, ez 5, �. r fi r �k:.�-, e ,ytF a r� �xti �F ��i !t' .*t' tI' + � ' ! �. t,� ''r .� ,�,�" ��Vj' ��, �� . � ��7;k� d�� '�` �� ,� ��, �Er, �,� ''� �j �',,, . � � . „� �.,, �w,..,- a.,•t� .. n. � Fb.,..�F � . _. 'y� i bH r ,.C.�v. .w.i?i. ht '" :�,I . '�k..xr� i: Y..�' . �i � 71 y.- �T:• A weekiy update on 3itigation, regulations, and technological developments Volume 12, Number 42 �ntegrated Noise Model IIVM UNDERESTIMATES NOISE INIPA�T OF AERODYNAMIC HUSHKIT SYSTEM� The Federal Aviation Administration's Integrated Noise Model will underesti- mate the noise impact of two controversial aerodynamic systems for.bringing Boeing 727 aircraft into compliance with Stage 3 noise standards that�have been developed by Raisbeck Commercial Air Group and D�ganAir, accordin� to the conclusions of a study by W. Evert biyer, Ph.D.; and William J-tiVillkie, senior associates at Leigh Fisher Associates in San Francisco. "Since hushkitted aircraft will soon be the premier contributors to airport noise contours, these errors could prove to be significant," they_vr!ain�d'm their study, "A Noise Contour Comparison of Stage 3 Hushkit Options for the Boeinj 727- 200." . .. ...... . . .. A cheaper alterna[ive to hushkits or re-engining, the so-called win; quieting kits offered by Raisbeck and Du�anAir for 727s improve takeoff performance, and , thus reduce noise, throu;h the application of w'inglets (Du:ganAii) or by relatively simple changes to thrust and flap settinjs (Raisbeck), the researchers explained in their paper. � But these systems do not provide as much noise impact reduction on takeoff as the FedEx 727 hushkit, which the INM uses as a substitute.for the Raisbeck and �• � (Con.ti�tued on p. 175) JoJz�z Wayjae Airport � � � ORAI�tGE COUNTY AGREE� TO STUI9Y EXTENDING CURFEW, CAPS FOR��20':YEA.RS On Dec. 6, the Oranae County Board of Supervisors unanimously agreed to work ��ith the City of Newport B each, CA, to study whether to extend for 20 years [he curfew on ni�httime operations and cap on the number of passengers and car�o flights eurrently in place at John �Vayne Airport, vihich are set to expire to 2005. The caps and curfew in place at John W ayne Airport are considered among the most strinben[ in the United States and were Ihe result of a settlement agreement that Fvas grandfathered under the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA). The settlement aoreement can be modified by the consent of the parties, which include Oran�e County, the City of Newport Beach, and two comrriunity groups (the Airport 1Vorkin� Group and Stop Polluting Our Newpoit)'. However, any extension of the restrictions at John tiVayne Airport tivould have to be done under the FAA's Part 161 Reaula[ions on Notice and Approval of Airport Noise and Access Restrictions. y �•' The Oran?e County Board s[ressed that its action �vas not•an ap'proval to.ex[end the restrictions to 202� but only an agreement to�considei the legal; erivironmen- tal, and procedural tasks that would be reguired to take such action. It also noted that any eYtension of the airport's caps and curfew could be cHallenged by the (Conliitued o�i p. 17�) � December 8, 2000 In �'�is Isszae... Hzashkits . . . The FAA's Integrated Noise Model will underestimate the noise impact of the con�oversial Raisbeck aerodynamic hushkit system, a study concludes. Meanwhile, the FAA is sfiill waitin� for data from Raisbeck needed to conect the error - p. 174 John Wayne Airport ...The Orange County Board agrees to work with the City of Newport Beach to study whether to extend until 2025 the nighttime curfew and passenger cap in place at the airport - p. 174 Austija-Bergstrom ... FAA approves the airport's noise compatibility prob am - p. 175 FA.A Policy ...The a�ency announces a change in its air traffic noise� screening policy. It ' is droppin� the altitude ceilin� ' used in the screening from 18,000 ft. to 10,000 ft. - p. 176 ', Ertropea3z Uniojz ... ICAO deals the EU's defense of its �' hush�;it rule a blo�v by refusing �', to declare a U.S. complaint ', challen�in� the rule inadmis- sible - p. 176 Burbarak .. . Airport Authority considerin� alternative site for location of replacement passen- ger ternzinal - p. 177 December 8, 2000 Dugan systems because it lacks data on them. The FAA asked Raisbeck over a year ago to provide noise. performance data [hat can be incorporated into the INM . data base so that the noise of 727s with its system can be . accurately modeled but has yet to receive anything. W hile manufacturers of hushki[s and aerodynamic • systems are required by law to give,the FAA noise data that can be used by the agency for noise certification purposes,� they are not required to provide the additianal noise and. operational data needed for their kits to be incorporated . into the INM. This has made it very difficult for the FAA, airports, and the public to obtain the data required to ' compare hushkitted aircraf[ with other aircraft. B ut tha[ is exactly what the stndy by Myer and W illkie does, although it estimates [he noise da[a foi [he Ra'isbeck system. Study Niakes Comparisons � � ' � In their study Meyer and Willkie compared the INM noise footprint of Boeing 72?