The URL can be used to link to this page

11-08-2000 ARC Packet� 7. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION AGENDA November 8, 2000 Large Conference Room Call to Order - 7:00 p.xn, Roll Call Approval of October 11, 2000 Minutes Unfinished and New Business: � b. c. Schedule Airport Noise Video Production Workshop of Various Re orts/Corres ondence: MA.SAC Agenda for October 24, 2000 September 2000 Technical Advisor's Report September 2000 MASAC.Eagan/.Mendota Heights De arh,ire .Analysis P Corridor MASAC Operations Committee Agenda for November 9, 2000 Environmental Review process, MAC Capital Improvement ProQra MAC Preliminary 2001-2007 CIP � m Air International September 2000 Invitation to November 8 and Nov mbere9 Part lSp Hearir��h Eagari Airport Relations Commission A�enda for October g0, 2000 MASAC News Airport Noise Reports , Other Commerits or Concerns Ad'onrn Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon re u in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the Cit will malce every attempt to provide the aids. This q est at least 120 hours notice. Please contact Ci maY not, hocveverf e po � ib e on short ty Administration at (651) 452-1850 tivith requests. � (�- DAKO �F pUN� y A HEIGHTS � MINNESOTA AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 2000 The regul�- meetina Wednesda s of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Co y, October 11, 2000, in the Large Conference Room at Cit Ha C�'e. The meeting was called to order at �:1 p �ission was held on p m Y 11, 1101 Victoria The following Com�issioners were present: Chair Elizabeth Petschel, Ellsworth Stein, and Geor e Scott Beaty and Co � Roszak and Joe Le g MaY� Commissioners �lssioners Patrick C. �� 'ere excused from the meeting. Administrative ,Asg S lantr' Jo� Hollister took the minutes. MINUTES Commissioner 1VIay moved approval of the August 9, 2000 � minutes. Commissioner Petschel seconded the motion. AYES: 4 . __ NAYS: p ' � �� '-= r The Co , mmission also acknov�,le�ged the uno�cial minutes fr meeting which did not have a q�o�m om the September 1;, 2p00 ArRppRT NOISE VIDEO The Commission discussed the production of the Ai ort N' Hollister announced that the Council had a � olse Issues Video. Mr. production of the video. PP�'oved an expeziditure of u p to $5000 for the Commissioner Petschel said that the actual ex ense widely dependin� how elaborate the production was af producing the video could vary Commissioners themselves would be willing to do. Cod how mtich of the production the example if tlie Commissioners took a production class o basic� aer petschel said that for operation and used a fiYed camera within the NDCTV cost would be minimal. The Commission coul mera and eqtlipment studio to produce the video, the to produce the video. d also cozlsider usin� Inver Hills sti.idents Chair Beaty said tlzat the Commission first had to decide w terms of content and then write a script for t11e video. Chair hat they �anted in the video in Commission could then plan out the production of the vide Beatty said that the � video. o and determine the cost of fihe �� '• Hollister then s '') Metro howed the Part 1 SO video sent to the C' politan Ai�po�s Co that the Com mmission. Mr. Hollister said that own video mission was welco 1�` bY Roy Ftih�an of the � provided me �� use a11 or Mr• Fuhrman had told that due credit w p� �f the video in the hlm as given to the �c production ChairBeatty sajd that ofits cornplzcated. �e video should Chair Bea Provide basic i.�o where 111endota �' Saxd that the video �at1On and not be too insulation pro r Heights is. Chair Bea Should show g�• Chair Bea �' Said that the vxdep pl��e of the do �o� fly on the ce �3' said that the video S should the ai��rt �d said that nterline because hould then n discuss th� said that the V1deo should also desc Eagan IS Protected b show why the a video should desc • nbe the Y the tower order. ��es is tryin to nbe �, Pr�ferential run�,a Chair Beatty g do, cha1r Be� hat the Aiiport Y use systern. Chair Bea�, Mendota �Y said that the prim Relations Co over the He1ghts Residents �'3' audience for the mdeo°n is ar�d w last decade. '�d that it should e hat it corn�U�tzeS. Ch�ir Bea XP1ain why fli hts �'ould be �y said that a second g have increased ten fold � �y audience would be other Cornmissio ner Petschel said combines audio �at the video co noise in addition o�see�n �� °ther u1d ha�� more ' words letting the viewer �pact lf it successfully g �l�eS Y overhead. hear fl ex�ples of ai chair Beatty said that it �y -rPlane the color ould be usefu1 to s noise eYposure rnaps sho how the da � '�'rl in the y�d �ght decibe1 c MA.0 video. artoon and C��nissioner petschel said that the vi SzmUltaneous de deo shouId include a o0 Partures. The Co g d graphic on mrnission then discussed the from g;00 � to noon on a Saturda p°Ssibiliiy of a video cont Novernbe�-1 8, D e c e Y a t C i t Y H a 1 1 with e n t b r a i n s torrninQ t he.Al m b�r 2, or Dece ' P°Ssibla dates beino � Session �?Orts Relations Co mber 9. The session would include a1�' Nove Roy Fu�� o fthe �lssion as we11 as outside Q mber 11, Smith, a�d De MAC, John Nelson of buests. Possible 1 members of these i �ls Raferty ofND Bloomin�ton� A� gliests include ndividuals before the CTV. The .Co Hoc Com deterrr�ine their availabilit next �ission asked missioner Jill meeting ofthe A,i Mr• Hollister to �o COmmissioner Petschel also�sa d�h t� afore �°rt Noise Co ntact willintr mentioned dates. �Issioner to � to fa c i l i t a t e discussion of the t h e y � V o u l d co C h a l r B e a ty �d money olit of the video ntact consult decided fiinds available for the a�� provi de d that the �ts �'ho wozi1d be to choose which date to �a1 video y dld nOt ��al' e hold the session production. � t0O much �JpU� at their The Cor�ission Noveinber meeting. Motion made to AYES: � ad�°L1rn bY Roszalc and seconded by Leu NAYS; � man. Tlze nieeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m '; ', l CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO November 7, 2000 TO: Airport Relations Commission FROM: Patrick C. Hollister, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Airport Noise Issues Video Discussion The Airport Relations Commission, at their regular meeting on October 11, 2000, continued their discussion of.the production of the Airport Noise Issues Video. The Commission decided to schedule a video content brainstorming session from 8:00 am to noon on a Saturday at City Hall, with possible dates being November 11, November 18, December 2, or December 9. The session would include all members of the Airport Relations Commission as well as outside guests. Possible guests included Roy Ft�hrrnan of the MAC, John Nelson of Bloomington, Ad Hoc Commissioner Jill Smith, and Dennis Raftery of NDCTV. The Cornmission asked Staff to contact these individuals before the neYf ineetinQ of the Airport Relations Commission to determine their availability on the foiu- aforementioned dates. Chair Beaty and Commissioner Petschel also said that they would contact consultants who would be willing to facilitate discussion of the video, provided that they did not chaxge too much money out of the funds available for the actual video production. The Commissiori decided to choose which date to hold the session at their November meeting. � . Staff has spoken with Mr. Ft�11rn1a� and Chad Leqve of the MAC, Commissioner Smith, Mr. Nelson; and Mr. Raftery as well as David Sebastian, an Eagan-based consultant wllo facilitates these types of ineetings. Staff wili provide an update on which Saturdays these individuals would be available on Wednesday evening. Chair Beaty also requests that all Commissioners attend Wednesday evening's meeting anc� bring their calendars, because it is important to find a Saturday which works for as many Commissioners and outside advisors as possible. Council Action Required After Staff provides an update on the availability of invitecl outside advisors; decide on a Saturday morning to conduct the video content brainstoiming session. Staff �vill then send out the invitations and make the proper arrangements. C Topics for Mendota Heights Air Noise Video tivith NDC4 Q&A Format Consult with NDC4 on how to make video Invite NDC4 to next month's meeting Enhance Videos with pictures, footage of airplanes Video of airplanes taking off Different airplanes, different noises How to make a cornplaint, phone #, info to give Fifteen degrees separation Footage from tower, hear radio, show 2 planes taking off Show color 1 day's flight track, show Eagan's protection, put recognizable landmarks out there Definitions: dual track, part 150. DBL, Global Positioning, Runway Use System Series? History, Dual Track 1 � degree separation, tower order Why we support new runway Contract Airport plan of action Emphasize history Different Jurisdictions (MAC, MASAC (Mayor Chair), FAA) . On location, different Spots, Anoms, pick a noisy day Other Cities also audience Equitable Distribution of Air Noise Hush kittin� and Manufacturing Fleet Composition, Stage 2(Hush kit), Stage 3 Freight Carriers, Nighttime Noise � Distant - Close in Users '� ) C C. =__ ==— Northern Dakota County Community Television Corporation �.. =__ == 5845 Blaine Avenue, Inver Grove Heights, MN 55076-1401 � 651-451-7834, Fax 651-45q-9429 Cuskom Video Services � _ Diqital Video Camera with one videographer and equipment (inciudes up to 20 miles �ound trip, over 20 miles billed @� 35 cents per mile) �/2 Day Taping $650 1 Day Taping $1100 -., rt •.- . • '• • C Per Hour $100 L.inear S-VH� �/�" Editinq Per Hour $65 Pre-production ;' } (incJudes consultations, script writing, ` __ talent searches, music, efc.) _ 3 4 5. Per Hour $45 Van Production. VVith Crew of Four (addltlonal crew needed. �$45 per person per hour) Per Day $1500 � Studio VUiih Equipment Rental Per Hour $175 '/Z Day (4 hours) $650 Full Day, (8 hours) $1100 Other Items Additional production personnel, $45 per hr. Tapes, postage, autside production services, voice-over, on-camera talent, music, etc. Tape Dub Rates, VHS: $15 each, two ar more $12 each, (will provide quotation on quantities over 50) 66 minute Digital, (DVC Pro) tape dub, $35 per tape OR AS A NDCN 1�9Efl9BER, YOU CAN DO lT YOURSELF... �re� Use of �acilo� �nd NBost Equipment �ih NDCT!/ t�em6ership and Cl�sses SEE11ilG THE "BlG PICTURE" VVILL P�IY OFF FOR CUSTOI�I VID�O PROJECTS When starting a video production, here are some important elements to consider..: What is the mission/purpose of the video? Stay focused and concentrate on one message What is the target audience of the video? Intemal audiences are staff, volunteers, etc. Extemal audiences are outside organizations you wish to reach with the video. They are two separate audiences and should be approached differently. What will accompany the video? Will there be related print materials, a persanalized or standard letter'? What is the overall budget and does it include duplication, packaging, mailing? Are these budgets realistic in meeting the projects goal? How will the video be distributed? Will it be handed out at a meeting or on sales calls? Will it be mailed and if so, is there a critical launch date to meet? � Al/ of these elements ar� importanf to consider right from the start. If you answer each one, you'!/ be - better able to come up wifh an overall p/an for the project fhaf ineets the project's objectives. Addr�ss these issues at fhe beginning of fhe projecf and you avoid last minute surprises. Look at the "big picture" and invite us to help you plan ahead. s-oo C C� NDCTV, PRODUCTION SERVICES, CUSTOM VIDEO PROJECT PROFILE Conta.ct Info (' -view of projects: 1: .deo, to portray an interesting and enjoyable place to work for prospective middle to upper management employees What does client want: Ask, If the audience walks awa.y retauung just five things and five things only, wha.t should these five things be: If the audience goes away retaining just one thirig, what would it be: Video Project Type and length of ea.ch version: i.e.: 1. General video tour of six facilities for recruiting, new employee introduction, potential new resident video tour, 20 to 30 min. length, etc. etc. l. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Primary audience & objective of each video: l. 2. 3. 4. 5�- � 6. __ Will the same raw footage be used and re-edited for a11 videos: Schedule & timeline: Want completed by: Media Mix: will video be used for web site: Content for each video project: ie: music, voice-over, graphics etc. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Budget perimeters: Audience objective: What is anticipated shelf life for these videos: � ) E�.�4ing content Assets: Will there be any other types of communication pieces that go along with this project: � � � 0 E ��:. . . , , .. �. . .. , �, i^ . � i�. t { ��i': �,,Er. (, �:: f •: C ., . � �;. Ti� �IV�TROPOLIT� �.�1�:�'T SO�IJND ATEIO�IEl�TT Ct�LTl�CII� . .; . , . . . _ 1l�ICil�TT 'Y I'AC GE FOI2 T _ , ; , ; . �, . : . �� : �C'�'OBEI2 24, 2000 : ' � . . .. ... , ; .: , _ _ I�St�C l��ET'�T� II�t�LIT.DES: - _ _ , ; : > , ,; ; _ : ,� - 0,: MASAC. meeting agenda,= cover memo(s) and correspondence for , . . , ,, , . �: _ October 24 2000 : , � .: , ,: � ,,, � � _, - . .. :: : .,:� :. , . , ❑ Minutes of the` September 26, 2000 MASAC meeting ,. � �,. � .: :;c h - ❑� Mlnutes of the'Septerr�ber 22, 2000 Operanons Comm�ttee�meeting '; 0' Minutes of the �October l 1, 2000 Communications ✓A.dvisory Board ." meeting . - � � � �: - , .. . . , _ . , _,, ,_ ,_ ;�� 0 Blank Noise Monitoring and Information Request Form ' :... . . . : : , .. .. . ,.�� . . ..�. ._ . . , . .,' . �"" . '. ❑ Blank MASAC News Feedback/Iriput Form � 0 Monthly Part 150 Residentia�- Sound Insulation Program Update ❑ September 2000 Technical Advisor's and Corridor Reports . � � . � �� . � , . . ' � � . . � � . . � . . . l .- . . .. ,.... ... . . .. . . � � .. . : . , . . . . -. . :' , .. : . . . �. . .�.. . ...� ; - �. .:',-� . .�. . . �'. ' . _. :. . . ...�:. .: ��'. . .... �:... . . � . . �. � � . -. �: . �. �: � � . . . . . . .. . .� '.:' ,. . , . , . � � . � , . . . . � �. • C �J�� 1 � �� ' 0.... �� . �T : ��) . � �� . . . S�� l�d �� ' .::, ,. , . � , . -. - r. i)CT(J�El� 24; 2000 .: � . ,: __ . . ,:; - :�� _ _ .� t . ;;� :� - , - : ,,-. , , -.,;; , . . _ , . . . . .: :. �, , _ , . ,. .- .�, � . _ ;; �� . . - :C . . . � ; . .. :. _ : . - _ . .. � .. .; . . : . .: . : . : . , , , ; _ ,�; , .: .. ;. ._: _:, , , �- - , , - - �?, , _ _ . . � . . , . .: . : . ...� :: _ :; . . ,. . . . . . � _ , . . : . ._ . .. ,. : _ ,. .. � . __ ,_ _ _ . _.. :. . . . ,. _ . . _ � , � - , - _ - ;, _ s �: �=- - - _- � � _ . .. : . , : _ ' �..'' ...::. ",'.� " 5 �.. '�.�: �.�:' .'�' t'=' . � . .... : �- ��. .,. .. ( _ 1 ' ' � .. ': : ., ... �: .. ; .. .�, �: , J ' . L � . : � .: : �:.: _. ' _ i •'- ' . :�. . . . �' ',.: .. ., " . . ", ��. �:�.• .;, ,� :�•.� � � . . , J ` (�. .. . , . ..��.:.. . � i . .' . . ' . . . . .;:.. �':• ...� ' ��.: _ , .. . . . ' . ..:.�' . . ;_�., ,.: �.� .._:'� . . . �:��. . , ..� . . . ' � . ��.�.' �.. . . _ . . . . . . ' .. . , � . .. . �� .. - . . . . . . . .' . ._. ..� . .�... .. :.. . . . . . ... .. . ..'.. . . . . . . :�. .... :� �." ::�''�i ... ..� '..:�. ..�.:.�� .�.... ..' . ':. ' . . ' � '. . . ' . , .. . . . . ..:;. . . . .., . . . . . . .. . . ..' i .. ' " . ., � . .�'.� ..: .' ..': .. � ...�.. ��. .� � '...�. .' ,-. .. _ . . ' ... .. . '. �: �..' . . �. � ,�.� . . , •. � � .;• 1 COUNCIL Generai Meefin� October 24, 2000 7:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Metropolitan Airports Com�mission � � 6040 28"' Avenue S. Minneapolis, Minnesota 1. Call to Order, Roll Call , 2. Approval of Minutes of Meeting September 26, 2000 3. Introduction of Invited Guests , i ; Receipt of Communications � ! . . � 4. Review of Aviation Noise Office Reporting� Capabilities for the Technical Advisor's ; Report Revision � � 5. Input on Possible Topics and Discussion Items for the 2001 MASAC Goals and ; Objectives - i 6. Report of the October 13, 2000 Operations Committee Meeting - ; � ., i 7. Report of the October 11, 2000 Communications Advisory Board Meeting _ i ; i 8. Report of the MAC Commission Meeting - Chairman Mertensotto 9. Technical Advisor's Runwa�� System Utilization Report and Complaint Summary � 10. Persons Wishing to. Address the Council I ; I 11. Items Not on the Agenda 12. Adjournment Next iVleeting: November 28, 2000 \ , a , . .. ,.. . / ,.. . �� o: �IaOIVI: SUBJECT: DATE: �ASA� MASAC Members Chad Leqve, MASAC Technical Advisor Review of Aviation Noise Oi�ice Reporting Capabilities for the Technical Advisor's Report Revision October 16, 2000 At the July 1999 MA.SAC Operations Comm.ittee meeting a review of the MASAC Technical Advisor's Report and the monthly Eagan-Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis began. The review focused on the information provided in the reports and the efficiency of data communication provided by the current layouts. After considerable review by MASAC and the MASAC Operations Committee a decision was made to concentrate on topics related to the Part 150. Update for the remainder of 1999 and the first and second quarters of 2000. It was deternuned that the report revision topic would be included as part of the 2000 MASAC Goals and Objectives. After further discussion as part of the development of the 2000 MASAC Goals and Objectives, it was decided that the review process would encompass three steps. First, an ( � evaluation of MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Program reporting capabilities would be -' evaluated. Secondlq; comments would be received and reviewed for the report revision. Thirdly, a draft document would be developed by MAC staff and reviewed by the MASAC Operations Committee for finalization by MASAC. The following schedule outlines the review process: o October 24, 2000 MASAC meeting — review of Aviation Noise and Satellite Piogram reporting capabilities o November 28, 2000 NIASt�C meeting -` receive and review comments for the Technical Advisor's Report revision ♦ January 23, 2001 MASAC meeting — review draft Technical Advisor's Report ♦ February 9, 2001 MASAC Operations Committee — provide final comment on the draft Technical Advisor's Report ♦ February 27, 2001 MASA.0 meeting - finalize the Technical Advisor's Report At the October 24, 2000 MASAC meeting the first step in the Technical Advisor's Report revision process will begin: MAC staff will provide a briefing on the reporting capabilities of the MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs, including the various technologies available and the resulting information and reporting capabilities they offer. Additionally, information will be provided on the reports other airports are producing. Please refer to the attached document entitled "MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite �- Program's Aircraft Operation and Noise Impact Reporting Capabilities" for specific information an the aircraft operation and noise information reporting capabilities of the Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs. I If you have any questions concerning this topic, please contact me at 612-725-6328. i � , 1 . I � � ' . , � � : � 1 � I _ _ _ ( G ,. � MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Program's Aircraft (Jperation and Noise Impact Reporting . Capabilities . � ; _- � � ; � ; . f - : � � � 1 � , I , I � By Chad E. Leqve, MASAC Technical Advisor October 16, 2000 �; ; ' I i ( (_. 1 i � ' _ _ _ _ ,,,. � f T'he analysis, reporting and information distribution functions of the MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Program are accomplished via three technologies. The Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System (ANOMS), Geographical Information System (GIS) and the Internet provide the analytical prowess and information dissemination capabilities that have become the cornerstone of the Aviation Noise and Satellite Program mission. The following paragraphs provide general information about the mentioned technologies and the informational and analytical capabilities they provide. Airnort Noise and Overations 167onitorin� Svstem (ANOMS) One of the largest, most complex installations of its kind in the United States, the Minneapalis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System (ANOMS) has become a central element of a sophisticated, evolving noise and airspace management program. ANOMS at MSP provides an objective tool for the purpose of assessing airport and airspace utilization and the resultant impacts. The system became operational in 1993 providing a level of noise and airspace management capabilities previously unavailable. Since that time ANOMS has proven to be a critical component of the Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs analytical missions. ANOMS has become the focal point for data acquisition and dissemination for airspace and noise issues. ANOMS utilizes two ma.in data sets including flight track and noise information. In addition to a central ANOMS computer, the system is comprised of two peripheral system components used to gather the mentioned data sets. An Optical Disc Reader (ODR), consisting of a computer and disc reader, is located in the MSP .Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT). Via a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the FAA, the ODR is used to acquire flight track information from the FAA's ARTS 3A radar system. In addition to the ODR, a system of 29 Remote Noi�e 1Vlonitoring Towers (RMTs) are located in communities surrounding MSP. Each RMT consists of a permanent pole with an attached enclosure housing a noise analyzer, modem and microphone. 'The RM'I's provide noise data 24 hours a day, all days of the year. The noise data is downloaded and imported into the ANOMS central computer once a day. Once the data is imported into the central ANOMS computer, post-processing programs are run, which provide additional levels of information with respect to the data gathered. Via these processes flight tracks aze correlated to noise events that occurred at the various RMTs, noise summary information is calculated, operation information is tied to the appropriate flight track and runway and flight track correlation is accomplished. ANOMS aLso provides functionality that allows user-defined special flight track and noise analyses, including flight track gate analysis, corridor analysis and Point of Closest Approach (PCA) analytical functions. The data and analytical functions of ANOMS provide a wide range of aircraft operational and noise information capabilities. The following list provides a summary of the information available as a result of the mentioned ANOMS functionality. � 1. Aircraft Clperation Information ♦ Runway Use 0 Operation-Specific Information — Including aircraft type, arrival/departure, aircraft stage, arrivaUdeparture times, airline, flight number and origin/destination airports � 2. Noise Information ♦ Specific Noise Event Information — Aircraft noise event (defined as events above 65 dBA for eight seconds or greater) information per RMT tied to the above operational information including: event Maximum Sound Level (L,t,aX), Sound Exposure Level (SEL), Equivalent Sound Level (I.ey), time of event and duration. o Summary Noise Event Information — Noise summary information including daily or monthly averages of the above specific noise information. Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) is also available on a daily or monthly basis relative to aircraft events, commr�nity events and total noise events per RMT. "�(Note: all of the above mentioned noise data is tied to the aircraft operational information. This allows data queries for noise and operational reports that can incorporate aircraft operation and noise criteria as part of the data query. This functionality is a product of the �� relational database that is inherent in ANOMS.) 3. Flight Track Location and Spatiai Anaiyses ♦ Flight Tracks — Maps providing depiction of flight track5 in two-dimensional or three-dimensional formats color-coded by arrivaUdeparture or by altitude ranges e Gafe Analysis — A gate (plane in space) can be construcfed in the ANOMS map server environment and spatial analyses can be conducted relative to flight track locations as they pass through the gate. Information such as whether or not a track penetrated the gate, aircraft altitude, deviation from the gate center and speed are available relative to the point of gate excursion. e Corridor Analysis — A three-dimensional comdor can be constructed in the ANOMS map server and spatial analyses can be conducted assessing flight � tracks that remain within the comdor 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 corridar excursion. e PCA Analysis — The Point of Closest Approach (PCA) can be calculated to any point 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 to the location of interest. (Note: all of the above mentioned track analysis data is tied to the aircraft operational information. 'This allows data queries for operational information, spatial flight track information and noise information that can incorporate aircraft operation, spatial and noise criteria as part of the data query. This functionality is a product of the relational database that is inherent in ANOMS.) GeoQraphical Information Svstems (GIS) Geographical Information Systems (GIS) represent the pinnacle of geographic and spatial analytical functionality. GIS is a powerful mapping and spatial analysis tool consisting of hardware and software. The software provides a high degree of mapping capability coupled with spatial analysis functions incorporating tabular data (typically referred to as attribute data) that can be tied to geographical features as part of a map ]ayer. The ability of a GIS to import multiple map layers and geo-reference the various layers'to the same coordinate system provides unlimited flexibility in comparatively analyzing various geographical objects. In addition, when attribute data is tied to the various geographical objects, robust analysis can be conducted incorporating both geographical location and attribute information associated with the geographic features. This functionality, in conjunction w�th three-dimensional spatial analysis capabilities and customized application development, provides the highest degree of spatial analysis available. In the early 1990s the MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs procured a GIS. Since that time the program has evolved into a superior spatial analysis asset. The GIS has been an integral part of implementing and managing the Part 150 Program at MSP. Over the. years MAC staff has eompiled significant amounts of map data from surround counties and communities. In addition, through consultation with a contractor; MAC has integrated a module to import flight tracks into GIS, facilitating higher degrees of flight track mapping capabilities. The ability to import flight track data into GIS, in concert with all of the available map layers in�luding the wealth of data provided by the eounties and cities around MSP, provides enhanced flight traek mapping and analysis. The flight track mapping and flight track spatial analysis, relative to other geographic features GIS offers, is considerable. GIS provides a host of capabilities for reporting consideration. 'The following information summarizes the capabilities offered. l. Mapping ♦ Flight Tracks — Detailed flight track mapping with various other rnap layers o Noise Complaints — Detailed complaint address matching and complaint concentration information e Three-Dimensionat Mapping of RMT Noise Data — Data relative to the various RMT locations, providing noise leveLs and location information in a , graphicaI format � ♦ Incorporating Other Geographical Map Layers — All maps can incorporate a multitude of geographic data available as part of the Aviation Noise and Satellite Program's GIS. 2. Spatial Analysis 0 Community Overflight Analysis — Analysis of community overflights can be conducted via GIS capabilities. ♦ Flight Track Density — A density grid analysis can be conducted providing maps with color-coded overflight impact assessments delineating the areas of overflight concentration. Internet - MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Pro�rams Web site Since 1995, the MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs has operated and maintained an Internet Web site. The MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs Web site (www.macavsat.org) has evolved over the years into an essential information dissemination tool. 'The site provides a. multitude of informational pages, including f information on ANOMS, MASAC, MSP's Part 150 Program, GIS, Reliever Airports, � GPS, Slide Presentations and Meetings and Events. ,,, � t The Web site has become a primary information dissemination tool for the Aviation � Noise Office. Through the integrated use of several software packages, MAC staff has provided access to various reports, analyses and information. In addition, interactive database query modules are available, providing information on aircraft operations and noise information. This application development has resulted in interactive ANOMS functionality as part of the MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs Web site. The mentioned Internet ANOMS functionality is the only one of its kind in operation as part of a Web site. The issue of objective data availability via an interactive medium such as the Internet acted as a catalyst for the development of the first interactive modules providing Internet access to ANOMS aircraft operation, noise and flight track information. MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs staff developed this interactive functionality as part of the ANOMS page. This functionality truly represents the next generation of information dissemination technologies. Through the application and customization of available database and Internet technologies, MAC staff has developed -first of its kind interactive modules on the Internet. By extracting data from ANOMS databases and creating a new database architecture in a web accessible database software package, MAC staff has customized several query applets to provide ANOMS aircraft operations and noise data to the general �- public through interactive Internet query capabilities. The mentioned efforts led to the development of the Interactive ANOMS Aircraft Operation and Noise Information ! Modules page (www.macavsat.org/ANOMS/anoms_internet.html). This page is available via a link from the ANOMS page as part of the MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs Web site. The page provides access to multiple query modules. The following information summarizes the ANOMS functionality and resultant interactive reports and information available on the MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs Web site. � " i. Interact�ve Runway Use Query Modules o-All Operations - This query module provides runway use numbers and percentages for all operations relative to the user's submitted date range. ♦ Carrier Jets — This query module provides runway use numbers and percentages for carrier jet operations relative to the user's submitted date range. ♦ All Operations Nighttime — This query module provides runway use numbers and percentages for all operations during the nighttime hours (2230-0600) relative to the user's submitted date range. ♦ Nighttime Carrier Jets, — This � query module provides runway use numbers and percentages for carrier jet operations during the nighttime hours (2230- 0600) relative to the user's submitted date range. o Operations By Runway — This query module provides runway use numbers and percentages for all operations on a single runway relative to the user's submitted date range and runway. 2. Interactive Noise Query Modules ♦ Aircraft Noise Event Summary — This query module provides the total number of noise events, logarithmically averaged L,�X, Leq and SEL levels and the average event duration for a user-submitted timeframe, aircraft type and RM'T 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. , o Top Ten 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. ♦ Top Ten Events by Airline — This query module provides the top ten aircraft noise events at an RMT for a spec�c airline relative to the user's submitted date range, RMT number and three-letter airline ident�er. ♦ Daily RMT Noise Level Report — This query module provides daily noise summary data for a selected RMT providing the Ley and DNL information for aircraft noise events, community noise events and all noise events relative to �f the user's submitted date range and selected RMT. 3. Flight Track Information ♦ Altitude-Coded Flight Track Maps — Flight track maps depicting arrival and departure flows into and out of MSP aze available, color-coded by altitude ranges. - e Airspace and Noise Analyses Documents — Airspace and noise anatyses, such as the Crossing in the Corridor Analyses, Noise Abatement Departure Profile (NADP) Trend Analysis, Monthly Eagan-Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis and the Technical Advisor's Report, in addition to others, aze available as part of the Web site. � ♦ Radar Track Replay Depiction — 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. -- It is important to consider the information already available on the Internet in association with existing and future Internet development capabilities. With consideration and constructive input, the MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs Web site could supplement or even replace portions of information published in the Technical Advisor's Report. �' � � � � . � � � ?� '' ` ` �o: FI201VI: SLTBJECT: D.c�TE: MASAC Members Chad I.eqve, MASAC Technical Advisor Comments on Possible Topics and Discussion Items for the MASAC 2001 Goals and Objectives October 16, 2000 The yeaz 2000 is drawing to a close. As a result, MASAC activities must be established for 2001. At the October 24, 2000 MASAC meeting, comments will be received for consideration as part of the 2001 MASAC Goals and Objectives development process. This meeting will mazk the beginning of the 2001 MASAC scheduling process. The following dates and meetings outline the process: o October 24, 2000 1VIASAC meeNng — receive comments on possible topics and discussion items ♦ November 9, 2000 MASAC Operat�ons Cominittee meeting — focus MAS�C and MASAC Operations Committee activities for 2001 e November 28, 2000 MASAC meeting — finalize 2001 MASAC Goals and Objectives o December- 8, 2000 MASAC O�serations Coinmittee meeting — organize 2001 MASAC Goals and Objectives Calendar At the October 13, 2000 MASAC Operations Committee meeting the members reviewed the 17 noise mitigation measures and 10 land use measures included in the Part 150 Update document. The review focused on mitigation measure implementation. Once noise mitigation measures are established, implementation is essential to achieving the noise reduction benefits a Noise Compatibility Program can offer via Part 150. T)ependinb upon the nature of various mitigation measures, implementation of the outlined initiatives can occur at different times. Proposed measures that require federal approval or additional analyses prior to implementation can only be implemented once approved under the auspices of the submitted Part 150 document. On the contrary, measures that are part of an existing program or are of a nature such that they are within the implementation authority of local airport proprietors and Responsible Governmental Units (RGUs) can be pursued prior to approval of the Part 150 document. As the 2000 MSP Part 150 Update document is being reviewed by the FAA, elements of the Noise Compatibility Program could be considered for implementation. 'The MASAC Operations Committee reviewed how MASAC could focus their efforts in a manner consistent with measures that can be pursued by the Council and the MAC prior to FAA approval of the Fart 150 Update document. Following review of the various measures eligible for implementation, the MASAC Operations Committee endorsed five measures and associated efforts for inclusion in the 2001 MASAC GoaLs and Objectives. Below are the Pa�t 150 Update measures and associated efforts that the MASAC Operations Committee endorsed and forwazded to ( MASAC for inclusion in the 2001 MASAC Goa1s and Objectives. . Part 150 Measures Eli�ible for Consideration I'rior to Document Approval ♦ Metrapolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC): 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 e Operating Procedures: Pursue the implementation of the Distant NADP off Runways 34L and 30R ♦ Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring 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 Global Positioning System Initiatives: Foster MASAC involvement in the development of GPS technology at MSP including briefings and updates on the Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) upgrade to the GPS ground station at MSP and the possible resultant capabilities ♦ Establish a public information program incorporating state-of-the-art technology and other multimedia resources: Continue to pursue enhancements to the MASAC News, Internet information �dissemination programs and possible distribution of information to public access channeLs . i� The above MASAC Operations Committee recommended activities provide a means of � maintaining consistency with some of the provisions outlined in the Part 150 Update document, focusing on measures that can be considered prior to document approval. If you have any questions concerning this topic, please contact me at 612-725-6328. COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED The Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council endorse the above MASAC Operations Committee recommendation to establish the listed Part 150-related topics and efforts as a primary part of the 2001 MASAC Goals� and Objectives. � Metropolltan Aircraff Sound Aba�ement Council cMASAC) 6040 28th Avenue South � Mlnneapolis, Minnesota 55450 •(612) 726-8141 Chairman: Mayo� Charles Mertensotto Past Chairs: Robert P. Johnson, 1995-1999 Scott Bunin, 1990-1995 W alter Rockenstein, 11, 1982-1990 Jan Del Caizo, 1979-1982 Stanley W. Olson, 1969-1979 Technicai Advisor: Chad Leqve September 29, 2000 Federal Aviation Administration O�ce of the Chief Council Attention: Rules Docket (AGC-200) Docket Number [30109] 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 To whom it may concern: The Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abaternent Council (MASAC) is an organization comprised of equal ( �'� community, airline and airport representation. MASAC continually suives to find new and innovative ways ` to address airport noise issues around Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP). Through cooperative decision making and insightful proposals, MASAC has a long list of noise reducing success in which both the communities and the airlines played an active role. MASAC is weil aware of the tremendous role national po}icy plays in the successful implementation of noise abatement initiatives on a local level. Consistent with that realization, MASAC encourages the highest degree of thought and consideration on behalf of ihe Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) when issues such as national noise abatement policy revision are discussed. There is no doubt [hat since the 1976 Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Policy, significant noise reduction accomplishments have been achieved at our nation's airports. T'he national policy, legislation and regulation to this point have provided procedures, funding and a framework for Noise Compatibility Program development and implementation at our nation's airports. T'hese efforts and accomplishmen[s are not inconsequential, yet significant advancements in airport noise reduction is possible through resgonsible policy development that considers cooperative approaches to noise abatement solutions, new technologies and the general public's expectations. After review of the FAA's Aviation Noise Abatement Policy 2000 document published in the Federal Register on July 14, 2000, MASAC has several comments for your consideration as part of your policy review. I am submitting the foliowing comments on behalf of MASAC relative to the FAA's Aviation Noise Abatement Policy 2000 review: e A new reasonable Stage 4 noise level standard should be developed, which maximizes the noise reduction capabilities of availabie and future aircrafr engine technologies. o Future policy regarding land use compatibility planning should be considered in concert with new - airspace use flexibilities provided by the GPS technology and surrogate capabilities such as free ( � flight and precision variable geometry approach and departure procedures. o Future airspace redesign requirements should take into account the capabilities of new naviQational technologies such as GPS to ensure procedural implementation and env'ir�nmental evaluation criteria do not unduly burden [he navigational flexibility these new technologies can offer relative to noise abatement. � ♦ An all-encompassing GPS implementation strategy should be developed to provide direction to airport proprietors for terminal area procedure implementation in an effort to reduce noise exposure. • ( ♦ The public input portion of the Part 150 process should include more public education and �� information initiatives to prevent public frustration as a result of misinformation or lack of understanding. Once again on behalf of MASAC I urge your diligent consideration of the above comments as you review the future of our nations no'ise abatement policies. T'he successful relationship between our nation's airports and the communities that neighbor them is contingent on responsible decision making and nationai policy development. We wish you luck in this significant undertaking. Thank you in advance for your review and consideration. Sincerely, �� l--�-r�--� Charles Mertensotto Chairman Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council city of INVER �ROVE �IEIGNTS Mayor Charles Mertensotto MASAC Chairman 6040 28ih Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 5�450 . September 27, 2000 Dear Chairman Mertensotto: Tti:e C:t}r of Inver Grove Heig?�:s �_: �u'.d like ta be r�pres:.n�ed on thc 1V�ASAC O�crations Committee. Our MASAC representative, Wili Eginton. has been a nonvotina participant for inany years and is willing to serve as a full meinber. Please consider selecting him to fill the community represented position. Sinc v, _ � �, i Jo� Atkins (Mayor) G� Inver Grove Heiahts A l � 8150 BARBA�2A AVENUE • INVER GROVE HEIGNTS, MN 55077-3412 TELEPHONE (651) 450-2500 • CITY OFFICE FAX (651) 450-2502 • POLICE FAX (651) 450-2543 C` � l� ITTES OF T SEP'I'El��I�El2 26, 2000 S�i.0 .. , . � ET G , _ _. . . : - _ �� . . .: ;. . _ : ;. , _ .. . . _ : . , �_ . . _ ,.:. : : .. : _ . .. . _. ,, � . _ . ,:- . , , .. .. .. - , . ... .-. � : , ,, . . - , �. . . ._ .. .. _ .. _ . . . . . , : - . , , ;. .: , . , _ �� , , _ ,, - _ � - . . , . . � , . . . . _ _ � ; � �. _ �,' - Y , �. � 1 _ `_; . ,.., ,: , „ .:, ;. _ �' . : .. . ; , . ,:: . ., .. . , -: ,. , . ,. , . . ,; . , <. . ..>.., . ::- , , -..: ; ,. . , , ,,;. _ . _,-- , , -: ,,. , . - - _. . :: . _ .. _ , ..:. :. . .` ,,.. ;: , . _.. . .. . , .... �. ,.. , . ; ; 'i ,: ,' , . ` ', - , .. . , _ . _ , ' - . , . ,. � „... , . : .. . , , - I ;. _ 1 - . � , � : . • . . , . :,: : r� � _ ,_ , , ,_. _ .. , , :: .. ;; - - � _ �;;� - . , _ .., �. .. ,.: - ;� _ : � r: � `� � - ; - ' � ; , ;_ ��, �; .. �., - � i . ,. ; ...` _ � _ i , �� ; � „ . . . . , . . .. . . : . .: ., .,. . . _ . ,. . .. . � . .i , .�` ., `�r . . . . �. . _ . . .. . . . . . .� , . . ..... r � �-.. -.:� ..,, ..r ��::� - - .:; .... . .: .. . :,.. _ _ j t- y : . :. . '�.. :: . . . . . . . : . .-. .. . . �, ...� . ... _ ..:i. �. �-=v .., .: :� . . �..�._ .: � . i...- - ;.�.,, .:. � .�'::' . � ' "�' � 1 ..... � . .;,�. ,-, ....�., . ( f ... .. .. ..:. �.. - � . �,:: �.: :_ �.. � �, . . �, , . " � ' , ' _ '-. .;_ . .... ... � . .�. .. ... .. . - . , .�,. , � .. . �. . . � . .. _ ..� '.�. . � , �. '., . �.. �. . .. . . . .� .. . .., � . .'. . . . , . . _ . , � .. : , � .. ' . . ..` / -� �..'.. .- ... .. .' . .� ' '.� . "'.. ..... , . .. . .' � . .. . :�'� . � . . � 1 METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT COYJNCIL GENERAL MEETING September 26, 2000 7:30 p.m. 6040 28`e 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 Mendota Heights Roy Fuhrmann �C . Bob 7ohnson M�� Petrona Lee Bloomington Vem Wilcox Bloomington John Nelson Bloomington , Lance Staricha Eagan Jill Smith Mendota Heights Will Egintori . Inver Grove Heights Banet Lane Minneapolis Leo Kurtz Minneapolis Neil Clark Minneapolis Glenn Strand Minneapolis Dean Lindberg Minneapolis Mike Cramer Minneapolis Joe Lee Minneapolis � Jeff BerQom Burnsville � Kay Hatlestad Burnsville Cynthina Putz Yang Sunfish Lake Steven Wolfe St. Louis Park John Halla . St. Paul Pam Dmytrenko Richfield Kristal Stokes Richfield Advisors Chad Leqve Shane VanderVoort Jason Giesen Joe Harris Kim Hughes Kent Duffey Glen Orcutt Cindy Greene Visitors (�� `, Mary and Paul Teske � Technical Advisor MAC MAC MAC HNTB HNTB FAA FA.t1 City of Eagan Residents F� 3 � Jan DelCalzo Gene Franchett Andy Pederson Approval of Minutes City of Minneapolis Dakota County Apple Valley � The minutes of the August 22, 2000 MASAC meeting were approved as disfiributed. Introduction of Invited Guests There were no invited guests. Receipt of Communications Chairman Mertensotto noted that a memo regarding a draft comment letter to the FA.A from MASAC regarding the FAA's update to its noise policy was included in the meeting package. He also noted that several airlines/users, incIuding members and non-members of MASAC, had sent comments regarding the first draft of the letter that was included in the August 22, 2000 meeting package. 