The URL can be used to link to this page

10-11-2000 ARC PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION AGENDA October 11, 2000 Large Conference Room 1. Call to Order - 7:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of August 9, 2000 Minutes 4. Acknowledgement of September 13, 2000 Minutes 5. Unfinished and New Business: a. Review MAC Part 150 Video And Discuss Mendota Heights' Airport Noise Video Production � 6. Acknowled�e Receipt of Various Reports/Correspondence: a. MASAC Operations Committee Agenda for September 22, 2000 b. MASAC Meeting Agenda for September 26, 2000 c. August 2000 Technical Advisor's Report d. � August 2000 MASAC Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis e. 2000 MSP Part 150 Update f. MASAC Special Meeting on September 29, 2000 g. MAC Planning and Environment Committee Agenda for October 10, 2000 h. Department of the Interior Conveyance of the Former Bureau of Mines, Twin Cities Research Center i. Airport Noise Reports 7. Other Comments or Concerns 8. Ad.iourn AuYiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids. This may not, however, be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration at (6� 1) 452-1850 with requests. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAK4TA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 9, 2000 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on Wednesday, August 9, 2000, in the Large Conference Room at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Ciuve. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Scott Beaty, Commissioners Joe Leuman, Ellsworth Stein, Gregg Fitzer, Elizabeth Petschel, George May, and John Roszak. Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister took the minutes. MEETINGS WITH NO QUORUM Mr. Hollister reminded the Commission that there was no quorum at the July meeting of the Airports Relation Commission, and therefore there was no official meeting and hence no minutes. The Commission discussed what to do in case there is no quorum. Commissioner May moved to establish the policy that if there is no quorum for a scheduled meeting, those Commissioners who did arrive shall discuss the items on the agenda without taking any official action on them and that mirnites shall be taken and made available to the full body at the next scheduled meeting. Commissioner Fitzer seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 1 (Roszak) VIDEO PRODUCTION Chair Beaty and Commissioner Stein announced that they would not be present for the September meeting of the Airport Relations Commission. Chair Beaty suggested that the Commission not discuss the Airport Noise Pian of Action at the September meeting, but instead focus on tlie production of an educational video about air noise for cable TV with assistance from NDC4 MAY 10, 2000 MINUTES Commissioner May moved to approve the May 10, 2000 minutes. Commissioner Petschel seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABS: 2 (Lueman, Roszak) UPDATES Mr. Hollister provided updates on the following items: • MSP 2010: Building a Better Airport (June 22, 2000) • MASAC Operations Committee Agenda for July 14, 2000 • MASAC Agenda for July 25, 2000 • MASAC Operations Committee Agenda for July 28, 2000 • MAC Contract Pertaining to Limits on Constructian of a Third Parallel Runway • Airport Noise Reports • MASAC News The Commissioners said that they would like the opportunity to fiuther examine the MAC Contract Pertaining to Limits on Construction of a Third Parallel Runway before the City executes the agreement. The Commissioners also said that the new Air Noise flyer should be sent out in the Friday News and promoted at a Council meeting. VIDEO TAPE CONTENT ( ) The Commission then composed a list of topics to be covered by the Cable videotape and directed Mr. Hollister to invite someone from NDC4 to come to the October 1 l, 2000 Airport Relations Comrnission meeting to discuss making the video tape. :_ 1 � : ►I Motion made to adjourn by Beaty and seconded by Leuman. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfirlly Submitted, Patrick C. Holliste�� ;' � CITY t�'�' MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMSER 13, 2000 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on Wednesday, September 13, 2000, in the Large Conference Room at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was unofficial due to the lack of a quorum. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. The following Commissioners were present: Commissioners Joe Leuman, Elizabeth Petschel, and John Roszak. Chair Scott Beaiy and Commissioners E1lsworth.Stein, Gregg Fitzer, and George May were excused from the meeting. Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister took the minutes. AIRPORT NOISE VIDEO The Commissioners met with Dennis Rafftery of NDCTV to discuss the logistics of making an educational video about airport noise issues for cable casting on NDCTV. Depending on budget considerations, the video may be 15 or 30 minutes long and would present the City of Mendota Heights' overall position on airport noise issues without dwelling on specific "issues of the moment". The Commission envisioned this video to be a production that would remain relevant enough to be aired on cable TV for the next three to five years. The Commission asked Staff to convey to the Council their desire create this video and to ask the Council if they thought that such a video would be a worthwhile expenditure. The cost of a video production would vary widely depending on the length of the video and the amount of NDCTV staff time used in filming and editing the video. It appeared that a high-quality video could be made for about $5,000. The City may wish to show the MAC video on cable first and then foll�ow it immediately with our own 15-minute video. The Commissioners asked Mr. Hollister to convey to the Council the Commission's desire to produce an educational video about air noise for NDCTV and to ask the Council how much it would be willing to allocate for this video. Motion made to adjourn by Roszak and seconded by Leuman. AYES: 3 NAYS: 0 The meetina adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfillly Submitted, � j Pat�•ick C. Hollzster C CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO October 5, 2000 TO: Airport Relations Commission FROM: Patrick C. Hollister, Administrative Assistant SUBTECT: Airport Noise Issues Video Discussion The Airport Relations Commission, at their monthly meeting on September 13, 2000, met with Dennis Rafftery of NDCTV to discuss the logistics of making an educational video about airport noise issues for cable casting on NDCTV. Depending on budget considerations, the video may be 15 or 30 minutes long and would present the Ciiy of Mendota Heights' overall position on airport noise issues without dwelling on specific "issues of the moment". The Commission envisions this video to be a production that would remain relevant enough to be aired on cable TV for the next three to five years. The Commission asked Staff to convey to the Council their desire create this video and to ask the Council if they thou�ht that such a video would be a worthwhile expenditure. The cost of a video production would vary widely depending on the length of the video and the amount of NDCTV staff time used in filming and editing the video. It appears that a high-quality video could be made for about $5,000. The Council, at their regular meefing on September 19, 2000, indicated that they would be willing to ailocate up to $5,000 for the production of this video. The Mayor also advised Staff to contact Mr. Roy FuYu-mann of the Metropolitan Airports Commission about the video idea, and Mr. Fuhrmann has mailed to the City a copy of the MAC's own 15-minute video on the Part 150 program. Mr. Fullrmann said that the City was welcome to use the MAC video in whole or in part as long as proper acknowledgement was given to the MAC. The City may wish to show the MAC video on cable first and then follow it immediately with our own 15-minute video. Staff will show this video to the Commission Wednesday evening. Council Action Required After viewinQ the MAC Part 150 Video, discuss the content and format of the video based upon the attached "brainstorming" list of topics created at the Au�ust 9, 2000 ARC meeting. ( ;� Topics for Mendota Heights Air Noise Video with NDC4 Q&A Format Cons�lt 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 Dif.ferent airplanes, difFerent noises How to make a complaint, 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 15 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 kitting and Manufacturing Fleet Composition, Stage 2(Hush kit), Stage 3 Freight Carriers, Nighttime Noise Distant - Close in Users =—_ == — Northern Dakota County Community Television Corporation —== == 5845 Blaine Avenue, Inver Grove Heights, MN S�a76-1 �0� _ = 651-451-7834, Fax 651-450-9429 �ustom Video Services � Diqital Video Camera wi�h one videograQher and equi�rnent Cncludes up to 20 miies round trip, over 20 miles billed � 35 cents per miie) '/2 Day Taping $650 1 Day Taping $� 100 N9edia �f 00, Pro%ssionalz Non Linear Ediiinq By S�aff Per Hour �100 Linear S VHS 3/.�" Editinq � . Per Hour $65 Van Produc�ion, Vlliih Crew ofi Four _ (addftlona! crew needed. � S45 per person per hau� Per Day $1500 � S#udio With Equipment Rental Per Hour $175 '/Z Day {4 hours) $650 Full Day, (8 hours) $1100 Other��items Additiona( production personnel, $45 per hr. Tapes, postage, outside production services, voica-over, on-camera talent, music, eic. , Pre-�f OdIIC�IOti Tape Dub Rates, VHS: $15 each, � ` ) (includes consutiafions, s+aip# wriiing, {�yo or more $12 eaci�, � talent searches, music, efc.) - (yyr// provide quotation on quantiiies over 50) Per Hour $45 66 minute Digiial, (DVC Pro) tape dub, � $35 per tape OR AS A NDCN 1�}EMBER, YOU CAN DO 1T YOURSELF... �r�� Use of �acilit�r and h�ost Es�uipment Wi�ii� NL1C'iV Membership and Classes � 2 15 SEEJNG THE "BJG PICTURE" WILL PAY OFF FOR CUST011� VIDFO PROJECTS When starting a video production, here are some important elements to consider... What is the missionlpurpose 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 maierials, a personalized or standard letter? What is the overall budget and does it include duplication, packaging, mailing? Are these budgets re�listic in meeting the projects goal? How will. the video be distributed? Will it be handed out at a mesting or on sales calls? Will it be mailed and if so, is there a critical launch date to meet? { �� A!I of fhese e(ements ar� important to consider right from fhe sfart. !f you answer each one, you'll be better able fo come up wifh an ove211 plan for the projecf that meets the project's o6jectives. Addr�ss these issues af fhe beginning of the project and you avoid last minute surprises. Look at the "big picture" and invite us fo help you plan ahead. s-oo � � Mefiro�oli#ar� Aircrc�fi� Sound �k�c�tement Counci! (�IIASAC) b040 28th Avenue South • Minneapol(s, Minnesota 55450 •(b12) 726-8141 Chairperson: Mayor Charies Mertensotto Past Chairs: Robert P. Johnson, 1995-1999 Scott Bunin, 1990-1995 Walter Rockenstein, I1, 1982-1990 Jan Del Caizo, 1979-1982 Stanley W. Olson, 1969-1979 Technical Advisor: Chad Leqve MEETlNG NOTICE IUTASAC OPERATIONS COMMITTEE The Operations Committee wili meet Friday September 22, 2000 — 9:00 a.m. in the Large Construction Trailer of the Metropolitan Airports Commission, 6040 28` Avenue S., Minneapolis If you are unable to attend, please notify the committee secretary at 612-726-8141 with the name of your designated alternate. � � i 1. Roil cali 2. Approval of the August 11, 2000 Minutes NEW BUSINESS 3. Review of the Draft Part 150 Update Document 4. Other Items Not on the Agenda 5. Adjournment MEMBER DISTRIBUTION Chairman John Nelson Bob Johnson, MBAA Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan Ron Johnson, ALPA Brian Bates, Airborne Mary Loeffelholz, NWA Dick Saunders, Minneapolis Mayor Charles Mertensotto, Mendota Heights Roy Fuhrmann, MAC cc: Patrick Hollister, Mendota Heights Charles Curry, ALPA Will Eginton, IGH Jennifer Sayre, NWA Pam Dmytrenko, Richfield 11:10 11:30 Advisary: 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 Tom Lawell, Apple Valley Tom Hansen, Burnsville Jan DelCalzo, Minneapolis Gienn Strand, Minneapolis _ � � ,: I t � , . �' � , �. . . , . � , . � . �. 'j'O; MASAC Operations Committee �'�Q�: Roy Fuhrmann, Manager, Aviation Noise and Satellite Pro�'ams S�TB.�EC�': Review of Dra.ft Part 150 Update Document I�A'�'E: September 14, 2000 The Pa.rt 150 Update process has been a si�nificant undertaking for MASAC and the MASAC Operations Committee. Through extensive commitment and diligent efforts, a cornprehensive Noise Compatibility Program has been developed. The resultant program addresses the impacts associated with future growth in aviation, as well as the introduction of a new North/South Runway at MSP. Cunently HNTB is compiling the Dra.ft Part 150 Update Document. This process includes compiling all of the work and input MASAC and other comrnunity groups have provided into a concise Noise Compatibility Program addressing all of the operation and mitigation strategies for reducing noise impact at Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP) through the year 2005. The proposed Part 150 Update Noise Compatibility Pro�-am results in the followin� preliminary assessment of effects on population within impacted areas relative to the 2005 Unmitigated DNL Contours: „ ;e ♦ DNL 70 dBA contour - appro�mately�.people added j �3� � DNL 65 dBA contour - approximately�;-329-people removed t �; ��,,�� ♦ DNL 60 dBA contour - approximately �l-�k8-people removed ��t, :y� � Total change in the 60+ DNL contour - approximately �-�;8-"�-people removed from the contour In addition the Update includes national precedent setting initiatives including provision to provide insulation out to the 60 DNL contour and will include measures for addressing low frequency noise irnpacts related to aircraft operations at NISP. Draft copies of the completed portions of the document will be sent by overniaht services to MASAC Operations Corrunittee members on September 21, 2000. At the 5eptember 22, 2000 N1A5AC Operations Comrnittee meeting �iN'IB will provide a comprehensive review of the Draft Part 150 Update Document. Its is not anticipated that the NIASAC Operations ( 1 Committee members will have an opportunity to review the entire document in one day, but that a complete review of the document will be completed on September 22"d and members (- will be able to provide comrnent by the September 29't' special Part 150 Update NIASAC meeting. Following the MASAC Operations Corrunittee review of the document, MASAC urill review the draf� document at its September 26, 2000 meeting. In addition, MASAC will conduct a special Part 150 Update meeting on September 29, Z000 to provide further information and clarification on the document. Draft publication of the document will occur on October 6, 2000. Followin� that MASAC will sponsor two Part 150 Update public hearings. The public hearings include, one on November 8, 2000 and one on November 9, 2000, both at the Thunderbird Hotel, 2201 78`�' Street East, Bloomington, MN 55425-1229. A public workshop will be held each day from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. with the public hearing beginnin� at 7:00 p.m. The two dates are provided to a11ow a greater opportunity for public involvement. The format and presentation will be the same for both dates. Both written and verbal comments will be taken at the hearing. Written comments will also be accepted until 5:00 p.m. on November 15, 2000. Following the close of the comment period, the document will be forwarded to the MAC for review and approval and then submitted to the FAA (approximately December 20, 2000) for approval. Please be prepared to provide information on the form in which you would like to receive the draft document when it is distributed on October 6, 2000. Two forms are available, either on CD or paper copy. �" If you have any question regarding this topic please contact me at 612-725-6326 ' Pvtetro�olitan Aircrafifi Sounc� Abatement C,aur�cil (M�,SAC) 6Qd0 28th Avenue South • Minneapoiis, Minnesota 55450 •(612) 726-81d1 Chairman: Mayor Charfes Mertensotto Past Chairs: Robert P. Johnson, 1995-1999 Scott Bunin, 1990-1995 W alter Rockenstein, I1, 1982-1990 Jan Dei Caizo, 1979-1982 Stanley W. Olson, 1969-1979 Technical Advisor: Chad Leqve August 22, 2000 Silver Thorne City Hall Attn: Mr. Kevin Batchelder 601 Center Circle P.O. Box 1309 Silver Thorne, CO 8(3498 Dear ivir. Batchelder: On behalf of the MASAC Operations Committee, I would like to extend my sincere gratitude for your years of professional input and the many contributions you made through your involvement with the MASAC Operations Committee. Your insightful contributions were paramount in the successful outcome of many Operations Committee initiaaves. The nature in which you worked to solve complex problerns was a true testament to defining soluaons that provided noise abatement alternatives acceptable to a wide range of unique concerns. 'I'he professional and coopera[ive manner in which you represented the city of Mendota Heights was exemplary. Once again, on behalf of the MASAC Operations Committee, thank you for all of your valuable time and service. Best wishes to you in all of your future endeavors. S incerely, � �-1 �.�.Q �-s------- John Nelson IviASAC Operations Committee Chairman LT�TAPPROVED l�i I N U T E S , NI��.SAC OPERATIONS COVIN��TTEE August 11, 2000 ri. The meeting was held in the Lar�e Construction Trailer of the Metropolitan Airports Commission and called to order at 9:00 a.m. Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order and the roll was taken. The following members tivere in attendance: Members: John Nelson, Chair Patrick Hollister Dick Saunders Bob Johnson Jamie Verbrugge Mary Loeffelholz Roy Fuhrmann Advisorv• Chad Leqve Jason Giesen Mark Kill Joe Harris Kim Hughes Kent Duffey Steve Vecchi Cindy Greene Glen Orcutt Visitors• Andy Pederson 7an DelCalzo Jeff Bergom Nlary Teske Bloomington 1�Iendota Heights Minneapolis NIBAA Eagan NWA MAC NIAC NiAC NLAC MAC � I1NTB HNTB THC, Inc. . FAA FAA Apple Valley Ciry of Minneapolis Burnsville Resident of Eagan r�iGENDA Communications Received � � A letter was received from the City of l�lendota Heights, dated August 1 l, 2000, appointing Patrick Hollister as a NIASAC alternate for the city. S A letter was received from the Ciry of Bloominbton, dated August 9, Z000, regarding the City's preference for departure operations off runway 17. Approval of iVIinutes The minutes of the July 28, 2000 special meetin� were approved as distributed with the following change: Pa�e 8"NIary Loeffelholz, NWA, asked how the expanded insulation program would be funded. She noted that the current airline lease agreements do not include funding for complete insulation out to the DNL 60 contour." November 2000 Operations Committee iVIeeting Chairman Nelson noted that the November Operations Committee meeting was scheduled for Friday, November 10, 2000. He noted, however, that the Meiropolitan Airports Commission was not open that day in recob ition of Veteran's Day (�lovember 11 �') and suggested several alternate days for the meeting. After a brief discussion: JANIIE VERBRUGGE, EAGA��I, iYIOVED �YD DICK SAUNDERS, i�IINNEAPOLIS, \ SECOiVDED TO CHANGE THE NOVEbIBER 2000 OPERATIONS COi�IIVIITTEE iY�ET1NG FROVI FRIDAy, NOVENIBER 10, 2000 TO THURSDAY, NOVENIBER 9, 2000 AT 9:00 A.iYI. THE iVIOTION WAS APPROVED ON A VOICE VOTE. Sound Insulation Pr.iorities - Roy Fuh�rmann, lY1.A.C, noted that the insulation priorities as enumerated at the July 28, 2000 meeting were renumbered as requested. 11�Ir. Fuhrmann also displayed and explained the sound insulation timeline that �vas disfibuted as part of.the Operations Committee package. l�Iary Loeffelholz, i'�I�VA, asked why the multi-family residences within the 2005 65DNL contour �vere not being completed before the 2005 64-60DNL single family �vere begun. Roy Fuhrmann, i�L4C, noted that since multi-family residences would require a separate crew of contractors than that of sin�le family residences, the multi-family residences �vithin the 200� 65DNL contour would not be ableyto begin until the multi-family residences in the 1996 65DNL contour were completed. And, in order to keep the single family residential contractors moving forward, tl�e 200� 64-60DNZ single familv - residences �vould need to be begun prior to the multi-family residences in the 2005 6�DNL contour. 0 Chairman Nelson asked about the effects on the sound insulation funding of simultaneously insulating multi-family and single family residences. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, referenced the Cost Sum��ary of � t1�ISP Noise Inszslation Program hzitiarives matrix sent out in the package and noted that an updated version was available at the meeting. He noted that the summary was based on a start date of September 2002 with an annual budget of $36.5 million through 2010. He also noted that the multi-family residences within the 64-60 DNL contour were not listed because a survey had not been completed for multi-family homes in this area. He said that although there is an anticipated shortfall between what is needed and what is available throu�h the lease agreements, the per-home cost is based on a full insulation package with an average cost of $40,400. He said this per-home cost could very well change due to changes in the insulation packaje for residences between the 64 and 60 DNL contour and otlier factors that influence costs. He said it is also anticipated that there would be an update to the Part 150 in 2005, which may change the areas of the contour. Chairman Nelson asked how the $8 million grant recently approved for NISP through the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) fund mi�ht impact funding for the sound insulation prob am. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said the grant would not affect the sound insulation program's funding levels. Chairman Neison asked that if the funding level for sound insulation is static at $36.5 million how �vould the multi-family insulation program affect the sinale family program insulation rate. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said because of some of the timing issues associated with the submittal of the Part 1�0 Update, there �vill most likely be a reduction in the rate of single family insulation for some time �vhile waiting for Ft�A approval. He noted, however, that this timeline and priority were consistent with the priorities set by the �ISP Noise 1�litigation Committee in 1996. Chairman i�(elson asked Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, to outline the steps and timeline for obtaining Part 150 � � Update approval from the FAA and what effect any delays may have on the timeline. Roy Fuhrmann, �`' YIAC, said the target date for submittal of the Part 150 Update document is December 2000. He said he was hopeful that, with the ongoing involvement of the FA.A, approval of the document would come quickly. He reiterated that the sound insulation timeline is dependent upon the FAA's prompt approval of the document. He said failure of prompt approval could result in a slo�v down or halting of the program. He noted that for the single family insulation program to continue unabated, the FAA would need to b ant approval of the Noise Exposure Nlap (NE1V� by July 2001. Chairman Nelson noted that at the Special Operations Committee meeting on July 28, 2000 the members had voted to approve an intersecting block contour boundary definition. Roy Fuhrmann, l�IAC, briefly explained the differences beriveen the single family and mu�ti-family counts/locations associated with both the 2.2nm and the 2.Snm turn points. i�'Ir. Fuhrmann cautioned, ho�vever, that because subsequent updates to the Part 150 program �vill be completed approximately every five years, the contours �vill not remain static and the counts could change. He noted that, even if the 60DNL contour �vere to stay the same, it would take 12 to 15 years to insulate out to the 60DNL contour. He also noted that if hushkitted aircraft are phased out and replaced tivith manufactured Stage 3 aircraft, the contours could chanQe si�nificantly. Chairman Nelson asked Steve Vecchi, THC, Inc., to share his thoughts about the sound insulation priorities. iY1r. Vecchi said that the counts and costs presented by the staff represented the best Quess at this time �iven the unknown factors. (He noted that the averaae cost per home is no�v �4�,000.) He said ( � ` 3 it �vill be critical to keep the consuitants and conlractors working. He also said staging of the multi- family insulation pro�a-am and contractor availability will be critical components of a successful multi- family insulation pro�am. � Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, said the Eaaan City Council had endorsed the insulation priorities but with the caveat that the funding be increased. He said the council is concerned that funding for multi-family residences �vould take funding away from single family residences. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said that, reaardless of whether the level of fundin� were increased, single-family insulation will most likely be impacted due to the timing of approval for the 2005 Part 150 Update. He said once the sin�le-family residences within the 1996 65 DNL contour are completed, insulation funds will be transfened to the mulfi-family residences in the 1996 65 DNL contour. � Nlary Teske, resident of Eagan, asked if any additional schools would be insulated. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, noted that school insulation is usually funded differently than. the residential program and are treated as separate projects. He said, too, that only schools that fall within the contour could be eligible �� for insulation and would most likely be prioritized by impact throughout the entire contour, He noted that the MSP Noise l�Iitigation Committee had recommended that preschools and nursery schools with established programs should be included in the priorit�. iVIr. Fuhrmann also said that the airline lease agreements set some limits on spending for school insulation. DICK SAUYDERS, iV1][�f�TEAPOLIS, NIOVED AND BOB JOH'�Ti SON, iVIBAA, SECONDED, TO ENDORSE THE FQLLO�VING PRIORTTY RECOVTiVIENDA'i'ION FOR THE RESIDENTIAL SOUYD li'vSULATION PROGR.�tiI Ai�tD TO RECONTIVIEND APpROVAL BY TI3E FULL NI.�SAC BODY: 1. Complete the insulation of single family and duplex homes rvithin the 1996 DivL 6� and � greater Divl, noise contours. 2A. Complete the sound insulation of multi-family res'rdential structures �vithin the 1996 DNL 65 and greater noise contours in conjunction with priority #2B and then sequencing to #2C below upon F�A approval of the Part 150 Update document. 2B. Complete the sound insulation of single-family and duplex homes that full within the 2005 Dvi, 65 and greater DNI, noise contours. 2C. Complete the sound insulation of eligible single family and duples homes that fall within the 2005 DiVI.. 60 to 64 rioise contours. 3. Complete the sound insulation of multi-family residential structures tivithin the 200� DNL, 65 and greater D� noise contours in conjunction tivith prioriiy 2C above upon F�,A approval of the Pat 150 Update Document. - 4. Complete the sound insulation of multi-family residential structures tivithin the 2005 D'VL 60 to 6� noise contours. �. Complete the sound insulation of nursing horries, churches with regular tiveekday daycare/nursery school programs tivithin the 2005 DNL 60 contour. THE 1�10TIO�f �V:�S C�RRIED Oti A VOICE VOTE. C� Runrvay 17 Departure Track Analysis Kim Fiughes, HNTB, reiterated the goal of the runway 17 departure track analysis of reducing the population within the impacted area without significantly impacting other communities in the process. She said the consultant's recommendation remains as the 2.Snm turn point departure procedure %r run�vay 17. An updated runway 17 alternative flight tracks map was distributed. Roy Fuhrmann, l�IAC, reviewed the map and noted the differences between the different altematives. Kent Duffey, HNTB, noted that track L, or the 2309 headin� off the 2.Snm turn point, closely follo�vs the river and would be preferable to using tracks E, F and G during low and mid-demand time periods. Thus, the percentage use of track L was increased slightly and the percentage use of tracks E, F and G were decreased slightly for these time periods. He noted, however, that the these slight usage changes did not have an impact on the contour. Jeff Bergom, Burnsville, asked how the 2.Snm tum point recommendation compared to the 1058 hybrid fan recommendation in regards to impacts to the city of Burnsville. Kim Hughes, HNI'B, said that although there is the potential for aircraft to fly further south, she did not believe it would result in a significant impact to the city of Burnsville. Kent Duffey, HNTB, said the 2.5nm turn point recommendation is the better alternative for the city of Burnsville because the 1058 hybrid alternative would result in aircraft turning further south. He noted, too, that the use of a single turn point provides better positive b idance to aircraft compared to using both a turn point and a designated altitude. He said better positive guidance will keep aircraft more closely on the projected tracks and will allow all aircraf� using the procedure to turn at the same point most of the time. 1VIr. Bergom asked for clarification as to why a 2.2nm turn point was not being recommended. NIr. Duffey said the 2.Snm turn point resulted in a further reduction in the number of people included in the 60+ DNL contour in the city of Bloomington and was deemed feasible by FAA. Glen Orcutt, FAA, asked �Ir. Duffey to e;cplain how the river departure track (J) differed from track L. Kent Duffey, HNTB, said track L(a 2306 head'ing off the 2.Snm turn point) gives the FAA some flexibility durin� low and mid-demand time periods to use a track that has less impact on the population. The River Track depariure procedure, on the other hand, could only be used during lo�v-demand time periods �vhen it could be included as a published flight plan. � i�Iary Teske, resident of Eagan, expressed concerns about aircraft over�hooting the 2.5nm turn point and overflying areas south of the designated point. Kent Duffey, HNTB, said aircraft will be at a sufficient altitude and po�ver level at the 2.5nm turn point for them to turn very close to that point. He said he felt there was a high probability that the 2.�nm turn point procedure will be able to direct aircraft ativay from populated areas. Jeff Bergom, Burns�ille; asked �vhat percentage of the runway 17 deparh.ues would be taking a�vesterly heading. Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, said approximately 55% of the depariures are expected to take a �vest of centerline heading. The remaining 45% �vili depart straight out or on one of the east or southeast headings. �� Chairman Nelson asked several questions relating to the number of people subtracted and/or added to the mitigated contour with the application of the 2.Snm DitiIE turn point alternative. He noted that the majority of the people subtracted from the contour with the use of the 2.�nm turn point were in the city �� of Bloomington. He then asked whether there had been any people added in communities south of Bloominb on as a result of the 2.Snm DN1E turn point altemative. Roy Fuhrmann, NIAC, said the 2.Snm Dl�1E turn point alternative had not added people to the 60+ DNL contour in communities south of Bloomington. � Chairman Nelson asked Kent Du#fey to review the change in fhe projected percentage use of tracks F, G and L. iVIr. Duffey explained that �vhen there are arrivals on runtivays 12L and 12R, departures off tracks F and G of runway 17 would be restricted. Because of this, a percenta�e of operations will be forced to more southerly headings (a maximum of a 2306 heading will be required). He said traffic that would normally be given a heading on-track F or G would then be d ven a 2308 heading (Track L) during this scenario. Track use for F and G was adjusted to account for the time that arrivals are expected to take place on run�vays 12L and 12R (approximately 32% of the time). He noted that'because the tracks are relatively close to each other, the contour does not change signiticantly from what was initially modeled. Chairman Nelson asked Kim Hughes to explain the possibilities for the need for additional environmental revie�v with the proposed changes to the use of runway 17. NIs. Hughes said it had always been assumed that a certain amount of environmental review work would have to be completed as part of the Part 150 Update submittal and that the consultants have been directed to beein that process as soon as possible. She said she believed the environmental revie�v would be in the form of an Environmental Assessment (EA). Glen Orcutt, FAA, said the FAA has not made a decision as to �vhat the FAA �vill require at this point. ` � Jeff Bergom, Burnsville, asked what will happen if the environmental revie�v process sho�vs that there is an environmental impact. Kim Hughes, F�li�1I'B, said she feels the changes �vould prove to be of no significant impact and that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) tivould be the result. Nlary Loeff'elholz, NtiVA, asked how an EA would impacf the Part 150 process. Glen Orcutt, FAA, said an EA would not affect the review process, but that if there �vere some environmental requirements attached to a measure in the Part 150, the work �vould have to be completed before insulation could be begun in the ne�v contour. Chairman Nelson asked Cindy Greene, FAA, to comment on the recommendation of a 2.�nm DNIE turn point for departures off runway 17. l�Is. Greene said that the air traffic control to�ver (ATCT) is comfortable with the recommendation and believes it is feasible. She said she believes the procedure is safe, �,von't unduly impact capacity, and �vill not unacceptably delay the users (airlines). She cautioned, ho�vever, that she does not see the River Track (track L) as pro�-idin� a large benefit, althouah it reduce a certain number of operations over certain areas. y Chairman Nelson asked Glen Orcutt, FAA, to comment on the recommendation. NIr. Orcutt said he had some concern about how any change from the FEIS would affect approval. He said it is unl.�-�o�m at this time �,vhat, if any, actions tiviil need to be taken. 0 BOB JOHNSON, tiLB�--�, 1�IOVED Ai�tD �LARY LOEFFELHOLZ, N�V�., SECONDED TO ENDORSE THE CONSULT:�1�tT RECONI�iYIEivDATION FOR RUNWAY 17 DEPART� � � � PROCEDURES LTTII�IZING A 2•5 NAUTICAL 1�fII,E DV� TURN POTi�1T, iVIIM�'LIZES THE IttiLI'�,.C'�'S OF '�VESTBOUND JET DEPARTURES, AS A NOISE 1VQTIGATION 1%��-SURE FOR THE PART 150 UPDATE Ai�tD .ni'IPLr,E� NTA�TI�O P0� RIVER DEP�RTURE TRACK SEAPARATE FRONI THE RECOI�IlYIENDATION. Al�tD FURTHERi�'IOR.E, THA.T THESE RECOIVII�i IENDATIONS BE FORWAItDED TO THE FULL BODY OF 1�IASAC FOR EivDORSElVIENT. THE 1�IOTION CA.RI2IED ON A VOICE VOTE. Other Items Not on the Agenda Ciry of Eagan - Lotiv Demand Flight Tracks Chairman Nelson introduced the topic and reminded the members that a decision on the low demand flight tracks had been made at the June 2000 lY1ASAC meeting. Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, presented an alternative compromise to the runway 17 Low Demand Departure Flight Track recommendation. He noted that with the shift of track A to the north due to better modeling, track A is now over a less dense residentially-populated area of Eagan. vlr. Verbrugge said the Eaaan City Council is now offering a compromise to. the recommendation that designates tracks A(0958), C(1708) and L(2308), rather than firacks A, B(1608) and D(1856), as the low demand flight tracks for the eastbound flights. He said he felt this alternative was in keeping with the goal of placin� aircraft over areas that are less noise sensitive. Kent Duffey, �NTB, said to designate track C(1708) as a low demand flight track would be in ( ) contradiction to the established 30RI30L departure procedure that attempts to reduce departures over '= areas that already receive arrival traffic (straight in to the runway). � He said a change in the recommendation would represent a change in philosophy regarding those areas. Chairman Nelson said he thou�ht the low demand departure flight tracks were conceptual and that in order to implement them further study and possibly environmental work would have to be done. Cindy Greene, FAA, said that because the low number of operations and because of the all staje 3 fleet, �it would be unlikely that any environmental review, except for possibly a"noise screen," �vould be necessary for the low demand flight tracks. Kim Hughes, HNTB, agreed that a change in the low demand flight tracks recommendation �vould have an insignificant impact on the contours. She said use of the low demand flight tracks would �ive some relief to those people already under the arrival flight path and would provide an added value. Chairman Nelson asked if it tivas reasonable for the affected community to make a decision such as this if the impact tivas so insignificant that it did not change the noise contours. Iiim Hughes, Hi�1TB, said that if the communitizs desire to have a specific track indicated to air traffic control that they want to use dunng low demand periods, assuming that the track does not take the aircraft a�vay from its destination, it would reasonable, if that is �vhat the committee desires, for them to do so. Tom Lawell, Apple Valley, said, because residents of Apple Valley will be affected by amvals on runway 35, he would be concerned about any recommendation that would further concentrate operations ( on that track. He said he did not feel that the Cedar Avenue Comdor should be considered compatibie similar to the Eajan/l�Iendota Heights Corridor. NIr. Lawell also asked how often the river track is projected to be used. Kent Duffey, �INTB, said the number is too small to quantify and that its use does not affect the contour. iVlary Teske, Eagan Resident, said Cedar Avenue is too narrow and that the area in Eagan under flight irack C(1708) is densely populated. She said anything that can be done to provide noise relief for the people living under this track should be done. She said she believed the issue was an environmental justice issue, as well. Chairman Nelson asked if it was possible to include more flexible language in the Part 150 lo�v demand flight tracks measure where these controversies exist. He said it may be helpful not to desi�ate low demand flight tracks for departures east of centerline. Kim Hughes, HNTB, said to do that would be to essentially give no direction to the FAA for that one section and would not fulfill the purpose of providing preferred low demand flight tracks. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, pointed out that the percentage use of track C for departi.u-es for all times of the day is already significantly higher than that of track B. He said he did not believe the use of any of the runway 17 low demand flight tracks �vould exceed one operation per day. Jamie Verbrugae, Eagan, said even a single event per day is important. He also said that he didn't think the procedure used for departures off run�vay 30L and 30R should be used to make decisions for departures off rumvay 17 because the city of i�Iinneapolis is much more heavily populated than Eagan. Bob Johnson, NIBAA, said he concurred �vith the consultants' recommendation and was concerned with � making additional changes to the recommendations that have already been approved. Cindy Greene, FA.A, said she thought it would be very possible that the low demand flight tracks could be used slightly more often than once per day. She said that if ATC is directed to use those tracks during lo�v demand periods, they would use them as much as possible during these timeframes. Jeff Bergom, Burnsville, said he feels the people living under track C(1708) were already bein� asked too much of and a;reed with Mr. Lawell and Ms. Teske that track C should not be designated as a low demand fligh't track. ; Chairman i�telson asked the committee members if they felt the committee should take any action. 