-200s equipped with the FedEx hushkit and With the Raisbecl: system [o an unmodi- fied 727-200 and to a Boeing 7�7-200, which they�said�is representative of a new technology "true Stage 3 aircraft." W hen comparing the Lmax contours of the Raisbeck �� aircraft to the standard 727-200 with 7T$D-15 engines at . maximum takeoff �veight,�the researchers found that: '' * The largest improvement is on appr�aeh,wtiere the Raisbeck 727 is "siQnificantly quieter" than the unmodi- fied aircraft and aiso is quieter than the FedEx hushkit; * The Raisbeck aircraft also is quieter on the runway ' sideline when compared to the unmodified aircraft. This improvement over the unmodified aircraft is in the order of 3dB and can be attributed to the reduction of the takeoff thrust setting; � * On takeoff, the benefits of the Raisbeck modificatibn are most pronounced within approsimately 3.5 nautica] miles from brake release, which is the monitoring point foi compliance with FAA's FAR Par[ 36 noise certification' �. standards. But beyond three or four nautical miles from brake release, the noise footprint is very similar to [he unmodified aircraft at a similar takeoff weigh[ because now both aircraft are bein� opera[ed in a similar m'anner. .. Because many 727s do not require maximum gross operating wei�hts, Aieyer and Willkie also made compari- sons of the Raisbeck-modified 727, the FedEx hushkit, and an unmodified 727 at comparable lower weights. They found that: • 17S - equipped with the FedEx hushkit is "distinctly quieter" on takeoff. But they found that the Boeing 757 has a noise footprint that is "several orders of magnitude" quieter than .either hushkitted aircraft. •� . Raisbeck has already sold 114 of its aerodynamic system�. to operators in the United States and other countries. Some 37. of these have gone to American Airlines and 10 to TW A. American announced earlier that it has plans to purchase a ; total of 52 of the Raisbeck systems. Austin-Bergstrom Int'Z NOISE COMPATIBLITY PROGRAM FOR AUSTIN APPROVED BY FAA On Dec. 6, the Federal Aviation Administration announced ��its approval of the Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility ' Piogram for Austin-Bergstrom Tnternational Airport. `''The plan contains three proposed noise mitigation measures, all of which were given outright approval by the � � FAA�: � � '.` *�A' `Fly Quiet' program involving a voluntary preferential �"runway'use policy and flight track managementprocedures; '"�* Land acquisition and a sound insulation program; and '�* Flight track management and a noise monitoring system. .,In Apri] 1999, the FAA determined that the noise exposure maps submitted by the City of Austin for the airport were in compliance with applicable requirements. Subseguently, the city submitted a revised 2004 noise exposure map, which the FAA approved on May 8, 2000. �� Some 369 homes fall within the hi?h noise contours around Austin-Bergstrom Internationai, according to Tammara Moore, a spokeswoman for the airport. She said ' the airport receives few noise complaints but the majority of tiiem come from residents as far as 22 miles from the netv airport who are under netvly shifted flight tracks. Further information on the FAA's approval of the program can be obtained from Nan L. Terry, in the FAA's Fort tiVorth, 'I'X, office: tel: (817) 222-5607. * Although the Raisbeck aircraf[ is also quieter [han the �--unmodified 727 on the run�vay sideline, it is about 1.5 dB louder than the FedEx hushkit 727 on the sideline mea- _• surement; * On takeoff, the Raisbeck 727 is quieter than the unmodified 727 at the same operating weigh[, especially ' close-in to the runway. At greater distances, the Raisbeck aircraft is similar to the unmodified aireraf[. In comparison, the researchers reported, the 727-200 JoYa�a Wayjae, , from p. 1 �4 airlines or the FAA. The county board's action comes in response to the adoption on Aug. 8 of a resolution by the Netivpor[ Beach City Council askin? the county to join its quest to extend the settlement agreement (12, ANR, 110). "In related action, California Superior Court Judge S. 7ames Otero on Dec. 1 struck down a ballot measure aimed at blocking the conversion of the former h-Sarine E1 Toro Air Base into a commercial airport. Known as Measure F, the grass-roots ballot initiative passed by a wide margin (67.3 percent) in ivfarch and mandated that any airport expansion, toxic dump, or large jail construction �vithin one-half mile of homes must be