'I'he following airlines/users sent letters: o Northwest Airlines � Northwest Airlines Pilots Master Executive Council • LTpS • DHL • Mesaba Airlines • Delta Airlines • Champion Air • Vanguard Airlines o Ryan International Airlines Chairman Mertensotto noted that Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, would address the letters under item five (5). Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, reported that the position of Part 150 Program Manager (vacated by Mr. Steve Vecchi in June) had been filled, and that Mr. John Nelson, currently Bloomington's . MASAC representative and the MASAC Operations Cornmittee Chair, had accepted the position. Mr. Fuhrmann said Mr. Nelson would be starting his duties at the MAC on October 9, 2000. Chairman Nlertensotto will be filling in as Operations Committee chair until he appoints� a replacement. Review of the Draft Part 150 Update Document INM Revision Kim Hughes, HNTB, introduced Kent Duffey, I-INTB, and asked him to explain a recent revision to the Integrated Noise Model (iNM) that was made subsequent to the last MASAC. meeting. Mr. Duffey said in late August he discovered a problem with how the INM .software was modeling the core track dispersion data for the runways at MSP. Mr. Duffey went on to compare how the INM software had been modeling the dispersion data, which was taken from ANOMS, and how it should have been modeling it. He noted that, as a 2 C� default, the INM software models dispersion equally on both sides of a core track. However, because MSP has the benefit of ANOMS, which provides actual data. for the existing runways, it is possible to have the INM software employ actual data rather than a 50-50 split. The problem, in this case, is that the software program was incorrectly encoding the ANOMS-generated dispersion data. Thus the percentage of aircraft dispersed on either side of any of the core tracks was transposed from one side to the other. Mr. Duffey noted that all of the track data. for each of the runways at MSP, except runway 17/35, had to be re-run and every contour re-generated. Runway 17/35 was not affected because there is no ANOMS data. available for the runway so the dispersion rate used was the default 50-50 split on either side of the core tracks. Chairman Mertensotto asked Mr. Duffey if he lrnew what the change in population was between the new draft mitigated 2005 contour and the one presented at the August 22, 2000 meeting. Mr. Duffey said he did not know if there had been a change in affected population but that the total area was very similar. Kim Hughes, HNTB, noted that all of the contours included in the Draft Part 150 Update document had been updated except for the GPS contour in Appendix �I. Document Organization Kim Hughes, HNTB, briefed the members on the structure, content and schedule for completion of the Draft Part 150 Update document. Chapter 1 - Introduction Chapter one includes: - • A section that defines the Part 150 study requirements and how those issues were addressed � 7 in the� MSP study. • The original study scoping information. • A section outlining the roles and responsibilities for MSP's Part 150 Update. o The existing Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) quoted verbatim. • Information on how the document is organized. Cl:apter 2- Noise a�zd its Ef.fect o�r People . Chapter 2 includes: e An explanation of noise and its metrics • An explanation of how noise affects people • This chapter is new to MSP's Part 150 update - past updates do not include this type of chapter. • This ehapter begins the discussion of why MSP is proposing to define the 60 DNL contour as � incompatible with residential land uses (page 2-9). , Chapter 3- Existing mid Forecast Noise Exposure Chapter 3 includes: o Information on five general topics, including airport and general information, aireraft operations, model validation, existing noise exposure and future noise exposure. • The 1999 Validation, 2000 Base Case and 2005 Unmitigated contours • Backup information, such as a description of the existing facilities at MSP and how the weather and climate might affect the noise generation at the airport ( ) o Aircraft operations data for 2000 and projeetions for 2005 s Existing runway use for 2000 and projections for runway use in 2005, which uses the runway use configuration outlined in the Dual Track EIS • A description of the Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor • A description of the 1998 and 1999 construction season and how it changed runway use during those summers (, • The modeled departure and arrival tracks, and sub-tracks, used in the Integrated Noise Modeling (Il�TM) soflware for each runway end, including runway 17/35 • A comparison between the EIS and the 2000 Part 150 Update runway use, tracks, fleet mix, etc. for the entire airport and for runway 17/35 (This is included so that the public is fully aware of the changes that were made to the EIS assumptions for this update.) • Several appendices, which are included in the document and are referred to in chapter 3. All of the data used for determining each of the contours (1999, 2000 and unmitigated 2005) is included in the appendices. • Figure 3-19 shows the actual and modeled noise values associated with the 1999 Validation contour. e Population counts for each contour (1999, 2000 and 2005) - The counts show a steady decrease in the impacted population with the onset of an all Stage 3 fleet in 2000 (compared to 1999) and an increase in-fi.Yie number of manufactured Sta.ge 3 aircraft in 2005. • A comparison of the EIS Dual Track High Scenario contour and the 2005 Unmitigated contour (Figure 3-23) Chap#er 4- Land Use c�nd Noise Cornpatzbility The chapter includes: � Information on five general topics, including existing land use controls, land use - compatibility criteria, development of land use and population data, existing land use and cornpatibility, and forecast land use and compatibility. + Background information on land use controls and the criteria used to determine land use compatibility, including the federal guidelines and MSP's proposed changes for compatibility �" criteria • A discussion of the 60 DNL contour area and why it should be. considered as incompatible • A section on how the land use and dwelling/population data was developed e A section on the existing, general land use present in each community • Figure 4-1 shows the existing land uses for MSP. The map includes all areas within the 2000 . 60 DNL contour plus one mile. _ •� Appendix G includes population and land use data for each city and the potential for change. • A table that breaks out the acreage of the different types of land uses, as well as a comparison between the amount of acreage of compatible; and incompatible land uses � Noise sensitive land uses and the difference in acreage of those land uses between the 2000 Base Case and the 2005 unmiti�ated contours .. � • Information on forecasted changes in land use, which is minimal • Figure 4-2 is the 2000 Base Case contour with the existing land use coverages and noise sensitive land uses identified • Figure 4-3 is the unmitigated 2005 contour with the existing land� use coverages and noise sensitive land uses identified s Noise sensitive land uses are schools, churches, preschools, nursing homes and historic sites. Some of the noise sensitive land use areas are identified with a dashed line oval (historic areas mainly). : • e The fleet mix changes between the 2000 Base Case and the Unmitigated 2005 contours are included in Appendix D. 4 Ms. Hughes asked the members to read and comment on section 4.2.2, which outlines the land use compatibility criteria being proposed for MSP. Cl:apter 5- Updated Noise Exposure Maps Chapter 5 includes: • The Noise Exposure Maps for the 2000 Base Case, the 2005 Unmitigated and the 2005 Mitigated contours. Ms. Hughes noted that if the Noise Compatibility Program is not approved by the FA.A, the 2000 Base Case and the 2005 Unrnitigated contours become the official noise exposure maps for MSP. She also noted that the placement of historic properties on figure 5-3 was incorrect. o Table 5.1 on page 5.2 gives a comparison between the three NEI�Is in terms of population and dwellings included in each. A comparison of the unmitigated and mitigated 2005 NEMS " shows that over 14,000 people or 5,900 dwellings were taken out of the 2005 unmitigated contour. Clzapter 6- Noise Abatement Measures Chapter 6 includes: • Informarion on three general topics, including existing noise abatement measures, new and revised noise abatement measures and a summary of recommended noise abatement measures. �;�-_:_ e Tables of the existing Noise Compatibility Program noise abatement measures are included in this chapter along with their implementation status. • Section 6.2 begins the discussion of the proposed new and revised meastares for the 2000 Part 150 Update. This includes a discussion of the measures and the analysis that was completed for each. Ms. Hughes noted that noise abatement measure two was a voluntary measure to help reduce the number of hushkitted aircraft operating at MSP during the nighttime hours. She also noted that -_ - the measure had not been used to generate the contour since it would be impossible to forecast the rate of compliance with the voluntary measure. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, explained how nois� abatement measure three had been developed and distributed a possible change to the measure that was published in the draft document as a"Noise Management Program: The new measure was entitled "Measures to Encourage Use of Manufactured Stage 3" Aircraft," which would continue to ' be a voluntary measure. Mr. Fuhrmann explained that in 1991 noise abatement number measure eight provided for a noise surcharge that penalized Stage 2 operations and which was rvritten into the airlines' leases. He said the original surcharge measure would be inappropriate to carry forward in its existing form because there are no longer any Stage 2 aircraft operating in the United States. But that a voluntary measure that would allow MASAC to develop ways to encourage use of manufactured stage 3 aircraft could be. substituted. Dean Lindberg, Minneapolis, said it seemed as if the Metropolitan Airports Commission missed the chance to add a surcharge to the airline leases for hushkitted aircraft when the riew leases were negotiated. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said there was a reason for not including a surcharge in the new airline lease agreements. He said the funds that would have been generated by a , I surcharge were instead directed into the overall noise abatement portion of the lease. Glenn Strand, Minneapolis, said he thought the measure was too specific. He said he preferred a measure that would allow MASAC to explore a variety of ways to reduce noise impacts other than simply targeting the use of manufaciured Stage 3 aircraft. He noted, too, that some manufactured Stage 3 aircraft are louder than some hushkitted Stage 3 aircraft. Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, said the reason for targeting Stage 3 manufactured aircraft in the revised ( measure three is that it mirrors the previous measure (NA8) in that it atternpts to target source noise reductions. Mr. Strand pointed out that there is no official distincrion between a manufactured Stage 3 aircraft and a hushkitted Stage 3 aircraft. He said since they are considered to be the same, the measure has no merit. John Nelson, Bloomington, said he supported the change in measure three because it provides a way to specifically target source noise reduction and because the City of Bloomington, in its scope of work comments, specifically asked for a measure that would encourage the use of manufactured Stage 3 aircraft over the use of hushkitted Stage 3 aircraft. Jill Smith, Mendota Heights, said she supported the measure's language because it targets a specific source of noise. She also asked why the airlines had objected to the measure since it was voluntary and thus unenforceable. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said it is a voluntary measure and that he believes the measure provides the opportunity for other possibilities. Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, noted that in a recent issue of the Airport NoiseReport it was ._ reported that 59% of the total fleet noise energy at an airport is caused by hushkitted aircraft. He said reducing the number of hushkitted aircraft operating at MSP would be one of the more significant ways to reduce noise impacts in the communities. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said he believes the negotiated noise mitigation funding levels in the current lease are higher than if the surcharge had been left in the lease. A question was asked with respect to whether or not the airlines were aware of the revised i measure. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said he had been in contact with representatives at Northwest Airlines regarding the changes to the measure. Kay Hatlestad, Burnsville, questioned why MASAC had not been involved in the lease negotiations. Joe Lee, Minneapolis, suggested that a measure separate from measure three was needed to cover other possibilitres for noise reduction ROY FUHRMANN, MAC, MOVED . AND JOFII�T NELSON, BLOOMINGTON, SECONDED, TO ENDORSE MEASURE NA-3, "MEASURES TO ENCOURAGE USE OF MANUFACTURED STAGE 3 AIRCRAFT OPER.ATIONS," WHIC�I IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PREVIOUS ACTIONS TAKEN BY MASAC AND THE MASAC OPERATIONS COMMITTEE ON NOVEMBER 12, 1999, DECEMBER 10, 1999 AND JANUARY 25, 2000, AND TO DIRECT STAFF AND I3NTB TO INCLUDE THIS MEASURE� WITH THE 2000 PART 150 UPDATE. THE MOTION WAS APPROVED ON A VOICE VOTE. BARRET LANE, MINNEAPOLIS, MOVED AND GLENN ,STR.AND, IV�7[NNEAPOLIS, SECONDED TO ADOPT A NEW MEASURE FOR INCLUSION IN THE PART 150 UPDATE THAT WOULD PROVIDE FOR THE INVESTIGATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF INCENTIVES OR DISINCENTIVES TO MINIlVIIZE THE � IMPACT OF AIltCRAFT NOISE IN COMIVIT.TNITIES SURROUNDING MSP. FURTHERMORE THAT STAFF AND ITS CONSULTANT SHOULD DEVELOP THE APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE AND FORMAT FOR THE MEASURE. THE MOTION WAS APPROVED ON A VOICE VOTE. Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, said he preferred that the new measure have the title "Noise Managernent Program." Kim Hughes, HNTB, briefly reviewed the remainder of the noise abatement measures included in the document. There are a total .of 17 noise abatemer�t measures with the addition of the "Noise Management Program" measure. Cltapter 7- Land Use Cornpatibility Kim Hughes, HNTB, reviewed the individual land use measures included in the document. There are a total of l0 land use measures. + Land use measure eight — Sound Insulation Program — modification to eacisting measure proposes the 60 DNL contour be deemed eligible for insulation. • Land use measure nine — Creation of barriers and berms — measure allows for the`measure to be implemented, however further investigation and analyses are needed to find out whether they are needed or desireable • Land use measure ten — Low Frequency Noise Mitigation = currently includes the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee report. The definition of Low Frequency Sound Level (LFSL) will be included in chapter 2. iVls. Hughes asked Glen Orcutt, FAA, if it would be a good idea to include the proposed intersecting block eligibility contour iri the draft document: l�Ir: � Orcutt said he would include the map and an explanation as to how the decision for eligibility was made. Cl:apter 8- Recommended Noise Compatibility Progr-ain Kim Hughes, HNTB, said chapter eight noted that the program is a five-year program with forecasts out to the year 2005. She asked if it would be appropriate to include language that addressed what the airport plans to do in 2005 (i.e. whether the airport plans to update the NEM in 2005). Cindy Greene, FAA, said the document should include language regarding the Update's timeline. Ms. Hughes noted, too, that the chapter included information on. which measures may require additional environmental review before they can be implemented: She said only the measures affecting the use of runway 17/35 should need additional environmental review. Ms. Hughes encouraged the members to review tables 8.2 and 8.3, which summarize the noise. abatement and land use measures, the responsibilities for implementation and funding schedules. Clrapter 9 - Pa�blic Involvement Chapter 9 is brief but most of the information is contained within Appendix L, which includes the minutes of all of the MASAG and MASAC Operations Committee meetings, workshop handouts, workshop comments, Runway 17/35 City Group minutes, scoping comrnents, etc. The document will be available to the public on paper or compact disk. The Public Involvement appendix will be available at the MAC General Offices, local libraries and city halls. Dean Lindberg, Minneapolis, asked Glen Orcutt, FAA, what types of comments the FAA would be most interested hearing at the public hearing. Mr. Orcutt said comments that are ( specific to-the document would be most meaningfuL Appendices Kim Hughes, HNTB, reviewed each of the appendices, specifically: • Appendix F- No Build Runway 17/35 Contour - this contour was not included in the initial draft but will be included with the public draft • Appendix G- Detailed population analysis • Appendix H- GPS Initiatives prepared by �Il�Il�I + Appendix I- Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee Recommendations • Appendix L- Public Involvement - phone numbers will be taken off the roster lists for MA.SAC, MASAC Operations and the Runway 17/3S City Group. Mary Teske, Resident of Eagan, suggested that an abstract for each chapter be made available to the public. Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor; said that a summary of the document and MASAC's efforts has been written and was included in the meeting package. Ms. Teske said, although the document was good overall, it was not specific enough to the document. She said she thought an abstract for each chapter would be helpful. Schedule for Completion of the Part 1 SO Update Kim Hughes, HNTB, briefed the Committee on fhe completion schedule for the Part 150 Update. The following dates and significant events were noted: - • �eptember 26, 2000 - Present draft Part 150 Document to MASAC • September 29, 2000 - MASAC Part 150 Document Cornment-meeting (comments from MASAC will be taken and incorporated into the public Part 150 dra$ document) � e October 6, 2000 - Public Part 150 Draft issued (advertisements will be placed and postcards will be sent regarding the hearings and the availability of the draft document) • November 8/9, 2000 - Public Information Meeting/Hearing (to take place at the Thunderbird Hotel in Bloomington beginning at 5:00 p.m. with the public hearing beginning at 7:00 p.m.) • November 15, 2000 - Close of Public Comment Period (by 5:00 p.m.) � a December/January - Anticipated Commission Approval and Submission to FAA 5. FAA Noise Abatement Policv .. Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, briefly reviewed the Draft 2000 FAA. Noise Abatement Policy and the proposed MASAC response. He said it was important to come to a consensus, representing a unified MASAC response taking into consideration all perspectives, and to make a decision because the deadline for responding would come before the next full MASAC meeting. He also briefed the members on tlie airlines' concerns saying' that the airlines had four main concerns, including: i _. 1: New Stage 4 criteria and associated compliance stringency 2. A schedule for the phase-out of hushkitted aircraft 3. Expanding the eligible area of the noise exposure map to the 60 DNL 4. The mandating of on-board GPS equipment on aircraft at some point in the future � ' S After further discussion, the members decided to include five of the original 10 bullet points included in the draft letter. They include: I• A new, reasonable Stage 4 noise level standard should be developed, which maximizes the noise reduction capabilities of available and future aircraft engine technologies. o Future policy regarding land use compatibility planning should be considered in concert with new airspace use flexibilities provided by the GPS technology and surrogate capabilities such as free flight and precision variable geometry approach and departure procedures. • Future airspace redesign requirements should take into account the capabilities of new navigational technologies such as GPS to ensure procedural implementation and environmental evaluation criteria do not unduly burden the navigational flexibility these new techologies can offer relative to noise abatement. o An all-encompassing GPS implementation strategy should be developed to provide direction to airport proprietors for terminal area procedure implementation in an effort to reduce noise exposure. . 0 The public input portion of the Part 150 process should include more public education and information initiatives to prevent public frustration as a result of misinformation or lack of understanding. 6: Report of the Sep,tember 2� 2040 Operations Committee Meetin� There was no report of the September 22, 2000 Operations Committee Meeting since the topics were covered in a previous item. 7. Report of the September 13 2000 Communications Advisorv Board Meetin� � i Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, reported that the fourth quarter MASAC News newsletter would be published in early October, and that the Advisory Board would be meeting on October 1l, 2000 to establish topics for the first quarter 2001 newsletter. 8. Report of the MAC Commission Meetin� Chairman Mertensotto reported on the September 18, 2000 MAC Commission meeting. The following items were mentioned: • The Commission voted to acquire the Bureau of Mines property with objecti�ons from the airlines. • The Commission approved an increase in the amount of funding the airpoit would provide,for the Light Rail Transit (LRT) project at the airport. 9. Technical Advisor's Report Due to the late hour, there was no report of the August 2000 Technical Advisor's Report. T'he�e were no questions. � 10. Persons Wishin� to Address the Council There were no persons wishing to address the Council. 11. Items Not on the A e� nda L•7 There were no items not on the agenda. 12. Ad�ournment Chairman Mertensotto adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted. Melissa Scovronski, MASAC Secretary 10 � �.TTES (�F T �EPTE EI� 22, 2000 SAC C.�PE TIOl�TS CC.� -. iI�TTEE .ET G . ; ;: _ . ,, . : � � � � ,.� � , ,, . _ . ,; , .. -, _ , , � , � - - ., r - r � �. � � . . .. . '' . � � , _ ,. : . :.. _' __: �, , . , ., ,, = , . , , : , - ... . , , :-. , ,. ;;:� ` - .i r rr: ', .` r ;, ; - - f. t ' j � r r� t - t - - � i . _ 4 � y 4 I t }, 1 � tiv ^ 4�� J ( l � - i I � 3 �! f } rt _ _ / � ... . :, � , ;.. �. . • " _ .. ; �.:. .. .. . ,..� . ,; _ . ,. . . .'., .: ' " ' t _ t ' �., . . " 1 _ ' _ � . .. : . .. . .. � .. .. , .. . � ' ,' � � . �. � , 7 . . . . :��.. . �" � :.. �� ., ' . ' . . . . , � . _ . . . � . , � . . _ .. � � ' � ' . . � . , . . ' . . . . .. � .. . � , " . . ' . . . . . � ' . . � � ' . . .. . .. . ,.. . ' - . . . . . .. � . - � � 1 � r APPROVED M I N U T E S MASAC OPERATIONS CC)NIlVIITT�E September 22, Z000 The meeting was held in the Large Construction Trailer of the Metropolitan Airports Cornmission and called to order at 9:00 a.m. Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order and the roll was taken. The following members were in attendance: Members• John Nelson, Chair Patrick Hollister Glenn Strand Bob Johnson ° Jamie Verbrugge Mary Loeffelholz Roy Fuhrmann Advisorw Chad Leqve Jason Giesen Mark Ryan Shane VanderVoort Joe Harris Kim Hughes - Cindy Greene Glen Orcutt Visitors• Bloomington Mendota Heights Minneapolis MBAA Eagan NWA -MA.0 MAC MAC MAC MAC MAC I-�NTB FA.A FAA Will Eginton Inver Grove Heights Jennifer Sayre . NWA Andv Pederson Apple Valley Mary�Teske Resident, of Eagan AG]ENDA Part 150 Program Manager A.nnouncement Roy Fuhrmann, l�IAC, reported that the position of Part 150 Program Manager (vacated by Mr. Steve Vecchi in June) had been filled, and that Mr. John Nelsori, currently Bloomington's MASAC representative and the MASAC Operations Committee Chair, had accepted the position. Mr. Fuhrmann said Mr. Nelson would be starting his duties at the MAC on October 9, 2000. Chairman Mertensotto will be filling in as Operations Committee chair until he appoints a replacement. �,� Communications Received A letter was received from Dick Saunders,<Minneapolis, appointing Glenn Strand, Minneapolis, as his alternate for all Operations Cominittee meetings through the end of September. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the August 11, 2000 meeting were approved as distributed. Review of the Draft Part 150 Update Document Chairman Nelson briefed the committee on his suggested process for reviewing the document. INM Revisions Kim Hughes, HNTB, briefed the Cornmittee on a problem that was found with the Integrated Noise Modeling program. She said during the last week of August, Kent Duffey, HNTB, found that the INM program was encoding the track dispersion data wrong and had transposed values for dispersion data on the left and right sides of the core tracks. She said that normally this would not be a problem because most Part 150 studies have not included the detailed dispersion analysis that ANOMS can and has provided for MSP's siudy. But, since ANOMS has provided dispersion data that shows that dispersion off each track is not equal, the dispersion values are different and therefore need to be correct for each side of the core track. (Tracks for runway 17/35 were not affected because the modeled dispersion is equal on each side.) � Ms. Hughes said all of the contours (approximately 25) were then re-run and included in the draft document, excluding the GPS contour, which was generated by �IlVIlV�i. She also noted the differences � between the newly run contours and the final contour presented at the August 22, 2000 MASAC meeting, although there was little difference in the total area covered by the contour. Roy Fuhrmann, � MAC, said it is possible that, because eligibility is deternuned by block intersection, very few, if any, � homes that were previously eligible would now be ineligi�le: :.. � Chairman Nelson asked that a graphic displaying the new 2005. contour compared with the one ' presented in August to-be available at the September 26, 2000 meetirig. Kim Hughes, HNZ'B, rioted that there were also slight changes in the population as a result of the correction in INM compared with the population counts presented in August. Nlary Loeffelholz, NWA, asked for further clarification after arriving after the initial discussion. Kim Hughes, I-�NTB, explained the problem again and noted that the population and dwelling counts would change compared with the contours presented in August. Chairman Nelson directed the members to the memo included in the agenda package and provided preliminary updated population counts: Ms. Loeffelholz expressed concern with the lateness of the change and possible further revisions to the -_c--ontours. Ms. Hughes said the contour as presented in the update is the best and most accurate to date. She also explained that the problem with INM's dispersion pattem could have been completely rnissed � 2 and sent to the FAA without the changes. However, since the problem was discovered, the MAC and the consultants felt it was in the public's best interest to present the most accurate contours possible. Part I50 Update Document Organization Kim Hughes, HNTB, briefly reviewed each chapter- its purpose and content. Clsapter 1 � • Description of Part 150 • The chapter includes a section defining study requirements and how those issues were addressed in the Part 150 Update Study. • The chapter includes a section for detailing the organization of the Part 150 Update document. • The chapter includes a section outlining the roles and responsibilities for MSP's Part 150 Update. • Section 1.5 quotes, verbatim, the measures included in the existing Noise Compatibility Program �CP)� Chapter 2- Noise and its Affect on People e This chapter explains noise and its metrics. • This chapter explains the effects of noise on people. • This chapter is new to MSP's Part 150 update - past updates do not include this type of chapter • This chapter begins the discussion of why MSP is proposing to include the 60 DNL contour as incompatible with residential Iand uses (page 2-9). : . ClTapter 3- ExistirTg and Forecasted Noise Exposure �' e The chapter covers five general topics, including airport and general information, aircraft operations, model validation; existing noise exposure and future noise exposure. _ • Includes the 1999 Validation, 2000 Base Case and 2005 Unmitigated contours • Includes backup information, such as a description of the existing facilities at MSP, how the weather and climate might affect the noise generation, etc. • Includes aircraft operations data for 2000 and projections for 2005 • Table 3.1 is missing totals. � • Includes existing runway use for Z000 and projections for iunway use in 2005, whi�ch �uses the runway use confib ration outlined in the Dua1 Track EIS • Includes a description of the Eagan/Mendota Heights corridor • Includes a description of the 1998 and 1999 construction season and how it changed runway use during those summers • tncludes the modeled departure and arrival tracks, and sub-tracks, used in the Integrated Noise Modeling (INM) software for each runway end, including runway 17/35 . o Includes a comparison between the EIS and the 2000 Part 150 Update runway use, tracks, etc. for runway 17/35 (This is included so that the public is fully aware of the changes that were made to the EIS assumptions for this update.) • Several appendices are included in the document for chapter 3. All of the data used for deternzining each of the contours (1999, 2000 and unmitigated 2005) is included in the appendices. • Figure 3-19 shows the actual and modeled noise values associated with the 1999 Validation contour. + Includes population counts for each contour (1999, 2000 and 2005) -. The counts show a steady � decrease in the impacted population with the onset of an all Stage 3 fleet in 2000 (compared to 1999) 3 and an increase in the number of manufactured Stage 3 aircraft in 2005. Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, noted that on figure 3-19 Remote Monitoring Tower (RMT) number 7 was �' not placed in the proper position. Chairman Nelson suggested that; when the position of RMT 7 is .. changed, the numbers identifying the RMT locations should be made clearer, particularly if the figure will be used at the public workshop. Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, questioned whether the arrival flight tracks contained in figure 3-14 took into account the "close-in" arrival patterns recently observed. Kim Hughes, HN1B, said the INM uses the straight in arrival flight track and does not use arrival tracks closer in than what is depicted. She said closer arrival turns would not affect the contours. Chapter 4- Land Use and Nozse Compatibility • The chapter covers five general topics, including existing land use controls, land use compatibility criteria, development of land use and population data, existing land use and compatibility, and forecast land use and compatibility. • Includes background information on land use controls and the criteria used to deternune land use compatibility, including the federal guidelines and MSP's proposed changes for compatibility criteria e Includes a discussion of the 60 DNL contour area and why it should be considered as incompatible • Includes a section ori how the land use and dwelling/population data was developed • lncludes a section on the existinggeneral land use present in each community • Figure 4-1 shows the existing land uses for MSP. The map includes all areas within the 2000 60 DNL contour plus one mile. . . e Includes a table that breaks out the acreage of the dif%rent types of land uses, as well as a comparison between the amount of acreage of compatible and incompatible land uses - • Includes noise sensitive land uses and the difference in acreage of these land uses between the 2000 j Base Case and the 2005 unmitigated contours `' • Includes information on forecasted changes in land use • Figure 4-2 is the 2000 Base Case contour with the existing land use coverages and noise sensitive land uses identified . • Noise sensitive land uses are schools, churches, preschools, nursing homes and hisforic sites: Some of the noise sensifive land use areas are identified with a dashed line oval (historic areas mainly). • The fleet mix changes between the 2000 Base Case and the Uninitigated 2005 contours are included in Appendix D. Chapter 5- Noise E.rposure Maps • Includes the noise exposure maps for the 2000 Base Case (existing conditions), the Unmitigated 2005, and the Mitigated 2005 contours. • If the noise compatibility program is not approved, the Unmitigated 2005 contour becomes the noise exposure map for 2005. • It was noted that the DNL contours for Figure 5-1 were incorrectly labeled. • Includes a summary population table Cliapter 6- Noise Abatement Measur-es e This chapter covers three generai topics, including existing noise abatement measures, new and 4 � revised noise abatement measures and a summary of recommended noise abatement measures. Tables of the existing Noise Compatibility Program noise abatement measures are included in this chapter along with their implementation status. Section 6.2 begins the discussion of the proposed new measures for the 2000 Part 150 Update. This includes a discussion of the measures and the analysis that was completed for each. Table 6.37 provides a summary of the recommended noise abatement measures. Kim Hughes, HNTB, encouraged the members to review measure number three, "Noise Management Program, on page 6-18. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said that the Noise Management Program measure had �� been discussed in some detail early in the process and follows the structure of the previous measure that provided for disincentives for operating Stage 2 aircraft. Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, asked if the Part 150 document included a projection as to when the airport would reach capacity after the addition of runway 17/35. Kim Hughes, HNTB, said the Part 150 study does not include that information because it only forecasts out five years to 2005. Kim Hughes, HNTB, encouraged the members to review the language of both the Global Positioning System (GPS) and the Runway 35 River Visual Approach procedure measures, as well. Jennifer Sayre, NWA, asked why the Noise Management Program measure was included in the draft Part 150 Update document. She said she did not remember the Operations Committee discussing the topic. Kim Hughes, HN'TB, said the Committee had asked that a noise manageinent program be put together that would include provisions for encouraging airlines to increase their use of quieter aircraft (manufactured Stage 3 aircraft versus hushkit aircraft). She noted, however, that this type of program would be a voluntary program. Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, said the measure would have a significant impact on the airlines at MSP. She said she was very concerned that the measure had not been discussed in detail and voted on before being published. Ms. Sayre said there would be no reason for the users to agree to a voluntary hushkit fee. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said the Committee had discussed at different times how best to influence the reduction in the number of hushkitted operations at MSP without it being mandated. Chairman Nelson noted the airlines' significant concerns with the Noise Management Program measure. He said he did not believe the Committee had had the chance to discuss the measure in detail and shared their concerns. He recoinmended that a comprornise try to be reached before the -MASAC meeting on the following Tuesday. �'Vill Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, said, even if a vote had not been taken on the details of the measure, he believed the community members would support it and noted that several communities had mentioned a need for this type of program in their scoping comments. He said he would not support dismissing it alto�ether. Glenn Strand, Minneapolis, agreed that some communities�had been looking for this type of ineasure but shared the airlines' and chairman's concems that the Committee had not had the chance to discuss it in detail. Chairman Nelson said he felt further discussion on the measure needed to take place and noted that it may or may not be ultimately included in the final draft. l'" Chapter 7- Land Use Measures e This chapter covers three general topics, including status of the 1991 FAR Part 150 land use recommendations, recommended land use alternatives and a suminary of the recommended program. • Includes the previous and updated land use measures o Includes a brief discussion on the block intersection method for determining eligibility Kim Hughes, HNT'B, asked if it would be appropriate to include the contour boundary as approved by MASAC in the document. Glenn Orcutt, FAA, said he thought it would be appropriate to include the contour boundary arid a sufficient explanation of the alternatives that were analyzed and discussed. Chairman Nelson suggested that it might be appropriate to display the contour boundary map .at the public hearing, as well, with the admonirion that it be clearly presented as a recommended, and not approved, map. He said he thought the Commissioners might also be interested in the table showing the different dwelling counts far the various alternatives. • The low frequency noise mitigation measure is new to the document and should be reviewed. Chairman Nelson asked Mark Ryan, MAC Airport Development, if he could update the Committee on the Metropolitan Council's update to the Aviation Guide Chapter discussions. Mr. Ryan reported that he and Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, have been working with the Metropolitan Council staff and their consultant to ensure that the proposed changes are consistent with MSP and the Reliever airports' policies and procedures. Mr. Ryan said he believed changes were being sent to an advisory committee / for discussion during the second week of October. He said he believed a final update would be �. , completed during�the first part of 2001. Kim Hughes, HNI'B, said she had hoped to have a draft of the policy for inclusion in the Part 150 Update. Chapter 8 - Reconvnended NCP • This chapter covers three generat topics, including a program summary, overall benefits of the proposed revised noise compatibility program, and NCP implementation. • Tables 8.2 and 83 summarize the implementation details of tlie recornmended Noise Compatibility Program. o There is a section that discusses the need for further environmental review. This has been included so that the public is aware that further environmental documentation will most likely be needed for some measures. However, environmental documentation is not required for the FAA to approve the document. Kim Hughes, HNI'B, noted that there is a discussion ofthe time period covered b� the update to the Part 150 program and asked whether there should be language included concerning when.the.next update would be performed. She said it has been brought up that the public should be aware that �there is a possibility for the contours to change with subsequent updates. Chapter 9 - Public Involvement 6 �� •'I'his chapter covers four general topics, including advisory cominittees, public _�aneetings, public hearings and written comments and responses. ; � e The chapter is brief with much of the detailed information contained in Appendix L. • The Committee member phone numbers will be deleted from the final draft. Appendices ^ Kim Hughes, HNTB, also briefly r�viewed each of the appendices. � o She noted that the "no build" contour had been left out of Appendix F but would be ins�rted for the final draft. • Appendix G includes specific popularion data for each city. . o Appendix H contains language from the GPS study. • Appendix I conta.ins the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee's (LFNPC) report. • Appendix 7 contains information on the population and dwelling counts included� in the LF'NPC LFSL contours. Noise Abatement Measures � _ __ Kim Hughes, �B, reviewed the individual noise abatement measures included in the document. J.,�. . __ _ aa., There are a total of 1 b noi�e abatement measures: - Land Use Measures �' �-� Kim Hughes, HNTB, reviewed the individual land use measures included in the c�ocument. There are a total of 10 land use measures. � Other Items Not on the Agenda. Schedule for Completion of the Part 1 SO Update ,� . Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, briefed the Committee on the completion schedule for the Part 150 Update. The following dates and sign�fican� events were noted: • September 26, 2000 - Present draft Part 150 Document to MASAC m"�� -�- e September 29, Z000 -�-�✓I�SAC Part 150 Document Comment meeting (corriments from MASAC will be taken and incorporated into the public Part 150 draft document) , '" • October 6, 2000 - Public Par� 150 Draft issued (ads will be placed and postcards will be sent regarding the hearings and the availability of the draft document) o November 8/9, 2000 - Public� Information Meeting/Hearing (to take place at the Thunderbird Hotel in Bloomington beginning at 5:00 p.m. with the public hearing beginning.at 7:00 p.m.) • November 15, 2000 - Close of Public Comment Period (by 5:00 p.m.) .- � Mid-December, 2000 - Commission Approval and Submission to FAA It is anticipated that there will be either three or four volumes included in the document,. a large part of which will be the public involvement portion. The document will be available on compact disc or in hard copy at local libraries-a�icl city offices, as well as through MAC staff. �,,;,,_ � Chairman Nelson commented on what he felt would be an appropriate way for the representatives to I ) � 7 .. � review the document in preparation for the September 29, 2000 meeting. He said representatives should review the document for accuracy in accordance with the decisions that have been made through MASAC and bring those comments to that meeting. Other comments, not directly affecting the accuracy with what MASAC has approved, can be submitted as part of the public comment period or at the public �. hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 a.m. The next Operations Committee meeting will be held on Friday, October 13, 2000 at 9:00 a.m. in the La�ge Construction Trailer of the Metropolitan Airports � Commission. Respectfully Submitted, � ' Melissa Scovronski, Committee Secretary � , - -: I ' _ - I ' 9 @ I _ 9 _ 1 8 \ � 4 u��s o� � �c�o �� 1�9 Z000 , l��SAC �Ol��iL1T�C�TI�71�TS �VIS(J12Y . _ �OA,1� l��TII�T� . � � : , . _ : . ,,: . : . :: _ , .. � .. �. _ . . . ,. .. _ . . .. . � - _ ,: : . _ _ _ ' , .. . .. : ; - _ . ... .. .. . .. . _ . _ . . .. r ; ; , ; ,, . ; . ., . , . : .. ,- - .. _ . _ : _ . .. . .. : . ,. _ r , <, � i � , . _ ., . ` - ; , ,, ; , .., .. .,_ �_,. ,_.. � si •. : : � � -. - , .,: , , � ''� z;' i+ ' , ' : �.; - i , ' � : : ..: ; � -., c ( . .> l i ., .,_ � ;�� i' ' :. �- �.- � � . .,. .�._ _ ..,. . . . � ...�� ..,: � -. .. - ' .'. .': ...:. ..� _ -�.: .:',. :'�� - . . . � � . , . , . , , . . .,.:.-. : _ . .: . .: _ . ., ;� _..-... . ... . , .; ;'{ ; ��': . - . . ..� . . � '� :.�. . ..�' . .:. ...�.:� .. ... .:...: .. :.:� . ��,,- . . ��..�. . � .`.. . _ ._: ,•,. _. . .. .. .... . .. .. . . . �� •.� � . .��. �,. ��_ . �< , = ;- C .. . , . . , .... :. - . - ;, , _,.-_ . . �. _ _ . .. . ,. i . :; . , . ; _ : . ,.::� -. . :: _< _ _ ; . ,.; _ .. ; ,: . . ;, _ . . . ; -: ; .. � � _ - .. . _ . -. � ; . __ _ � _ _ , , . : . ..' . . . _. _ • . , , � . � . ; '� . � � ' �, I . � : ' - � _` { ' . � I 1VIINUTES MA.SAC CONIlVILTNICATIONS ADVISORY �OARD October 11, 2000 The meeting was held at the Metropolitan Airports Commission Small Conference Trailer and called to order at 3:30 p.m. The following members were in attendance: Members • Dick Saunders Minneapolis " Mike Cramer Minneapolis Advisorv• Chad Leqve �C 5 Approval of tl:e Miriutes The minutes of the July 12 and September 13, 2000 meetings were approved as distributed. Establislz Topics for First Ouarter 2001 Newsletter After a brief discussion, the followin; topics were chosen for the First Quarter 2001 MASAC News edition: 1. Overall surnmary of the Part 150 Update document and the submittal and review/approval i process. . � � 2. Noise mitigation r�easure prioritization and implementation process 3. Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee Report results and recommendations � A brief report of the results of the Part 150 Update public hearing (how many people attended, summary of comments, etc.) should be included in the overall summary. Amy vonWalter; MAC, suggested the group solicit commenfs and suggestions from the public, possibly with a reader survey. It was suggested that an email address be included in the next issue for the public to make comments and suggestions. Establish Meetina Sc{:edule for 2001 The meeting schedule, as distributed in the meeting package, was approved. : The next meeting of the Communications Advisory Board will be held December 13, 2000 at 3:30 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m. � Respectfully submitted: �� _. % Melissa Scovronski, Secretary � � • • , � . � � � . �; � � � � ` PLEASE COMPLETE THIS FORM AS ACCURATELY AND THOROUGHLY AS POSSIBLE AND ATTACI3 ANY LETTERS OR FORIVIAL RESOLiJTIONS. Date: Name: Address: Phone: ' On whose behalf are you requesting?: Yourself City Council Mayor Citizen Organization Other � Is this a one-time request? Yes or No Beginning Ending If no, what is the expected time frame for this request? to Which of the following best describes the nature of your request: (Circle all that apply) Ground Noise Overflights Run-Ups Contours Part 150 Other PLEASE WRITE OUT YOUR REQUEST HERE AND/OR ATTACH ANY LETTERS OR FORMAL R.ESOLUTIONS. ( ) - over - . . � � ; � � • 1 ' i ' ' • � ' i' •' Please send your request via mail to: MASAC Secretary, 6040 28th Avenue S., Minneapolis,lVlN 55450 or fax it to: (612) 725-6310. - C ; � MASAC NEWSI�ETTER INPUT F�� On whose behalf are you requesting? (please check one and explain where necessary): Date: Name: Address: Phone: � E-Mail: Proposed article topic: _ Yourself ❑ City Council ❑ Mayor ❑ Citizen ❑ Name: Organization � Name: Other ❑ Name: Circle the desired publication date: 2"d Qrt. 2000 3�d Qrt. 2000 4`h Qrt. 2000 lst Qrt. 2001 Reason for request: Please provide a description of the article's focus and content: Please send your request via mail to: MASAC Secretary, 6U4U ZtStn Avenue �., . Minneapolis, MN 55450 or fax it to: (612) 725-6310. ,� � .^ �: � � .� d O � � o � � � 3 E- � o � O Q �+..� � � � H ^� � � <C ; �; � Er�'' � °�' ;r��, V1 •V] � M� � � � � � �c o �, � C� � L z � .� � � C � oU � � :� o � � o� �� o o� 0o L � �i �' o � �'-�+ � ' � U � I U � o �� p' O H � � � ��_ � � � (' Q � � .__.. i '�'d L ti�� , � r�• � � � . � . � ... Z� � ' e� a� �:. o � .� � U ,...� . o A v� -� -� � � F� � � � � � � O O o � = � a� • V1 � �, � � c- c � v� � � o.. � e.r � �" � .: L`Cr � � V � : � � � � x A U G � '� � � � � 'o � � W O " � v� O � � '� r � .-. �' ++ � � r � � � � o >, o N VV � � � :.� .. � � ' � � � C� � r a� v� (..�, ^ N G r�� '� � V1�s1y � � � F� � � � 0 � ) Q � u� C/] � � M N � r, o O�p .-i M � � � O O O O O O O O ? O O O O � O O O '� r-+ M M� 00 O+-� � O'ci t� f� C31 M�-+ M� V N r-+ �� N M M d' 3 Ef3 b9 5F3 E�} EJ4 Ef3 6R 6R3 H +r � � o o � �� . � � i. �Y �ri ��d' o o�n �n c�- +--� ,..-� N N N N N � �� bg dq E�} 64 69 64 69 rn � �n r- � O� N ,� M N c 0 � � W � o � C" L iG +.+ �+-� O � G "`" � U 0 0 � E-� U � a •° •G �+y fA fA o � � vx .� � a� 0 � 4) � � r d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � � � � � � � � � G1 M G1 M N l� N oo � M d' G1 d' O d' '-+ �n [� •-� N�r� oo C7 0o CT l� �J � � vi u� � Gf3 d �^ N M d' �n �O l� oo G� O E� �c�rnc�rnrnc,rn�o ��c�c,a,rna�c�oo .-. .-. � .-� .-, ,-, .-, N E'� �1 �. � . . . / . � .. . . . .. . .. ... . . . . . . . ... ... . . �� 0 ..� ;. ,. �� _�. ' _ ,' . �` � � - �� + _-.�-�----�_.�______._-- � �- t �_...__—:�� . �� -�� : `�� -::o ----- � 1Y11��1-3C — Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council li�Ilnnea olis/�t. l'aul International Airport p (. � C� , . � , i _ � , � _. � � ' 1 � � MASAC Members cho;n„a,,: Charies Mertensotto (Mendota Heights) First Vice Chairnian: John NeLson (Bloomington) MASAC Operatinns Cnmminee Chairman and Secnnd Vict Chairman: John NeLsou (Bloomingtoo� Airbame Espress: Brian Bates ALPA: Ron Johnwn CiN of Bloomington: Petrons I.ee vern w�a�ox City of Bumsville: c►�� v� c��a« City of Eagan: Jamie Verbrugge Lance Staricha City of Inver Grove Heighrs: C6acles Eginton City ofMendota Neights: Jill Smith Kevin Batchelder City af Minneapolis: Barret Iane n� �.;nan�� Jce I.ce c,�e� sc,�a s�a,� coi.� Roy Mike Cramer Ciry of Richfield Kristal Stokes va.� we��i Cirv of St. Louis PanF � Robert Andrews Crry ofSt. Pau1: Jot� � Ciry of Sunfuh l�ke: Cyntt�ia Putz-Yang Delta Air(ines lnc.; �r ��s DHL Airways: Brian S'�moason Federal Espress: John Schussler MAC Smff.• Roy Fuhrnwnn MBA.t: Robert P.Johnson Mesaba Narthx•est Airlin,l: Phi1 Burke Nnrlhwest Airlines: JennfferSayre hlary Loeffelholz Steve Holme Nancy Stoudt Sr. Pau( Chomber njCommerre: RoU M1tiddleton Sun Cnwrin�Airlines: � Gordou G�aves United Airlines lnc.: Kevin Black United Parce( Sen�ic•r: Michael Geyer U.S. Airways Inc.: Larry Yandle MASAC Advisors MerrrPpt�litan Airpans (.'ommission�: Chad Leqve Merrnpnliran Airports Convnissiun: Commissioner Alton Gasper Federal Aviurinn Adminisrrarinn: Roo Giaub Cindy Greene Air Transpnnation Associa�inn: Paul R1cGraw MN Air Nafiona! GuarJ: Major Roy J. Shetka U.S. Air Forre Resen•e: Captain David J. Gerken Secretan•: Melissa Scovronski Metropolitan Airports Commission Declaration of Purpose I.) 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 eff'icient, safe, and economical handling of air commerce; assure the inclusion of this state in national and international programs of air transportation; and to those ends to develop the full potentialities of the metropolitan azea in this state as an aviation center, and to correlate that area with all aviation facilities in the entire state so as to provide for the most economical and effective use of aeronautic facilities and services in that area; 2.) Assure the�residents of the metropolitan area of the minimum environmental impact from air navigation and transportation, and to that end provide for noise abatement, control of airport area land use, and other protective measures; and 3.) Promote the overall goals of the state's environmental policies and minimize the public's exposure to noise and safety hazards around airports. Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council Statement of Purpose This corporation was formed in furtherance of the general welfare of the communities " adjoining Minneapolis-St. Paul Intemational Airport - Wold- Chambeilain 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, coordinaEion and promotion of reasonable and effective procedures, control and regulations, consistent with the safe operation of the airport'and of aucraft using the same; and through dissemination of information to the affected communities, their affected residents, and the users of the airport respecting the problem of aircraft noise nuisance and in respect to suggestions made and actions initiated and taken to alleviate the problem. Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council Representation The membership shall include representatives appointed by agencies, corporations, associations and governmental bodies which by reason of their statutory authority and responsibility or control over the airport, or by reason of their status as airport users, have a direct interest in the operation of the airport. Such members will be. called User Representatives and Public Representatives, provided that the User Representatives and Public Representatives shall at all times be equal in number. 'Iliis repat is prepared and printed in house by Chad L.eqve, ANOMS Coordinator and Shane VanderVoort, ANOMS Specialist questions a comments may be directed to: MAC Aviation Noise and.SateUite Progams MinneapolisJSt. Pau) Internationa) Airport 6040 28i6 Avenue South Minneapofis MN, 55450 Tel: (612) 725-6328, Fax: (612) 725-6310 MAC Environment Department Home Page: www.macavsat.org 'Il�e Airport 24-hour Noise Hodine is 726-941 1. Comptaints to the hotline do no[ result in changes in airport activity, but provide a public sounding board and airport informa[ion outlet. The hotline is stafCed during business hours, Monday — Frida��. Metropolitan Aircrafr 5ound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report � � _ � � _ � � � �� Complaint Summary Noise Complaint Map 1 FAA Available Time for Runway Usage 3 MSP All Operations Runway Usage MSP Carrier Jet Operations Runway Usage MSP Carrier Jet Fleet Compositio � MSP All Operations Nighttime Runway Usage 7 MSP Carrier Jet Operations Nighttime Runway Usage S MSP Top 15 Nighttime Operator's by Type 9 �, ) MSP Top 15 Nighttime Operator's Stage Mix 10 i j Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight T: 11-14 MSP ANOMS Remote Monitoring Tower Site Locations .Map 15 Carrier Jet Arrival Related No.ise Events 16 Carrier Jet Departure Related Noise Events 17 MSP Top Ten Aircraft Noise Events per RMT 18-27 Analysis of Daily and Monthly Aircraft Noise Events Aircraft Ldn dBA 28-29 A Prociuct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program. Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Reoort �z�� om�l��t� �y ��ty September 2000 i City � Arris=al � Departure ; Bloomington � 1 0 � 20 ! � � Burnsville � p 4� 1 ' � j Eagan �4 t; 22. � 17 90.. Eden Prairie � 1 � "0„ 1 ! 2 _. ._._._.___�.._ . L._.. �. .__. � � _-.--.. :_ Edina p � ` 0 ! i 9 ; Number of i Camplaints � 2I f 1 � 153 4 10 ^ i Inver Grove j � � � Heights � � � 0 � 18 __� -- ' 0 � Lake Etrno ; p 0 1 l � Maple Crove ; 14 : 173 ? l � 175 .. . . ---�-----��---._ ._ ._..___ - _. _. .._... ; ' ' Marine St. Croix ! Q � 0 1 � Mendota Heights � 4 0 22 . � l � Minneapolis ! 9? . � 179 �jp 71 � ----Minnetonl� 2 0 i l__ fl i Plyrmuth_. 0_._ 7 i "O Q � Richtield 1 0 � 19 ' D � -- Savage --- 1 � � 0 � � f South St. Paul � p 0 ! 1 0 j St. I..�uis Park 17 � p ' � ---- 0 i � S�. Paul _-.___. ,O _ 5 -- - l� ---- 1 ( _----- -- - - - -- ---------.. � Sunfish Lal:e p 0 ' 1 � � V�'est St. Yaul --- 1-- 0 13 0 � �'oc,dbury � ....0 _ �� - - �---... _..-- --�--- --- --- --- — Tc>tal Sy8 �54 i \ature of 11SP Complaints Tirrm of Da�� Natum of C�►mplaint l:xt;c:ssi�•� Ni�isc: l:irly/l.;uc: I.��w f�l}'ing �itRtCtLii';i� �11.St. I (�licc�pt�r Cgi�un�i N�>ise E;ngine Kun-up . _Fn:quency Chher Tc�tal � ..._ � _...___._.-..-...�__�____, Numbe r of Complainants 13 � ; `0 1 � '0 14 �- 2 � 2 - 1 --..._ _ :2 . . . , � 20 11 i p ;. 1 � i j Q 383 � j �� i � 1 1 j 1 I ,0 27 ; 17 � ; l . 592 ; 141 ; . . '18 " . 3 � 3 � Q _ 7 i �� Q � �1 - 20 I 15 � �� 1 1 � �0 { � � � 1 ._ � ___ i ______.L � 19. � 4 � 0 71 37 ; ;;4 . , i 1 # '0 14 2 � � _� -- . .. 1 I 0 ; 13a2. i 299 i �'o af'Y'otal ; � Complaints � --, 1.6°k• i 0.1%. � 11.3% � �� 0.3% ._.J 0.7%n � 1.5%. 0.1% 283°Ic _ 0.1% 2.0°k 43.8% 0.2%a ' 0.5% 1.5%. , 0.1%a 0.1%a 1.4% 5.2% 0.1� 1.0% J 0.1% 11)0.0 fi/o � Complaints by Airport �'; � ... _ .. --- , ` --� Total Time Tatal _` ' -_Airpart_ 1�_�_Total -1I9 6"�1 ' (XXX) - (>�;�� 37 23 : MSP 1358 � . .----....._! _--_____-._----�_._____.._ ______._ .�.}; 20 : Oh(X) - fX,�y �7 37 Airlal;� ; 0 � �� ~U7(X)- 11;9 1'9 1� -_ Anol:a � 8 3 � I?(X)_-�,��- -y7--- 169 ~ Crystal � 0 � ; ,. _.___.------_t _.-----..._._, __. ___.._..__..._ __._.........._ ..� 0 � ' 16(X) - 1�)��) 73 72 � Flying Cloud 6 . . .. ._.__...� ..------- -.._ . .._., _ _..� .......__._ __. �1 6 :?(XX) -? 1 S�) 1 18 207 ; Lake IIrm 0 � �. . . __. 0 � �2(� - ?2;9 91 �6 � � St. Paul 1 � 17 79 ='---- - - - ---- . . - --- -- �-�- - --j 0 2 2:3(X) -'359 4i 17 Misc. 0 i - -- ---..._ . _ _ - --- _- - --- 1358 Total 13;g � Total � 1373 � Note: �aded Columns represent MSP complaints filed via the Internet A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 1 0 E �. ; (" . t� Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Availalble '�ime %r l�unway iTse September 2000 � (FAA Runway Use lLogs) ' i � i i ; , ' �.,, ,,, ,� ! —'�---�_1„ ;� � !' ,j� , i ' i i I I, $j y��i �s- j $ � i `; s' - _ // , ��i ; ' ' �� 'i i � .`,-, � � . 68.0% t ` , �:; ,.� � - , � ' �o.o% �J � . _ ; I 4.0%n - - �� _ 5.0% � � , � � -- 9 '' —, Ni�,httime Hours ; , � ;; — — ; l. t a:;p �,�,,. c<� �:a�► :,.n�. :4,� , :o — -r�-'—i September 2UO0 Fa� :�irpurt 7'ratiic Rec��rd Counts 1999 Uailr' Counts 20d0 Uailv Counts Air Carc-ier ! 7�4 : 778 Cocnnuiter 321 343 C�eneralAviation � 387 � 357 - Milit• � : 10 ; 9 Total 1442 1487 A Prociuct of the Me[ropc�litan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 3 � � C � � Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report • � �; � . i : r � , r. ��; . �:, ;�. �;�;;�. Arriti�all R�VY De • ur 4 � Arr 12L Arr ' 12R ' Arr 2� Arr 30I. Arr 30R Arr 4 12I. 12R �� (3verfli�ht Area I So. RichfiekUBloumington � So. Minnea lis/No. Richfieki � So. Minneapolis/No. Kichfiekl i St. Paul/HiQhland Park Eagan/Mendota Hei�ht� ! � Eaean/Mendota HeiEhts i Ti�tal Arri�°als I llep St. Pau11I-iighland Park i Dep Eagan/Mendota Heights ! Uep Eagan/Mendota Hei .htg s ; Dep So. Richf�ield/Bloc�min�ton � Dep So. Minneapolis/No. Richtield { Dep So. Minneapolis/No. Richfieki � Total Departures � Tc�tal Ot�e rati0ns _ __� ' ]Gasf Year Caunt Count :�= ierations Percent O ratians 26 0.1 �Ic 36 4672 22.9�'Ic 6209 4622 22.79� 4879 1 y7 1.09e 170 5515 27.0�7c 4431 5370 26.3°Io 5733 � 20402 10t}.0% 21458 43 02% 104 4596 23.09� .—_..5767 4fi88 23.4�% 552 _ 501 �2.5% 9102 _5159 25.89c 819 5016 �5.19� 4782 2t?Q()3 1t?Q.!}°l0 21126 404U5 4258� _ Last . Year Pe rcent 0:2% 28.9% ??:7�I� 0.8% 20.7% 26.7�1'c 100A�1c 0.5�Ic 27.3% 2.6% ' 43.1 �'Io 3.9�I� ��.6% 11}0.{I% .� A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report . ' ' �` 1 ' . 1 � ' . ' � • i i, ` � , ' 1 ` '� � :�. � ArrivaV � Lasf Year : Last _ Couni Count` : Year - � R�i��c' De arture � Overfli ht Area O rations Percent t7 rations Pereent 4 Arr So.l2ichiiekUBlc�minston 21 0.19� 30 0.2% 12I. - Arr So. Minnea lis/No. Ric;hfield � 3333 22.19c 5067 32.8% ._.:� 12R An So. Minnea lis/No. Richtield ( 3649 24.2�/c 2961 19.2�Io ?? .An St. PauUHiQhland Park i 145 1.0�/c 14b 0.9�Ie ��OL An Ea an/Nlendota Hei hts � 4032 26.9�I� 2578 16.7% _�iOR . Arr' Ea an/Mendota Hei hGs i 38�1 ' 25.�1'c 4664 30.2�1'0 Ttital`Arri�'als 1�{}�1 1i)0.0.% 154�5 100.0%r• .� De St. PauVHiahland- Park i 29 0.2% 84 I?I. Ue Ea an/Mendc�ta Heiahts i 3341 22.5% 4266 12I2 De Ea an/Mendota Hei hts � 3639 ' 24.5% 220 22 De So. Richfieki/Bk�ornin ton � 240 1.6% 7089. 30L De So. Minnea lis/No. Richtield �__ 4115 27.7�/0 237 30R De So. Minnea lis/No. Richfieki � 3510 23.S�Io 3495 Tc�t�l De artures 1�874 1{)0.{i'% 15391 _._. __._ _ . _ . _. _ _ _ Tota1 C?perations �9925 3�837 27.7% 1.4% 46.1 �%n 1.5% 22:7%n 1{}t).0%� A Product of the Metrogolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 5 C Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Tec6nical Advisor's Report Septeynbea� 2000 IVISIP Carri�r Jet Fleet Composiiion FAR Part 36 Take 'r OffNoise Ler•cl �inraft Descri 6on S e Count Percent I B742 i 110.0 Boein 747-200 ; 3 191 ! 0.6% B741 ! 109.4 Boein 747-100 1 3 15 �' 0.1�/c DC8 1055 McDonnell Dou las DCS-500/600 � 2 0 ; 0.0% B743 1055 $oein 747-30Q � 3 57 0.2% DC10 � 103.0 McDonnell Dou las DC10 3 992 I 3.3�/0 B727 102.4 Boein 727-20� 2 0 i 0.0°Io B744 101.6 Boein 747-40Q 3 4 � 0.0% DC8Q 1005 McDonnell Douglas DC8 (Modified Stg. 3) 3 158 � O.S�Io L101 99.3 L.ockheed L-1011 3 4 j 0.0�7� DC9 98.1 McDonnell Douglas DC9 2 0 I O.Q°!o B732 97.7 Boein �737-200 2 0 0.0�70 I BA 11 � 97.0 British Aeros ace (BAG� 1-11 2 0 0.0% A340 � 96.2 Airbus Industries A340 3 0 � 0.0% � MD11 95.8 McDonnellDou IasMDll 3 12 � 0.0% i B763 95.7 Boein 767-200/300 3 6 � 0.0% ; DC$7 ! 94.5 McDonnell Dou las DCS-700 3 15 � 0.1% B72Q 94.5 Boeing 727 (Modified Stg. 3) 3 3439 � 115�70 B772 I 943 Boein 777 3 2 � 0.0% i ,A306 94.0 Airbus Induscries A300B4-600 3 68 0.2% F28 92.9 Fokicer �� ;empt fro m.4VCA 1< �s.000 ms.i 2 163 � O.S�Io A31U � 92.9 Airbus lndusuies A310 3 15 � 0.1% B73Q � 92.1 Boein 737 (ModiFed St . 3) 3 825 2•8`% i MD80 � 91.5 � McDonnell Dou las MD-80 3 719 � 2.4�/e ' B7j? 91.4 Boein 7�7-200 3 2961 9.990 ) � 3)) 3 , -� -3 I j ; 3 pC9Q 91 0 B734 �_ 88.9 A 320 ; 87.8 B738 � 87.7 B73� -- � - - 87.7 B737 B733 A319 BA�C B71? E�1(X) x�.� 87. � �'/:� h4.9 �3.0 McDonnell Douglas DC9 (Ntodified Stg. Boeing 737-400 Airbus Industries A320 Boeing 737-800 Bueino 737-i00 Bocing 737-700 Bueine 737 _i0() -- _ 81.� ! .,, � - ._ _.r_.. Airbus Indusrries A319 E3ritiyh Aerospace 14fi Bueine 717 ?t� _i_°I:l:c�r 1tX) - ---- linhrser 1-�> E�7U 80.1 � -- I�ukkc:r 70 , ---}---- � .------ _ _ . . -_. - - -- - - C'}Z11 79.K :. C�anadair Ftceii�nallct ; 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 9752 45 4543 ' 1 434 3 829 878 2179 374 868 94 0� 279 32.6% 0.2% 15.2% 0.0�% 1.5% 0.0% 2.8°Ie 2.9% 7.3°!e 1.2°Ie 2.9�7c 0.3% 0.0% 0.9°Ic j Totals I � 299�� 1QU.0 %n � . .. .Couait • Curr�nt Last Years tit�e Il � 163 0��7c � 83�ie Sia e II1 { 14174 47.4% i 42.7% Sta e III Manufac�ured j 15�88 52.1�10 � 49.0�/c , "1'ot�l St�e 111 � 29�63 °�3.�°Ic ' 91.7�lc Note: Stage III represent aircrah modified to meet all stage III criteria as.oudinad in Federai Aviatioo Regulation (FAR) Part 36. This Includes hushkit engines, en2ine retrofits or airaah operau�mal flight configurauons. •The Provided tioise levels from FAR Part 36 aze thz loudest levals documented per aircraft type during take-off measured in EPNL dBA (Effective ' j Perceived Noise Level). �. __ •EPNL is the level of the ume integral of the antilogarithm of one-tenth of tone-corrected perceived noise level of an a.ircrafi flyover measured in A- weighted decibels. ( A Prcxiuct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program � Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Ad�lsor's Report Nighttime All Operations 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. I2unway Use Report Septerr�ber 2000 -Last`Year Last - ` Arri�•aU Count Couni Year ', - R�i�T , De rture �-.. _ 4verfli ht Area O rations Percent 4 rations Perc�nt 4 An St7. Ric:hfkki/Bkx�minat�n ., 16 1.590 32 2.4°Ic 1? I. f1 rr So. Minne a�lis/N c�. t2ic hi ie ki ' 106 10.19c 382 �.6%. I?K /1rr Su. Minnea �liti/Nu. Kxhlu:kl i 22"' 21.29c 53 4.0% ?� An St. PauUHi�hL�nci Park 69 6.6�Ic 48 � 3.6% 3OL Arr Ea an/Mcnciuta H�i�Thts 419 40.0�/c 79 5:99'0 �OR Arr t:aaan/Mcnd��ta Hci �hts � 215 ?0.69c 742 55.5% T�ftal Arrivals 1t)47 1(}t}.{l°10 133b 104.(�%a � Ue St. FauUHi hlanci 1'ark 7 0.7�/c � �3 1.6�Io 1?L I)c F.a an/Mendcxa Hei�hts 221 23.1�Ic 479. 33.4°Io I?K Oep Eagan/Mendc�ta Hei�hts ' 293 30.7�Ic 20 1.4% ?? Ue So. Rich�i� ki/B kxmun�tcm 60 6.39c 504 35:2�Ic 30L Ue So. Minnea �Lis/Nu. Richti�ki ' 2Q0 _. 20.99'0 34 � 2.4% 301Z I)e So. Minnea >lis/Nc�. Rirhticki � 174 18.3% 372 26.0% Tc�tal De ��rtures • 9�5 1O{}.{i%� 143? li}{}.p%n" '1'otat O erations �U42 27G8 � ' A Prcxluct of the Metropolitan Airgorts Commission ANOMS Pro�ram 7 m Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC> Technical Advisar's Report � ` � , • ' • �' 1 • . 1 '�' �' '1 1 `1 � '�' . � � . � . � � _ . � . '� • � � �. � AcrivaU � De partun Arr �rr �n ,A rr A rr nn 44�erfli�ht Area � So. RichfiekiBloomington ; � So. Minneapolis/No. Ric:hfiek� I So. Minneapolis/No. FZic:ht�:ki � St. PauUHi�hland Park � Ea�an/Menduta Heights ' Ea�an/Mendota Heights � To tai :�.rri�- ais � 1)cp St. PauUI�-Ii�h�nd Park Uep Eagan/Mendota Heights � I)cp EaganlMendota H�ights 1)cp So. Richfieki/Bkx�irrington I�cp So. Minneapolis/No. f2ic�htiekl ! Uep So. Minneapolis/No. Ric�hfield i T�� t�i� De parture s � To tal Ope ratio ns i Count �e rat�ons 14 95 198 50 310 163 8:�t} 4 120 193 38 164 85 �,(}.� 143� Pe r�ent 1.7°Ic I 1.4°Ic 23.99� 6.09c 37.39'c 19.79'� 1(}i}.{) �/o 0.7�/c ' 19.99c 32.09r 6.3�7a 27.1 �`Ic 14.0°Ic 1[)i}.i}% Last Year Last Count Year < D rations Per�cent 27 2.4�Io 355 31.0% 39 3.4�Io 45 3.9°Io 54 4:79c 624 54.6% 114� 1{?t).Q% 15 1.69c 312 33.0�/c 7 0.790 354 37.4°Io 22 2.390 236 � 25.09c 946 1{}().0 °Ic J�/1I . 8 A Product of the Metropotitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�ram Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report �eptember 2000 Top 15 Acival I�Tighttirr�e Jet ()perators by Type 10:30 p.m to 6:00 a.m Total Nighttime Jet Operations by I�ur H�nr ' Count - --`��-- -- 473 �300 _ . . 4.�- -- 2400 133 --- 100 --- 39 -- `� --- � 3 300 � 10 400 10� .. . ___.-- 5(X) 203 Total 1434 � Airline ; Ii3 Sta�e � Type ; Count American AAL 3 ' F100 31 American AAL 3� MDSO �� 32 � ; Airborne ABX 3 _ DC8Q '._ 17 ' Airbome ' ABX � 3 � DC9Q ; 31 i , � America Trans � AMT 3 ; B Q A 22 �� ' America Trans : AMT i 3 ' L101 i ; America West; AWE � 3 A319 ; 4 � ; America West � AWE I 3 � A320 � 40 ; America West i AWE ; 3 ; B752 j 2 _ ��-- __�_��--� . ComAir ; COM j 3 i CRT1 ` 48 �� Delta � DAL j 3 j B72Q � 28 i Delta � DAL � 3 i MD80 '' 17 � FedEx FDX I 3 1 A306 ( 27 FedF�c FDX ; 3 ; A310 i 6 FedEx FDX � 3 i B72Q � 9 . `- FedEx FDX , 3 � DC10 � 38 ; � FedE�c � FDX � 3 i MD11 j 3 � Northwest NWA ' 3 A319 j 7 � __.._.�. ..__ _. _. _ __. � Northwes[ NWA ' 3 � A320 � 170 � `. -- Nonhwest - -_NWA I - 3 ---- � B72Q ( 42 ' ' ' Nonhwest NWA 3 B742 2 � ' Northwest NWA � 3 B744 i 1 Northwest NWA � 3 B752 ' 246 -~ Northwest NWA _ 3 DC10 I 8 . .. ..-- �-�- ----___. ----____�_ -------- _. .�..._�.�, Northwest NWA 3 DC9Q ! 157 � . Ryan: ---- _ RYN -- -i . 3 . _ ._ B72Q ._ .__ 86 � � Sun Countr�}' .._SCX_ 3. _ B72Q �__ 103 ' : . . . .. : _. , - -- ---- --- � ,_ -� Sun Ct�untry SCX 3 DC10 ; L AirTran TRS 3� B712 � 28 � .frans VVorld TWA 3 ~ DC9Q ; 22 - -- --- "Trans WUrld 'NVA 3 MD80 : 4 tJnited --- IJAL 3� A319 2 . -- -._ .. --- • ---.__----.... . . __ _._ United t7AL 3 A3�0 2 _... . .._ __ . __ . .__.�_�;, . ��._._. ttnited 11AL . 3 _B72Q . .:. . - 4� . Ilnited UAL 3 B73Q ` 5 •- - -- - - -----J-- -- United t1AL 3 B752 2 ' United ---� -- t1AL 3 B763 -. 1 _.. . . - - - ---- ----- tiPS C7PS 3 B72Q 2 _ ..� _ ---- - - �-- - --- -- _ UPS UPS 3 B752. ; g __._ tJPS -- ---- UPS 3�- L�8Q - 4g ___ _ , . . . . _ _.� . _... ._. . . _�. ..., Vanguard VC� 3 B73Q 14 -------- - ----- ------- -�- - -� � , � ; , Tntal .. � . _ _. _-- -_ .. —. .--- ------�_..Y3 .. _ Note: The top (S ni�httime operators represent 95.0°l0 of the total nighttime operations. A Product of the Metropolitan Airpoits Commission ANOMS Program 9 (. `, . �� G O .�:+ � 4. . y 0. 0 w O L . � a � 0 Z f� Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report September 2000 Nighttime Fleet Stage 1�tix for Top l� Airlines 10:30 p.m to 6:00 a.m e-�v P�� .� �� v �.��-�''�' 4'-�.� �G"�' `�-�S <C�P .�P�' �q5 '�G� Airline ■ Stage 2 ❑ Sta.ge 3 � Manufactured Stage 3 September 2000 Nighttirr� Fleet Stage Muc for Top 15 t�irlir�es 10:30 m. to 6:00 am. M��tu�a . _ _. �irline S e 2 S e 3 St e 3 Total AAL 0 i 0 � 63 63 ABX 0 ; 48 0 4�8 AMT 0 � 22 1 23 A W E 0 � 0 ' 46 46 COM 0 � 0 48 4S DAL 0 2R 17 45 FDX 0 9 74 83 NWA 0 ; 199 434 633 RYN 0 ' R6 0 � 86 SCX 0 10�i 1 104 TRS 0 � 0 28 28 TWA 0 22 4 26 UAL 0 SO 7 57 UPS 0 50 � 8 ( 5$ VGD 0 ; 14 0 � 14 Trftal t) 631 �__ 731 136� , 10 A Prcxiuct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�ram Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks Carrier Jet Operations — September 2000 Sep 9 thru 16, 2000 — 3962 Carrier Jet Arrivals Sep 9 thru 16, 2000 — 3901 Catrier Jet Departures Sep 9 thru 16, 20d0 — 223 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals Sep 9 thru 16, 2000 — 188 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures 12 A Prcxiuct of the Metropalitan Airparts Commission ANOMS Program Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks Carrier Jet Operations — September 2000 ( Sep 17 thru 23, 2000 — 3566 Carrier 1et Arrivals Sep 17 thru 23, 2000 — 3485 Carrier Jet Depaztures Sep 17 thru 23, 2000 — 199 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals Sep 1? thru 23, 2040 —137 Nighuime Carrier Jet Departures A Prcxiuc[ of [he Metrc�polit��n Airpor[s Commission ANOMS Pro�ram 13 �� ` Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report . . .. � • • �; � . . . . , . ! ' '1 ' � �' '�` Arrival Arrival Arrival Arrivai RMT , ,., ., _ ` Events . _:,Events Events Eveni:s'. ; . , . ,. , ,ID. `' 'City _ -;: . . . - : .�iddr+ess >65cIB ' >80�B _ >90dS .. , . . . >100dB - 1 Minnea olis ; Xerxes Ave. & 41st St. 5335 � 58 1 0 2 Minnea olis i Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 4b69 266 0 0 3 Minnea olis West El�rnvood St. & Belrmnt Ave. 4815 ( 1980 19 0 4 Minnea olis � Oakland Ave. & 49th St. 4881 � 967 3 0 5 Minnea olis ; 12th Ave. & 58th St. 5129 � 3719 379 0 6 Minnea olis � 25th Ave. & 57th St. 5212 �.. 4003 . 350 0 7 Richfield � Wentwonh Ave. & 64th St. 188 �. 8 0 0 8 Minnea olis . � I.on fellow Ave_ & 43rd St. 230 � 7 0 0 9 St. Paul ( Sarato a St. & Hartford Ave. � 212 �� 113 3 0 10 S�. Paul ( Itasca Ave_ & Bowdoin St. 235 154 24 0 1 L S�. Paul � Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 32 3 0 0 12 St. Paul � Alton S[. & Rockwood Ave. 26 � 2 0 0 13 Mendota Hei hts �-� Southeast end of Mohican Coun 68 � 1 0 0 14 Ea an ( ls[ St. & Mc}:ee St. 6902 43 0 0 li Mendota Heights � Cullon St. & Lexin ton Ave. 351 9 0 0 16 Ea an � Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane 5849 2033 4 0 17 Bioomin ton i 84th St. & 4th Ave. 53 � 11 0 0 18 Richfield 75[h S[. & 17th Ave 58 i 10 1 0 19 Bloorrrineton 16th Ave. & 84th St. � 27 I 3 0� 0 � 20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 18 i 4 0 0 21 Inver Cu�ove Heights ; Barbara Ave. & 67th Sc. _ 166 � 1 0 0 � 22 Inver Csove Hei hts : Anne Mari� Trail 3498 � 9 0 0 ' 23 Mendo[a Hei hts Fnd of Kenndon Ave. 2045 ( 41 1 0 � 24 F.a an Cha el In. & Wren Ln. � 6768 � 92 1 0 � 25 Eaean Moonshine Park 1321 Jurd Rd. 564 ; 2 0 0 � � 26 InverGrove Heights 6796Arl�nsas Ave. W. 848 � 7 0 0 27 Minnea olis An[hon School S7i7 Ir��in Ave. S. 69 ; 0 0 0 28 Richtield 6645 16th Avcnue S. 578 � 33 3 0 ' 29 Minnea ��lis Fricsson Elem School 431i 31st Ave. S. 8 � 0 0 0 T«tal Arrival Noise Events 588�3� 13�79 - 789 0 16 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Ahatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report . � � i, �� , '� .' � .�, �,, . . • � . � . ';' ;) Departure Depaiture Departiu�e Depiacture RMT ,`: Events EVents Events Events_ _ ID : ,� City . , ; Address >65dB >80dB >94dB >104dB 1 Minnea olis i Xenses Ave. & 41st St. 1004 ( 143 3 0 2 Minnea olis i Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 1283 293 5. 0 3 Minnea olis West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. 2873 � 4b9 35 0 � 4 Minnea o�s ; Oal:land Ave. & 49th St. 3535 � 766 47 0 � 5 Minnea olis ! 12th Ave. & 58th St. 638� 2454 468 10 � , 6 Minnea olis I 25th Ave. & 57th St. 7903 3072 1142 101 7 Richfield � Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. 4064 � 1366 91 0 _ 8 Minnea olis L.on fellow Ave. & 43rd St. 2685 767 35 0 9 St. Paul � Saraco a St. & Hartford Ave. � 87 ; 18 4 1 10 - St. Paul � Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 99 ( 34 24 9 11 St. Paul � Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 67 � 19 8 0 12 Sc. Paul ; Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. 92 7 0 0 13 Mendota Heishts � Southeast end of Mohican Coun 3096 I 288 4 0 14 Ea an lst Sr. & Mcl:ee St. 4520 1071 81 0 I� Mendota Heishts � Cullon St. & I.exin ton Ave. 3671 ( 584 22 0 i 16 Ea an ' Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane 4445 ( 1537 344 0 j 17 Bloorrrineton i 84[h St. & 4th Ave. 281 78 32 1 � 18 Richfield � 75th S[. & 17th Ave 539 16� 74 8 � 19 Bioomin ton � 16th Ave. & 84th St. 3�2 97 11 0 ; ; 20 Richfield 7�th St. & 3rd Ave. 499 , � 24 3 0 � � .... .�. . . , . . .- . . ; 21 Inver Grove Heieh�s Barbara Ave.`& 67th•S�. 1472 j g5 p p 2? ( InverCaove Hei�hcs Anne Marie Trail 1�64 � 79 0 0' 23 Mendota Heights Fnd of Kenndon Ave. 4858 1760 597 0' � - - ---- - �: 24 Eaaan Cha el Ln. & Wren in. 3617 ', 471 6_ 0 25 F.aean . Moonshine Park 1321 Jurd Rd. 2147 i, 23 0 0 26 InvcrC�ro��e Heiahts 6796Ar1�nsas Ave. W. 1985 i 160 1 0 27 Minnea oGs Anthon Schooi 5757 Irvin Ave. S. 2676 535 14 0 � _ _ 2K Richfield 6645 16th A��enue S. 46�7 222 . 3 0 -- - -- - � 18� 7 0 29 Minnea olis Ericsson �1em Scbao1431> 31st Ave. S. 1671 ; f Tt�tal De rture Noise EFents 7�126 1G772 3057 13(? � 0 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 17 Date/Tur� 9/9/0014:58 9/18/0010:36 9/21/00 10:11 9/ 12J0011:04 9/2M0010:04 9/20/0010:08 9/9/001526 9/10/0010:20 9/20/0011:52 9/12I00 11:55 Date/Time 9/18/00 10:36 9/ 15/00 11:4b 9/27/0016:55 9/21/00 758 9/ 15/00 21:32 9/20/00 10:08 9/24/00 21:02 9/2M00 1134 9/27/00 19:51 9/24/00 95� Date/Time 9/21/00 16:23 9/21/00 10:10 9/ 19/00 13:26 9/10/00 10:19 9/ 13/00 18:47 9/ 18/00 10::36 9/20/00 10:07 9J 12I00 11:03 9/ 19/00 15:42 9/6/00 13:00 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Top 'Ten L.oudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP Sep-Ou (RMT Site#1) Xences Ave. & 41S` St, Mmneapolis Flight Nu�er Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway De arture AALi882 ' MD80 A 12R SCX715 B72 D 30L SCX715 B72 D 30L SCX715 B72 D 30L SC�715 B72Q D 30L SGX715 B72 D 30L Unknown Unlmown A . 12R SCX715 B72 D 30L NW A 1271 B72 D 30L rrw e i �� t R72n D 30L (RMT Site#2) Fremont Ave. & 43rd S�, Minneapolis Flight Nu�er Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway . De arture � SCX715 B72 D 30L NW A 1271 B72 D 30R DAL1624 B72 D 30R SCXSOI B72 D 30R NWA677 B72 D 30R SIX715 B72 D 30L NWA697 B72 D 30R NW A 1271 B72 D 30R DAL1683 B72 D 30R NWA671 B72Q _ _ D 30R (RMT Srte#3) West F�lmwood St & Belmont Ave., i Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU De ar[ure Unknown Unlmown A SCX715 B72 D SCX715 B72 .,,. D SCX715 B72 D SCX714 B72Q _D_ SCX715 B72Q , D SCX715 B72Q D SCX715 B72 D KLM664 B743 b iTAi.lh�5 B73n A Runway Lrrrax(dB) 922 92 909 90.3 88.9 88.6 88.4 872 iurax(dB) 912 91.1 90.1 90.1 89.6 892 892 89 . 89 . . .: -�'� �� •' • ��. ��. �� '•' 1 - �• � � . 94.7 I, i 18 A Product of the Metropalitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�ram Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC> Technicai Advisor's Report Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for 1VISP SejruO � (i2M'I' Site#4) Oakland Ave. & 49`h St, Niinneapolis Date/'I'ur�e Fiight Nuu�er Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway Lmax(dB) De arture 9/18/00 7:03 SGX229 B72 D 30L 95.6 9/ 13/QO 10:19 SCX715 B72 D 30R 943 9/23/00 21:22 NWA56 B742 D 30L 941 9/3/001:16 CCP645. B72 D 30L 94 9/15/00 20:01 DAL1683 B72 D 30R ' 93.7 9/15/0016:00 HIM664 B743 D 30L 93.4 9/7/00 20�3 DAL1683 B72Q D 30R 933 � 9/20/0015:59 DAL1624 B72Q D 30R 93 9/ 1?J0019:51 DAL1683 B72 D 30R 92.9 9/ 19/00 2136 SCX714 B72 D . 30L 92.8 (RMT S�e#5) 12`h Ave. & 58`� St, Minneapolis Date/Tirne Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway Lmax (dB) _., - De arture 9/21/0016:24 Unlmown Unlrnown D 30L 1023 9/1M001027 SCX715 B72 D 30L 102.2 ' 9/10/0010:19 SIX715 B72 D 30L 1Q2.1 l' - 917/0010:23 SIX715 B72 D 30L - 101.2 9/ 1M00 22:5� NW A 1273 � B72 D 30L 1012 9/21/0010:10 SCX715 B72 D 30L � 101 9/23/00 6:15 CCP101 B72 D 30L 101. 9/21/00 9:47 SCX79L B72Q D 30L 100.6 9/18/00955 5C�'791 B72Q D 30L 100.5 - 9/23/0010:12 SCX715 B72Q D 30L 100.1 (RMT Site#6) + 25`h Ave. & _57`h St, Minneapolis �_ Date/Tirr3e Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway Lmax(dB) De arture 9/ 13/00 10:18 SCX715 B72 D 30R 105.7 9/ 1&!00 21:20 NW A 1273 B72 D ` 30R . 104.1 I 9/3/00 11:36 `' NW A722 B72 D 30R 1039 9/15/0021:30 NWA677 -B72 D 30R 103.8 9/7/00 9:24 ' NW A 1763 B72 D 30R 103:7 ` � 9/ 18/00 20:0'7 NW A 1298 B72Q D 30R 103.6 9/1G/0019:02 NWA628 B72Q D 30R 103.6 , 9/11/0017:09 DAL1624 B72 , D 30R _ 103.3 9/29/0016:32 SCX741 B72 D 30R 103.1 ' � 9/ 18/00 17:45 - NW A735 B72 D 30R 1029 � A Prcxluct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 19 , Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Top Ten I�oudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP Sep-00 (RM'I' Sitee#7) Wentworth Ave. & 64`h St, Richfieki Date/Time 9/29/00 16:32 9/ 1 S/00 22:22 9/20/0018:26 9/2C�00 23:09 9/20/0016:30 9/27/00 16:46 9/ 1 Ca/00 20:27 9/23/00 7:22 9/29/00 18:37 9/25/00 17:31 DatelTur�e 9/3/00 15:06 9/2/00 15:20 9/2I00 15:37 9/29/00 13:54 9/ 18/00 23:43 9/18/00 23:21 9/15/00 15:28 9/2M00 1927 9/ 18/00 12:�3 9/ 13/00 52� (RMT Srte#8) LongfeIlow Ave. & 43rd Si., Mmnea�. Flight Nu�er Aircraft Type ArrivaU • De arture SCX741 B72 D ' KF-iA709 B72 D SCX714 B72Q _ D NW A735 NWA194 [��11a� • .0 �i�� . .: 1' '. 1' ' . �� • . �' � �� ' . 1• ' . �' '� i _: ` : (RMT Sae#9) Saratoga SL & Hartford Ave., St� Paul Flight Numbei Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax(dB) De arture NWA 19 B742 D 4 100.4 NWA19 B742 D 4. 969 NWA83 B742 D 4 95.2 NW A737 B72 A 22 92.7 UALb35 B72Q A 22 92 UAL1144 B72Q A 22 ' 915 NWA 19 B742 D 4 90.2 NWA44 DC10 D 4 89.9 AMT758 B72 A 22 89.6 FDX 1407 DC 10 A 22 89.6 � � ?p A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program j I Date/Ture 9/23/00 15:22 9/3/0015:05 9/2J00 15:36 9/23/0012:02 9/ 1M00 15:09 9n�oo r r:s2 9/13/00 15:16 9/15/00 15:27 9/2�/00 15:02 Metropalitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for IVISP se�oo (RMT S rte# 10) Itasca Ave. & Bowdoui St, St Paui Flight Nurr�er Aircraft Type ArrivaU De arture NW A 19A B742 D NWA19 B742 D NWA 19 B742 D NWA83 B742 D NWA23 B742 D Runway - Lmax(dB) 4 ' 103.1 4 102.Z 4 102.4 4 102 NWA19 B742 D 4 NWA23 B742 D 4 NWA19 B742 D 4 NWA 19 B742 D 4. NWA19 B742 D 4 - (RMT SiGe#11) Fmn St & Scheffer Ave., St Paul Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway Lmax(dB) De arture 9/8/00 12:04 NWA23 B742 �_ D 4 99S 9/2M0015:04 NWA19 B742 D 4 9�5 9/23/001536 NWA83 B742 D 4 96.6 9/ 1/00 12:03 NW A23 B742 D 4 95 9/ll/0015:10 NWA19 B742 D 4 94.6 9/1M00 1 L•52 < NWA23 B742 D 4 94S 9/27/00 15:02 NWA 19 B742 D 4 92 9/23/00 15:22 NW A 19A B742 D 4 90S 9/ t3/00 15:34 KLM664 B743 D 4 89.6 ' 9/23/0015:56 KIM664 B743 D 4 8$.3 (RMT S ite# 12) Alton St. & Rockwood Ave., St� Paul Date/Ture Flight Number Au�craft Type ArrivaU Runway Isnax(dB) De arture 9/ 1?J00 2:15 UPS555 B72 D 4 84.4 9/6/00 7:09 BMJ48 BE80 D 12R 823 9/ 16/00 7:19 BMJ48 BE80 D 12L . 81.5 9/E,/00 7:15 BMJ l 3 BE80 ' D 12L �99 9/28/00 6:41 BMJ54 BE80 D 12R 79.5 9/ 1700 t 7:29 USA641 , B733 A 12L 78.4. 9/3/00 15:05 NW A 19 B742 D. 4 78.3' 9/24100 15:24 KLM664 B743 D 4 78.3 9/ 12100 1:05 RYN7 I O B72 . D 4 77.4 9/2100 15:20 NW A 19 B742 D 4 77.1 �,. A Froduct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 21 Date/Time 9/ 11/0011:46 9/9/00 21:05 9/21/0019:18 9/17/00 20:57 9/6/001824 9/4/0015:26 9/21/0013:16 9/5/001522 9/22/0015:58 9/9/DO 7:19 �_� 9/1/0015:21 9/3/0016:17 9/11J0010:18 9/7/00 ��1 9/i/0012:02 9/ 1/00 6:18 9/11/00 656 9/9/0011:4A� 9/ 1G/00 1Q:37 Date/Time 9/27/00 20:57 9/27100 2121 9/28/00 20:09 9/6/0010:00 9/C,/00 7:43 9/6/00 11:37 9/30/0019:23 9/28/00 21:03 9/6/00 11:39 9/9/00 13:47 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Top Ten 1Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP Sep-0o (RMT Site#13) Southeast End Of Moh�an Court, Mendota Heights Flight Nurr�ber Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway De arture NWA1271 B72 D 12L NWA1273 B72 D 12L SC.'X'714 B72 D 12L NWA677 B72Q D 12L NWA 1875 B72 D 12L S(�'741 B72 D 12L NWA756 B72 D 12L SCX741 B72 D 12L DAL1624 B72 D 12L SCX712 B72Q D 12L (RMT Site#14) lst St� & Mckee St, Ea.g� Flight Nu�er AirCraft Type ArrivaU De artur SCX'715 B72 D NWA 19 B742 D SGX741 B72Q D SCX715 B72Q D RYN610 B72 D NWA627 B72 D NWA704 B72 D AMT527 B72 D NWA627N B72 D RYN738 B72Q D - (RMT Site#15 j Cullon SG & L.exa�gton Ave., Mendota Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU De arture NWA 1273 B72 D NWA677 B72 D DAL1683 B72 D NW A736 B72 D ATN824 DC�6Q D NWA722 B72Q D NWA9710 B72Q D NWA1273 B72 D Unla�own Unl�own D NWA1088 DC9Q D _ _ ____ Runway 12R 12R 12R 12R 12R 12L ' 12I, 12L 12R 12R Runway 12L 12L 12L' 12I. 12L 12L 12L 12L 12L 12L Imax (dB) 92.6 912 91.1 90.4 89.4 893 892 89.1 Imax (dB) 992 97.4 96 95.7 94.9 94.7 94.6 943 942 942 Lmax (dB) 94.1 93.9 93.6 92.8 92.4 91J 91.4 91.4 91.4 �� ) 22 A Prociuct of the Metropolitan Airports Connmission ANOMS Program Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technicai Advisor's Report Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP Se�OU \ (RMT Site#16) Avalon Ave. & V�as Lane, Eagan DatelTirne Flight Nu�er Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway Lmax(dB) De arture 9/1/0015:41 1VWA83 B742 D 12R 99.4 9/28/00 9:40 SCX790 B72 D 12R 99.1 9/29/00 9:47 SCX791 B72 D 12R 98J 9/1/00 9:20 SCX791 B72 D 12R 98.6 9/1/00 9:02 SCX407 B72Q D 12R 98.6 9/22/0014:59 NWA19 B742 D 12R 983 9/2/0011:45 NWA23 B742 D 12R 98.3 9/4/001153 NWA23 B742 D 12R 982 9/Eal00 9S 1 SIX791 B72 D 12R 98.1 9/1/0015:.17 SCX748 B72 D 12R 9$1 (RMT Sit�#l'7) 84th St & 4th Ave., Bbomington Date/Tirne Flight Number Aircraff Type ArrivaU Runway Lsnax(dB)� De arture 9/20/0015:16 NWA19 B742 D 22 1005 ' 9119J0013:51 NWA23 B742 D 22 979 ' 9/ 19/001528 NW A 19 B742 D 22 97.7 (: 9/28/0012:06 NWA23 B742 D 22 97S \ 9/S/0015:14 NWA19 B742 D 22 97.1 9/1Ca�001434 NWA23 B742 D ' 22 96.4 9/21/0015:04 NWA19 B742 D 22 96 9/ 18/00 16:01 _ NW A 19 _: BZ42 D _- 22 95.6 , ` 9/ 12/00 15:06 , NWA 19 B742 D 22 : 953 ' 9/17/001432 NWA23 B742 D 22 952 I (RMT Srte# 18) 75th St� & 17th Ave, Richhfieeld . Date/Time Flight Nuinber Aircraft Type ArrivaU . Runway Lmax(dB) De arture 9/28/0012:Q6 NWA23 B742 D 22 1029 . 9/8/0015:14 NWA19 B742 D 22 102.8 9/29/00.12:42 NWA23 B742 D 22' 101 ' . 9/1fa10014:34 NWA23 B742 , D '22 100.7 9/9/00 15:14 NW A 19 B742 D 22 100.6 � 9/2N0011:4t3 NWA23 B742 D 22 100.4 9/10/0012:10 NWA23 B742 �D 22 100.4 9/ 10/00 15:16 NW A 19 B742 D 22 :. 100.2 9/9/G012:06 NW A 23 B742 D= 22 100 ' 9/ 16/00 1521 NW A 19 B742 D 22 99.8 � � � . A Prociuc[ of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program �3 Date/Time 9/29/0014:35 9/12I00 2:39 9/17100 828 9/ 12/00 0:01 9/2M0010:38 9/19/00 0:41 9/29/00 14:18 9l20/00 5:21 9/12100 033 9/17/00 8:30 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Top 'i'en L.,oudest Aircraft Noise Events for NISP Se�rUO (RMT Site#19) 16th Ave. & 84th St, Bloomimgton Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrivall Runway I.max (dB) De arture AMT255 B72Q __D 22 94 NWA591 RYN738 LHN7101 NW A754 RYN610 (RMT S�,e#20) 75rh St & 3rd Ave.. Richfieki 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 Date/Time Flight Nu�er Aircraft Type Arrivall Runway Lmax(dB) De arture 9/18/001123 NWA722 B72 D 22 92 9/ 18J00 15:40 KI1�I664 B743 D 22 90.4 9/ 11/00 23:33 NW A 1057 DC9Q D 22 9�� 9/29/0016:32 NWA83 B742 D 22 90 9/ 18/0015:42 NW A 1080 D 22 88.3 9/ 13/00 15:47 RYN638 B72 A 30L 86.7 9/ 19/00 22:43 KHA 1772 B72 D� 30L 85.4 9/2(/00 23:28 FDX 1385 B72 D 30L 84.4 9/29/0014:12 NWA783 DC D 22 84 9/7/0012:08 NWA23 B742 D 22 839 Date/Time 9/8/00 10:23 9/3/00 2056 9/ 13/00 5:12 9/6/00 18:30 9/3/00 15:28 9/7/00 5:02 9/27/00 22:02 9/ 10/00 19:47 9/S/001852 9/11/00 9:49 (RMTS�.e#21) . Barbara Avc. & 67th St., Inver Grove Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU De arture SCX715 B72 D NWA677 B72 D RYN610 B72 D SCX714 B72 D NW A424 B72Q D RYN610 B72Q D KHA 1772 B72Q D NWA628 B72 D SCX714 B72 D AMT543 B72Q D Runway 12R 12L 12L' 12R 12L i2R 12L 12I.. 12L Lmax (dB) 86.1 85.2 84.2 83.8 83.4 83.4 83.4 83.4 I ) 24 A Product of the Metropalitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program Date/'Time 9/28/00 9:45 9/29/00 9:48 9/1/0015:42 9/9/0010:16 9/28/00 9:41 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MS1' Sep-00 (RMT S "rtee#22) Anne Marie Tra.�, Inver Grove � Flight Nu�er Aircraft Type � ArrivaU De artun SCX748 B72� D SIX407 B72 D SCX791 B72 D NWA83 B742 D SIX715 B72Q D 9/4/0015:03 NWA19 9/28/0011:41 NW A 1271 9/ 16/00 7:26 DAI.897 9/2/0011:46 NWA23 � � � � (RM'I' Srte#23) End of Kenndon Aven�, Mendota. Date/Tirne Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU De arture 9/4/0019:42 NWA568 B72 D 9/30/0011:45 NWA1271 B72Q D 9/6/00 21:00 NW A 1273 B72Q D 9/6/00 18:23 NW A 1875 B72Q D 9/9/0020:48 NWA677 B72 D 9/2210015:57 DAL1624 B72 D 9/ 15/00 22:16 NW A 1273 B72 b 9/6/00 11:44 NW A 1271 B72 D 9/2�/0021:21 NWA677 B72 D 9/8/001851 SCX714 B72Q D � Runway � �Imax (dB) 12R 85_7 12R 12R 12R 12R 12R 12R 12R 12R Runway 12L, 12L, 12L 12I, 12L. 12L 12L 12L 12L 12L 852 84.8 84J 84.4 84:3 842 84� 83.6 83.4 98.1 98 ' 979 � (RMT Sae#24) � Chapcl I.anc� & Wren Lane, Eagan Date/Time FiightNumber Aircraft Type '� ArrivaU Runway Lmax(dB) De arture , � 9/3%0016:18 SCX741 B72 D 12R 90.8 9/ 15/00 10:27 COA228 B735 A 30L 90.7 ` 9/30/00 9:43 SCX791 B72 D 12R ' 90.6 9/8/00955 NWA736 B72 D ' 12L 90.6 ' 9/4/0015:03 NWA19 B742 D 12R 90S ' 9/8/0010:06 AMT543 B72Q D 12R 903 ` 9/30/00 6:12 SCX749 B72Q D 12R 90.T 9/1/009:43 NWA101 B752 '-D ' 12R 89.9 9129/006:15 ' CCP101 B72 D 12R 893; 9/1/001�22 NWA19 B742 D 12R 892 �' A Prcxiuct of the Metropolitafl Airports Commission ANOMS Program 25 Date/Time 9/ 1/00 7:11 9/2l00 7:16 9/i/00 20:47 9/22/00 21:14 9/9/0015:16 9/3/0015:42 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC? Technical Advisor's Report Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP tiep-f)0 (RMT S�e#25) Moonshme Park, 1321 Jurdy Rd., Ea.gan Flight Nur�er Aircraft Type Arriva]/ ' Runway De arture Unlmown Unknown D 12R S(�Y792 B72 D 12R CCP101 B72 D 12R CQ'101 B72Q D 12R NWA677 B72Q D 12R AMT334 B72Q D 12R NWA 19 B742 D 22 Unimown Unlmown D 12R NWA732 B72 D 12R uvT.i�4� R72n D 12R (RMT Site#26) 6796 Arkansas Ave. W., Inver Grove Date/'Tiri�e Flight Number Air�raft Type ArrivaU De arture 9/13/005:11 RYN610 B72 D 9/11/0012:01 NWA23 B742 D 9/1/001122 NWA722 B72 D 9/28/0010:15 SCX715 B72Q D 9/27/00 23:03 St�'711 B72 D 9/8/0010:23 SCX715 B72 D 9/M00 9:11 SCX715 B72 D 9/2I00 6:20 SQ�'749 B72 D 9/22/0015:36 NWA83 B742 D 9/8/00 0:29 SCX711 B72Q D Date/Time 9/23/00 6:16 9/3/00 9:10 9/ 14/00 7:17 9/21/00 9:47 9/19/00 14:13 9/27/00 1737 9/15/00 16:05 9/15/00 19:09 9/18/00 956 (RMT Sitee#27) Anthony Middle School, 5757 Irvmg Ave. S:, Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU De arture CCP101 B72 D SCX715 B72 D CCP104 B72 D 5C�791 B72 D ' SGX748 B72Q D SCX537 B72Q D CCP685 B72Q D NW A 1272 B72 D ' SCX791 B72Q . D Isrrax (dB) 85 84.8 84.7 83.8 83.6 82.9 82.4 82.1 Runway � ' Ltrmx(dB) Runway 90 89.3 $8.7 87.8 87.7 87:7 = 87.6 875 87.4 Iarrax (d B) 93.3 93.3 93 925 91S 91.1 90.9 ,TI � ) 26 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Councii (MASAC> Technical Advisor's Report Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for NISP S ep-UO (RMT Site#28) E,645 16th Avenue S., Richfield . � (RMT Srte#29) Ericsson Elen�ntary Schoo], 4315 31st Ave. S., Minneapc Date/Time Flight Nu�er Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway 9/ 14/00 9:14 9/15/00 19:04 9i2aoo i3:i9 9/2M0018:49 9/14/00 7:16 9/25/00 9:07 9/2M00 13:30 9/29/00 18:32 9/20/00 16:51 UAL1478 SCX714 SCX'749 . UAL1478 NWA672 . •1. 1• �• . 1` �• �eTiT! I.max (dB) 923 91.8 91.4 909 90S 903 90.1 89.8 88.6 9L 15/00 19:16 SCX792 B72 D 30R 88.6 September 2000 Remote Monitorinq Tower Top Ten Summary The top ten noise ev�ents arid the e�nent ranges at each RMTfor September 2000 were comprised of 93.8% depadure operations. The predominant top ten aircraft type was the Boeing 727 Hushed with 64.1% of the highest Lmax ev�ents. Note: Unknown fields are due to data una�railability in FAA flight track data. - September 2000 Technical Advisor Report Notes Note: Missing FAA radar data for 0 �iays during the month of September2000. C ��. � A Prcxiuc[ of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program �� Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Analysis of A�rcrafi 101oise Events - t�ircraft I�dn d�.� September 2000 R.ermte Monitoring Towers Date -#1. #2 #3 #4 >,#5.: #6 #7 .:#8. .##9; :#10 .#11.., #12 #13 #14 #1� 1 62.1 62.8 68.1I63.6I72S 70.1 54.3 435 37 53.8 54J 41.6 59.9I702 62.8 2 59S 623 66.4 635 70.2 68.6 41.2 30 I572 61.8 45.8 39.1I56.7 66 �8.1 3 58.4 58.9 65.7I65.1 72.4 70S 61 55.9 58 602 44.1 40J 56.7 64.2 58.9 4 60.4 63.1 669 � 64.6 70.9 70.2 43.9 40.8 30.2 35S n/a 36.5 62.6 66.7 64.3 5 611 64 68.6 I 65.9 ( 71 J i l 4SJ 455 45.1 44.8 37.8 36.8 ( 63 � 68 663 6 62.9 62.8 69.3 65.1 � 72.8 70.7 44 526 I n/a 41S 43.1 42.8 � 63.1 692 66.8 7°- 58S 61.8 673 66.8 74.7 76.1 68.6 66.6 n/a 57.8 n/a 42.8 � 39.1 � 67.1 51 8 60a 61 68.6 62.6 71.8 68.6 53.7 522 392 555 57 34.1 � 61.8 � 67.6 64.3 9 . 60.6 60.8 67.2 63.8 70.8 69.4 37.1 49.6 49.9 543 36.4 38.5 61.1I 66 6�.6 10 60.1 61 6�.6 64.8 I 73.4 75.3 66.8 65.6 36.2 303 n/a n/a 59 � 662 59.1 11 59.8 62 6�.6 66.4 ( 71.8 76.8 66.3 67.5 48.6 55.8 512 37.4 SSJ I 67.6 562 12 57.7 60.7 63.2 64.3 70.7 73 65.5 64.8 6�.7 68.8 445 553 61.3 642 64 13 56.1 58.4 64.6 67.4 73.1 76.6 67.4 66.6 665 68.9 50.9 423 49.9 62.1 5�.1 14 57.4 605 63 � 643 74 75.8 69.8 66.9 47.2 61.1 51.9 37.8 39.5 66.1 47.9 15 57.7 61.1 63.9 65.8 ( 73.2 753 67.6 64.7 51.1 59.8 453 35.6 593 66.3 62.7 16 58.1 60.4 64.5 62.9I68.4 71.7 60.2 61 44.9 49.7 41 40.4 58.7 66.7 60.9 17 57.4 61.8 64 I63.7 69.7 70.9 59.7 56.5 30 44.2 n/a 38 60.8 66.2 632 ( 18 56.2 613 65.4) 65.6 735 77.1 64.8 66.7 66.4 66.3 44 44.8 4bJ 59.4 50.1 19 58.6 61.9 65.3 66S I 72•9 76 67.9 67.2 425 33 395 n/a 48.6 62 49.8 2p 6p.5 6pS 67.7 661 ( 74.7 7�.6 703 67.6 40.9 41.4 31.3 39.7 41.1 655 51.8 i 21 60.1 60.6 68.4 � 64.9 '; 7� 73.2 66.4 60.7 47 41.9 n/a 39.5 � 63.2 67.2 64.7 � �� 63.9 6�.2 70.2 i 6�.6 : 73.4 70.7 52.7 58.5 37.6 44.3 36 39.8 62.5 69.1 64.8 � 23 i7.S 58S 66.1 � 65.4 ! 73.6 75.3 67.7 6�.1 I 51.7 63.6 56.7 36 32.8 64 29.6 ; 24 60.� 61:8 653 � 66 ; 71.7 74.3 68J 66.2 52.2 59S 552 40.9 42.6 I 61 36.8 Z� �8 62.4 65.4 � 662 ! 73.2 7�.4 67.8 66.4 46.6 53.3 44.4 44.2 31.7 64.4 4�.3 ;. 26 i8.3 59.1 61.6 � 66 � 72.2 7�-1 67.1 67.7 525 42 44.1 46.5 37.2 61.8 52.7 , , i 27 58.8 59.8 6� I 64.4 ; 73S 74.1 67.8 65 52.4 60.7 54 45.9 60.2 665 62.7 j 28 59.8 61.7 66.2 ; 642 ; 705 70.? �32 46.8 49.6 47.8 37.4 52.5 62.5 I 699 66.3 ( 29 59.7 61.7 67.2 � 65.2 ? 72.7 73.7 63.7 6�.6 65.9 68 45.6 443 58 � 66.4 59.6 ?�0 �8.3 595 65.1 ' 62.4 � 69.1 6$.l n/a 43.1 332 42.1 37.6 413 59.1 I 68•4 62.8 ib1o. Ldn -�9.7 6.1.5 66.5 65.1 7?.6 73.8 65.3 63.9 58.0 61:0 49,3 �4.7 59:1 66.6 t51.9 ?g A Product of the Meuopolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report t�nalysis of Aircraft Noise Events - Aircraft I..dn dBA September 2000 �� Remote Monitoring Towers _ ; _; :: :.,. . . .. `'' � Date , . , #16 : #17. #18 � #19 #21} #21 #Z2 #23 #24 #25. .#26 #27 : #2� #29 1 73 33.6 36.9 35.4 n/a 57.9 58.6 � 73.4 64.7 61.8 59.4 39.9 57 n/a 2 70.3 54.4 53.7 369 n/a 54.7 57.4 � 685 63.3 56.9 59.5 44.9 56.9 33.1 3. 69.8 60 55.6 39S 44.6 56.9 58.4I69.6 613 573 56.4 59.8 58.6 47.6 4 70.1 57.4 53.7 33.3 353 59.3 593 735 64 58.6 59.9 333 59.7 n/a 5 695 3Z.4 40.6 40.9 n/a 559 5�.6I719 645 63.3 593 36.8 60.1 37 6 69J 34.9 38.8 n/a n/a 573 59.6 735 653 63 63.5 47.7 57.8 n/a 7 69J 55.1 57.8 54 485 533 59.3 58.8 64.4 533 56.7 64.6 63.1 63.1 � 8 703 55.4 59.1 473 455 59.6 59:7 71.6 64.