1Vlary Loeffelholz, NtiVA, said she thought it �vould be detrimental to the Operations Committee to re- review the decision. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said that procedurally, since the last decision had been madz at the MASAC level, any revie�v of the issue should be brought up at a MASAC meeting rather than at an Operations Committee meeting. He said any member voting for the motion at the last meeting could bring it up for discussion once aaain. Chairman Nelson aareed. Lotiv Fj-eqa�ency [Voise Poficy Canmittee Repor-t Dick Saunders, Vlinneapolis, briefed the Committee on the August 10, 2000 Lo�v Frequency Noise Policy Committee meetin�. He said the committee had agreed to adopt the consultants' recommendation �' , : to (1) establish three contour lines for low fi-equency noise measurement purposes and (2) approve a set of recommendations for final consideration by the MAC and the City of Richfield. He said once the recommendations are completed, they �vill be incorporated into the Part 150 Update document. NIr. Saunders also noted that a final report had been distributed at the meeting that showed the outlines of the three contours. He noted that the contour lines affect, essentially, three communities - Richfield, Bloomington and iYlinneapolis. He said the most impacted area (87LSFL+) would be subject to acquisition because the noise level has been deemed unlivable. The next most impacted area would be subject to mitigation, but what that would entail had not been deterrriined as of yet. NIr. Saunders also noted that the report did not include the estimated number of homes that would be affected or any estimates for mitigation costs. He said the Planning and Environment Committee would be pursuing those numbers. iVlr. Saunders then displayed page 10 of the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee report, which showed the affected areas. Roy Fuhrmann, NLA.C, further e:cplained the inforznation on the charts. Roy Fuhrmann, NIAC, noted that several suggestions for changes to the report had been made and that staff would provide updated copies of the report for the August MASAC meeting. Glen Orcutt, FA.A, reminded members that the type of insulation mitigation for low and high frequency noise would be different. Chairman Nelson asked Kim Hughes, HNTB, for comments on how the Low Frequency Noise Policy report would be incorporated into the Part 150 Update. �'Is. Hughes said the intention had al�vays been � ) to incorporate the findings as a separate measure in the Update document. Glen Orcutt, FA?., also noted that there was significantly more information available than the distributed report. He said, too, that he did not lrnow how the FAA would receive it. He said he thought the low frequency noise measure could be treated as a separate measure and, if it were rejected, the other measures could continue to stand. UrafinislTed Bc�si�zess Chairman Nelson as�Ced Roy Fuhrmann, NSAC, to bnef the council on the unfinished business for the Part 150 Update. NIr. Fuhrmann noted the follotiving: � HN'I'B is workin� diligently on completing the draft Part 150 Update document. � He hopes to have a significant portion of the document for the Operations Committee to re�--ie�v at the next Operations Committee meetinQ. � It may be beneficial to discuss some of the insulation packa�e options at the Au�ust ?2. 2000 NIASAC meetinQ. There �vas a discussion reaarding the Metropolitan Council's t�viation Guide Chapter and ho��' it �vill incorporate the 60DNI. contour. Kim Hughes, IINTB; said it �vill be very important to the FP.A that all oF the communities a�?ree that the 60 DNL level is considered an impacted area relative to aircraft noise. Glen Orcutt, FAA., said the aviation Quide chapter changes, discussed at the Operations Committee, is a proposed policy chanQe at this point and that the changes still have to go through the committee process /- at the 11�Iet Council. There was a discussion regarding ho�v the 60 DNL contour would be designated in � the guide. NIark Ryan, tiIAC, said he tivasn't sure whether this area would be designated as inconsistent (incompatible) or conditional. He suggested HNTB contact Chauncey Case of the Met Council for clarification. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m. The next Operations Committee meeting will be held on Friday, September 22, 2000 at 9:00 a.m. in the Large Construction Trailer of the Meh-opolitan Airports Commission. Respectfully Submitted, 1�Ielissa Scovronslci, Committee Secretary �' l ' - ► i', -�: ;�� :f .. - r � � s; �r - _ �� !.[ �: :E ,.,. , : � �„ ; � : _. _ - , - ,� ." r , : ,� - ; � r :t' Hl'1�'�B INM revisions Document Organization Noise Abatement Measures Land Use Measures Schedule for Compietion � ) 1 ;°°" � ,' _ INM Revisions Sof�ware encoding issues with INM's modeling of dispersion discovered last week of August INM transposed dispersion values (i.e. left is right) Contour afFected in areas where dispersion is not equal Document graphics reflect corrected ;� ��sy contours � : ,�� ° _ Document Organization Chapter 1 - Introduction Chapier 2 - Noise basics Chapter 3- Existing and forecast noise exposure Chapter 4- Land use and noise compatibility �� . � C � Doct�ment Organiz�tior� �� - � � �. _ Chapter 5 - NEMs Chap�ter 6 - Noise abatement measures Chapter 7- Land use measures Chapter 8 - Recommended NCP Chap�er 9 - Public involvement - .;� ,� j,.. �; ,r- ;« � ,�,�; : �: : ��. NA-1 - Metropolitan Sound Abatement � Councii (MASAC) MASAC shouid continue to be the officiaf vehicle for addressing airport noise at MSP. (No Change from previous Part 150). H :` i��Bl 3 � .� �: ,t - - .� t � �: f NA-2 - Noise Management Program The previous NCP estabiished the Noise Surcharge/Dififerential Landing Fee to recover some of the costs of noise monitoring and mitigation measures from the airiines. This measure continues the program and provides incen�ives for the use of manufactured Stage 3 aircraft. �rI _ ,► i :� � . � , -� � i. - .: , _ � :� �� :: _ � : � NA-3 - Voluntary Nighttime Limits on Flights - _ This measure is modified to reflect the revised MSP night�ime hours of �0:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., and to ask airlines to voluntarily reduce the use of hushkit aircraft during the nighttime. �� R `� t`: ,,� � � �; � NA-4 - Nigh�time Powerbacks All airlines at MSP have agreed to eliminate "powerbacks" during nighttime hours. All nighttime flights will "push back" from the gate with an aircraft tug. (No Change from previous Part 150). .. ��. �- :,,. i : . , �. �. „ y - : _. ,, �� ,. _ � . � ., E. - � k5,�_ .- �=i�:'[B'� NA-5 - Engine Run-Up Field Rule /�II airlines are required to conduct maintenance run-ups at a designated run- up pad, and compiy with the MSP Run-Up Field Rule. This measure is modified to reflect the new field rule, issued in February 1999: run ups between 6 am and 10:30 pm. exceptions only for scheduled departures that will not be mei without run-ups between ,.,y„+. 10:30 pm to midnight and 5 am to 6 am :�. ; C�� :;��'' i ( � s !�i I II ,r — L: s _ ; ,► , ., �, ..; , � . � .- . � � ° NA-6 - Training Restriction The major carriers at MSP have agreed not to conduct training operations at MSP. (No Change from previous Part 150). � _ � r� , _ �I� I - r HN'E'B NA-7 - Operating Procedures Airlines operating at MSP have agreed to comply with airport operating procedures. This measure is modified to refiect the use of the Distant NADP on all runway ends. ��e I ` . .. L �, �; : � z�� :R' NA-8 - Runway Use System (RUS) This measure pt�ioritizes noise-sensitive runway selection. This measure is modified to include Runway 17-35 in the prioritization of runway selection. "'z.-4'k .r'. .r�. �- �I's �:i — �' �h I. �: '^ :rti .� : �: '�. NA-9 - Airpor� Noise and Operations Monitoring System (ANOMS) ANOMS continues to be a vita) too) for collecting operational data on aircraft movements. (No Change from previous Part 150). ( ) � , , . � � �, . � .. . .. . - � , .. �, � NA-10 - Noise Abafement Sensitivity Training MAC works with the airlines and ATC to encourage awareness of noise issues and to heip increase compliance with current noise abatement procedures. (�lo Change from previous Part 150). -,. : :.: �:i .'� ..t; �.. � '. '": �. :, '":. ' :.: .. . � . . .r. i. ' . " _ . - . .. , .� � _ '�, ..... nLr.+i`0 NA-1 �. - Low-Demand Flight Tracks This new measure designates certain flight tracks, by runway end, for preferred use during low-demand time periods. �e $ �r'� . „ �. . � , `� -. :t �,. �;s: « .1 `, ' � r' .:. : ��:� � .. ;..... � NA-12 - Runway 17 - 2.5 NM Turn Point This new measure reduces noise exposure for homes in the immediate vicini�ty of the departure end of runway i7 by delaying westbound jet aircraft turns until they are over more compatibie land use of the Minnesota River Area. E-1E�1'�6 �e (!�. i�; _,r t j .:r:. t a.. ... , �,,, , �= NA-i3 - Runway 17 - River DP This new measure routes departing jet .. aircraft over the Minnesota River Area when ATC conditions allow. (- � 9 ! r: � �i. �. r: : . ..� _ � . . ... ... _:.�: :.. , ` NA-14 - Runway 17 - River heading Fiight Track This new measure routes departing jet aircrafit over the Minnesota River when conditions allow. �j •r }'•. J'}� ! _} 1; �� .�:�> �:. : . : , , . . ;, �. :�. .., � ,, .. .. � , �,� .. : ,:�. . ..:. .. _., ; �EIL�TB NA-�5 - Runway �7 - Visual River Approach Procedure This new measure recommends that MAC and the FAA investigate a river visual arrival procedure to Runway 35 that routes arrivi�ng aircraft over the Minnesota River, in order to reduce noise exposure and overfiights of areas south of the river. ��e 10 �' - � ` r � ., � �. � �. � NA-16 - Future Technology and Global Posi�ioning System (GPS) Initiatives This new measure recommends that MAC and the FAA investigate the potential use of emerging GPS technologies for noise mitigation purposes, and implement beneficial procedures as necessary. .� ,... � , :� ,� � � , . � , :_ . u ,.P c�'cs LU-1 - Amend local land use plans to bring them into conformance with the MC's Noise Compatibility Guidelines This measure will inhibit non-compatible development. (No Change from previous Part 150). �ttl�t'�� ( ; 11 ,.: . � _ .. : , _ . .,, LU-2 - Zone for Compatible Development This measure wiil ensure consistency with the Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide. (No Change from the previous Part �5�). LU-3 - AppIy Zoning PerFormance Standards This measure will allow metro municipalities to adopt and enforce ordinances and controls to reguiate building construction methods and material for the purpose of attenuating aircraft noise in habitable buildin s in and around the Airport Noise Zone. �No Change from the previous Part 150). r ,�+. s� : 04 �m��`�� . � . . �,��.,..�� L.U-4 - Continue Public Information Program The previous NCP established this program to develop and distribute informatjonal materials concerning aircraft noise. This measure continues the program and requests the use of state-of- the-art technology and other multimedia resources. �Y � Y...., ` . _.. t : :�ip. li. . .. , . � . - .. � x . a " ; ^. .I�' ,, �:„:,.a i'. s �� _.._ ., .,. �.'�� .. , .... . LU-5 - Revise Building Codes The previous NCP established this measure to modify the State Building Code to require specified interior noise reduc�ion for new construction in the Airport Noise Zones for MSP. (No Change from the previous Part 150). �� ) 13 � ♦ � � � .' ,. • � � ' �� " ��'� � ••' • ! •. � - - The previous measure was designed to alleviate aircra�t noise effects in areas of non-compatible land use within the 65 dB DNL. This measure allows for acq uisition of property oniy at the initiative of, and with the approval of local jurisdictions, for non-compattbie parceis located wi�hin the 65 dB DNL. ...� '�' 1� ..: i � : • . ` �• - � ✓ ' . I�. _�:�'. , �� ' � .�i:. '� � �I.,`�.��. �i � i�.Y LU-7 - Property Purchase Guarantee This measure was designed to assure home owners that their property would be acquired at a fair market value and returned to residential use with appropriate sound insulation measures, releases and restrictions if the owner had made a l`bona fide effort" to seil the property. (No Change from the previous Part �50). � t 14 � � i� - _ - 1 � ' ' .` " �!. ' i � r'! ' _.:, I : , c�. . ` . I� ' LU-8 - Part 150 Sound insulation Program (Residential, School, and Other Public Buildings) The previous measure provided for sound attenuation out to blocks intersected by the 65 dB DNL. This measure is modified to include blocks intersected by the 60 dB DNL. ��'', , � , .., <.� , ; :.� ,. , _ _: _ ,.�. � ., , � , . . LU-9 - Creation of Sound Buffers/Barriers This measure ailows for sound barrier walls and/or berms and natural landscaping to reduce aircraft noise for the communi�ies surrounding N1SP. I�� !, ,1 1 S ! � � i_ �" . ,- � .� ' '- , LU-10 - Mitigate Residential Land Uses Exposed to Low-Frequency Noise This measure augments existing sound insulation and acquisition programs. ....._.........s.... _�._..�._.�......-... . September 26 — Presen�k Draft Part i50 Document to MASAC September 29 — MASAC Part 150 Document Comment meeting October 6- Public Part 150 Draft Issued November 8& 9- Public Information Meeting/Hearing November 15 - Close Public Comment Period Mid-December - Submit to FAA HI�TB 16 ! j I ,��,� ;, , . ., �: �;. . ,�.,. .� ;' ' �, `� '. , ,: :' i /// : . . ,1 � . ❑ MASAC meeting agenda, cover memo(s) and correspondence for September 26, 2000 ❑ Minutes of the August 22, 2000 MASAC meeting Cl Minutes of the August 1 l, 2000 Operations Committee meetings ❑ Blank Noise Monitoring and Information Request Form ❑ Blank MASAC News Feedback/Input Form ❑ Monthly Part 150 Residential Sound Insulation Program Update ❑ August 2000 Technical Advisor's and Corridor Reports ❑ A Part 150 Update Document Executive Summary . � : r • �• � ' , ,: . �: ;� � '� � ,` , � ' ` � '� -�: - �� ; �' , I I 1- AG_ .�.� , , • •. � � .,;. COUNCIL General Meetina September 26, 2000 7:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 28`h Avenue S. l�'Iinneapolis, �'Tinnesota 1. Call to Order, Roll Call Z. Approval of 1�Iinutes of �Ieeting August 22, 2000 3. Introduction of Invited Guests Receipt of Communications 4. Review of the Draft Part 150 Update Document �' j 5. F�,.4 i\oise Abatement Policr 2000 6. Report of the September 22, 2000 Operations Committee Nleeting 7. Report of the September 13, 2000 Communications Advisory Board Nleeting 8. Report of the I��I.aC Commission Meeting - Chairman Nlertensotto 9. Technical :�d��isor's Runwa�• S��stem Utilization Report anri Complaint Summar�� 10. Persons �'�'ishing to .address the Council 11. Items tiot on the Agencia 12. .�djournment :�e�t tileeting: October 24, 2000 .��SAC � � � , �. . .. � � MASAC Roy Fuhrmann, Manager, Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs Review of Draft Part 150 Update Document September 18, 2000 The Part 150 Update process has been a significant undertaking for MASAC and the MASAC Operations Committee. Through extensive commitment and diligent efforts, a comprehensive Noise Compatibility Program has been developed. The resultant proQram addresses the impacts associated with future growth in aviation, as well as the introduction of a new North/South Runway at MSP. Currently HNTB is compiling the Draft Part 150 Update Document. This process includes compiling all of the work and input MA.SAC and other community groups have provided into a concise Noise Compatibility Progra.m addressing all of the operation and mitigation strategies for reducing noise impact at Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP) through the year 2005. ' The proposed Part 150 Update Noise Compatibility Program results in the following � j - preliminary assessment of effects on population within impacted areas relative to t e 2005 Unmitigated DNL Contours: ♦ DNL 70 dBA contour - approximately 230 people added ♦ DNL 65 dBA contour - approximately 1,030 people removed � DNL 60 dBA contour - approximately 13,780 people removed . � Total change in the 60+ DNL contour - approximately 14,580 people rernoved from the contour In addition the Update includes national precedent-setting initiatives including provision to provide insulation out to the 60 DNL contour and will include measures for addressing low frequency noise impacts related to a.ircraft operations at MSP. Draft copies of the completed portions of the document will b� reviewed a�000 September 22, 2000 MASAC Operations Committee meeting. At the September �6, .. MASAC meeting HNTI'B will provide e t° V?Prebens�ailedvlto MASACUTmmbers 100 Update Document. The draft docum September ?l, Z000. Its is not anticipated that MASAC members will have an opportunity to review the entire document by the September 26'i' meetin�, but that a complete review of the document will be � mbert29`�' spe pal Part 150 Update MASAC be able to provide comment by the Sep meeting. Followin� IvIASAC review of the document, iv1ASAC will conduct a special Part 1�0 Update meetina on September 29, 2000 to provide further information and clarification on the document. Draft publication of the document will occur on October 6; 2000. FollowinQ that I�SA.S �C will sponsor two Part 150 Update public hearings. � The public hearinas will be held on November 8, 200Q and November 9, 2000, at the Thunderbird Hotel, 2201 78`� Street East, Bloomin�:ton, MN 55425-1229. A public workshop will be held each d.ay from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. with the public hearina beginning at 7:00 p.m. 'The two dates are provided to allow a greater opportunity for public involvement. The fonnat and presentation will be the same for both dates. Both written and verbal comments will be taken at the hearinQ. Written comments will also be accepted until �:00 p.m. on November 15, 2000. Followin� the close of the comment period, the document will be forwarded to the MAC for review and approval and then submitted to the FAA (approximately December 20, 2000) for approval. Please be prepared to provide information on the form in which you would like to receive the draft document when it is distributed on October 6, 2000. Two forms are available, either on CD or paper copy.. If you have any questions regarding this topic please contact me at 612-725-6326 �' t 1��A�'.AC' 1VIEII�IC)��T.I��TI� � � � I��.SAC T�; MASAC FROIVI: Chad Leqve, MASAC Technical Advisor SUB,TECT: FAA Noise Abatement Palicq 2000 D.E�.TE: September 18, 2000 In 1976 the Department of Transportation (DOT) published its Aviation Naise Abatement Policy. At the time, approximately s� to seven million people resided in areas of significant noise impact (DNL 65 contours) around U.S. airports. The Policy provided a means of addressing airport noise impacts around the country. The principles and associated legislative and regulatory irutiatives provided significant noise reduction around our nation's airports• Currently the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA.) estimates that approximately 500,000 Americans are exposed to significant aircraft noise levels around U.S. airports, substantially reduced from the 1976 fib res. The first pilot programs providing Federal funding for up to 25 airport noise control plans were established in 1976 as part of the policy. Since that time the FAA has issued Airport Improvement Program (AIl') grants for over $2.6 billion as part of a set-aside proaram and established the Passenger Facility Chaxge (PFC) program, which has provided airport proprietors with revenue collection authority at commercial use airports allocating in excess of $1.6 billion for noise mitigation efforts. Although significant strides have been taken, continuous efforts to increase the effectiveness of our nation's a.irport noise reduction policies continue to be investigated. Because of the changing transportation demands, public environm s�e mP1976ionbeing the availability of new technologies, a review of the policy estab conducted. The policy review process will result in a document consisting of two parts. The Transportation Secretary will issue a policy statement broadly addressing noise concerns and in turn the FAA Administrator will issue aviation noise policy guidelines. The FA.A.'s proposed policy document incorporates the major points contained in the 1976 Aviation Noise Abatement Policy in addition to new developments. The draft policy summarizes current conditions af%cting aviation and sets forth goals, policies and strategies for addressing them. The policy document also outlines the foundations and methodolaQies for assessing av►ation noise, promoting research and development in aircraft noise reduction technology and noise abatement procedures, in addition to promoting compatible land use measures in noise icnpacted areas. The FAA's year 2000 aviation noise abatement goals as part of the draft polic_y document _ consist of the followinQ: ( ) � � � � Continue to reduce aircraft noise at the source. a Use new technologies to reduce noise impacts. • Bring existing land use into compatibility within levels of sie�ificant noise exposure around airports and prevent the development of new non-compatible uses in these areas. • Design prospective air tra.f�ic routes and procedures to minimize aviation noise impacts in areas beyond legal jurisdiction of airport proprietors, consistent with � local consensus, safe and egicient use of the navigable airspace. • Provide special consideration to locations in national parks and other federaliy managed areas having unique noise sensitivities. + Enable strong financial support for noise compatibility planning and for mitigation projects. The document has five sections and an appendix of references (please refer to the attached copy of the document acquired from the Federal Register). Sections one through five cover: 1. Introduction 2. Goa1s and Policies 3. Authorities and Responsibilities — Lega1 Framework 4. Assessing Aviation Noise 5. Source Noise Reduction The document was published on the July 14, 2000 Federal Register. Comments on the document must be received on or before October 23, 2000, Comments should be mailed in triplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration Office of the Chief Council Attention: Rules Docket (AGC-200) Docket Number [30109] 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 At the last MASAC meeting a briefing was conducted providing a summary of the proposed FAA policy. Following that presentation a discussior ensued on the following possible MASAC responses to the policy. ♦ A new Stage 4 noise level standard should be developed, which maximizes the noise reduction capabilities of available and future aircraft engine technologies. e As part of the new Stage 4 noise level criteria, Part 161 should be updated or a new policy should be developed to address the timely retirement of Stage 3 hushkitted aircraft and a reasonable phase-out plan for existing manufactured Staae 3 aircraft. � Realizing that the sinale event noise energy produced by Stage 2 aircraft under 75,000 pounds can be equal to or �eater than many Stage 3 aircraft above 75,000 pounds, a timely phase-out schedule for Stage 2 aircraft under_75,000 pounds should be established. In addition, the future transition schedule to a Staje 4 aircraft fleet should apply to aircraft under 75,000 pounds as well. � The FA.A recognized noise impact area of 65 DNL for purposes of conective and preventative land use measures should be expanded to the 60 DNL area realizinQ �` that noise impacts extend beyond the 65 DNL contour line at our nation's V airports. o Future policy regarding land use compatibility planning should be considered in concert with new airspace use flexibilities provided by the GPS technology and surro�ate capabilities such as free flight and precision variable geometry approach and departure procedures. � Federal Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) funding initiatives should address noise compatibility efforts out to the 60 DNL contour at our nation's airports. o Realizing the possible noise reduction benefits GPS can offer in the airport environment, the FAA should develop mandatory airborne avionics compatibility timetables, ensuring the noise reduction benefits that could be received as a result of on-board GPS coupled Flight Management Systems (FMS) and Auto Flight Guidance Systems (AFGS). o 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 technologies can offer relative to noise abatement. 0 An all-encompassing GPS implementation strategy should be developed to provide direction to airport proprietors for terminal area procedure implementation in an e$'ort to reduce noise exposure. o 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. It was decided that due to a lack of consensus on the response points being discussed, final determination of a MASAC response would occur at the September 26, 2000 MASAC meeting. As a result, please be prepared to approach this matter from a consensus perspective in an effort to propose a unified MASAC response to the FAA's policy. Issues that do not reach consensus could be submitted under separate cover by the respective parties. If you have any questions or comments regarding this topic, please contact me at 612- 725-6328. _ �.:;'.', s: • , . �� i�ietropolitan Aircrcaff Sound Abat�menfi Cc�uncil (�/iASAC) b040 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, Minnesota 5545p •(612) 726-8141 Chairman: Mayor Charles Mertensotto Past Chairs: Robert P. Johnson, 1995-1999 Scott Bunin, 1990-1995 Walter Rockenstein, II, 1982-1990 Jan Del Calzo, 1979-1982 Stanley W. Olson, 1969-1979 Technical Advisor: Chad Leqve Dear MASAC Member: You are invited to attend a special meeting of the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) to discuss and give comment on the Draft Part 150 Update document before it is published to the general public. The meeting is scheduled for Friday, September 29, 2000 at 9:00 a.m. in the large trailer in back of the General Offices of the Metropolitan Airports Commission at 6040 28`h Avenue S., Minneapolis. Copies of the draft document will be mailed to each MASAC member prior to this meetina. �- � Written comments will also be accepted until November 1�`'' if you are unable to attend this or subsequent meetings. Instructions on how to submit written comments on the draft document �vill be included in the mailing of the document. If you have any questions regarding this special meeting or the Draft Part 150 Update document, please call me at 612-725-6326. Regards, � �,�� ------ Rov f uh�ann Manager, MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Pro�.n'ams i' \ 1 METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL GENERAL MEETING August 2?, 2000 7:30 p.m. 6040 28`h Avenue S. Minneapolis, Minnesota Call to Order, Roll Call The meeting was called to order by Chairman Nlertensotto at 7:3� p.m. The followina members were in attendance: Charles Mertensotto, Cliairman Ben Humphrey Caroline Fullerton Brian Simonson Brian Bates Roy Fuhrmann Bob Johnson Petrona Lee John Nelson Jamie Verbrugge Lance Staricha Jill Smith Will Eginton Glenn Strand Dean Lindberg Dick Saunders Mike Cramer Joe Lee Jeff Ber�om Cynthina Putz Yang John Halla Pam Dmvtrenko Knstal Stokes Advisors Chad Leqve Mark Kill Shane VanderVoort Jason Giesen Joe Harris Kim Huahes Cindy Greene Visitors Nathan Hi�bie Mary Teske Mendota Heights Northwest Airlines Northwest Airlines DHL Airborne Express MAC MB A.A Blooming-ton Bloomington Eaaan Ea�an Mendota Heights Inver Grove Heights Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis Burnsville Sunfish Lake St. Paul Richfield Richfield Technical Ad��isor NIAC MAC MAC MAC HNTB FAA Lochard Ciry of Ea�?an Resident � Kj � Jan DelCalzo Brian Timerson Karen Chapdelaine Doris and David Hoel Clinton Ind Andy Pederson Approval of Minutes City of Minneapolis MPCA Eagan Resident Eagan Residents MAC Intern Apple Valley The minutes of the July 2�, 2000 MASAC meeting were approved as distributed. Introduction of Invited Guests Chairman I�lertensotto recognized Mr. Nathan Higbie of Lochard. A resident of Richfield (630� Thomas Avenue) introduced herself. Receipt of Communications • A letter was received from Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, desib ating Mr. Ben Humphrey as her alternate for the August 2000 meeting. • An electronic mail correspondence was received from Carter Christie, business manager for independent school district 191, regarding concerns the school district has about the impacts of runway 17/3� operations on the schools in his district. • A letter was received from Joe Lee, Minneapolis, with comments regarding the July 25, 2000 MASAC meeting. � A letter was received from Neil Clark, Minneapolis, requesting information on population density around the airport. • A letter was received from Patrick Hollister, Mendota Heights, along with a resolution from the City of Mendota Heights, designating Mr. Hollister as the MASAC alternate representative to the Operations Committee in place of Kevin Batchelder. • A letter «,�as received from Mayor Gene Winstead of Bloomington regarding the city's preference for departure procedures off rumvay 17. Introduction to Lochard - Guest - Nathan Hi�bie Chad Leq��e. Technical Advisor, introduced Mr. Nathan Higbie as the Vice President of TechnoloQti• for Lochard, «�hich is the company no�v responsible for the ANOMS technology. Mr. Leq��e �a��e a brief background on Mr. Hiabie's credentials and expenence. tilr. Higbie then outlined «�hat he planned to talk about. L�troduction to Locharct o Lochard is a ��orld leader in noise monitoring and flight tracking technology. • Its systems are at SO airports around the world. • Lochard has been in business for appro�imately 10 years. o It is based in Australia but has re�ional offices in Boston, Sacramento and Enaland. o It employs S2 software en��ineers and has a dedicated research and development team. o Lochard systems are supported 24 hours per day. • In addition to ANOMS, Lochard also has the GEMS, GEMSLite, E1�IU and SmartMic sott«•are svstems � � � ANOttiiS Goin,� Forward The company plans to integrate the best of both the ANOMS and GEMS systems to include: e Enhanced maps 1 • Intemet based reporting . VJorkflow management o Integrated land use impact analysis • New reporting capabilities • Predictive noise impacts t ) Fasture Capabilities e 3D mapping/backgrounds • Enhanced corridor analysis to support new flight rules based on DGPS and FMS • Zone Analysis to assist airports in specific community reporting (altitudes, arrivals and departures over a specific area) • Track Density analysis - identifying heavy and low aircraft overflight zones o Noise modeling using the FAA's INM model and actual data from the system • GIS systems built in to predict noise impacts of individual flights • Internet Reporting - providina easy to understand �aphics and information while maintaining data security • Automatic aircraft noise event recognition - lrnowing when a noise event is caused by an aircraft rather than another source Other Airports Other airports are monitoring noise abatement procedures, airport operations modes and other operational procedures and are reporting the following: s Loudest events • Runway use • Corridor analyses v Fleet mix • Complaints • Time period comparisons o Nighttime operations • Noise and Operations Summaries NIr. Higbie said that Lochard had taken over the ANOMS technology in 1999 and opened the Boston office in March of this year. He also noted that an ANOMS User Group meeting would be held soon �vhere users of the system will have the chance to exchange information and ideas. Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, asked if it �vas possibthanaevee FAAeaould a"e�i houtl havip�lto go accepting noise exposure contours more otten ry Y through a lenathy Part 1 �0 Update process. Ro�� Fuhrmann, MAC, said the FAA currently wi1l accept noise exposure maps without a noise compatibility program attached to them as part of a Part 150 Udpate and will accept them more often than every fi�e years. Chairman �Iertensotto asked i�Ir. Higbie ho«� N1SP's noise programs compared with other airports. I�Ir. Higbie said N1SP is already utilizinQ GIS and Internet reporting to a gr'eat extent. He said this is mainly due to the fact that MSP has technical people in their noise abatement office. He compared MSP to the Heathrow, London airport noise program, ��'hich has an e�tensive technical staff. 3 The Richfieid resident mentioned under invited guests related her expenence with noise monitoring performed at her home in 1996 and said the noise levels at that time did not match the 1996 contour levels. Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, noted that the contours associated with the 2000 Part 1�0 Update are more accurate because actual data from MSP's ANOMS system has been used as input to the Inteorated Noise Modeling software. He said the modelina for the 200� � Noise Exposure Map is very accurate due to the benefit of having actual ANOMS data. Part 150 Update Kim I�ughes, HNTB, reviewed the final Part 150 Update recommendations from the MASAC Operations Committee. Rz�ntivav 17 Departatre Tr-acl�s NIs. Hughes explained the reasons for the shift of Track A to the north. She said the shift is due to better modeling of the ability of aircraft to tum immediately off the runway on departures. She said the hiQher-performing aircraft today are able to turn more quickly than those that were modeled inythe EIS. She noted, too, that the INM flight track location is accurate only in the immediate vicinity of the airport and that the further out from the airport an aircraft flies, the more dispersion there will be. Ms. Hughes also updated the members on flight track use for runway 17 westbound departures. She explained that when aircraft are arriving on runways 12L/12R, air iraffic control will not be able to turn aircraft onto tracks F and G and will have to use track L(230°) instead. Thus, the track use percentages for tracks F and G were decreased sliahtly and L was increased slichtly. However, the change in the contour due to these slight changes is insignificant. Ms. Hughes then reviewed the runway 17 flight track turn point alternatives. She noted the following: �. • The EIS Record of Decision (ROD) states that noise abatement measures could be evaluated for rum�•ay 17 departure tracks in order to avoid populated areas close to the airport. • Flight tracks and procedures must provide sufficient guidance to aircraft to ensure aircraft of varvinQ performance capabilities are able..to avoid, as much as possible, populated areas enroute to their destinations. " NIs. Hughes then reviewed the goals of tl-�e runway 17 departure track analysis. • Eastbound aircraft are able to turn immediately off runwa_y end. • Westbound aircraft (�i�est of runway heading) �vill depart the run�vay on a srraiaht out track and then upon reaching a designated DME point, turn to the assigned heading. • Initiallv, the Operations Committee considered a 1.7, a 2.2 and a 2.7 DME point. At that time the ?.2 miie DME turn point was recommended. • A turn point can be designated as part of a Depariure Procedure (DP) for a specific headina, and as part of an FAA order for use by the ATC. � o There is a sli�ht decrease in capacity associated with using a turn point because adequate separation of departing aircraft is necessary. o The use of a DME turn point does provide positive guidance to aircraft using existinQ technology. y � Future use of GPS/FMS technology shouid be considered as the technology evolves. • Per the request of the Operations Committee in June, a 2.�nm DNIE �vas considered and then appro��ed at the August 1 I, 2000 meeting. The 2.�nm DME turn point procedure would reduce the noise impacts within the 60+ DNL contour, would be simple and easy to implement, maintains the intent of the committee's initial recommendation and reduces (but does not eliminate) overflights of Bloomington's bluff area. However, the 2.Snm DME turn point reduces the capacity of the runway by 3-4 departures per hour (similar to the initial 105° fan recommendation) and could potentially increase overflights of other communities. 1VIs. FIughes then showed the differences between the 2.2nm and the 2.Snm turn points. • The difference in population between the 2.2nm and the 2.Snm turn point alternatives is 1,130 additional people are eliminated from the contour with the 2.Snm turn point alternarive. Ms. Hu�hes then explained how a river departure procedure would work for run�vay 17. • A published deparlure procedure would be developed that directed aircraft to fly to a turn point at approximately 3.Onm and then turn onto a 245° heading to overfly the river. • A river departure such as this would only be able to be used during forecasted low-demand periods due to ATC clearance requirements associated with the procedure. • The projected use for the procedure would only be about 0.24% of runway 17 nighttime traffic. NIs. Hughes then explained how a river departure procedure using an assigned heading would work. • From the 2.Snm turn point already in place, aircraft would be given an assigned heading of 230° to overfly the river. This procedure could be used during low and mid-demand time periods. • Its projected use would be approximately 1.54% of runway 17 daytime departures and 3.46% of the nighttime deparlures. • 1�1s. Hughes further explained that the ATC would have discretion as to whether or not to use either procedure as appropriate. • There are no significant changes in the noise contour associated with the use of these procedures. • The procedures do, populated areas. however, have the potential to reduce overflights over highly impacted i�Iar�� Teske, Eagan Resident, said she is concerned about the effects of delayed turns by aircraft on the schools in her area. She said most of the schools are not insulated or air-conditioned. She said she is concerned that aireraft ��ill not be able to tum at the 2.�nm point and will over shoot the turn point. nls. Teske said she does not believe that the modeled aircraft turns at the 2.Snm Dl��1E point «'ill materialize and that there will be an increase in flights over her area of Eagan and Burns��ille. Itim Hughes, HNTB, said the modeling done for the analysis is the best possible representation and that an attempt has to be made to determine how the runway will and should operate before it is completed. Jef'f Bergom, Burns��ille, asked about the ability of aircraft to turn at a specific DME point. Cind�� Greene, FAA, said the pilots will program the DME point into the aircraft along with the headin�� before departing so there is no reason that a pilot would overshoot the turn point. Roy Fuhrmann. Iv1AC, said the better the performance capability of the aircraft, the more precise turn ratio it �ti�ill have. He said the speed and direction of the wind, however, plays a part in how any aircraft performs. He said the use of Global Positioning Systems (GPS} in the future wil] correct for the «�ind. Jill Smith, Mendota Heights, asked if the proposed runway 17 departure flight procedures constituted the creation of a corridor to the south. Chairman Mertensotto said it is his interpretation that it is not a corridor because it does not have geographic or heading boundaries and because all headings will be used for turbo prop aircraft. Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, (� agreed and said the procedures are operational in nature rather than geographical in nature. John Nelson, Bloomington, urged the members to support the measure. He said that it will give some noise abatement relief to the densely populated areas in east Bloomington that are closest to the airport but will not eliminate flights over the city. Chairman IVlertensotto said it was important to make a decision about the departure flight paths for runway 17. BOB JOI .