submitted to the voters and must receive hvo-thirds approv� before the Orange County can proceed �vith the project. Airport2�oiseReport December 8, 2000 The judge agreed with those challengiag the measure (Orange County, the City of Newport Beach, Citizens for Jobs and the Economy, the Airport Working Group, among 4'� others) that the measure was "fundamentally flawed" and was in violation oF the state constitution. However, the judge said that, if the citizens of Orange County do not want to convert El Toro into a commercial airport, they can pass an initiative repealing an amendment - ---to 0range Cou��rty'—sGeneral-g}an--to-requ3re-that the base be used as an airport, known as Measure A. The day after the judje's ruling, south country leaders of the effort to oppose the base conversion to a commercial airpor[ announced that they will ask voters to support a March 2002 ballot measure that would repeal Nteasure A and convert much of the El Toro base to a large park. They �� ) are also appealing the judge's rulin�. Air Space Arzalysis FAA CHANGES POLICY FOR NOISE SCREENING On Dec. 6, the Federal Aviation Administration an- nounced that it has made a change in its air traffic noise ' screening policy, droppin� the altitude ceiling used in screening for potentially controversial community noise exposures from 18,000 ft. Above Ground Levei (AGL) to 10,000 ft. AGL. The agency said it issued the chan�e to its Aircraft Noise Screen (ATNS) policy as a Final Notice withoutprior notice because the policy change is only administrative. Air traffic procedures for operations over 3,000 ft. are normally categorically excluded from environmental assessment requirements delineated under FAA policy and procedures in[erpretin� the National Environmental Policy Act. However, recognizing tha[ some actions that are normally categorically excluded can be highly controversial,:the FAA developed the ATNS, which allows air traffic special- ists and planners to evaluate potential noise impacts from proposed air traffic chan�es. The ATNS is a computerized noise screening procedure that provides guidance to air [raffic managers in iden[ifying air traffic changes that will increase aircraft noise exposure and the possible need to conduct an environmen[al assessment. Using a computer model developed by the FAA called the Noise Integrated Route System, which is similar [o the ajency's Integra[ed Noise Ivfodel but can look at a much �vider area, the AirTraffic OFfice determined in an analysis of data from air route changes beinj considered in the .•. Chicago area, that the altitude cut-off of 10,000 ft. AGL "has materially the same predictive capability" as the ATNS run to I 8,000 feet AGL, the agency explained in its Federal Re�is[er notice. The FAA's Aircraft Noise Screenin� Policy �vas developed to address the public outcry that occurred after the agency made significant revisions to air routes over New 7ersey in 176 1987 under its Expanded East Coast Plan. The alti[ude ceili�g of 18,000 ft. AGL was chosen in order to ensure that the noise screening procedure wou]d consider communities far from Newark Airpor[ in its 45 dB DNL footprint. Dropping the ceiling to 10,000 ft. AGL will still include communities as far as 15 to 20 miles from an airport in the noise screening procedure, explained W illiam 1. iviarx of the Environmental Programs Division of the FAA's Office --- of Air Traffic Airspace Management. Jn its study to determine whether the screening ceiling could be lowered, the FAA analyzed data from a major airspace project in the Chicago area. The s[udy compared noise screening results at a ceiling of 18,000 ft. AGL tivi[h results using 10,000, 12,000, 14,000, and 1b,000 ft. AGL ceilings. The Chicago study looked at an area as laree as 120 by '180 nautical miles that included over a million people and 141;000 population centroids,l4larx said. "It made sense to lower the ceiling based on the tons of data gathered in the -study," he toid ANR. Running the noise screening model takes an enormous amount of time, he explained, so lowerin� the ceiling will free up a;ency resources in terms of personnel and computers. The FAA said [hat its Aircraft Noise Screen Policy will notiv be used to evaluate proposed changes in arrival procedures between 3,000 ft. AGL and 7,000 ft. AGL and departure procedures between 3,000 ft. AGL and 10,000 ft. AGL for large civil jet aircraft weighin� over 75,000 lb. tiV here a proposed change would cause an increase in noise of S dB DNL or greater, FAA said it will consider whether there are extraordinary circumstances in accordance �vith its environmental Order 1050.1 that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment. Many communities and cities commenting on the FAA's proposed update to its 1976 noise policy said the agency has articulated no basis for selec[in� 3,000 ft. as [he level above which cate�orical exclusions from environmental review can be automatically made. Ercropea�z Utaion ICAO REFUSES TO DECLARE U.