$ 60.6 633 53 59 45.4 9 68.1 5�3 613 473 40.8 54.3 57.4 71.1I63.3 563 60.5 43.9 48.6 n/a 10 69 53S 59.5 469 43.3 55.3 55.5 67.9 � 613 543 55.6 64 61.8 60 11 68.4 58.6 64.1 55 58.9 S1S 58 66.3' 64.4 54.4 56.1 60.7 63.4 60.4 � 12 65.9 59.8 68.9 673 56.7 55.4 583 69.6 635 49.6 60.7 61.8 59.6 57J 13 66a 57.1 ' 63.7 54.8 48.4 54.7 57 � 64.3 ( 63.1 555 59.9 63J 63.7 59.4 14 68 43.3 50.3I48.8 51.7 433 59.9 60.1 635 433 51.9 65.9 64.3 63.8 � 15 69.8 59' 653 53.7 48.8 57.8 61.1I70.8 65.3 55.8 54.8 64.9 61.8 583 16 673 58.9 63.1 53.6 45.8 56.9 59.6 69S ( 633 53.1 60.4 ' S3.7 56.1 535 I 17 68.4 63.7 67.6 63.4 485 553 583 70.6 ( 63S 51.9 57.9 58 58.6 50.4 18 63.1 60.5 67.9 57 56.8 4b.8 �33I54S 58.8 53.4 51.7 64.4 58.4 57 19 67.6 60.4 6S 61.3 i6.9 40.3 �7.8 � 57.6 63.3 48.6 50.1 643 63.9 61.6 ; 20 70.1 63.8 60.3 61.6 54.4 45.7 60.3 ; 60 ( 64.6 50 54.5 64J 66.1 63.9 � 21 70.6 56.4 � 60 489 � 19 60. i 61 � 71.9 6�.1 57.4 60.9 64.3 65.4 53.9 22 .71.3 46.6 48.1 395. �.l 57J �9.7 ! 73.3 I 653 64 60.9 45.6 60.6 n/a � 23 69 47.4 I 49.9 j 45.3 '�8.y 41.8 59.3 i 579 � 63.9 43.6 49 64.8 63.4 58.6 24 67.6 64.7 67.8 63.6 �3.9 50.3 57.8 ; 56.4 60a 44.7 533 61.4 63J 63 25 68.4 �3.9 i8.8 � 53 i 47.8 443 55.9 ' S5.1 � 635 47.9 53.9 65.8 64 61.3 26 6t3:1 60.9 � 64.6 63.7 59S 44.8 563 � 58.7 ; 61.3 49J 503 ' 633 65.1 61.8 27 68.8 49.7 � 4i3 ( 48.3 51.9 58,9 59.8 ' 69.7 � 64S 53 63.5 63.3 63.6 5�.6 2.� 71.3 56.3 I 6 L 1 515 40.3 5y.3 63.4 I 73.4 � 67.3 64.1 61.8 34.5 533 n/a ' 29 69.6 57 66.4 59.3 53.6 54 58 ,� 68S � 64.9 585 58.6 63J 57.8 58.1 i 30 69.4 5�.1 61.1 49.8 43J 56.4 59.6 � 71.1 � 64.7 54 60 40.6 453 n/a ' h'It�. Ildn 69.3 58.2 62.7 5'7.7 12.1 55.8 a8.8 69.3 63.8 57.7 58.8 61.8 61.b 58.0 C A Praiuct of the Me[ropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 29 � ' � ��e: �� y� � J�� t�.'. r' �;�. i i � _ �� , . . . , _ `' - �., �� r �� :.■:. r. ,'�, '�' t�i ��. � 6, • iel' .�• ;� - � : . . . , < . � . . .. < s � '� `=:i ;1, ' i�'' �. �. . - ; :-� � . . � � C Metropolitan Airgorts Commission 15 (�.2%� Ru��vag� 12I� a�d l�l� C�.�r�er J�t I)�p�.rture ()per�tions �ere l�Torth oi t�e 09�i° Corri�or ��ndary I)�.ring September 2000 Page 2 Minneapolis—St. Paul == Peneiration Gate Plot for Gate Norih_Corridor - _ 09101/2000 OO:U0:00 —10/01/2000 OO:OO:OQ � �� 15 Tracks Crossed Gate: _Le�t =1 (6.7%), Right =14 (. � 6000 v a� v 50Q0 c 0 m 4000 > � W 3(�0� � 0 °- 2000 � > 1 U00 0 .� "Q 0 —� —�9. 0 1 2 (Runway End) Deviation Fror�t C�nier of Gate (Miles) (Corridor End) .. _, . _...._. _. ,. + Arrivai O �eparture ❑ Overfiight Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis �. � Metropolitan Airports Commission 333 (4.�%) l�un�vay 12I� and. �2� ICarr�er �et �epa�tu�� rat��ns �er� S�uth of �he Corridor {South of 30I., I�ocal�zer) Dur�ng Sep�em�er 2000 . : - _. _ , . - . il�inneapolis-St. Paul " � : Penetration Gate Plot for Gate South_Corridor � t�� 09/01/2000 00:00:00 -10/01/2000 00:00:00 � ` ; 333 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 214 (64.3%}, R�ght ='919 (35.7%) ,; ,. ^ 6000 . " � ' ��; � 5000 • .............. . ............... : ................ : ................ ``' � 4U00 ................ : ............... : ................ : ................ � • • ' W 3000 . . � . . . . .: .��. . - . . . . . O . . . . . .:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � Q ' o .�y ' ........ ................ Q 2Q00 ' ' � ' ' �C � 100Q ..... ...p.. .. .b�........ o : • .Q • : � 'Q 0 � -2 -9 p 1 2 (Corridor End) (RWY Mid-Point) Deviation �rom Center of Gate (iNiles) -t- Arrival Q Depar�ure ❑ Ovecflight � ) Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Deparlure Corridor Analysis Page 3 Metropolitan Airports Commission 6{Ool%) I2.unway 12I., and.12� Carrier Jet Depart�re Operations were 5° South of the Corrid.or (5° �outh of 30L Localizer� Lluring Septernber 2000 � Page 4 Minneapolis-St. Paul � Peneiraiion Ga#e Piot for Gate South_Corridor_5deg 09/01/2000 OQ:OO:OQ -10/01/20QQ 00:00:00 `;':::: 6 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 5(83.3%), Right =1 (16.7%) ^ suuu . . � , . a, . . v5000 ................ : ............... ............... : ................. c . • o : : ; a4t}00 ................ ............... . ............... ................. a�i . • • W3400 -. o .............. .................:.................. ........ .. .. 'C : : o Qp . °- 2000 ..... ..� .. . ............... : ..... ........ .......... .... et • Q . � 1 OOQ ................ : ............... : .........p...... • .................. o : • • .�t Q n -2 (Corridor End) _y 0 y Deviaiian From Center of �ate (Miles) �R� + Arrival O Departure � Overflight, Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Anaiysis 2 oint) � Metropolitan Airports Commission �'o� 15 �un�ay 12I� a�c1121� Y�epari�re I�estin�tions for Sep�ember 2000 . � , �o, � ORD Chicago - O'Hare IZq.o 270 3.9% STL St Louis 160° 181 2.6°l0 DFW Dallas - Ft. Worth - 143° 168 2.4% DEN Denver 2g�� 158 2.3% ATL Atlanta 149° 155 2:'��/o NIDW Chicago - Midway 124.� 153 2.2% DTW Detroit 105° 14b . 2.1% EWR Newark 106° 116 1.7% CVG Cincinnati 127� 107 1.5% SEA Seattle 278� 107 1.5% BOS Boston pq�� 105 1.5% IAH FIouston . �gs� . 101 1.4% LAS Las Vegas 24.3� 99 1.4% FAR Fargo 312° 98 1.4% CLE Cleveland 109° 97 1.4% � Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridox Analysis Page 5 C (: _ F M�tropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatem�nf Counci� (MAS�4C� bQ40 28th Avenue South • Minneapolls, Minnesota 55450 �(612) 72b-8141 Chairperson: Mayor Charles Mertensotto Past Chairs:. Robert P. Johnson, 1995-1999 Scott Bunin, 1990-1995 Walter Rockenstein, Ii, 1982-1990 Jan Del Calzo, 1979-1982 Stanley W. Olson, 1969-1979 Technical Advisor: Chad Leqve MEETING N�T10E MASAC OPERATIONS COMMITTEE The Operations Committee will meet THURSDAY November 9 2000 — 9:00 a.m. in the Large Construction Traiier of the Metropolitan Air.ports Commission, 6040 28 Avenue S., Minneapolis If you are unable to attend, please notify the committee secretary at 612-726-814� with the name of your designated alternate. ' � � � � . • � � � � � 1. Roll call 2. Approval of the October 13, 2000 Minutes � NEW BUSINESS 3. Preliminary Report of MSP Part 150 Update Public WorkshopslHearings 4. Review of the FAA Part 150 Update Document Approval Process 5. Discuss Draft 2001 MASAC Goals and Objectives 6. Other Items Not on the Agenda 7. Adjournment MEMBER DISTRIBUTION Chairman Charles Mertensotto Bob Johnson, MBAA Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan Ron Johnson, A�PA Brian Bates, Airborne Mary �oeffelholz, NWA . Dick Saunders, Minneapolis Pending, Bloomington Roy Fuhrmann, MAC Advisorv: Chad Leqve, MAC Ron Glaub, FAA Cindy Greene, FAA � Keith Thompson, FAA Jason Giesen, MAC Shane VanderVoort, MAC Glen Orcutt, FAA Mark Ryan, MAC Joe Harris, MAC 9:00 9:05 9:10 9:20 9:40 10:15 10:30 cc: Patrick Hollister, Mendota Heights Charles Curry, ALPA . Wiil Eginton, IGH Jennifer Sayre, NWA Pam Dmytrenko, Richfield Tom Laweli, Apple Valley Tom Hansen, Burnsville Jan DelCalzo, Minneapolis Glenn Strand, Minneapolis _,.,� _ � � �.. .' . - � :,.,: ._ __ -.._ (. � � � , � • � , , ' ' TO: I'120IV1: SUBJECT: DATE: MASAC Operations Committee Roy Fuhrmann, Manager, Aviation Noise ancl Satellite Programs Preliminary Report of MSP Part 150 Update Public Workshops/Hearings & Review of the FAA Part 150 Update Document Approval Process October 31, 2000 Preliminarv Repori of MSP Part I50 Update Public Workshops/Hearin�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 at the Thunderbird Hotel, 2201 78`� Street East, Bloomington, Minn. 55425-1229. A public workshop will be held each day from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. with the public hearing b�eginning at 7:00 p.m. Both written and verbal comments will be taken at the hearing. Written comments will also be accepted unti15:00 p.m. on November 15, 2000. At the November 9, 2000 MASAC Operations Committee meeting, staff feedback wi.11 be provided relative to the November 8, 2000 workshop/hearing. If you have any questions or comments regarding this topic please contact me at 612-725- 6326. Review of the FAA Part I50 Update Document Anproval Process Upon completion of thz Part 150 study update and public hearing, the document is submitted to the FAA for approval. After determining its adequacy, the FAA has 180 days to approve or disapprove the document. 'The FA.A can approve or disapprove individual mitigation 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 projectior� of the impact for 2005. The document contains all of the data and supporting information relative to updated Noise Exposure Maps (NEMS) and a Noise Compatibility Program outlining 17 noise mitigation measures and 10 land use measures. The updated MSP Noise Compatibility Program goes beyond typical NCPs. This program recommends noise mitigation for single-family and multi-family dwellings i j located in the 60 DNL contour. In addition, the updated NCP calls for the mitigation of low frequency noise as determ.ined 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, through detailed evaluation, that all of the provisions included in the Part 150 Update document meet all federal criteria for the development of NEMs 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 regazding this topic please contact.me-at 612-725- 6326. C � j � � , � • ♦ , , , � � 1 ., .. : TO: FROM: SiJI�ECT: DATE: MASAC Operations Committee Chad Leqve, MASAC Technical Advisor Focusing 2001 MASAC Goals & Objectives October 31, 2000 � At the October 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, irnplementation is essential to achieving the noi�e 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 Pa.rt 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 following five Part 150 NCP-related topics and associated efforts were approved by MASAC for inclusion as part of the 2001 MASAC Goals & Objectives. o Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC): 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 I�tADP off Runways 30L and 30R ♦ Airport Noise and Operations Monitaring System: Focus� efforts on maximi�ing system capabilities and ensuring new Remote Monitoring Tower (RMT) locations are properly selected relative to Runway 17/35 operations � Future Technology and Global Positioning System Initiatives:�Foster MASAC involveinent in the development of•GPS technology at MSP including briefings and updates on the Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) upgrade to the GPS ground station at MSP and the possible resultant capabilities ♦ Establish a public information program incorporating state-of-the-art technology and other mul�imedia resources: Continue to pursue enhancements to the MASAC News, Internet informatian dissemination programs and possible distzibution 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 agre�ment on the progra�nsulation standards for multi-family housang structures within the 6� DNL contour. Additionally, input was received from the Minneapolis Delegation for consideration as part of the 2001 MASAC Goals & Objectives. The attached Draft 2001 MASAC Goals & Objectives Calendar represents a culmination of the Council approved topics and associated efforts, taking into consideration other input received from MASAC members. A review of the Draft 2001 MASAC Goals & Objectives Calendar will be provided at the November 9, 2000 MASAC Operations Committee meeting. If you have any questions or comments regarding this topic please contact me at 612-725- 6328. COMMITTEE ACTION REQUESTED The MASAC Operations Committee review and finalize the attached Draft 2001 MASAC Goals & Objectives Calendar and forward it to MA.SAC for approval. � i' January 12 January 23 2001 MASAC Goals and Operations Committee MASAC February 9 Operations Committee February 27 March 9 March 27 _�.,— April 13 Apri124 May 11 May 22 June 8 MASAC Operations Committee MASAC Operations Committee MASAC Operations Comrnittee MASAC Operations Committee ves Calendar ♦ Investigate Enhanced Membership Involvement Strategy � 0 MSP DGPS Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) Progress Report 0 Briefing on the Status of the 2000 FAA Noise Abatement Policy 0 MASAC Chair Election s Review Enhanced Membership Involvement Strategy ♦ Review Draft Technical Advisor's Report ♦ Review of Mitigation Package in the 2005 60 DNL Contour e Provide Fina1 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 s Discussion of Insulation/Program Standards for Mulri-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 0 Evaluation of New RMT Locations Relative to the North/South Runway � Evaluate MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs Web site to Enhance Inforrnation and Dissemination ♦ Finalize New RMT Locations relative to the North/South Runway '♦ Review and Finalize Ne�v RMT Locations relative to the North/South Runway yi . _ '♦ Review of�"� Part 150 Update Document ' Review Status 'I ♦ Review of Environmental Analysis Needed for �i Part 150 Miti�ation Measure Implementation ♦ Review of FAA Part 150 Update Document Review Status dune 26 MASAC � Briefing on the FAA's Switch to ARTS 3E Radar Technology and the Resultant New ANOMS Flight Track Acquisition System ♦ R ort on GAO Stud oi 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 Fumre 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 Froviding Information on the Current and Future Operation of MSP and the Resultant Im acts September 25 MASAC 0. Review of Membership Composition per the MASAC By-Laws ♦� Global Positionin S stem (GPS) Briefin October 12 Operations Committee ♦ 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 0 Focus Activities for U comin Year 2002 November 27 MASAC 0 Finalize 2002 Goals and Ob'ectives December 14 Operations Committee 0 Organize Year 2002 Goals and Objectives Calendar - ;�' �' :, �; ;, �. � �� f, -�" ., l� ',� ' t�; ,, ��PP+ is sn�,yr 4 ? 'f' 7 F � � 3 Z m .t O � ' t N O N O � O �y, r .�. GO 4�'41RPORKS October 13, 2000 Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport 6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799 Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fax (612) 726-5296 Jim Danielson, Administrator_ City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve � Mendota Heights, MN 55120 RE: Environmental Review Process Metropolitan Airports Commission MAC Capital Improvement Program, 2001-2007 Dear Mr. Danielson: - In accordance with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes 1988, Chapter 664, the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) is required to conduct an Assessment of Environmental Effects for projects in the Comrnission's seven-year Capital Improvement Program (2001-2007) for airports included in its system. _ . A copy of the Assessment of Environmental Eff�cts relating to construction projects on Minne_�polis-St. Paul International is enclosed. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet , ) (EAV� has also been prepared relative to the proposal to construct a_parking structure to serve patrons of the new Humphrey Terminal (which replaces the existing HHH) and to replace the EconoLot�Employee parking spaces lost due to construction of the replacement terminaL Assessments .for St. Paul Downtown, Flying Cloud, Crystal, Anoka County-Blaine, Lake Elmo and Airlake Airports did not need to be prepared since the Capital Improvement Program and PIatS' has not changed from the previous year or the changes have only trivial environmental effects. Comments conceming the Capital Improvement Program can be given at a Public He�ring to be held on Monday, November �6, 2000 at 1�00 p.m. in Room 3040, Mezzanine Level, Lindbergh Terminal, Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, or in writing to the GIP file, Metropolitan Airports Commission, 6040 — 28th Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55450. Please note that the comment period ends on Wednesday, November 15, 2000. Sinc ely, / d� � Robert J. Vorpahl Program Development Engineer Irk enclosures ) G/airdev/shared/mryanl2001-2007cipmspltr The Metropolitan Airports Commission is an affirmative action employer. www.mspairport.com Reliever Airports: AIRLAKE • ANOKA COUNTI'/BLAINE • CRYSTAL • FLYiNG CLOUD • LAKE ELMO • SAINT PAUL DOWNTOWN A I�INNEAPI�LIS/S'�. PAUI.� INTERNAT�ONAL A.IRPOR'�" .�.SSESSMENT OF El�TVT�[20NNLENTAL EF�ECTS I�✓IETROPOLIT'�N �,.II21'ORTS CONdMISSION'S SEVEN YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT �'LAN � 2001-200'7 0 ( j METROPOLITAN A.IRPORTS COiYIlVIISSIOI�t I: �;��1-; ' ��. ��TOBER �OOO C C � ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS MinneapoHs/St. Paul Iniernational A.irport Metropolitan Airports Commission Seven Year Capital Improvement Plan . TABLE OF CONTENTS Section PaQe A. INTRODUCTI ON ................................................................................................................................1 B. PROJECTS WITH PO'I'ENTIAL ENVIi20NMENTAL EFFECTS ........................................... 2 C. IlVIPACTS bUI2I1�TG CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................................... '1 D. C�[JI�TiJLATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS .......................................................................... 7 APPENDIX A: ASSESSMENT OF INDNIDUAL PROJECTS' ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS � ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport Metropolitan Airports Commission Seven Year Capital Improvement Plan A. INTRODUCTION This report, prepared in response to the requirernents of Minnesota 3tatutes 1986, Chapter 473, as amended in 1988 and 1998, presents an assessment of the environmental effects (AOEE) of projects in the Metropolitan Airports Commission's Seven Year Capital Improvement Plan (2001-2007) for the Minrieapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP). Under Muu�esota law, the MAC is required to "examine the cumulative environmental effects at each airport of the projects at that airport (in the seven-year CIP), considered collectively." An assessment of each individual project at MSP with potential environmental effects is included in Appendix A of this document. This assessment examines the cumulative environmenial effects of all proposed capital improvement projects at the .Airport from 2001 to 2007. Many of the projects entail repair or rehabilitation of existing facilities. Such work would not affect the before/a$er usage of the facilities, and as such would not add to or subtract from the cumulative environmental effecis. . The anticipated measurable effects during construction are discussed in general terms under Para�aph C. The projects included in the cumulative evaluation are those that have the potential o� altering, creating, or in some manner affecting the environmental impact categories listed below. The selected impact categories were chosen because they historically contain the more critical impacts. The 1986 law, as amended, governing MAC affairs provides ground rules for deternuning which project(s) pro�ammed for the succeeding calendar period might require a semi-detailed environmental evaluation.These projects must also involve the construction of either 1) a new or expanded structure to handle passengers, cargo, vehicles or aircraft or 2) a new runway or taxiway or the extension of an existing runway or taxiway. Year 2001 projects at MSP must have a$5 million or greater price tag while Year 2001 projects at any of the reliever airports must have a�2 million or greater price tag. Those projects for which an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAVi� is required look at all impacts in somewhat greater detail. It was determined that one (1) Year 2001 CIP project for MSP requires preparation of an EAW (the EconoLotlEmployee Parking Structure). This EAW has been prepared concurrently with this AOEE report. IlVIPACT CATEGORIES USED TO ASSESS ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Aircraft Noise The types of projects which might impact noise or�-the environment are new or lengthened runways, new or lengthened taxiways, new maintenance hangars, additional aircraft gates or facilities that may increase operations, and noise insulation and other noise mitigation measures. C ; ) Air Ouaiitv Air quality impacts at the Airport will be primarily caused by changes in vehicular or aircraft activity. Projects which might have an impact wilt generally be the same projects which affect aircraft noise or vehicular traffic. Water Quaiitv Projects which affect water quality are those which create additional runoff (ne��v pavements or buildings), fire suppression systems, new retention basins, or projects which miQht affect the groundwater. LiQht Emissions Projects evaluated under this category are airport beacons, lights associated «ith new rumvays or taxiways and lights associated with new roadways, parking lots, or ramps. Setivaae Those projects which have the potential to increase sewage discharged into the sanitary sewer system are new or expanded buildings or other changes that significaritly alter the number of people using a facility. Wetland Impacts A11 projects are evaluated to see if they would entail complete.ar partial filling of ��etlands. Residential Relocafion Impacts Residential relocation impacts are associated with land acquisition projects that will displace occupied residential units. B. PROJECTS VVIT� POTENTIAL EN'YIlZUNMENTAL E�CTS Table 1 lists all projects included in the MAC's seven year.Capital Improvement Plan for the years 2001 through 2007. Those projects deterniined not to coniribute to the cumulative environmental effects (i.e., pavement and /or terminal building reconstructionlrehabilitation projects, replacement of existing items) at the-Airport are so noted. The notations are coded by number in order to explain in more detail the type of work the project entails and why this type of project will not contribute to the curnulative environmental effects. It should be noted that the arrangement of the projects in Table 1 has.changed si�ificantly from previous years. Projects in this year's CIP have been grouped in a series of "stand-alone" pro�ams to be consistent with the programs of projects included in the lease agreements between MAC and the airlines. 2 � .v a U I.n U CD Ny ! G � N .y d � V C v O � T J C C U •y � � �L 0 � �N •� � •U � y O � . � � QrTj � U 7 Y � \ y ° J � � U � m � t� (n � � y i� (� �N-. p O � a y. � � v G � in � r3 �a,o v v�'+i a�'"i °� � C _C E �. � �� N .��.9� � � . � � ��o� ..,� C�� o � 3 � � o a V � �L •� V � H %�--� � .O "'?s� 0 •U N ��., 4 � t. i v � c�1 . m O � O Cp C Q N p� C p .;w C 4$ `R3 U .O y O � y y • t,.,� � � + O •� � �❑ �. C c1 a�i �y ^o � � � ' r. � � a; c, � � "� � a� � .° .� �C) O 7 U � � � N . a? � ,a 2 � � O •� � � •V � y C M .�. .L �-' O d � F`,.� O V 4 � •h C G y �" ^ �- q� O � U N h '—�" O O � v� � V • y H •^ � � e % N " '� � '.7 N � � `^ � � �h .� d N � .�- E"' � '� � � � < ,« x �. � � U . � c.. O z 0 0 h 0 v .5 w` v �.� 0 N a � v�i � u w a��i �, �:=' .� � a°i :c 'a. > �-,:o c0 O � .�f U Ra L-'+ ::.�. � c�. an � [ ,� O � [. �' � O V � � � U C� O � -.��-/� � •^ � 1—, u � x a �' ? � ,y m w "� q p � 'e �o � �_ � � o p � ern aQ � � q p H h � '3 � i7 r ��.. "w� � � Qc� _ .: o � � u � � u� ar �i r Q E � H C � � •w •� � c�� ,�,p � C •� � � � � � C y�. [G U � .a .a � O� iF M � v.�,.iG vG ' a � � �V G h ti 4 � CO d y � C.� Ln O 0 N .y Oy C! 4 N U O � •T � � w o` .�. � o '� a • � � o � 'c -o ''` Ca a � Y 'o � °4' c, � � � U N � � N � O ai W � � � m J� �� m i °�' � � c _ � � y .y M iG -�p v d �❑ C '� � ^ d _"�� a� . „ o � � y � � ••�-� U � O � �.n .''7 � t� .� � 4 0 ,� m � a. � 4. � � o � a a~�i � a"i [ = o �'O � m � � m o o •c o o ti � v � � .0 y .o � o C � '_, r,! 4,r �"7` � '3 O .� � b .. O � N .+ � U .�+ 6 " � � = h m� �: am � n.Nj � N Ci .� � yvl � � ,� � � 'C y _C � 'C N o] �+ ❑� � �� o o � m U d 7 U � .G � O U 4 � `y � � y � ti Gi o r �% y � � o O �., � � � � � C� ��.. �' 4: � � ..�+ � �� y .ti.� �: vi � N ^ � � �-". f� -M1~i '4: � ''�' ,� � i4 iF er C% V � � v O z 0 O � O 't7 .5 0. a N a a fC m �I 0 N � � � d �, � � � Z '� � a� z� O � F� .d U � H az° t-i Q H '� � �. d �a i`/1 O 1� � i�l � z� � � � cy L', �+ A c> � c> > � 4 G H -� .� m U �a c N � O O O O O O O O O yy O O O O O O O O O o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0"0 0 0 0 0 o ao 000��+a � � � ss s5 � .cA sNs vi � � � p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p �, ooc�o"0000000 C O O O O O O O�I'1 V'1 O p Q �� 6�9 69 69 � b9 � 64 � �"� v3 5r3 +� �i � N � � � c3 N C��r � O p U o. �, `� � � � rn ::•"•: � � �.� .ti � � 1"� •^':Q �O . O .�„� � �'r,:.�:. t--, � N � � Q 0 0 v � r � q O F � O 4 .. � . a � � � � a C 0 w .� � b ' `� � o � � � e "w ?? '� ° -zH h� � <y M � Q � ❑ c � p r. : G� C � a�i � x � d g �NH �ti y"'„ U .. v -�� m ^� �. =.o� c.o •i�.�' � C C � � F.. � 'a' 'a � a � � * v v � � � < O z- y = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0"0 0 0"0 0 0 o O O o 0 0 0�� 7� O O o0 �� 0 69 � tA b9 69 69 � � O U tl w � � o � a o r c a' C� q . � � p � � [ � C O L O � Q. v� G [.� f,r�j � y o v�,o��•°•° �v �'�a __- aw � o :� � °~' o.t0"- '� '-�r�o � � o G o ma�� ;, c. U c ;: � �a, � � � o a ° �� a� .= v� � y C ed O � � �o � ... �.. L� .� 4 td d •� .O •� � "O .C.' � a�i c��i � x H y"~' y..� %? a m ° Cq H � � U t=1 t--�1 � ,� � �c, ti� °��° �ao e c c c c e H;a 5' r� c x� G�� C ami c ;u�awE�E�HHE�Fra r�+ � `-. -i-.- r. r _, v � '"' Q v v.�i �i u v � v O H A a � a 0 0 0 H3 0 0 O O � C � F m N o m ' O � d � . � n' � 'wp� rl C ❑ C .�G a '� � � F O ,� y N F F 3 � � c � � � .�a °"' � � � ��°, o a��g�, � m c`� o � o V W W � � 'o a N cn � � a � � � � V • � o � .�. >, .� c. � U 4 N W y c� a. 0 � .y � /'1 4 C v O � c� � �F � •y U � � o � .y � 0 •� �i �� y o „ . -o � Q � U � v � � G � ti � W � N � W � o O a l� � � �- m v � � �: �; 5 � �� m � ± � L'i . G m N ,,� O � �. N C y •Q »� m m�+ ' �-�+ ctt ..�i C C >+ � C 3 �"_ � c�3 ^p G ��`'"" ° O y i.. .� W 4� .� .�T+ 0 p m � t�. "� � ; o m �F, C � [ � � � Ny O � � O .> U ,O � O � �T7 td "�•O ..V. �b E � � � � v � � Er� -- � n, � o N �y � C�" •V � F] O �. ti ¢�� c�� y L � � d y �V O o • G � •� � 7 y i U .V. C, O U w V � � 0. m 4. N .. �>�k� "' y � y ,o o � � � :� � � � y 3 � � � � �� `� ^ •°� w °� O �-+ K r'E-�w`C'�C ¢' � � • r ,.^„ N cn � * vvv � z 0 0 � 0 � � 0 m 0 a. � Q �z 4� �� O H� �U � W E�-+ Op� p � a 'Q' � H�4 H �a � O F� � � � H � -/-1 �` .� � � 4 W GO � N � � � m N .y N d � C � O �� • o .�. � y � O •G � •� � � � „ . � � Q n � � � �O = � G f V � c" . � � � � � c o " �' '� E « � ��G� � � '�n � y U d � •0 � G _ E m. ��.. N .y .CO X � � m d C � �` �� A 0 w � C C � t+ p � 3 � � 6 a � o � � ,o � t"' 'O .L'� � V w C a ;� w m ^ — a� o � �o v ,C m G � � � '� '� m 'i7 � C � p O •� p O y � 'O � � .� y .O � O � �.N.. .5:: � N M U 4.. �,� 3 �. C � d a�i � .'O v � � � � y C' U .0 H � [,' U H � O � O �? V y 9 H•�' y 61 Q; � C V 'O N y .� G � o Q �q y U C d O •� � iN, ,� 7 O .V.. � O U 1�r O �.f'"j C Cr � y N r� ..� ? L. O � U n� � � .O O E oi " y 3��C `�' N N 'y7 ."7 • �°� N .� � �G � G ."', :-' F. d' 6 6� � < * * � v v E"' * � z 0 0 h 0 -v 0 .� a v w 0 Q m a C. Il�ZPACTS DURING CONSTRUCTION It is expected that typical mitigation measures will be used during construction to minimize potential adverse environmental effects caused by noise, dust, erosion, etc. Since the environmental impacts of construction will be temporary, they have not been included in the cumulative, long-term effects of projects in the CIl'. � It is recognized that the planned extension and reconstruction of Runway 4/22 and the planned rehabilitation of Runways 12R/30L and 12L/30R during the seven year program wi11 require rerouting of air traffic for temporary periods. The rerouting of aircraft traffic will cause temporary changes in overflight noise.levels. The greater noise levels from more flights concentrated on one or two of the three runways will be partially offset by reduced levels under the approaches of the runway(s) temp:orarily out-of-service for repair/rehabilitation. In addition, MAC, working with the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC), will utilize whatever noise control/reduction measures are feasible during the construction of these runways, including: 1) Scheduling the work during the closed window season (to the extent feasible). 2) Requiring longer work days and weeks by the contractors to expedite tl�e work 3) Balancing the effects of ni-ght construction noise with aircraft opera.ting noise. 4) Enforcing stringent penalties on contractors for delays in work D. CTTlYILTLATIVE ENVLRONMENTAL EFF'ECTS Following is a summary of the cumulative environmental effects of the projects in the MSP 2041-2007 CIP. Appendix A contains an assessment of environmental effects on a project by project basis. A number of projects included in the seven year CII' for 2001-2007 are ongoing projects from previous years or they have been analyzed previously for their environmental impacts. These projects are identified in Table 1 with iwo stars (**). Tlie impacts of these projects are discussed in their individual project description, as well as in other environmental documents (Environmental Assessments, Environmental Assessment Worksheets, or Envirorunental Impact Statements). The remaining projects listed.in the CIP are included in the MSP 2010 Long Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP). The 1989 Metropolitan Airports Planning Act required the MAC and the Metropolitan Council to complete a comprehensive and coordinated siudy of the region's long term aviation needs. The seven-year study, lrnown as the Dual Track Airport Planning Process, came to an end in 1996 when the legislature stopped further study of a new airport and directed the MAC to implement the MSP 2010 LTCP. The LTCP study included a nurriber of alternatives for development and expansion of MSP. The study was. conducted in accordarice with the Alternative Environrnental Review Process approved by the Minnesata Environmental Qualiiy Board (EQB) in March 1992. T'liis process included the preparation of .Alternative Environmental Documents (AEDs) for evaluating the alternatives under consideration. A draft AED was prepared and distributed for comment as part of the MSP LTCP study. This document addressed the cumulative environmental effects that would result from the proposed improvements. Upon receipt of comments, a final AED was prepared and again distributed for comment. The MAC, being the Responsible ) Governmental Unit (RGin, detern�ined the adequacy of the Final AED in early 1995. Several project descriptions in Appendix A refer to the Dual Track Airport Planning Process Final EIS. This document assessed the environmental impacts of the MSP 2010 LTCP and 2020 Concept Plan. The 2010 LTCP is the first-phase implementation of the 2020 Concept Plan; it includes the new north-south runway and related projects, and interim improvements to the Lindbergh and �II�I terminals and parking. The Final EIS was distributed and made av�ilable to affected agencies and the public for review and comment on its adequacy on May 7, 1998. The FAA determined in its September 23, 1998 Record of Decision that the Final EIS, together with supporting documents and responses to comments on its adequacy, meets the environmental review reporting requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for projects in the MSP 2010 LTCP. The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) found the Final EIS to be adequate in terms of compliance with the environmental review requirements of the state of Minnesota on October 26, 199$. Summarv Of Cumulative Environmental Effects 1 As disclosed in the May 1998 Dual Track Airport Planning Process Fina1 EIS, tlie MSP 2010 LTCP would have significant adverse effects on noise, historic propertiesldistricts, surface water qualiiy, wetlands and the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge. Through consultation with affected agencies, the MAC has comrriitted to implement measures that will appropriately mitigate these adverse effects. The potential � effect of low frequency noise is an unreso�i"ved issue that MAC and affected municipalities and agencies are currently studying: The seven year CIP for 2001-2007 includes a portion of the projects identified in the MSP 2010 LTCP. Therefore, the cumulative environmental effects of the projects in the CIl' are included in the assessment of envixonmenta.l effects presented in the Final EIS. m:/docs/17657/aoeeZ00A rev.doc J � ASSESSMENT OF INDIVIDUAL FROJECTS' El�tVI3E20NMENTAL EFFECTS IN'I'RODUCTION The following pages describe the anticipated environmental effects of each item in the MAC's overall seven year Capital Improvernent Plan (CIP) for the Mi.nneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP), if implemented. Table A.l summarizes these items by year and by element of the MSP CIP (projects, program, plan) while Figure A-1 depicts the location of each major project in the CIP. TABLE A.1 1Vff1VI��ArPOLIS/ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AII2PORT ENVIRONMENTAL IlVIPACT SUMMARY I. 2001 CAPITAL IlVIPROVEMENT PROJECTS I.A Runway 12R Deicing/Holding Pad I.B Runway 30R Deicing/Fiolding Pad I.0 Taxiway B Construction I.D Runway 17/35 Construction � _I.E Runway 17/35 Land Acquisition I.F North Side Storrn Sewer I.G Runway 4/22 Property Acquisition I.H Runway 4/22 Road Relocation I.I Residential Sound Iiisulation (Inside DNL 65) I.J School Noise Abatement Projects I.K Ventilation Testing/Remediation of Past I3omes I.L Airside Bituminous Construction I.M Stormwater Collection/Detention Ponds I.N Concourse C Apron Expansion—Phase 3 • I.O Concourse F Infill I.P Intemational Amvals Facility Expansion I.Q Lindbergh Ternzinal North Addition I.R EconoLotlEmployee Parking Structure I.S Cargo Projects Development Progra.m - I.T CAT lI/IIIa System Installations I.0 Ground Run-Up Enclosure I.V Humphrey Terminal Gates Addition I.W New Air Traffic Cor�trol Tower I.X RAC Service Site Relocation t TABLE A.1 MIIVNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIItPORT j ENVIl20NIV�NTAL IlVIPACT SUNIlYIARY (Continued) II. 2002 CAPITAL IlVIPROVEMENT PROGRAM II.A Residential Sound Insulation (Between 60 and 65 DNL) II.B Concourse E Infill II.0 Lindbergh Terminal Loading Dock Relocation II.D MAC Cargo Buildings — Air Freight Facility II.E MAC Cargo Buildings — Airline Belly Cargo Facility III. 2003 CAPTTAL INNIPROVEMENT PLAN III.A Runway 4/22 Extension N. 2004 .CAPITAL INIl'ROVEMENT PLAN N.A Taxiway C/D Complex V. 2005 CAPITAL IlVIPROVEMENT PLAN (No projects with impacts begin this year) "`�� VI. 2006 CAPITAL IlVIPROVEMENT PLAN (No projects with impacts begin this year) . VII.2007 CAPTTAL IlYIPROVEMENT PLAN (No proj ects with impacts begin this year) � i A-2 i C I. , FROJECTS BEGINNIl�IG TN 2001 The following projects are included in the MAC's Capital Improvement Plan (CII') for the Minneapolis-St. Paul Intemational Airport (MSP) in calendar year 2001 which have the potential to affect the environment: I.A Runway 12R Deicin�lHolding Pad I.B Runway 30R DeicinglHolding Pad I.0 Taxiway B Construction I.D Runway 17/35 Construction I.E Runway 17135�Land Acquisition I.F North Side Storm Sewer I.G Runway 4/22 Property Acquisition I.H Runway 4/22 Road Relocation I.I Residential Sound Insulation (Inside DNL 65) I.J School Noise Abatement Projects I.K Ventilation Testing/Remediation of Past Homes I.L , Airside Bituminous Construction I.M Stormwater Collection/Detention Ponds I.N Concourse C Apron Expansion—Phase 3 I.O Concourse F Infill I.P Intemational Arri�als Facility Expansion I.Q Lindbergh Ternzinal North Addition I.R EconoLot/Employee Parlang Structure I.S Cargo Projects Development Program � I.T CAT II/IIIa System Installations I.0 Ground Run Up Enclosure I.V Humphrey Ternzinal Gates Addition I.W New Air Traffic Control Tower � I.X RAC Service Site Relocation I.A RUNWAY 12R DEIeINGlHOLDING PAD The need exists for a lazge apron area near the end of each runway to provide space for aircraft waiting for departure and to also function as-a deicing pad with a glycol recovery and.containment system. Airlines experience delays at departure for a number of reasons with the result that other aircraft cleared for departure may be delayed. T'he holding apron would provide storage for delayed aircraft while allowing other aircraft to taxi by and depart without delay. This project will construct the airport's deicing/holding pad on Runway 12R to allow for the efficient deicing of aircraft and collection of glycol as well as for the holding of aircraft for operaiional reasons. This project will also include the construction of Taxiway B between the deicing pad and Exit Taxiway B 10. Although aircraft idling at this deicing/holding pad will emit noise and air emissions during delay periods;�delays at the airport are anticipated to be negligible with construction of Runway 17/35. Delay savings are anticipated to be approximately 21,000 hours per year by the Year 2010 (based upon the current ratio of growth in operaiions). �� _. ' A-4 Deicing aircraft is an environmental issue since the glycol that runs off can reduce oxygen levels in bodies of water with which it comes in contact. These aprons would incorporate a collection system to collect the glycol runoff. Water quality is the only category to be impacted by this project. There will be a positive effect in that the Airport's overall collection system will decrease the amount of contaminated runoff entering the Minnesota River. This project is included in the Final EIS for the MSP 201Q LTCP. The Final EIS addressed the cumulative effects of this project. I.B RUNWAY 30R DEICING/HOLDING PAD The need exists for a large apron area near the end of each runway to provide space for aircraft waiting for departure and also function as a deicing pad with a glycol recovery and containment system. Airlines experience delays at departure for.a number of reasons with the result that other aircraft cleared for departure may be delayed. The holding apron would provide storage for delayed aircraft while allowing other aircraft to taxi by and depart without delay. This project provides for the construction of the airport's 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 include the construction of an adjacent snow storage/melfing area, blast fences, screen walls adjacent to Highway S and the Inbound Roadway and a Ground Service Equipment (GSE) facilify. � � Deicing aircraft is an environmental issue since the glycol that runs off can reduce oxygen levels in � bodies of water with which it comes in conta.ct. These aprons would incorporate a collection system to capture the glycol runoff. Water quality is the only category to be impacted by this project. There will be a positive effect in that the Airports' overall collection systern will reduce the amount of contaminated runoff entering the Minnesota River. This project is included in the Final EIS for the IvISP 2010 LTCP. The Final EIS addressed the cumulative effects of this project. . I.0 TAXIWAY B CONSTRUCTION This project will provide for the construction of Taxiway B from Runway 4/22 to Taxiway M. It also includes the removal of Taxiway T between Runway 4/22 and Taxiway M and the construction of taxiway fillets east of Runway 4/22. Water quality is the only impact category affected by this project because the riew i�npervious surfaces will result in a slight increase in runoff to fihe Mother Lake wetlands area. Although the increase in runoff from this project will not be significant, it is included in the Final EIS for the MSP 2010 LTCP. t �� A-5 � C�� • . •siaumo �Cjsadoid pa�osdcut au� u�inn suot�Ec�o�au uo pasEq pautuua�ap aq tttn� scua�z asa� io� s�so� �(z� auoZ uot��a�oid S£/Li ��Mun� ac� io,� apinoid o� pasmbaz �uacuusinbut�xa aszal ss IIan1 sE pusj a.zocUzE ��o�o uoyismb�E aq��o uo�Enut�uoo s aq I�tm aiay� `IOOZ �T�?�Q 'OL6T .�o ��y satoilod uoc�tsznb�� C.j�zadozd IEa� puE a�uE�sissy uot}E�olag uuo�zun au� �o suotsinoid au� q}u� a�uspio��E ut auop aq Ijirn s�cnpaa�osd uoT��oolai pu� uoT�ismb�E ac�, •suoi�ismb�� asa�� q pa��a��E aq Ijinn sa2�Co�duza stau� puz sassautsnq au� `sanannoH •suot�.E�o1a.� tEt�uaptsai�o suua� ui ��duzt ou st aiaq� os `Z� ac�} uiu�im ais sa�uapcsai oN •��aCoid stu� �o }tnsas $ s� pa��olai aq Iltnn �soa �� E puE sa��o `sassauzsnq jEianas •pua SE �C$nnrmg ac�} so� (Z� auoZ uo��a�o.zd �Csnnung pau�ap-yy,� aq� io� apt�oid o� pa�smaut�xa aq IjiM sasEat puE paitnbo� aq jjtnn puEZ '��aCoid S£/Li ��ung aq} 30� pLiB[ �.IOCIIIE ��O 2IIriI»E o� 866t ut uotsstu�cuo� s�.rocl.rzy uE�tlodoz�ay� a� �Cq un�aq s�.ro��a �o uot��nu��uo� E st ��aCoid st�, I�IOLLISIfla��`o' Ql�t�d'I S£lLi �.�A�I�Itl?I �'I •pac�stlduzo�� uaaq s�u uot�E�t�icu pa�tunuo� au� 1T�un TEuot�Eiado acuo�aq }ou jltnn c£/L I�Ennun� •pazEda.�d uaaq an�u s�.�Eduii is�uacuuoz�nua assanpE �us��tu�is paz�i�uapi io� suEld uo�ED�ty� 'S£ILI fEnlun� �o s�.oedurt uol�.�n�.suo� pu� ant�Einum� a� passaspp� d�,L'I OIOZ dSI�t a� i�.� SI3 I�uc3 ac.�,I, Iauuny io}�auuo� £-�I ' L I �, asEc�d—lannas uuo�S ��T.L '9I � asEud — saM.as uuo�S xun.i,L "S t Z aseqd — san�as uuo�S ��,L '�I � tauuns, �-� �Enc.ix�,L ' £ I y� �EnntxEy •Zi � uot}Ei�daid a}iS S£/L I�Eh�un� • I j �urnEdJuor�s.zedaid a�ts uou�as.�a�uj S�/LI �E��2i 'OI � uoi��nrr�suo� �esaua� sa�p '6 sa��tlt�B3 jo��ClrJ ��L�I '8 $utclEospueZ anuan� ndojte�auoZ �� uot�Eisda.� a�.?S PIa?�uI '9 pEog a�r.nsaS PIa�uI 'S sat�itt�E3 �urlan3 PIa�uI '�b uot�.�touzaQ sautpting 'E ia�ua� Io�uo� �ui�uni7 plat.�ny •Z Z assc�d — aausq�ia�.uI �aa.z�S y,99 ' I :putnnotlo� a�� apnl�uz I00� Io,� pasodoid s��aCoid 'dSL1I }E S£/LI ��M�2I doianap o� uiE�osd iEa�C-S IlEzano au� �o uo�Enu�uoo E si ��aCosd st�, •EaiE pja�ui ar�� ut uoi�Ejje�sut f�iit�n puE uoc�es�daid a�ts `Ea.� urno,Z pio3 n�aN ac�� ut uot��n�suo� �t�r�n puE �uzp�.� papnj�ut u�tunn 666I ut u��aq xio� �pouad z8a�-s E iano pasEud �uraq si S£lLI �EM�2I,�o uot�onr�suo� ar�, '�sod.z� au� �o apts �sann aq� uo �CEmuru �00�-000`8 rnau E st d�,I,Z 0I OZ dST�I au� �o s�uacuaitnbas �Cjtlt�E� �ax au� �o aup ' ) • 1�IOI,L�f12I.LSt�IO� S£/LI 1i�M.�Tfl2i Q'I L-�1 a�y •�C�uo sauzoc� �ooidpunos o� uiE.z�osd iza�-t}Inuz siu� sapnj�uo� iEa�C szu} ;�afoid sic�,L •�3 a�� C� `�.IECI ISI `p2AOSCICIB LI22C1 SELj Lt�tL�M �S�.IOdlIE 30� �IIftIIiEjCI �{}IjiC�T�ECILIIO� PuE IOSjLiO� 2SLOLi� LtIE.InO.ICI OSI �.IE�j ��j�T� UOT�EItLo2Zj CIOI�EiA� �E32p2,3 2t.j� �O �IEC� SE p2L�i�LI2pT S��2COSC� 32A0� O� p2pTI2�Lii SI Ui2�t Sit� (r%�TQ S9 �QISI� I�IOI.L�'�Itl.Si�L[ QIJCIOS T�'I.LI��S�I I'I 'd�,L'I OIOZ dSY�I au� s�.� SI� IETn3 au� � papnl�ui si �i `�u��tu�ts aq �ou Ilv,n ��aCoid sn� uio.� ��ouru ui asBai�ut a� q�noq�iy •sa.� aasut�.iQ u�oN iaa� E�osaucny� aq� o� �ouru ut asEaiaut ��cls s ut �Insai Itrnn �i asnEoaq ��aCoid s� �q pa}�a��E �C.To�a�E� ��edcut �Iuo a� si �TIEna sa�Em �.lt�Ena .za}�� .;, 'ZZ'�b ��h'un� �tm pa��t�ossE (�,�p) saiE aa.� ��aCqp pu� (ys� Ea.zy Fja��s ��nnung aq� �a uotsuEdxa aq� azruzixeur o� .�EnnpEol (rJ�y� — a�so�iiy S[1) asEqza�.ul a� �o uor�E�ojai au� :�o� saprnosd ��aCoid sir�,I, •Zz �Emun21 so� �a� jE�t�u� �azclE�o7 ar�� puE `(�,�p) �a.ry aai3 ��aCqp ac.� `(�S� Easy �1a,�Eg �CEmun� au� u�no.�� sassoio �j�ua.un� pEos a��uas y I�IOI,L'��O'I�[ Q�02I ZZ/�b �V h1Nl12I H'i � � .d�.L'I OI OZ dST�I a� zO.� SI3 IE� a� ut papniout osj� aiann ��aCoid s�� o s��edur� aauejnum� aq,I, •�u��t�tu�is �ou are (uotsua�xa a�. c�rm auipaa�oid o� ioud pa.nnba.� st u�iqm ��aCosd uot�istnb�E pu�I s� �r.npnt�ut) ��aCoid jlE.rano aq� �ur�uauzatduzt �o s}�Eduzi ant�zjnum� a� �� a�z�zpui �uaum�op si��o s�utper�3 •sp.�hua�E ��.roqs �,� a� �Cq panssi s�n� ISN03 �d '666I =aqcua�das ur pa�nqv�sTp sEm yg �Eu?3 au� pu� L66I =aquzanoN ui pa�nqr�sip puE passdaid s�nn yg }�esQ y��aa� 000`ZI �Ia�Eu.�rxozddE �o c�ual �srnun.i E�uurnbai spEol�Ed IIn� �irn sau�uno� uzrg ��toEd o� a�in.ras do�s-uou n1o11� o� st uoisua�xa ac�� o asodmd a�, •�aa� 000`ZI �o r��uai ��o� E o� �sEa�ou a� o� �aa� 000`I ZZ/t� �EM�2I P��xa o� ��aCoid pasodozd Ilesano a� �o �d st �aaCoid s�, I�IOIZIS711a�'t� �I.L2i�d02id ZZ/i� A�Ac1.N.(12i �'I •pa�npas aq jllnn s�CErn.ia�Enn s�uo��as a�� nutq�Eas �uan�a ZT��u �IIEz�ua�od �o }unocz� aq� a�u�s ��afoid siu� �ut�uauzaldui� �o �Insai E sE pa�Eai� aq jlim ��edLut anutsod � •��aCosd stq� �q pa��a�s �o�a}E� ��Edcui jB�uaLuuostnua �Iuo ar.� si �tlEnb .�a}�m •axE7 ��IIauS o} S�E�uazH �o.r� �uauu`ias aq}�o uo��rWsuo� au� io� apTnosd Iju,n ��aCoid st�, •axaZ �ut11aus o� �Z�{, �Ernung pus �0£/ZZI ��M�2I3o uo��oasia�ut aq� tuoz� pa��n�suo� aq Iltnn iannas uuo�s n�a� au,1, •uza�s�s a�eutEsp ia��en1 uuo�s mau e�o uoi��n.x�suo� au�. a.nnbai jttnn (yy3 au� �q pansst s�n� ISN03 E pue pas�dasd senl yg a�EZEdas E �j��nn io�) �s�au�ou a� o� �aa� 000`I �Q ZZ/�b �EMun� �o uotsua�xa ac�,I, 2I�l�S T�I2iO.LS ��S H.L2IO t�I 3'I •�aaCoid s1u� �o s}�a��a ant��inum� i 1 au} passaxppE SI� IE�?3 aLI.L 'd�.L'I OIOZ dSI�I au� 3O3 SI� IEUT3 au} ut papnloui st ��aCoid szr.