�i 1SON, MBAA, MOVED A1VD DICK SAUNDERS, MINNEAPOLIS, SECONDED TO ENDORSE THE RECOI�IlVIENDATION FOR THE RUNWAY 17 DEPARTURE PROCEDURE UTILIZING A 2.5, NAUTICAL MILE DME TUR.N POINT TIiAT MINIlVIIZES THE IMPACTS OF WESTBOUND TET DEPARTURES AND A RIVER DEPARTURE TR.ACK SEPARATE FROM THE 2.5 TURN POINT RECOMI�IENDATION AS PART OF THE PA.RT 150 UPDATE. THE NIOTION WAS APPROVED ON A VOICE VOTE. Sozcnd Inszrlatiorz Boundary Deftnition Ms. Hughes outlined the goals for the sound insulation boundary definition: • Provide fair and equitable eligibility requirements for the Part I50 Sound Insulation Program. • Minimize FAA review delay • Continue the residential sound insulation program without interruption � NIs. Hughes then reviewed the e:�isting boundary definition. ' Any home on a block wholly �vithin or touched by the 6� DNL contour is eligible for sound insulation. NIs. Hughes then exp]ained that the 1996 MSP Noise Mitigation Committee had requested, as part of the decision to keep the airport at its present site, that the I�IAC and the communities seek FAA approti•al for neiahborhood and natural boundaries, which is a departure from the current procedure. y Shz noted that the FAA has previously rejected any boundary proposais that included blocks outside the 65 DNL contour. She also noted that ��ith the 2000 Part 150 Update, the FAA will already ha�•e to consider eli��ibility� for a si�*nificant area beyond the 65 DNL contour and may not be open to Qoina further than the already approved boundary definition. l�Is. Hughes then reviewed the six boundary definition scenarios including using parcels, blocks, half blocks and natural boundaries to determine eligibility. Steve �'ecchi, THC, Inc, said he felt the current method of determining eliaibility (block intersection) is the most deiensible. JOE LEE, 11I\NEAPOLIS, 1�IOVED AND PETRONA LEE, BLOOi�II�GTON, SECO\DED, TO RECOMI�IEND THAT THE CURR��'T MSP FAA-ENDORSED ( INTERSECTING BLOCK CONTOUR EDGE DETERMINATION BE COI�TI�UED AS THE BOU�IDARY DEFIi�tITION METHOD AT MSP AS PART OF TI3E PART 150 UPDATE. THE MOTION WAS APPROVED BY A VOICE VOTE. 1 Sound Insz�lation�Priority Kim Hughes, HNTB, reviewed the Operations Committee recommendation for sound insulation priorities (as listed below) and the associated, anticipated timeline. Pam Dymtrenko, Richfield, asked about the priority for low frequency noise mitigation. Chairman Mertensotto said he believed the low frequency noise mitigation program and its funding would be separate from the regular residential noise mitigation program. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said the Commission may make the decision on the priority- of lo�v frequency noise mitigation. Chairman Mertensotto also noted that the LFNPC has not yet agreed on what a low frequency noise mitigarion package would include. Kim Hughes, HNTB, said the Operations Committee's recommended priority scheme includes provisions for the communities' input and the 1996 MSP Noise Mitigation Committee recommendations. Dean Lindberg, Minneapolis, asked when a specific church might expect to be insulated. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said that churches are not eligible for the residential or school sound insulation programs. But, if a church has a school or preschool/daycare attached to it, it could possibly be eligible for insulation of that portion of the facility. SOB JOI�tSON, MBAA, iVIOVED AND WII..L EGINTON, INVER GROVE HEIGHTS, SECONDED TO APPROVE THE RECOM[MENDATION OF THE MASAC OPERATIONS COMMITTEE FOR SOUND INSULATION PRIORITY, �VHICH IS CONSISTENT WITFi THE 1996 MSP NOISE iVIITIGATION PROGRAM, AS PART OF TI3E PART 150 UPDATE. THE RECOMiV1ENDED PRIORITIES ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Complete the insulation of single family and duplex homes within the 1996 DNL 6� and areater DNL noise contours. ZA. Complete the sound insulation of multi-family residential structures within the 1996 DNL 65 and greater noise contours in conjunction with priority #2B and then sequencing to #2C below upon FAA approval of the Part 150 Update document. 2B. Complete the sound insulation of single-familv and dupleY homes that fall within the 2005 DNL 6� and greater DNL noise contours. 2C. Complete the sound insulation of eligible single family and duplex homes that fall �i•ithin the 200� DtiL 60 to 64 noise contours. 3. Complete the sound insulation of multi-famil�� residential structures within the 200� Di\L 6� and greater DNL noise contours in conjunction with priorit�� 2C above upon FAA approval of the Pat 1�0 tipdate Document. 4. Complete the sound insulation of multi-famil�� residential structures �vithin the ?00� D:�L 60 to 64 noise contours. 5. Complete the sound insulation of nursing homes and churches �i�ith regular �i•eekdav davcare/nursery school programs `��ithin the 2005 DNL 60 contour. THE �IOTIOti WAS APPROVED O:� A VOICE VOTE. Steve Vecchi, THC, Inc., aave a brief outline of the possible insulation packa�es for homes bet��een the 64 and 60 DNL contours. - j � There are basically four options being considered: 1. Provide the oneinal insulation package. 2. Provide a 3-decibel reduction package, rather than the 5-decibel reduction package provided today. 3. Provide only window, door and vent insulation (no air conditioning provided). � 4. Provide only central air conditioning without the window, door and vent insulation. Mr. Vecchi said option number two would be difficult to obtain and would be very close to the original package but with a lower STC and ANLR rating for the materials. He said this option would also not provide any substantial cost savings. Mr. Vecchi noted that approximately one-third of the costs for providing the existing insulation package is for air conditioning, or approximately $15,000 to �18,000 per home. Mr. Vecchi said providing an air conditioning or a window, door and vent insulation only package would not only be cost effective and more defensible to the FA.A, it would also allow people between the 64 and 60 DNL contours to receive noise abatement sooner than if a full insulation package were offered. Petrona Lee, Bloomington, said she feels there should be only one strategy for all homes regardless of where they lie within the approved contours. Mr. Vecchi said he is concerned that the FAA will not feel it is justified for homes between the 64 and 60 DNL to receive the same insulation package as those in the 65+ DNL area. Jill Smith, Minneapolis, asked what types of homes will be included within the 2005 64 to 60 DNL contours. Steve Vecchi, THC, Inc., said there is a wide variety of housing types within this area but that the houses will generally be larger and have hydronic heat. YIr. Vecchi said the he expects the MAC Commissioners will look at both the costs and (� implementation timeline associated with each option. Anticipated Pa�-t 1 �0 Update Schedi�le Itim Hughes, HivTB, gave a brief outline of the anticipated Part 150 Update schedule: • The Draft Part 150 Update document will be drafted during the month of September. • The Operations Committee wiil meet on Friday, September 22, 2000 rather than the 8`h to revie«� the completed portions of the draft Part 1�0 document. • The completed portions of the draft Part 150 document will be mailed to each member before the Operations Committee meeting on September 22"a • MASAC �vill reti�iew the document on Tuesday, September 26, 2000. • A special Part 1�0 Update question and comment meeting will be held on Friday, September 29, 2000 dunna the day to allow members to give comments before it is released to the public. (If inembers are unable to attend, they are welcome to submit written comments either by that date or by No��ember 15`�'.) • The draft Part 1 �0 Update document will be published and available to the public on October 6. 2000. • Public heann�s will be held on Wednesday, November 8 and Thursday, November 9, 2000. • �Vritten comments ��ill be taken untii November 15, 2000. � The tinal Part 1�0 Update document should be submitted to the FAA by or on December 20, 2000. FAA Noise Abatement Policv l Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, gave an introduction to the members on the FAA Noise Abatement Policy of 1976 and the changes being proposed. He noted the following: • Changes to the policy are being proposed because of changes in the nation's transportation demands, the public's environmental expectations and the availability of new technologies for noise abatement. s The policy review process will consist of two parts — a broad policy statement made by the United States Secretary of Transportation and the FAA's noise guidelines that support it. • Comments to the proposed changes are being accepted through October 23, 2000. • The new policy summarizes current aviation noise conditions and sets goals, policies and strategies for addressing them. It also outlines foundations and rnethodologies for assessing aviation noise problems and promoting research and development in aircraft noise reduction technology and abatement procedures, in addition to promoting compatible land use measures in noise impacted areas. The policy's goals are to: m Continue to reduce aircraft noise at the source. • Use new technologies to reduce noise impacts. • Bring existing land use into compatibility within areas of significant noise exposure around airports and prevent the introduction of new, non-compatible uses in these areas. • Design prospective air traffic routes and procedures that will minimize aviation noise impacts in areas beyond legal jurisdiction of airport proprietors, consistent with local consensus and the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. • Provide special consideration to locations in national parks and other federally managed areas having unique noise sensitivities. o Enable strong financial support for noise compatibility planning and for mitigation projects. The five sections of the document include: 1. An Introduction 2. Goals and Policies 3. Authorities and Responsibilities 4. Assessina Aviation Noise 5. Source Noise Reduction A draft MASAC comment letter was included in the meeting package and outlined ten items for consideration by MASAC. In short, the comment letter called for: I. The scheduled phase-out of Stage 2 aircraft under 7�,000 pounds. 2. A chanae in the level considered incompatible for residential land use to the 60DNL. 3. Inteexation of Global Positioning Systems (GPS) for use with compatibility planning. =�. Noise Compatibility Pro�ram fundina for insulation out to the 60DNL contour. �. A mandatory timetable for airbome GPS avionics compatibility. 6. An all-encompassing GPS implementation strategy. 7. Development of a Stage �1 standard. Chad Leq��e, Technical Advisor, said independent comments could also be made and mailed to �' � the address indicated on the memo. Ben Humphre��, NWA, said Northwest Airiines felt any response from MASAC should be drafted through the Operations Committee. He said Northwest Airlines could not approve the draft comment letter because NWA had not had time to review the letter or the document and felt he spoke for the industry in general an this point. � After further discussion, it was decided that the issue should be brought back to the September 26, 2000 MASAC meeting in order to give the members time to review the document and make suggestions for comments. Report of the Au�ust 10. 2000 Low Frequencv Noise Policv Committee Meeting Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, reported that the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee (LFNPC) had met on August 10, 2000 at which time the experts' report was presented. A summary of the report was distributed at the LFNPC meeting that included a list of the a�-c�eed upon tasks, policy contours and treatment recommendations for both existing and new construction. The LFNPC approved the report and sent it to the Metropolitan Airports Commission for consideration. � Possible mitigation options are currently being evaluated and unit counts and associated costs are also being developed. The next step is for the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) to consider the LFNPC's findings and recommendations. The resulting recommendations tivill then be incorporated into the Part 150 Update document for consideration by the FAA. It was noted that the City of Richfield might take action, but that the MAC, as per its agreement with the City of Richfield, has final decision-making authority in the matter. Report of the Julv 28 and Au�ust I 1, 2000 Operations Committee MeetinQ There was no report of the August 1 l, 2000 Operations Committee Meeting since the topics had ( been covered in a previous item. Report of the MAC Commission Meetin� Chairman 1�Tertensotto reported on the August 21, 2000 MAC Commission meetina. The following items �vere mentioned: The Commission discussed the dewaterine options for the runway 17/35 tunnel. The Commission discussed changes in the leases for the tenants at the Reliever airports. 10. Technical Advisor's Report Due to the late hour, there �vas no report of the July 2000 Technical Advisor's Report. There were no questions. 1 1. Persons Wishina to Address the Council There ��ere no persons �vishine to address the Council. 12. Items Not on the A�enda John i�elson, Bloomington, said Bloomington Mayor Gene Winstead received a letter from the Mayor oF Eagan. NIs. Patricia Awada, askin� that a Bloomington MASAC member request that (., � m MASAC reconsider its Low Demand Flight Track recommendation for runway 17. He said as a member of the prevailing side of the vote he was asking for reconsideration of the vote. Jamie Verbrugae, Eagan, bnefed the members on the City of Eagan's position in reQards to the 1 Low Demand Flight Tracks for runway 17. He said the city council feels a better Low Demand Flight Track recommendation would be to use the headings 095°, 170° and the assi�ned-heading river departure procedure rather than the 09�°, 160° and 185° headings. He said the city of Eagan feels having aircraft fly the 170° heading (over the Cedar Avenue "corridor") during the low demand time frames would be less intrusive and affect fewer people in Eagan. Bob Johnson, MBAA, noted that if aircraft were to use the 170° heading during low demand time periods, they would be overflying areas that already receive all of the arrival traffic on that runway. Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, said the city's position is that the proposed chanQes would only affect the City of Eagan and that the Ciry should be able to make decisions that affect its citizens as long as they do not negatively affect other cities. Mary Teske, city of Eagan resident, said she was opposed to the City's proposal because people living under the arrival path should be able to expect some relief from departure operations off runway 17. She said Cedar Avenue is too narrow to be considered a noise mitigation corridor. Jeff Bergom, Burnsville, said the City of Burnsville opposes Eagan's proposal because it has the potential to increase operations over the same area of Burnsville that could be affected by arrival operations. Andy Pederson, City of Apple Valley, said Apple Valley was opposed to Eagan's proposal for the same reasons - that it had the potential to increase operations over an area of Apple Valley that will already be affected by arrival operations. Chairman iVlertensotto said the Operations Committee was concerned about recommending a i ,` _ measure that would add to the overflights in areas that will already experience repetitive arrivals. � � He also said that Cedar Avenue should not be considered a"corridor." Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, said the city feels the compromise proposal is reasonable and that the 160° heading �vould have aircraft flying over a more hi�hly residential area during the nighttime hours compared ��ith the 170° heading. JOHN NELSON, BLOOi�1INGTON, N10VED :�:vD PETRONA LEE, BLOO�'IINGTON, SECONDED TO RECONSIDER THE PART 150 UPDATE LOW DEMAND FLIGHT TR4CK REC0�I�IENDATION. THE NIOTION FAILED FOUR TO EIGHT. 13. Adiournment Chairman I�tertensotto adjoumed the meeting at 10:3� p.m• Respectfull�• submitted. Melissa Sco�Tonski, MASAC Secretary � ' ; i • � � �' . . � � � �` ,;1 , ' ' , UNAPPROVED IVI I N U T E S MA.SAC OPERATIONS CC)MMITTEIE ' August 11, 2000 The meeting was held in the Large Construction Trailer of the Metropolitan Airports Commission and called to order at 9:00 a.m. Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order and the roll was taken. The following members were in attendance: Nlembers: John Nelson, Chair Patrick Hollister Dick Saunders Bob Johnson Jamie Verbrugge Mary Loeffelholz Roy Fuhrmann Advisor��: Chad Leqve Jason Giesen Mark Kill Joe Harris Kim Hughes Kent Duffey Steve Vecchi Cindy Greene Glen Orcutt �'isitors: Andv Pederson Jan DelCalzo Jeff Bergom i��1ar�� Teske Btoomineton Mendota Heights Minneapolis NtBAA Eagan NWA MAC MAC MAC MAC MAC �iNTB HNI'B THC, Inc. FAA FAA ppple Valley City of Minneapolis $urnsville Resident of Ea��an 0 AGENDA Communications Received ( w • A letter was received from the City of Mendota Heights, dated August 1 l, 2000, appointing Patrick Hollister as a MASAC alternate for the city. • A letter was received from the City of Bloomington, dated August 9, 2000, reQarding the City's preference for departure operations off runway 17. y Approval of Minutes The minutes of the July 28, 2000 special meeting were approved as distributed with the followinQ change: y Pa�e 8"Nlary Loeffelholz, NWA, asked how the expanded insulation program wou�d be funded. She noted that the current airline lease a�-eements do not include funding for co�nplete insulation out to the DNL 60 contour." November 2000 Operations Committee Meeting Chairman Nelson noted that the November Operations Committee meeting was scheduled for Friday, November 10, 2000. He noted, however, that the Metropolitan Airports Commission was not open that day in recognition of Veteran's Day (November 11 `f') and sug�ested several alternate days for the meeting. - After a bnef discussion: J�'VIIE VERBRliGGE, EAGAN, NIOVED AND DICK SAUNDERS, MINNEAPOLIS, �� J SECONDED TO CHA.t�1GE TI�E NOVEMBER 2000 OPER.A.TIONS COMIVIITTEE MEETING FROiY1 FRIDAY, �OVEMBER 10, 2000 TO THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2000 AT 9:00 A.M. THE I�'IOTION «'AS APPROVED ON A VOICE VOTE. Sound Insulation Priorities Ro�• Fuhrmann, NI.�C, noted that the insulation priorities as enumerated at the July 28, 2000 meeting �� ere renumbered as requested. i�Ir. Fuhrmann also displayed and e�cp�ained the sound insulation timeline that was distributed as part of the Operations Committee packa�e. �Iar�� Loeffelholz, I�'ti'VA. asked why the multi-family residences within the 2005 65DNL contour were not being completed before the 200� 64-60DNL single family were begun. Roy Fuhrmann, NIAC, noted that since multi-family residences �ti•ould require a separate crew of contractors than that of sinQle family residences, the multi-family residences �vithin the 2005 6�DNL contour would not be ableVto be`�in until the multi-famil�� residences in the 1996 6�DNL contour were completed. And, in order to keep the single family residential contractors mo��in<� forward, the 2005 6�-60DNL single family residences ��ould need to be begun prior to the multi-family residences in the 2005 65DNL contour. �. 2 Chairman Nelson asked about the effects on the sound insulation funding of simultaneously insulating multi-family and single family residences. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, referenced the Cost Sunzmary of ' MSP Noise Insulation Program Initiatives matrix sent out in the packaee and noted that an updated version was available at the meeting. He noted that the summary was based on a start date of September 2002 with an annual budget of $36.5 million through 2010. He also noted that the multi-family residences within the 64-60 DNL contour were not listed because a survey had not been completed for multi-family homes in this area. He said that although there is an anticipated shortfall between what is needed and what is available through the lease agseements, the per-home cost is based on a full insulation package with an average cost of $40,400. He said this per-home cost could very well change due to changes in the insulation package for residences between the 64 and 60 DNL contour and other factors that influence costs. He said it is also anticipated that there would be an update to the Part 150 in 2005, which may change the areas of the contour. Chairman Nelson asked how the $8 million grant recently approved for MSP through the Airport Improvement Program (AIl') fund might impact funding for the sound insulation program. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said the grant would not affect the sound insulation program's funding levels. Chairman Nelson asked that if the funding level for sound insulation is static at $36.� million how would the multi-family insulation program affect the single family program insulation rate. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said because of some of the timing issues associated with the submittal of the Part 1�0 Update, there will most likely be a reduction in the rate of single family insulation for some time while waiting for FAA approval. He noted, however, that this timeline and priority were consistent with the priorities set by the MSP Noise Mitigation Committee in 1996. Chairman Nelson asked Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, to outline the steps and timeline for obtaining Part 150 (" l Update approval from the FAA and what effect any delays may have on the timeline. Roy Fuhrmann, - MAC, said the target date for submittal of the Part 150 Update document is December 2000. He said he was hopeful that, with the ongoing involvement of the FAA, approval of the document would come quickly. He reiterated that the sound insulation timeline is dependent upon the FAA's prompt approval of the document. He said failure of prompt approval could result in a slow down or halting of the program. He noted that for the single family insulation program to continue unabated, tlie FAA would need to grant appro�'al of the Noise Exposure Map (NEM) by July 2001. Chairman �elson noted that at the Special Operations Committee meeting on July 28, 2000 the members had voted to approve an intersecting block contour boundary definition. Roy Fuhrmann, I��IAC. briefl}� explained the differences between the single family and multi-family counts/locations associated «�ith both the ?.2nm and the Z.�nm turn points. Mr. Fuhrmann cautioned, however, that because subsequent updates to the Part 1�0 program will be completed approximately every five years, the contours ��'ill not remain static and the counts could change. He noted that, even if the 60DNL contour were to stay the same, it would take 12 to 1� years to insulate out to the 60DNL contour. He also noted that if hush}:itted aircraft are phased out and replaced with manufactured Sta�e 3 aircraft, the contours could chan`�e si�nificantly. Chairman Nelson asked Steve Vecchi. THC, Inc., to share his thouehts about the sound insulation priorities. I��Ir. Vecchi said that the counts and costs presented by the staff represented the best guess at this time gi��en the unl.�no��m factors. (He noted that the average cost per home is now $45,000.) He said t ) � 3 it will be critical to keep the consultants and contractors working. He also said staging of the multi- family insulation proaram and contractor availability will be critical components of a successful multi- family insulation program. ( � Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, said the Eagan City Council had endorsed the insulation. priorities but with the caveat that the funding be increased. He said the council is concerned that funding for multi-family residences would take funding away from single family residences. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said that, regardless of whether the level of funding were increased, single-family insulation will most likely be impacted due to the timing of approva] for the 2005 Part 150 Update. He said once the single-family residences within the 1996 65 DNL, contour are completed, insulation funds will be transferred to the multi-family residences in the 1996 6� DNL contour. Mary Teske, resident of Eagan, asked if any additionai schools would be insulated. Roy Fnhrmann, MAC, noted that school insulation is usually funded differently than the residential program and are treated as separate projects. He said, too, that only schools that fall within the contour could be eligible for insulation and would most likely be prioritized by impact throughout the entire contour. He noted that the MSP Noise ivlitigation Committee had recommended that preschools and nursery schools with established pro�'ams should be included in the priority. Mr. Fuhrmann also said that the airline lease aereements set some limits on spending for school insulation. DICK SAITYDERS, i�i�TI�tEAPOLIS, MOVED AND BOB JOHNSON, MBAA, SECONDED, TO Efi'DORSE TFIE FOLLOWING PRIORITY RECOMi'�IENDATION FOR T�-IE RESIDEi�TTIAL SOUND I�'�TSLTI.,ATION PROGRAitiI AI�TD TO RECONIMEND APPROVAL BY TI3E FULL l�1ASAC BODY: 1. Complete the insulation of single family and dupleY homes within the 1996 DNL 6� and � greater D\'I. noise contours: � 2a. Complete the sound insulation of mutti-family residential structures �vithin the 1996 DNL 65 and greater noise contours in conjunction with priority #2B and then sequencing to #2C be(o�v upon F�A approval of the Part 150 Update document. 2B. Complete the sound insulation of single-family and dupleY homes that fall �vithin the 200� D\'L 6� and greater D:�Z noise contours. 2C. Complete the sound insulation of eligible single family and duplex t�omes that fall �r•ithin the 2005 D\1. 60 to 64 noise contours. 3. Complete the sound insulation of multi-family residential structures within the 200� DNL 6� and greater D\'L noise contours in conjunction �vith priority 2C above upon F�1�1 appro��al of the Pat 1�0 t�pdate Document. 4. Complete the sound insulation of multi-famih• residential structures �vithin the 200� DNL 60 to b-� noise contours. 5. Complete the sound insulation of nursing homes, churches with regular weekday da�•carelnurser�• school programs �F�ithin the 200� DNL 60 contour. THE,110TIOti �'4'�S CARRIED Oti A VOICE VOTE. �� ' Runway 17 Departure Track Analysis K.im Hughes, HNTB, reiterated the goal of the runway 17 departure track analysis of reducing the i population within the impacted area without significantly impacting other communities in the process. She said the consultant's recommendation remains as the 2.Snm turn point departure procedure for runway 17. An updated runway 17 alternative flight tracks map was distributed. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, reviewed the map and noted the differences between the different alternatives. Kent Duffey, �INTB, noted that track L, or the 230° heading off the 2.Snm turn point, closely follows the river and would be preferable to using tracks E, F and G during low and mid-demand time periods. Thus, the percentaee use of track L was increased slightly and the percentage use of tracks E, F and G were decreased slightly for these time periods. He noted, however, that the these slight usage changes did not have an impact on the contour. Jeff Bergom, Burnsville, asked how the 2.Snm turn point recommendation compared to the 10�° hybrid fan recommendation in regards to impacts to the city of Burnsville. Kim Hughes, HNTB, said that although there is the potential for aircraft to fly fiu'ther south, she did not believe it would result in a significant impact to the city of Burnsville. Kent Duffey, HNI'B, said the 2.Snm tum point recommendation is the better alternative for the city of Burnsville because the 105° hybrid alternative would result in aircraft turning further south. He noted, too, that the use of a single tum point provides better positive guidance to aircraft compared to using both a tum point and a designated altitude. He said better positive widance will keep aircraft more closely on the projected tracks and will allow all aircraft using the procedure to turn at the same point most of the time. Mr. Bergom asked for clarification as to why a 2.2nm turn point was not being recommended. Mr. Duffey said the 2.Snm turn point resulted in a further reduction in the number of people included in the 60+ DNL contour in the city of Bloomington and �vas deemed feasible by FAA. Glen Orcutt, FAA, asked Mr. Duffey to e;cplain how the river departure track (J) differed from track L. Kent Duffey, HNTB, said track L(a 230° heading off the 2.Snm turn point) gives the FAA some fle;cibility during lo��• and mid-demand time periods to use a track that has less impact on the population. The River Track departure procedure, on the other hand, could only be used durine low-demand time periods when it could be included as a pub]ished flight plan. �Iar�� Teske, resident of Eagan, expressed concerns about aircraft overshooting the 2.Snm turn point and overflying areas south of the desienated point. Kent Duff'e��. I-IN�I�B, said aircraft will be at a sufficient altitude and po�ver level at the 2.Snm turn point for them to turn ��ery close to that point. He said he felt there was a high probability that the 2.�nm turn point procedure w�ill be able to direct aircraft away from populated areas. Jeff Bergom, Burnsville, asked what percenta�e of the runway 17 departures would be talcinQ a�vesterly heading. Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, said approximately ��°/� of the depariures are e:�pected to take a west of centerline headin�. The remainine 4�% wil] depart straight out or on one of the east or southeast headings. i ) — 5 Chairman Nelson asked severai questions relating to the number of people subtracted and/or added to the mitigated contour with the application of the 2.Snm DME turn point alternative. He noted that the majority of the people subtracted from the contour with the use of the 2.Snm turn point were in the city � of Bloomington. He then asked whether there had been any peopie added in communities south of Bloomington as a result of the 2.Snm DME turn point alternative. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said the 2.Snm DME turn point alternative had not added people to the 60+ DNL contour in communities south of Bloomington. Chairman Nelson asked Kent Duffey to review the change in the projected percentage use of tracks F, G and L. Mr. Duffey explained that when there are arrivals on runways 12L and 12R, departures off tracks F and G of runway 17 would be restricted. Because of this, a percentage of operations will be forced to more southerly headings (a maximum of a 230° heading will be required). He said traffic that would normally be given a heading on track F or G would then be given a 230° heading (Track L) during this scenario. Track use for F and G was adjusted to account for the time that arrivals are expected to take place on nu�ways 12L and 12R (approximately 32% of the time). He noted that because the tracks are relatively close to each other, the contour does not change significantly from what was initially modeled. Chairman Nelson asked Kim I3ughes to explain the possibilities for the need for additional environmental review with the proposed changes_ to the use of runway 17. Ms. Hughes said it had aiways been assumed that a certain amount of .�nvironmental review work would have to be completed � as part of the Part 150 Update submittal and that the c�nsultants have been directed to begin that process as soon as possible. She said she believed the environmental review would be in- the form of an .,.. Environmental,Assessment (EA). Glen Orcutt, FAA, said the FAA has not made a decision as to what _._ . .., ....� the FAA will require at this point. Jeff Bergotn, Bumsville, asked what will happen if the environmental review process shows that there is {� an environmental impact. Kim Hughes, HNTB, said she feels the changes would prove to be of no significant impact and that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) would be the result. i�'Iary Loeffelholz, NWA, asked how an EA would impact the Part 150 process. Glen Orcutt, FAA, said an EA would not affect the review process, but that if there were some environmental requirements attached to a measure in the Part 1�0, the work would have to be completed before insulation could be be�un in the new contaur. Chairman Neison asked Cind�� Greene, FA.A, to comment on the recommendation of.a 2.Snm DME turn point for departures off runway 17. NIs. Greene said that the air traffic control to�ver (.�TCT) is comfortable �vith the recommendation and belie��es it is feasible. She said she believes the procedure is saFe. ��on't unduly impact capaciry, and �vill not unacceptably delay the users (airlines). She cautioned, howe��er, that she does not see the River Track (track L) as providing a large benefit, althou�h it reduce a certain number of operations over certain areas. Chairman Nelson asked Glen Orcutt, FAA. to comment on the recommendation. Mr. Orcutt said he had some concern about how any change from the FEIS �vould affect approval. He said it is unl.�nown at this time what, if any, actions will need to be taken. 6 �� BOB JOHNSON, iVLBA-A, MOVED AND MARY LOEFFELI3QLZ, NWA, SECONDED TO ENDORSE THE CONSULTA.NT RECOMMENDATION FOR RUNWAY 17 DEPARTURE � PROCEDURES UTILIZING A 2.5 NAUTICAL 1VIII..E D'VIE TURN POINT, WHICH N�]Q�RMIZES T33E liYIPACTS OF WESTBOUNDDATE AND IMPLEEME�NTATION OF A IVIITIGATION MEASURE FOR THE PART 150 UP � RIVER DEPARTUR]E TRACK SEAPARATE FROM TI3E 2.5 DME TURN POINT RECOMIVIENDATION.� �i B D�'O �SAC OR ENllSORSEMENT� TDHE MOTION FORWARDED TO CARRIED ON A VOICE VOTE. Other Items Not on the Agenda Ciry of Eagan - Loiv Demarid Fliglzt Tracks Chairman Nelson introduced the topic and reminded the members that a decision on the low demand flight tracks had been made at the June 2000 MASAC meeting. Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, presented an alternative compromise to the runway 1 Z Low Demand Depariure Flight Track recommendation. He noted that with the shift of track A to the north due to better modeling, track A is now over a less dense residentially-populated area of Eaaan. NIr. Verbrugge said the Eagan City Council is now offering a compromise to the recommendation that designates tracks A(095°), C(170°) and L(230°), rather than tracks A, B(160°) and D(185°), as the low demand flight tracks for the eastbound flights. He said he felt this alternative was in keeping with the �oal of placing aircraft over areas that are less noise sensitive. _ Kent Duffe��, HNrB, said to desianate track C(170°) as a low demand flight track would be in ( � contradiction to the established 30R/30L depariure procedure that attempts to reduce departures over -- areas that already receive arrival traffic (straight in to the runway). He said a change in the recommendation «rould represent a change in philosophy regarding those areas. Chairman Nelson said he thought the low demand departure flight tracks were conceptual and that in order to implement them further study and possibly environmental work would have to be done. Cindy Greene, FAA, said that because the low number of operations and because of the all stage 3 fleet, it would be unlikely that any environmental review, except for possibly a"noise screen," would be necessary for the low demand flight tracks. Itim Hughes. HNTB, a�-reed that a chanee in the lo�v demand fli�ht tracks recommendation �vould have an insi�-nificant impact on the contours. She said use of the low demand flight tracks would give some relief to those people already under the arrival flight path and would provide an added value. Chairman Nelson asked if it ��.�as reasonable for the affected community to make a decision such as this if the impact �vas so insignificant that it did not change the noise contours. ,Kim�Hughes, HNTB, said that if the conununities desire to have a speT e�acl: doe�s not ake the a rcraft�awaytfromlits destinaotion, during lo« demand periods. assuming tha it w�ould reasonable, if that is what the committee desires, for them to do so. Tom La�vell, Apple Valley, said, because residents of Apple Valley wi11 be affected by amvals on nznway 35, he would be concemed about any recommendation that would further concentrate operations on that track. He said he did not feel that the Cedar Avenue Corridor should be eonsidered compatible � similar to the Eagan/Mendota Heights Comdor. Mr. Lawell also asked how often the river track is projected to be used. Kent Duffey, HNTB, said the number is too small to quantify and that its use does not affect the contour. IVlary Teske, Eagan Resident, said Cedar Avenue is too narrow and that the area in Eagan under flight track C(170°) is densely populated. She said anything that can be done to provide noise relief for the people living under this track should be done. She said she believed the issue was an environmental justice issue, as well. Chairman Nelson asked if it �vas possible to include more flexible language in the Part 150 low demand flight tracks measure where these controversies exist. He said it may be helpful not to designate low demand flight tracks for departures east of centerline. Kim Hughes, �[NTB, said to do that would be to essentially give no direction to the FAA for that one section and would not fulfill the purpose of providing preferred low demand flight tracks. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, pointed out that the percentage use of track C for departures for all times of the day is already significantly higher than that of track B. He said he did not believe the use of any of the runway 17 low demand flight tracks would exceed one operation per day. Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, said even a single event per day is important. He also said that he didn't think the procedure used for departures off runway 30L and 30R should be used to make decisions for departures off runway 17 because the city of Minneapolis is much more heavily populated than Eagan. .� Bob Johnson, IvIBAA, said he concuned with the consultants' recommendation and was concerned with � making additionai chanaes to the recommendations that have already been approved. - � � Cindy Greene, FA.q, said she thought it would be very possible that the low demand flight tracks could be used slightiy more often than once per day. She said that if ATC is directed to use those tracks during lo�v demand periods, they would use them as much as possible during these timeframes. Jeff Bergom, Burns�-ilie. said he feels the people living under track C(170°) were already being asked too much of and a�rreed with Mr. La�vell and Ms. Teske that track C should not be _designated as a low demand fliQht track. Chairman Nelson asked the committee members if they felt the committee should take any action. 11ar�� Loeffelholz, NWA, said she thought it �vould be detrimental to the Operations Committee to re- re��ie�i� the decision. Ro�� Fuhrmann, MAC, said that procedurally, since the last decision had been made at the MASAC level, any review of the issue should be broueht up at a MASAC meeting rather than at an Operations Committee meetine. He said any member voting for the motion at the last meeting could bring it up for discussion once aQain. Chairman Nelson agreed. Lo�� Frequencl• ��'oise Policl• Conunittee Repoi7 Dick Saunders, i�Iinneapolis, bnefed the Committee on the Auaust 10, 2000 Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee meetinti�. He said the committee had agreed to adopt the consultants' recommendation 8 � to (1) establish three contour lines for low frequency noise measurement purposes and (2) approve a set of recommendations for final consideration by the MAC and the City of Richfield. He said once the i recommendations are completed, they will be incorporated into the Part 150 Update document. Mr. Saunders also noted that a final report had been distributed at the meeting that showed the outlines of the three contours. He noted that the contour lines affect, essentially, three communities - Richfield, Bloomington and Minneapolis. He said the most impacted area (87LSFL+) would be subject to acquisition because the noise level has been deemed unlivable. The next most impacted area would be subject to mitigation, but what that would entail had not been deternuned as of yet. 1VIr. Saunders also noted that the report did not include the estimated number of homes that �vould be affected or any estimates for mitigation costs. He said the Planning and Environment Comrnittee would be pursuing those numbers. Mr. Saunders then displayed page 10 of the Low Frequencya ned theonformation onethe chartswhich showed the affected areas. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, further expl Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, noted that several suggestions for changes to the report had been made and that staff would provide updated copies of the report for the August MASAC meeting. Glen Orcutt, FAA, reminded members that the type of insulation mitigation for low and high frequency noise would be different. Chairman Nelson asked Kim Hughes, HNTB, for comments on how the Low Frequency Noise Policy report would be incorporated into the Part 1�0 Update. Ms. Hughes said the intention had al«ays been to incorporate the findings as a separate measure in the Update document. Glen Orcutt, k'�A, also noted that there was sianificantly more information available than the distributed report. He said, too, that he did not know how the FA.ArateumeasureVand, if it we�reh ejecotedhttheeother measures could measure could be treated as a s p continue to stand. U�ifinished Busiiiess � Chairman Nelson asked Ro�� Fuhrmann, MAC. to brief the council on the. unfinished business for the Part 150 Update. �1Ir. Fuhrmann noted the following: o I-HNTB is ��'orking diligently on completing the draft Part 1�0 Update document. o He hopes to ha��e a si�nificant portion of the document for the Operations Committee to review at the ne�:t Operations Committee meetin�. m It�mav be.beneficial to discuss some ot the insulat-ion package options at the Auaust ??, 2000 Iv1ASAC meetin�. _ There was a discussion re�ardine the Metropolitan Council's Aviation Guide Chapter and ho��' it will incorporate the 60DNL contour. I{im Hubhes. HNTB, said it will be very important to the FA.�. that all of the communities agree that the 60 DNL level is considered an impacted area relative to aircraft noise. Glen Orcutt, FAA, said the aviation �-uide chapter chanees, discussed at the Operations Cominittee, is a proposed policy change at this point and that the changes sti11 have to go through the committee process at the Met Council. There was a discussion regarding how the 60 DNL contour would be designated in � the guide. lY�ark Ryan, MAC, said he wasn't sure whether this area would be designated as inconsistent (incomparible) or conditional. He sug�ested HNI'B contact Chauncey Case of the Met Council for clarification. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 am. The next Operations Committee meeting will be held on Friday, September 22, 2000 at 9:00 a.m. in the Large Construction Trailer of the Metropolitan Airports Commission. Respectfully Submitted, Melissa Scovronski, Coirunittee Secretary � � ' 10 ♦ ♦ , , , ,' ! � �' , � � ,, � , .•: ' ' , • � PLEASE COMPLETE THIS Ft.�RM AS ACCURATELY AND T�-i0�20UGH[LY AS POSSIBLE AND ATTACH ANY LETTERS t�R FORMAL RESOLUTIONS. Date: Name: Address: Phone: Is this a one-time request? Yes or No On whose behalf are you requesting'': Yourself City Council Mayor Citizen- .- Organization ` Other If no, what is the expected time frame for this request? Beginning Ending to Which of the following best describes the nature of your request: (Circle all that apply) Ground Noise Overflights Run-Ups " Contours Part 150 Other PLEASE WRITE OUT YOUR REQUEST HERE AND/OR ATTACH ANY LETTERS OR FORMAL RESOLUTIONS. - over - ( j MASAC NOISE MONITORING AND INFCiRNiATION �2E�UEST . F012M Please send your request via mail to: MASAC Secretary, 6040 28th Avenue S., I��7inneapolis, MN 5�450 or fax it to: (612) 725-6310. ( MASAC NEWSLE�'TER INP�JT FO� Date: Name: Acidress: Phone: E-Mail: Proposed article topic: On whose behalf are you requesting? (please check one and explain where necessary): Yourself ❑ Citv Council ❑ A�Iavor �I Citizen ❑ Name: Organization ❑ Name: Other ❑ Name: Circle the desired publication date: 2°`' Qrt. 2000 3`d Qrt. 2000 4th Qrt. 2000 1S` Qrt. 2001 Reason for request: Please provide a description of the article's focus and content: Please send your request v�a mai► to: ivia�H�.. �C�, C��1 �, �� -��• �-. ---.--_ -_, 1�Iinneapolis, i�'IN ��450 or fa� it to: (612) 725-6310. � ._ i � � � � , .. = ,�; d O � � O 4.^, � 3 �^ [� � O ^ � 0 � � Q) b-0 r, �' �Cs.. � �"' 'd � � �, �, _ °' z � y C/� � � � C� � � � N � � o E. E � Z �� z O o C � � `n U t7 � � �- w Q � � � "L� � � � y O v Q� r r o =� � � � � = O = ° O Z � � U � O � V L p E- � `" � � � d � o � .� � c '- � Q � � � :.. o ~ � .: p ' a� c� .. � � c � U ,e, � ^ • �. � .... � � � � � � � r o O o - � O v� V] `n „ `� .� � =- � v� ,d � c> � , L .r � � c � E-� c � 3 � Z O v G C.% L :� (:.j ' Vj� .v _� r�^r � Cj , �..+ � � � � L-. � ^ 'J � �r�`= � 0 o r. � � �n = ^ . i- o — � cn ~ N =' �, c ~ � � O �� r Q Vl v .� Jn� G wJ !� � n1 � � � � 1�� r^ � � .J T �� V � N � O � �- �. � N � O '� ^ c"Jn Cl) � o 0 � M V�i 0�0 N M � 0 u L :n V � a �.+ � O U a� � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000�n000 � v� �-- M M-^ � O�-- N � oo rt t� t� o� ri � c�i � N N�-- N M M �t � �� d �. � d. E" � 0o O (,j ��-�� n o c U d�-,��:�,.,c��. �nv��n "' � ��.,r,o�oo�ri�n� ,� N N N N N � � ��c�c�c�s�c�s�c-� C � � O N � � v-, �r .� o 0 � r�, �r � N � .-.. ffr � a� a� a� a� a. � � � � ^ � � � � � � c p O G O O O Q O O O � w � Z `r � �i � � .i, � : . .� G1 M O� c� N h N�� O y M d' C� d C d v� � �f' .-� N�n co O oo rn[� �n G^ ir-. v', C � �, d cn � N M�' vl �J [� 00 G� O O � Q� G1 G� G� G� G"� G� G'� O � G� C.'� G� ^ G1 U� G1 � O� �" ;� ', ' � �' � . , � , � t • � � ��' -.-_ __--___--.:�y'�� . . ..,.. ----�-._._. .,,r . � .-.,,. .. N- . _. . . ......... ............ �,,_- --. --_. � � " � � . r � � � ---- �--' � `' � ��' �✓.�►.s�..c — tiS Metropolitan Aircrafi Sound � d Abatement Council innea �lis/�t. �'�.ul Internaiional A..ir�ori M p MASAC Members Chairman: Charles Mertensotto (Mendotn Heig6ta) First Yce Chairman: John Nelson (Bloomingiun) iL1ASAC Operations Comminee Chairman and Second Vice Chairman: I John 1Velson (BloominSton) AiN' orne Fxpresr: Brian Bafes ALPA: Ron Johnson City ojBlaomingtan: Petrona Lee Vern Wilcoz Ciry ofBurnsville: Charles Van Guilder City ofEagan: Jamie Verbrugge I,ance Staricha City aflmerGrove Heightr: Charies Eginton City ofMendota Heights: Jill Smith Kevin Batc6elder City ofNtinneapolis: Barret Lane Dean Lindberg Jce Lee Glenn Strand Sandra Colvin Roy Mike Cramer Crty ofRichfield x,;5�i stox� na„m we�tze► City of St Louis Park Robert Andrews c;ry ojsc p�t: John Halla City of Sunfish Lake: Cynthis Putz-Yang. Delta Airlineslnc: �r ��g DHL Airwa,vs: Brinn Simooson � � Federal Fspress: — John Schussler ,�rac sra,�: Roy Fuhrmann m�aa: � Robert P. Johnson Nlesaba Northwest Airlrnk: Phil Burite Norihwest Airlines: Jennifer Sayre Mary LcelTelhoiz Steve Hoime ' Nancy Stoudt St Paul Chamber ofCammerce: Ro1f Middleton Sun CountryAirlines: Gordon Graves United Airlines l na z lievin Blacl: United Purce7 Service: Michael Geyer U.S. Airrvays lnc.: L.sm Yandle MA.SAC Advisors rLlerropoJitan Airportr Commission: Chnd L.eqve Metropofit6n Airports Commission: Commissioner Alton Gasper Federal riviatian.ddministraaon: Ron Glaub Cindy Greene Air Transponadon Association: Paul l�ScGr�w h•L'V AirNational Guard: hfajor Roy J. Shet}w U.S �lir Fosce Reserve: Captnin David J. Gerkan t � Secretary: Melissa Srnvronsid Metropolitan Airparts Commission Declaratioa of Purpose 1 J Promote pnblic welfare and national se�unt�'� s�rve public interest> comem.ence, and necessity; pmmote air navigahon and transP°�tion, in#ernational, national, state, and local, in and throngh this state; promote the e�icient� safe, and economical ha�ling of air commerce; assure the inclusion of this state in national and internatiomal progiams of air transPortation; and to those ends to develop the full potentialities of the meuopolitan area in this state as an aviation center, and to correlate that area with all aviaiion 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 Yesidents of the metropolitan area of the -ininimun► em'ironmental impact from air navigation and riansportation, and to that end provide for noise abatement control of aiiport area land use; and other protective measures; and 3.) Promote the overall goals of tb.e state's emimnmental policies and minimize the public's expos¢�re to noise and safetY 1�aza�'ds az°�►d airp°rts- n,yetrapolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council Statement of Purpose This corporation was formed in furtherance of the general we rtare Wo ae communities adjouung I�tinneapolis-St. Paul International Airpo C��amberlain Field, a public aiiport in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota; through the alleviation of the problems created by the soun�i of aircraft nsing the ��rt� t�Ough study and evaluation on a continuing basis of the problem and of suggestion for the alleviation of the same; through initiation, coordination and promotion of reasonable and effective procedures, control and regulations, consistent with the safe oPeranon of the airgore and of aircraft nsing the same; and P �ugh dissemination of information to the affected communities, their affected ' residerns, and the users of the airport respecting the problem of aircraft noise n��n�e and in respect to suggestions made and actions initiated and taken to alleviate the problem. Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council Representation The membership sball include representatives appointed by agencies, coiporations> associations and Sovemmental bodies which by reason of their statutory authoriiy 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 auport. S�v a�� e U er c a lled User Re presentatives and Public Representatives, p Representatives and Public Representadves shall at all times be equal in num b e r. This report is prepazed and printed in house by Chad L.eqve, ANOMS Coordinator and Shane VanderVooA, ANOMS Specialisc questions or comments may be d'uected to: MAC Aviation Noise :u�d Satetlitz Programs M�nneapolis/St Paul Intematicrnal Airpon 604Q 28�' Avenue' South Minneapolis MN, 55450 � Tel: (612) 725-6328, Fa�.'a -�(b�i HomeP•age: www•macavsatorg MAC Environment DeP' _ '[he Air�wrt 24hour Noise Hotline is 726-9411. Complaints to the hotiine do not result in �b��es in airport activity, but provide a public sounding boazd and aupoR informat�on o�tlet. T'he hotline is slaged during business hours, Mondoy – Friday. Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatemeut Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Repc�rt Table of Contents for �`�.ugust 2000 � � Complaint Summary Noise Complaint Map FAA Available Tirne for Runway Usage. MSP All Operations Runway Usage MSP Carrier Jet Operations Runway Usage MSP Carrier Jet Fleet Composition_ MSP All Operations Nighttime Runway Usage MSP Carrier Jet Operations Nighttime Runway Usage MSP Top 1S Nighttime Operator's by Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 -, MSP Top 15 Nighttime Operator's Stage Mix 10 ( � `� 11-14 Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks MSP ANOMS Remote Monitoring Tower Site Locations Map Carrier 7et Arrival Related Noise Events Carrier Jet Departure Related Noise Events 15 16 17 MSP Top Ten A.ircraft Noise Events per RMT 18-27 Analysis of Daily and Monthly Aircraft Naise Events Aircraft Ldn dBA 28-29 ( ) A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program __ _ r c Metropolitan Aircrafi Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technicai Advisor's Report �' � . � ., � ' 1 . , : iir Note: Shnded Columns represent MSP complaints filed via the Internet A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commiss�on ANOMS Program � ( (:. r � MeQopolitan Aircraft Sound Abatemenc Council (MASAC) Technical Advisors Report Ga C� � � a N � � u � � �"°i � ° > �' � �� r N � f n dP� � .eo� I I . i A Froduct oF the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�un Metropolitan Aircra8 Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Availabl� 'Ti�e foa- ]Runvvay Use August 2000 (FAA Runway Use Logs) .... _:_�:_ ;� ::_.___:...---.,:�:-__- �, - -- _ - ...._.:.-- : ........ ..----�-----�- _ __- . .- _ � � . _._ _._: _ - ; , _ . . . . . . . _. _ . --- ------ o�io �- ::::- _... j` .--��---.__-__.__--- ��_- =--� . ...__ `o ....._.----_.--- to�io ,, :: : � � r3 ro _ _ - s 2 � •• � - = - --- , � :.. -; ' _ , � . _ ._ .. . ��... .. . _ : . , 25/0 : _1��. � ``_.�. ��i" �. • ...... .. � -- '�`_"``'�—. ..... �; .. -. :.. 5 � ,•� 55'='' . 4 ,�, � ,� � ��: - ..: . �� `; �; , .. ,. 63% , =. 81% , 2°.0 ''i, � . ._ � � ". _ - � Y6% Nighttime Hours . 10:30 �m to b:00 am .� Au�,ust 2Q00 FAA Airport Traffic Recoi�i Coumts ;:><«_:`t; `::::?:.>�<::: `>::<:::: :::::'�' .':y:�: :�:�ii:::::':::'?: ;.�a#it#��:>:>: :: ;:.;:::.;:.:<,::;;;;;;��:;:.;::.>::;:>;:;;::.;;:::.;;;::;:.;:;.;>;;>;: >::>:;;: ;:.:;::.;:.;:;.::.:;:.::.: ::«:>::>::<s::»>::;::::::»:::::::;:::<::<:::>:»:>:<::>:::::::,::::.;:.:;:::. ,•;:.<:;; :.:.....:..::... :::;:::>:::i:»>::»>:>:::::»::>::::::::::>::»:>;:;;::»::: >�:39k�:::� «��tlE#E�:: <::��#�E�t::'.�� : .. .. . A ir Cam�r 71 ; � $U� Connuutc;r � -�?; ; -��O cx:nerilAviatiott ;9ti i 3b? Militan �� ; y ��t ::<::»:>;<:;� :<::::::»::::>::»<>:::::>:::: >:;:: ; �> <:<:::::;::::»:s�»»::::> ::<:><::... �� ` >;;;>;;;;;;;;;;: :::.;;:;,;;.;:;: �;;;:;.;;;;>: :.;;;;;;:.>;: ::.::,;;;:: : •.:,:::.>,:.:;;;>;;;>;>: ;.;: �::::: •z:>�;>i::>::»»::s:::: :;. �: ,:. ::::>::>:::::::>::>:::: ;;::»::>:::::«>;<:�::�::Y��i:::�:: �::::::>:::>:<::: :><::<::>::>: :.::.................................... ' � � �:.::.;::::.>:.::.;:.>`�'� :: :.:::::::. :: : :..::::::::............................ � A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 3 Metropolitan Aircraf� Sound Abatement Council(MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report All (�perations lZunvc�ay IJse R.ep��'t A.��st 2000 . _ _ .__. . . _.. . , ,- _ _ _ _ - _..--- � � ; ._ ._.__. _ _.._. _ ; - _ . _.. . _. --- - . , --�.----- -- ---- ---_ � - - . . _ . . _ _ o?°ro -- .-. . ___ . ..�.__.-- — _ . ._... - ---�---- r : _ ._ ._. --..._,.. . _ _ 18.4% _.--------- ---� _ .._. -- - ----- .... _. ..._._.�_ „� ( --.._ _:_--- � _ -- -----_ ... _ - -� - +- -- . _ _ . I =- : ---- ; — 6.1 0.5% __ --- ._ 19.2%� - 30.1% -- —�;`z' '� �, _ . -- ----- _ —_,/-,`l ' _ . ...----- __._._.__ ... 28.9% - _ . - =-- _ =-_ --- --- — �` j; 5 5 �,"� , _.. _._ _� . 1 - � �'�. �_ _..__. __. � ,_;. : , ., _., . .., : a =r . , � �. �, . ,_ . .. ._ _ . __ _--- _---_. � , � -- - ------ --- � � -- .. _-- ..._ ____ _--- 7 7 19.��ia _.____----._' 29.6°/a _._. __ .. _ , I(' ----....__._____; � _ _ --. .. _..__ . ... __._ ' 202% -� ; _.. . . ---- . . .---- ' 0.6% � , ;•�'�, :� 31.3% -. .... . _.. _ �•� . . � __-__ ---� ; ,^�� _._ __ :.� _. _ — � - -' ,:�._- � � - - --_ _ .: _ _ .- .- ,_--- i � i I '—. � - --- ._ .... .._.__ 13% -- -- -- - i; '; ' . -- ---_ _ . - � ; _ 'i: __ --- -- ---- j�:' _.__ -- .: j. -- � , , c __ __ _ --- � ;�".. � ,- ,- :. : , ;--' __ _ - --- ' �'R�v�sy Use Percenta$e Diagram — . . _ ._.. _ - -- ----- :" -- -- - � ,� _ w , • _.. � �. : r _ * R�..,., � � 4 p product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Carrier Jet Operations 12unway �i.Tse Report Au�ust 2000 � � Arr . 12L � Arr 12R Arr ?2 Arr 30L � Arr 3UR ; �irr � So. Rich ; So. Minne ! So: Muu1e ' St. Pai ; Ea�an/'. i Ea<�an/: >lis(No. Richfield �lis/No. R.ichfield [i�l�land Park ndota Heit�hts ndota Nei<yhts -� . Dep . :' St. PauUHi�.rhland Parl: i I �L. Dep EaaanlMendota Hei�hts 12R Dep Eagan/Mendota Heivhts � �2 Dep So. Richfield/Bloomin�non i 30L ' De ; So. Minnea olis(No. Richfield � 3UR �: Den i So. Mmneapolis/No. Richfield 102 474G �9�7 88 3359 3UE7 3� 4Fi2� �32U 101 335G 2739 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program I U._G% 3U I 0.2% I 29.1°ro 5067 � �2.8%0 ' �U.�1% 2961 19.2% 1 U. �% 146 U.9% I 2U.6°io 2�78 � 16.7%, j 18. $°io 46fi=� i 30. 2% _ >::ii::.:;¢;g;:` :?`i;:#:::i:>':"��`"��`';;:::;::;:�;E;;":..:<:;:::.::��;`:?;, ...;::.:::.;:• �:`>��.�::,�'�:: '::::::::<:��?�:4?�:::::::::>�::>:�i�.�3:::� ; U.2°i� : 8� ; U.6% . i 28.7`% �266 I , 27.7% j 32. �/o �2O ; 1.�% , 0: 6% 7089 � �6.1 % I ZU. 7% 237 ; 1. �%o � 16. y% 3495 , � 22. 7% � 5 \ / Metrogolitan Aircr�i Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report August 2000 IviSI' Carrier J�t �leet Composition . a742 B7�1 DC8 B743 DC 10 B727 B74�1 L101 DC9 B732 BA 11 A 34U MD 11 B763 DC87 B772 � A30G I �: �g T A:� 10 i 1373Q � ' MDR,� ; �37�� DC9Q i I37;� A 320 � �37;� i � 1373� � T37 �7 1373 ; , - �_-__ � 1 �� ; �n=�� 1371? l� l�x� f�l-1� 1� 7t � CEZ.11 i io.o 109.� 10�.5 10�.� 103.0 102.4 101.6 100.� 99.3 98. l 97.7 97.0 96.2 9�.8 9�.7 9�.� 9=4.� 9�.3 9�.0 92.9 92.9 9?.l 91.� 91.=1 91.0 �8. y 87.8 87.7 87.7 87. � 87_; f;7. � tc-1. � �3 �.t) 81.8 hl.� u�: �.1 79.2i �e�,Q �:��-�oo Boeina 7�7-100 McDonnell Douglas DCf�-�)/600 Boeing 747-3U0 McDonnell Dou�las DC10 Boeing 727-2U0 Boeins 747-400 �nnell DouQlas DC8 (Mod�fied S1 Locl;heed L-1011 McDonnell Douglas DC9 Rneina '737-�0 Brilish Aerospace (BA C)1-i l Airt�us Industries A340 McDonnell L�ugla5 MDi 1 Boeing 767-200/300 McI7annell Douglas DC8-700_ Boe�� 727 (Moditied Stg. 3) goeing 777 Airbus Industries A340B4-600 Fokker 28 Airbu� Industries A310 go�in� 737 (Mod�ed St�. 3) McDonnell Douglas MD-80 Boein� 7�7-2(� �nnell Dc.�uelas DC9 (Modifizd Boeing 7 �7-�(?0 An-bus Industries A320 Boeine 737-8(� Boeing 737-�00 Boeine 737-700 . Boeine 737-�(?0 Aifiu� tndu,tries A319 13ritish Aerosgac,e I�ICi t3o�in � 717-2t_X) t� ul:k�r i (X) I�mt�racr l�� Ful:l:cr 7c) (:�u-��dair Rc�ional Jet 3 � 3 � 3 3 � 3 3 3 � � � 3 ; ; 3 3 3 3 � 3 3 3 3 ; ; 3 3 ; 3 3 3 3 � � 3 3 1� 32 0 60 1231 0 4 232 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 37 4309 0 82 173 26 941 762 3307 9911 0 �268 U 43� 6 7$3 HE8 2077 391 9l0 1 a) U �c� o.6�io 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 3. S% 0.(P/o 0.0% 0.7"/0 O.U°�n 0.0% 0.0% U.(7'/� 0.0"io 0.1�/u . 0.0"/0 0.1°/� 1.i.2% �).U% 0.?"/0 0. �% 0.1% 2.9°io .�..3% 10.2% 3U.�% 0.2% l 6.2% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 2.4% 2.7% 6.4% l.��i, 2.8"% 0.3°/, 0.(7'/0 (l. y% Note: Stage III represent aircraft modified to meet all stage III criteria as oatlined in Federal Aviation Regulafion (FAR) Yar� 36• Tkus Inctudes hushkit engines, engine retrofits or aircraft operational flight configurations. �n �e-offmeasured in EPNL. dBA (Effective •The Provided Noise levets from FAR PaR 36 are the loudest leveis documented per aircraR tYPe g Perceived Noise Level). •EPNL is the level of the time integral of the antilogarithm of one-tenth of tone-corrected perceived noise level of an aircraft flYover measured m weiahted decibels. 0 A Praduct of the Metrogolitan Airports Commiss�on ANOMS Program Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council {MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report 1�1i�httime A11 �perations 10:30 p.�. to 6.00 a.m. l��n�vay �Tse laeport Au�ust 2000 � Arr ; So. Richfield/Bloomuigton � 12L ; .Arr � So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield 12R ' Arr �; So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield ?2 ' Arr St. PauUI-Iighland Park 3t)L ' Arr Ea�an/Mendota Hei��hts 3UR Arr � Ea<�an/Mendota Hei.�hts -� Dep 12L Dep I2R � Dep -„ p�� , 30L ' Dep ; 3UR � Dep St. Pau]/Highland Park i Eagan/Mendota Heighi� ' Eagan/Mendota Hei�h� So. Richf i So. Minnea� Sa Minnea� o. Richfield o. Richf'ield S1 2�1 318 9() �22 2-�8 8 37� 41J �� 2U1 T92 3.5% 16.4% 21.6% 6.1% 3�. 5°io 1 C�.9°!0 �1�1��'� U. E% 30.1% 33. 3% �.5% 16.1°io 1�.4% 32 : ( _ 2:�% 38? I 28.6% 53 j �.0% 48 � 3.6% �� i s.9�ro 7�2 I ��. J% ��:?�;:>:::::<:>:;`__<°:�:��:"�i �3.. ( 1.6% �79 ( 33. �% 20 � I .=�% 5(kl � 3�.2% 34 � 2.=�% 372 i 26.Q% � A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program � � �j Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council(MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report l�igi��i�e Carrier Jet C�perations 10:30 p.rn. io 6e00 a.m. l�unvvav ITse eport Au�ust 2000 :::«`::;?�!ii�7' So. Richfi St. Paul;•`H it�L '_�_ __..___'. --- -=-- ;tiR Arr Ea<�an�`I�9endota He .�..._:�....,...�. -�....,.,.::--�-- ......... .�.... ; : ' - ' . W : �`o��ii .��is ;: :........................�. . ......._.. � p�p St. Paul,`Hi<.hlti�d I 1 �R _----- Dep Ea�arvrnenao� �� pzp So. Richfield/B 3uL Dep So. Minneapolis:�l ..--- 3t)R Dep So. M�nea�olis( 198 �.....�.:�...._.,>,,. $ A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report August 2000 Top 15 r,�ctuai l�tighttime Jet i)perators by Type 10:30 p.m to 6:00 a.m i i' r i ; i � !i ; � I ; Total Nighttime Jet ' ; Operations 6y Hour ' k::i:;:::.:�2::;:^:;::::;� ::::::i::::::::::::::::�%;A::,:�:: ��:::;::#; �:::::::::_ ... =;::::t:::;i;P��':::::;;:':::::::x:i;WiR ,W,.::::::: ,-,;t� %t); � ;� K i ;�)� ?.�f N M ?(,(1 Itx� c�� K� ,; ' ;i � � ;� -�rM� Ij; ;� M � ;,, Ta#a� � �R�� : American . I AAL ( � F1t� Arnzrican AAL 3 j MD80 Airbome ABX 3 DCBQ Aufiame ABX ( 3 j DC9(� America West AWE 3 A319 America West AWE 3 ( A320 Air Trans ort International - ATN 3 DC�Q ComAir COivt 3 CRTi ; Delta DAL 3 � B72Q Delta DAL 3 � B7�2 Delta DAL 3 ( MDf3U FcdE� FDX 3 B72Q FedEt FDX 3 � A3t� FedE�; FDX 3 i DCIO FedEx FDX 3 MDi l North�tiest � NVJA ( 3 � A�19 N��nh«��t ! NWA 3 � A320 Nonh�cz,t � NWA ( � ; B72C,) Nanh��-est � NWA 3 � B752 � _ North��est j NWA 3 � DC10 North��cst ' NWA ( 3 ( DC9Q North«�est � NWA I 3 ( B7�41 Nonh��est ; NWA � 3 � B742 R�� an . , RYN � 3 B72Q Sun Cuuntn i, SCX i ; � B72Q 5un Cuuntt�� SC}: � 3 � DCIU l�ir'1'ran TI2�ti ' ; � B717. T'rans �'�,�i�i TWA � ; i DC9Q -� t�<<t,; ��„-�� Twa ; � _ i Mnx� _.— , - i � �t��a t_�nL � ; ��2c� l �nuc� U/1L � ; B733 1 �nucil (J�1I. , � Ei73C,� � ( �nu��i t1l�I, � � ii7�� t;� � L�I,� � `, � �7�? i ��ti ! tn,� ' � i DC$Q Van �� uurcl , VGI� ; ; F37 �(1 =�0 38 ly 3h I 46 37 3O 3? i J � �g 4� l �8 � �; 3�9 C 239 � � . _ ..: .:::::::::. �: ..:::::. .:. . . . ....... . ::> :::::>:::>:>;::<::<::<:»::»:::::::::»::>::><::»>::«::<::: .. .. ......�'�. #i.. ;::<:>::: . . . �_... . .. ,.;i::iS:::;::i::;::'i�:;:i:;i::;i:::::�:Q��i:!:?ii;ii:i?:i;i3ii:i:i:ii;ii:;::: s.:� : ::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.�::.�::::: :.._:::::.::::::::...:.:�...........:............� Note: The top 15 nighttime operators tepresent 93.9°!0 of the total nighttime operations. A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 9 � .' i t` j Metropolitan Aircraii Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report August 2000IeTighttime Fleet Stage Miz for'I'op 15 �rlines 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m �"'v ��'�' � e�� °� ��v ��'��''�4'� 5� `�� `�� Airline � S�ge 2 ❑ Stage 3 � Manuficia.u'ed Sta.ge 3 August 2000 Nightta�ne Ilect Stage Miz for Top 15 Aiaiines 10:3o n.m. � 6;00 �.m. _ .................:. ::..::::::::::.... t1 t1 L ABX � U j 55 ' A� I p ! U ; ATN � 0 ! 37 COM i �� DAL ; O �,. FDh � U S NWA ; t) 2h: RYN O ` �(' SCX Q l�c TRS j t) � U T�VA ' 0 ; 2i U A L �� 3`� LiPS � U ; �8 �,rGD ! p i 3� � � � 10 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commissian ANC?MS Prograz►1 '. i�� _ �._ � • . . . . r:.:: r :..; }. ,,: � 'V„�.�r.-. +." :�`�• F. . A . . �'i4 ♦ f : . 3' L�%, j��. ;, � •;'�fii• I - _.I'+ � �� i: S: k.. . 1't'�, :: �,..t ._ . . : �'ti � i. Metropolitan Aircrafi Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Carrier Jet Arrival 12elated I�toise Events August 2000 1 Minnea}�ohs 2 Minnea olis 3 Minnea olis 4 Minnea olis � i Minneapolis � 6 � Minneapolis � 7 � Richtield j 8 ( Minneapolis i 9 � St. Paul ( 1U � St. Paul i 11 � St. Paul � (? � 5t. Paul � . � li ( Mendota Heia: i 1�1 ; EaQan � 1� ! Mend��ta Heig , ; . �_. ; IC, j �z�an � � 17 � Blaominstor �� . lfi : Richtield 19 Bloomin�l� Zc1 Richtic:ld �1 fn�•er(e'rn'e Fli ,`' ; In�'erGro�•e Hei�hts '_.; ' -Mendota I lzi �.t iaean �; Iaann �t, f�t�'�rC.ir��c Ile Xenses Ave. & 41st St: Fremont A�'e. & 43n1 St. West F�m«'ood St. & Belmont A��e m Oal:land Ave. & 49th St. 12th A��e. & �8th St. ?5th A��e. & �7th St. Wentworth A�re. & Cv-tth St. I,on�fello�� A��e. & �3rd St. Saratosa St. & Hartford A��e. Itasca A��e. & Bo�3�doin St. Finn St. & Scheffer Ace. Alton St. & Rocltti��ood Ave. Southeast end ofMohican Court lst St. & Mckee St. Cullon St. & Le�ir►gt�n A�'e. Avalon Ave. & V�ila� Lane 84th St. & 4th A��e. 7�th St. & 17th A�•e 16th A��e. & 8�tth St. 7�th St. & 3t�i A��e. Barhara A�•e. �. 67th St. Anne Iviarie Trail ' Fnd of l�enndon f1��z. Chapcl I.n. R. Wr�n l.n. Muun�hinc Park I �21 .iurd� Rd i b7X�l�rk,insa, n��e. W. ---- _ ,- MLnn��i�oli, Anthon�� 5chual �?�7 In�ing A�•c:. S. ��;y� I�i�hlield 66�1� Itith A��enu� 5. ?�) Minn�u�<�li� i Ericsaan E1c:m Schuol -431� 31,t A��t. S. 7646 6398 64li 6623 6690 7U5� 1�1 189 126 138 19 15 49 �3�� 1�9 426Ei 187 167 �b 31 97 25�3ti t 09t) �2�#� 2U7 �-17 $7 �S7 1? 38 431 2�12 13�1 49.�=� �C7O 3 4 �� 97 � 0 1 2l 4 171I �7 33 9 3 1 � 1� 9� 2 14 � �u � 0 0 �� 38 778 0 0 0 20 1 0 1 2 0 � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 � 0 0 0 0 0 0 � 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 � i 1 16 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 1 � 3 4 � 6 7 8 9 lU ll i� r— 13 14 l� �� IG I� 17 i Is I 19 � � 2U � � ! �, � �; 2-� i �� ?G Metropolitan Aircrai� Sound Abatemeut Council (MASAC) Technical Actvisor's Report Car�-ier Jet Departure 12elaied Noise Events Augus� 2000 olis o lis u lis o lis Richfield St. Paul St. Paul St. Paul St. Paul M�ndota Heiehts Eaaan Mendota Heiahts Eaean Bla�minaton Richtield t3loomineton Rich f ie ld In�'erCiro�'e Heishts In��er Cire��e Hci�zhts Mendut� f leishts t.a � an In��crC�ru�•� I-i�ishts Xer.�s Ave. & 41st St. Fremont A��e. & 43rd St. West IIm«�ood St. 8i Belm�nt A��e Oalland A��e. & 49th St. 12th A�•e. &: 58th St. 2�th At�e. & �7th St. Wentu•orth A��e. & E�4th St. Lonsfello�ti� Ave. & 43rr1 St. Saratoea St. & Hartford A�•e. ' Itasca Arz. & Bcn��dain St. Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. Altan St. & Rock�ti•ood Ave. Southeast end of Mahican Court ist St. & Mckee St. Cullon St. & I.e�+in�ton A��e. A��alon A��e. & Vilas Lane 8�tth St. & �th Ave. 7�th St. L�. 17th A�'e ltith A��e. ck: $-lth St. 7�th St. R. 3rc� A�'e. Barbara A�•e. 8c. 67th St. Anne Maric Trai] F�d qt�f�enndon A�'�. Chapel Ln, & V�'ren Ln. Moonshine Park 1�' l lurd� Rd. G796 Arkan,�s A�•�: W Mirin�a��li; ' Anthon�� Sc:hc�ul �7�7 Ii��uie A��e. �. Rich(i�l�i C�� 16th A��enuc S. Minncaroh. ��ricsson �1em Schooi �4;1� 31tit !1�-e. 5. I ,..-iso 773 10� � � 21 � I �2 27&g � 671 4912 1904 63� ( 2�9E> 2677 � 836 1$9��_ 78 j 20 92 � 3S 62 ` 23 6� l 4082 ' �3 6479 1�77 �160 78� 626� ( '_309 ?09 � �9 2236 � 9ti 192 j 6� 2�� i 20 �� , i� 2191 ! 9? Cx;,;� � 2�bi �U17 � 6�9 i 3118 � 2� _�(k�� 289 2U�5 � �t;1 ;�79 11 �4 i fStiG )7 0 i 0 � ; � o � 31 � 0 � �1 � � =�76 ` � I 1001 I 1�t8 I �� i U ` " y� i � � 7 � 0 ( 2y � 10 j 9 � 0� Q ( 0 19 j 0 172 � 0 37 � � � . 61? �. . 36 � 0 67 � � 11 � ��' � . 9 I 0 2 0 � � l � 0 � 9$2 � U li `. � 0 � � l f � 1R i , 0 y i � o I o I t � A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program l� Date/Tune 8/ 18/0012:27 8/9/00 9:08 8/ 15/0017:42 S129/0011:46 8J28/00 14:06 8/6/0012:43 8/18/0017:Q4 8/2G/0012:27 8/1$/0011:54 8/9/001020 Metronalitan Aircraflt Saund Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Top Ten Loudest Aiperaft Noise Events for MSP t�ug-00 QtMT Site#1) Xerxes Ave. & 41� St., Minneapolis Flight Number Aircrdft Type AmvaU Runway arture Unl�own Unlaiown D 30L SCX407 B72Q D 30R NWA1277 B72 D 30L NWA1271 B72 D 30R B72Q A 12L SCX748 �L NWA585 B92 D NWA12b9 B72Q D - 30R NWA585 B72Q D �L NWA585 B72Q D 30L SCX721 B72Q D 30R Date/Time 8/ 18/0015:26 8/9/00 9:08 8/7/00 921 8/9/ �.2� 8/8/0016:12 S/9/00 8:18 8/31 1011 8/2 1215 8/23/0013:10 8/ 15/00 9:10 Date/Time 8/?S/00 16:12 8/25/0015:36 8/8/00 16:12 s�1�� 8/ 10/ 5 13 8/8/00 20:06 8/ 18/00 20:18 &/17/00 16:07 8/23/00 16:18 8/9/00 17:36 (lZM'T 5ite#2) • Fremorrt Ave. & 43rd St., Mume Flight Number Aireraft Type ArrivaU De artu� SC715 Unl�own D SCX407 B72 D SCX715 B72Q D SCX721 �/2Q D DAL1624 B72 D UAL785 B72Q D UAL1519 B72 D NWA1255 B72Q D NWA556. '< A320 A SCX715 ' B72Q D (]�M'T Site#3 ) West Ehnwood St & BelTrx�rrt Ave., Flight Number Aircraft TYPe AmvaU De artur DAL1624 B72Q D KLM664 B743 D DAL1624 B72Q D Unl�own Unl�own D DAL1624 B�2Q D DAL1683 B72Q D DAL1683 B7� D DAL1624 B72Q D DAL1624 B�2Q D DAL1624 B72Q D - Runway 30R 30R 30R 30R 30L 30R 30R 30R 12R 30L �olis ` Runway 30L 30L 30L 30L 30L 30L 30L 30L 30L Lmax (dB) 8-----.-- 87.6 87.4 87.4 86.8 86.5 $6.4 86.4 86.3 86.2 Lmax(dB) 95.7 92.6 91.2 91 90.1 90.1 89.8 89.6. 89:5 � �. �---�r _ I,rnax (dB) 97.5 95:7 95.3 95 94.7 94 93.9 93.8 93.3 93.2 �,. � � 18 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Cominission ANOMS Program Metropolitan Aircraft Saund Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical A�visor's Report Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP Aug-00 (�tMT Site#4) � Oak]and Ave. & 49th St, Mmr, Date/Tane Flight Number Ait�raft Type AirivaU 8�18/0015:26 8/31/0010:11 8/31/0019:57 8/9/00 9:08 8/9/001020 8/25/0018:51 8/25/0019:54 8/10/00 21:15 8/25/0015:48 8/31/00 920 SC715 UALI519 DAL1683 SCX721 SCX408 DAL1683 NWA1049 SCX743 , Runway (13MT Site#5) 12th Ave: & 58th St, Minneap� Date/Tirne Flight Number Aucraft Type ArrivaU 8/13/�0 9:18 SCX791 8/10/00 9:07 SCX407 8/26J0015:06 ... NVJA675 8/Ca/00 9:10 SCX715 8/18✓0010:W SCX407 8/13/00 9:13 SCX409 S/26/00 9:19 SCX409 �/ 17/0013:06 B�K652 8/25/00 7:20 CGP 101 8/26/00 �:09 CCP101 ��: .: Runway , Lmax (dB) 30L 1025 ` 30L ..._...1019 30L � � 101.5 . ' 30L 101.1 30L 100.7 30L 1005 30L 100.3 30L 1002 30L 99.9. 30L 999 i , t (IZMT Site#6) ZSth Ave. & 57th St, Minneapolis Date/Time Flight Number Au�craft Type AmvaU Runway Ltnax(dB) arture 8/6/00 12:17 NW A 1271 B72Q -D 30R 107 8/9/00 9:07 SCX407 B72Q D - 30R 106 8/8/0013:20 NWA1270 B72Q D 30R ` 10�.8 8/8/0011:57 NWA619 B'12Q D 30R 105.� 8/18/0015:25 SC715 Unlrnown D 30R 10�.1 8/9/0017:23 NWA611 B72 D 30R 104.9 8�17/0013:49 NWA584 B72 D 30R 104.8 ' 8/25/0017:25 NWA61�1 B�2Q D� 30R 104.8 8/9/0020:29 NWA1272 B72Q D 30R 104.6 8/25/00 7:53 SCX710 B72Q D 30R 104.5 �. A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 19 M�.�pOlitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Repart Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for 1VISP Aug-00 Date/Time 8/29/00 9:43 8/31/0014:56 8/17/0017:49 8/13/00 6:17 �31/00 22:11 8/7/00 9:03 g/E�/00 6:18 8J26/0010:18 8/7/00 7:47 S/1� 39 1 Date/Time 8/31/00 15:37 8/31/0018:22 8/23/00 15:42 8/29/00 7:28 8/ 15/00 8:05 8/18/0016:41 8/ 18/00 16:08 8/2�/00 15:41 8/ 15/00 19:42 8/ 17/00 14:4� Date/Turte 8/�E�00 16:02 8! 18/00 15:56 8/13/00 15:0� 8l31/00 I 928 8/9/(� 12:04 �/3 ] /00 19: �3 8/31/00 14:52_ 8/31/00 5:24 8/20/OU 23:36 8/31/00 5:16 20 (]ZMT Site#7) Weirtworth A�e. & 64t� S�, Richfiekl Flight Number Aircraft Type AmvaU Runway arture SCX791_ B72Q D 30L DAL1731 B72 D 30L SCX785 B72 D 30L SCX537 B72Q D 30L SCX711 B72Q D 30L SCX407 B72 D 30L SCX537 B72 D 30L' UAL1519 B"72Q D 30L AMT527 _ B72 D 30L AMT543 : B72 D 30L (IZMT Site#8) : I,ongfellow Ave. & 43rd St., Mumeapolis Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway arture SCX741 B72 D 30R SCX408 B72 D 30R SCX741 B'12 D 30R SCX710 B72 � D 30R SCX749 B72 D 30R SCX743 B72Q D 30R SCX741 B72Q D 30R SCX741 B72Q D . 30R SCX408 B72Q D 30R NWA24 B72Q D 30R (RMT Srte#9) Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave., St. Paul Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway De arture NWA83 8742 D 4 NWA83 B742 D 4 NWA19 B742 D 4 NWA588 B72Q D 4 NWA23 B742 D 4 NWA44 DC10 D 4 NWA592 B72 D 4 ABX3�4 DCBQ A 22 AMT258 B72Q A - 22 FDX1407 IvlDll ' A 22 L�mas(dB) 97.1 96S � 94.9 949 94.7 94.2 94.1 92.3 92.3 , 92.2 , s Lmax(dB) 95.7 95.6 9— 3 94.1 --- 92-- 9 9 --- 91:7 89.6 89.4 89.3 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program Metropolitan Aircr� Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report � Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP Aug-00 � �u�r�' S��1o) � � Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St, St. Paul, Date/Time Flight Number Aucraft Type AmvaU Runway Lmax(dB) artu� 8�18/0011:59 NWA23 B742 D 4 ' 101.9 8/9/0012:04 NWA23 B742 � D 4 101.8 8/18/0015:55 NWA83 B742 D _4 101.4 - 8I26/0016:01 NWA83 B742 D 4 101.1 8/22/0015:34 NWA 19 B742 D 4 101.1 8/18l0015:27 NWA19 B742 D 4 101 8/13/0015:05 NWA19 B742 D 4 101 8/16/0015:18 NWA19 B742 D 4. 100.4 8/29/0015:0� NWA 19 B742 D 4 1002- 8/10/OO i2:47 NWA23 B742 D _ 4 100.1 (RMT Site#11) Firm St. & Sche�er Ave., St. Paul Date/Tune Flight Number Ait�raft Type ArrivaU ' Runway Lmax(dB) aiture 8/2EJJ0012:08 NWA23 B742 D 4 98.8 8/17/0012:12 NWA73 8742 D 4 97 8/15/OO I L�9 NWA23 B742 b 4 94 � 8/13/007:08 SCX507 B72Q D 4` 92-5 8/2EJ0015:41 KLM664 B743 ` D 4 92.5 �" 8/26/00 15:20 NVJA 19 _ B742 D 4 91.9 � �/31/0015:3� KLM664� B743 D 4 91.8 8/10/0012:48 NWA23 B742 D 4- 91:2 8/13/001L�7 NWA23 B742 _ D 4 90:8 .- 8/I�/00 15:0� NWA19 _ B742 D _ 4 -: 89.9 (RM'T Site#12) Alton St. & Rockwood A�e., St. Paul Date/Tune Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway Lanax(dB) De arture 8i22100 1�:3� ` NW A 19 B742 D 4 79.9 8/2�/00 22:44 TRS290 B712 A 22 78.7 i3./22J00 13:08 ` MES2910 Unlcnown D 12L 78.3 8/13/001638 NWA597 Unknown D 4 78.2 ��--- 8/I/0012:03 MES3216 SF34 - D 12L , 77.6 8/18/00 15:�6 NWA83 B742 D 4 _ 775 '. 8/21/00 7:42 Unlrnown BEl8 D 12L 77.4 8/ 13L00 1�:0� NW A 19 B742 D 4 769 8/1/0013:16 UAL1914 B733 A - 12L - 76.7 8/24/00 9:33 MES3401 BA46 D 12L 76.7 � A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 21 - Metrop,olitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP Aug-00 � (]ZMT Site#13) � goukheast E�ad Of Mohican C ourt, Mendota Heighis � C�) Date/Tune Flight Number Aircraft Type Amvall Runway arture 8/12/00 7:36 SCX712 B72 D 12L 93.2 8/20/0016:57 NWA1269 B72 D 12L 92.6 &/11/0014:00 NWA624 B72 D 12L 91.9 8/28/0017:31 NWA611 B72Q D 12L 91.7 D 12I, 91.6 $/2?J0011:34 NWA619 B72 D 12R. 91.5 � 8/2U0011:45 NWA585 B72 D l�y 91.4 8/8/00 9:49 NWA451 B72 D 1� 91.2 &�25/0010:�7 NWA375 B72Q D i� 91.1 '8/5/0013:40 NWA624 ^ B12 D 12L �-g . 8/27/0013:27 NWA1270 Unlmown (IZMT Site#14) 1 st St. & Mckee S�k, Eagan Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type AnivaU Runway Lmax(dB) artuie D 12R 99.9 8/7/001:19 SCX711 �2 . 1� �.1. R/21/0015:15 NWA19 B742 D D 1� 97.6 8/24J0017:57 SCX785 B72 1� 972 8/25/00 9:09 SCX791 B72Q D C' � 8/20/00 8:56 CCP124 B72 D 12R 96.5 \� 8/29/0016:35 CGPl01 B72Q D l� �.3 8/25/0010:49 RYN738 B72Q D 12R 95.9 8/1/0011:40 NWA1271 B72 D 12R �- �-4.. D _ 12R. . 953 � . ' . 8/14/00 9:03 SCX407 B72 95 � 8/2�/00 11:51 NWA585 B72Q D� 12R (7ZMT Site#15) Cullon St & Le�ngton �ve•, Me�nd°ta Heights Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type ' ArrivaU Runway Lmax(dB) De arture 8/28/00 1327 NW A 1546 B72 D 1�' �'.3 8/30/00 7:56 SCX749 B72Q D 12L 93.5 8/ 1 E✓00 15:33 SCX741 B72Q D 12'L' 92.5 8/30/00 20:07 DAL1683 B72Q D 12L 92.2 8/30/00 22:37 NWA615 B72Q D 1�' �.2 8/ 14l00 9:4b NW A451 B72Q D 12L 92.1 D 12L 92.1 8/21/0021:29 NWA689 B72 D 12L 92 8/2�/0013:50 NWA1067 DC �� 91.9 8/ 12J00 21:09 NW A 1237 DC9Q D 8/12J007:19 AMT527 B72Q D 12L 91.7 j �� A Product of the Metropolitan Air}�orts Cominission ANOMS Program 22 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound AbatemeIIt Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report To� Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP Aug-00 ��rr S�#1 �) � (� � Avalon Ave. & V�as La�,e, Ea.gan Date/Time Flight I�Tumber Aucrai3 Type ArrivaU Runway Lmax(dB) arture 8/1M0010:19 LFnl�own Unknown D 12R .102.1 - 8/5/001821 SCX785 B72 D 12R 99S 8/M00 21:10 NWA39 A320 D 12R 98.7 8l24l0013:20 NWA584 B72 D 12R. , 98.5 8/�007:10 CCP101 B72 D 12R 97-9 8/21/0016:24 SCX748 B72Q D 12R 97-9 8/25/00 9:01 SCX407 B72 D 12R 979 8✓4/OO T2:1� NWA23 B742 D 12R - 97.9 8/7/0017:39 SCX403 B�2Q D � 12R 9�.8 8/1C,�00 22:05 NWA615 B72Q D 12R. 97.7 (RMT Site#17) 84th St. & 4th Ave., Bloomington Date/Tnne Flight Number Aircraft Type Arriva]/ Runway Lmax(dB) _ arture 8/7/0015:10 NWA19 B742 D � � �:5 8/25/0015: ] 3 NVJA 19 B742 D � 22 99.1 8/20/0011:46 NWA23 B"142 D 22 98.8 8/8/0011:57 NWA23 B742 D . 22 98.2 8/6/0015:05 Unknown Unl�own D 22 97.3 � 8/1M0015:48 NWA19 B742 D, 22 969 8/25/0016:05 NAC3653 LTnlaiown - ' D 22 96.8 8/5/0011:59 NWA23 B742 D 22 96.6 8/11001522 NWA19 B742 D 22 961 . 8/11/001�:38 NWA83 : B742 D 22 � 953 (]�MT Site#18) 75th St. & 17th Ave, Richfield Date/Tune Flight Number Aircraft Type � ArrivaU Runway Lmax (dB) De arture 8/20/0011:46 NWA23 B742 D 22 102.9 8/1M00 T2:07 NWA23 B742 D 22 102.3 $/2�/0011:55 NV✓A23 B742 D 22 102.3 8/19/0016:06 NWA83 B742 D' 22 102.1 8/20/001�:03 ' ' NWA19 B742 D 22 101.6 8/5/00ll:59 NWA23 B742 D 22 101.6 8/3/0011:57 NWA23 B742 D 22 1012 8/8/0011:57 NWA23 ' B'742 D 22 101 8/11/001439 NWA23 B742 D 22 101 8/1210013:17 NWA23 8742 D 22 100.7 , � A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 23 Date/Tirne 8/18/00 0:20 8J 17/00 23:34 �25/0017:37 8l28J00 11:56 8/15/00 0:25 8%11/0014:40 8/22100 23:59 8/1/00 0:26 S/12J0013:17 8/22I00 23:16 Metronolitan Aircrafi. Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's 'Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP Aug-00 (I�MT Site#19) 16th Ave. & 84th St, Bloomington F7ight Number Aucraft Type ArrivaU I2unway De arture ABX353 DC D 22 ATN823 D D �' NWA580 B72 D � NWA23 B742 D � RYN710 B72Q D � NWA23 B742 D � ATN823 D D � RYN710 B72Q D � NWA73 B742 D 22 NWA618 DC D � Date/Tune 8/8/001524 8/M00 5:15 8/17/00 17:3� 8/10/0014:32 8/17/0017:51 8/17/0017:38 8/8/0012:09 8/15/0013:59 8/29/0011:53 8/29/00 8:01 Date/Tune 8/3/00 18:39 8/3/00 19:14 8/22100 11:51 8/21/0012:13 8/6/00 1323 8/24J00 12:17 8/ 12100 1 5:19 8/4/0012:16 $/M00 8:27 8/30/00 12:04 � Site#20) 75th St & 3rd Ave., Richfield Ffight Number Aircraflt Type ArrivaU De arture KL,M(,(4 B743 D RYN610 B72Q D MES2744 SF34 D NWA622 DC9Q D AAL1349 F100 D MES2744 SF34 D NWA627 B72Q D MFS3259 SF� D NWA1255 B72Q D MES2773 SF34 D (RMT Site#21) }3arbara Ave. & 6'7th St., Inver Grove Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU De arture MES3156 � SF34 D UAL1600 A320 D NWA23 B742 D NWA23 B742 D NWA773 DC4Q A RYN738 B72 D SCX785 B72 D NWA585 B72Q . D NWA480 B72 ' D NWA23 B742 D Runway 22 22 30L 22 30L 30L 30L 22 30L 30R Runway i2L, 12I., 12R 12R 30R 12L, 1� 12R 12L 12R Lmax (dB) �e 94.4 93.3 93 92.1 91.8 91.2 912 91 90.8 89.5 Lmax (dB) 96.3 913 883 88 87.1 87 85.1 84.8 Lmas (dB) 9____._— 91.8 88.5 88 87 85.6 85.4 85.1 851 84.7 [� � � 24 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program � Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report 'I'op Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP Aug-00 (ItMT Site#22) � Anne Marie Tra�, Im�er Grove Heights Date/Time Flight Number A�raft Type ArrivaU Runway De arture 8/1M0010:20 Unlmown Unlaiown D 12R 8/3/0021:59 NWA56 B742 D IZR 8/22/00 22:27 NWA9846 B741 D 12R 8/24/00 9:02 SCX407 B72Q D 12R 8/9/00 20:25 NWA1264 B72 A 30L 8/12/00 9:28 SCX791 B72 D 12R 8/8/00 8:59 SCX407 B72 D 12R. 8/11/00 5:31 NWA9846 B741 D 12R 8/ 10/0012:27 USA 1789 A319 A 30R 8/20/0014:32 AMT589 B72Q D 12L (RMT S�e#23) Faid ofKenndon Avenue, Mendota. Heights Date/Tune Flight Number Au�raft Type ArrivaU Runway De arture 8/30/0012:05 NWA585 B72 D 12L �I 8/20/0015:31 SCX741 B72 D 12L 8J12/00 7:35 SCX712 B72Q D 12L ' 8/5/0014:57 NWA414 B72Q D ` 12L 8/20/0017:14 NVJA611 B72 b 12L 8�11/0011:45 NWA1271 B72 D 12L 8/3/00 2231 NW A 1545 B72Q D 12L 8/25/0013:20 NWA84 B72Q D 12L 8/27/0015:33 SCX741 B72 D 12L &/ 19/00 21:03 NW A 1545 B72Q . D 12L (RMT Site#24) Chapel Lane & Wren Lane, Eapan ��: .: ..� �*' .. � :• '� � �*� �� .; . .; . •:: � �� Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type AmvaU Runway Lmax(dB) De arture $/9/0010:42 Unlmown Unlmown A 30R 95:9 8/7/001:19 SCX711 B72Q D 12R 95.1 8/22J0022:26 NWA984b B'741 D 12R 94.2 8/8/00 8:59 SCX407 B72Q D 12R 92.9 8/14/0010:20 Unlrnown Unlmown D 12R 92.� 8/22J00 7:04 CCP101 B72Q D 12R 923 8/25/00 22:38 SCX711 B72 D 12R 913 8/11/0015:18 NWA592 B72Q D 12R. 91 8✓24/0015:30 NWA616 B72 D 12R 90.9 8/3/00 9:05 SCX407 B72Q D 12R 90:8 i A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 25 Metropolitan ?,ircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Actvisor's Report Top �I'en Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP Aug-00 i (JZMT Site#25) � Moonslrine Park, 1321 7urdy Rd., E:a� Date/Tuue Flight Number Air�raft Type ArrivaU' Runway FJ29/00 22:59 �asi_ s�l�oo za:io 8/3/ 15 32 8/30/0015:39 8/1C,/0015:36 8/2� 8/30/001�'27 &!1M0010:19 8/3/0013:49 Date/Time S/21/._._.---13 8/M00 9:08 8/5/0016:10 8/22100 T1:50 8/11/00 15:16 8/11/00 9:07 8/29/00 17'1� 8/8/00 7:21 8/I/00 :15 50 8/ 1M00 17:�8 Date/Time 8/ 13/00 9:14. 8/26/00 7:10 8/ I 3/00 9: ] 8 8/8/00 I 1:?7 8/17/00 11:11 8/17/00 9:17 8/ 1 �00 20:07 8/7/00 14:17 8/7/00 8:04 8/10/00 10:11 �� '��'� �u • ' �'"�:�� ' ' � � ' ' � �� .� . � � � .. � �� ' � �� : • � �E��?�� E►�!llCi� ' �� .� . � .