�. COMPLAINT INADMISSIBLE The European Union suffered a setback in the defense of its regulation barring the addition of hushkitted aircraft to European airports after the International Civil International Avia[ion Organization (ICAO) refused to declare a com- plaint filed by the United States against the rule inadmis- sible. The ICAO ackion forced the EU to move ahead and file a counter-argument to the U.S. complaint by Dec. 2. The EU document �vas filed but ANR has not yet obtained a copy of i t. The EU hushkit rule took affect in Nlay for aircraft registered in EU countries and will affec[ all aircraft usin� EU airports in 2002. The United Stat�s contends that the AirporlNoiseReport December 8, 2000 ANR EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Steven R. Alverson Manager,Sacramento0ffice HairisMiUerMiilet& Hanson John J. Corbett, E'sq. 3pie;el& McDiarmid W ashington, DC James D. Erickson D irector, Office of Environment and Energy Federa) Aviation Administration John C. Freytag, P.E. Director, Charles h1. SalterAssociates San Francisco 14fichael Scott Gatzke, Esq.. Catzke,Diilon & Ballance Carisbad, CA Peter J. Kirsch, Esq. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld Denver Suzanne C. NlcLean ChiefDevelopmentOfficer Tucson Airport A u thority John 141. Meenan SeniorVicePcesidentforindustry Policy AirTransportAssociation Vincent E. lYlestre, P.E. President, Mestre Greve Associates NewportBeach,CA Steven F. Pflaum, Esq. IvicDermott, �V ill & Emery Chicago Karen L. Robertson M ana�er, N oise Compatibiliry 0 ffice Dallas/ForttiVorthInternationalAirport NSary L. Vigilante • President,Synergy Consultants Seattte Lisa Lyle ��aters 2vianager,Noise AbatementProgram Palm Beach Counry Departmentof Airports 1�7 ,. rule is discriminatory because it targets U.S. aircraf[. After negotiations over the rule with the EU broke down in March, the United S[ates took the unprecedented step of filing a formal request with ICAO ro resolve ,� the dispute, put[ing in jeopardy EU members' voting rights in the iriternational aviation regulatory body (12, ANR, 39). The United S[ates argued that the EU regulation violates the interna- tional obligation of the European members under the Chicago Conven- tion and its annexes, which require that noise certification standards be non-discriminatory and petformance based. The EU objected to the U.S. argument; called a memorial, on the grounds that it was submitted without adequate negotiations between the parties, that local ]egal remedies to resolve the dispute have not been invoked, and that the scope of relief sought by the United States ([o have the ICAO Council order the EU members to drop the rule) is beyond ICAO's power (12, ANR, 114). Me�nwhile, the dispute will most likely not be resolved before the early January 2001 meeting of ICAO's Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP), at which the phaseout of hushkitted aircraft is certain to be a contentious issue. Burbank Airport CONSULTAl�T SELECTED FOR EIR OIV ALTERNATIVE TERMINAL SITE If the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority cannot get approval from the Ci[y of Burbank to build a replacement passenger terminal on land in the norttieast quadrant of the airport within the city's j�risdiction, it now has plans ro try [o buiid the terminal on land i[ owns; in the southwest quadrant outside of the city's jurisdiction. � On Dec. 4, the airport authori[y announced that it has selected the firm Environmental Science Associates to enter into negotiations for a contrac[ to undertake production of environmental documents to be specified in the future. Prior to the selectio❑ of the firm, [he airport authority unveiled a schematic plan for an alternate terminal layout on airport-o�vned property sou[hwest of the airport's run�vay intersection. "Yo.u:have a potential terminal on airport property tha[ does not require ... approval" by the City of Burbank, said Dios Marrero, executive director of the airport authority. He noted tha[ the airport authority still is seeking to build the replacement terminal on the so-called "B-6" property wi[hin Burbank's jurisdiction. The revised terminal design is 250,000 square feet with 14 gates: the size the Ciry of Burbank seeks. AIRPORT NOIS;E REPORT Anne H. Kohut, Publisher , Published 46 times a year at 43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashbuin, Va: �20147; Phone: (703) 729-4567; FAX: (703) 729-4528. e-mail: editor@airportrioisereport.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 page per copy is paid directly to Copyri�ht Ciearance Center, 222 Rose�vood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. USA.