�,I, �� < r� t extent of the work will depend on the amount of federal aid available for each type of project. Land acquisition would include selected residences around the Airport. Only those homes within the certified 1996 65 DNL noise contour will be sound-insulated as part of this continuing project initiated in 1992 in the cities of Minneapolis and Richfield. This project will also include the removal of asbestos containing materials. There is also a need to go back and make mechanical modifications to homes previously completed under the progr,�m. The modifications would be included with this project. ❖ Aircraft Noise This project will result in a positive impact concerning airport high frequency noise due to the si�nificantly lower sound levels which will be achieved within the homes receiving sound insulation. Low frequency noise and its effects on nearby residences are unresolved issues. Last year MAC initiated a study to deternline the effects of low frequency noise and vibration from aircraft operafions at MSP. This study was recently completed and has been formally submitted to the FAA's Minneapolis Airports District Office. T`he document is titled "Minneapolis-St. Paul International A.irport Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee Report" and is dated August 10, 2000. No response has been received from the FA.A as of the date of this writing. If supported by the study and approved by all parties involved, MAC will prepare and implement a low frequency noise mitigation prob am for fihe affected co�ununities. I.J SCHOOL NOISE ABATEMENT PROJECTS � ` MAC has included noise abatement projects within the CIl' with the goal of achieving an aggregate interior noise reduction of 15-20 decibels (dBA} in the instruction areas of schools, compared to noise levels prior to the project improvements. Over the past several years, tliirteen (13) schools have been soundproofed by the MAC with financial assistance from the FA.A and MnlDOT - Office of Aeronautics. The MAC is proposing to continue this program in 2001. The leb slation which ended the Dual Track Airport Planning Process contained requirements that the MAC insulate an additional six schools between the officially delineated 1996 FAR. Part 150 DNL 60 and 65 noise contours. Visitation School will be soundproofed as part of this project in 2001. Schools on the fringe or just outside the DNL 60 contour are currently ineligible for abatement initiatives. ❖ A.ircraft Noise This proj ect will provide positive impacts conceming airport noise. Achieving an aggregate interior noise reduction of 15-20 decibels (dBA) in the instruction areas of schools compared to noise levels prior to improvements is possible and has been shown to be an effective abaiement strategy. Reductions of this ma�itude wil] provide higher quality learning environments in which to teach children. � � A-8 I.K VENTILATION TESTING/REMEDIATION OF PAST HOMES There is a need to make mechanical modifications to homes soundproofed previously under the residential sound proofing program (see Paragraph I.n. These modifications are a continued effort on the part of the MAC to improve the quality of the indoor air of those homes that were insulated or soundproofed between June 1992 and April 1997. Air quality is the only environmental category that would be affected by this project (indoor air quality in particular). There will be a marked improvement in the quality of the air residents breathe after the required modifications are made. T.L AIlZSIDE BITUIVQNOUS CONSTRUCTION This is an ongoing project to construct or reconstruct bituminous pavements within the Air Operations Area. This year's work will iiiclude the inspection of existing bituminous overlays on Runway 12L/30R. This inspection project will result in a determination of whether or not this runway will require a major repair project in the near future. This project should not result in any increase to stormwater runoff volumes, sediments, nutrients and organics. I.M STORM WATER COLLECTION/DETENTION PONDS The Commission's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit contains restrictions on tl�e contaminants allowed to enter the Minnesota River in storm water runoff from the Airport. The Airport's system of stormwater detention ponds aids in cont�ning and removing such contarninants as solids, grease, and oil. Modifications, additions, and refinements to these systems are periodically required to produce continued improvement in water quality discharge. A new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is expected to require additional storm water storage in order to control discharge of settleable solids to the Minnesota River. This project will provide for fihe construction of a new larger earthen dam and concrete spillway in the ravine near the Highway S embanlanent to provide required storm water storage area for the Minnesota River South drainage basin. Surface water discharge off of the airport is regulated by the MPCA through NPDES pemutting authoriiy and procedures. Storm water control measures will be developed or enhanced consistent with NPDES, permit requirements. The proposed collection/detention pond locations are not anticipated to have adverse impacts on Fort Snelling State Park downstream. ❖ �'Vater Quality This project will cr�ate a positive impact on the water quality of the Minnesota River by reducing the amount of harmful effluent discharged into the Minnesota River. I.N CONCOURSE C APRON EXPANSION — PHASE 3 In order to meet the anticipated future needs of the airlines, a phased easterly expansion of the Green Concourse was initiated in 1999. The. first phase of this project adderl gates to the Green Concourse and extended the existing fueling hydrant system. The second phase of this project provided for an eastward �� . . - A-9 expansion consisting of eight (8} new gates and a new Regional Terminal Facility with 29 aircraft parking positions. This year's project comprises the third and finaI phase of the apron construction associated with the expansion of the Green Concourse (now Concourse C). This projeci will include the construction of the pavement in the area of the existing Post Office once the new Airport Mail Center is in operation. The project also includes installation of an underground fuel hydrant system. The only impact category affected by this project is water quality. This project is included in the Final EIS for the MSP 2010 LTCP. The cumulative effect on water quality was addressed by the Final EIS for all projects included in the 2010 LTCP. --� I.O CONCOURSE F INFILL In order to maacimize the capacity of the existing terrninal complex, it will be necessary to expand Concourses E, F and G. This project will add additional space by filling in the "notch" between Gates 6 and 8 on Concourse F to provide for additional concession space, toilet facilities and phones and will provide storage space for the MAC and the airlines. I.P INTERNATIONAL ARRIVALS FACILITY EXPANSION The success of the International Arrivals Facility (IAF) has prompted the Federal Government to add additional staff to the IAF facility on the Gold Concourse. There is, therefore, a need for additional office space and facility expansion to 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 fihe baggage claim level by adding additional seating and signage. The success of the IAF facility has also prompted a request for a study of how to expand the capacity of the entire facilify to handle additiona1747 aircraft simultaneously. This proj ect is included in the no action alternative and-the MSP 2010 LTCP alternative in the Final EIS. The Final EIS addressed the year 2010 cumulative effects of this proj ect. I.Q LINDBERGH TERn�tAL NORTH ADDITION This proj ect will provide for a two-story expansion of the north end of the Lindbergh Terminal. The first story of the addition shall extend the existing retail mall space to the north while including new public restrooms, a public elevator and stairwell to the mezzanine level, and an entry lobby to two (2) second- story airline pre%rred cr�stomers Iounges, and MAC office space. This additional space is intended to accommodate the 2010 LTCP. This project is included in the Final EIS for the MSP 2010 LTCP. The Final EIS addressed the cumulative effects of pzojects included in the 2010 LTCP. �� ._ � A-10 I.R ECOl\TOLOT/EMPLOYEE PARKTNG STRUCTURE The construction of the southeast segment of Taxiway W will impact approximately 300 parking spaces in the employee parking lot on Post Road. There is also a need to expand the EconoLot parl:ing lot to serve the new Humphrey Terminal as well as provide additional employee/public parking for the Lindbergh Terminal. A new parldng structure to serve both needs located at the south end of the EconoLot sifie has been identified as the location for this proposed structure. The facility will be sized to accommodate approximately 1,800 employee spaces and approximately 8,200 public/employee spaces. This project will also provide for the demolition of the existing Hubert H. Humphrey Terrninal and for the upgrading/construction- of an improved road system providing access to the new Humphrey Temunal. In conjunction with this AOEE,� the environmental impacts of this project are included in a separate Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAV�. Below is a summary of the anticipated e�vironmental impacts of this project: � Air Qualiiy — Application to MPCA for an Indirect Source Permit (ISP) for the Airport. ■ Water Quality — While increases in run-off water will be minimal with the construction and irnplementation of this facility, all run-off events will be handled by MSP's existinj collection system. � Noise Pollution — Construction noise will be iypical for this type of project Only approved equipment will be used such that excessive noises are not generated. There are no nearby residential areas that will be affected tiy the construction of this parking structure or vehicular noises. I.S CARGO PR�JECTS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM This pro�am 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 Worldwide Express. This project is included in the Final EIS for the MSP 2010 LTCP. The final EIS addressed the cumulative effects of this project. I.T CAT IUIIIa SYSTEM INSTALLATTONS This project will upgrade existing instrument landing systems (ILS) to Runways 12L, 12R and 35 including navigational aids and in-pavement lights. Currently each of these three (3) runway ends accommodate Category I(CAT � operations during inclement weather. Up�ading these to CAT IIIIIIa involves adding additional lights in beiween existing approach lights and adding some specialty in-pavement lights to improve the safe operation of a ri craft while taxing on_the �-ound durin� poor visibiliiy conditions. This particular project will provide an up�ade of the current CAT I ILS system on Runway 12R to meet CAT IIIa requirements. �. __ � A-11 f r� ❖ Light Emissions This impact category is mentioned because of the additional lights in this upgraded landing system. However, the cumulative impacts are not anticipated to be significant due to the time periods during which the system operates (i.e., only during very poor weather/visibility conditions) and the fact that the strobing sequenced lights are aimed such that any nearby homes would remain unaffected by direct light intrusion. ❖ �'Vetlands Impacts It is currently unlrnown whether or not this particular project (upgrade the CAT I system for Runway 12R to meet CAT IIIa requirernents) will require the sinking of concrete footings for light standards into small portions of the wetland areas sldrting Mother Lake. .An option being considered is structural connections between existing ILS light standards to accor�modate the additional required light units. An EAW may be necessary at a later date as the details of this project become definitive. I.0 GROUND RUN-UP ENCLOSURE This project will provide for the iristallarion of a ground run-up enclosure on the existing MSP run-up pad to reduce the noise impact of engine run-ups on cornmunities adjacent to the Airport. Aircraft noise is the only impact category affected by this project. ❖ Aircraft Noise This project will result in a positive impact concerning ai�-port noise due to the significantly lower sound Ievels which wi11 be achieved when aircra�/aircraft engines are operated for maintenance purposes inside this enclosure. I.V HUNII'HREY TEI�IVIINAL GATES ADDITION The MAC is currently constructing a replacement facility for the existing Hubert H. Humphrey (]�I) International Termuaal. This replacement terrninal will be located approximately 1,000 feet west of the existing terminal building. This project will provide for building modifications an� jetbridge installation to add two gates (gates 1 and 10) to the new Humphrey Ternunal. An EAW was prepared for the initial phase of development in 1997. The conclusions at that time were that the project, if properly mitigated in several categories of concern, could be implemented. I.W NEW AIIt TRA.FFIC CONTROL TOWER With the construction o� Runway 17/35 and the development of the adjacent building areas, there will be a need to construct a new tall Air Traffic Control Tower in order to see all parts of the runway and i 1 A-12 c taxiway surfaces. This project will commence with a conceptional study in 2001. The FEIS included an analysis of this project's impacts. I.X RAC SERVICE SITE RELOCATION The MAC has over the past year or so relocated all of the rental auto companies (R.AC) to temporary locations to make room for expansion of the Green Concourse (now Concou�e C). The ultimate plan for the Airport's P.AC is to collacate them to an on-airport site near the intersection af I-494 and Cedar Avenue (MN Highway 77). This total project will include rental counters, administrative areas, ready car lots, return car lots, employee parlang, quick turnaround areas (QTA), service/maintenance areas, and vehicle storage. More specifically, fihe overall RAC site will be situated on three (3) individual parcels of land subdivided by 77�' Street, Longf'ellow Road, and the relocated Frontage Road. The facility's completion date is ariticipated to be the year 2004 and it is expected to cost approximately $200M. MAC is discussing with several rezital car companies the possbility of completing a small portion of the planned complex prior to 2004. This project represents the initial preparation phase of the overall $200M project to provide for the relocation of the RAC service sites to a common location near the MTC bus garage on the south side of the Airport. This overall RAC site essentially is a shifting of current/existing rental auto company activities at MSP. Therefore, this project is included in the no action alternative and the MSP 2010 LTCP alternative in the Final EIS. The Final EIS addressed the cumulative effects of this project. A-13 C II. PROJECTS BEGINl�TII�iG IN 2002 The following projects are proposed to start in the Year 2002 that have the potential to affect_ the environment. Several projects continue for many years and are discussed in the year that they are scheduled to begin. II.A Residential Sound Insulation (Between 60 and 65 DNL) II.$ Concourse E Infill II.0 Lindbergh Terminal Loading Dock Relocation II.D MAC Cargo Buildings — Air Freight Facility II.E MAC Cargo Buildings — Airline Belly Cazgo Facility II.A RESIDENTIAL SOUND INSULATION (BETWEEN 60 & 65 DNL) This project is part of the MSP Noise Mitigation Plan for the 2010 LTCP. It is an expansion of the current Sound Insulation Prograrn (SIP) for homes inside the 65 DNL noise contour (see Paragraph Y.I). The intent of this project is to include sound insulation of residences within the 2005 DNL 60-65 noise contour. The 2005 DNL contour has been prepared as part of the update of the FAR Part 150 program. The impact of this project (the first �ear of an overall multi-year project) is a reduction of interior sound levels due to aircraft overflights. II.B CONCOURSE E INF�LLL � In order to maacimize the capacity of the existing terminal complex, areas on all airport concourses will �_ be infilled. This project will provide for the infill of Concourse E to provide additional space for concessions, .toilet facilities, phones and storage space. 'I'his project does not include additional gates. Since these infill efforts are only expected to be minor additions, no impact categories are affected. II.0 LINDBERGH TERNIINAL LDADING DOCK RELOCATTON The MAC proposes to relocate the existing Lindbergh Ternunal loading dock because of increasing congestion in that area of the Airport. It is proposed to move the loading dock (where supplies, food, etc. are delivered) to a landside location on airport. MAC is currently studying possible locations. The project should not adversely affect the environment. II.D MAC CARGO BT.TII�DINGS — AIl2 FREIGHT FACILITY In conjunction with the construction of Runway 17/35, new building areas will be developed. The MAC will construct iwo cargo buildings that will be leased out to airport tenants. This project will provide for the construction of an air freight facility including all required aircraft apron and auto/truck parking areas to accornmodate non-anchor carrier cargo activity as well as for �argo operators who operate to and from i � _ A-14 MSP on an infrequent basis. This project is included in the Final EIS for the MSP 2010 LTCP. The Final EIS addressed the cumulative effects of projects included in the 2010 LTCP. II.E MAC CARGO BUII,DINGS - AIltLINE BELLY CARGO FACILITY In conjunction with the construction of Runway 17/35, new building areas will be developed. The MAC will construct two cargo buildings that will be leased to airport tenants. This project will provide for construction of a"belly" cargo building to include all required aircraft apron and auto/truck parkin� areas. • Presently a majority of MSP's airline belly cargo is accommodated within a 36,000 SF multi-tenant cargo facility owned by Sta�dard Air Cargo (Standard Cargo Facility). This facility is scheduled for removal in order to accomrnodate construction of the Humphrey Terminal and its associated infrastructure. Additionally, Delta Airlines has indicated a desire to move into 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. The poteniial aircraft noise and water quality cumulative impacts associated with this project have been addressed in the Final EIS for the MSP 2010 LTCP. � ? A-15 III. PROJECTS BEGINNING IN 2003 The following projects are proposed to start in the Year 2003 that have the potential to affect the environment. Several projects continue for many years and are discussed in the year that they are scheduled to begin. III.A Runway 4/22 Extension III.A RLTI�'VAY 4/22 EXTENSION The proposed project is to extend Runway 4/22 1,000 feet to the northeast to a total length of 12,000 feet. The purpose of the extension is to allow non-stop service to Pacific R.im countries with full payloads requiring a runway length of approximately 13.,000 feet. A Draft EA was prepared and distributed in November 1997 and the Final EA was distributed in September 1999. A FONSI was issued by the FAA. shortZy afterwards. Findings of these documents indicated that the cumulative impacts of implementing the project were not significant. The cumulative impacts of the project were also included in the Final EIS for the MSP 2010 LTCP. j � -- A-16 (' C IV. PROJECTS BEGINNING IN 2004 The following project is proposed to start in the Year 2004 that has the potential to affect the environment. Several projects continue for many years and are discussed in the year that they are scheduled to begin. IV.A Taxiway C/D Complex 1V.A TAXIWAY CID COMPLEX The Taxiway C/D Complex, located adjacent to Concourses E and F and parallel to Runway 4/22 will be reconstructed. Taxiway D(adjacent to Concourses E and F) is currently restricted to Boeing 727-type aircraft or smaller aircraft and the pavement on both taxiways is, in need of replacement. Reconstruction of Taxiways C and D will allow unrestricted two-way taxiing of aircraft on both taxiways. This project will not increase the overall capacity of the Airport. It will involve the construction of additional taxiway maneuvering areas adjacent to Concourses E and F. The project will add approximately 336,750 square feet of impervious pavement surfac,�, Runoff from this surface will be added to the Minnesota R.iver North Drainage Area. The environmental effects of this project in the year 2010 are included in the Final EIS for the MSP 2010 LTCP i ; `. . A-17 V. PROJECTS BEGINI\'T\i TG IN 2005 There are no new projects included in the MAC's Capital Improvement Plan for the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport beginning in the Year 2005 that may potentially affect the environment. VI. PR4JECTS BEGINNIl�tG IN 2006 There are no new projects-included in the MAC's Capital Improvement Plan for the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport beginning in the Year 2006 thai may potentially affect the environment. VII: � PROJECTS BEGINNIlVG IN 2007 There are no new projects included in the MA.C's Capital Improvement Plan for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Iniernational Airport begiru7ing in the Year 2007 that may potentially affect the environment. m:\docs117657\aoee2001 rev.doc � A-18 `� _ ..: � " :1':. . . . . . . � . . 13i .... � �� _ .� � � . . .. .. . _ . l�✓.�IN1vEAPOLIS/ST. �'AUL INZ.'ER.NATIi1NAL AIRPORT �1z , . � � t �.. , �,� 7 , � . . . . � . . - � :. , .. - � . ., r .,:_c r � . . .. _ � �. - � . . . . .. .', . . . .. 1� .. ' . . . . . . . . . � ' .. il " _ 3 J ' � 1 ;�y � x,i i - . . . ' - �. t fi - ' �+ NVI72.OlVN�'ENTAL' A.SSESSMENT �ORKSHEET _{�+ �$.'� ,_; . : t , � � ,: : � - _ ;, 1 L' y� � . . . . 1 ` :I , .. ` : . .' .i . ' . . � . f �' - _ ' . "�. e . �. �� . '"` .:: "; z � t ' i.� -r �. �., . . . _ ..,,n ..-- -,. ..... ._..,.. .., .., �. .. �. ... . ,!...._. . . .. . ...._ . . _ .... .... _._.. r:_. ._.,�..!,ti.,... .,. �� _ - _ , �, � �,, , _ , T- .. . . � _ . . . — . . - � . . i 1-- �_ E - �� A : ` � ': � ' .ia:�1 �4 � � � ' ' r ;: .+ I��` t �Y � � Y_ .:i. ' t ..,.� .. �..�_, .�._..". .'z .: s�. : r.. �. , . . EN.rnLo�E P��:r.�vG ., . � � ' - � . . . ' .. _ . _ _ . " 'I i .. . . ; . . . . .- . . ' . . ' f' 7 ) . . . � .. . � . .. - . - . � . . � '�� , . . �. ,. . , .. . � '� '.;:. �'�. �, �' . '. . ' ' �. . ' ' ` � . . � _ .„ . . .. � � �. . . _ . � .. �., ' �.. � '; �.' �.�:.. ' . . ., ; . . , . . _ �.: . .. : � � . . � � . . . .. . � . .. . � . . � . .. . . � ' ' , :' ' ' ' .. 1, , . . . . . �OR THE '. .,: ` _ ,: :�� NYETROPOLITAN AII2PORTS COMNIISSION �.. � . . . `� � � . • . ` BY • ;1 ; . i••••• • (ASSISTED BY SR�+ CONSULTING GROUP, INC.� � OCTOBER 2000 i�ri`S�'_.;.�-,,,�.r� - - '-------'. .... y .." ;:. ,L . .S. a � ' �� ' '� .� �� . .� " - ..` • ` � . NOTE TO PREPARERS This worksheet is to be completed by the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGin or its agents. The project proposer must supply any reasonably accessible data necessary for the worksheet, but is not to complete the final worksheet itself. If a complete answer does not fit in the space allotted, attach additional sheets as necessary. For assistance with this worksheet contact the M.innesota Envirdnmental Quality Board (EQB) at (651) 296-8253 or (toll-free) 1-800-6�2-9747(ask operator for the EQB environmental review program) or consult "EAW Guidelines," a boolclet available from the EQB. �- NOTE TO REVIEWERS Comments must be submitted to the RGU (see item 3) during the 30-day comment period following notice of the EAW in the E�C B Monitor. (Contact the RGU or the EQB to learn when the comnnent period ends.) Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of the information, potential impacts that may warrant further investigation, and the need for an EIS. If the EAW has been prepared for the scoping of an EIS (see item 4), comments should address the accuracy and completeness of the inforn�ation and suggest issues for investigation in the EIS. _ 1. Project Title Econolot/EirmIovee Paz1dn�Struciure 2. Proposer Metropolitan Airoorts Commission 3. RGU Metrogolitan Airports Commission Contact person Nigel Finnev Contact person Nieel Finnev Address 6040 2$th Avenue South and tide Director. PlanninQ and Environment Minneapolis 1� 1N 5�4�0 � Address 6040 28`� Avenue South Phone (6121726-� 100 Minneapolis. NN 55450 ; � Phone (6121726-8100 4�: "Reason for EA`V Preparation ❑ EIS scoping � mandatory EAW � citizen perition ❑ RGU discretion ❑ proposer volunteered If EAW or EIS is mandatory, �ive._EQB rule category number(s) EOB rule 4�X0.4300, Subp.ISB, constructio�s of a nefv parking facility for 2,000 or more vehicles. Also, the X988 Session of the .1blinnesota Legislatz�re enacted �Iinnesota Statutes 1986, Section 473.614, Subdivision Z reqtriring the �letropoliian Airports Commission to prepare Environmental Assessment lYorksheets for capital improvements that (1) equal or erceed $5,000,000 at the tblinneapolis-�S't Paullnternational Airport and (2) are scheduled in tlse program for the succeedin� calendar year, and (3) involves (i) the construction of a new or erpana'ed structure for handlin� passengers, cargo, veliicles, or aircraft or (ii) the construction of a new or the ertension of an �isting rumvay or tdxiway. The estimated capttal cost of tl:is project — the construcfion of a new parking siructure — is estimated at �I9�,000,000 in tlre t11AC's most current CIP document. 5. Project Location NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Section 36 To�vnship 2SN Range 24tY County He�u:epin _ City/Twp Minneapols-,SL Pairllnternational Ar'rpvrt Attaclz copies of each of tlse folloiving to the EAiY.• a. a county map sho�vinj the general location of the project; b. copy(ies) of USGS 7.� minute, 124,000 scale map (photocopy is OK) indicating the project boundaries; c. a site plan showing all si�ificant project and natural features. i 1 1 Minn�sota Enworur,cntal Quality Bo�rd. Rcviscd lunc 1990. �s:: - - - - - -_._. See Figure A for a map of the cvunty in which the project is located Figure B is a copy of the most recent USGS map of the projeci's general surroundings w/tile Figure C provides a site plan of tltis proposed multi purpose parking structur� � . Description Give a comQlete description of the proposed project and ancillary facilities (attach additional sheets as necessary). Emphasize construction and operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or produce wastes. Indicate the ti.ming and duration of construction activities. The MAC proposes to construct a parking structure to serve patrons of the new Humphrey Terminal (tl:e Humphrey Terminal replaces the existing Hubert H. Hurnphrey (HHH) Terminal that has 3 gates with a facility that wi11 have 20 gates in the ultimate condition) and to replace t�:e EconoLvt parking spaces lost due to the construction of this replacement terminaL The proposed parking structure will also provide parking spaces for employees af tl:e numerous businesses operating at the ll�iinneapolis-SG Paul International Airpor� Currently these employees park their vehicles in a surface parking lot on Post Road However, this employee parking lot is needed for other airport-related improvements. The parking structure has been sized to accvmmodate the public and employee parking demand through the year 2015.. The Econolot/Employee Parking Structure will be situated immediately southeast of the Humphrey Terminal with the main entrance coming off of 34`h Avenue South, between E. 70`h and E. 72"d Streets (users of tlie structufe wi11 ezit the parking struciure through the �it plaza which parallels E. 72"d Street on the proposed structure's southeast face). The approximate 10,000 parking spaces will be distributed among 6 levels (2,789 replacemenf parking spaces and approximately 7,200 new parking spaces). Approximately 79% of the X 0,000 total parking spaces will be devoted to long-term parking (those parking for longer than 4 hours), 3% to short-term parking (those parking less than 4 hours), and the remaining I8% devoted to employee parking. The project will also require reconstruction of 34th Avenue South to a divided roadway with channelized left and right turns. The center median will be constructed to accommodate light-rail transit. New traffic sianals will be installed at the intersections of 34th Avenue South with E. 70`h Street, E. 72"d Street and the Air Freight Entrance. Construction would begin in tYiay 2001 with cor�zpletion approximately 2 years later. Since tlzis projeci is included in the 2010 Lnng Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) for Minr:ea1Tolis-.St. Paul International Airport, the cumulative impacts of MSP 1 )nsion projects are discussed in the cont�t of the Final Environmentalln:pact Statement (FEIS) document for the Dua1 T rack Airport Planning Pracess. This document was ftnalized in �Ylay I998 with a Record of Decision (ROD) being issued by the FAA in September I993. 'rovide a 50 or fewez word abstract for use in EOB Monitor notice: The ll�tetropolitan Airports Commission proposes to construct a parkin� structure to provide approxin:ately 10,000 spaces for use by patrons of the Humphrey Terminal, airport employees a�:d EconoLot users (2,739 replacement parking spaces and approximately 7,200 new parkir:g spaces). This facility will be located soictheast of the new Humphrey Terminal. It will consist of six (6) levels and will have �.rits leadin� onto E. 72"d Street. The proposed project also incic�des the construction of a new entrance roadway to improve circulation to and from 34`h Avenue Sout1: as well as an on-site road neiwork to facilitate Humphrey Terminal area circulation. Project Magnitude Data Total Project Area (acres) 61 7(approY ) or Length (miles) Number of Residential Units: Unattached 0 Attached 0 � CommerciaUlndustziaUInstiturional Building Area (�oss floor space): Total 3.500 000 square feet; . Indicate area of specific uses: Office i�lanufacturing Retail Other Industrial Warehouse Institutional Light Industrial Agricultural Other Commercial (specify) parki�r� of vehicles (lo�:� and shnrt-term) F ;ing Height(s) 65�eet � 2 �finnesota Environmental Quliiry Board. Revised June I990. v C _ ,. .._ _ ( 8. Permits and Approvals Required List all la�own local, state, and federal perniits, approvals, and funding required: Unit of Government Type of Application Status Metropolitan Council Metropolitan Airports Commission MNPollution CnntrolAgency N1NPvllution ControlAgency Program (CIP) Project Approval Project Approval and Funding Construction Permit Indirect Source Permit (ISP) Not yet sz�bmitted for approval Pending Not yet submitted for approval In process 9. Land Use Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands. Discuss the compat�bility of ttie project with adjacent and nearby land uses; indicate whether any potential conflicts involve environmental matters. Identify any potential environmental hazard due to past land uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage tanlcs. Land to be used,for the parking structure is currently used for a combination of aircraft parkinr;/movement activities and automobile parking. Adjacent land uses include the Northwest Airlines' cargo facility/employee parking lot to the souih, a runway/taxirvay system to the west, the Humphrey Terminal currently under construction to the north (Phase I expected to open May 2001) and 34`h r�venue South to the eas� The proposed project is compatible with adjacent land uses (most specifically aviation and ground transportation uses). 10. Cover Types Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development (before and a$er totals should be equal): _ . Types 2 to 8 Weflands Wooded/Forest Brusl�/Grassland Cropland Before After Urban/Suburban Lawn 'Landscaping � Impervious Surface Other (descnbe) Totals Before .After I5.0 1-� 9 �6.7 46.8 6I.7 61.7 11. Fish, `Vildlife, and Ecolo� cally Sensitive Resources a. Describe fish and tivildlife resources on or near the site and discuss how they would be affected by the project. Descnbe any measures to be taken to m;n;m;�e or avoid adverse impacts. There are no fzsh and wildlife resources on or nettr the proposed site that would be affected by the proposed projecG b. Are there any state-listed endangered, threatened, or special-concern species; rare plant communities; colonial waterbird nesting colonies; native prairie or other rare habitat; or other sensitive ecological resources on or near the site? ❑Yes 0 No If yes, descnbe the resource and how it would be afFected by the project. Indicate if a site survey of the resources �vas conducted_ Descn�be measures to be taken to rrLnym»e or avoid adverse impacts. 12. Physieal Impacts on `Vater Resources Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration (dred�ing, fillin�, stream diversion, outfall struciure, dikina, impoundment) of any surface water (lake, pond, wetland, stream, drainage ditch)? y ❑Yes �No If yes, identify the water resource to be affected and deseribe: the alteration, including the construcrion process; volumes of dredged or fill material; area affected; length of stream diversion; water surface area affected; timing and extent of fluctuations in water surface elevations; spoils disposal s3tes; and proposed mitigarion measures to muvmize impacts. 3 biinneteta Emvonrtxratal Quality Board. Rerised June 1990. 13.`Vater Use a. Will the project involve the installation or abandonment of any weils? ❑ Yes � No For abandoned wells, give the location and Unique well number. For new wells, or other previously unpernutted wells, give the location and purpose of the well and the Unique well number (if Imown). b. Will the project require an appropriation of ground or surface water (including dewatering)? ❑ Yes � No If yes, indicate the source, quantity, duration, purpose of the appropriation, and DNR water appropriation pemut number of any e;cisting appropriation. Discuss the impact of the appropriation on gro�d water leveLs. c. Will ttie project require connection to a public water supply? ❑ I'es 0 No If yes, identify the supply, the DNR. water appropriation permit munber of the supply, and the quantity to be used. 14. tiVater-related Land Use I��Ianagement Districts Does any part of the project site involve a shoreland zoning district, a delineated 100-year flood plain, or a state or federally designated wild or scenic river land use district? ❑ Yes 0 No If yes, identify the district and discuss the compatibility of the proj ect with the land use restrictions of the district. 1�. Water Surface Use Will the project chan�e the number or type of watercraft on any water body? ❑ Yes � No _ If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any potential overcrowding or conflicts with other users or fish and wildlife resources. 16. Soils Appro�nate depth (in feet) to: Ground water: uLn�m�rn 19 fG average 75-8_ 0%' Bedrock: min;m�� 60 ft (appro:r.) average 200 f� (approz) Descn`be the soils on the site, givin� SCS classifications, if lmown-(SCS interpretations and soil boring logs need not be attached.) �_ �According to the current I3ennepin County Soils Survey and other�related documents, the soils impacted by the proposed project include Hubbard Loamy Sand (HuA) and Urban Land - Industrial, Sandy (1049). 17. Erosion and Sedimentation Give the acreage to be graded or- escavated and the cubic yards of soil to be moved: acres 6X.7 (appro�) ; cubic yards $3 333 (approx) . Descnbe any steep slopes or highly erodible soils and identify them on the site map. Descn�be the erosion and sedimentation measures to be used during and after construction of the project. The proposed project wilt require o ading and e�cavation that disturbs mvre than fzve acres of land and, as such, will require a Storm y3'ater Permit for construction activity. This permit requires the zmplementation o,f besf mana�ement practices (BttilPs) to control erosion and sedimentation. After project construction is complete, most of the disturbed areas will have non-erodible surfaces. 18. Water Quality - Surface �Vater Runoff a. Corrspare the quantity and quality of site nuioff before and after the project. Describe methods to be used to manage and/or treat runoff. The lbtinnesota Folk�tion Co�ttrol A�ency under a National Pollutant Discl:arge Elimi�tadon System (1VPDES) permit regulates szirface waier dischar� e from the overttll airport facility. The Humphrey Terminal Compler (of wltich this proposed parking structure is part o� is witlTin tlze Nlinnesota River Soutli ([YfRS) watershed, one of four drai�sage watersheds serving tlie overall airport facility. Ari Indirect Source Permii (ISP) application is being prepared for the proposed parking strzrcture. Usin� the mosf recelTt site plans, imperviotts surface aretts were calculttted for botl: the �Yisting a�sd proposed conditior:s. -'" The total project area is approximately 61.7 acres (of which 15.0 acres is cz�rrently pervious surface). Under the proposed i ) 4 Minnesota Environmcntal Quality Board Revised lune 1990. C project, I4.9 acres of the site would remain pervious. Based upon the small difference in impervious areas between the existing and proposed condiiions, the project would not substantially alter the quality or quantity of storm water runoff from the site. The MAC is currently improving the overall storm water colleciion and treatment system for the AirporG A summary of how the project area fzts into this overall plan if presented in Part b. below. b. Identify the route(s) and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site. Estimate the impact of the runoff on the quality of the receiving waters. (If the runofJ'may affeci a lake consult "EAW Cn.�idelines" about whether a nutrient budget analysis is needed.) Storm water from the projeci site currently drains into two separate colleciion systems. These systems include a storm waier collection system below 34`�` Avenue South and a system that collecis runoff from the runways and surfaces within the secure airport area (airside). Both systems are currently under capacity for the 100 year storm even� The proposed storm water colleciion system includes a new conveyance system along 34`h Avenue South to protect the various structures for the 100 year even� In addition, a 7 foot diameter pipe was installed in front of the. Humphrey Terminal to provide rate control and flood protection for the airside storm sewer system. The MAC has developed an overal7 (regional) ponding plan where azrside and project area runoff would be treated at a large ponding site located southeast of the Fort Snelling National Cemetery. This regional system is being designed to meet MAC NPDES requirements for the overall airport ezpansion and is currently being negotiated with the involved regulatory agencies. • 19. Water Quality - Wastewaters a. Descnbe sources, quantities, and composition (except for normal domestic sewage) of all sanitary and industrial wastewaters produced or treated at the site. N/A b. Descnbe any waste treatment methods to be used and give estimates of composition after treatment, or if the project involves on- ,' �) site sewage systems, discuss the suitability of the site conditions for such systems. Identify receiving waters (including ground �' --% water) and estimate tile impact of the dischazge on the quality of the receiving waters. (If the discharge may affect a Zake consult "EAY3�Guidelines" about whether a nutrient budgef analysis is needed.) '- N/A � c. If wastes will be discharged into a sewer system or pretreatrnent system, identify the system and discuss the ability of the system to accept the volume and composition of the wastes. Identify any improvements that will be necessary. The parki�:; structure will not be eguipped wiih public washroom facilities However, employees operating the erit to11600ths and staff respo��sible for mana; ement of the parking structure's revenue-cantrol facilities will have access to one (1) restroom for each gender. TI:e generated wastes will easily be handled by ihe Airport's overall eristin; sewer system; therefore, improvements/i�pgrades of the eristing system will not be necessary. 20. Ground `Vater - Potential for Contamination a. Appro.cimate depth (in feet) to �ound water: I9 minimurn; unknown average. b. Descnbe any of the follo�ving site hazards to ground water and also idenrify them on the site map: sinkholes; shallo�v limestone fomiations/karst conditions; soils with high infiltration rates; abandoned or unused wells. Descnbe measures to avoid or m;nimi�e environmental problems due to any of these hazards. No�:e of tlzese hazards have been identi�ed near tl:e project site. 5 btinnesota Environmrnml Quatity Board. Re••istd June 1990. c. Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present on the project site and identify measures to be used to prevent them from contaminating ground water. At the present time only limited geotechnical investigations have been done at the location for the proposed projec� Three (3) sites associaied with aircra, ft servicing activities at the HHH Terminal may give rise to the classifzcation of several impacted areas as requiring unique handling procedures during construction of the proposed project These three sites include: 1) the former HI3H refueling facility (a total of 10 tanks were remaved last year from this site); 2) that portion of the HHH Terminal ramp used to de-ice and refuel aircraft; and, 3) the backup fuel oil tank for the HHH Terminal's heating system. These three sites have been identz'fied on Figure C. Additional information concerning fhese three sites and the ertent/nature of their potential}'or ground waier contamination during site preparation and construction activitie's will not be available until all required geotechnical investigations have been cnmplec`ed The proposed parking siructure itself, once constructed, is not anticipated to pose a threat tv current ground water resources - 21. Solid Wastes; Hazardous Wastes; Storage Tanks a. Descn`be the types, amounts, and compositions of solid or hazardous wastes to be generated, including animal manures, sludges and ashes. Identify the method and location of disposal. For projects generating municipal solid waste indicate if there will be a source separation plan; list type (s) and how the project will be modified to allow recycling. y, This project is not erpected to generate signi�cant volumes a}'the identified wastes beyond current types and levels b. Indicate the number, location, size, and use of any above or below ground tanks to be used for storage of petroleum products or other materials (escept water). N/A 2� �a�c Parldng spaces added approximatelv 7.200 _ E:cisting spaces (if project involves e:�cpansion) 2.789 Estimated total ' Average Daily Traffic (ADT) generated X9.400 �stimated m�ximum peak hour traffic generated (if lmo�vn) and its timing: I.970 veh/hr; 2: 00-3:OOpm . For each affected road indicate the ADT and the directional distnbution of traffic with and without the project_ Provide an estimate of the irnQact on traffic congestion on the affected roads and descnbe any traffic improvements that will be necessary. The �.Yistin� Hubert H. Hum,phrey Terminal and Econolot surface parking lots located north of the new Humphrey Z'erminal o�: 34th Avenue South have 2,759 park�,ug spaces, of which 26� are for short-term and 2,522 are for lo�zg-term parkino. The proposed project will replace these surface lots with a 10,000-space parking ramp, resulting in a net gain of just over 7,200 parking spaces. The proposed ramp will consist of approximately 1,800 employee spaces, approximately 300 short-term spaces and approximafely 7,9001ong-term spaces. The I999 ADT on 34th Avenue south of tlie Humphrey Terminal was 12,500 vehicles/day, and the P�I peak hour volume was 1,260 (2: 00-3: 00 p.m.)• with a 7� %/2� % southboundlnorthbound directional distribution. The 2020 projected ADT with the project is 27,200 vehicles/day, and the projected Pitil peak hour volcrme is 2,760 vehicles/hour, with a 56%%�4% socithbound/nortl:bou�:d directio�:al distribution. The project rvill necessitate reconstruction of 34th Avenue South to a divided roadway with Channelized left and right turns, witl:'two northbou�:d and tltree southbound throt��h lanes. Tlse center media�z ivill be constructed tn accommvdate li;ht-rail transit. New traffic signals will be needed af the intersections of 34th Avenue witl: 70t1: Street, 72nd Streei and the Air Freight Entrance. yYith these improvernents and 2020 projected volumes, 34t1i Avenue is �rpected to operate at an arterial level of service (LOS) E/F, witls individual intersection levels of service of D or better i�: tlie Plbt peak hour. 23. Vehicle-related air emissions Provide an estimate of the effect of the project's traffic generarion on air quality, including carbon monoxide levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or other mitigation measures on air qualityRimpacts. (If the project involves S00 or more parking spaces, consz�lt "EAW Guidelines" about whether a detailed air qzrality anaZysis is needed.) � � 6 Minnesota Emvonrtxn[al Quality Eoard Rcvised June 7990. �l 11�Iethodolo.�-v and Assumntions Motor vehrcle air qualiiy issues in Minnesota are most frequently associated with carbon monoxide (CO) emissions and the ; concentrations of those emissions. The ttilinnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA) one-hour and eight-hour standards for CO concentrations are 30 parts per milXivn (ppm) and 9ppm, respeciively. The United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) one-fiour and eighl-hour standards for CO concenirations are 35ppm and 9ppm, respectively. Cvncentrations of CO are generally highest at interseciions with poar levels of service and, consequently, more idling vehicles. An air quality a�salysis was performed to predict carbon monoxide concentrations at the all intersections within the projeci area that will operate at a level of service D'or worse for build conditions. The air quality analysis represents projected p.m. peak hour traffic volumes for years 2004 and 2014. These years represent conditions far one and ten years after the cnmpletion of cvnstruction. The trttffic volumes were developed as discussed in the tra}'fcc analysis section of this reporG Cttrbon Monoxide cvncentrations svere predicted at hvo intersections usin� the EPA Mobile SA emission model and the CAL3QI3C dispersion modeL Signalixed intersections were assumed at both intersections. Intersection Year 2002 Year 20I1 34`h Avenue and 80`h Street Sidewalk Averaging Sidewalk Averaging 34`h Avenue at NlVA Entrance Sidewalk Averaging Sidewalk Averaging The modeling assumptions used in this analysis were as follows: _ --��" . �-x .. Cold S�rt�'eTcentage:-~? ��`" ` 20.6 percent fnr intersection traff c Cruise Speed: Posted and proposed speed limits Analysis Years: 2004 and 2014 Traffic Mix: National default values Wind Speed: . 1 meier/second Temperature: 20 degrees F SurfaceRoughness: I�I centimeters Pasquill Gi, f'ford Stability Class: D Annual Background Traffic Growth: 4.3% Inspection �taintenance: No Oxygenated Fuel: Yes.