� . � � ' � �_� � (]�MT Site#26) 6796 Arkansas A�e. W., Im�er Grove Flight Number Aircraft Type �AmvaU De artuz� NWA23 B742 D 5CX715 B72Q D DAL1624 B�2 D NWA23 B742 D Unlrnown Unlmown D SCX715 B�2 D NW A 1589 B72Q p SCX710 B�2Q D SCX741 B�2Q D NWA1�89 B72Q D (RMT Site#27) Amharry Middle School, 5757 Irving Ave. S Flight Number Aiicraft Type �� De arture SCX409 B72 D CCP 101 B72Q D SCX791 B72Q D DAL9642 B72Q D AMT543 B72Q D SCX71� B72Q D SCX785 B72 D AMT589 B72Q D SCX227 �72Q D UAL1�19 $72Q D � � � Ianax (dB) 88.2 8�.6 sa.2 83.9 83.6 83.4 82.5 82.5 $2.1 82 Runway �X (�) i� 90.1 1� 89.2 1� 892 12R. 88.8 12R 88.7 12R 87.8 1� 87.7 1�, 87.5 12I., 8"7.3 1� 87.2 inneapolis Runway ^ Lu�ax (dB) 30L 30L 30L 30R 30L 30L 30R 30L 30R 96.3 96.3 93.3 93.2 93.1 93 92.7 92.6 92.1 �� - A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 26 DatelTime 8/26/00 6:13 $/30/0017:45 8/28/00 22:20 8/21/0013:32 8/17/0018:10 8/17/00 6:54 8J29/00 22:58 8/9/0017:15 8�31/00 21:16 8/6/001725 Metropolitan Airciaft Sound Abatement Counctil (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Top Ten i..oudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP Aug-00 (I�MT' Site#28) 6645 16th Avemje S., Richfield Flight Number Aitoraft Type ArrivaU arture SCX710 B72 A Unknown Unlaiown A NWA455 DC9Q D ME53333 SF34 D NWA1298 B72 D BMJ56 BE�O D UPS555 B72Q D NWA687 DC D SCX508 B72 A NWA1471 DC9Q D (RMT Site#29) Runway 30L 30L 30L Faicsson Elementary School, 4315 31 st A�e. S., Minneapolis Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type AmvaU Runway Lmax(dB) De arture 8/9/0011:04 CDR1680 F28 D 30R 89 8/15/00 9:36 NWA504 DC9Q D � 30R 85.3 8/31/OOI3:33 NWA1810 DC9Q D 30R 8f3 8/6/0016:41 RYN9006 B72Q D 30R 87.4 8/ 18/00 19:19 NW A 1230 A320 D 30R 87.1 8/ 17/00 15:42 SCX741 B72 D 30R 869 : 8/9/00 7:13 UAL1068 B73Q D 30R 86.1 $/31/00 9:12 UAL1628 B73 D 30R 85.'7 8/ 15/00 1539 SCX741 B72Q D 30R 85.5 8/1810013:�1 UAL1538 B73 D 30R 85.4 Auqust 2000 Remote Monitoring Tower Top Ten Summarv The top ten noise events and the event ranges at each RMT for August 2000 were comprised of 95.2% depa►ture operations. The predominant top ten air�raft type was the Boeing 727 Hushed with 59.0% of the highest �max events. Note: Unknown fields are due to data unavailability in FAA flight track data. August 2000 Technical Advisor Report.Notes Note: Missing FAA radar data fir 0.6 days during the month of August 2000. �. A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 27 Metropolitan Aircrafl Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Analysis of Aircraf� Noise Events - Aia-cra�t I.,dn d�A August 2000 Re�te Monitoring Towers �-� �� ?t � ,; 2ti ?y ;�. i � i) (:�:�'f>� 28 I ��.2 ��7.8 � 63.6 62.6 703 70 �9.7 �3.4 (�1.8 48.4 � n/a 40.1 ��8.� 6�t.9 �9.9 �6.� � 63.� ».8 67.7 63.9I40.� 38.� n/a n/a 40 n/a �7.8I63.9 61 60.6I63.� 67.1 6�.� 71.4 71.$ �7.�i �.7 49.1 �0.3 34.? 4b.3 65 f8.$ t�.l 59.7 61.1 67.9 63.9 71.7 70.7 30.2 46.2 59.4 643 36.9 44.? 63.6I70.2 6�.b 61 623 67.4 63.b 71.9 69.� n/a 43.8 42.1 � 38.4 3�.1 62.9I69Z 63.7 60.6 ( 62.7 6�1�.9 67.3 73.� 76.� 69.6 I 6�.1 31.� 38.8 n/a I n/a �I1L.4 I 63.9 49.7 �7.7 60 63.7 64.6 72.4 74.2 64.2 � 62.1 46.3 49.7 � 31.9 �9.1 ( 70.1 61.� I 63.5 I 64.1 69.� 66.7 7�.9 7�.9 67.] 62.9 � 3�.3 I 37.6 39.� �8.3 ti7.6 �f3.2 61.8 63.1 6�.� 6ti.9 73.6 77 � n/a n/a �0.2 �8.1 � 43.7 4�.� 42.� 6�.3 =1�.9 i 6U.7 6i.3 66.1 67 7�.2 76.� 68.8 66.1 4� �7.� �0.2 �1.6 45.9 � Er't.9 �4.� � 6U.8 61.8 I 68.9 63.8 72.1 7Q2 3�.> >a.9 4�.3 45.4 I n/a 38.9 63.1 69.9 6�4.9 � 6U.� 60.5 68.1 62.6 72.3 69.1 46.6 43.3 �3.6 ».3 4�.9 4�.9 63.� 67.9 6t5.7 ��7.7 � 61.4 ! 643 64.3 72.4 73.1 6�.8 �9.6 I �3.3 619 �3.� 41.4 �4.� � 67J 61.1 � �9.7 � b3.6 6ti.l 66.7 72.1 73.8 64.3 E�U.I 41.1 41 I 41.8 38.� n/a I 67.6 6?.�t � � � :r4.9 34.4 64.6 36.9 ; 579 (�9 i C� 6� 73 7�.3 69 662 I�W.7 59.? �4 i � �89 � 61.8 6=�.4 633 7Q7 71.1 I�9.9 529 432 �7 �3�.1 3� 63.8 70.6 6�.8 , 5�).� i b2.7 � 68.2 67.6 76.2 76.8 69.b 6�.6 �0.2 �7? ��.2 4�.8 ��9 I 6�.6 �9Z � ; C�l). ] i 62.4 6�.T � 67.�4 7�.1 77.6 69.2 , 66.& » 53.2 51.3 39.6 42.9 62.8 �S.S ' C� � 62.3 � 67.1 C�l.l 71.2 � 7t).3 I 4�.E 46.7 I 31.ti 42 ( 39.9 . i=1.9 61.8 b7.9 63.7 � I � � ' c�).5 i G3 � 67.6 � E�.8 70.9 71 43.1 (�l.�t , C�.7 62.� I 36.� ( 39.�t 62.6 68.3 6a.8 � C�O.h � 6,.0 : Ex�.7 6�.2 7U.7 ( 70.b . 37.3 � 37.3 ! 6;.1 bE,.B I�10.2 ('a8.7 62.9 67.6 Er�.� � � � '; t�).9 i E�3. � � 6�. !( Er.l.? 69.6 ( 7U.2 I=�:..9 ( 3�.8 � 60.23 ti�.6 37.� �4.1 62.3 6�.3 63.� ��).c� ! C�=l i E�.� � Ex� �C).�) 7-1 �?9.E 61 � C�.2 69.1 i�-13.7 i3.� E�. i 69.1 6? I c�t) � t;3. ;� G6. ; I 6�.�1 71 i 7�. � i �7. ; ��ti9 ��?. l�$.7 �.9 ( 37.3 62 7n.h 6;.6 i ' � �5.9 ( t;;.l i Exi.$ FiCi.6 72.9 7G �(i?.ci j G2. � I:�f.7, d7? �.i7.� ��.? 6? 3 6Fi.h C��.l �h.? � fil.� ': t5�.� � 6�.� 7i. i I 7�.� � G�.E� � t�l � �5.1 63.$ ��8.8 �j 37.> j�4.2 � 6t�.1 �g. � � � i '�X.t; ��9.; � ti7 , t;1.6 7t�.; t;7.G �:x>.=t ��12.d i�1.7 n/a i n/a I 39.2 61 I E�.9 I ci3.8 i t�? � h3.2 j 6R.� E�-1.6 7?.; j 71.7 I 629 � E�O.8 � 48.1 �0.� j 38 � 4L� 62Z � 6ti.;, 6� 5�) � f�t). �' C�t.9 I c�t 72.�# � 73.C� j C�C,.0 ti1.8 i�0.2 E2? 49.6 3�.2 C�O.$ ! E�.1 62.� : E�?? ' 6�.7 � t��).Z � 66.8 73.7 ; 72.=t =16.�t � 49.�} i �3.� �7.$ �8.� ( 33.1 63 � E�G.7 67. � i;�.-# i 6?.=� � 63.1 I 67.7 73.1 � 77.� � E�3.� 66.1 ( 6�.7 b9.4 �� 4�.3 I�7.3 67 61.4 A Product of the Metrogolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program . Cl Metropolitan Aupflrts Conunission �' �� (�Do� �l� } ��n�ay �2� a�� .�� °�� g��.��a��°� 4��e�°a�g�a�s �� I�a�� e 090° C�r��d.o� ��d.��y ��s�� A��.s� 2��0 iVlinneapolis-St. Paul - Penetration Gate Plot for Gate tVorth_Corridor 08/01/2000 00:00:00 - 09/01/2000 Oa:00:00 40 Tracks Crossed Gate: �eft = 6(15.0%), Right - 34 (85.0%) � 60U0 : m . y50Q0 ................ : ............... : ................ : ................ c . : o : : • a40d0 ................ . ............... ................ ................ > d ' W3000 .................: .................:..........0 ...�:.....�.......... � : �.O:c�t� C�, .c � 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . o . . O CO� o -r.' _� �� 0 . . . . . . . . . � 1 OUO ................ :.....�.......a�. . ................ .................. o : � � � st p � � —2 --� 0 1 2 (Runway End) (Comdor End) Devia4ion From ��nt�r ofi Gate {�tiiies) ;- Arrival a Depariure O Over�ligh�t� � pag� � Monthly Eagan/Ailenc�ota �eights �epartui'e Corridor Analysis ��a � r Metropolitan Airports Commission T'o� 151Zu�w�y 1�I. �nci 12I� �e�ar�r� �est�n�i��a�s f��° A��.st Z�O� , � , "�' �, ORD Chicago - O'Hare 12q.� 556 5.6°l0 STL St Lotus 160° 2$3 2.8% MDW Chicago - Midway 124� 280 2.8% DEN Denver 237° - 272 2.7% DFW Dallas - Ft Worth 193° 27d 2.7%'0 DTW Detroit 105° 254 2.6% ATL A�� 149° 203 2.0% EWR Newazk lp�o 174 1.7% CVG Cincinnati 1270 162 1.6% �g Houston 185� 161 1.6% FAR F�'�o 312° 15b 1.6% SEA Sea.ttle Z�g� 155 1.6% SFp San Francisco 251� 154 1.5% CLE Cleveland 109° 153 1.5% MCI Kansas City lgg� 1S1 1.5% � � Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analys�s Page 5 C c; , � � .�. �� i-:r_ "'" i�. � �1t �- c+ r !. :T. . '�.+ f!i : i�� s.��n,�-��. � .' �t: - .'� ' . �� , ��` � �: , ; , :_ : . . ' 1 , — �' ' • '- ' . . . :.s •. '� 4 , , , . . �' . _ i., ,' �` t. �' '•. � �;� � ,� ;. � :� .� : :i. � ;i:; � •, � .: ; ". , -=;�. >� �� `�: �` � �` :� , .' �l �' �� . .. .. . ,�.. � 1 ., , � , � . ,�,. • , - � �. . . :� . , �. �: �' : � : ,aa :t : .. . . : .., ' .:.. . ;.�, ,.. . •. �•-, ; . . .. '. .. : - . . � ' .. �' . : � . . .. .. . � � ; . . .-� .�:. . �` � ; :;` ; , �_ ; � : i �; `. ' •: �:�� E�y Chad E. Leqve, MASAC Technical Advisor Sepiember 19, 20�0 _. •-• -- Tabie of Figures oeeessa�e��e�meese��eao�e��o��c�e��e��• '�� introduciion ............................... .�/ •��s�s��■ ' V SECTION 1: F�4R Par-t 15O and niISP ......................o........................ 1 MSP Part 150 Update .......:........................................... .........................1 ............................................ Mitigafion Measures Associated With FAR Part 150 ..................................................................... 2 Quantifying Noise Impact and Sound Insulation Eligibiiity ........................................................... 3 Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) ........................................................................................... � SoundInsulation Eiigibility ............................................................................................................... SECTfoP� 2: IVIETROPOL.ITAN AIRC�FT SC�UND A�ATE�IEiVT COUNC1L��o��ne��ee��n��s��e��ra��s��a��s 5 MASACand the Part 150 Update ..................................................................................................... 6 MASACOperafions Committee ..................:.................................................................................... 7 MASAC Communica6ons Advisory Board ..........................:............................................................ � MASAC Sponsored Pubiic Workshops ........................................:................................................... ��-[�7�[�c�1 Updated IUISP Par� '� 50 Prograr�n ................................ NoiseMitiga�on Measures ...............................................................................................................3 Noise Abatement Departure Profiles .............................................................................................. 9 RunwayUse System ....................................................................................:................................10 Runway 17 Departure Fiight Tracics ...................................................................::.........................12 River Departur� arxi Arrival Flight Tracks ......................................................................................14 LowDemand Ff'�ght Tracks ............................................................................................................15 Provision for On-Going Evalua�ons of Global Posi#ioning System (GPS) Technology ..................16 Vofuntary Nightfime Operations Agreements Wdh the Airiines ......................................................17 � �' � Low Frequency Noise Abatemerrt ................................................................................................. 17 L.and Use Measures ..........................................................................................:.............................18 Recommended Land Use Measures .............................................................................................18 Noise.Mitigation Implementation Policy Provesions ....................................................................19 .. Contour Boundary Defini�on ..........................................................................................................19 Single-Family and Mutti-Family Sound Insulation Priority .............................................................. ZO ��1I��s�veaa��aa�s�ameaea��o�oeoe��a��oers�eeeev�ae�e�m�em• `f� AppendixA ...............a�.........,.........o.....................e..e.. 23 20Q5Mitigaied Contour ...................................................................................•--............................. 23 11 �igure 1: Day-Nigi�t Average Sound Level (DNL) Noise IVle�ric Descripiion ��n�e�ee��e��asno�een�s• 3 Figure 2: Close-In vs. Dis�ant NADP Impac�s �l'ithin the Contouresse�a��sna��e��oe�n��ee��s��■ 9 Figure 3: tV��P Runvvay Con�guratian and Runvvay Use Terminotogy ......................................1'i Figure 4: Runway 17 Departure Flight Tracf�s Vliith a 2.5 Nauiical 1VIii� � E Turr� Pointn��a��a 13 Figure 5: Lowr Dernand Ftight Tr�cks ...................... 15 Figure fi: Current I�ISP Sound Insula�ion Contour Boundary De�nition��eeaeooeaemaseoessasmasev.,ee 20 �e� i j The issue of airpo�t noise coniinues to be of paramount importance to the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). Realizing the noise impacts the Minneapo(is/St. Paul Intemationa( Airport (MSP) imposes on surrounding communities, the MAC has pursueti muttiple noise reduction programs around MSP. A significant part of this effort has been the establishmerrt of a Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150 Program at MSP. Since 1987 Part 150 has provided funding sources and effecfive solutions addressing the noise impacfs around the airport. The Part 150 program has a long history at MSP and has evolved over the years to address the changing noise impacts that aviation develapment and expansion can influence. This document provides specific information related to the most recent Part 150 iniiiative - the 200Q MSP Part 150 Update. This update is an example of comprehensive community involvemerrt and extensive analytical efforts. The precedent-setting elements of this study and the manner in which they were addressed, from a noise impact modeling perspective, represent an example of thorough noise impact assessmerrt. This effort resulted in extensive noise. mitigation proposals to address noise impacts around MSP, well into the future. The following infonnation will provide a summary of the 2000 MSP Part 150 Update 0 .s r� There is no question that the Minneapolis/St. Paul Irrtemational Airport (MSP) imposes nois� impacts on neighboring communities. Realizing this, the Metropoiitan Airports Commission (MAC) has actively developed and implemented a number of programs and procedures aimed at reducing residential noise impacts. These initiatives include insulating homes in areas of high noise impact, in addition to coordinated efforts with surrounding communities to reduce the introduction of non-compaiible land uses in areas of known noise impacts. Federal Aviation Regufation (FAR) Part 150 provides a means for airports to accompiish comprehensive noise reduciion goals. FAR Pa�t 150 is a federal program appropriating aviaiion-generated funds far the purpose of aircraft noise mitigation measures in communities surrounding an airport (ncluding sound insulation). Currerrtly MSP appropriatss $36.5 miltion annually for the Residential Sound Insulation Program. However, the abi(iiy for an airport authority to use Part 150 funds or any aviation generated funds for the purpose of noise mitigation hinges upon completion and federal acceptance of approved noise mitigation measures proposed in a Part '! 50 study. The Part 150 process provides airport operators with the procedur�s, standaRls and methodology goveming the development, submission and review of airport noise e�osure maps (iypically referred to as corrtours) and airpo�t Noise Compatibility Programs (NCPs). � J A Part 150 program has been in place at MSP since 1987. Since the program was updated in 1991 and the resider►iial sound installation program began in 1992, the MAC has insulated approximately 5,882 homes in Minneapotis, Richfield, Bloamington, Eagan and Mendota Heights at a total cost of �148.9 milfion. Construction has started or is planned for an additional 1,418 homes. As the MAC continues to strive for residential noise impact reduction around MSP, the NCP componer}ts, as included in the Part 150 Pragram at MSP, will co�rtinue to be the comerstone of noise reduction iniiiaiives at MSP. Because of the impending change in the noise environmerrt around Minneapolis/St. Pauf �� Irrtemational Airpoct (MSP), substantial research, analysis, study and pubfic input was conduded via the federally defined guidefines of a Part 150 Upciate. A key componerrt of a Part 150 program is the development of a Noise Exposure Map (NE111�, commonly referred to as a noise contour. Noise contours outline the areas eligible for compatible land use plans, property acquisifion, residential �location and saund ` insulation. In addition, airport use, aircraft operations and airspace usage amendments can be pursued via a Part 150 program. The manner in which an airport is operated and aircraft procedures are executed have a direct effect on the noise impact around an �� airport. As a resutt, operational procedures contained in a Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) can have a direct effect on the shape and size of the noise contours. In tum, the resulting noise contours define the areas eligible for sound insulation. Thus, as a r�sutt of t �j the prQjected changes in the aperations at MSP due to the change in aircraft fleets and the addition of a new runway, a Part 150 Update is being conducted. ' Currently the Metropolitan Airpo�#s Commission (MAC), the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound - Abatement Council (MASAC) and HNTB Corporation (MAC's environmental noise consultant) are preparing a Part 150 Update. The update is predicafed on forecasted 2005 ai�po�t conf�guration and use, airiine fleet mix, airspace use and proposed noise reduefion measures. � (' - ; The draft document will be completed in October Z000 with two consecutive public hearings in November 2000. The final Part 150 recommendations are subject to i1AAAC and Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) review, comment and approval. After deterrnining its adequacy, the FAA has 180 days to approve or disapprove the provisions in the document. For mor�e information on the update process, visit the MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Program's website at www.maca�sat.org or check local papers for meeting times and dates. While the Part 150 program is most o�ten associa#ed with sound insutation (usuaNy the most significant portion of a Pa�t 150 program), there are many other components. A Noise Compatibility Pragram (NCP) can cantain a-number of noise compatibility measures. These measures typically focus on airport or aircraft operational noise mitigation measures, land use measures and any other noise reduction initiatives. Part 150 operational initiatives usuatly include mitigation measures such as: e Aircrafi Departure and Arrival Procedures ♦ Runway Use Selecfion ♦ Flight Trac6c Usage ♦ Airport Use Gonsiderafions — which can include aircraft type-speci#ic provisions or time of aircraft operation considerations � � Part 150 land use initiatives usualfy include mitigation measures such as: Preverrialive Land Use l�feasurns — effo�ts to prevent the introdudion of incompatible land uses, where applicable, around the airport; and ♦ Carrecfive Land Use Measures — efforts to correct existing incompatible land uses around the airport Other mitigation measur�s not directly related to operational procedur�es or land use measures, which focus on reducing or quantifying noise around an airport, can include: Airport Improvemenis Helping to Reduce Noise — including any new� noise- reducing or measuring technologies F� t" � The Federal Aviation ?,dministration (FAA) evaluates a{4CP based on several different cri�eria incluc�ing deierminaiion oi the buraen o� intersiate or for�ign commeree, reducti�n of e;,isiing non-compatible land �ses and prevention of ihe aodiiion of �ew non-compaii�ie (and uses. Additionally, the F.4A �eviews ��he use af nevv or moGiiied flight proce�uies io conirol fhe aperation of aircra� for the purposes oT noise miiigation. Tne FAA comprehensively explores �he objeciives o� Yhe prograrn and any measures used to acnieve zhe �oise mitigation goals. Through :his process, ihe F� accepis o� rejecis any or aIl of the rri�tigaiion measures ouilined in the �rogram. ii ;:,: .:. y .,.• — bx�.�: Since iis creation in uniform process for quantifying aircraft noise exposure through the use of a standarciized noise metric. Tfie Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) uses the lntegrated Noise Model (INM) to assess the noise impact of aircraft aperations. INM is a computer model used to develop Noise E�cposure Maps (NEMs), to determine noise impact areas. INM uses runway use, aircraft operations, flight track use, aircraft performance and .. terrain informe#ion fo generate an NEM. The computer model generaies contours that depict areas of noise 1984, Part 150 has provided a means of establishing a nationally impact based Oft a o Figure 1: Day-Night Average Sound level (DNL) noise metric descripiion noise metric called Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL). The DNL coniourS generated, are the focal point of any noise mitigaiion me�sure proposed in a Part 150 program. - The DNL metric is calcufated by adding all the sound er,gosure during the daytime plus a 10-decibe) penatty during the nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:Q0 a.m.). The night sound ex�osures are increased by 10 decibeis because nighttime noise is more intrusive. Most federal agenc.ies dea(ing with noise e�osure, inciuding the FAA, Departmerrt of .. Defense and the Department of Housing and U�an Development, have formally adop#ed DNL as a metric for measuring noise impact. ., � � . � .. , In most large-scale Part 150 programs, sound insulation is inctuded as one of the mitigation measures. At Minneapotis(St. Paul Intemational Airport (MSP), sound insulafion is a significarrt por�ion of the Part 150 program. The MSP Pa�t 150 update will provide a current assessment of today's noise environrnent (year 2000) and a projection of tiie impacts for 2005. The document will corttain all of the data and supporting infotmation for the noise mitigation recommendations including the f�!{owing: .�. ♦ Noise Exposur� Maps (NEMs) with naise, airpart layout, air�raft operations, and extensive lartd use data ♦ A noise compatibifify program detailing the noise abatemerrt measures ♦ Lanti use measures that ensure future noise compatibitity ♦ Resutts of a public hearing and extensive teehnical review ♦ Comments and responses relative to the Draft Part 150 Documerit T(�e MSP Noise Compatibifity Program (NCP) goes beyond typical FAA noise insulation � programs. This plan recommends insulating single-family hames (eligibility for multi-family homes is also being evaluatec� located in the 60 DNL contour. Traditionally, the FAA has recognized the 65 DNL contour as the area of eligibility for noise insulation. Wdh this update, the MAC is requesting sound insulation out to the 60 CtNL corrtour. If the FAA approves the Part 150 update, the MAC can then apply for separate approval to allocate aviation-generated funds (federal aviation dollars and locatly generated Passenger Facility Charges) for ftnancing the sound insulaiion program out to the 60 DNL contour. The prioritization for single-family and mufti-family residences, sc.�ools and day cares is deteRnined on a local level with significartt input from surrounding communities. The overall priority of homes within the approved Part 150 NEM contour is based on actual impact data available through the MAC's Airport Noise and Operation Monitoring System (ANOMS). Homes impacted the most receive first priority for insulation. 4 / , 4 C pac4cets. MASAC also hosts regular information sessions for the community to explain current noise abatement policies and discuss future programs. The siudy and evaluation of co�nplainis from neighboring residents, accomplished through a 24-hour phone line. Each complaint is recorded and filed by the MAC noise staff. At the end of each month, the file is reviewed and statistics are compiled regarding the number, type and geographic origin of complaints. The resutts are then presertted at mortthiy MASAC meetings. This process provides peop(e in the community with dir�ct access to tf-ie MAG and MASAC, which in tum, helps those or�anizations examine the e�ent of noise concems in specific areas. Using the hotline, callers can speak with a MAC representafive in person during business hours, leave a recorcied comment or noise complairrt or otrtain more infotmation about noise and other airpart issues. MASAC board members serve on a voluntary basis. Funding for research, staffi worlc, equipment and supp{ies is provided by the MAC. For more information ahout MASAC or noise abatement-related� poticies, please call Chad Leqve at (612) 725-G328 or visit MASAC's Web site at www.macavsat.org/MASAC. In February 1999 the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), wi#h consuitation from the HNTB Corporation, along wifih the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) began the process of updating the Part 150 Program at Minneapolis-St. Paul Intemafional Airport (MSP). Since that time, a comprehensive proposal has been developed addressing noise impacts at MSP through 2005. As part of the update process MASAC r�viewed and provided input on the following Part 150 topics: ♦ Validation of the Integrated Noise Maiel (INN� noise contour modeling software and the methodology used to forecast future noise impac#s e Airport and aircraft noise mitigation measures and policy ♦ Boundaries defining insulation eligibility o Existing and proposed land use measures and insulation pmjects ♦ lnsulation priorrties for single-farnily, mufti-famiiy, schaolsldaycare faciii�ies. As part of the Part 150 update process, a reevaluation of the noise impacts within the commun�ies has been conducted to accourrt for increased aircraft operations at MSP. As a resuft of this evaluation, homes wiil be added to the currerrt Part 150 eligibility area. The insulation of the newly acided homes is anticipated to begin in eariy 2002 or as soon as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approves the Part 150 Update, shou{d the approva! date ex#end beyond the eariy 2002 completion timefcame for existing singie- family ciwellings in the current program. � ( �1 _ 6 Due to MASAC's unique composition of commun'ify and airline representatives, accessibifity and coordination of critical data sets have been enhanced. Information such as forecasted aircraft couctts and fleet composiiions from ai�fines, airspace managemerrt information frorn the FAA and exisfing land use and planning information from community represer�tatives, has been a tremendous asset to the update process. MASAC and the MASAC Operations Committee he(d briefings, priorto involvemerrt in the update process, on the history of the Federal Aviation Regulation Part 150 program, the Fustory of Part 150 progra�tts at MSP, the .Pa� 150 process, terminology, noise metrics and the noise mode(ing methodofogy used. This review of Part 150-speafic topics by MASAC corttributed to insightful input into the Pa�t 150 Update. MASAC's involvemer�t in the Part 150 Update has been crTiical to ensuring that adequate public input occurs throughout the errtire pracess. . . / � � � . . .. . � - - The MASAC Operafions Committee addressed the vast majority of the in-depth analyses assoaated with the final MASAC Part 150 Update recommendations. The MASAC Operations Committee serves as an advisory Committes to the full MASAG The focus of this group is in-depth exp(oration of teciinical issues, typically more than members of the full MASAC twdy will address. This allows the MASAC Operations Cammittee members to cancentrate heavily on the operational initiafives of the Council's charter. The MASAC ci�airman appoirrts the MASAC Operaiians Committee Chairman and the mernbership is comprised of equal public and airiine representation. . . . y . . . ,, .:. :;. :. .i ' � In June 1999 MASAC estabtished the MASAC Communicaiions Advisory Board (CAB). Beginning the first quarter 2000, the MASAC CAB began pub(ishing the quarterly MASAC News newsletter. Throughout the rest of the year the MASAC GAB pubfished severat articfes on MASAC Part 15Q Update initiatives, providing a chronological documentation of the Council's efforts and the progression of the Part 150 Update process. Editions of MASAC News can be found on the Irrtemet at www.macavsat.arc,�/MASAC/ newsttr table.htmL �_. �. _,� � ,. .,�;,.•: ,,�.. As part of the Part 150 Update process, MASAC sponsored three sets of pub(ic meetings. The firs# series of public workshops, held in September 1999, provided information on the need for an update, the Part 150 process and cor�tour modeling. The second round of workshops focused on the 2005 fotecasts, past Part 150 program recommendations and various preliminary aircraft and airport noise reduction recammendations. The third and final workshop focused on MASAC's roie in the Part 150 process, impacted communities and the MAG's recommended mitigation s#rategies for the Part 150 update (irtcluding the sound insulation program). 7 The Update process is yielding new noise mitigation initiatives and is va(idating existing procedures at the Minneapolis/St. Paul Intemational Airpart (MSP). Using technological advancemenis, the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) is increasing modeling accuracy and is attempting to extend noise insulation boundaries beyond present federal guidelines. As a result, the MSP Part 150 Update is proving to be a naiional precedent- setting initiaiive. The Part 150 Update has resulted in a comprehensive Noise Compatibifity Program (NCP). The NCP inGudes provisions for operational noise mitigation and land use measures (nGuding sound insulation). The aircraft and airport operaiional noise mitigation initiatives focus on: + Noise Abafemerrt Departure Profiles (NADP) o Runway Use Sysiem ♦ Depariure Flight Tracf�.s ♦ Volurrtary Operational Agreemerris Wi� the Airlines ♦ Provisions for Further Evaluation of Technology �and use noise mitigation initiatives include: ♦ Corrtinuing and expanding the Part 950 sound insulaiion program ♦ Bringing /oca/ land use plans irrto compliance witfi Metrapolitan Council Noise Compatibiliiy Guidelines e Zoning for campa#ible developmerrt ♦ Applying zoning performance sfandards ♦ Establishing a public intormation program ♦ Revising building codes + Acquiring deve/oped property in incompatible use areas ♦ lnvestigating the application of a property purchase guarar�tee o Sound Buf�ers and Barriers The following infoRnation provides further description of the above provisions focusing on new initiatives as incfuded in the Pa�t 150 Upciate. C� �;, c; When the airp4rt operator selects a departure profile, air carriers are required to implemerrt the selected NADP for use on the specified runways. in parallel runway situations, such as the case at MSP, the same procedure must be used when departing in the same direction off the parallel rurnnrays. � - �ioise Abaiement Depariure Pr�file Recammec�dation One of the major aircraft operational procedures providing substantial noise reduction as inGuded in the Part 150 Update, is the implementation of the Distant Noise Abatement Depatture Profife for all runways at MSP. This action represerits an endorsement of the Distant Departure Profile procedure, which is already in use on runways 12L,12R, 22, and 04. Additionally the use of the Distant Departure Profile off runway 17 is consistent with the procedures, modeled in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared for the developmerrt of that runway. The resutting change is over the Souih Minneapoiis area where currently the Close-In Departure Profile is used. This recommendation �duces the number of residents impacted within the 60+ DNL Unmitigated Contour by approximately 9,800 residents. The decision to implemerrt fhe Distant Departure Profile on all runways, through the Part 150 Update process, was a resuft of significarrt review and analysis by the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatemetrt Council (MASAC}, local govemments, the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and MACs consuftant, HNTB. Implementation of the procedure can be pursued concurrently with the submittal and approval of the Part 150 Update by the authority granted to fhe airport operator as pa�t of the FAA's NADP Adv"isory Circular provisions. : ,r7'�1'^?^'►rii ^�_��'�. l } The implementation of a Runway Use SysEem (RUS) as a noise mitigation element at an airport can provide additional noise redudion benefris as part of an airport's overa{I operational philosophy. An effective RUS, when approached from the perspective of aircraft overflight noise reduction, can solidify runway use selections that minimize residential overflights around an ai�port while at the same time maximizing the use of exisiing compatibfe land uses. The challenge of successful RUS implementation is striking a balance between runway use, for the purpose of maintaining safe and expedient operations into and out of an airport, with minimizing the noise impact on surrounding residential areas. Through the process of reviewing possible noise mitigation measures contained in the Part 150 Update Noise Compatibil�ty Program (NCP), the MASAC Operations Committee reviewed the possibility of implementing a revised RUS. The ev�ivation encompassed several analyses. Implementation of an RUS is predicated on several variables including the following: o Weather and wind conditions e Safety a Capacity and flow requirements ♦ Traffic Demand e Airc.raft Separation �� C C o Depart Runways 30U30R and arrive Runways 12U12R at all other times By using the proposed preferred RUS departure runway priorities of 12's, 17, ZZ, 04, 30's �� and arrival runway priorities of 30's, 35, 04, 22, 12's, the proposal results in a reduciion of 540 people within the 60+ DNL contour (the popuiation change values are relative to the 2005 Unmitigated Contour). - r-.. - • _. . . - The introduction of Runway 17/35 in 2003 will change the dynamics of the noise environment around MSP. This is especially significant when generating noise contours and a Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) as part of a Part 150 Update pretlicated on 2005 airport operations. As part of the review process for runway 17/35 the E1S and Record of Decision (ROD) stated that noise abatement measur�s could evaluate departure tracks off Runway 17 in an effort to avoid populated areas in close proximity to MSP, specificafly in Bloomington. Pursuant to that initiative, MASAC irnestigated flight track options off Runway 17 through the Part 150 Update process. The E{S contained a series of proposed fli9ht tracks off Runway 17 that inGuded tracks aA" through °G", which provided a 190° heading fan from 95° clockwise to 285°. Using these tracks as a siarting point, MASAC began an evaluaiion of possible flight track opiions off Runway 17. Throughout the process consideration was given to procedures that provide sufficient guidance to ensure that aircraft of varying performance capabili#ies could avoid, as much as possible, populated areas wtiile en-route to their destinations. The MASAC Operations Committee goals refative to the Runway 17 departure flight track anafysis were as follows: ♦ Reduce.noise impacts within the 60+ DNL corttour ♦ Avoid increased overflights of other communities o Maintain runway capacity ♦ Feasible implementation by FAA/Air Traffic Corttrol ♦ Provide positive guidance to aircraft so they can reasonably follow desired fiight tracks e Allow for Possible future transition to FMS/Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation Wrth the above goals as the comerstone af the evaluation efforts, several options were discussed. The options included varying departure track fan concentrations ranging from a 60° fan (heac3ings ffom 140° to 200� to a full 190° fan (headings from 095° to 285�. These various scenarios also included the proposed deletion of EIS mafeled tracks, in some cases, to accommodate the various departure fan ranges. As a result of the extensive analyses conducted by the MASAC Operations Committee and the Rurrway 17/35 City Group, a proposal was developed that addressed the areas west and east of nmway heading (170� uniquely relative to the existing land uses on eiiher side of runway heading. ; ' ._ .- 12 �'' l 6Z�n�av�r�gp � 7 Depac�ur� 4=1o�fa� �'rack 6t�-.,�aa�a�rta�iia�eion After significant review, MASAC recommended that operations which have initial i departure headings east of runway heading (headings from 35° to 170� should initiate their tums as soon as possible when departing Runway 17. This recommendation was macie due to the fact that there is no one flight path considered "better" than anather when departing to the southeast over the existing residentially developed areas. This is consisient with the EIS documentation for Runway 17. When conducting the same evaluation fo� depatture headings west of centeriine (headings from 170° to 285� two main considerations arose: (1) Heavily residential devefoped areas exist west of runway heading almost immediately off the runway end and (2) the Minnesota Rive� Valley south of the airpo�t offers an area where departure operaiions could overfly at higher altitudes in an effort to reduce residential overtlight impacts close-in to the airport. As a resuft of the deliberations, a delayed tum point off runway heading (170� for westbound jet departures offered a solution that not only reduced the number of residents within the 2005 Mitigated Contour but was also feasible for impfementation according to the FAA's airspace management criteria. _ As a result of evaluations and comprehensive input from ItIIASAC, the MASAC Operations. Committee and the Runway 17/35 City Group, the recommended Runway 17 departure fracks include depariure tums as soon as possible for departures east of 170° to 95° and a_ 2.5 nautical mile (from the start of takeof� tum point, as determined by Distance •, Figure 4: Runway 17 deparfure tracks with a 2.5 nautical mile DME turn point Measuring Equipmeni (DME}, at which time jet depa�ture operations would tum from runway heading (170� to westbound departure headings between 170° and 285°. t _' 13 ; i �.�� .. _ �.+. �. _ . .,r .. �... �: In an effort to further utiiize the compatible land use which the Minnesota River Valfey ' offers south of MSP, consideration was given to specific procedures that would ma�cimize the overfiight of the river valley for departures off Runway 17 and amvals on Runway 35. Through significant evaluation and wrth input from the FAA three options were developed. 62ecome�erided River Departune and Arrival Flight Tr.�cks As a resuft of the rnerttioned anaiysis, two Runway 17 river departure procedures and one Runway 35 river arrival procedure were incorporated into the Part 150 Update. The three procedures inciude a published river departure procedure, river heading depa�ture flight track and a visual river approach procedure. Publisheti River Departure Procedure This procedure would be implemented via a published departure procedure for Runway 17. It is intended to route Runway 17 departure operations over the Minnesota River Valley, avoiding residential areas. The procedure would direct aircxaft to fly a straight-out heading of 170° u�il reaching a tum pflint located three nautical miles from the start of takeoff roll. At that point, the aircraft would tum to a heading of 245° to overfly the river. This procedure is intended for aircraft departing to the south and west of the airpo�t. Because of the capacity impact this procedure poses during mid and high traffic demand time at the airport; this procedure would most likefy only be used during low demand time periods. This would equate to typical procedural use between the hours of 12:15 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. River Headinq Departure Fliqht Track This procedure designates the 230° heading as a river heading, when used in conjunction with the 2.5 nautical mile tum depa�ture fan off Runway 17. The 230° heading (Traak L) routes aircraft over the river valley. Because this procedure is not a published procedure, and not part of a flighi plan, the heading can be assigned by the Air Traffic Control Tower as part of the takeoff clearance. This would allow for the procedure to be used at any fime when the FAA personnel in the Air Traffic Control Tower can work it into the traffic flow. This procedure.is intended for aircraft departing to the south and west of the airpo�t. Visual River Approach Procedure This procedu�e considers a visual river approach to Ru�way 35 that routes arriving aircraft over the river valley. The purpose of this procedure is to reduce aircraft arrival overflights of residerrtial areas. Aircraft using this procedure would approach from the southwest, flying a 65° heading over the river. As the aircraft nears the airport, it would tum on to final approach and aiign with Runway 35. � 14 C, Several issues need to be resolved prior to irr�plemeniation of this oroce�urc, inciuding airspac� design, F{ighi Standards Dis�ric� Of�ice (FSDO) concurrenc� and -iight iesiing. Also, addi�ional analysis would be required io determina if `che procedure could be s�fely used ai night. . . �� G�en�t��¢x1 �8o�f� �"i �� In an efrort to reduce noise impacts during low demand periods the MASAC �perations Committee endorsed �referred aepariure iracks �o� runways 30L, 12J�2R, 0�, ?2 and 17. The inient of this inria�ive was to deiermine flightirack priorities and procedures for us� by Air Trai�ic Conirol (ATC), which wauid rninimize the impactec! population, for use during low demand periods. �w t�esaa�ax8 �rla�6�'fl"c�c8c 6a�ensua�e�c0��iore In orrJer to establish the best low demand flight tc�acks for each runway, HNTB used DC9 hushkit, 90 dBA SEL contours to measure impact. The resultant MASAC Opsraiions Committee proposal does not severeiy detour aircraft from their destination and is intended to give ATC guidance on seleciion of appropriate flight tracks during low-demand periods praducing the least amouni of noise impact on residents. i his does not negate • Figure 5: Low demand flight tracks deviation from these tracks for the purposes of saiety, aircra�t performance, pilot comptiance, weafher and traffic conflicis. Below are MASACs recommendaiions by nanway. . Runwav 04 o When praciical; ATC�wiil assign headings that roughiy overily the river basin (appror.imaieiy 355°true/353° magneiic). However, precise navigation �f this rouie is not possible without extema! navigation to aid the pilot. i herefore, a departure � _-' '�5 procedure (DP) that overflies the river basin for use by non-heavy and high- performance aircraft should be devefoped and implemented. Runwav 22 ♦ Develop and implemerrt two departure procedures, a west DP and a south DP. ♦ West DP - Ftight track over the I-494 Highway Comdor for use by westbound and northbound traffic. o South DP - Flight track with a tum prio� to Cedar Avenue and then another tum to the southwest over the river f+�r use by westbound and southbound traffic. Runwav 12L and 12R e Continue use of the Crossing in the Comdor procedure. ♦ Investigate use of future technology to optimize flight track location and further minimize the impacted populaiion. Runwav 30L and 30R ♦ Corrtinue the existing procedure of dispersing depa�ture traffic away from the runway center[ine flight track to avoid concentrating both arrival and departure traffic on the same flight track. e Investigate a DP that overfiies Trunk Highway 62. Runwav 17 ♦ Disperse departure traffic away frorn the centerline flight track to avoid concentrating arrival and departure traffic. o Eastbaund departures use a 095° heading ♦ Southbound departures use a 160° heading ♦ Westbaund depariures use a 185° heading e Investigate use of a river DP for use by westbound departures � � Development of sorne of the above DPs will require the use of precision navigaiion _ technologies such as FMSIGPS. In an effort to implement the above procedures, coordination with the FAA will be paramourrt in deteRnining the -feasibil"ity and implemer�tation options with respect to the proposed DP per �unway. The evaluation of new navigation technologies is currently being conducted as part of a GPS Needs Assessment. This Assessment will consider the irrtegration of GPS-related applicaiions and technologies at MSP as an element of the Pa�t 150 Update Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) recommendations. • , ,,. , � � � . . , . � . ., '. . . . � . . : . . - . - . . _.: As part of the developmerrt of various mitigation measures for the Part 150 Update, MASAC and the MASAC Operations Committee undertook an evaluation of GPS technology from the perspective of noise reduciion around MSP. The evaluation yielded findings that highiighted the need for a national FAA po(icy relative to GPS technology in concert with national airport and aircraft GPS augmentation in order to fully realize the benefrts of GPS technology in helping to enhance noise programs at the pation's airports. Gf*S Evaluation Recamr�sen�c6atio+� As a resutt of the evafuation, it was determined that GPS technology, atthough available, is not currently at the poirrt of offering immediate noise-reducing aircraft operational enhancements because of the meniioned variables. However, as the technoiogy � 16 continues to become irrtegrated irrto the National Airspace System, future applications could prove beneficial to enhancing aircraft operational noise reciudion ini�iatives at airports. Therefore, MASAC approved the exploration of GPS/FMS technology to evaluate existing and proposed departure and arrival procedures as a future noise mitigation measure as part of the Part 150 Update mitigation program. � . - •, . - • • _ _ _ ,,, , r _ . _._... : r , . .r� � .r.. �. �. Throughout the Part 150 Update process, the MAC and MAC's consuftant (HMB) have worked closely with airfines operating at MSP to compile accurate fleet mix information for the development of the 2005 Noise Exposure Maps (cantours). As part of this process, extensive evaluations were conducted on behalf of the airlines and the MASAC Operations Committee with regard to the reduction of nighttime operations at MSP. . .: � . . - - .-. • Several options were evaluated from the perspective of all parties involved. The resuft of this cooperative effo�t was approval and endorsement by MASAC of a voluntary nighitime agreement with airiines operating at MSP. The agreement woufd state that, to the greatest extent possibfe, airiines operating at MSP should nat schedule operations in the nighttime hours beiween 10:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. The agreement would further state that, if an operation must occur during this timeframe, ihe aincraft used shoufd be the quieter (non- hushkitted) manufactured Stage 3 aircraft. Special excepiio�s would appiy to operations that occur during the nighttime hours because of emergencies, mechanical problems, Air Traffic Control delays and weather. . - . - . �.-- .— �- - ! % The Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee (a group consisting of representaiives from Richfield, Bloomington, Minneapolis and the MAC that studied the impad of low frequency noise on residential properties) has produced a report that addresses low frequency noise impacts and mitigation tactics which-will be incorporaterl into the Part 150 Update. The Commiftee, established through an agreement between the city of Rict�field and the MAC in December 1998, received technical support from the FAA, Minnesota Pailution Control Agency, Metropolitan Council, MASAC and industry�expe�ts. One expert was appointed by the MAC, one by the city of Richfield and the third was appointed by the first two designated experts. The goal of the�Committee was to establish a descriptor for low frequency noise, a threshold, proposed mitigation and associated policies. The scope of the MSP low frequency noise study is significant because it goes beyond other studies undertaken by the FAA and other airports. Low Fres�uency P�oise Recamrr�er�datioras On August 10, 2000 the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee met to discuss the draft �ow Frequency Noise Po(icy Committee Report. The draft document was approved outlining the Harris and Fidell contours and the resultant policy contour, which outlines the mitigation areas relaiive to the 87 dB, 78 dB and 70 dB Low Frequency Sound Levels (LFSL). The recommendations for treatment to reduce interior LFSL in existing residerrtial areas are as follows: ; � _ 17 o<70 dB LFSL: no treatmerrt to reduce rattie and no requiremerrt to reduce interior �FSL. ! 0 70-TT dB LSFL: treat ratfie diredly and decrease interior LFSL by 5 dB (Based on findings of the social survey, the existing Part 150 Residentia{ Sound Insulation Pragrarn provides the equivalent of 5 dB reduction, therefore no fu�ther reduciion is necessary.) ♦ 78-86 dB LFSL: treat rattle direct(y (may not be fully adequate) and decrease interior LFSL by 5 d8 and consider reducing by more than 5 d6. a>87 dB LFSL: treat rattle directly (probably not fully adequate) and decrease interior LFSL by at least 10 dB (probably not economically feasible). In addition to the above recommended treatments the repork outlined recommended rattle prevention and limits for interior LFSL for new construction. Below is a summary of the infoRnation: ♦<70 dB l.FSL: no rattle treatment and no special requiremer�t for interior LFS� reduction. s 70 77 dB LSFL.: rattle preve�ion and 15 dB interiar LFS� reduciion. ♦ 78-86 dB LFSL: cattle prevention and 20 d6 interior LFSL reduction. ♦>87 dB LFSL: do not develop for residential use. The next siep in the approval process includes submittal to the FAA via incorporation in ( � the Part 150 Update document. Addiiional information, such as the number of affected -� units and associated costs, are being generated. A Noise Compatibility Program (P1CP), in addition to operational no'�se mitigation measutes, inGudes a mu��itude of Land Use (Ll� Measures (the portion of the NCP that addresses sound insulaiion). NCP measures focused on land use iniiiatives usualfy include measures associated with:. o Prever►iafive Land Use Measures (efforts to preverrt the introduction of incompatible land uses around the airport) ♦ Correcfive Land Use Measures (efforts to Eorrect existing incompatible land uses around the airport) The Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Operations Committes reviewed 14 tatal land use measures for cansideration. .��, �'-• 'u: ' �- Eight of the 14 evaivated land use measures were existing Pa�t 150 land use measures modified siigMly for incorporation into the Part 150 Update. The Cauncil endor�ed the original eigM land use measures with slight modifications. Sa additional fand use � __ 18 measures were eva{uated resulting in the endorsement of one additional land use measure (LU9 - Creation of sound bufferslbarriers). The land use measures that were anafyzed and approved by MASAC are as follows: ♦ LU1: Bring local land use plans into compliance with Metropofitan Council Noise Compatibiiiiy Guidelines: Metropolitan Council, the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and MASAC have developed language that designates the DNL 60 as the land use planning standard fo� the application of preventative and corrective land use measures. ♦ LU2: Zone for compatible development: Based on the new Metropolitan Council land use p{anning language, communities should adopt zoning classifications and ordinances that prevent future incompatible land use. e LU3: Apply zoning perfonnance standards: Develop new model ordinances for home constn�ction consistent with the Federal Aviation Administraiion (FAA) land use po(icies aircraft noise attenuation. � LU4: Establish a public infoRnation program: Continue to provide information utilizing-_ new technologies and muftimedia capabifities. o LUS: Revise bwilding codes: Support revision of state and local building codes to ensure interior noise level reduction as a resuft of new building techniques. ♦ LU6: Acquire developed property in incompatible use: Review the possible prac#ical appiication of this measure as part of the program in coordination with other mitigation measures. ♦ �U7: Properly purchase guarantee: Develop this program in coordination wrth othe� mitigation measures. ♦ LU8: Part 150 sound insulaiion program: Provide sound insulation in coordination with other operational mitigation measures (out to the 60 DNL contour). o LU9: Creation of sound buffers/barriers. Additionally, MASAC requested maiification to the Metropalitan CounciPs Aviation Poiicy Plan and Land Use Compatibility Guidefines to reflect language that designates the DNL 60 as the land use planning standard for all corrective and/or -preventative Part 150 measures. With Met Council's endorsement, land use planning language would be consistent for all communities within the Part 150 Program land use and impact areas. ., .., �. .. r - ,.., - Once the Part. 150 corrtours are developed, boundaries outlining the e�ctent of the mitigation area shou(d be assessed relative to homes located at the contour edge. Parcels wholfy corrtained wiihin the approved contour are eligible for sound insulation. But, parcels that are dissected by or just missed by the line need to be evaluated for inclusion with input from the commun�ties, the Metropofitan Airports Commission (MAC) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). � ) ___ _ '�9 Through input from surrounding communities and approval by the FAA, the MAC has implemented a contour boundary definition scheme that assesses sound mitigation eligibility on a block, rather than a parcel, level. ihe current p�ogram insulates alI homes on a given block that is contained within or is touched by the 65 DNL contour. l"he 2000 Part 15Q update will once again address the issue. of contour boundary definition relative to the new contour. Because the Part 150 update proposes that hames beyond the FAA-recognized 65 DNL be insulated, the Metropo{itan Aircr�ft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC), the MAC and surrounding communtiies have worked together to develop a contour boundary plan acceptable to the FAA. If the MAC and communities propose contour boundaries that are too aggressive, the FAA may disapprove_ the Part 150 Noise F�posure Map — potentially delaying or even halting -�»�� MACs abiliiy to insuiate beyond the DNL 65 contour. The MAC's proposed boundary area submission to the FAA is only preliminary. The abiiity for the MAG to deteRnine any given home's participation status cannot be considered until after the FAA approves this Part 150 Updaie. • Figu�e 6: CuRent MSP sound insulation contour boundaN definiiion Contaur Baundary Definition Recommendation � An important part of addressing noise impacts within established noise -corrtours is i' l deterxxaining how the contour line and the associated boundary of a noise mitigation `--! � program will be. addressed. The issue of determining contour boundaries varies from airport to airport throughout the nation. As a result, estabiished FAA precedent, re(ative to � �exisiing airport �oise miiigaiion program boundaries, is significant when evaluating updates to such programs. As part.of the Pa�t 150 Update, MASAC evaluated various options for defining ttie updated contour boundaries out to the 60 DNL corrtour line. Realizing the national precedent-satting implications of going out to the 60 DNL contour (cu►rently national policy reeognizes mitigation only within the 65 and. greaier DNL �ontours), MASAC reviewed all boundary definition options in detail. The resuliing MASAC recommendation for the Part 150 Update is to maintain the current boundary definition that includes alf homes within a given block that is wholly within or touched by the cantour. Sing9�ara�iiy arad Meat�ami6y Sound trtsulai»n PriQri�ly The effective management and implementation of a Residential Sound Insulation Program is contingent on several variables. One of the most critical is establishing a schedule for insulation that addresses the various types of dwelling units and their- priority relative to noise insulation. More specifically, prioritizing the insulation ofi single-family and mui�i- family dwellings within a defined impact area is a critical portion of Rart 15D Residentiai Sound Insulation Programs. Realizing this, MASAC reviewed all viable opiions for sound insulation priorities relaiive to single-family and multi-family dwellings. After considerable review and consideration of all possible opiions, keeping in mind FAA concems, MASAC approved the following sound insulaiion priority �n order of priority) as part af the Part 150 Update: � ) . _ 20 C� 1. Complete the sound insulation of single-family and duplex homes within the 1990 DNL 65 �nd greater noise contours ) 2A. Compfete the saund insulation of mutti-family residerrtial stnictures within the 1996 DN� 65 and greater noise contours in conjundion with priority ZB and then sequencing to 2C below upon FAA approval of the Part 150 Update document 26. Complete the saund insulation of single-family and duplex homes that fall within the 2005 DNL 65 and grea�er DNL noise contours 2C. Complete the sound insulation of eligible single-family and duplex homes that fall within the 2005 DNL 60 to DNL 64 noise contours 3. Complete the sound insulation of mutti-famify residential stn�ctures wrthin the 2005 DNL 65 and greater DNL noise contours in conjunction with priority 2C above upon FAA approval of the Part 150 Update document 4. Complete the sound insu{ation of mutti-family residential structures within the 2005 DNL 60 to DNL 64 noise contours .-- 5. Complete the sound insulation of nursing homes and churches with regular weekday daycare/nursery school programs within the 2005 DNL 60 contour The above priority takes into account FAA input, as well as considerations for the smooth transition from our exisEing Part 150 noise mitigation pragram to the expanded noise _mitigation program as outlined in the Part 150 Update. _� 21 C� � The Part 150 Update process has been a significarrt undettaking for the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) and the MASAC Operations Committee. Through extensive commitment and diligent efforts, a comprehensive Noise Compatibility Pragram (NGP) has been developed. The resuftant program addresses the impacts associated with future growth in aviation, as well as the introduction of a new North/South Runway at MSP. The proposed Part 150 Update NCP resutts in the following preliminary assessment of effects on popu(ation within impacted areas relative to the 2005 Unmitigated DNL Corrtours: ♦ DNL 70 dBA contour- appro�omately 230 people added ♦ DNL 65 dBA corrtour- approximately 1,030 people rema�ved ♦ DNL 60 dBA contour - approximately 13,780 people rernoved o Total change in the 60+ DNL contour - approximately 14,580 people removed from the contour It is important to note that the vast majority of people added to the contour levels between 65 and 75 DNL are already receiving noise insu{ation as part of the e�asting Part 150 � � program. The small number which are added between the 65 and 75 DNL levels, and are --- not already receiving noise insulation, is largely a resutt of runway 17/35, which impacts a predominatefy new area previously not eligible for insulation in Bloomington. Draft pubfication of the documerrt will occur on October 6, 2000. Following that, MASAC will sponsor two Part 150 Update public hearings. The public hearings will be held on November 8, 2000 and November 9, 2000, at the Thunderbird Hatel, 2201 78"' Street East, Bloomington, MN 55425-1229. A pubfic wor}cshop will be held each day from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. with the public hearing beginning at 7:00 p.m. The two dates are provided to allow a greater opporf.unity for public involvement. The format and presentation will be the same for both dates. Both written and verbal comments will be taken at the hearing. Written comments will also be accepted until 5:�0 p.m. on November 15, 2000. Following the close of the comment period, the document will be forw�rded to the Metropo(itan Airports Commission (MAC) for review and approval and then submitted fo the Federal Aviation Administration (approximately December 20, 2000) for approval. C C. �� l �...._ �--.�..,_...___..m_--_-_----- ___- . . : _. - _ - �� - �� . _ � �� _ �y.� •'_"__ o n a_-- '_ • . . • .. '�'s� _ mNQ. . . ' . �:::�„.. n �. � ' � ..,. � .-a`.... ,` o Q 3 � � • � '�i �p`► - :�� •+ S eR 2 j . :./.^ ";;+: � - vi I .., _ . . . _' • "'_"'_"_"r.' '.. _..'..-"' " _ � t _.. r ,-' . • � rf�� .. . . e•, � � ` ` ,� � � _ ' l ' . . ... _ .� - � .. ' . _, �. o < . � • \ . � r^_' _':: J' ' _ .. . - = C r ,. �•� � � � �»s�.�. . . ' - - �-�.' .,y.so_ . ..._ -�•�. ... � C - :i7.:r�i - "_' �_ ... � . ' �. . .,. .. — . r ....1' � � - � . . = C . j; . r a . : � - -- - ,:,�� z• - _ . . . ��. . : _ a . " - - . . ._ o , . . ..: _ � , .._ , _ . . :_ : ', , > � �' ,t.r � � � . � � H -��' . y; _ � ". -c .._ .. ��'� ` i �- „n` --- -- -- � � . - :�.�:� _ __._�� " _ . e�.`�.--rv� ( ''� � - , �� j - . .n.. � . i��' � . . . " �r h - �",�'.�`"`~��-�' � -- --- ^� _ ' , : _ �.�. �-.�,,,�-4�r'. � . � � ` ' . V:- � �' . . . _. , ' a � -� ..+ul±'+�^ .ryl`�% 'i�� '� .q� `�'_+.. � : . � � � 1� _ � ��,��'Tc�MY' �Y��r' �w � fi' . � �--� �'.��.�,``'�� y � �, r �•' �'� � , ��v�� '�: s ' ,,1 '�, r -,t1�� >,��,,.. . . .. . .. `,1`�„ �r'i''^'c' v } : M � . . ` _. . � � , � Y'� � . . t '� _ '� . �� ' '_' _' . . . . � f . . i . . . ; �o " � �'r :,i�r"-'-�i . � . j � i� . . . ��i �:�� ''. . . � i �1�..''-y}�-' • r ' � t � f , m '- ... -- --' ' � � - � • . w � � .. . � ...�._ _ , , . .�:� r ' r ". . . i . . . ' � i _ i _ d : '-' -_'- ! ' ._.:.I; � � " - " ;;:� ' � - -- " ' v - w - - ;; �„- � : ti _ ._ - . . . ; . _-- � < : - • ' ' - - _ � « . ,. . �'` _.., � � . . _ , . _. . _ . _ _ _. .... �. � � � C _.. , . _ _ _ ,:-:. _ �= �. �. . __w . _ , . �. - .... . .. __ , . � _ _ _.. .. .. . __ _. _... ,.._ . _ � . ' � 1 C C `' Metropolitan Aircraff Sound Abatement Council (I�ASAC� 6040 28th Avenue South � Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450 0(612) 726-8141 Chairman: Mayor Charles Mertensotto Past Chairs: Robert P. Johnson, 1995-1999 Scott Bunin, 1990-1995 Waiter Rockenstein, II, 1982-1990 Jan Del Calzo, 1979-1982 Stanley W. Olson, 1969-1979 Technicai Advisor: Chad �eqve Dear MASAC Member: You are invited to attend a special meeting of the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (lYLASAC) to discuss and give comment on the Draft Part 150 Update document before it is published to the general public. T'he meeting is scheduled for Friday, September 29, 2000 at 9:00 a.m. in the large trailer in back of the General Offices of the Metropolitan Airports Commission at 6040 28`h Avenue S., Nlinneapolis. Copies of the draft document will be mailed to each MASAC member prior to this meeting. ( � Written comments will also be accepted,,until November 15`�' if you are unable to attend this or `� subsequent meetings. Instructions on how to submit written comments on the draft document w'rll be included in the mailing of the document. If you have any questions regarding this special meeting or the Draft Part 150 Update document, please call me at 612-725-6326. Regards, . �. � � ;, *:�- _ // ti fiu Roy uhrmann Manager, l�IAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs C � ` ' Alrcrafit Sound Abatement Council (NIASAC) �vlefiro�aolitan , „S, Mlnnesota 55�150 • (b12) 72fr8141 6Qdp 2gth Avenue South Minneapo Chairman: Mayor Charies Mertensotto Past Chairs: Robert P. Johnson, 1995-1999 Scott Bunin, 1990-1995 W alter Rockenstein, II, 1982'199� Jan Dei Calzo, 1979-1982 Stanley W. Olson, 1969-1979 Technical Advisor: Chad Leqve Federal Aviation Administration O�ce of the Chief Council Attention: Rules Docket (AGC-200) Docket Number (30109J 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 To whom it may concern: September 29, 2000 The Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatem�tionCMASAC cont nually str�ves o find new and inno at�ve ways community, airline and airport represen ort MSP). Through to address airport noise issues around Minneap�olosals, MASAC has a long list of noise reducing success in cooperative decision making and insightful pr p which both the communities and the airlines played an active role. MASAC is well aware of the tremendous i�Consisotent with hatareal zati n MASAC encoura tesitheof hen noise abatement initiatives on a local leve highest deb ee of thought and consideration on behalf of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) w issues such as national noise abatement policy revision are discussed. There is no doubt that since the 1976 DbPentachie eciTat our nation's a�irports�The nat onal policyificant noise reduction accomplishments have legislation and regulation to this Pnt and impl men aponat�oursnat'on°s airports. T'hese�efforts and e Compatibility Program developme P accomplishments are not inconsequdeveloyment that cons'ders cooperative approaches to noise abatement possible through responsible policy eneral ublic's expectations. solutions, new technologies and the g P After review of the FAA's Aviation Nois e ebal omments for �your�Cons deraponias part f your policy Register on July 14, 2000, MASAC has s review. I am submitting the following comments on behalf of MASAC relative to the FAA's Aviation Noise Abatement Policy 2000 review: ♦ A new reasonable Stage 4 noiselee nd futu�rerairc aft eng nevt chnologhesh maximizes the noise reduction capabilities of availab ♦ Future policy regarding land use compatibility planning S and�s �oaat l�Cap bilities such as freeW airspace use flexibilities provided by the GPS technolo�y b � recision variable geometry approach and departure procedures. fli�ht and p ♦ Future airspac chnoloa es s�uch as GPS o�ensure proceduralump eme nabonland env ronmental navigational te �, � C ac A D05 Mitiqated Contours; c' �� ... Table of F ig u re s■��saess�aosao�rr�oe��aae�a�e��eO��e��e �" Intro d u ctio n■v��t��r��ra��'� ��." .� SECTION 'i : FAR Part 150 and IVISP —(Page 1-1 in the Part '� 5� Update Document) ...................................1 MSP Part 150 Update —(Page 1-1 in the Part 150 Update Document � ......................................1 Mitigation Measures Associated With FAR Part 150 —(Page 1-4 in the Part 150 Update 2 ....................................... . Document) ........................... Quantifying Noise impact and Sound Insulation Eligibility —(Page 1:1 in the Part 150 Updat3 Docume�t) .................................... P ) .........3 �� Day-Night Average Sound �evei (DNL) —(Page 2-6 in the Part 150 U date Document 4 _ _... - Sound Insulation Eligibil'�ty —(Page 417 in the Part 150 Update Document) .... ......... SE�.rT'�� 2: iV1ETROPOLIiAN AIRCIRAFT SC�UND A�ATEfVIENT � e 1�5 en the Pa�t '150 .. COUNCIL —��(Pag l9 date Docur�nent) ..............e....................5 p e g-1 in the Part 150 Update Document} .....................6 MASAC and the Part 150 Update —(Pa9 .7 MASAC Operations Committee —(Pa9e 9-1 in the Part 150 Update Document) ........................ MASAC Communicatioblic Workshops rd(Page &2gn the Part 150 Upda eaDocDument) nt) ::::::::::� MASAC Sponsored Pu S�� Y'p� Vr U dated MSP Pari 15O Program —(�Page �-1 in $he � Part 'i 50 Upda�e Do curnent) .....................8 Noise Mitigation Measures —(Page 6-10 in the Part 150 llpdate Document� ................: ..........9 ' 1 C _ ; � , Option 1— Additional NA Measure Measure 3— Measures to encaurage use of Manufactured Stage 3 Aircraft This measure requires MAC to develop and implement measures to encoarage operators to use manufactured Stage 3 aircrait. The purpose of this measure is to increase the use of manufactured Stage 3 aircraft at MSP. Successful � implementation of this measure will reduce the noise impacts associated with the operation of some of the loudest aircraft at MSP. Anaiysis of aircraft operations at MSP projected for 2005 indicate that noise impacts associated with aircratt operations coutd be reduced by over thirty percent if all night operations were conducted by manufactured Stage 3 aircraft. Additionally, the noise impacts could be reduced by approximately fifty percent i� all aircraft operations at MSP were conducted by manufactured Stage 3 aircraft. A detailed evaluation of this measure follows. -_ Measure 3 Measures to encourage use of Manufactured St�ge 3 Aircraft Description MAC wilI continue to evaluate measures to encourage the use of manufactured Stage 3 aircraft at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. _ _ Potentiai Noise Benefit This measure would encourage airlines to use manufactured Stage 3 aircraft. Increased use of manufactured Stage 3 aircraft will reduce noise exposure at MSP. Effects on Airport None Operations/ATC Consideratioas Impact on Airport Voluntary measure that applies only to airlines agreeing to participate in the projram. Users Only airlines with the abiIity to re-allocate manufactured Stage 3 aircraft could benefit from the proeram. -- Regional Economic None. Impacts -- Quality of Service None. Airline and Airport To be determined based on future measure details. Capital Costs Ease of Implementation and Enforcement MAG would investi�ate measures to encourage use of manufactured stage 3 aircraft. Legal Factors �Major Conclusions The measure would provide a way to encourage airlines to use manutactured 5tage 3 aircraft. Increased use of manufactured Stage 3 aircraft will reduce noise exposure at i�[SP. In addition, airline contributions to noise reduction efforts would be proportional to the manufactured stage 3 aircraft contributions at MSP. As a result, this measure is recommended for inclusion in the new noise abatement program. Action I2.eQuested MASAC members endorse the above listed modifications to NA-3 from "Noise Mana?ement Program" to "Measures to encourage use of Manufactured Stage 3 Aircraft Operations", that 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 direct staff and HNTB to include this measure with the 2000 Part 150 Update. NIEMORA�1DUiYI TO: M�,SAC Members and MASAC Advisors FRONi: Kim Hughes, P.E., H�TB Corp. '� +� � " SUBJECT: Preliminary Draft Part 150 Update for MSP . DATE: September 20, 2000 Enclosed please find the preliminary Draft Part 150 Update for MSP, the contents of �vhich will be reviewed at the September 22, 2000 Special MASAC Operations Committee meeting and at the September 26, 2000 MASAC meeting. Note that the public involvement appendix is not enclosed. This appendix consists of MASAC/MASAC Operations/Runway 17/35 Committee minutes relating to the Part 1�0 Update, public involvement si�-in sheets and comments, and materials from the public meetings. Succinctly put, the appendix is very large. I am sending a copy of the public involvement appendix to Roy Fuhrmann so that copies may be made prior to the public draft of the Part 150 Update. The public involvement app.endix, will however, be available at the above referenced meetings for your review. I look forward to receiving your comments on the document. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE Roger Hale, Chair Alton Gasper, Vice Chair Coral Houle Dick Long Bert McKasy Georgiann Stenerson Paul Weske METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION NOTICE OF REGULAR RESCHEDULED MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE Tuesday, October 10, 2000 1:00 p.m. Room 3040 Mezzanine Level Lindbergh Terminal, Wold-Chamberlain Field AGENDA CONSENT FINAL PAYMENTS — MAC CONTRACTS a. EMC Chiller Equipment — Phase 2(Dennis Kowalke, Landside Project Manager) b. EMC Cooling Towers — Mechanical and Electrical (Dennis Kowalke, Landside Project Manger) c. Lindbergh Terminal Sprinkler Modifications — 1999 (Robert Vorpahl, Program Development Engineer) � d. Green Concourse Expansion — Phase 2: Pedestrian Tunnel Shell (Todd Oetjens, Facilities Architect) e. Lindbergh Terminal 1999 Mechanical Modifications Asbestos Abatement (Robert Vorpahl, Program Development Engineer) f. Parking Expansion: Return to Terminal Loop Bridge Project (Joseph Shortreed, Landside Project Manager) g. Parking Expansion: Control Building, Canopies and Painting (Dennis Kowalke, Landside Project Manager) h. Riverside Hangar — Norih Roof Replacement — St. �aul Downtown Airport (Robert Vorpahl, Program Development Engineer) i. Holman Field Capital Improvements Project — St. Paul Downtown Airport (Robert Vorpahl, Program Development Engineer) j. Equipment .Maintenance Building Renovation & Addition — Lake Elmo Airport (Robert Vorpahl, Program Development Engineer) k. 1999-2000 Part 150 Sound Insulation Program (Joseph Shortreed, Landside Project Manager) DISCUSSION 12. PROJECT BUDGET ADJUSTMENT Gary G. Warren, Director — Airside Development 13. RELIEVER AIRPORTS SANITARY SEWER AND WATER INSTALLATION POLICY Gary E. Schmidt, Director — Reliever Airports 14. RUNWAY 17-35 PROPERTY ACQUISITION — MINNEAPOLIS ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT a. Sheraton Airport Inn Nigel D. Finney, Deputy Executive Director — Planning and Environment Thomas W. Anderson, General Counsel 15. COMMISSIONER REQUEST — RELIEVER AIRPORTS SANITARY SEWER AND WATER INSTALLATION POLICY Commissioner Weske 16. LRT UPDATE Nigel D. Finney, Deputy Executive Director — Planning and Environment t,; f. � NOTICE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR COTfVEYANCE OF THE FORMER BUREAU OF MINES, TWIN CITIES RESEARCH CENTER The public review process for conveyance of the former Bureau of Mines, Twin Cities Research Center, Main Campus, is being extended to enable additional public participation and consultation with interested parties. As part of this process, the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines Closure Team, will provide notification about the availability of a Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) and the due date for comments re�arding that Draft EA. The date for the closing of public comment will be announced in the publication of the Notice of Availability of the Draft EA. Written comments will continue to be accepted at. the following office: National Park Service 111 E. Kellogg Blvd. Suite 105 St. Paul, MN 5� 101 ` ;, t � ,, ;.r ' ' I I A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments Volume 12, Number 31 Report to Congress NOISE IS CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN CITE�D BY TOP 50 AIRPORTS IN GAO REPORT Aircraft noise was cited as the main environmentai concern of the nation's 50 busiest airports in a new General Accounting Office report to Congress released Sept.8. � � ` The greatest noise-related challenges reported by these airports were noise from hushkitted aircraft, the airports' Iimited control over nearby land uses, and the growing residential populations near airports. GAO noted in its report that 14 of the nation's-5.0 busiest commercial airports do not participate in the Federal Aviation Administration's voluntary Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Pro;ram. These 14 airports, which were not named in the report, accounted for about one quarter of all air carrier operations in 1998 and have more than 320,000 people livin; in their 65 dB DNL and hiaher noise contours; accordin� [o the report. • .Noting that FAA can only provide funds from its Part 1-SO.program to assist communities near airports with approved Part 150 programs, GAO told Congress that it may want to consider changing current law to allow commnnities to directly access Part 1 �0 funds even if their ]ocal airports do not participate in the program. FAA has twice proposed le�islation that would extend funding directly to communities but has not been successful in getting Congress to accept it. (Continued ors p. 131) Chicago D'Hare Int'Z STUDY FUNDED BY SUBURBS SUGGESTS CANCER RISK IS HIGHER NEAR AIRPORT A new study commissioned by suburbs around 0'Hare International Airport opposed to its expansion su�Qes[s that air pollution from the airport raises cancer risks beyond acceptable levels in areas near the airport and that the risk extends beyond the communities ringin; the airport. The hypothztical cancer risks over a 70-year life[ime associated with levels of air toxins at 0'Hare are fir•e [imes hi�her than the cancer risks of background air quality in a community far from the airport, according to the report. Toxins in aircraft emissions raise cancer risks as much as 100 times beyond the federal tar�et level of 1 in a million in communities near the end oF runways, according the study, which was funded by the communities of Park Ridge, Des Plaines, Itasca, and Niles, located near 0'Hare. Joseph Karakanis, of the ChicaQo law firm Kara;anis & W hite, called the study "very siQnificant" and said "it shows an extremely widespread'area of health risk." Kara�anis represents [hz Suburban 0'Hace Commission (SOC), which is comprised of mayors of communities near the airport. The study did not look a[ the number of ac[ual cancer cases reported near the airport. Ra[her, it caiculated possible health risks using air pollution data from a (Coiitiri�ted oii p. 733) � September 15, 2000 In This Issue... Report to Congress ... A General Accounting Office survey of the 50 busiest commercial airports finds that aircraFt noise is their main environmental concern. The report asks Con�ess to consider changi.ng the law to allow communities near airports that do not participate in the federal Part 150 pro- �ain to apply for noise mitigation funding - p. 130 Chicago O'Hare ... A study comrnissioned by suburbs near the airport finds that toxic air emissions from O'Hare aze increasing cancer risks beyond acceptable levels - p. 130 News Briefs ... Public com- ment period on the Part 161 study at F1yin� Cloud Airport is'' extended ... Louisville accelerat- in� the pace of its voluntary zelocation pro�ram ... Reno/ Tahoe has insulated 150 homes this year ... Burbank receives grant to soundproof 210 homes and a school ... FAA`s Western- Pacific ReQion will host a Land Issues Conference in Las Ve�as Nov. 8-9 to discuss land acqui- sition and relocation assistance policy and procedures ... Part 150 program for Corpus Christi International approved - p. 132 September 15, 2000 131 �teport Requested by Oberstar The report, "Airport Operations and Future Growth Present Environmental Challenges" (GAOlRCED 00-153), was prepared in response to a request by Rep. James L. Oberstar (D-MN), Ranking Democratic Member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. He asked GAO to review (1) the key environmental concerns and challenges associated with current operations and future growth — particularly concerns about aircraft noise, water quality, and air pollutant emissions — and the actions being take by the busiest airports in the country to balance environmental concerns with such operations and growth, and (2) th�e actions being take by FAA and other federal agencies to address environmental concerns associated with airpoxts' current operations and future growth. As the report notes, airports have reported that balancing aircraft operations with the impact on the environment is more difficult now than it was a decade ago. `Balancing these demands is particularly relevant given that the Congress recently authorized nearly $10 billion for airport infrastructure development — including associated environ- mental concerns — over the next three years," GAO said. Many airports in the United States are operating at or near capacity, GAO said, and are under increasing pressure to expand to meet the growin; demand for air service, which was forecast by the FAA to increase by 3.6 percent annu- ally through 2011. GAO surveyed officials from the 50 busiest commercial service airports in the United States to gef their views on the key environmental concerns and challenges affecting current operations and future growth and to identify ways to address these concerns, I� addition, GAO visited I1 of these airports to obtain more in-depth information about their key environmental concerns. Must Address Concerns "GAO has presented Congress with a thorough study of the environmental chalienges facing our nation,'s major airports," Oberstar said upon receiving the study. "As more and more Americans choose to travel by air, these chal- len�es will grow. W e must make sure these concerns are , addressed as we develop legislation to maintain and improve our nation's air transportation sys[em." The legislation Oberstar refers [o would be to reauthorize the programs of the F�A beyond 2003 when the current reauthorization expires. Development oE a new reauthoriza- tion bill will be�in as early as nex[ year. If the Democrats take back the House of Representatives in [he November elections, Oberstar will regain his chairmanship of the House Aviation Subcommittee and assume control of the committee's agenda. However, the GAO report will heip inform the committee's agenda, regardless of which parry controls it. 1�Vhile aircraft noisz was cited as the chief environmental concern of [he 50 surveyed airports, their aext greatest concern was water quality — primarily the potential harmfui effects of de-icing and anti-icing operations. Air quality was cited as the third greatest concern and challenge reported b�' the airport officiais, in particular the effects in increased air � emissions due to airport growth. Airport officials expect air quality issues to become a greater concern to them in [he future. Other issues of concern cited by some of the airports surveyed were wet],a.nds, endangered species, environmental justice, and historic preservation. Environmental IZeview The GAO report said the response of airport officials to its survey