� ` Eight-Hour Persistence Factor: �• � yYind Direction: 36�directions at 10 degree increments Back�round CO Levels Sackgrourzd CO levels were monitvred in the study area in lblarch 2000 by Interpoll Laboratories, Inc. The monitoring site was Zocated at the 1'�Iall of America on S0�` Street and 24th Avenue South in Bloomington. For the purposes of analysis, these 6ackground concentratio�:s were adjusted for traffic volume (factor for traffic growth between 2000, 2004, and 2014), vehicle emissions (factor to adjust for anticipafed decreases in CO emissions from motor vehicles due to emission cvntrols), and temperature (factor to �vorst-case winter cvnditions). The results are summarized in Table I. 7 Minnaota En�vonmcital Qu�lity Bosd Re�ised Junc 1990. � � TABLE' 1 Calculation o Back ound CD Concentrations ' Back round CO Ad'ustments 1-Hour 2000 Background CO Concentration (ppmj- 2, � Annual Background Traffrc Growth 0.043 Future Years 2004 2014 Background Traffic Growth 1.18 X.80 Emissions Facior Reductinn • 0.88 0.82 Hol�vorth Temperature Correctzon Factor Adjusted Background CO Concentration (ppm) State Standard Federal Standard 8-Hour l. 6 0. 043 2004 2014 1.18 I.80 0.88 0.82 1.43 X.43 1.43 I.43 4.0 5.7 2.4 3.4 1-Hour 30 ppm 35 pnm 8- Hour 9 ppm 9ppm Carbon lblonoxide tbiodelin� Results The "sidewalk averaging" dispersion teclinique was used for both intersertions. This technique is used to calculate the worst- case CO concentrations at inierseclions with sidewalks. The modeling "sidewalks" are located adjacent to each approach leg and departure leg at the location closest to the vehicles stopped at the traffic signa� Each sidewalk location is represented by fwo receptors: one receptor 10 meters from the intersec�n and-ene receptor SO meters from the interseciivn. In this method, the CD concentrations from the two receptors are averaged The worst case wind direction (of the 36 directions modeled) for each pair of sidewalk receptors was used to determine the maximum concentration for each pair of sidewalk r_eceptors. The � � reported result is the mczYimum concentration for all of the sidewalks. Tables 2 and 3 present the worst case CD concentrations at the intersection in 2D04 and 201 � All reported concentrations are in parts per million. Note that the one-hour and eight-hour predictions meet the federaY and state standards for all condiiions modeled. Table 2 1Ylodeled CO Concentratzons (2004) I-�Tour 8-Hour � Intersection Modeled 34th Avent�e and 80th Street 3.7 34th Avenue and Northwest Airlines 4.0 State Standard Federal Standard Note: �'�Incic�des CO background for 1- and 3-horcr averages. 7.7 S.0 8: 0 S. Z 30.0 9.0 35.0 � 9.0 Table 3 ttitodeled CO Concentrations (20I 1-Hour �lnrersecrza�: Modeled 3=1th Ave�u�e and 80th Street 3.5 34th Avenue and tl'orthrvest �4irlines 3.7 State Standard Federal Standard ; �Yote: �Incltides CO back�roc�nd for 1- and 8-hour avera,es. / 9.2 9.4 30. 0 35. 0 8-Hour tt vera,�e� 5.8 6.0 _ 9. 0 9. 0 yYind Direciion . 10 170 lYind Direction 10 170 8 Minncsota Hnvirunmcncal Quality Boad Re:ised June I990. C� C. 24. Stationary source air emissions Will the project involve any stationary sources of air emissions (such as boilers or exhaust � stacks)? ❑ yes 0 No � If yes, descnbe the sources, quantities, and composition of the emissions; the proposed air pollution control devices; the quantities and composition of the emissions after treatment; and the effeets on air qualiiy. 25. Will the project generate dust, odors, or noise during construction and/or operation? � Yes ❑ No If yes, descnbe the sources, characteristics, duration, and quantities or intensity, and any proposed measures to mitigate adverse impacts. Also identify the Iocations of sensiti7e receptors in the vicinity and estimate the impacts on these rec�ptors. There are no noise-sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the projecG The Fort Snelling National Cemetery is a sensitive receptor for air quality, and is located 200 feet easi of tl:e proposed parking structur� The proposed projeci will generate temporary dust, odors, and noise during construction. Construction equipment will emit gasoline and diesel engine pollutants and will create temporary fugitive dust emissions The exhaust fumes of this equipment would contribute a limited amount of the total pollutanis generated by the combinaiivn of air and land vehicular traffic in the area surrounding Minneapolis-St Paul International Airpor� It u anticipated that these impacts would be temporary in natur� Fugitive dust will be controlled by watering, sprinkling, or calcium chloride application, as appropriate or as prevailing weather/soil conditions dict`at� Short-term construction noise will be generated primarily by earth-moving equipment, trucks, cranes, generators, welding machines, pumps, and hand tools and will not be in excess of typical cvnstructivn noise for this fype of project in magnitude and durativn. Work hours will be limited to daytime (6:30 a.m. to 6: 00 p.m.). 26. Are any of the followi.ng resources on or in prox.imity to the site? a. archeological, historical, or architecttu�al resources? 0 Yes ❑ No The proposed project is approximately 200 feet west of ihe Fort Snelling National Cemetery. Thu cemetery is listed on the ( ) National Register ofFlistoric Places. The cemetery will likely be affecied by fu�itive dust during construction, the impact of which would be controlled by periodic watering of the construction sit� b. prime or unique farmlands? ❑ Yes � No c. designated parks, recreation areas, or trails? ❑ Yes � No d. scenic vie�vs and vistas? ❑ Yes 0 No e. other unique resources? ❑ Yes � No . If any items aze answered Yes, descnbe the resource and identify any impacts on the resource due to the project. Descnbe any measures to be taken to m;n;m;�e or avoid adverse impacts. 27. ti'Vill the project create adverse visual irnpacts? (Examples incic�de: glare from intense lights; lights visible in wilderness areas; and large visible ph�mes from cooling towers or �,Yhat�st stacks.) ❑ Yes � No If yes, explain. 23. Compatibility with plans Is the project subject to an adopted local comprehensive land use plan or any other applicable land use, water, or resource mana�ement plan of a local, regional, state, or federal agency? � Yes ❑ No � If yes, identify the applicable plan(s), discuss the compatibility of the project with the provisions of the plan(s), and explain how any conflicts between the project and the plan(s) �vill be resolved. If no, explain. There are no applicable land use, fvater, or resource majtagernent plans of any local, re�ional, state, or federal a�encies affecied by the proposed prvjec� However, the 1939 rtiletropolitan Airports Planning Act regi{ired the tb1AC and the ltiletropolitan Council �" �complete a comprel�ensn�e mrd coordinated study of the region's long-term aviation needs. The seven year study came io an 9 hlinnuota Environmtntai Qualiry Board Revised luna 1990. end ia 1996 when the legislature siopped further study of a new airport and directed tl:e MAC to implement the MSP 2010 Long- Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP). This project is compatible with all projects in the 2010 LTCP. 25, Innpact on Infrastructure and Public Services Will new or e:cpanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure, or public services be required to serve the project � Yes ❑ No If yes, descnbe the new or additional infraslructure/services needed. (Any infrastruciure that is a"connected action" with respect to the project must be assessed in this EAW,' see "EAW Guidelines"for deiails.) As a related project, the corridor for 34`�` Avenue South witl be widened between its intersections with East 70�' Street on the north and I-494 on the south. This road will be widened to accommodate not only the proposed LRT alignment and the increase in Humphrey Terminal traffic, bui also increased traffic directly attrtbutable to additional employment at nearby- NWA facilities and the Humphrey Terminal's LRT station. It is erpecied that the Humphrey Terminal LRT station will be a sur,face station immediately east of this proposed parking structure to serve EconoLot users and airport employees. 30. Related Developments; Cnmulative Imp�cts a. Are future stages of this development planned or lilcely? ❑ Yes � No If yes, briefly descnbe future stages, their timing, and plans for environmental review. b. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? ❑ Yes 0 No If yes, briefly descnbe the past development, its timing, and anY F�st environmental review. c. Is other development anticipated on adjacent lands or outlots? � Yes � No If yes, briefly descnbe the development and its relationship to the present project d. If a, b, or c were marked Yes, discuss any cumulative environmental i.mpacts resulting from this project and the other development. � � " ` -- A related project to the parking struciure is Pliase 2 of the Hiimphrey Terminal expansion project The exact timing for ( � COI1Stl'llCilKa this secand phase of the overall project (adding 16 gafes to the current 4 gates for a total of 20 in the ultimate conditions) is unknown and not in the 2001-2007 C�'. This second phase of the I3umphrey Terminal development program is ucpected to handle an msticipated increase in the number of airlines hoping to compete with NorthwestAirlines for passengers at tl-I.SP. The 1ViAC also intends tv build a 9,000-space parkins structure in 2004 for rental auto cvmpanies (RAC) near the Cedar Avenue and I-494 intercliange. These three projects are a part of the .1bISP 2010 Long-Term Compreherssive Plan whose overall impacts were addressed in the Dual Track EIS to the extent knowrr. The site-specific cumulative in:pacts of tlte proposed project witli the RAC projeci will be determined in an EAW for the R.�C projec�. The site-specific cumulative impacts of tJie proposed project and tlie RAC project with the Hunsphrey Terminal Phase 2 project will be determined in an EAi3'for the Humphrey Termirtal Phase 2 project 31. Other Potential Environmental Impacts If the pzoject may cause any adverse envirorunental impacts which were not addressed by items 1 to 28, identify and discuss them here, along with anY ProPosed mitigation. There are no krtofv�: other potential enviro�tmelrtal impacts associated witls the proposed projec� 32. StTNI'iVIARY OF ISSUES (This section need not be completed if the EAYY is being done for EIS s c�t�d ssues� dentified relevant isst�es in the draft Scoping Decision document which must accompany the E.4Y3!) List any imp above that ma re uire further investiQation before the ro'ect is commenced. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been oz may be considered for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions. 1 � Minnesota Emvonmrntal Qualin• Board. Revised 7une 1990. CERTIFTCATIONS BY THE RGU (ull 3 certifzcations must be szgned for EOB acceptance of the EAW for publication of notice in the EOB Monitor) A. I hereby certify that the information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my lmowledge: . � Signature � - ' B. I hereby certify that the project described in this EAW is the complete project and there are no other projects, project stages, or project components, other than those descnbed in fhis document, which are related to the prbject as "connected actions" or "phased actions", as defined, respectively, at Minn. Rules, pts. 4410.0200, subp. 9b and subp. 60. � e- Signature ' C. I hereby certify that copies of the completed EAW aze being sent to alI points on the official EQB EAW distribution list. � Signature 'r� ' Tifle of si�er � • 1.,� ruG��- ��°' Date � � -'SI �' �'� � G�F'Ly�,�..r� � ��YtmJr``y�-�._ / � j N(innesota Environmental Quality Board. Revised June 1990. ,; � A COUNTY MAP Figure l f �.�__.. � `� I � . , � .� ` ;�=". / l�'U `.0 .;j�:�.:r� I� ,i � - �- . �ll _ _ �� -° �IE� � �. , : , ,�-�; ; I . . ,7�,� , � �� :� ,_� �: _ ti` U, Q. o��, 30 ; c_1 i, �•��4 �` `"' _�� - .. � �\�: . 5 �' �- �+ ;,� ;_,;,�,. � . - � � �:' � �� /., l; .n;. " �� f /�, • �, ^' s- � � ;z. �'�=� �/ ;` I �;o Lily�dale �`��. .O ry .. i � ' � ""'rc` d5,a,',`..��aa� �'� ' /,,� � �-/ � � .G/. , i ��` - '.�o � "� r:� _ � ,�.3� �:�o'�� , . ��( U_ti %�;�� y':� � . f , j'� � _ , ' . \+� ':'1 r (li !;5 � �, �' � n . 'C'lv' :� � - � , f'7i _ � : � / 1•��_. \J".!l % f' 4,/ r '. ,u.qn �� i�� t� ` —\4 �� r � � :: �i� \,. �� f i-� J i �.. ' �! �� . __ � � 1 e . l)� � 1, � l' :/� % �• • ��. ., �,��, - ;.�, v..� � - � �„ ,r, _;'_ ' °'' �� r {. ` ; � , . ;,,.: � Q ,%--_-.-�� .' r� pn % � � � � /X i 3 y � � , «„ � �� , -� �Y� � _�--. " �.�°' /♦� '' I � �, ` '� �� Y � • // C �"� (%,/ ih.�.I// _i J' -,. •'• � ( '� 1 '�� M1 ' � �� /�f ��.��_ '� �� ` � / a 1 � 1'� � � ��iJ - -ii _ - =y �_ � � C iC �� - �� " ..x r�n"tr 5 ii / ii..- --' � -� /� . ��;; ;<..J: _ _ m�o _ __ ::�t2..�-t� ii / q .. / - � �. �j' J i � ( W G . �-:�'Y � /= �� r 1 -� '�. �'� ` °` � =- �'� - �� •i /�j j ' = � . I � ,� / (�` . 1 � ti , . �`� - -- 0 \��_�� /.{'Vr� i- .�� J �,� azi� _ �p � / � � �,. .� \ i � � . � �'` :' = �o y`S'' �" r� EJ 3 c�. � � � �' � y� ir �` �� /` � �, ' V: • 8ossen . 4 � � J , � � / � � - - L¢]te o - �� / `�` Feld =---_= r ii �/��'' �-�'� fi .s _ y !! - �i %ci/" �� / �� „ !�c� = ,- �.. !/ i� Q�V �1 ' O� � � I� �/ � _ il_ � i ,,�'�� p�o� �' a C Q 3� � -"' --� � —� _ ° �, ;�:.� o ,� ��-- d � � l _ � � ; f� ' �,��tE _ _ -� t �' `� �5 �-''�`�� `/ " I� r ti� ( o % � i '}, i �� o [ '' -� _ •_ -` -- � : ' � � �� ' /r^��'.� ' D � � p r; `:: , � � o - �D��tE7':,�:'lLFG2 =..;-=,_ _ � B45 X . ^'�'aY/� �;7 r +a .�+: 0 f " �o �g �- �� ol _ " �'—'�...._ �• �.,; � e r • -,. -x•�--' �-,:., _- �p� �- �� { 0 i _�= . � e / 9 . i._.- � �� `^ I � l '. - = � _ _ O 0 0 � } �!i: n ._,,� o � . �� _ . � '' , _ _ -�-�- _r = _ _ �� J/ �~ I �� (t-'�_-jj � o�'^ � _ \ � _ _�_i,- _ �y-_ - / CJ� i�- �" ' � ��AC �.Ar E✓� � {-�� I�r ( ad 'r T O �. _ _-_ - _-- - — � \./" adio T :o n ..• -' �-i � •�I�\�� .�' — --Jc -- _ _ �By • �w .�.� ��G\R��:�^n{;�..� � ��r^�/> �� . _ --.il _ _ _ � O � �� ( �./\ �l • \ �.� i � �!' �a,�l.J i —_—�-��4� \ O �.� 0 1 '� / •� ��'"`� � �al ��,�1' ; j ( � �y .� �, � �..�, .. �..� �; � l � ,. . __ , . __ _ � �; � �a Q � ��.� �� `'� r � ��1, �^s � ' . v , , . . � �' = �j'�., o � =?j=_ _�= �; � ' � - .. � , _� `�' Q > � ,.� -=-- � � L �`"''' ; G-:; ,.�;��, � ^ _ .. , . �' ;, ' �-- � ts��_ � _. - � - c = . = i' ,�.: ,J��'�� : . .- - . . \ �: �:.- - _ _ �; � : � � , �� _ �;��-� ' ��`hr , Sv�% _3 � '`' r ��°9 �''"� � � � `C..��'> c3 � ��o t /�., � . ,-' /'' / ) ' ~ r ��,, �..� t �"// j � � 0 ' ' \ ~ � -� f '�iI ��' terrdota C � 4ri/�Clubi4 �\ /% � G _/== _.^-'�' � o �• ^t ; � S j� � 1 U _ � � 'r l_.-r' - T E A ( -----•_ � { � _ % _ _ -;��_-�� .� _ `� , � � _' �.— � �s_ _ _ —� „O�O 'f��` 0('"� -.,—•, '�' �,. � � -'� -- B - �i o o"' ` o�':,��U ``�. �, •�` a. ��t - � Park = �o�� •.� 1'i \ O g� r::.. c:,, � . �i ' .� _ F� �) j, ��. � ' C' =' o?�`��=��-� � r�.5 \ \ /, i !7 .'.: tl?-y 9 ( ^ \� - - �� -� 'q` - "',m �� ==: �0 1 , �---a �� _ -� �'_.' �' ' ' _. - �� .� 4 , _ • � ' �_..n.r4:.+.r.\T��.-- = \ �oV^ `.' ^ /� . '� O ,�i �- •-�- �� vJ �i0� r "i� �� Se-� ��.) 0 �'• ,��1 .i 1 � �� .. � _ - - -..� ,� ., ^� � , .o�r��.;v: �. o r'-��, ` �� ' �� .; _. .; :., � . Y ' \ \ . v _ �--, .;,. . _ � ` . 4 ` - �� is� . �%— i � ;l :- E€'u s e ��tC� i . � o �--�r�� i % ��; ��, 1, � a `� / a , �' (�'�� ._...'--�'. � � i. � � � ,/ Y . _ / �� e71; � �,�\� i �' �o�'r' �e . t\�>'� .. � ,x �.` r • .. � � ( ✓� _ � z `• i; " ��-�. Lw • � �, C�; " . . p ' -_ � t OO.. c o � L � � O-- � ' . '� � .�' „�,� �.� � �oo .� �� v �---� . o � MI�E�,Kf'1�,� PAU� � ' z r,� �� . 5 : o . " �0 � - _ � � (- — -1 i�TEfv N�TI"O `� p o : ��,� - � � s � �� (WOLD-CHA E � 1�►L_E E Dj; W ' �-' : ; _; �� o I 36 I . a , i-- -P-- � °o �--- '�-: � � - I � I � _ 4 _ = . -� � I ` , . � � I �j ho�� t\o � � '90o e�a�� ?.c m9. nyen� 1 � �� j . � � +' � iVIE � A � ,�I 'r� Q,� o v=----- �:::�� I 4� 1 � A�J� A i-F£lGrt1V\J �`` j O--- i � ��_� ' ��.'�. o � v \. � o � � I 8,8 -� � ,.,��°�. o� C a O M � � �`V�" -(�( � � � 5 424 � , �i �..`�' �� t > N `(�' .1.� ('� Cn �,,_- - .� ��'�_ , 0 � ..--�-=,c-... � `y'_ � \i ,�.. �.`�\ � . �, , N i NINNEAPaL15/ST. PAUI INTERNATiOPWL PlftPORT � � ..._._....� � y� FIGURE B „� PROJ-ECT BOUNDARY _ _ _ _ . _ __ C �� , ri.��l�� .'�t,i5{ � '' �a`�'_�_�v�' __-. _,. . . iJ Wrtii/ /' / . �; i• •'/�, � /. " .Yr_— ..__,, _ . � . ' � ' � / / �r/.' `�— soo ' � / � �' /r - '� 400 ,,� ' ;',` % .lf�� l l' /, � ��' � 1 % / ��' . 1 SCALE IN FEET j' ' j %� ��^,,V �_---,' _� � ; �� j J i ti , --=i ' � ' _�_ �/ ;' /,/�'. t : s , /' /j /�%� . . • � ; i i�� / � i i / . � . 1 � � E / ,/� . . �� , ? , �ti`1' ; ' � ' ; /�'� ,' "' �`�•;� � i :,�•C- � � 1 : ' ', � �__,., / `�,._ / , , ; o /'...----.. / r.'+ j�F i - � i �P � ' ' .�;r/ PROPOSED LR7 ' i ! i �'•✓��.-=' /J�i ,� / � AUGNMENT - ! ` ' � , F^ < _ f , �' � ' • ' , / ;�.,..o _ ( , . _ _ =.- ^_ ---;_� \ � � / '•� y % � • � ECONOLOT ' ' , L' � ; � i /� i � / ^ \ `\ / / / r%✓ ; � j /� : I � ; PARKING i k %I` �i .'. � i i �- ; ��,_.___�-� . i ,'� ' / ( '` Y • ! ��' / / � � ;'°- _ i 51GNANRE j ' J � �1--` .' �`�} / //�� l• � •� k � .�..�. �...�.�n�i ; � � � � i � �. :, , � �=�� L i ( ,.—_,.. �E'�, .y �� / �.,--.� \ � , ; • y Q-�\ p� � I � } ��G i / i i ' ' / � �`` • ' / t; � �� \ .Q � PORTION OF HHH � ' � _, �/ - / RAMP USED 70 ��;� ; ` i / ; , � DEI A1 CRAFf E %��'� : \ ��./.�.:-.. � ' : ��'�� ' I AIR FREIGH7 CENTER _�r :'� / e �=-„"�i ------..._�, NWA FORMER J EMPLOYEE , HHH REFUELING PARKING FAC�UTY C C � '"' �• '—E. 70th. St 1 f'— � _ � r �. . . .. ,r t {ORT TERM �� * , ' • . PARKING . — u, . . — , � •. . .f �r � l . ' �. � - -eti ' PROPO�ED 10,00 \ �� II'� - - SPACE; PARKING �� M + 3' ~ Q �� C N� - ,, ;� _ _ ; � ►�; � ! ¢'� - - ' r � ��" �� i�' ,�j-, M� ROPOSED � t j , ' � � ��--� ` � LRI 5fA710N , � -+.� i �f x`-.: . `....; ; � �l. '� tF �'+�.� :i i { 3 li ��, ��;�� /' � � . :6. =� "•: '. ��1��,.. _ ��:� i � � � • EXIS7ING � : � ! HHH �� i TERMINAL \ r �� ,; (TO 8E DEMOLISHED) HHH BACKUP� 8�� NG (F) FUEL OII. UST OPERATIONS lE ENV1ROiNMENTAL AS�ESSMENi' �IORKSHEEi ECtJNOLOi'/EMPLOYEE PARKiNG STRUCTi1RE S IiE P t�4N FORT SNELLING ��o� CEMEfERY O Fig t� re C- I►I'1: r =��;'`:� ' , .: ' , � �''' =r.� ;� Y�T��►�t1 ��`f�� ppt.15 $,Oi EP -� '�'l ?? t 9G F � � m Z t ° A j t N O N ° F �, F . .� �o 9ry4IRPOaYS October 17, 2000 Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport 6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, MN ��=��0-2799 Phone (6l2) 726-8100 • Fax (612) 726-�296 Jim Danielson, Administrator City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55120 ,_�-, u �., - •, Attached please find the minutes from the September 18, 2000 Commission Meeting at which the Preliminary 2001-2007 CIP was approved for purposes of environmental review. There were no changes made to the preliminary CIP, which I mailed to you in September. ' Sin �rely, , � ` � ��-i'�� Robert J: Vorpahl, P.E. Program Development Engineer Attachment RJV/je cc: Nigel Finney Dsnny Probst The Metropolitan Airports Commission is an affirmative acHon empluyer. w�vw.mspairport.com Reliever Airports: AIRLAKE • ANOKA COUNTY/BL,AINE • CRYSTAL • FLY'ING CLOUD � LAKE ELMO • SAI�IT PAUL DO�\�IT04Wi C �� METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGdJLAR SCHEDULED MEETING September 18, 2000 CALL TO ORDER A regular scheduled meeting of the Metropolitan Airports Commission, having been duly called, was held Monday, September 18, 2000 in Room 3040, Charles Lindbergh Terminal Building, Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, Wold- Chamberlain Field. Chairman Nichols called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. The following were in attendance: Commissioners D'Aquila, Fiore, Gasper, Hale, Kahler, Long, McKasy, Rehkamp, Speer, Stenerson, Weske and Chairman Nichols L. Sorensen, Commission Secretary M. Hill Smith, Metropolitan Council R. Rought, MN/DOT .. C. Mertensotto, MASAC J. W. Hamiel, Executive Director T. W. Anderson, General Counsel N. D. Finney, Deputy Executive Direcfor — Planning and Environment D. A. Kautzer, Deputy Executive Director — Administrative Services T. �. Anderson, Deputy Executive Director - Operations D. Bergsven, Deputy Executive Director - Human Resources D. Dombrowski, Deputy Executive Director - Labor and Government Affairs S. Busch, G. Wennerstrom, G. Schmidt, P. Rasmussen, J. Unruh, B. Hoium, P. Hogan, G. Warren, A. von Walter, M. Kilian, A. Johnson, S. Sannes, B. Hoyt, T. Howell, MAC Staff K. Olson, Liesch G. Alberg, HNTB J. DeCoster, NWA J. Schumacher, HOAC H. Hitchcock, ANE D. Saunders, SMAAC R. Hessler, Signature Flight Support G. Renneke, Larkin Hoffman T. Coleman, Pioneer Press Ido items were moved from the Conser�t portion to the Discussion portion of the agenda. C� Commission Meeting September 18, 2000 Page 2 CONSENT ITEIVIS The following Consent Items were approved by the roll call vote as indicated. This includes the issues discussed at the various Committee meetings during the month of September which were approved by unanimous or majority vote and, in the opinion of the Committee Chairperson and Staff, should be routine or non- controversial. COMMISSIONER HALE MOVED AND CONiMISS10NER FIORE SECONDED APPROVAL OF THE CONSEPlT ITENiS AS LISTED BELOW. The motion carried on the following roll call vote: Ayes, twelve: Commissioners D'Aquila, Fiore, Gasper, Hale, Kahler, Long, II�cKasy, Rehkamp, Speer, Stenerson, Weske and Chairman Nichols Nays, none Absent, three: Commissioners Dowdle, Houle and Johnson -.� AIRPORT LEASES - Board File 12586 ",. � APPROVAL OF THE FOLLOWING LEASE ACTIONS AS REQUESTED; FURTHER, AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OR HIS DESIGiVEE, TO EXECUTE THE NECESSi4RY DOCUMENTS. Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport - Approval of license agreement between the Commission and the United States Navy which allows use of approximately 6.5 acres of the Navy Ramp at MSP for civilian de-icing operations. Consent to Sun Country Airlines to host a benefit in its subleased hangar at 7701 - 26th Avenue South on behalf of the Greater Minneapolis Crisis Nursery. Commission consent also includes issuance of a temporary liquor license and authorization of the sale of raffle tickets. Consent is conditional upon Commission receipt of a notice of consent to the benefit by the hangar's lessee (Northwest Airlines), a copy of an approved gambling permit as issued by the Gambling Control Board, and evidence of insurance in appropriate amounts commensurate with the activities taking place in conjunction with the benefit. St. Paul Downtown Airport - Issuance of new aircraft �storage lease to R.P. Air, Inc. for the construction af a new aircraft storage hangar. Flying Cloud Airport - Authorization of lease transfers as follows: Nancy Walter, Judy Streitz, Robert Merhar, Lot 48E, to David O. Hansen and Old Home Foods, Inc., Lot 103C (1/3), to Steven & Cynihia Bulwicz. ; ) Commission Meeting September 18, 2000 Page 3 Anoka County-Blaine Airport - Consent to mortgage of leasehold interest of H D Aviation, LLC, Row 1, C& D, to Private Bank Minnesota as security for a loan. Lake Elmo Airport - Approval of lease transfer of KGB Enterprises, Inc., principles Glenn L. & Karen A. Bauer, Lot 5C, to Danny Bergstrom. Airlake Airport - Authorization of lease transfer of Samuel H. Roane, Lot 20B, to Everett McDonald, Jr. FINANCIAL REPORT — Board File 12587 APPROVAL OF THE TOTAL AMOUiVT OF $41,5fi9,347.24 FOR PAYMENT AND TRANSFER, SUBJECT TO AUDIT. Planning and Environment Committee — Board File 12588 (See minutes of the September 5, 2000 Committee meeting) A1 m A3 GL? Final Payments - MAC Contracts a) Materials Storage Building . b) Runway 9L-27R Reconstruction - Flying Cloud Airport c) 1998 Pavement Rehabilitation/Airfield Signage - Crystal Airport d) 1999 Part 150 Sound Insulation Program Semi-Final Payments - MAC Contracts a) Parking Expansion: Core Building/Finishes, QTA, Ramp Stair Enclosures b) Parking Expansion: Inbound/Outbound Roadway Bids Received - MAC Contracts a) 2000/2001 Glycol Recovery Program b) Runway 12R/30L Tunnel Asbestos Abatement c) �indbergh Terminal Flooring Replacement d) Package Express Services Relocation e) Afliscellaneous Airfield Electrical Upgrades - St. Paul Downtowrn Airporf f� Restroom Facilities - Crystal Airport and Anoka County-Blaine Airport g) Part 150 Sound Insulation Program - August Bid Cycle Bids Received - MAC Purchase Orders . a) Materials Storage Building: AOA Sand Storage Ventilation b) Green Parking Ramp 7th Level Lighting Upgrad� Review of Upcoming Construction Project Bids July 2000 Activity Report for Metro Office Park Change Management Policy and Project Status Report Easement to the City of St. Paul - St. Paul Downtown Airport Airlake Airport Construction Permit . �:. C�� ' Commission Meeting September 18, 2000 Page 4 A10 Project Budget Adjustments A11 LRT Tunnel BidsiSpeciai Meeting Al2 Part 150 Noise Abatement Plan Update - Status Report A13 Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee - Final Report A14 Preliminary 2001-200? Capital Improvement Program A15 Runway 17-35 Tunnel Dewatering A16 Reliever �4irports Sewer and Water IVlanagement and Operations Committee - Board File 12589 (See minutes of the September 6, 2000 Committee meeting) B1 Bids Received for Capital Equipment B2 Update: Annual Taxicab Permit Fee - Ordinance No. 81 B3 Recommendation: Award of Shared Ride Shuttle Agreement B4 Update: Reliever Lease Policies Issues a) Hangar Inspection Procedure b) "T-Hangar" Status B5 Lease Rate Dispute - Public Appearance 66 Holman Field FAA Part 139 Certification Status A�rmative Action Cornmittee - Board File 12590 (See minutes of the September 18, 2000 Committee meeting) D1 TGB Program Update D2 DBE Program Update D3 NANIC - UM Issues and Concerns APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER LONG MOVED AND COMMISSIONER FIORE SECONDED APPROVAL OF THE Ni1NUTES OF THE REGULAR SGHEDULED AUGUST 21, 2000 NIEETING APID THAT ALL ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE CONiiVI1SSION AT SAID tVIEETIPIG AND AS RECORDED IN SAID Ni1NUT�S BE R�ITIFIED. l�ISCUSS/ON ITEMS . S�ecial Planning and Environment Committee - Board File 12591 � � �� /' 1 � TUNTED in ig9o-9i by fears stemming �rom � the confrontation in Southwest Asia and the ensuing GuIP War, and in i997'9$ by the Asian economic crisis, world air traffic neverthetess grew at a Past pace in the last decade of the zoth century. (See the table showing the `Devetopment of World Scheduled Revenue Traffic'.) As long as rising fuel costs remain in check, it appears that growth will continue in the coming years. This is exemplified by the forecast reteased on June 22 by kfie International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) which predicts that totat passenger tra�c of the wortd's airlines will grow at nearty 6% in z000, 5.5% in zooi, and over 5% in zoo2. Thet wou(d be 3o times as many passenger- kitometres in Zooz as ICAO members performed in sg6o (not then inctuding China, the USSR, and many countries yet to gain independence)." Unfortunately, since i96o the number of airports serving the world's largest hu6s has not grown commensurab(y. Delays are more frequent, bags get tost more often, tem,pers Pray, and politicians threaten yet more rounds of setf-serving inquiries. Through it alt, airport authorities around the wortd try to squeeze more passengers, more cargo, and more aircraft through atready overburdened facilities, at the same time seeking support from (ocal residents - - - Above: Nang ong ts Authority, Hong Kon� leit: Frartkfurt Airpori��9��ut� �� ndnearfyasmarnYchartercorrierslinkFronYkfurtwith � ation's transportution industr}c around the worid. (Flughafen Frankfurc/Main) - comes to aircraft movements. Atlanta takes a and 2oth in the wortd). back seat behind ORD and jFK as far as ca��o According to ICAO preliminary data, in 1999 operakionsareconcemed(ranking11thintheUS �oo�eof heei 734Nb Il on�passenger-malfes � � � � A,� � (2,�gibitlion ki(ometres) realised bythe world's . ' schedu(ed airlines. Those registered in Europe ' f7onmes- 'Tota �Tonnes. .. came in second place with 36.6% of trafi'ic, dose(y - •--- - � - • - ^--_--�^�' = f llowed by those in the Asia/Pacific region with • _ '��'�. ��3�``��.�_ �� =�A'�- '_'„'" _..a�-x 1.ILF2 � �.�; �.. . 3995-'_ 1304':;�••-;.�'`�.�°-�"�. �� ``"�''�S-`ffs , ��-�.�e'� s � 1997.:4. _1.457 69� � � 9 �.u...r•. •' S� 60 � : 69% - and financing from their governments and from private investors. Everyone wants to fly, but no one wants ko endure the noise or bear the cost. Peopte aplenty � ' : Ask most people outside America which is the busiest airport in the United States (if not the world) and you are tikely to be totd it is John Kenned'ylntemationalAirportinNewYork. Wrong _ jFiC ranks zoth in the world in terms of passenger traffic, 5th in cargo traffic, and 37th for aircraft movements (behind both Newarkand La Guardia, the other major airports operated by the Port AuthoriryoFNewYoiicandNewJersey). Mostofthose not putting forward Kennedy as the number one airport in the U5A are tikely to name the 0'Hare Internakionat Airport in Chicago (ORD) as being at the top. Wrong again — in terms oF passenger traffic and aircraft movements, the HartFetd Atlanta IntemationatAirport in Georgia takes t}ie undisputed tead. In these categories, ORD is second (with 6.990 fewer passengers and L7%fewer aircraft movements). JFK is only z4th in the US as far as passenger tra�c is concerned and 3sst in the US when it 0 23.8%. Airlines from Latin America and the Caribbean accounted for 4.9%, while those from the Middte East and Africa respectivety notched z8%and z2%ofwortd scheduled passengertraffic That traEfic distribution is reflected in the ranking of airports as shown in the tabte on page v{8, Looking past these'top ted and other regional leaders, it is worth noting that among the worid's ioo busiest airports in terms oPamving, departing, and direct transit pa3sengers, i�q are in North America, (42 are in the USA, Canadian airports in the group being Toronto internationat Airport in Ontario and Vancouver internationa( Airport im A6ove's This werhead tiew oT nar up=,v �••�...- .... -- system forthe brrsiest n+rpo�= h+'o wide(ysepa�nted pairs ofP e�� t�Atl nta Department oPAv atfon, viatAutho� and Inndirrg operations. Asimr7a�layoutis used jorLAX in l.osM9 147 AIR Internationat • September �000 ` . �.. �..��'�,.. � commerc'tai Ranking � _ = A�rport ;, y �Passengers � _ .._... -- ::.>-._.._ __:..� . �;...:� ._ ... _..:_.._ �.�._ .__ �_ .:.:_.u_ ..:- :_--- .— _-_" (Arriving+ Departing+ Dired Transik) The top io � *-� , . :� � .. -: � - _. ....::..._m..:.,� > . _. .. : ... __ �. ..._ _.: _ _• :._.:... ,r_ _ . _.._:,��.._. . ... ,�..__ . .. _.:. _ � � 1 ATI: Atlanta, Georgia, USA �77.939.536'� ... . _ ...:..__ _�,.:.._....,._.._ �_,..- ._. _ .., ` 2 � ORDc Chicago 0'Hare, lllinois, USA - 7z,568 076 ....:... .. ,..... :.�.._ . v. .._ . .., .__� ,-r - �-° ==--__=___.,:...._..�....•.__ _:_._.... .. ._ .w . ... . _ _ . 3 LAX: Los Angetes, Califomia, USA 63,876,56i .. - ...__...,:—, --- - .::-_.._ 4 LHR: I:Dndon Heathrow UK ,; 6z,z63.7io . ._ ._..:._._....:: . _:� __.. _ _-_..-_..:�.,��_�.:.,.__.�.�:. __,s,:_ .�.___,...� __� ._.__�----'- 5 DFW: Datlas/Ft Worth, Texas, USA 60.000,ia5 6 .__-----.....�. ,...__.. ._�__,._._._�'-HND:Tokyo-Haneda,laPa� -------- �.54.338,zu _,�. . 7 � �FRA: FrankfurtJMain. Germany � 45.8583i5 . $�= Y . • _ . . ; �• � �5. � '. _....._... .,i..,.�c ,_.._... -..... .__^fllf.='Pa'nc_('harlacdnfanlla Franta. ....-:..`�i.a�co6o[a_ �_... - 4�- �-�,��--�."� � ��.65=�"'a'�.c� � �.��"�'-'-Y �6RUz45aoPauto=GuaiuUibs�-'Brazit��. i4.547.089,�-,��y.yr� ��s"'�_�_..., � �" (6usiest airport in South America) .. . _ _ , . : . �. . _ � . . � - ' . �1 - - � • � ' _..... ., , .. �. ..; _ . _.. ;s� �XB::�utiai;U :; - �: � � � —,� �-- - Middte East) � . . . ._- - -• . . . _ _ - British Co(ombia, respectivety ranked z5th and ^ 57th in the wortcn. Surprisingiy, as Montreat was for a tong time the primary gateway to Canada, � ) Montreat only comes in io4th position.) Thirly- ' one are in Europe, inctuding four in the UK (Heathrow 4tfi, Gatwick z�.st, Manchester 5oth, and Stansted 89th). Eighteen are in the Asia/Pacinc region (three ofthese in Austra(ia: Sydney (SYD), 38th; Metbourne (MEL), 63rd; and Brisbane (BNE), 79th) and three in Japan (Haneda, 3rd, Narita, 3ist, and Osaka, y5th). four are in the Middte East, two in Latin,America, and on(y one in Africa. Airports in countries which once constituted the Soviet Union, and which unti( the start of the tast decade were served by the then att-encompassing Aeroflot, now barety register-the road to free enterprise is fraught with difFiculties for Russia, Ukraine and Betarus. (Sheremetyevo is 87th, Vnukovo i88th, St Petersburg za6th and Kiev z86th; the tast three being preceded by Luton which ranks i36th amongst the wor(d's busiest ai�ports). Minsk, the capita( of Be(arus, even fails to make the top 500. In the world's mosY populous nation, the People's Republic of China, which is experiencing rapid growth in civit aviation, the tead is (ikety to be held for many years to come by Hong Kong (HK6) in the capitalist former Crown Colony (z3rd in the world); Beijing comes in 49th and Shanghai is 6yth. In Europe, traffic growth has been spectacular at the (eading gateways, London and Paris_ In - i96o, 5.8 mi(lion passengers passed throu;h ', ) Heathrow and Gatwick, with Orly and le Bourget handling 3.g miftion passengers. Nearly four decades (ater, four London airports - London Heathrow (LHR), Gatwick (LGW), Stansted (STN) and Luton (LTN)-handled g8.i mi!(ion passen�ers whi(e Chartes de GauUe (CDG) and Orty (ORI� saw 68.g million passengers. The wor(d teader, however, remains Memphis in Tennessee, home of Federal Express, the speciafised cargo air(ine that revolutionised the industry fo(lowing its organisation in i97i. Altogether, there are 44 US and tvuo Canadian airports among the world's ioo busiest cargo airports. Sixteen of the (eaders are in Europe. The batance of the top ioo is taken up by eight airports in the Middle East, four in Latin America. and two in Africa. Overthe past four decades, there were numerous attempts to have dedicated cargo airports ptaced into operations, often as a result of the closure of military air bases. In the author's 4o-year experience in airport operations, ptanning, and design, no such venture has yet fulfy succeeded, Once such recentventure is Vatry, east of Paris (see Europort Vatry Airport on line for z000 opening, AI R intemationat,)anuary ig99, page x�) which has seen only a handfu( of movements since opening a couple of moridis ag�. W'rth CDG and ORYrespective[y ranking u+th (at half the votume of top-ranking Memphis) and 86th in i99g amongtheworld's 6usiest cargo airports, the author fias a hard time be[ieving in a rosy financial future fo� Vatry o, for that mafte , anyother dedicated cargo airports. in his opinion, the time for such specia(ised airports has yet to come. � . . �} :��-�`'��.�. - •. . . . . .. ' ; �sy ��,TtreW�r(d's BusiestA�rpori�' CargaTrafnc ` ` ' �.z �'n..�. l. 4��,,��,��..z . t,;x�s. �� ., �.��,.. �,t ,.. � _ � , ,.,�. � �a t _; � ,.,�, ... - •�� r =' �,�,... '.:.� � -� �- � �.- �� -� �' ~',--.�.c.,.�,�,. ._ �� :._ :.'��'=s��.�"��r•M�` �'"`"�'�''�..�,�� =^w�`� ..� _n _: a :F�3� �+,'c`"��.�-�.:�`��""^ .�-+.'�..u~-�-�..�.�� 5 =: fI airport CA, USA >: .;_ . . . .:,':;:._: ' '_:..�� SEL•Seou[,SouthKorea.��.:_;: =:. _, . East) � . � . - . . , . SYD-SydneyAustraLa.,.,,�-�� zjoz `�" ��-�,.'�"?�� - s.� � — - ��.`>- 7 � .. �� - Latin America) -:_ J' r,�• ��`��+�s.�'x.�-'�NB Goods galore Although the world's airlines perEormed only just under 50% more passenger-mites in i999 than in i99o, they more than doubled their �reight ton-miles during the same period. Much of that growth occurred in the Asia/Pacific region; hence it should not be surprising to see Hong Kong in the number � slot, fo(Iowed by Tokyo-Narita in yth and Seoul in 7th. There are n other Asia/Pacifc airports amon;st the top ioo in the world, including two in AusYrafia (Sydney in New South N/ales and Me(boume in Yctoria). - .....�..�.r-> - aviation aircrah are either simply forbidden or their operations are strictly curtailed in order to give priority to commercial aviation (and, on many occasions, to joint civi(/military operations). On the other hand, at most airports in North America (where 7o°a of the wortd's GA aircraft are based), private aircraft have unrestricted access. Hence it is not surprising to note that att i6 of the busiest airports in terms of aircraft movements are in the United 5tates. Moreover, airports with refative(y limited air transport operations, such as the )ohn Wayne Airport south of Los Ange(es (i3th in the world), end up rankingweU ahead of such major y + Take-ofFs) Atlanta, DFVII: '`5"'— PHX Pfioemx,AZ.USA :' S6s,lb1 s.�Y:-�s^..=,..r--^-=-�s-� �� , -n �`> .�'v.: =6s� -=�r ��-.c;:.:a..N-y.'r -� •.�rt�t:'DTW Detroi�Ml'USA,=.� ... m� � �»7.��i� a- - y� 1A5: las Vegas. NV, USA _ �: 54�.133T ,..,_.�.�_ A. Miami, FL, USA .. ._ - ;,�: 5i6,5o7 - - --._.�,�-�-.� -�- --------- .. � . . . . . • . . - _ ..,:.,, -,._....>� � ---.ti _ . .. . _.._ . _ ......_ _.+...s...r .:s. v.. x :Yi�'- .W.. �as ��,:�-.�,-.—,�g�� -- - - America) . � .. — - _ @usies[ airport in the Middle East) _ @usiest airport in Africa) `'-_: y ' ' "�= (6usiest airport in tfie GS) _ - '_ air transportation hubs as Heathrow (zist), Sydney (5znc� and Haneda (64th). Sixty-seven of the loo airports with the most aircraft movements are in the United States, whiie four are in Canada (Toronto [YYZ], 28th in the� world; Vancouver [YVRj, 3znd; Montreat [YUIJ, 74th; and Yctoria [Y`(J], 96th primarity on account of GA activities). Europe has zo ofthe busiest airports in that category, and three oPthem are in Britain (LHR, z�st; LGW, 6oth; and Ringway, Manchester[MANb 9ist). Six oP the busiest airports are in the AsiaJPacific region (one in Australia, Sydney[SYD] as the 52nc�, two are in Latin America (Mexico Cty [MEX] in M�ico, 5ist, and Sao Paulo [GRUJ in Brazil, 88th), and one in the Middle East (Istanbul [IST] in Turkey, g8th). Mostly otd The adjacent table combines into a single entry the ten (eading airports in each tra�ric category as given in previous lists. . This list is reveating in as much as it enables one to ascertain that s7 out oPthe zz busiest airports were atready in operation before the start oE 'jumbo' operations in january i97o. Three (Chartes de Gaulte, Denver Fort Worth and Tokyo Narita) were opened after the 747 entered service and only two (Denver and Hong Kon� came on tine during the past decade. Most of the i7 others are ageing and are now constrained either on landside (with congested road access and overflowing car parks) or on airside (with taxiways and taxiway exits often ill-suited to forthcoming heavier and la,er aircraft). The arrivat in the tast quarter oF2oo5, or shortty thereafter, of the A3XX (and its likety 6oeing competitor) will create serious problems at these otder airports. Whi(e Airbus prodaims, as it does in a press release .a...,,,a i��.,e �� „� �},ar rha A�XX will 6e the world's "first reat doubte-decker", airports must find space and money forterminals with gates and check-in counters capab(e of `swaltowing' upwards of 60o passengers in a sing[e gulp through the use of stil! non-eacistent dual-tevel boarding bridges. At the same time, marry of these airports need to upgrade taxiways and runways. Fortunate(y, the experience gained from the introduction ofthe first jets (when airports were rapidty upgraded to cope with 7o7s and DG8s instead oFbeing lejt unchanged to handte VCios) commercial and from the arrival of jumbo jets (predicted in the tate i96os as spetling the doom of otder airports) can give confidence that ways witl be Found to handle A3XXs, ptus whatever Boeing chooses to respond with. (� , Atlanta, the wor(d's busiest Hartsfield Atlanta internationat Airport, (ATL) At(anta 77.939�536 passengers (No i in the world in ig99) ' 883.149 metric tonnes of freight (No zo in the wor(d) gog,9ii aircraft movements (No i in the world in i999) The City of Atlanta was extremely fortunate that Candler Fetd, located only io miles (s6km) south of its downtown area, had ample space for growth. Operations had begun in the (ate igzos, and by the time-Ehe field was renamed as The William B Hartsfield intema6onat Airport in i97s, Candter Feld had been deve(oped into a five-runway complexwith terminat facilities located to the north of the `intersecting runways (o3-Zi and i5-33)• A«�s to the three parattei runways (o8-z6, ogL-z7R, and o9R- z7U was s(ow as it eniailed aossing one ofthe other runways; moreove , insufficienYspace was availabte to ezpand tfie existingtertninat comptex Cornetse(y, by dosing the two intersecking runways, space 6ecame available to add a fourth para[tel nmway �(o8L-z6R) and to site a(arge terminal comple�cwith the main buitding and four paratlel concourse 6uitdings between the two pairs of (almost) paraltel runways. • Operations from the new terminat complex beg-an � in i98�, and since ttien, a fifth domestic concourse and an intemationai concourse have been added ' to bring tota( area of the termina! complex to 5.7 mitlion square feet (5z,955m=). The concourses are linked to the main terminat by means of a 33/2 mile (5.6km) underground people mover using nine fourvcar trains. Road access to the airport is • srtpptemented by a MARTA (Metropolitan Attanta �-- ,.,�� 13 zi I.}IR London Heathrow UK k -.�.-�. �;.."��.,��"'�", a"�'� g2 � �„r+c��? a�'` �� 30 �,,,.i'� I t �,MEN Mem�p�iis TN ;�.,� � a . .� _.�._.�.....� ` MIA. M�am� FL, USA ' '� $ � r---"-,'�.;"'e-'-�'�"^""",-....% .�� +�s'��- :r� . �'-;f.•�rr4,-�cv. �r 9�R-�-:°'-�a•z� ' � --r, / � MSP MmneapoLs-St Paul, M.�N, USA�.�-�: ....a.,,�.�.,...::R..:_,�.�..a 45 .•,,;�.,,r'Y',::x,w�'��1�,. °:.�..�-...�._.A..a-.�A � su..�.�..�,�::�:� - z �� , NRT�okyo-��l.a-Pa.�-,�,r.,,,_,..,. z. 3s 4 ,-�--�,',, 35Y �^^.« n---:°: �: �OAIG Oakland. � USA-��• � :.y.:�;.�. $4 _:�-._,_...,_ " 2{, -.� `''� - � 8 - � . ,; . _ . ORD: Chica o 0'Hare, IL, USA � � 1O 2 --.-�s 8 __--.__.-�•> r..,.,.;.�.e,,,, �.;.x-� ::-� 's,: ,_ _•- .1.++-�:^JX"T'3l'��:=_..._._... C'�. .... .. ,:.�-.ys.-.�..,r...=.,�:...:__._...- - i8 SEL- Seoul, Sooth Korea _ __��_,,,__ 79 commercial Rapid TransitAuthority) (ine enabling passengers to travel to/f�om downtown Atlanta in i5 minutes. In addition to being the world's busiest airport, A11 can boast of being the (argest�mployment centre � the State of Georgia (with approximately cFy,800 ;mptoyees working for the City of Atlanta, the Federal Aviation AdministraYian, airlines and concessionaires). In i999. a�rt revenue F�om tanding fees, concession revenues, parking Fees, bui(ding and land rentals, and passenger facility charges totalled $z43.8 mi{tidn (approximately £i6o.9 million). Frankfurt/Main, a German tradition - Flughafen Frankfurt/Main (FRA) Frankfurt am Main 45�858.315 Passengers (No 7 in the world in i999) 1.539.oq8 metric tonnes of freight (No 9 in the world) 439��93 aircraft movements (No z3 in the wortd in i999) - German�s leading airport, Flughafen Frankfurt/Main is rich in history and has a bright future. Opened to traffic in the spring of i936, it was first used by the GrafZeppelin rigid airship on Maysathatyear and by a Junkers Ju 5z/3m trimotor on )uly 8. Today it is a hive of adivity forsundryAirbus types and a bevy of747-400s. Located 71/z mites (izkm) from the city, FR,4 has served over the past 5o years both as the main civii; airport in Germany and a major USAFE instatiation ,(Rhein-Main AB). Untit i98cF, when runwayi8-36 ( �primarity used for take-offs) was added, �-- rrankfurt/Main onty had two c(ose paratlel runways. Terminal expansion north of runway o7L-z5R was difficult and costt'y, but nevertheless rnsutted in the qbove: ForFlughofen imnk(urt/Main, minim�.sing the etmronmenm� �mpaa o/a�raansporsanon on mrporr emp�oyees and the people living in neighbouring communities is a ma%orconcern and obiigation. One of the projects adopted to improve tlre emironment—the oirrra(t noise monitoring system, instatled somego years ago -has resutted ��oreof4�rret�envimnmentallyfrx�rdlyairoajtinaeasingtremendouslyinrerentyems (FlughafenFrankfurt/Main) Notabte developments in recent years inctude p�ertaken by success theopeninginMayi999oftheAlRalTerminalfor Aeroporto lntemacional do Sao Pauto (6RU) the ICE QnterGtyExpress) high-speed raHUansport Guaruihos . " The current ICE schedule provides for hourly : s�,5q7,o89 passengers departures on the Ham6urg-Baset tine and -(No 65 in the world in i999) departures every other hour on the Berlin- yi6,899 metric tonnes af freight Nurembeig, Dresden-Passau and Ham6urg5tuttgart (No 4i in the woric� • tines. FRA thus has become one of the teading i87,i5� aircraft movements exponents of ihe .,via tEain to the piane' joint . (No. 88 in the worid in i999) , transportation'm,o'de. � As the busiest airport in Germany and a major European gatewaY i'n�ith, for exampte, socscheduled American carriers ofFering regvtar passenger services Yo/from FRAversus onlytwo at Heathrow), FRA needs to expand further. It is irnestigating the feasibiGlyofaddu�ga fourth runwaX eithernortheast, Above: Hong Kong lntemationol Airport has been named one o/the tnpten co�rsUudion ochievements ofthe zoth century. Bnift on a3,o8y acre man-mode p(atform o� the norfhem shore of lantau lsland, the new Nong Kong /ntemationbt Airport at Chek Lap Kak commenced operations on July6, igg8. At that time, onty the sauUi`nrnway (that clvsest to Cantnu lsland) had been completed. Ddytime operafions on the north runway started on May a6, s99g, dnd were fotlowed bymund-the-clock opemtions/'romAugustgs, ig9g. (Airport Authority, Hong Kona� opening oFTerminal z in October i99�. In that same month, howeve , most of the USAFE facilities south of runway o7R-�51 were retumed to Ftughafen Frankfurt/Main's controt. Room then became availab(e to relocate some civitian activities to the south side and to bui(d the•z3z acre (94 `/ Ihectare) CargoCity South, so opening up space for "` passenger terminaf expansion on the north side. The tatest construction phase has sean the i3-aircraft docking position Pier A-Extension opening in March z000 and adding annua( capacity for 5 miflion passengers. Other expansion projects in areas B and C of Terminal i(the so-called Lufthansa Terminal Frankfurt) are in progress. northwest, orsouth oFthe airport. However, with environme�talists a major politicat force in Germany (the Green/Attiance'90 group holding q7 seats in the 66z-seat Bundesta�, it wit( be some years before that runway is in operetion. Although smallerthan Atlanta in terms of land area, passenger and cargo traffic, and aircraft movements, FRA is bigger in terms oFemptoyment and revenue. Revenues in i998 amounted to DM z,46i.q (about , £788.8 million or��,189.i million at current exchange rates), nearly five Gmes the z999 revenue in At(anta. Fmployment at Fl2A totalled 58,cFoo in December i993, as against current employment oFy�,800 in Atlantz. ln i98o, Sao Paulo, a(ongwith surrounding cities, was ttie targest metropolis in South America. More than iz million Paul'istanos and their Pau(ista neighbours `pal[ed the Br—.zi(ian economic wagon' and accessed other Braziiian centres and the worid through three airports. Campo de Marte was the generat aviation fie(d and housed a major mititary logistic centre (Parque de Materiat Aeronautico), Yracopos was the international gateway located nearty 6o mles (94km) out of town, and Congonhas was the busiest airport Noweve , with access to/Erom distant Vracopos slow and cost(y and Congonhas hopetessly urban-bound (from the ai , the airport tooks very much Iike an aircraft carrier anchored in the midst of a sea of houses), the need For a new airport had become urgent For severat years, Brazilian and foreign teams had tooked at attemative developments but the preferred site, west of the city in a heaviiy-wooded area, was rejected on environmentat grounds. Fnal(y, political considerations prevaited. A new airport to serve `southern .cone' (the tower part oF the South American continent) traffic had to be buift, and it had to be built fast. (The govemorofthe State of Sao Paulo aspired to be the next Brazi[ian president and needed to show he could get things done). Unfortunate(y, the political witl to get past environmental objections was lacking (ruting out the previously-favoured site west oPthe city) and precarious economic conditions demanded that the new airport be.buitt with minimllm outtays of foreign currencies. Accordingly, the State of Sao Pau(o and the Brazitian AirportAuthority, ln�raero, decided in i979 that a new domestic/regional airport would be built at Guaru(hos, on the edge of the Sao Pau(o mil'�tary bzse at Cumbica, and would accommodate up to 3o million passengers annuatly. The site chosen Por the new domestic/regional airport was ideally (ocated just o` the main Sao Pau(o—Rio de laneiro moton•:ay, some iz miles (i9km) from the city centre. Its development, howeve , would be constrained by lack of available space, especially as the for�o Rereo Brasileiro (FAB, Brazilian Air Force) was unwilling to relinquish the area south of the runway at Base Aerea de Cumhica. Consequently, it was planned to continue using the Congonhas airport for the air bridge (Ponte Aerea) flights to/from Rio de )aneiro white the Viracopos Internationa( Airport wou(d be devetoped further to handte passenger flights to/from North America, Europe,Asia and Africa, as wetl as most cargo operations. Once the decision had been taken to proceed with this ptan, things moved swiftly. A new body was organised to manage upgrading of�racopos and to initiate the deve(opment ofGuarul�os. D�ignated COPASP (Gomissa"o Coordenadora Projeto Sistema Aeroportu6rio Area Terminal Sao Paula, or Co- . ordinating Commission Forthe Sao Paulo Airport System Project), this Air Ministry (Ministerio do Aeronautico) organisation issued a request for ` proposats in )anuary i980. Two months tate , three Brazi(ian firms were each awarcled a two-month " contrad to devetop compeGng Pretiminary Master P(ans for the new regiona( airport at Guaru(hos. The winnerwas awarded a contract forthe Fnat Master . Plan and the design of the new airport Work on that phase began during tfie summer of i980. Less than five years later — in January ig85 —the Guaruthos IntemationalAirport (GRIn was opened. (This contrasts sharptywith the comp(etion schedu(e for the new Denver International Airport in the United States: DEN opened amidst controversy in February i995, nine years after the start of design and six years after the start of construction. - The smatt size oFthe site on wfiich Guarulhos was built (7 milesz [igkmzj against, for examP�� 53 m�les2 [i37km2] for the new Denver airport) timited it to only two c(ose paratte[ runways (n Denve , five runways, soon to be s'�. Neverthetess, operations at GRU. succeeded Far beyond expectations.• Contrary to what had been planned back in the earty sg8os, intemadonat passenger ftights and most carnn operations have been transferred from Campinas to GRU as, once Guaruthos was opened, airtines, passengers, and shippers were no tonger wil(ing to cope with difficutt access to the more remote Campinas/Vracopos airport. Today, i5 years afteroperations began, GRU is the busiest airport in Brazil and South America (u+.5 mitlion passengers in i999 �ersus 5.7 mi(tion for Rio de Janeiro; 4i7,000 tonnes of cargo versus iz9,000 for Rio; and i87,000 aircraft movements versus 84,00o for Rio). (See tables for GRU's passenge , cargo, and movernent rankings.ip.the wor(d.) Too soon, however, GRU wilt simply run out oFsPace. The Sao Paulo and Brazifian authorities wiit have to begin planning for a new airport. A dream come true HongKong internationat Airport (HKG) Chek Lap Kok z9.733.h7o passengers (No 23 in the world in i999) i,988,838 metric tonnes of freight (No Z in the woricn i79,633 aircraft movements (No 97 io the world in i999) Whereas the planners and de5igners of Guarulhos saw their aptions drastica(ty timited by land, financial and political constraints, those working � areas, there was simply no room to add another runway and to expand the severe(y congested passenger and cargo terminats. Spectacular as it was For passengers as wetl as for spotters and on(ookers, the approach to Kai Tak was most demanding. Bowing to the inevitable, the 6overnor of Hong Kong, Sir David Wilson, announced in October i989 —(ess than seven years 6sfore the Crown �olony was to be returned to China — that a new airport woutd be built at Chek Lap Kok Twenty-three months late , a Memorandum of Understanding was signed by the governments of the United Kingdom and the People's Repu6(ic of China. Sited on the no�th shore of Lantau Island, some i51/2 miles (25km) from Hong Kong's central business district, the site of the new airport required that a 3,084 acre (�,z48 hectare) ptatform Above:fieGuuruihossneseteaeami979�ormenew�aornu�oinremauonarfurpoawasraosmat(toprov/ue - su(f'icieirt sepamtion between the two runwnys for simnitaneons opemtions. The original runway and the mifitaryuestallatiorss af Base Aereu de Cumbica are located at the top. The new ruawoy is closer to t6e terminal . ramp. Qni'raero, via Mario Ro6erto Cameiro) free rein to their architecturat and engineering talents (see Hong Kong's 6iant Hub, February 1997. pege 8�)• •.. _ To accommodate jetliners, Hong Kong's Kai Tak Airport had its i3-3i runway extended into Kowloon Bay, first io 8,35�� i2.545m) in i958, and then to io,g3o�t (3,329m) prior to the entry into service of wide-bodied aircraft. However, with Kai Tak being toceted in one of tfie worid's most densely populeted urban A6ove: Use of a rai( rystem to link terminafs and otherairport faci(ities wa3 pioneered at the Da1(as-Fodh Wort6 Airport in the ea�ly s97os. The Monoraif system at the Newark Internatinna( Airport is carrently undergoing a major extension. (Port Authority oF NY & NJ, via Author) access hed to 6e provided to link the new airport to Kowloon and lrttoria, while a high-speed ferry was to connect it with Tuen Mun in tfie New Territories. The resutts were truty spectacular feats of architedure and engineering that; since ' the dedication ofthe new airport 6y President)iang Zemin on Juty z, i998, havebeen recognisedby numerous intemationat awards. Compteted on time and within budget, the new Hong Kong intemationat ' Airpo�t has been wted one oFthe top ten construction ' achievements of the zoth Century. , After a final rush to complete tfie move from Kai Tak to Chek Lap Kok duringthe night of)u(y 5-6, i998, '' scheduCed operations began at 6:z7 on the moming oP)uIy 6 with the arrivat fram NewYodc oFF(ight 00889, a 747-qoo (rom Cathay Pacific. UnFortunatety, the satisfaction accompanying the start of operations was soon marred by probtems (such as those affecting the automaked Cargo Hand6ng5ystem which required six weeks to be brought under controi). Recovery, howeve , was swift and comp(ete. Two years after service began, the airport at Chek Lap Kok has survived the turtnoil ofAsia's economic downtum and overcome any teething troub(es. Growth is now fast, the iz-month period to May 3i, z000, endingwith 3L6 mi(lion passengers and 2.si mil(ion tonnes of ai�reight passing through the airport. A1 AIR internationa! • September z000 15i '�� .ao�ss,,Y L + wo � � � ? + w : � - O L `+ � ^� r � : �,,K � � . �o�°'� . ) O � � � .� - L � � O � U `C.-+ a.3 �= _ '� y,l ti L f'� �i-O+ a� ,� F � 3 .� � c3 E"' � O � _ L �r-t r/� y � � � �J � L f]. C3 � � " � 3 � � � c� a� a� � � � � � L ,�y � -i, i-+ iJ � "� � �S3+. O �1. � � � "V � . '�.:+' � � G� .� � • V � .f. +�'-' � � � � � e� � � q�j � v .� � -� t�., O ' �7 >. 3 • o '� '> � o o � � o � � o � ,.� � � � � � � � � a� w cn �, � �. � � � � '3 a� U � "'t7 O r ,.; O � O N O �" '� '_' '� "' �Co J.�.+ � � �. � .-Q � �., � � 4O � � � 3 ° .� � � � � 'a 0 N 'S Z tJt w .a. trt 0 � 0 .� 0 N m � < m � G N � m 0 'v O a O Q � � � a a v q � T '"� � t�A .� � � � .� U U ^ '� N ,� � _� (n � > � � iL� � � J...� L L+ � L � � c�6 ',� � � cU3 .� L � U CQ � � � � �. O N � V .O L �. CCS cs Q v d��- � p� a� p � �., � � � � � � w �..�.� • L (jj � � � `�i ^-+ '� N . p � > N O •-+' �, � U � � � � N 'r] `�" � i-' � N � � O c� U �,_, � !�. � V � ':'"' 0 c,� � -� a� ar�i a�i � '� �+ '� � '� � DD � � 00 a� � � � U o 'no �n � n �`�„ N N v.., �'�..�,Q�,�v^ O � �� `�° 3 � x 3 0 � ° � • � � ,.�� ,.' " cs � � � �� U � � � � U '� - .� [-! � � Y t� � C�.+ V] ,� �� a� 3 � o �> � `� � � � -� � � � i�' 7-+ � >, � � N 0 �� d � ++ � � �- y O •O ,,;, o. � a�i � c � c � �� i c� o � � �+ 0 Q � @ � � �� Qi � � N '� � o �, �- O Q � � = c a� Q. � o � ai .� N '�p � �' Q. Q � � � � o � Q. m = 'a' U l6 'a ,Q Q- .k � � � � � � �.� ++ � = cc �s � •O �- tiA : � .t� N o Z:i� � s�- � •,o � ,� �.p, N -Q � 5�:. .I..i ;y N � � r' � t2 �":�;4) N� � p C: O U cG: _ ,�; a� oo• . � N L� N O C1. a1 'O C .[1 Q. � `>, -� 'o � � N Z Q' � � '' o � � � r� � c°� � o d v � '- � N O LL � � � � � � tII O Q� � � � � � T m a •�+ � :. o. �. . a•'e . � . � t� s�:� � d� c � r C �� a � �.> � � R � Z _= c °� � a y O � � � S ip u �" V C v o � t N L .Q O ` L O a � °' � _ � � c R � � E � � � N U L � 3 a s N ` m ,� d jp Ii � m n c � v_ + i ,: AGENDA REGULAR MEETING `� EAGAN AIl2PORT RELATIONS COMMISSION " EAGAN, NIINN7ESOTA EAGAN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2000 7:0o P.�. I. i20LL CALL AND ADOPTI(�N OF AGENDA li. piYf'�t(I�VA�.., ill+' Ti91lY�U 1'�a 11 �' � : CI • ' 1 IV. NEW BUSINESS A. River Visual Approach Procedure V. OLD BUSINESS A. Part 150 Document Review �� VI. STAFF REPORT - A. Comprehensive Guide Plan B. MASAC Update VI. FUTURE MEETING AND AGENDA A. Negt Commission Meeting — 7:00 p.m. Tuesday, December 12 B. MAC Part 150 Public Hearings.- Wednesday & Thursday, November 8& 9, 5:00-7:00 p.m. followed by 7:00 p.m. hearings at the Thunderbird Hotel in Bloomington � • ^. v:.ai P.��.� v�i�raiiuns i ommii�ee iviig. - 9.u"v a.m. i�nursaay, ivovemoer y C. Next Twin Cities airport Task Force Forum — Monday, November 13 � � � i : � ►� ► Auxilrary 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 Crty of Eagan will attempt to provide such aid. ,. .; _I; i; �' .�; •: ... : � : :, _, - �; �' The Part 150 Update process encouraje`s public involvement as part of the documenc preparauon. In an efforc co ensure such involvement occurs, itifilS�C is sponsoring a public hearin� on the Draft Part 150 Updace dociunenr. Public hearinjs have been scheduled for cwo daces: November 8 and November 9> 2000, borh at rhe Thunderbird Hocel, 2201 78th Screec East in Bloomin� on, Ivlinn. A public workshop will be held - each day from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. !/ with rhe public hea.ring be� nning at � �7:00 p.m. � Borh written and verbal comments will be cal:en a� rhe hearin�. �7ritten eommencs �vill also be accepced uncil 5:00 p.m. on November l�, 2000. To ob�ain a copy of the Drafc Pacc 1�0 Update document or an execucive summary oF che documen�, please ca11 612-726-3141. Ic is also ava.ilable For revie�v a� local libraries and ciry halls. ( I hTASAC N e w s . � � . uring the pasc several mon�hs there have been si� i£canc advance- mencs in the development of various noise miugacion measures to be included in the Noise Compaubiliry Prograrn (NCP) as part oF the Minneapolis-Sc. Paul Incernauonal Airport (MSP) Part 150 Updace � documen�. The Meaopolican Airaaft Sound Abatemenr Council (1ifASAC) has been = reviewing several noise miu�uon initiatives as part of rhe document prepazauon. Specifically, five addiuonal inivauves have been reviewed by ivIA.SAC and approved ' for inclusion in che Draft IvfSP Pan 150 Upda�e documenc These Part I�0-relaced � measures include: volunrary nighr�ime operauons agreemenu with the airlines, ' � provisions for furrher evaluation of Global Positioning System (GPS) cechnology, : concour boundary definiuons, sound insulauon priociaes for single-family and ; mulu-family dwellings and Runway 17 deparcure fli�hc tracl:s. The following information provides an overview of each of the mentioned MSP : Part 150 mici�ation-relaced initiauves_ ' � yo��y i�igi��ime �gpeeme��s wit� Airlines = Throu�hout the Part 1�0 Update proces5, che VfAC and the tiL4Cs consultant have : tivorked closely wich airlines operatinj at tiISP �o compile accurace fleet miY inFormacion : For the development of the 200� Noise Exposure Maps (contours). As part oE this ; process, extensive evaluacions �vere conduaed tivith regard to the potencial reduction oF � nighttime operations at IvfSP. Several opcions �vere evaluaced from rhe perspeccive oFall parcies involved. The : resulc of chis cooperacive effort was approval and endorsemen�, by Vtr1SAC, of a ; proposed voluncary ni�hccime a� eement tivich airlines operacing ac h•15P. The agreemenc : w•ould stace cha�, to the �reacesc �.ecene possible, airlines o�eratin� ac i�fSP should no� : schedule opera�ions in rhe ni�hctime hours beRveen 1030 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. The pro- : posal would further sca�e char, if an opera�ion must occur during chis cimeFrame, che air- = craEc used should be a quiecer manufactured (non-hushl:itted) Scage 3 airerafc. Special : esceptions would apply co operacions that occur in the nighRime hours because of : emergencies, mechanical probfems, Air TrafFc Control delays and wearher. _ Part'15� �Jears Comoletion conlinued on page 2 Volume '1, 4th Quarter ',�s,-� 2 D O 0 A:1V'ewslez�ter E�ram Tbe Mi�rop Part 150 Nears Camplefion trom page 1 Provisaons �or �uriher Evalua�ion O$ G�S �e�t1o'iOiOgj/ As part of rhe developmenc of various miciga.cion measures Eor the Parc 1�0 Upda�e, MASAC and che viASAC Operations Committee evaluaced rhe use of GIo6aI Posicioning Syszem (GPS) cechnology from rhe perspecuve oEnoise reduction around MSP The evaluacion- yielded findings chac highligh�ed che need for a na�ional Ft1A policy relative� to GPS cechnology in concere with narional airpon and aircraft GPS augmentauon in order to fully realize the benefirs of GPS �echnology in helping to enhance noise programs aL the nacion's airporrs. As a resulc of chose findings, ic was decermined chac GPS technolow alrhough available, is not yet ac rhe poinc of offering imme- diate noise-reducing aircraE� operational enhancemeacs. As the cechnology conunues co become intejrated inco the National Airspace Sysrem, fucure applicacion could prove beneficial to enhancing aircrafc operacional noise reduccio� iniciaiives aG airpoccs. Consiscenc wich thac possibiliry, NtASAC approved che esp(ora�ion oEGPS/Flighc �fanagemenc Syscems cechnology �o evalua�e esistin� and proposed deparcure and arrival procedures as a fucure noise mi�i�acion measure as parc oE thz Par� 1 �0 Updace mi�igation pro�ram. : �:Ot11$Otli BOl1l1C�aC�/ = i��f I81$10A1 = An imporcant part oEaddressing noise ; impact wichin established noise concours = is determining how �he contour line and ' che associated boundary oEa noise � insulacion program will be addressed. : The issue oF decermining concour = boundaries varies from airpon co airport : chroughouc �he na�ion. As a resulr, � established FAA precedencs relauve to : exisung airport noise insulauon program = boundazies are significant when : evaluaun� updates co such programs. As pazt oF the Part 1�0 Updace, .. ; VfASAC evaluaced various opuons for � defining che updaced concour : boundaries out to che 60 DNL concour = line. Realizing rhe nacional precedent-set- ,a zczl�,..: ; ung implications of going ouc to che ( : 60 DNL contour (currently, national ` ; poliry recognizes miuga.uon only within : the 65 and greacer DNL con�ours), ; MASAC reviewed boundary definition : opcions in de�ail. The resulcing i�ft1SAC recommen- : dation is co main�ain che current ; boundary defini�ion cha� proposes che : indusion of all homes wichin a given • ; block thac is touched by the 60 DNL : con�our. This concour boundary clefini- ; tion.scheme was reviewed in decail as : part of che Uolume l, Second Quazter ; 2000 ediuon oEche MASr1CNews, : available on �he IvfASAC Web si�e ; (wwwmacavsat.orglpdf files/masac_ne�v : s/2qn_2000.pd�. Part 150 Nears Gompletion continued on page 3 Neigh6orhood hlocks are currently selacied for sound insulation, according to the existing Part 150 program ONL contoar (1996 65 DNL contour shown here). The current recommendation to the FAA is that li the contour line touches a 61ock, /. tne entire hlock is insulated. t,. Volume 1, 4th Quarter � 2 0 0 D MASAC N e w s � _, -- - A�Newslester;F"ror�z Tjie-Metropo'lisa - _ ...,..Y.,....... . . . .. . _. _. � . .. .,-,_ :.;,;�,_.,,, ..-a-_::..._._.._ .._. .....,._.....,�,. ,, •� Part 150 Nears Campletion irom page 2 SOu1ad eli5ila�101i Pr�o��ies for Sing9�e-�amii and Nlui#i-�amiiy Dweilings The effective manajemen� and implemencation of a residenual sound insulacion program is contingen� on several variables. One of che most critic is establishing a schedule for insulacion �hat addresses the various d�vellin� uni and cheir prioricy relative to noise insula�ion. More specifically, prioricizin che insulauon oFsingle-family and multi-family dwellings wichin a ctefined impact area is a cri�ical poruon of Part 1�0 residenual sound insulauon programs. Realizing �his, Mr'iSAC reviewed viable opuons for sound insulacion priori�ies relacive co sin�le-family and multi-family dwellin�s. �frer considera review and considerauon of all possible opcions and keeping in mind Ft�i , concerns, MASAC approved che follow ! � ing sound insulauon prioritv (in order , of prioriry): l. Complete rhe sound insulacio oEsingle-Family and duplex homes �vichin the 1996 DNL 6� and �reater noise concours Z.�. Complere che sound insulatio of mulci-family residential srructures �vichin che 1996 DNL 6� and �rzater noise con�ours in conjunction �vich prioricy 2B and �hen sequencing to 2C below upon FAA approval oEthe Parc 1 ">0 Updace documenc � al �s j :o-.�- : all ble n n 2B. Complete che sound insulauon oEsingle-family and duplec homes that fall wichin the 200� DNL 6� and � eater DNL noise tontours 2C. Complete che sound insulauon of eligible sin?le-family and duplex homes thac fall wir3zin the 200> Dl�'L 60 to DNL 64 noise concours 3. Complete the sound insulation of multi-family residencial structures wiihin the 200� DNL 6� and greater DNL noise contours in conjunaion �vich prioriry 2C above upon Ftltl approval of the Parc 170 Update document 4. Complete the sound insulation of mul�i-fami(y residential scruccures within the 200� Di�L 60 co Di�iL 64 noise concours 5. Complete the sound insulauon of nursin� homes and churches wirh re�ular weekday daycare/nursery school programs wichin the Z00� DNL 60 concour The above recommended prioriry takes inro accoun� Fr1,� inpuc, as well as considerauons for che smoo�h cransition From our e�ciscing Part .l ">0 sound insulaCion pro�ram to the'expanded sound mitigacion program as oudined in �he Part 1�0 Updace. Addicional infor- mation on this �o�ic can be found on che In�erne� ac �v�v�v.macavsacorg. Pa�t 15� Nears Completion continued on page 4 .. ,. .. .:.:. � �:: . . ' . . �. . ... �' s . : �. . .. . . ... . . ��i: ... . .,- .. . ., . .,: . . . � .'. � � ., ar� we�� . ir�i�e� � ��ele��e� e��v�r . _� .. , F _ �. . �. ' � .., �.., , �-.I '-..�: �.: ":�.:" '.;�:' ., I .... .. . , . � ' ' . .',:(... ' ;. . , . .. � of � �r��t "; ; - . . . _. _ • . -� On July 24, 2000, Nonhtivest Airlines announced an aceelerated for delivery- beitiveen Jun�e and Oc�obe� 2001. The tlirbus delivery;schedule: for ten new aircraCz rhat employ the laiest in ,` planes 'three A319 aircrafc and ttivo A.320 aircrafc, should be noise-reducuon ceclinolojies. Fiye Boeing 7�7'200 atrcraft, �• deliver,ed becween April and December 2001. previously anucipaced in 2004, and five Airbus A3�OLA319 -'' . This acceIerated aircraft acquisition w-ill concribuce co family aireraft, previously anticipated in 2002, will bz delrvered '; Norrhwest's fleet simpliFication strategy, facilitating the . -.. , in 2001. All of chese aiicraft aze powered by manufactured Stage - beginning of rhe B%27-200 (hushkitced) aircraft flee� ` � 3 engines employing advanced a.ircrafc engine noise reduceion reqrement by mid-2001, a full year earlier rhan - desi�n and technology. The five B7>7-200 aircraFt are schzduled previously planned. h1A5AC N e w s Volume i, 4th Quarter � 2 0 O 0 `A �1 Part '150 Nears Completian from page 3 Runwa�r �,7 i7epariure Fifg�'1'� Z!'a'lC�CS The in�roduction of Runway 1%/�� in 2003 will change rhe dynamics of che noise environmen� around tifSP. This is especially true when generadng noise conrours and a Noise Compatibiliry Program as part of a Pan 1�0 Updace predicaced on 2005 airpon operacions. As part of the review process for Runway 17/3�, the Environmencal Impacc Scacemenc (EIS) and Record oF Decision (ROD) scaced rhac noise abatemenc measures could be evaluared for depar- ture cracks off Runway 1? in an efforc co avoid populaced areas in cIose proximiry to 1�.�SSP, specifically in Bloomin� on. Thus, che MASAC Operacions Commircee investi�ated departure fli�hc crack opuons off Runway 1% chrou�hout the Pazt 1�0 Update process_ The EIS con�ained a series of proposed fli�hc tracl;s off Rumvay 1%, which includzd tracks A" chrouah "G" and provided a 190° fan, from a 9�° deparcure heading clocktivise to a 23�° deparcure heading. Using rhese tracks az a starcinj poinc, the MASAC Operarions Committee be�an an evaluacion oF possible flighc track opaons off Rumvay 17_ Throu�houc the process, an effort �vas made co consider procesiures �o ensure thac aircraft of var; in� performance capabilicies could avoid populated areas as much as possible �vhile enroure to their des�inacions. The `�SAC Opera�ions Commic�ee joals rela�ive co che Rum�•ay 1% deparcure flighr track analti-sis �vere as follo�vs: Reduce noise impaccs w•ithin che 60 DNL contour • Avoid increased o�•er-t1iQh�s oE ocher communicies • i�Iaincain run�va}• capaciry- • Ensure Feasible implemencation by Fr1A/Air Traffic Con�rol (,�TC) • Provide posicive guidance �o aircraft so chev can reasonablv Follo.v desire� fti�h� cracks • A(lo�v Eor pussib(z Future �ransi�ion co Fliah� �I:;na,emen� S�-s�em ; (FMS) /Global Posicioning Syscem ; (GPS) navigation �ch rhe above goals as rhe corner- : scone of rhe evaluation effores, several : opcions were discussed. The evaluations : included possible depar�ure rrack fanning : concencrauons, as well as various aircraft : operacional procedures. Af�er significanc review, Iv1ASAC : recommended chac operauons which : have inival deparcure headings east of : runway heading (headings ran� ng from : 95° to 170°) would iniciace their rurns : as soon as possible when depaning from : Runway 17. This determinacion was : made because there is no one $igh� path : considered "be�cer" than anocher when : departing �o rhe southeasr over rhe exist- : ing residenually developed areas. (This is : consistent with rhe EIS documentauon : for Runway 17.) When conducung the : same evaluaiion For departure headin�s : west of cencerline .(headings From 170° : to 28�°), two main consideracions arose:_ : (1) heavily residencial developed azeas : exisc west oE runway headin� almost : immediacely off the runway and (2) the : Minneso�a River Valley south of the : airpon offers an area where deparcure : operacions could over-fly in an efforc to ; reduce residential over-flighc impaccs � ; close-in �o �he airporc. r1s a result oE th( ; delibera�ions, a delayed curn poin� off ; runway heading (170°) Eor westbound ; jec departures offered a solution chat noc ; only reduced rhe number oE residen�s ; wi�hin �he 200� 60 DNL Mitigaced ; Contour bur was alsa feasible for imple- ; mencacion accordln� co che Ft1A's air- ; space managemen� criceria. As a result oEevalua�ions and ; comprehensive input from MASAC, the ; MASAC Opera�ions Commiciee and the ; Runway 17/35 Cicy Group; che ; recoinmended Runway 17 deparrure ; tracks include depamire cums as soon as ; possible for deparcures easz oF 170° co ; 95° and a 2_5 nautical mile �urn poinc ;(from starc of takeofF roll) as determined ; by Discance Ivfeasurin� EquipmenL ;(DME) for westbound jec deparrures. At ; this point jet departure operauons would .; curn &om runway heading (170°) to ; westboand deparcure headinjs beccveen ; 170° and 285°. This proposed ; mi�igauon me3sure, in concerc with th� " a ; other Noise Compatibility Pro�ram .. ; (NCP) micigauon measures, reduces rhe ; number of residenrs within the 2005 ; Unmiagated 60 DNL Contour by ; 14,580 people. : This graphic sho��rs the proposed Runway 17 departure tracks with a 2.5 nauticai mi(e DME turn : point for �vesthound jet departures. MASAC N e w s Volume 1, 4th Quarter� 2 0 0 0 �� A _Newslrti 7s Q'he Meiropolifan Ai: --w -��._.:.-�_�_-_��--. �� r>s:�..._ u:ft�.Sound:A6atem�at '�Council .;: ,� 1 1"; ;;� = • ,.. -" � l � ; i, � ; �' - � � In 1976, che U.S. DeparLmenc oE Transportacion (DOT) published �he Aviacion Noise Abacemenc Policy; a documenc cha� outlined some oE �he first sceps coward reducin� the impact of avia�ion noise. Now, because oE changing transponacion demands, public environ- � mental expeccations and the availabiliry of new cechnologies, the Fedzral Aviation Adminiscracion (Ft1A) is conduccin� a review of thac 1976 policy. The resulc will be a new documenc cha� moce accura�ely reElecrs coday's aviacion noise reduction capabilicies. �Iuch has chan�ed in the 2y years chat have passed since che las� aviation noise policy was creaced. In 19%6> � _, (' ippro:cimately six to seven million people - "resided in areas oEsignificanc noise impact (DNL 65 con�ours) around U_S. airports. Today, the Ft1A estimaces thac around �00,000 Americans are ezpo�ed co si�nificant aircrafc noise le��els around U.S. airports, a substancial reduction from 19%6 FiQures. Par� oF rhis reducciun is �he rzsul� oE �he 1976 aviation noise aba�emenc polici� �hac established.a . framework for noise abacemenc iniciacives indudin� che firs� piloc programs for up co 2� airporc noise • con�rol plans. Since chac cime, che F.-l.� has issued more chzn $?.6 billion in ,lirporc Improvemenc Pro�ram (AIP) aran�s and escablished che4P:�sen�er Faciliry Char�e (PFC) progr:im tha� provides airpor� proprizcors ��ich re�•enue colleccion authoriry ac commeccial use airpores �vhich h;u alloca«d in excess oE �1.6 billion to noise micig3�ion et�orts around che Uni�eC� SC:1C2S.�:�lchougn ' � signiEicanc scrides have bzen �aken in chz councn''s eFFores to reduce a�+i�?cion noise, = che FtIA and airporrs around che nation : con�inue co inves�igate ways to increase : the efFeaiveness oE aviacion noise ; reducvon policies. The FAAs proposed policy docu- � menc takes the major poinrs concained in ; che 197G Aviaiion Noise Abatement : Policy and incorpora�es consideration for = new developments_ The draft poliry: • summarizes current condi�ions affectin� avia�ion and secs forth goals, policies and scracegies for addressing them; • ouclines che foundauons and methodologies for assessing aviacion noise and promotin� research and developmen� in aircraft noise reduction cechnolo� and noise abatement procedures; and • promotes compa�ible land use measures in noise impaaed areas. p,s parc oF the draft policy docu- � menc, the Ft"�.c'1's year 2000 avia�ion noise ; abatement goals are: • Con�inue co rzduce aircraFc noise ac �he source. • Use new cechnofogies co reciuce noise impacts. • Bring exiscin� land use in�o compacibiliry wichin levels oE significan� noise exposure around airpores and prevenc che developmenc oF new non- compacible uses in these are•as. • Desi�n prospective air craFfic routes and procedures co minimize aviacion noisz impaccs in areas beyond legal jurisdiccion of airporc propriecors, consiscen� • wi�h local consensus in addi�ion _ �, `� �� . . . �o che safe and efficien� use oF che navigable airspace. • Provide special consideration co locacions in na�ional parks and ocher federally-mana�ed areas wich unique noise sensicivities. • Enable strong financial support for micigation projecu and noise compacibility planning. Copies oE che revised document are ' available online at rv�vwaccess.gpo.gov/ ; su_docs/fedreg/a00071!c.hcml. To access : the documenc, scroll do�vn co che � "Federal Aviauon Administratiod' sec- ; tion and look for che documenc cicled : "ts.viacion Noise tlbacemenc Policy; revi- = sion; commenc request_" Sections one : chrough five cover: 1. Incroduction 2. Goals and Policies 3. Authori�ies and Responsibili�ies - Legal Frame«•or4: 4. t�ssessinQ i�viation Noise 5. Source i�oise Reduccion The documenc was published in che ; July 14, 2000 edicion oE the Federal : Re�ister. Commencs on �he documenc � muse be received on or beFore Occober : 23, Z000. Commencs should be mailed = in triplica�e to: Federal Ati•iation �dminiscracion � Office oE che Chief Counci( Atcencion_ Rules Docke� (AGC-200) Dockec Numbzr [ �0109] 800 Independence ,�.�•enue, S��/ �,`GishinQ�on, DC ?0�91 � A copy oE �'[i1S.�Cs commencs to �he : poliry can bz rec;ived b�• calling � 612-726-3141. hiASAC N e w s -�- -- -__ _ _ . .._ _ ,. ._ .._ -. ._ ;.. . . . ... . ..'.�. � :n. _ '„ . _ . : : � . . : . , . A Nezvstetter From...The Merropolttan Azrcraft Sound Abatemen�t Couaczl .� .., . _ . .. . , - - :.� ._ - ...__ _�.... _. _,_ _ . ..,�. :.. . �.,_._.�_.- .. NIASAC News i.s a publicarzon of the tLlezropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatemrnt Council (11�lSAC) publuhed in caoperatzon with the Nletro�oliran Azrports Commzssian (11�IAC). The purpose of the newsletter is to �rovide the communitz'es surrounding the Nlinneapalis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) with information regarding lYIASAC's goals, activities and atcomplishments, as well as timely inforrrtation abaut aircraft nozse i.ssues at 11�ISP. EditorlPublisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chad Le�ve, MAC - 612-725-6328 MASAC Representaiive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dick Saunders - 612-869-1501 For more information abour MA,Sf1C and/or MASAC News: Web Page Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.macavsai.org/MASAC/index.html MASAC Secretary . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 612-726-814'i . _ . To reooi,srer a naise complaint or to ask questioru regarcizng aircraft noise i.ssues at MSP cal� Noise Complaini and Information Office ...�. 612-726-9417 �� 1i'..�� Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abutement Counczl 6040 28ch,Avenue Souch Minneapolis, MN 554�0 Patrick Hollister City of l'Iendota �Ieiahts 1101 Victoria Curve - l�lendota T�Ieights, Nli� ��118 _. . _ ; . . . :{ � Volume 1, 4ih Gluarter 2 0 0 0 MASAC N e w s Lr . � �.. , . , � � � .; - . � = _ � ,, „ ` � � ��'� . ` s ,. . �� s . , ; _ ,.. �� ,; _ . ,� . _ . � �:` A tiveekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments Volume 1?, Number 3� Capacity FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 1VIUST BECONIE ADVOCATE FOR NEW RUNtiVAYS, COX SAYS The federal �overnmen[ must become an advocate for airport capacity that is needed a[ key locations in the country, Larry Cox, president and CEO of the Memphis Shelby Coun[y Airport Aothority, told the House Transporta[ion Subcommittee on Aviation at an Oct. 5 hearing held to better understand why it seems to take so lon$ and cost so much [o buiid new runways. Cox discussed the "lons and sometimes painful" 16 years it took to add a new runway and to extend another at Memphis International Airport, the larsest air carao airport in the world and home of FedEx Airlines. Some 10 years of that process represented plannin� and environmental reviews while it took less than six years to compiete the construction, he told the commi[tee. He urged Consress to "exercise federal preemption on environmental review and approvaIs on major a capacity projects" and recommended that a"Capacity Czar" be established in the tiVhite House to streamline the process of building new ' airport capacity projects. The House Aviation Subcommittee is tackling the issue of how to speed up new runway development at U.S. airports. A 1998 FAA report cited 27 airports that are seriously congested, experiencin� more than 20,000 hours of delay per year. (Contin�ted on p. 1�?7) Dayton Int'Z CITY, TOWNSHIP FILE LAWSUIT SEEKING COMPLI�.NCE ti�ITH FAA TOWER ORDER Two municipalities near Dayton International Airport �led a la�vsuit Sept. 6 seekinQ tq force the City of Dayton, the airport proprietor, to.eniorce compliance with a tower order that was desiQn�d to direct airplanes away from them and to answer question about compliance with the order. The City of Tipp City, OH, and Monroe Township also asked the Ohio Court of Common Pleas to require the City of Dayton to take le�al action a�ainst the Federal Aviation Administration requirinQ enforcement of the totiver order unless safety concerns prohibit enforcement on a case-by-case basis. The City of Dayton moved the case from state cour[ to the U.S. distric[ court arguin� thnt it invol�•es federal issues. It admitted that i[ did not respond to a Ju(y 2=� letter from the city and to�vnship seeking a meetinQ to discuss the tower order but denied all other allevation made in the litigation. � The district court set a Nov. 13, 2001, trial date for the case. The la�vsuit comes as Dayton Internationai seeks FAA approval of a ne�v master plan that calis for [he acc�uisition of just over 2,500 acres of land to extend t�vo runways and to add a third parallel run�vay, if needed, to accommodate expected gro�vth in passenger and car�o traffic. Tipp City contends that land-locked (Continuetl on p. 1;�%) October 13, 2000 In This Issue... Capacity . .. Airport officials tell House panel about diffi- culties they face in trying to build new runways to increase airport capaciry. Memphis official wants a White House Capacity Czar - p. 146 Dayton Int'Z ... City, township file lawsuit a�ainst City of Dayton seekin� enforcement of tower order desi�ned to keep air traffic away from them - p. 146 Chicago O'Hare ... Dissatis- fied with results of voluntary nighttime fly quiet pro�ram, commission will monitor � airlines' compliance - p. 148 Cleveland .Hopkins ... FAA announces approval of airport's Part 150 Airport Noise Compat- ibility Program - p. 148 � Grand Canyon . .. PAA denies request by air tour operators to delay compliance date for new air tour routes over canyon desi�ned to reduce noise impact on visitors - p. 148 � New ,Jersey ... Determined to have ocean routina seriously considered by the FAA in its redesi�n of airspace in the New York, Ne�v Jersey, Philadelphia i areas, community Qroup hires ! former F.A.A chief counsel to represent them in environmental revie�,v process - p. 149 ctober 13. 2000 These delays cost the airlines half a billion dollars. In 7anuary, former FA.� official Georee Donohue told the Transportation Research Board that U.S. airports would have to increase capacity by 60 percent by 2012 just to maintain today's level of delays. Lack of runway capaciry has been cited as one of the main problems causing delays, the committee said, and concerns have been expressed that the environmental review process can be long and duplicative. Legislation reauthorizing pro�rams of the FAA (AIR 21) requires FAA to study federal environmental requirements related to the plannina and approvai of airport improve- ment projects, such as new runways. The study will focus on the level of coordination amon; federal and state a�encies, the role of the public in the process, the staffina and other resources needed, and the time for conducting environmental reviews. That study is due to be submitted to Congress next ApriL `Process Never Ends' Virginia Buckingham, esecutive director of the Massa- chusetts Port Authority, told the panel that, while there was no environmental review grocess when Massport tried to build a new runway at Boston Logan International Airport in 1970, "now the process never ends." There's a regulatory process in place to deal precisely with the "hard choices" that have to be made on addin� new runways, she told the panel. Yet, after five years of intensive study and analysis to support a new runway at Lo�an, needed just to reduce delays, and just when Massport was about to proceed to its final environmental impact report, the FAA delayed that hard choice at Loaan, she said. Instead of proceedin� to the next, and final, step of state and federal environmental review, the FAA ordered Nlassport to complete a Supplemental Draft EIR and added a new sic-member citi2en review panel to the process which meets monthly "without any apparent federal statutory or reQula[ory framework ciarifying its role or defining its mission." Local opposition, she said, "has mutated into new and arbitrary administrative obstacles at the federal levei." The Massport official told the subcommittee that the environmental review process must be clear, must be consistent, and must have an end. Randall Walker, director of the Clark County Department of Aviation, which operates Las Vesas IvlcCarran Interna- tional Airport, discussed the si�nificant opposition and len�thy dzlays he is facinQ in efforts to build a second airport in the Ivanpah Valley, 30 miles south of Las Vegas that will be needed to serve sou[hern Nevada in the future. The valley, a remote, dry, desert, is the only viable site for a new airport but i[ is opposed by the National Park Service because aircraft wouid fly over the l�Iojave National Preserve, Iocated �0 miles south of Ivanpah in California. The Park Service and environmental groups want a 20 147 mile no erowth buffer around all limi[ed use pubiic lands, but that would mean that there is literally no place in all of sou[hern Nevada where a new airport could be sited, Walker told the panel. A Sierra Club representative has susaested that a fifth ( runway be added at McCarran to avoid the need for a new � airport buc that concept had already been examined and rejected because "it requires the condemnin� and levelins of neiQhborhoods, businesses, and an industral park to build and would subject thousands of homes to aircraft opera[ions which currently receive little or no aircraft noise." The Siena Ciub representative felt this would be a better alternative than potential impacts to the desert ecoloQy of the Ivanpah Valley, Walker said. y Mary Griffin, San Mateo, CA, supervisor and chair of the San Francisco International Airport/Community Roundtable, told the panel that the key to addin� new capaci[y at airports "is to find a balance between the national need to improve our avia[ion infrastructure and the local need to maintain our high quality of life." The Roundtable is considered a national model of intergovern- mental cooperation to address noise issuzs, she said. In 1992, the Roundtabie used the mitisation program from the federal and state environmental review process on a new master plan for the airpor[ as a startinQ point to ne�otiate an additional noise mitigation package with the airport_ The Roundtable wiil�initiate another mitisation negotiation process in conjunction with the airport's plan to add new runways at SFO, which will result in a"win-win" outcome, she told the paneL `' � Dayton, from p. 146 Dayton seeks to turn the airport, already the prime sorting facility for Emery Airlines and located near severai interstate hi�h�vays, into a major air careo hub that will have a severe impact on nearby communities. Filin� a lawsuit over the tower order seems trivial but the issue has far-reaching implications, said Toledo, OH, attorney David Zoll, who represents the plaintiffs. If the tower order is not being followed but noise modeling assumptions are made that it is, then noise contours Qenerated from those modeline assumptions would not represent the true impact on Tipp City and ivlonroe Township, he told ANR. Airport officials have refused to state whether the to�ver order, put into effect in�1995, is beins follo�ved, he said. The order was desisned to require planes departing to the northeast to turn left and fly either evest oPInterstate 7� or in the 1Vliami River corridor in order to reduce noise impact on residen[ of Tipp City and Nlonroe To�vnship, located to the northeast of the airport. The plaintiffs contend that the order has not been followed since 1999 and that planes may not be able to make the left turn to comply with it. The la�vsuit also seeks to require Dayton to engage in a dialoQue with surroundin� communities abou[ the airport'( operations. David Nlason, chief of engineetinQ and ' Airport Noise P.eport (� ) October 13, 2000 pianning for the airport, told ANR that many meetings have been held with the surroundin� communities in the process of updatinQ the airport's Part I50 Airport Noise Compatibil- i[y Program. He stron�ly refuted the claim that the airport has not engaged in a dialoQue with the community, notin� that it has exceeded the public process required by the Part 1�0 proaram and has taken more noise measurements than required. Zoli'described the Part 1�0 meetin�s as "dog and pony shows" that did not provide answers to the questions Tipp City and Monroe Township have raised. Chicago O'Hare Int'Z COMMISSION TO MONITOR FLY QUIET COlVIPLIAl�CE Dissatisfied with the results of a voluntary FIy Quiet Proaram at O'Hare International Airport, the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission announced Oct. 6 that the City of Chicago's airport noise monitorin� system will be used to monitor compliance with the three-year-old program, which was desi�ned to mi[igate nighttime jet noise. "We're not satisfied wich the results yet and the residents of our communities are not satisfied yet," said Commission Chair Arlene Mulder, presiden[ of ArlinQton Heights, IL. "Jet noise continues to be a si�nificaniproblem in the .