suggests that there is a lack of understanding about when environmentai reviews are required for airport development projects. Officials from 10 of the SO airports contended that, over the past 10 years, half or fewer of their capacity expansion projects did not require such reviews. But FAA headquarters officials told GAO that their policy requires that all airport capacity expansioa projects receive an environmental review and said that such reviews are taking place. However, the National Environmental Policy Act does not require FAA to document when it categoricaily excludes projects from environmental review. "W ithout documentation, when no FAA funding approval is involved, a reliable determination cannot be made about whether categorical exclusion reviews are taking place," GAO told Congress. ... � i GAO recommended that the Secretary oF Transportation \ direct the FAA administrator to communicate to airport officials the requirements for environmental reviews for .airport expansion projects and that the results of all cat- e�orical exclusion reviews be systematicaily documented by FAA and communicated to airport officials. To help airports meet their responsibilities under the Clean Air Act, GAO.recommended "that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in coordination with FAA and aisport officials, (1) clarify the juidance in areas such as general conFormity determinations and guidelines for states to�provide airports with credits for voluntary emission reduction efforts and (2) provide airport officials with the necessary expertise to meet air quality require- ments." • The GA0 report and a companion report on the survey, "Results From a Survey of the Nation's �0 Busiest Commer- cial Service Airports" (GAO/RCED-00-222), can be down- loaded from the GAO web site: www.gao.;ov, Click onto GAO Repor[s in the blue box on the lef[; click onto Today's Reports; click onto Sept. 8. The reports are the first two listed. AirportNoise Rzport C� , i � ; September 15, 2000 132 In Brief ... Flying Cloud Part 161 Study The FAA announced Sept. i i that the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission has extended the public comment period on the Part 161 study for general aviation Flying Cioud Airgort in Eden Prairie, MN. The comment period was extended from Aug. 30 to Oct. 16 on the MAC's proposal to restrict jet aircraft not meeting Stage 3 noise standards at night and to restrict nighttime maintenance run-ups for all aircraft at night. The noise restrictions are being enacted pursuant to the FAA Part 161 Regulations on Notice and Approvai of Airport Noise and Access Restrictions. The airport consult- ing firm Howard Needles Tammen & Beraendoff (HNTB) has already conducted a cost/benefit analysis of the proposed restrictions (12, ANR, 110). For further information, contact Mark Ryan at the MAC; tel: (612) 794-4407. Louisville Relocation Program The Board of the Regional Airport Authority of Louisvilie and Jefferson County is seeking to accelerate the voluntary relocation of people near Louisville International Airport. It has authorized the board staff to request the FAA to extend the current �3 Passen�er Facility Charoe throubh the year 2018 to help fund the accelerated buyout program. As of the end of June, over 2,600 homes were purchased for airport expansion and noise mitigation. Over 1,100 homes remain in the voluntary relocation areas. Under current funding levels, it would take another nine years to purchase these homes. The airport wants to complete the buyouts in half that time but must aggressively seek funding to meet that schedule. Reno Totals Federal Aid Reno/Tahoe Internationa] Airpor[ has received nearly � 18 million in federal grants this fiscai year for noise insulation and noise mitigation programs, land acquisition, and safety and capacity improvements, the Airport Au[hority of �Vashoe County announced. "We want [o thank Nevada's congressional delegation for working on our behalf to secure this much needed fundin�," said Krys T. Bart, execu[ive director of the airport authority. "In addition to many airfield saFety and capacity projec[s, these grants will allow us to continue our sound insulation program south of Reno/Tahoe International Airport. We have sound insula[ed 2�5 homes this year, and will proceed with ano[her �0 next year," she said. Burbank School Insulation Grant The Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority announced Sept. 5 that it received a$5 million grant from [he FAA for sound insulation of approximately 210 homes in Biirbank and Los Angeles and addi[ional insula[ion a[ Luther Middle School in the Ciry of Burbank. The grant brings the to[al of combined FAA and airport authority funds dedicated to insulation to just over �30 million since 1989 when the authority became eli�ible For the grants by completing a federal Part 15d Airport Noise Compatibility Pro;ram. Four schools and 259 homes have already been funded. The new grant will bring the total of homes insulated [o 469. If the FAA approves an update of the Part 1�0 study submitted earlier this year, approximately 3,100 homes and eiaht schools will be eligible for the sound insulation program, at an estimated cost of � 130 million. "The Authority has aggressively sought funding for home insulation and continues to be appreciative of the priority the FAA has given to noise mi[iaation projects proposed by the Authority. FAA support has enabled us to step up the pace of our program, and we are strivin; to insulate every eligible home and school by 2015," said Authority Presi-. dent Carl Meseck. FAA Land Issues Conference The FAA's Western-Pacific Region will host the i000 Land Issues Conference in Las Vegas on Nov. 8-9. The conference provides an opportunity to discuss and ex- ', chanae ideas on land acquisition and relocation assistance policy and procedures. Innovative ideas on airport develop- ment and noise compatibility pro�rams will be discussed with plenty of time for questio❑ and answer sessions. ." The purpose of the conference is to assist airport grantees and their staffs to better mana?e land projects in compli- ance with federal regulations. Panel discussions will focus on issues. such as business relocation, residential soundproofing, utility relocation, litigation, airport development and plannina, environmen- tal risk management, environmenta] interface with airport ]and projects, and issues related to the new FAA reauthori- zation le�islation (AIR-21). Further inFormation on the conference can be obtained at the FAA's Communi[y and Environmental Needs Division web site: www faa }ov/ar�/aoo6Q0/600home.htm. Scroll down to the heading "Reloca[ion Assistance" in the left hand column; click onto infarma[ion reQarding the confer- ence a�enda, registration, and description. Corpus Christi's Part 1�0 Approved The FAA announced Sept. l4 that it has approved the Par[ 1�0 Airport Noise Compatibility ProQram suomitted by the City of Corpus Christi, TX, for Corpus Chris[i International Airport. The Fr1A announcement provided nu details on the nine proposed elements of [he airport's Part 1 �0 proQram. Further information on the pro�ram can be obtained from Nan L. Terry in Fr�A's For[ �Vorth office: tel: (817) 222- 5607. pirportNoiseReport � i ) Se tember 22, 2000 135 are b ant assurances different, he asked, sayin� the FAA's letter does not articulate that difference. The FAA's tetter also appears to be arguing that, to the extent that an airport authority has the authority to control land to the 60 dB DNL noise contour (which was adopted as a noise buffer zone in an update to the Napies' Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program), it must show it has done so before pursuinQ a Part 161 study. Kirsch declined to say whether he agreed with this legal theory but insisted that it does not apply in the case of the Naples Airport Authority because it does not approve or disapprove land use. The FAA appears to believe that the Naples Airport is owned or operated by the City of Napies but it is not, the attorney said. The Naples Airport Author- ity is an independent airport authority created by state law. It is connected to the city under state law; the city appoints the airport authority members but it has no control over land use, Kirsch said. Naples proposed restriction is unique because it wouid be the first in the country to address noise impact in the 60-64 dB DNL noise contour with ail land uses within the 65 dB DNL and hiDher noise contours being compatibie with airport operations. Noting that the FAA has no approval authority under its Part 161 regulations for new noise restrictions on Staae 2 aircraft (it does for restrictions on Stage 3 aircraft), Kirsch said he fully expects that the Naples Airport Authority wiil ultimately make a decision to implement is precedent- setting restriction, which other airports with noise probiems caused by Sta�e 2 corporate and regional jets are expected to emulate. "Whether the FAA sues the airport authority is an open question," he said, adding, "It wouid be a most unwise thinc to do." ' The FAA has not yet responded to a phone cail seeking comment on its letter and Kirsch's assessment of it. Final Vote Postponed The Airport Authority wants to make the restriction become effective on Jan. 1, 2001, which would mark the end of the 180-day review period the FAA has under the Part 161 regulations to determine whether the airport met the notice and comment requirements imposed by the rules. FAA contends that the airport authority must redo its Part 161 study addressins the concerns the agency has raised and formally resubmit the study, which wouid restart the 180-day review period. But the airport is not accepting this interpretation of the Part 161 reaulations. Kirsch said the 180-day review period does not chan�e and that the airport authority has the ability to wait until the day before that period ends, if it so chooses, to vote on whether to enact the restriction. The FAA's assertion that Naples' proposed ban on li�ht Siatre 2 jets may violate federal Qrant assurances was made in Sept. 18 lettzr Yrom David L. Bennett, director of the FAA's Office of Airport Safe[y and Standards. The letter was presented to Naples Airport Authority Commissioner Len Thornton, Napies Airport Authority staff, and their Part 161 consultants, Kirsch and the acoustical consulting firm Harris Miller Miller & Hanson, Inc., who a[tended the meeting, which was held at the agency's Washington, DC, headquarters. Following the meeiing; the Napies Airport Authority met on Aug. 21 and agreed to postpone its final decision on whethez to enact the proposed ban until a public meeting is held in October. The Airport Authority directed its staff and consultants to work with the FAA on the issues that concern the agency. The FAA letter said the aDency had "identified aspects of the proposed access regulations that appear to be, or have the potentiai to be, inconsistent with the obligation [im- posed by federal grant assurances] to provide reasonable access to the airport." More Data Saught In it$ letter, the FAA asked for additional data on non- restrictive measures. "You shouid understand that no airport access restriction has previously been approved based solely �bn the existence of residential areas outside the DNL 65 dB contour," the FAA said. "Not only is the operating restric- tion proposed by the Authority based solely on impacts to the DNL 60 dB level, it is also the broadest kind of restric- tion; a total ban on a category of operator." � The FP,A said that "in order to present a case that any particular operating restriction is reasonable, it will be necessary for the Authority to identify the specific noise- related problem it is seeking to address, and to show that it has considered a full range of alternatives that address the problem — starting with measures that do not involve operating restrictions, and including any more narrowl_y tailored restrictions that would address the identified noise problem." The FAA also told the airport that "a restriction on operations based even in part on the existence of residential areas within the DNL 60 dB contour would not appear to be reasonable if the sponsor had not taken other actions within i[s jurisdiction to implement local noise mitigation to this level. It is not clear that the City of Naples and/or Collier County have in fact de[ermined thnt residential use is non- compatible within the DNL 60 dB con[our. Moreover, it is unclear whether the Ci[y of Naples has taken appropriate action to limit development within the DNL 60 contour." The FAA also said that if Naples "is able to adequately justify a restriction on commerce at a level below the Federal 5tandard, your grant oblisation would also extend to that DNL levei selected." y Kirsch said that FAA's Ian�uaRe is sloppy because 6� dB DiVL is no[ a"Federal standard" [It is a land use �uideline.] Airport Noise Report September 22, 2000 136 FICAN, from p. 134 the heading "Activities" at the top of the home page. The position papers also have been attached to the e-mailed version of this issue. In its position paper on classroom learning, FICAN says that in the absence of funding to conduct more speci�c research, it can serve as "a repository" for "before and after" evaluations of the impact of aircraft noise on learning. The committee is invitin� noise-impacted communities, school boards, administrators, principles, teachers, and parents to submit such information to its website. It suggested that the following evaluations be made: (1) Before and after noise measurements in treated classrooms taken during school hours; (2) before and after academic scores, particularly for reading and math; and (3) before and after teacher evaluations. In its position paper, FICAN also concluded that "further work should be done to establish whether school day Leq [Levei of Equivaient Energy; a metric that averages noise over a period of time] is the appropriate measure for deternuninD the effect of aircraft noise on classroom learning." Role of Interruptions An unportant guestion, FICAN said, is the role of class- room interruptions." For example, should a teacher pausing for the fiyover of an aircraft at x dB every 20 minutes have the same effect on classroom learning as pausing for an aircraft at x-10 dB every 2 minutes? Although the two cases would result in equal outdoor Leq, the interruption pattern would be different, and the effects on classroom learning could be different." Other questions to be answered, FICAN said, are at what indoor sound level does a teacher pause and is the noise metric SEL (Sound Exposure Level), which considers single flyovers, the best predictor of interruption. However, the committee said, "In posing these questions, the members recoQnize tha[ such studies are difficult and e:cpensive to perform and none of the FICAN participants have funding for such_research. Nor is it clear which aQencies, if any, have a mandate to conduct such research." FTCAN's new activism appears to be spurred by teadership of Alan Zusman, who for the past several years has served as chairman of FICAN and who works on the staff of [he Chief of Naval Operations as a special assistant on military noise compatibility proQrams. The committee's decision to fund the pilot study marks the first time since FICAN was formed in 1993 that it has actively pursued research on the impact of aircraft noise. FICAN made no recommendations in its position paper on research on natural quiet. It concluded that "considerable progress is bein� made in developing unique approaches and research stratesies for the preservation of natural soundscapes." y • This progress, said FICAN, is characterized by four [rends: l. Development of a science of acoustic ecology; 2. Development of appropriate tools for computer modeling; % 3. Improved procedures for inventories of the natura�, soundscape, and 4. Improved procedures for measuring the effects of noise on park users. Federal agencies that participate on FICAN are [he Departments of Transportation and Defense, the Environ- mental Protection Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Center for Disease Control. In Brief ... Palm Beach PFC The FAA announced Sept. 20 that it has approved the application submitted by the Palm Beach County, FL, Department of Airports to impose a Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) of $3 to coliect $37.3 million for several airport improvement project, includin� the acquisition of land within the 65-69 dB DNL noise contour of Palm Beach Intemational Airport. The earliest the PFC charge will be effective is Dec. l, 2000. The collection is expected to end on Nov. 1, 2005. For further information, contact G. Thomas Wade of the �� FAA's Southwest Region Airports Division; tel: (817) 222= 5613. International Transportation Symposium Secretary of Transportation Rodney E. Slater announced Sept. 18 that a conference entitled the "Intemational Transportation Symposium: M oving to the 21uCentury— Best Practices of Today and Lessons for Tomorrow," will be held in Washington, DC, on Oct. 9-12 The conference is designed to "help create the global transportation system of the 215t century and to aliow attendees to learn from one another by exchanging ideas, strategies, and informa[ion," according to DOT. Aircraft noise and other environmental issues will be address at the symposium by two panels: one will discuss environmental program "success stories"; the other will consider noise in the context of sustainability of the environment and transportation. In promotional material for the symposium, DOT touts the federal Part 161 Regulations on No[ice and Comment on Airport Noise and Access Restrictions, under which no airport in the United States has been able to impose a new airport noise restric[ion in the past decade, as a successful reaulation i[ wan[s to see other countries emulate. Speakers fcr the conFerence have not yet been announced. ' For further infornation, go to t:^.z ^_. web address: ilti�7��,. www.faa.�ov/d�tconF. Airport �Ioise Report 137 September 22, 2000 ANR EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Steven R. Alverson Manager,S acramento O� ce Harris MiilerMilier & Hanson John J. Corbett, Esq. Spiegel &McDiarnud Washington, DC James D. Erickson Director, Office of Environment and Ener�y Federal Aviation Administration John C. Freytag, P.E. Director, Charles M. Salter Associates San Francisco bfichael Scott Gatzke, Esq. Gatzke, Dillon & Ballance Carlsbad, CA Peter J. Kirsch, Esq. Cuder & St�eld Denver Suzanne C. McLean ChiefDevelopmentO�cer Tucson AirportAuthority John bI.1�leenan Senior VicePresidentforIndustry Policy AirTransport Association Vincent E. Mestre, P.E. President, Mestre Greve Associates Newport Beach, CA Steven F. Pflaum, Esq. McDermott, Witl & Emery Chica�o Karen L. Robertson Ivlanajer, Noise Compaability O�ce Dailas/Fort Wor[h International rtirport �fary L. Viailante ' President, Syner�y Consultants Seattle Lisa Lyle �Vaters bfana�er, Noise Abatement Pro�ram Palm Beach Counry Department of Airports Cutler & Stanfield Merges The law firrn Cutler & Stanfield, well known for its expertise in airport noise issues, announced Sept. 11 that it will merge on Nov. 1 with one of the largest law firms in the United States, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, which includes over 9001awyers. Cutler & Stanfieid began in 1988 with four lawyers and has b own to 24 based in Washington, DC, and Denver. In announcing the Merger, Eliot R. Cutler, one of the founding partners, said the firm needed to grow to provide its senior lawyers with opportunities for professional growth and advancement. As of Nov. l, the Cutler & Staniield lawyers will form the core of the new Environment, Land Use and Project Development Section of the Akin Gump firm; its Denver office will become the 13"' Akin Gump location, and its Washin�ton lawyers will move to the Robert Strauss Building on New Hampshire Avenue. "This will be a powerful combination, Cutler said in a press release announcing the merger. "Together, we will make Akin Gump the law firm of choice when clients need to develop, permit and finance large and complex projects anywhere in the worid." The entire.press release can be found at the Akin Gump web site: www:akingump.com. California Airport Noise Grants The Department of Transportation on Sept. 21 announced an award of $118.2 miilion in discretionary airport improv�nent grants to airports in California. They were part of an award of $230.5 million in grants for transit and airport projects in cities around California. The grant announcement comes only weeks before the November presidential elections. "Investing wisely in public transportation will strengthen the economy, create new jobs, and improve livability in our nations's cities," Vice President A1 Gore said in releasing the grants. Some of these grant awazds were for airport noise mitigation projects: * San Jose International received $24 million to extend and rehabilitate runways and to provide noise miti;ation; * Ontario Airport received $153 million to acquire land for noise mitigation; * San Die�o International received $10 million for noise mitiQation measures and to improve the runway safety area; * Fresno Airport received $5.3 million for construction projects and to provide noise mitigation; * Santa Barbara Municipal Airport received $�.2 million to rehabilitate taxiways and to acquire land for noise compa[ibility; * San Francisco International Airport received �3.8 million for noise miti�ation measures; and * tilonterey Airport received �i million to provide noise mitiQation. AIRPORT NOISE REPORT Anne H. Kohut, Publisher Published 46 times a year at 43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 20147; Phone: (703) 729-4867; FAX: (703) 729-4�23• e-mail: editor@airportnoisereport.com; Price $�49. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is Qranted by Airport Noise Report, provided that the base fee of US�1.03 per pa�e per copy is paid directly to Copyri�ht Clearance Center, 222 Rosetivood Drive, Danvers, i�i,�. 01923. USA. Airport Voise Feport Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise FICAN Position on Research on Natural Quie# September 2000 The Federal (nteragency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN) cosponsored a symposium on the Preservation of Natural Quiet with the Acoustical Society of America in Golumbus, Ohio in November, 1999. Presentations were given by a number of researchers on a variety ofi topics dealing with this issue. The members of FICAN find that considerable progress is being made in developing unique approaches '� and research strategies for the preservation of natural soundscapes. This progress is characterized by four trends: (1) Development of a science of acoustic ecolog�C,. (2) Development of appropriate tools for computer modeling, (3) Improved procedures for inventories of the natural soundscape, and (4) Improved procedures for measuring the effects of noise on park users. � The varieiy and depth of papers in this symposium shows that the invo(ved Federal agencies are actively engaged in developing an understanding of how to assess and preserve natural soundscapes. Consequentlq, the members of FiCAN prefer to monitor progress rather than recommending new lines of research. FICAN encourages the NPS and other land management agencies to continue to refine their approaches to dealing with�#�ie unique problems of low noise environments, pub(ish and disseminete the results of their studies, and share results with other members of FICAN. � :► '� � On November 3, 1999, the Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAI� cosponsored a symposium on the Preservation of Natural Quiet with the Acoustical Society of America in Columbus, Ohio. Presentations were given by a number of researchers on a variety oftopics dealin� with this issue, as identified in the table below. The presentations aiven at this symposium are available on the FICAN website, htto://www.fican.ora. SYMPOSIUM PRESENTATIONS Topic National Pa�k Service noise issues Loss of natural soundscapes within the Americas. Speaker(s) Wesley R. Henry, William B. Schmidt, and Ricfc Emenwein (Nafional Park Service, 1849 C St., NW, Washington, DC 20240) Bernie Krause (Wild Sanctuary, Inc., 13012 Henno Rd., Glen Ellen, CA 95442, www.wildsanctuary. com) Measurement of the nafural soundscapes in south Florida national parks Challenges of modeling aircraft nase in nafional parks Using visitor responses to rnk order national park soundscapes Respondents' interpreta6ons of impact measures for dose-response studies Educating na6onal pa�C users on preserving natural soundscapes suMr��Y Micah Downing, Christopher Hobbs, and Eric Stusnicic (Wyle Labs., 2001 Jer�erson Davis . Hwy., Suite 701, Arlington, UA �oz� Kenneth J. Plotkin (Wyle Labs., 2001 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Suite 701, Arlington, VA 22202) Nicholas P. Miller (Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc., 30 New England Execufive Park, Burlington, MA 01803) Robert Baumgartner (Hagler Bailly Consulting, 455 Science Drive, Madison, WI 53711) Rick Ernenwein, Wesley R. Henry, and William B. Schmidt (National P2rk Service, 1849 C St., NW, Washincton, DC 20240) Guidelines forthe Gre�gg Fleming (Acoustics measurements and Facility, Volpe Center, Kendall The membzrs of FICAN find that considerable assessment of low-level Square, Cambridge, MA 02142) progress is beins made in developina unique ambient noise. approaches and research strate�ies for the Research on Natural Quiet preservation of naturai soundscapes. This progress is characterized by four trends: P Development of a science of acoustic ecology. P Development of appropriate tools for computer modeling. P Impcoved procedures for inventories ofthe natural soundscape. P Improved procedures for measuring the effects of noise on park users. Acoustic Ecology ".4coustic ecology," as used here, refers to the way a species adapts its communication to the physi�al constraints of an ecoto�ical niche (e.g. forest, savannah, seashore, etc) and to the physiological constraints of its vocalization and auditory systems in concert with other species in that ecological niche. Describing the acoustic ecology in natural areas is important for two reasons: (1) Preservin� the natural soundscapes, and (2) Predicting whether a particular sound will have an adverse impact on a given species. Acoustic ecology is a more sophisticated approach to studying the effects of noise on wildlife than employed in the past. The earliest work in this area consisted of"laundry lists" of studies reporting some effect of noise on the behavior of animals. An example is EPA Report UTID 300.5, Effects of Noise on Wildlife and Other Animals, December 1971. Today, researchers look at the spectrum of the intruding sound and compare it to the auditory sensitivity of the species being studied. Researchers also look for a relationship beriveen noise and the effect of that noise on a species. Acoustic ecology moves beyond the noise-to-species relationship and looks at the,noise-to-ecosystem relationship. Examples include the USAF study of the effect of aircraft noise on the predator-prey relationship in the desert kit fox, and Dr. Krause's observation of increased predation suffered by endangered toads when aircraft noise disrupted their sequence of vocalizations. Dr. Ikrause described an approach by which bioacoustic measurements can aTso validate the health of entire habitats by measurinj the biophony — creature voices �vithin whole biomes as they relate to one another in real time context. By defining the acoustic interaction within the ecological niche, acoustic ecolo�y offers an approach for a more complete assessment of vulnerabilities and protection of the biota. J.�' I Development of Appropriate Models Use of computers to predict environmental noise e:tposures is the primary tool in land use planning in the noise environment around airports, highways and railroads. Available computer modeIs include INM, NOISEvfAP (and a related model, NIIvSSIIv1) for aircraft noise, and the FHWA model for tra�c noise. The designers of these models anticipated usage to be limited to urban environments in which the back?round noise is 45 dBA at niaht. For U.S. parks, models must be designed for environments in which the backg�ound noise drops to 20 dBA and below. T'he potential for using computer models to manaje noise in parks is great. Computer models can be used to e:cplore various combinations of air routes, roads, snowmobile routes and watercraft areas to ensure the preservation of the natural soundscape in critical areas. To accomplish this task, the -� computer model must also be applicable in terms of terrain, vegetation and weather, alI ofwhich.influence the propagation of sound. NPS pio�eered one of the first low noise cgmputer models — NODSS — used extensively at Grand Canyon. Useful though this model has been, it cannot easily be applied to other parks. Fortunately, improvements in computational power and improved algorithms for predicting sound propagation have reduced the cost of creating an even more appropriate model. Inventories of Natural Soundscapes The National Park Service has rivo mission mandates. The first and primary mandate is resource protection. The second is visitor enjoyment. The natural soundscape of parks, i.e., the soundscape absent human-caused noises, is a natural resource — one that the NPS has found to be increasingly threatened by the effects of civilization. NPS has a need to inventory its parks to determine the character of their natural soundscapes and ensure their protection from future acoustic interference. One �vay that had been used in the past is to conduct an inventory with a trained listener. Ttivo techniques have been used: (1) an NPS procedure (LOWNOi�iS) in �vhich a listener lojs the percentaQe of time durinQ selected one hour periods over a number of days that an audible intrusive sound is dominant using a"button bo:c," data logger, and associated acoustic equipment, (2) a procedure from the FAA (VOLARE) in tivhich the listener loQs the source of noisz accordina to a strict hierarcliy of sound cateaories �vith similar equipment Research on Naturai Quiet for 3 hour periods on selected days. T'he major difference•is the "dominant sound" versus the hierarchy of sounds regardless of dominance and there is no consensus between the agencies on the better approach. The NPS is finding that this approach is both costly and inefficient for the type of comprehensive soundscape assessment needed for the parks. An alternative being favored more by the NPS is the use of lonj term (weeks; months or years) unattended monitoring supplemented by peciodic attended monitoring to identify the nature of noise intrusions. Automated monitoring is, in theory, more cost-effective, and it appears that monitoring to determine the L90 (the levet of sound esceeded 90% ofthe time) would be a good way to develop baseline information needed to describe natural soundscapes. Characterizing Effecfs on People When researchers began studying the effects of noise on park users, they first tried a tool developed for assessing noise in residential neighborhoods —the noise annoyance survey. In the annoyance survey, people are askin� to rate their annoyance about noise on a numerical scate, e.j. a scale of 1 to S. On a five- point scale, the adjectives are usually "not annoyed", "slightly annoyed", "moderately annoyed," "very annoyed" and "extremely annoyed." Schultz (1978) found a reliab(e relationship between the percentage of people choosin� the top two adjectives ("hijhly annayed") and residential noise exposure. Schultz's definition of "percent hi�hly annoyed" became the touchstone ofFederal policy on environrnental noise. When this procedure was applied to park users, however, the relationship used included "moderately annoyed" as well as the top two annoyance categories; the park goal was to ensure that visitors enjoyed their stay, not merely that they were not "hi�hly annoyed." This refinement in annoyance proved to yield good cocrelation bet�veen measures of aircraft noise and the visitor ratings of annoyance, and provided "dose-response relationships" more attuned to park goals of providing for visitor enjoyment. Parks, hotivever, are interested in providing a high quality visitor e�cperience that includes not only absence of annoyance, hut uninterrupted enjoyment. Consequently, visitors were also asked to rate the de�ree to �vhich aircrafr sound interfered with their appreciation of natural quiet and the sounds of nature. As �vith annoyance, a five point scale was used. This page 3 measure of interference also correlated well with measures of aircraft naise, but proved to be more sensitive: visitors felt that aircraft sound interfered with their experience even though it might not have been considered annoying. These two measures of visitor reaction, annoyance and interference, can provide park management with considerable flexibility in making management decisions about preserving the visitor experience. Finally, combining the visitor reaction data with the aircraft sound level data yields dose-response relationships that provide possible guidelines for determining the degree of impact (annoyance or interference) that may result from aircraft noise. By estimating or measuring both the percent of time aircraft could be audible and by quantifying the sound energy of the aircraft relative to the back�round, it is possible to categorize how significantly the noise may adversely affect visitors. The variety and depth of papers in this symposium shows that the involved Federal agencies are actively enga�ed in developing an understandin� of how to assess and preserve natural soundscapes. Consequently, the members of FICAN prefer to monitor progress rather than recommendin� new lines of research. F�ICAN encourages the NPS and other land management agencies to continue to refine their approaches to dealing with the unique problems of low noise environments, publish and disseminate the results of their studies; and share results with other members of FICAN. �� • � •' � �� Additional information can also be found at the FICAN web site: www.fican.ors. Alan F. Zusman, FICAN Chairman Department of the Navy Chief ofNaval Operations, N44E bVashington Navy Yard 1322 Patterson Ave; SE Washington, DC 20374-506� voice: 202.685.9181 faY: 202.63�.1577 email: zusmanaf@navfac.navy.mil �irport Noise Report, Vol. 12, No. 32 and FICAN Position Papers Subject: Airport Noise Report, Vol. 12, No. 32 and FICA.N Position Papers Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 14:30:50 -0400 From: Ann Kohut <airportnoisereport@erols.com> �, Organization: Airport Noise Report To: editor@airportnoisereport.com Attached with this issues of Airport Noise Report are two position papers by the Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise.You ma1 have to save the files to your hard drive berore you can open them. You must have Adobe Acrobat Reader to view this attachment. Acrobat Reader can be downloaded free of charge from Adobe at the following website: •�� http•//www adobe com/products/acrobat/readstep.html � �"_ � __ �� Name: Anrl2-3"l.pdt -32.pd Type: Portable Docuinent Format (application/pd� Encoding: base6�F Name: �i�ects ot aircra�tt noise on cias f ' Type: Portable Document Format , - (application/pd� Encodi�g: base64 Name: FICAN position on research on qui.pdf Type: Portable Document Format {application/pd fl Encoding: base64 9%2�/2000 1:52 P lofl Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise FICAN Posi�ion on Research into Effects of Aircraft Noise on Classroom Learning September 2000 Research on the effects of aircraft noise on children's leaming suggests that aircraft noise can interfere with leaming in the following areas: reading, motivation, language and speech acquisition, and memory. The strongest findings to date are in the area of reading, where more than 20 studies have shown that children in noise impact zones are negatively affected by aircraft. Recent research confirms conclusions from studies in the 1970s showing a decrement of reading when outdoor noise levels are at an 1.� of 65 dB or higher. It is also possible that, for a given level of I..�, the effects of aircraft noise on classroom leaming may be greater than the effects of road and railroad traffic. Members of FICAN are in agresment on the following: (1). Further wor4c should be done to establish whether school day I.� is the appropriate measure foc determining the effect of aircraft noise on classroom leaming. (2) In the absence of appropriations�for specific research, FICAN encourages "before" and "after" evaluations of the effectiveness of noise mitigation in schools. (3) F1CAN will undertake a pilot study to evaluate the effectiveness of school sound insulation programs. (4) F1CAN supports the work of the American National Standards Institute in its efforts to develop a standard for classroom noise. INTRODUCTION _ � .3. T'he Federal Interagency Committee on Aviafion �� Noise (FICAN) has considered the issue of the.effects of aircraft noise on children's learnin�, including: reviewing relevant research; inviting U.S. researchers to a FICAN meeting; and conducting a symposium, to which prominent international researchers were invited to present their findin�s. The symposium was held durin� the University of California's International Airport Noise Symposium, San Diego, February. 2000. Speakers at the symposium included: Dr. Gary Evans of Cornell University, Ithaca, NY; Dr. Staffan Hy��e of the Royal Institute of Technolo�y, Gavle, Sweden; Dr. Stephen Stansfeld, University of London, UK; Dr. Mary Haines, University of London, UK; Mr. Lou Sutherland, Consultant in Acoustics, California; and Mr. David Lubman, Consultant in Acoustics, California. Their presentations can be found on the FICAN web site (�vwtiv.fican.orQ). This paper presents a summary of the research presented at the symposium, and FICAN's recommendations. I:� '• � At the symposium, Dr. Gary Evans presented a summary of research on the effects of noise on children and learninj. Research to date supports the f0110 W lII�.flllC�lllaS: P� Reading The strongest finding of a relationship between aircraft noise and learnin� is in the area of reading. More than 20 studies have found that cliildren in noise impact zones are negatively .. affected by aircraft noise. Researchers are now tryin� to identify a mechanism to esplain the cause-and-effect relationship of the observed delay. Mofivafion Approximately a dozen laboratory and field studies indicate reduced task persistence in relation to uncontrollable noise. Some of the research has identified a condition of"]earned helplessness": if one is continually put in a situation where he or she has little control over the environment, he or she may "learn" helplessness. Language and Speech A small number of studies sug�est delayed languase acquisition and interference with speech perception in noisy areas. These data are potentially important because they may provide a model for understanding the linkaae bettiveen noise and reading. A fundamental buildinQ block of reading is lanQua�e — increasinaly, research in psycho-linguistics shotivs IanQuage acquisition is /� critical to developing readinQ skills. 