• ni�httime hours and this commission wants the airlines and the FAA to know that " Brian GilliQan, executive director of the commission, said it was prompted to take action after seein� an increase in the number of noise complaints to Chicaco's airport noise ho[line durin� night hours. He said that, on avera�e, 280 flights a ni�ht occur at O'Hare during the Fly Quiet hours and many are done with hushkitted car�o aircraft. Chica�o's noise monitorine system will be used to determine when FAA air traffic controllers begin and end the Fly Quiet mode at O'Hare. Those times will be com- pared with the program's soais for the use of prefened runways and flisht tracks during the hours between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., the commission explained. In addition, specific aircraft that deviate from the Fly Quiet procedures will be identified. ChicaQo Aviation Commissioner Thomas Walker wil] send detailed written reports of any deviations to the FAA and the airlines involved. Written responses will be requested from the airlines. Ivlulder said that the monitorin� beQan earlier this month to establish a-benchmark. Notices will be sent to the airlines for any Fly Quiet deviations durinQ November. A full evalua[ion oF the initiative is scheduled for January. In related news, the City of ChicaQo told the commission that as much as $2� million will be availabie to sound insufate seven rnore schools around O'Hare. Chicago Aviation Commissioner Thomas tiValker said that he was pleased to tell the commission that the city "continues its strone commitment to the school sound insulation proararrr, �vhich is the lar��est proQram of its kind in the world. To 148 date. 94 schools have been sound insulated or will soon be insulated. When the seven additional schools are done, [he city will have spent almost a quarter oF a billion dollars to make classrooms quieter, he said. Cleveland Hopkins Int'Z FAA APPROVES PART 150 FOR CLEVELAND HOPKINS On Oct. 2 the Federal Aviation Administration announced its approval of the Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Pro�ram for Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, which is in the process of adding a new runway. Outrich[ approval was aranted for all 14 proposed noise mitigation measures, including sound insulation of homes within or contiguous to the 60 dB DNL noise contour as weil as homes in the 65 dB DNL and hiQher noise contours. Oiher noise miti�ation measures approved include enQine run-up restrictions, noise miti�ation arrival and depar[ure flight tracks, encourasin� local jurisdictions to adopt land use development controls and construction standazds and real estate disclosure policies reaardin� airport noise, upgrading the airport's noise monitorin� system, imple- mentin� a Fly Quiet communication program, and con[inu- ins periodic updates of the Part 150 proQram. Further information on the program can be obtained from Ernest Gubry in the FAA's Detroit Airports District O�ce; tel: 734-�87-7280. Grand Canyon FAA DENIES REQUEST TO STAY FLIGHT RULES A request by the air tour operators to stay the Dec. 1, 2000, compliance date for new air toui- routes and airspace modifications over the Grand Canyon National Park was denied by the Federal Aviation Administration on Oct_ 11. On April 4, the FAA published t�yo final rules limitino the number of commerciai air [our operations in the park's y Special Flight Rules Area and modifyin� the airspace of that area and Flisht Free Zones. These rules were put into effect to reduce the impact of noise from airplanes used Por sightseeing over the park. The FAA rules have been challenged by the air tour operators, several environmental eroups, includina the Grand Canyon Trust, the National Parks and Conservation Association, and the Sierra Club, and by the Hualapai Indian Tribe who live in the canyon. The cases have been consolidated and are pendinQ before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The text of the FAA's no[ice appears in the Oct. 11 issue of the Federai ReQister, which is available at the Govern- ment Printin� Office's �veb site: www g��.Q�v/su docs/ aces/aces140.html (there is an underline in [he space bet�veen "su" and "docs"). AirportNoiseReport October 13, 2000 ANR EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Steven R. Alverson Manager,S acramentoOffice Harris Miiler Miller3c Hanson John J. Corbett, Esq. Spie�ei & McDiarmid Washin�ton, DC James D. Erickson Director, OfFce of Environmenc and Energy Federal Aviation Administradon John C. Freytag, P.E. Director,CharlesM.Sa]terAssociates • San Francisco l�Iichael Scott Gatzke, Esq. Gatzke, Dillon & Ballance Carlsbad, CA , Peter 7. Kirsch, Esq. Cutler& Stanfield Denver Suzanne C.I�TcLean ChiefDevelopmentO�cer Tucson Airport Authority John l�I. Nleenan Senior VicePresidentforindusrry Policy AirTransport Association Vincent E. �Iestre, P.E. President, Ivlestre Greve Associates Newport Beach, CA Steven F. Pflaum, Esq. MeDermott, Will & Emery Chica�o Karen L. Robertson Manajer, Noise Compa[ibiliry O�ce Dailas/Fort Worth Internadonal Airport l�iary L. Vigilante Presideat, SynerQy Consultancs Sea[de Lisa Lyle �Vaters IvlanaQer, Noise Abatemenc Pro�ram Palm Beach County Department of Airports 149 New Jersey COMI�IUNITY GROUP HIRES FORiI�IER FAA CHIEF COUNSEL � Determined to have ocean routing seriousiy considered by the Federal' Aviation Administration in its redesi?n of the airspace in the New York, New Jersey, and Philadelphia metropolitan areas, the New Jersey Citizens for Environmental Research (NJCER) has hired GreQory S. Walden, a former Federal Aviation Administration chief counsel who is now with the Washington, DC, law firm Patton Bo�gs, to represent its interests in the environmental review process. Walden also represents two community'groups in the Seattle area impacted by noise caused by changes in air routes made at Seattle- Tacoma International Airport_ In an Oct. lO letter to FAA Adminis[rator Jane Gan+ey, Walden re- quested confirmation that ocean routing will be amonc the alternatives that FAA considers in an environmental impact stateinent it will prepare on the air space redesi�n and that the citizens group will be involved at the earIiest sta�es of preparin� the EIS, including definin� the scope of the work. In addition to reducin� congestion and delay, Walden said, "a third objective of the airspace redesign must be to seek to reduce the current noise iznpacts on residential communities and minimize future impacts as a result of the projected increase in operations." ' He asked Garvey "to confirm that one of ihe purposes of the project to redesign the East Coast airsgace is to configure the airspace in an environmentally sensitive manner, reducing the noise impacts now experienced by New Jersey residents." "Given that noise reduction should be one of the primary objectives � the airspace redesign, ocean routing should be inciuded in one or more . alternatives.to be given full consideration in the EIS," the attorney, an expert in environmental law, told the FAA administrator. He noted that NJCER and NJCAAN have for severai years asked FAA to conduct a live test of routing departures from Newark International Airport over the Atlantic Ocean to gain altitude, and thus reduce noise impact, before turninQ back over land. Despite support by most of the state's congressional dele�ation, the FAA has refused to conduct the test contendina the procedure would be unsafe and too costly for the airlines. Noting that the identification and narrowing of alternatives "is at the heart of the NEPA process," Walden toid the FAA chief that "no evalua- tion of the noise impacts of non-ocean routin� alternative would compensate for failure to include an ocean-routing alternative in the EIS." AIRPORTNOISEREPORT Anne H. Kohut, Publisher Published 46 times a ti�ear at 4�978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashbum, Va. 201=47; Phone: (703) 729-4867; FAX: (703) 729-4�25. e-mail: editor@airportnoisereport.com; Price $549. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personai use of specific clients, is erantzd by Airport Noise Report, provided that the base fee of US$1.03 per pa�e per copy is paid directly to CopyriQht Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. USA. � Airpurt Noise Report i i � ", `' ! � s , � 4„ .�,` r g �.:y..c :,,. ,'t ' aI' i�- Yix � i� � ' y -. � �� } � p t f r ..r- 1� h� ,. � t , �.` f . �� i . A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments Volume 12, Number 36 Research SYDNEY STUDY DOES NOT REPLICATE EARLIER CHILD BLOOD PRES5URE STU�IES The link between aircraft noise exposure and increased blood pressure levels in children found in two widely-publicized studies of children in schools nearLos Angeles International Airport and the new Munich.In�e.rnat'ianal Air.port was not replicated in a study of Australian children living near Sydney International Airport. . . . ... .._ _.. . "Using accurate, individual-based noise exposure measurements which allow blood pressure to be related to aircraft noise exposure as a continuous variable, along with greater controlling of potentially eonfounain�'faetors of a blood pressure-noise relationship," the findings of the two earlier studies couId not be replicated in the Sydney s[udy, researchers from the�U•niversity of Sydney Department of Pubiic Health and Community Medicine.and Department of Psychology and the National Acoustic Laboratories reported at the Intemational Conference on Noise Control Engineering (INTER-NOISE 2000). The conference was held in Nice, France, Aug. 28-30. The papers presented at the meeting (most only four to six pages lon;) are now available on the internet at �tto�/linternoise�000.1oa.es�ci.fr/. Go to the web site and click on "Advanced Program." . � - ` .....s. .-.. ,, : (Continued on p. I51) Low Frequency Noise . . FIDELL PROPOSES CURVE RELATING LOW-FREQUENCY NOISE, ANNOYANCE A dose-response curve relatin� lo�v-frequency noise levels to the percentage.of people in two social surveys highly annoyed by such noise and the rattle it produces has been developed by Sanford Fidell, BBN Technologies in Canoga Park, CA, to be used as an aid in predicting community response. As newer engines for jet transports have lowered single event departure noise levels in neighborhoods near airports in recent years, the annoyance of aireraft noise produced along runtivay sidelines and elsewhere has become of greater concern, Fidell explained in a paper presented at the recent INTER-NQISE 2000 Conference, held Au�. 27-30 in Nice, France. •�� Noise created durin� takeoff roll and when thrust reversers are a'pplied con[ains proportionally more low-frequency energy than overflight noise, he noted. "Althoujh the annoyance of low-frequency noise has been studied extensively in diverse settings, both in its own ri;ht and in combination with:vibration, a general interpretive criterion useful for assessment of the annoyance of low- frequency aircraft noise in areas behind or to the sides of runways in several U.S. cities (notably Bal[imorz, Boston, Minneapolis, and San Francisco) has been addressed in an ad hoc manner," he said. • (Co�itinued ort p. 152) � October Z0, 2000 In �'his Issue... Research ... A study of school children near Sydney International Airport does not replicate earlier reseazch done in Los Angeles and Munich which found a link between aircraft noise exposure and increased blood pressure; further analysis of the Munich study shows an impairment in long term memory among school children exposed to aircraft noise and an improve- ment in the nLnning memory of children no longer being impacted - p. 150 Low-Frequency Noise ... A dose-response curve, relating levels of low-frequency noise to the percentage of people in two social surveys that reported to be highly annoyed by such noise and the rattle it produces, has been developed by Sanford Fidell of BBN Technologies to aid in predicting community response - p. 150 Special Report ... As the reality of life in the post-Stage 2' phaseout world sets in, Steven R. Alverson, ANR Editorial Advisory Board member and principal consultant for Harris Miller Miller & Hanson, Ine., contemplates the future of aircraft noise reduction - p. 152 October 20, 2000 151 , Most oF the evidence for aircraft noise affecting children's blood pressure comes from the Los Angeles and Sydney studies, S. Morrell of the University of Sydney, explained in his paper. In Los AnDeles, Cohen et al. found higher average blood pressure in school children exposed to high aircraft noise levels around the airport compared to chiidren in schools not so exposed. Gary Evans of Cornell University also found a significant link between blood •� pressure and aircraft noise in a study of school children exposed to noise from the opening of the aew Mdnich International Airport, although his study did not replicate Cohen's in Los Angeles. The openinp of the new parallel runway at Sydney International provided an opportunity to examine the issue again. Blood pressure and physical measurements were taken on the same children two to three years apart, before and after the opening of the new runway. Of the original 1,230 •' primary school children included in phase one of the study, only 628 participated in the second phase. Using the `� Integrated Noise Model (INM), noise leveis were assigned to individuai homes and schools both before and after the� opening of the new runway. �` ' Effect on Memory _ , Evans was not available to comment on the findings of the Sydney study but additional analysis of the Munich � study was presented at the INTER-NOISE conference by S. Hygge of the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology. He reported that lon�-term memory and mastery of a difficult German word list were impaired in the group of primary school children exposed to noise from the new '� Ivlunich Internationai Airport and running memory improved in children around the old airport, which was closed. Hygge said that the shutdown of the old Munich airport in 1992 and the inaujuration of the new one "have provide'd an unprecedented opportunity to investigate in a longitu- dinal, prospective desi�n the psycho-physiological, perceptual cogni[ive, motivational, and quality of life effects of noise exposure on children." The long-term objective of [his research is to understand how chronic environmental stress from aircraft noise affects children, he explained. "Two of the co?nitive tasks, recall and language mastery, showed the doubly replicated aircraft noise effect of disappearing when the old airport was closed down and coming forth when the new airport started to operate. This is a very stron� empirical foundation for the conclusion tha[ cognitive tasks requiring central langua�e processing are particularly sensitive to noise," Hyg�e reported. "For � the age span s[udied (9-12 years) these effects were reversibie but, of course, we don't know how much of the reversibility is locked [in] that age group," he said. London School Study British researchers presented the preliminary results of their W est London Schools Study, which found that � children from high noise schools both heard more aircraft noise and were more annoyed by it than children from low •,noise exposed schools. ."These results have added validity because their percep- tions and their annoyance levels in rela[ion to road and rail traffic did not differ much across high and low aircraft noise exposed schools," S. Stanfeld, of the University of London Department of Psychiatry, and coileagues from the Univer- sity College London Department of Epidemiology and the national Physical Laboratory, reported. Their findings replicate those of an earlier study they conducted. ."It is not clear whether high levels of aircraft noise annoy- ance in children have longer term health implications for children, certainly they seem to be an indication of short [erm disturbance of quality of life," the researchers said. .. �;Ru•rther'analysis of this study data, they said, wilI examine aircraft noise exposure in relation to cognitive outcomes (reading comprehension, memory, sustained attention) and self-reported stress and catecholamine and cortisol secretion, which are indications of stress. The study included children in 10 primary schools exposed to high levels of aircraft noise (greater than 63dBA 16 hour Leq) around Heathrow Airport who were matched across high and low aircraft noise exposure by age, sex, socio-economic status, ethnicity, and sound level at the (� school from non-aircraft environmental n.oise sources. Effect on Elderly, Shift Workers • The effects of aircraft noise on the memories of older adults was stronger than for school children, Swedish researchers reported. I. Enmarker of the University of Gavle Laboratory of Applied Psychology, examined memory, stress, and arousal (wakefulness and energy) of 10� senior citizens 66-74 years old during aircraft noise exposure (66 dBA Leq). The results of the study showed that aircraft noise impaired long-term memory recall as weil as recognition, he reported. Shift workers around Sydney International Airport reported more difficul[y sleeping and more frequent use of sleeping pills, and more negative reac[ion to noise, than non-shift workers al[hdugh these differences did not reach statistical significance, R.F.S. Job of the University of Sydney and colleagues from the university and from the National Acoustic Lab, reported. :.Curfews at Sydney International result in shift workers being exposed to more aircraft noise when they are tryinj to sleep thaqnon-shift workers, they expiained in discussing their study, which surveyed 1,01� residents of high and low noise areas near the airport. � AirportNoise Report ( ) October 20, 2000 Low-Frequency, from p. I50 Fidell's curve is based on the results of two social surveys of the annoyance of aircraft-induced rattle and vibration that he helped conduct in neighborhoods near Los Angeles International Airport in August 1997 and in neighborhoods near Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport in June 1999. These two studies established the existence of annoyance due to low-frequency aircraft noise exposure, Fidell noted. They also demonstrated that annoyance due to rattle is distinguishable from annoyance due to aircraft noise in genetal. Fidell expiained that [he curve he developed for low frequency noise is analogous to the curve published in 1992 by the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON),.which relates the percentage of people highly annoyed to aircraft noise to noise levels expressed in Day- Night Average Sound Level. That curve indicates that, at a level of 65 dB DNL, about 12 percent of the population will become highly annoyed to aircraft noise. But most of the � people included in the surveys on which the FICON curve is based lived at the ends of runways or under heavily used �flight tracks where low-frequency noise was not the main issue. The Federal Aviation Administration has adopted 65 dB DNL as its threshoid for residential compatibility around airports but that decision was based in large part on how much the federal government was wiliing to pay to mitigate aircraft noise. "Since dosage-response relationships are not self- interpreting for purposes of reaching policy decisions, it remains to be seen what levels of low frequency aircraft sound levels may eventually be identified as tolerable by various a?encies, and what rationales may be offered for their selection," Fidell noted. "If consistency with prior practice is of importance, however, an approach similar to that identified here is likely to be an attractive option," he wrote. On Fidell's curve, a maximum low-frequency sound level of 65 dB would resuit in about 5 percent of people being hi�hly annoyed; the maximum low-frequency sound level would have to reach about 71-72 dB for 12 percent of people to be highly annoyed. Fideil also reported the results of a laboratory study he conducted with colleagues which found that: - Runway sideline noise is more annoying than thatof aircraft overfliohts of similar A-weighted sound exposure level; - The addition of even minor amounts of rattling noise notably increases the annoyance of runway sideline noise, and; - Zwicker loudness level {a more complex spectral weighting procedure than A- or C-weighting networks) appears to be a better predictor than A-weighted level of the annoyance of low-frequency noise associated wath runway sideline noise. 152 Special Report PHASEOUT FAIRYTALE TURNING INTO NIGHTMARE (As rhe reality of tife in the post-Stage 2 phaseout world sets in, Steven R. Alverson, ANR Editorial Advisory Board member and principal consultant for Harris Miller Miller & Hanson, Inc., contemplates the future of aircraft noise reduction. j ...and they all lived happily ever after." Although no one expected to recite those words on Januaryl, 2000, when commercial jet aircraft had to meet more stringent Stage 3 federal noise standards, there was a general expectation' on the part of airport proprietors and airport neighbors that aircraft noise environments around air�orts would be quieter than they currently are. ,In fact, communities and airport proprietors alike are expressing an ever increasing frustration that the proriiised benefits of the Stage 2 phaseout have not been realized to the extent expected and that new regulations are needed to get us to the aircraft noise promised land. The Stage 2 phaseout fairytale appears to be turning into a nightmare, Airport proprietors and airport neighbors aren't satisfied with their curren.t aircraft noise environments because the quieter, all-Sta?e 3 flee[ promised by the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA) has turned out to be some- what of a wolf in sheep's clothin�. A[ air carrier airports, many of the "S ta;e 3" aircraft over 7.5,400 pounds still sound like Sta�e 2 aircraft to airport nei�hbors with 59 percent of the noise energy coming from huskitted Stage 3 aircraft (ANR, Vol. 12, No. 25). At general aviation reliever airports, Sta�e 2 aircraft less than 7�,000 pounds continue to operate with no national phase out in sight. At Naples Airport in Florida, Sta;e 2 jet operations are less than 1 percent of the total operations but ac.count for almost 40 percent of the aircraft noise complaints. As a result of these higher than expected noise levels at both air carrier and general aviation airports, consideration of new access restrictions is reachin? a fever pitch — a[rend that is completely contrary to what the framers of ANCA had in mind. Federa] Avia[ion Re�u]ation Part 161 studies, once considered to be FAA's "silver bullet" against the proliferation of aircraft noise rules, currently are being undertaken or seriously+considered by at least a half dozen airports, includina Burbank, Naples, Flyin� Cloud, Pease, Boca Raton, Key West, Renton, and Centennial. Aside from these Part 161 studies, which are primarily focused on benefiting the communities near the airpor[s conduc[ing them, there a several global aircraFt noise reduction movements underway with the goal of reducin� aircraft noise for everyone. Some of the initiatives being considered include a phaseout of re-certificated Sta�e 3 aircraft and the establishment of a StaQe 4 standard for all newly manufac[ured aircraft, y Achieving a phaseou[ of re-certiFicated StaQe 3 aircraf[ tivill AirportNoiseReport October 20, 2000 ANR EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Steven R.Atverson M anager,S acram ento 0ffice Harris M iilerM iller& Hanson John 1. Corbett, Esq. Spiegel& McDiarmid W ashington, DC James D. Erickson Director, Office of Environmentand Energy Federal Aviation Administration lohn C. Freytag, P.E. Director, Charles M. Salter Associates San Francisco Michael Scott Gatzke, Esq. Gatzke,Dillon & Bailance Carlsbad, CA Peter J. Kirsch, Esq. Cutler& Stanfield Denver Suzanne C. McLean ChiefDevelopmentOfficer Tucson AirportAutBority John M. i�feenan Senior V ice PresidentforIndustry Policy A ir Transport Association Vincent E. Mestre, P.E. President, Mestre Greve Associates NewportBeach,CA Steven F. Pflaum, Esq. McDermott, W ill & Emery Chicago Karen L. Robertson M ana;er, Noise Compatibility Of6ce Dalias(FortW orth International Airport Niary L. Vigilante President, Synergy Consultants Seattle Lisa Lyle Waters Manager, Noise AbatementProgram Palm Beach County Departmentof Airports 153 probably result from a strong political will and financial mechanisms that will permit the aircraft operators to endure any financial consequences of prematurely ending the life of aircraft with many productive years ahead, but for their undesirable noise impacts. The new S tage 4 technology wili l require innoVation through research initiatives based on lofty but achievabie goals. Fortunately, President Clinton set aircraft noise reduction research and development goals for the aviation industry to strive for (ANR, Vol. 1 l, No. 25). The Ciinton Administration noise reduction goals are 5 dB by 2007 and 20 dB by 2022 relative to 1997 levels. If the required research effort were fully funded, the result wouid be truly significant reductions in aircraft noise exposure for peopie living near airports. The plan is to have the 55 dB DNL contours within airport boundaries by 2022. Even as noise from aircraft in flight is reduced, an increasing number of � airports are experiencing complaints due to noise from aircraft on the ground: The sources of these increasing complaints include, but are not limited to, si'rcraft engine run-ups, start of takeoff roll, thrust reversers on landing, taxing, and auxiliary power unit (APU) usage on aprons or at the gate. A grear�deal of the attention regarding ground noise is focused on low-frequency noise, which Stage 3 noise reduction technology does not noticeably improve. An increasing number of airports are undertaking specialized ground noise studies to address this growing problem. For exampie, Portland International Airport is building a ground run-up enclosuce to address run-up noise impacts, San Francisco International Airport will be reseaiching the best sound insalation techniques to address low-fre- quency noise, and Anchorage International Airport is undertaking a comprehensive aircraft ground noise study. There will be more such studies conducted in the future. � The outlook for achieving further reductions in aircraft noise is extremely optimistic but progress will be slow without the full participa- tion and cooperation of the significant players: governments (national and international); aircraft operators (air carriers and general aviation), aircraft and engine manufacturers, research agencies and consulting firms, airports�; and airport nei;hbors. Just as Cinaerella's mice were transformed into horses to get her to the ball, these disparate groups need to transform themselves into a singie team working to;ether to improve the aircraft noise environment near airports. Although there may never be a"...happily ever after. .." when it comes to aircraft noise, there currently is enough hope in the future for all of us to keep working on the story. But midnight is just a few ticks aGvay and there is no fairy godmother to save us. AIRPORTNOISEREPORT Anne H. Kohut; Publisher Published 46 times a year at 43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashbum, Va. 20147; Phone: (703) 729-486�; FAX: (703) 729-4528. e-mail: editor@airportnoisereport.com; Price $549. Authoriza�ion 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 paje per copy is paid directly to Copyrijht Clearance Center; 222 Roservood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. USt1. � ) , ., r � r � I' ', �� p, �t , - i �! 4 r �r �� j., �,��1 ,�x� 1 . . . ... . . .s- � . {' � A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments Volume 12, Number 37 FAt� Noise I'olicy FAA ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHY bSdB DNL IS STILL RESIDENTIAL COMPATIBILITY LINE VJith increasing pressure on local authorities to define land use compatibility criteria around airports based on the 60 dB DNL noise.contour, airport trade groups asked the Federal Aviation Administration to explain.in [he.proposed update to its 1976 noise policy w.hy it continues to rely on the 65 dB D�iL contour as the threshold of residential compatibility. �� -- �'� -' FAA issued its proposed policy update in July (12, ANR, 94) and gave the public until Oct. 23 to comment on.it. The agency received approximately 344 comments from the public, local governmeats, aviafion �trade•groups, airports, airlines, consultants, community groups, and airport advisory bodies. M ost of the commenters were critica] of the FAA's current noise� policy and its proposed update, which retains the same goals, and were angered by what many viewed as the "self-congratulatory tone" of the proposal: � � The airline industry told the FAA tha[ its effdrts to.update its noise policy are premature in light of work being.done by the International Civil Aviation Organization's Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection to dsvelop a more stringent Stage 4 noise standard and to consider whether any of the Stage 3 fleet, especially hushkitted aircraft, should be phased out in conjunction with a •: : (Continued on p. 155) FAA Noise Podicy LOCAL GOVERNMEI�TS, NOISE GR:OUPS CRITICAL OF FAA N�ISE POLICY °UPD�ATE Of the almost 350 comments that the Federal Aviation Administration received on the proposed update to its 1976 aircraft noise policy, most from local govern- mental bodies, community groups, and citizens were highly critical, expressing concern that the proposal had not been more widely.' distributed for public review, expressing an�er and surprise that the FAA feels its current policy has been successful, and expressing little confidence that the agency's proposed update is adequate to address aircraft noise problems in the future. Many said that the Environmental Protection Agency, rather [han the FAA, whose mandate is to foster the airline 3ndustry, is the federal a�ency that should be looking out for the interests of the public re;arding aircr,aft noise impacts. The FAA's proposed policy upda[e is extremely vague, lacks specific proposals for cegula[ion and implementation, and "will accomplish nothing," the City of E1 Segudo, CA, told the FAA in cornments that echo many submit;ted to the agency by parties outside of the aviation industry. ..;:':- E1 Segundo called the proposal "a plan to make a plan." Nothing in the proposal mandates any particular ac[ion by the FAA, it said. The city accused the FAA of sending "a deceptive messa;e" regarding the past success of i[s noise policy over (Co�itinued on p. 156) '� � October 27, 2000 In This Issue... FAA Noise .Policy ... This special issue of .A.l'�l�R summa- rizes some of the almost 350 comments that have been submitted to the FA.A regard- ing its proposal to update its 1976 aircraft noise policy. The airport trade groups say the policy update must ad- dress the issue of why airports still face significant noise controversies even though the agency claims its policy has been a success because it has led to a reduction in the number of people in the 65 dB DNL noise contour. The airlines tell the agency that its policy update proposal is premature and should be developed after ICAO acts on a tighter Staje 4 noise stan- dard next year and mirror what ICAO recommends. Many of the local govern- ments and community groups who submitted comments to the a�ency were highly critical of the current noise policy and challen�ed FAA's conclusion that it has been successful. ANR will not publish next week. The next issue, Vol. 12, No. 38, tivill be published on Nov. 10. 155 October 2� 2000 tighter standard. The FAA's proposal emphasizes the need for compatible land use planning around airports, strongly encouraging local governments to establish noise buffer zones beyond the 65 dB DNL contour, but it does no[ propose changing :. the residential compatibility threshold to 60 dB DNL, mQst likely because of funding and legal considerations. . Sticking with the 65 dB DNL contour as the threshold for residential compatibility, which has little scientific basis, ailows the FAA to have a consistent criterion by which to .. judge progress being made in aircraft noise mitigation. Indeed, FAA contends that its almost 25-year-old,noise policy has been "hi;hly successful" because it has reduced the number of people in the 65 dB DNL contours around U.S. airports from six to seven million in 19�6 to about 500,000 now. Why Is There Still a Problem? .. .... But, the Airports CouncilInternational—North America (ACI-NA) told the a�ency there needs to be an accoiripany- ing discussion in its policy proposal of why, despife •� �'� • reduction in impacted populations in the 65 dB DNL: con[our, many major airports continue to have "substantial noise controversies." ' "Given the fact that, at many major'airports, noise .� ' continues [o hamper development, this major revisiori to � FAA noise policy needs to explore this condition and devise ways to address the issues. Without analysis of this phenomenon, it will be very difficult to develop either an effective noise abatement policy or the much needed airport capacity development that is being held hostage to noise controversies," ACI-NA asserted. The American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) told the agency that, "by promoting local jurisdictions' ` authority to adopt more strin;ent land use compatibility ' measures than required by FAR Part 150 witfiouf specifi- � cally providing the availability of federal funding for these land use compatibility measures, the policy may unfairly� � limit the ability of airports in those areas with more stringent compatibility criteria to implement improvement or modification projects." The updated noise policy, AAAE told the agency, should state clearly whether the FAA wi11 provide noise miti�a[ion funding for areas within the 60 dB DNL contonr and, iF so, whether those projects will be given the same funding priority as projects within the 6� dB DNL and higher contours. The airport trade groups also felt [he policy was silent on two significant noise problems: Stage 2 aircraf[ weighing less than 75,000 lb. (which were exempt from the federal Sta;e 2 phaseout requirements) and [he continued opera- tion of hushkitted or recertified aircraft. "These aircraft.are: the paramount contributors to noise problems ac many airpor[s in the Uni[ed States," AAAE said, adding that a plan should be established to address their continued Regardin� FAA's contention in its policy proposal [ha[ new operational technologies offer an opportunity for noise reduction, ACI told the agency that its policy "should candidly discuss the limitations on ATC flexibility and possible methods for improving the noise abatement � po[ential of the near-airport ATC system without implying that there are technological `magic bullets' where, in fact, noae exist." -.Regardin� FAA's plan to use air traffic controi procedures to help mitijate noise impacts, ACI said that "the truth is that FAA Air Traffic Control organization does not see itself as having an important mandate to move aggressively and expeditiously to mitigate noise impacts, within the strictures of safety and efficiency considerations." The FAA's updated noise policy, ACI said, "should discuss this institutional tendency and propose remedies that will encourage in- creased use of ATC procedures to minimize;noise impacts." : -a,. :-:: � U.S. Position on Stage 4 � '''FAA's stated intention to aggressively pursue the develop- �° inen[ of more stringent Stage 4 international noise certifica- • tion standards is "laudable, but so non-specific as to be �`' irieaningless," ACI-NA contended. "W ill FAA support �stringencies at the leading edge of technological feasibility, i'.e., noise certification levels represented by the very newest technology? Or, will FAA suppor[ stringencies of more modest levels desianed to allow ali current production airctaft to comply. This is an important discussion that is nowhere addressed in the proposed policy," ACI-NA said. W hat position the U.S. will take to the upcoming meeting ( of th'e Committee on Aviation Environrtiental Protection '(CAEP) of the International Civil Aviation Organization "(ICAO), to be held in early January 2001, is currently the '�64,000 question in the aviation industry. �?:irports are strongly lobbying the agency to seek the most stringent Stage 4 standards and to require the phaseout of hushkitted aircraft within five years. ATA also want a s'tringent new Stage 4 standard but want no phaseout of any _ of the Stage 3 flee[. They also strongly support a U.S. proposal that ICAO � adopt a regulatory framework that emphasizes land use controls, rather than aircraft noise reduction, as the means to reduce noise impac[s in the future and would'make it very difficult, if not impssible, for airports around the world to impose new noise restrictions (12, ANR, 142). The FAA must submiCto ICAO in mid-November its position on a S[a�e 4 noise certification standard and the � pha'seout of the Staae 3 aircraft for translation into several languages for the CAEP meetinj. Some observers speculate that the U.S. position will have to be vague enough to accommodate the change in administration that will follow the presidential elections in early November. The airport trade groups told the FAA that its updated noise policy proposal "is silent on the singularly important issue" of whetheT ro phase out hushkitted aircraft. � operation. AirportNoise Report � � �_ r" � � October 27, 2000 Policy Update Is Premat�re The Air Transport Association and the Carao Airline Association told the FAA that it should wait until ICAO acts on a Sta;e 4 standard before it updates its noise policy. ATA wants no phaseout requirements in conjunction with a Stage 4 standard, contendina that aircraft noise "is. no• • lonjer a generic, almost globai problem susceptible to being addressed efficiently by approaches like aircraft fleet phaseouts. Such approaches offer grossly diminishing returns in the context of today's much more localized noise issues, which instead need to be addressed through more sophisticated airport impact area management" - in other words, land use control, ATA said. Even without any new ICAO noise standard or any chanaes to FAA's current noise policy, over the next 20 years U.3. carriers are projected to spend in excess of $390 billion dollars on new, quieter aircraft, ATA said. Further; FAA noise modeling shows that the populacion residing within the 65 dB DNL contour in North America will � decrease between now and 2020 even withouE additional � regulatory action. ' ATA said it is "unequivocally opposed" to the forced, premature retirement of any Stage 3 aircraft. The forced. �.. retirement of Stage 3 aircraft, it said, "wouid create market- place uncertainty that could have undesirable aod counter- productive effects for years to come." �' Noise Policy, from p. I54 the past 25 years. "In reality, in our view the FAA has been very ineffective in reducing the effects of aircraft noise and, in particular, has failed to be responsive to (much less � supportive of) efforts by local agencies to find solu[ions to aircraft noise," El Segundo said. The city and others told the FAA that its policy is •" premised on "inaccurate assertions" aboutreductions in the number of people affected by aviation noise. The number of people in the 65 CNEL con[our around Los Angeles International Airport has increased over the past 10 years as has the size of the contour, the city said. Furthermore, i[ added, the FAA's claim of subs[antial reduction in numbers of individuals affected by aircraft noise appears to be based, at least in part, on the practice of considering noise impacts eliminated by residen[ial sound insulation. "This, of course, disregards the real and on�oin; impacts which remain outdoors in the yards and neighborhoods of sound- insulated houses." E1 Segundo and o[her local governments and community groups rold the FAA that its 65 dB DNL threshold for determining sijnificant noise impact around airports is inadequate and should be lowered to 60 dB DNL. They also challenaed the FAA's conten[ion that aircraf[ flying over 3,000 feet do not cause si�nificant noise problems. The FAA's proposed policy update "inappropriately and incorrectly" emphasizes federal preemp[ion over local authority, the city said. "The proposed policy language "only grudgin�ly ackno�vled�es [hat airpor't proprietors 156 have the power to acquire land and buiid or not build airport facilities. The language implies that in some circurustances not expanding an airport would violate federal law. This is incorrect. The policy should be clarified to make clear that airport proprietors have the prerogative to decline to expand, without interference from the FAA." ''Ei Segundo and other local governmenta] bodies and coinmunity groups also challenged FAA's assertion that it cooperates with airport proprietors and the public in evaluating changes in air traffic roates to reduce noise. "In our experience," EI Segundo said, "this is not the case." The city urged the FAA to afford greater respect to local voluniary noise agreements. "The proposed policy empha- sizes that the FAA does not, and will not, confer any degree of permanence on local voluntary agreements reached by airport proprietors to redace airport noise," E1 Segundo 'said, adding that "this is a cause of great concern." Such noise abatement agreements, it said, "are one of the few �inechanisms available to local agencies and the public to reduce aircraft noise." `' The city told the FAA that its Part 150 program needs ieformed. It called the Pait I50 study process "seriously flawed" and not addressed in the policy update. "W e are concerned that under the current process, after the propri- etor and the community go throujh the involved process of preparin; a noise.abatement plan for submittal to the FAA, the FAA can than pick and choose among the various mitigation measures which the proprietor and the commu- nity have ajreed upon (or reject them entirely)." What Is 'Local Consensus' ..•Eastside Citizens Against Aircraft Noise (ECAAN), a 5eaftle-based environmental group, addressed lan�uage used in the proposed policy update regarding air route chan?es. They will be made for noise mitigation purposes "cbnsistent with local consensus," the FAA said. But ECAAN said the term "local consensus" is not defined in the' proposa] and questioned how it will be determined. "If unanimity ot something close to that concept is intended, it will be virtually impossible to achieve in almost any context but especially wi[h regard to jet noise," it said. Ulsterites Figh[ Overflight Noise Inc., a community group based in Stone Ridge, NY, toid the FAA that "it is hard to ima;ine how an agency charged with promoting aviation can also effectively regulate the pollution of that industry... As handmaiden to a growth industry that, for the most part serves business, the FAA cannot adequately respond to the interests of the lar;er society for a more balanced use of airspace that would pro[ect citizen health and welfare. Nigh[time curfews, for example, have been treated as unreasonab]e restrictions on commerce although a nation- wide ban on nighttime flights wo�ld not end [he overnight delivery industry and would not be discriminatory. Instead, the growth needs of the air car�o industry take precedence overheaIth and well-being. Ivfeanin�ful noise abatement requires a balanced division of potivers bet�veen FAA and EPA." AirportNoiseReport October 27, 2000 ANR EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Steven R. Alverson M anager,S acramento 0 ffice Harris M i11erM iller & Hanson John J. Corbett, Esq. Spiegel& McDiarmid W ashington, DC James D. Erickson Director, Office of Environmentand Energy Federal Aviation Administration John C. Freytag, P.E. Director, Charles M.3alterAssociates San Francisco Michael Scott Gatzke, Esq. ' Gatzke,Diilon & Baliance Cadsbad, CA Peter J. Kirsch, Esq. Cuder & Stanfield Denver Suzanne G McLean ChiefDevelopmentOfficer Tucson AirportAuthority John M. Meenan Senior V ice P residen t for tndustry Policy A irTransport Association Vincent E. Mestre, P.E. President,Mestre Greve Associates NewportBeach,CA Steven F. Pflaum, Esq. McDermott, Wiil & Emery Chicago Karen L. Rohertson Mana;er, Noise Compatibility Office Dallas/FortVJorth International Airport Mary L. Vigilante President,Synergy Consultants Seatde Lisa Lyle W aters M anager, Noise Ahatem ent Program Palm Beach CounryDepartmentof Airports 15� Streamline Part 161 Process Expressing the frustra[ion of many airport proprietors, San Francisco International Airport told the FAA that it should streamline its onerous Part lbl Regulations on Nouce and Approval of Airport Noise and � Access Restrictions to make them "a workable framework enabting airport proprietors to effectively address legitimate community concerns over noise." ' SFO said it can personally attest that the current process for promuloat- ing a new noise regulation under Part 161 is "costIy, extremely time- consuming, and highly uncertain.'° However, whether the FAA ever wanted its Part 161 reoulations to be a "workable framework" in the sense that SFO means is a debatable point. The agency is touting the 161 process as highly successful — even though i[ has blocked U.S. airports from imposing any new noise restriction in the past decade - and recently proposed extending the 161 framework to the rest of the world through the International Civil 'AviaEion 0.r:ganization. SFO.said:that even minor changes in airport operations that wili affect the noise environment require a full Part 161 study and 180-day review period. "At a:time when major airport proprietors are under increasing pressure to man'age extraordinary growth at their facilities, airports need more flexibility to be able [to respond] to legitimate community con- cerns such as aircraft-related noise at their facilities," SFO told the agency. ' � The Boca Raton Airport Authority told the FAA that it noise po]icy update.shouid provide clear guidance and suppor[ regarding the Part 161 regulations. "General aviation airports are increasin�ly considerinj use restrictions, particularly to address non-Stage 3 operations below 75,000 pounds that the federal government exempted from a phaseout," the airport said, adding that FAA "appears to be taking an extremely riaid � approach to'the appiication of the Part 161 requirements." "We believe:that the FAA should implement the Part 161 regulations in a manner that recognizes tha[ limited use restrictions may sometimes be the only effective solution to noise problems faced at general aviation airports," Boca Raton said. To indicate the'seriousness of.the aircraf[ noise problem at general aviation airp'orts, the Boca Raton Airport Authority said that approxi- m'ately one-quarter of its staff time is comm-itted to dealing with airport noise-related issues. But it said the nei[her the FAA's noise policy, federal and state noise mitigation programs, or the airport's own efforts have eliminated noise issues at the airport. "If anything, aircraft noise is a more significant local issue than ever before," it told the FAA. It urged the FAA to require the phasaout of Stage 2 aircraft under 75,000 pounds. AIRPORTNDISEREPORT Anne H. Kohut, Publisher Published 46 times a year at 43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburri; Va. 20147; Phone: (703) 729-4867; FAX: (703) 729-4528. e-mail: editor@airportnoisereport.com; Price $549. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internai or personal use of specific clients, is jranted by Airport Noise Report, provided that the base fee of US$1.03 per page per copy is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood,Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. USA.