1Vhen a t. The Effects of Noise on Children's Leaming child is acquiring langua�e in situations where speech interference is common, it is quite possible that delayed language may result, leading to reading delay. This is especially true of vulnerable children, such as those with hearing problems and those who are learning in a non- native lanjuage. Memory A few studies suggest deficits in short- and lon� term memory recall in the presence of noise, particularly for more complex material under noise. An interesting finding that has been replicafied with studies of adults is that the recall is diminished more when the material is complex. So if the task is easy, noise has little effect, but if it is demanding, noise has a deteriorating affect. RECENT RESEARCH A number�of recent studies support the general findings presented above. These include: studies of the effects of noise on memory, the effects of noise on cognitive performance as measured by standardized test scores, and studies of the efFects of aircraft noise on vulnerable populations. Effects on Memory: Dr. Staffan Nygge Dr. Staffan Hyg?e has conducted a number of studies that address the issue of the effect of noise on memory and recall. Classroom noise study In this e:cperiment involving children in their own classrooms, approximateiy 1,500 students were exposed to a variety of controlled noise sources (tape recordin�s), inciuding: aircraft noise, rail noise, road traffic (highway) noise, and a combination of the three. The students were exposed to the same total noise level (L,,,�x 76 dBA, l tq 66 dBA for 1� minutes, 24-hour I.tq of 42 dBA), and events at approximately the same rate (8 events in 1� minutes). Testins was alrvays conducted in the morninj, at the peak of students' intellectual alertness. Testing included three tests, under either noise or silence conditions; test subjects' exposure �vas reversed on the second test wave (i.e., students tested in silence in the first wave were exposed to noise in the second wave). The results sho�ved sianificant deterioration in recall for the students eYposed to both aircraft and hightivay � � noise conditions, but there �vas no effect from rail. page 2 When the test noise level was turned down to Leq �5 dBA, the effect of the road tra�c diopped out, but there was stili an efFect from aircraft noise. This sugaests that airport noise effects are worse than highway rioise efFects, which are worse than rail effects. Munich Airporf Study In this study, researchers took advantage of the shut down of the old Munich Airport and the opening of the new Munich Airport. The study followed 350 children at schools near both �airports. At the start of the study, children were 9 years old. Students were matched for hijhly exposed and less exposed to aircraft noise. The students were tested on a host of ineasures, including non-auditory health effects beyond cognition and memory. The test for long term memory was very similar to the one conducted in the classroom noise study. Initially had a disadvantage at old airport, which disappeared after the old airport was shut down; on the other hand, children near the new airport showed deterioratin� cojnition levels over time. Second classroom noise study In this study, hijh school students were exposed to noise patterns that included either "irrelevant" (nonsense) speech or road traffic noise. The joal ofthe study was to evaluate what kinds of inemory systems and processes are affected by noise. Results showed that recall is sensitive to noise —]ower scores for both tra�c noise and silence, and the same reduction with irrelevant speech. On attention, more errors �vere observed in both noise conditions than in silence. Conclusions from all three studies taken to�ether suggest: (1) There appear to be effects of noise on long term recall, particular with aircraft noise exposure. It does not seem to matter if e�posure is acute (short-term) or chronic (ton�-term) noise exposure. (2) The efFects may be reversible — children orijinally exposed to aircraft noise in the �•tunich eYposed improved �vhen the airport was shut down. The results of these studies put researchers in a position to evaluate trvo possible patterns of causation: in the first, one assumes that the primary effect is on physiology — heart rate rises, then other non-auditory responses follo�v. An alternative theory supportinj stress research suQjests that the cognitive system is affected first, �vhich must overcome The Effects of Noise on Children's Leaming stressful situation, uitimately resulting in changed perception and quality of life. E�fiects on Health and Cognitive Performance: Dr. Stephen Stansfeld and Dr. Mary Haines Dr. Stansfeld and Dr. Haines presented the results of three studies dealing with the effects of aircraft noise on children's heaith and co?nitive performance in the vicinity of Heathrow Airport: the Schools Environment and Health Study, the SATs Study, and the West London Schools Study. Schools Environment and Health Study This study was commissioned as part of an Inquiry investigating the construction of fifth terminal at Heathrow. The • aim of the study was to examine the effects of chronic noise exposure on children's health and cognition.. The researchers evaluated baseline (1996) readin' comprehension and noise annoyance, cortisol secretion (to identify possible stress) and mental health indicators (anxiety and depression). At follow- up (1997), the researchers tested reading, sustained attention, annoyance, and perceived stress. One of the objectives of the study was to test the hypothesis that interference with sustained attention is a possibie causal factor in reduced cognitive performance; that is, if attention levels are decreased, lotiver readin� skills may result. Researchers also wanted to evaluate vulnerable populations by .. controllin� for socio-economic status (SES). Researchers evaluated primary a�e children a�ed 8- 11 in four schools near the airport, matched to four - schools with lower noise levels. Tests were administered in the classroom; simultaneous noise measurements at the schools were conducted, and home noise levels were determined from Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) contours. Schools were matched for SES, other back�round noise, and ethnicity. The results of the analysis showed that the high-noise area schools contained si�nificantly more non-white, non-En�lish speaking, socially deprived children. Readin� comprehension scores showed.that in the hi�h noise �roup, children tivere statistically si�nificantly delayed — approximately a six-month difference in readine aQe. Children in the high-noise schools tivere also more hi�hly annoyed by aircraft noise; ho�vever, children's annoyance response did not match parents' response. Measurements of page 3 cortisoi levels did not show significant differences ( either at the beginning or end of testing; this may suggest cortisol is not appropriate hormone to evaluate for stress levels in children. Other behavioral testing shows that aircraft noise does not appear to increase depression or anxiety. At follow-up (one year later), children e:cposed to high levels of noise had poorer readin�, and sustained attention; however, no there was no si;nificant finding that attention was underlying reason. The stress responses replicated the effect of annoyance: children exposed to high noise had greater annoyance. Researchers wanted to clarify this more: could it be that children in high-noise areas had more stress responses? Researchers tested children on how would they feel if stressfui life events happened to them. The children in the high noise schools reported hijher responses (would feel more stressed in a stressful situation), althouah they did not have si?nificantly more actual stress events in their lives. This may be an indicator of copin� style - perhaps supportinj the "learned helplessness' theory.. - How did children adapt over the year? Test scores were analyzed by adjustin� for basetine performance. It appears that the effects increased over time — progress by students in high noise schools was lower than progress for children in low noise �roup. However, when adjusted for socioeconomic status and_ main lan�ua�e spoken at home, the effect was eliminated — this may be a result of sample size. In terms of annoyance, the effect stayed the same. In summary, annoyance effects appeared to stay the same, whereas readin� effecfs seemed to worsen over the year. Schotastic Apfitude Study (SATS) This was a multi- level modeling study looking at effects of aircraft noise on the test results in reading, mathematics, and science. The study examined 128 primary schools around Heathrotiv Airport, trying to ansti�ver the fol(owing questions: (1) whether previous associations between noise level and coanitive performance were confounded by either social cfass or school quality, and (2) does noise afrect lantruage- based tasks more than math or science tasks. For eleven-year olds, researchers evaluated 11,000 scores from 128 schoo�is exposed to a range of aircraft noise exposure, based on CAA contours for 16-hour L�, in 3 dB bands — to try to �et a dose response curve (noise levels ran�ed from 54 dB:� to 72 dBA). The Effects of Noise on Children's Leaming The statistical model used to evaluate the data adjusted for sex, year (a�e), type of school (public, private), and social deprivation (% eligible for free school meal). Researchers did not find a main effect on English, but did find a main effect on Mathematics; this was a surprising finding. As noise bands increased, scores on math tests dropped; however, when adjusted for social deprivation, the statistical significance is lost. There appeared to be no effect on science. When scores in En�lish were examined further, researchers found that there was an effect on reading, thou?h not on spelling, handwriting, and writing. As for mathematics, there was a dose-response effect for reading. Results of the SATS study su�jest that chronic exposure to aircraft noise is associated with school performance in reading and mathematics; because the mathematics results were so str�n�, the study suggests that the effects of noise may not be limited to language-based tasks. A dose-response function was identified for both effects; however, after adjustin� for social deprivation, the effect is lost. The social deprivation question is very complex: it may be that social deprivation is the primary force in determining performance, that noise is a mediator servin? to worsen the effect— in this case it would be wrong to adjust for social deprivation. On the other hand, it may be that social deprivation had a moderating affect on the relationship between aircraft noise and performance — noise causes deficit in co�nition, but that is made tivorse in a situation of social deprivation. Researchers be]ieve that there is a need to investiQate whether there is a relationship between social deprivation and selection into noisy areas. West London Schools Study This study is jointly funded by UIL Department of Health and Department of Transport and Environment a larger study similar to the Schools Environment and Heaith Study. The aims of the studv are to confirm that chronic levels of hiQh aircraft noise e:cposure in children are associated �vith cojnitive impairment, reading, memory, and attention. 5tress responses are no�v bein� evaluated in terms of catecholamine secretion (a findin� of the ivtunich Study), noise annoyance, and self-reported stress (eve(s. The model will adjust for individual and school-levzl confoundin� factors. Researchers also tivant to lool: at issuz of social deprivation. �" , The study includes ten high-noise schoois matched �vith 10 control schools; aQain, drativn from areas page 4 around Heathrow. Researchecs wiil carry out analyses at school and individual level, and will conduct noise measurements at the time of testing at the schools. T'he study also will collect data on personal dosimetry on a sub-sample of the children, as well as an additional sub-sample to evaluate qualitative effects: How do they feel about noise? Preliminary results of the West London Schools Study su�aest that children from hi?h noise schools heard more aircraft noise and were more annoyed by aircraft noise than children from low noise schools, but did not differ substantially an road noise traffic annoyance. Further analyses will e:tamine aircraft noise exposure in relation to cognitive outcornes, adjusting for confounding, and taking into account both individual and school level factors. ANSi Standard: David Lubman and Lou Sutherland Iv1r. Sutherland and Dr. Lubman are co-chairs of Working Group 42 of the ANSI 5-12 Noise Committee, which is working to develop a standard for classroom acoustics. The Working Group is working directly with the U.S. Access Board, who implements the Americans with Disabilities Act. This is sijnificant because adoption by the Access Board carries the weight of law. The proposed standard will be applied primarily to new school construction, not for existing schools. The standard is still bein� developed, but will probably include the followin� elements: A limit for interior ambient noise in classrooms: the Swedish guidelines ca11 fo'r 30 dBA interior noise levei, as does the American Speech, Lan�ua�e and Hearin� Association. A limit for reverberation time in ctassrooms: e.Q., 0.4-6 sec in rooms where speech is important (i.e., classrooms, auditoria). Nlinimum sound insulation benveen spaces. To deal with aircraft noise levels, the standard may take into account aircraft flyovers by identifying an acceptable Time Above threshold levef — hotivever, the threshold and amount of time have yet to be determined. The standard may also address an acceptable number of events in a certain time period. The Effects of Noise on Children's Leaming A noise measurement protocol, methods for performance validation, and design guides and checklists. One ofthe major joals ofthe standard is to simplify it so that it is easy to implement and easy to measure at the individuai school level. ADDITiONAL RESEARCH Presenters at the symposium believe that there are a number of areas where more research is needed. These include: P Dose-response funcfions, Thresholds, Metrics Researchers are now fairly confident that a relationship between noise and its effects on some aspects of leamin� exist. One of the major unresolved problems, though, is identifying a level at which aircraft noise is problematic, as well as identifyin� levels of change which result in changes in learnin�. Most of the studies have identified students as exposed to a"noisy" or "quiet" environment, with little regard aiven to developing a curve which shows responses at varying noise levels. There is one dose-response function for relating readin� and noise, but it is difficult to translate to DNL. P Underlying Mechanisms and Processes An understandin� of how the efFect works is important for identifyin� policy, because if we understand what is causing the problem we may be able to develop more sophistica#ed and tar�eted policies and interventions. More Thorough Psycho-acoustic Information Another related issue is the choice of noise metric: most studies have identified "noisy" environments based on DNL or Leq — it may be that these are not appropriate metrics for two reasons: first, both DNL and Leq were developed to address issues of annoyance, not cognitive development or health; and second, DNL imposes a niahttime penalty which is lar�ely irrelevant for describin� classroom noise levels, and may if fact, provide a misleading measure. Perhaps we should be lookin� at things such as speech interference levels (SIL) and reverberation times. More research needs to be conducted to identify which noise metrics are appropriate for measurin� learnin� responses. page 5 Vulnerability Many environmental reguIations are built with a mazgin of safety; (e.g., air pollution levels include mar?in of safety to protect asthmatics); we have not given much thought to an analog for noise. More research needs to be done on the effects of noise on specific, vulnerabie populations, includin� children with lower aptitudes, children with hearing problems, and children who are learning in a non-native language. Should classroom noise standards build in a"margin of safety" to protect these vulnerable populations? Ecological Perspective To date, most of the research has focused strictly on the children. Research should be expanded to address the entire learning environment, including the effects of noise on teachers' motivation and parents' motivation. A small amount of research suggests that there may be some changes in teacher and parent behavior in the presence of noise.. Many . of these studies also have a potential for confounding, for e.cample poverty. Most of the research controls for these kinds of variables. However, what if poverty interacts with noise — what if noise, in the context of other situations, interacts with other affects to amplify them? In studies where we have controtled for socio- economic data, we may have understated some of the effects of noise. • RECOMMENDATIONS FICAN makes the following recommendations: Mefrics Further work should be done to establish whether school day Lq is the appropriate measure for determining the effect of aircraft noise on classroom learnine. An important question is the role of classroom interruptions. For example, would a teacher pausing for the flyover of an aircraft at x dB every 20 minutes have the same effect on classroom learnin� as pausing for an aircraft at x-10 dB every 2 minutes? Althou�h the two cases would result in equal outdoor LCq, the interruption pattern would be different, and the effects on classroom learnins could be different. At what indoor sound level does a teacher pause? Is SEL the best predictor of interruption? In posin� these questions, the members recognize that such studies are difficult and expensive to �� The Effects of Noise on Children's Leaming perform, and none ofthe FICAN participants have funding for such research. Nor is it ciear which agencies, if any, have a mandate to conductsuchresearch. Effecfiveness of sound insulation In the absence of appropriations for specific research, FICAN encoura�es "before" and "after" evaluations of the effectiveness of noise mitigation in schools. In the past, the information on effectiveness of noise reduction in classrooms has been anecdotal rather than systematic. Throujh its website, FICAN is in a position to serve as a repository for "before" and "after" evaluations. FICAN invites noise-impacted communities, school boards, administrators, principles, teachers, and parents to address questions and information about "before" and "after" studies to our website. In conducting these evaluations, the following evaluators are recommended: (1) "Before" and "after" noise measurements in treated classrooms taken durin? school hours on days when classrooms are unoccupied. Guidelines for low-cost assessment of classroom noise will soon be available in the form of an American National Standards Institute publication. (2) "Before" and "after" academic scores, particularly for reading and math, from children using the treated ciassrooms. (3) "Before" and "after" teacher evaluations from teachers working in the treated classrooms. FICAN will undertake a pilot study to evaluate the effectiveness of school sound insulation pro?rams in the following areas: (1) improved academic performance, as measured by standardized test scores; and (2) improved learning environments, as reported by classroom teachers. The study wil) also identify methods for conductins further research, if needed, and define the scope of the issue on a national basis. Standards for classroom noise FICAN supports the development of an ANSI standard for classroom acoustics. FICAN encourages the workinQ aroup to keep FICAN informed of progress on this matter. page 6 REFERENCES Bronzaft, A., and McCarthy, D. (1975). The effects of eievated train noise on reading ability. Errvironment and Behavior, 7 pp. 517-52�. Green, K., Pasternack, B., and Shore, R(1982). Effects of aircraft noise on reading ability of school- age children. Archrves of Environmental Health, 37, pp 2431, 1982. Bullinger, M., Hygge, S., Evans, G.W., Nieis, M., & von Mackensen, S. (1999). The psycholo�ical cost of aircraft noise for children. Psychologische Beeintr&chtigung von Kindern durch Fluglarm. Zentralblatt.f'ur Hygiene und Umweltmedi�in, 202, 127-138. Enmarker, I., Boman, E., & Hygge, S. (1998) The effects of noise on memory. In N. Carter & R.F.S. Job (Eds.), Noise Effects '98 — Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on Noise as a PubliFHealth Problem. Vol. 1(pp. 3.53-356). Sydney, Australia: National Capital 1'rinting ACT. Evans, G.W., Buliin�er, M., & Hygge, S_ (1998). Chronic noise exposure and physiolo�ical response: A prospective study of children livin� under environmenfal stress. Psycho/ogical.Science, 9, 75- 77. Evans, G.W., Hy�je, S., & Builin�er, M. (1995): Chronic noise and psychological stress. Psycholo�ical Science, 6, 333-333. Haines, M.M., Stansfeld, S.A., Berslund, B. & 1ob, R.F.S. (1998) Chronic aircraft noise etposure and child co�nitive perFormance and stress. In N. Carter, & R.F.S. Job (Eds.), Proceedijr�s of the 7th lniernationa! Conference on Noise as a Public Health Problenr (Yol. I, pp. 329-33�). Sydney: Noise Effects'98 PTY LTD. Haines, Nf.�i. (1999). The effects of chronic aircraft noise esposure on children's counitive performance and stress respvnses. Doctoral Thesis: University of London. Hyg�e, S. (1997). The effects of short-term and lona- term noise exposure on children. !n IEN Repa•t on the non-audi[ory effects of noise. �Izdical Research Council, Institutz for Environment and Health, Report R10. The Effects of Noise on Chiidren's Leaming Hyaae� S. (199�). The effects of different noise sources and noise levets on long-term memory in chiidren aged 12-14 years. In A. Schick & M. Klatte (Eds.), Contributions to psychological acoustics. Results of the seventh Oldenburg symposium on psychological acoustics (pp. 483-501). Oldenburg, Germany: Bibliotheks- und Informationssystem der Universitat Oldenburg. Hy�jge, S. (1997). Chronic and acute noise effects on children. In A. Au?usztinovicz (Ed.), Proceedings of Inter-Noise 97. Vol. 2(pp. 977-980). Budapest: OPAKFL Hygae, S. (1998) Cognition, children and exposure to transportation noise - Patterns of psychological effects. In N. Carter & R.F.S. Job (Eds.), Noise Effects '98 — Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem. Yol. 1(pp. 340-345). Sydney, Australia: National Capital Printing ACT. Hy��e, S., Boman, E., & Enmarker, I. (2000) The effects of ineaningful irrelevant speech and road tra�c noise on different memory systems. Submitted manuscript. Stansfeld, S.A & Hames, M.M. (1997). Environmental noise and health: a review of non-auditory efFects (pp 7- 51). Medical Research Coz�ncil lnstitute for Environment and Health report on The Non-Auditory Effects of Noise. Report R10. ISBN 1 899110 14 3: Institute for Environment and Health. - Stansfeld, S.A., & Haines, M.M. (1997). The Schools Environment and Health Study - Pilot Study Report on tests conducted between March 1996 and :Tuly 1996 . A report for the Public Inquiry into the application by BAA plc and Heathrow Airport Limited for the deve/opment of a fifth terminal and associated facilities at Heathrotiv Airport (LAH 5052). Stansfeld, S.A., Haines, Nf.M, Head, J., Berry, B., Ji�gins, M., Brenmall, S., and Roberts, R. (2000). �ircraft noise at school and child performance and health initial results from the bVest London Schools Study. Proceedinus of Internoise ?000 (submitted). ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Additional information can also be found at the following web sites: Web PagelOrganization We6 Page Address FiCAN Ins6tute for Environment and Health Classroom Acoustics Home Page page 7 httQJlwnvw.fican.org hUp!/www.le.ac.u�eh httpJ/www.classroomacousGcs.com GAO Reporfs on School http•Ilwww.edfaciliGes.com Facilities 8oard Pe6tion and Requestforinformation Acous6c design of chldcare faci6ties httpJ/vnvw.access-board.gov/rules/ acoustic.htm http:l/www.designshare.comlResearch lLMaxwelllNoiseChiidren.htrn Alan F. Zusman, FICAN Chairman Department of the Na�vy Chief ofNaval Operations, N44E Washington 1`davy Yard 1322 Patterson Ave, SE Washington, DC 20374-5065 voice: 202.685.9181 fax: 202.685.1577 email: zusmanaf@navfac.navy.mii C „ ;: . `, . � � 1 y � _ , . . � i ` z _ �� t . a_ -.� �. - � ,. :I I : , A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technologicai developments Volume 12, Number 33 LaGuardia MORATORIUIVI ON I�EW PEAK HOUR FLIGH7CS BRINGS CAPACITY ISSUE INTO SHARP FOCUS The looming capacity crisis at U.S. airports is being brought into sharp focus by the Port of New York and New 7ersey's decision to impose a temporary morato- rium on new peak hour flights by regionai jets at LaGuaidia Airport. � . The airport authority's action raises complicated legal questions regarding the extent of an airport proprietor's ability to limit operations, especially in light of new federal legislation intended to increase regional jet flights. It also raises the issue of how to allocate capacity at increasin?ly crowded airports and to make room for new entrant airlines. � The moratorium would prohibit airlines from addinj new regional jet operations between 8 and 10 a.rn. and 5:30 and 8:30 p.m. at LaGuardia. It is set to bejin on Oct. 1 but the Port Authority did not state when it would end. The plan was detailed in a letter from Port Authority Director Robert E. Boyle sent to 40 airlines the week of Sept. 18. Boyle noted that the airlin�es have ijnored. requests by the Port Authority to reschedule flights to non-peak:hours and that the level of delay has increased to the point where it is "u�nacceptab�e." The Port Authority is not asking the airlines to cancel their peak hour flights; just to move them to other times. �� .� The Department of Transportation has stepped into the issue trying to find a . • (•Continued on p: 139) Capacity FED EX CHIEF CALLS ON CONGRESS TO REIl�STATE FEDERAL SLOT CONTROLS Frederick W. Smith, chairman of FedEx Corp. told the House Transportation Subcommittee on Aviation Sept. 28 that it should reinstate federal control of aircraf[ operations during peak hours at congested airports in order to reduce airport delays [hat have escalated sianificantly over the pas[ fe�v years and are expected to soon reach crisis levels. ' Smith also recommendzd that the federal government exercise more control over airport expansion projects in order to overcome local objections to them because of concerns over noise and o[her environmental issues. The FedEx chairman's remarks were made durin� a House Av'iation Subcommit- tee hearin� held to bettzr understand the reasons for the increas�e in air trafEic con[rol delays this past summer and to discuss wha[ can be done abou[ them. Subcommittee Chairman John 1. Duncan 1r. (R-TN) [old Smith that it would be very difficul[ politically for ConQress to re-impose slot controls at congested airports. Smith retorted that it could be done iE Congress had the political wiil to do so. An alternative to slot control �vould be to increase the cost of flyinQ during peak hours �vhich would tend [o discouraQe leisure travelers from flyin� at those hours. (Coirtinuecl oii p. l39) �� September 29, ?000 In 7'his Isszee... LaGuardia ... The Port Authority of NY/NJ brin�s the loomin� capacity crisis at U.S. airports into sharp focus as it imposes a temporary moratorium on additional peak hour flights by regional jets at LaGuardia saying flight delays have increased to the point where they are unac- ceptable - p. 138 Capacity ... FedEx Chairman tells lawmakers that peak hour slot controls should be rein- stated and the federal govern- ment should exercise more control over airport expansion projects to overcome local opposition to them - p. 138 Sea-Tac:.. Port withdra�vs pern�it application for environ- mental work to be done in conjunction with new runway construction - p. 140 News Briefs ... Milwaukee seeks to impose PFCs for noise mitiQation projects ... FAA approves noise maps for Dillinaham Airfield ... FICAN to sponsor symposium on the value of supplemental noise metrics in conjunction with San Diego noise conference ... FAA announced that EIS will be prepared for improvements at Atlantic City Int'1- p. 140 � September 29, 2000 139 solution to the problem rather than focusing o❑ the legai aspects, a DOT spokesman toid ANR. DOT and Federal Aviation Administration officials have already had discussions with Port Authority officials, who agreed to meet with the affected airlines. � � FAA and DOT aiso have talked [o officials of Delta Air Lines which has challenged [he moratorium by selling tickets for new regionaI jet operations between LaGuardia and Burlington, VT, durin? the peak hours covered by the moratorium. The airline said, however, that it is hoping to resolve the issue prior [o Sunday, when both the morato- rium and its new flights are set to begin. Very Tough Issues The moratorium at LaGuardia raises some very tough issues, 7ack Corbett of the W ashington, DC, law firm . Spiegei & McDiarmid, told ANR. Con;ress mandated that additional re�ional jet operations be added at LaGuardia in legisiation (known as AIR 21) reauthorizing the programs of the FAA, he said. That has resulted in 600 additional fli�hts at LaGuardia, which the Port Autfiority�carinor physically handle. The Port Authority also feels that such overbooking of fli�hts is customer fraud because those flights are not goinj to take off on schedule. B ut on the other hand, Corbett explained, the airiines contend they cannot voluntarily back off of over-schedul- ing because their competitors will take open slots if they don't. The lejal question, the attorney told ANR, is can the Port Authority impose the moratorium at LaGuardia even though Con�ress said it wants an increase in regionai jet operations there, and the broader issue is how should capacity be allocated at airports, especially for new � entrants. Lotteries could be held to give slots away, he said, but [hat would entice small carriers to seek the slots and then sell them to ]arger airlines. An alternative would be to place a price on slois but the �eneral aviation industry would complain they couid not afford them: Also, Massa- chuse[ts Port Authoriry's attempt to use such an approach with general av'iation in the 1980s was challenged and struck down by the courts, Corbet[ said the FAA Administrator Jane Garvey and DOT officials will discuss the capacity allocation issue at the annual conference of the Airports Council Interna[ional — North r�merica, [o be held in New York Ci[y Oct. I-4. Regarding [he capacity issue, ivtonte Bel�er, FAA's deputy administrator, told securities analysts inNew York on Sept. 26, "If we don't deal tivith it now, I think we're �oin� to see [attempts to limit opera[ions] at other air- ports." Indeed, the Por[ Authoriry is the second major airport to take action to improve aircrafc delays. This summer, San Francisco International Airport announced that it planned to conduct a rule malinQ under the federal Part 161 reoulations to require airlines to use larQer aircraft on certain heavily traveled rou[es to reduce delays. In the face of a mandatory restriction, United Airlines, the carrier that wouid have been most affected by the restriction, agreed to voluntarily take steps to reduce delays at the San Francisco InternationaL Corbett and other aviation observers said [he Port Au[hor-` ity could be movin; to impose its moratorium at LaGuardia to give it leverage in getting the airiines to voluntarily move flights off of peak hours. FAA and DOT are most likely trying [o keep the Port Authority's moratorium out of the legal arena because the issues are very complex. The U.S. Supreme Court said in a footnote to its ruling in the Burbank case that airport proprietors can impose operational restrictions to reduce their liability for aircraft noise damages. A district court and a federal appeals court have said that airpor[ proprietors can .also impose restrictions to deal with ground congestion. However, these rulings must be viewed in the context of AIR 21's mandate that regional jet operations be allowed to increase at LaGuardia and the Airline Dereguiation Act's mandate that airlines' pricing, routes, and service cannot be restricted. Capacity, from p.138 Federal Aviation Administrator 7ane F. Garvey and Secretary of Transportation Rodney E. Slater told the committee that their efforts to redesign the national air space to accommodate more flights should be done by 2006. The FAA plans to require some aircraft to fly at lower altitudes [(", open up new air routes, she told the panel. ` " Slater told the committee in prepared remarks that "The FAA cleariy has an important role to play in the reduction of airline delays, but this responsibility is shared with airlines and airports ... As the members of this Committee know, the issue of airport capaci[y is very sensitive. W hether local communities are discussing new runways, new terminals, or new airports, the debate is always heartfelt and emotional. Hard choices will have to be made at ail levels of govern- ment across the co�ntry to ansure that we have the infra- structure in place to accommodate anticipated demand ..." Donald J. Carty, chairman and CEO of American Airlines and chairman of the Executive Committee of the Air Transport Association, a;reed that ultimately growing demand for air service will have to be me[ by buildin? more runways but said that redesign of the air space and air routes and use oF advanced air traffic control technology will help reduce delays in the short and mid-term. "W e need to desijn and build [he aviation equivalent of an ei�ht-lane super- hightivay today where we can predict what the [raffic will be tomorrow," he to(d the committee in prepared remarks. Carty challen;ed the assertion that some of the capaciry problem is bein' caused by airlines over-schedulina operations. "This summer our system-�vide load Factor ran in excess oF 80 percent," he told the commi[tee, adding, "it �- AirportNoise Feport l September 29, 2000 means tha[ we are turning away people who want ro travel in our busiest marke[s because we have run out of seats." But the airline CEO admit[ed that the to[al schedules oF all airlines combined "can and increasin;ly do exceed the capacity of [aJ particular airpor[ to handle the volume." Schedulin?, said Carty, "is a real issue, just like weather and air traffic control modernization, but i[ is only one part of a complex puzzle." "Today, there are simply more people who want to fly than the system can handle. The question, in my view, should not be how can we reduce capacity, which would inevitably push up prices. Rather it should be how can we safely expand capacity to meet demand and continae to keep prices down." Worst Delays in Five Years According to FAA statistics, this was the worst summer in five years for airline delays. In 7une, delays increased 20 percent. According to data from air carriers, FAA delays per 1,000 operations for the first six months of 2000 are up 83 percent at Detroit, 120 percent at Dallas-Ft. W orth, 115 percent at Cleveland, and 91 percent at Chicago'0'Hare. Newark has the worst.delay problem, the carriers told the committee, with 90 delays per 1,000 departures followed by LaGuardia, San Francisco, 0'Hare, Boston, Philadelphia, JFK, and DFW. The FAA recently reported that by 2010 the number of airline passengers is expected to rise to one billion. About 70 percent of that increase is expected to occur a[ the country's 28 largest airports. In 1997, the National Civil Aviation Review Commission predicted that aviation gridlock would occur soon and some say it is happenin? now, the subcommittee noted in material discussing the need for the hearing. It said tha[ only five new runways were added at the 29 largest airports between 1991 and 1999. The problem of building new runways will be discussed at a House Avia- tion Subcommittee hearinQ to be held on Oct. 5. Seattle-Tacoma Int'l PORT WITHDRAti�S PERMIT APPLIC�.TION The Port of Seattle announced Sept. 28 that it has formally withdrativn a permit application to the 1�Vashington State Department of Ecology for environmental miti�ation work to be done in conjunction �vith construction of a controver- sial third runway at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The ReQional Commission on Airport AFFairs, a group opposed to the ne�v runway at Sea-Tac and seeking devel- opment of a ne�v regional airport, said the Port's action came one day before thz deadline for approval or denial oF the plans by the state agency and signifies that the plans "are so defective that they could not be approved." But the Port contended that its action has little signifi- cance. The state aeency revie�vers have found no "fatal 140 flaws" in its plan to mitigate impacts to about 18 acres of wetland in the project area, it said, explaining that there are only a few remaining issues to be resolved with [he permit reviewers and the Por[ is confident they can be addressed within a few weeks. "The reviewers are simply asking for more detail on a few specific issues. We will provide that as quickly as possible," said the Port's Executive Director M.R. (Mic) Dinsmore. "W e are committed to doing this project well, wi[h all due �re;ard for the environment," he said. "W e w ill not rush this through, nor will we ask the review agencies to rush their work." Deadline Could Not Be Extended State and federal laws do not allow [he Departmen[ of Ecology and the Port to negotiate an extension of [he Sept. 29 deadiine for reviewing the permit. The only way for the agencies to get more time was for [he Port to withdraw and then resubmit its application, the Port said. It could offer no estimate of how the withdrawal might impact either the construction timetable for the new runway or its cost. Sea-Tac's two existing runways are only 800 feet apart and during periods of low visibility, Federal Aviation Adminis- tration rules prohibit the simultaneous use of such closely- spaced parallel runways. The result is [hat oniy one runway can be used. The Port wants to add a third runway so that aircraft would be, able to use two runways in poor weather. RCAA contends that the Port does not have a good plan for dealin� with stream pollution from the third runway. "Spending �773 million, mostly borrowed money, to build a part-time runway that will not brin� one single additional plane to Sea-Tac is a colossai waste of money. No matter how hard they try, the airport's planners can never find a way to build the huge runway embankment without doing unacceptable damaQe to the environment and wi[hout violatin� long-standing water-quality rules," RCAA said. The Port plans to construct the new runway on a dirt embankment that will take 17 million cubic yards of fill to create. In Brief ... PFCs at Nlilti�°aukee The Federal �viation ,4dministration on Sept. 27 invited public comment on two separate applications by General �Iitchell Interna[iunal Airport in i�Iilwaukee to impose Passenger Facili[y Charges (PFCs) to collect revenue to support various airport development projects, including sound insulntion and desiQn and construction of a hush house noise suppressor structure. One app(ication seeks to collect S6-�.9 m illion rzvenue from a 53 PFC imposed From April l. 1999, throueh lune 1, Airport Uoise R;port September 29, 2000 141 ANR EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Steven R. Alverson Manager,Sacramento0ffice Harris M i11erM iller& Hanson John J. Corbett, Esq. Spiegel & McDiarmid W ashingmn, DC James D. Ecickson Director, Office of Environment and Energy FederalAviation Administration 2004, to fund construction of a surface movemen[ guidance control system and [o support phase II of a school/church sound insulation program. The other application seeks to collect $22.6 million from a$3 PFC imposed from June 1, 2004, through 7uly l, 2006, for various construc- li' tion and rehabilitation projects, including the hush house. ,. Comments on the applications must be received by Oct. 27. FAA said it will approve or disapprove the applications by Dec. 5. For further information, contact Sandra E. DePottey, program manager in the FAA's Minneapolis Airports District Office; tel: (612) 713-4363. Dillingham Noise Maps The FAA announced Sept. 27 that noise exposure.maps submitted by John C. Freytag, P.E. the state of Hawaii Department of Transportation for Dillingham Airfield Director,CharlesM.SalterAssociates in Moluleia, Hawaii, meet fedetal requirements. San Francisco The agency said it is reviewing a proposed noise compatibility program Michael Scott Gatzke, Esq. for the airport and will approve or disapprave it by March 15, 2001. Gatzke,Diiton & Ballance • For further information, contact David J. W eihouse, an airport planner Carisbad,CA in the FAA's Honolulu Airports District Office; tel (808) 541-1243. Peter J. Kirsch, Esq. Cut(er& Stanfieid Denver 5uzanne C. McLean ChiefDevelopmentOfficer Tucson AirpattAuthori[y John M. Meenan Senior V ice President for Industry Policy A irTransport Association Vincent E. Nlestre, P.E. President, Mestre Greve Associates NewportHeach, CA Steven F. Pfiaum, Esq. McDermott, W ill & Emery Chica;o Karen L. Robertson Manager,Noise Compatibility Office Dallas/Fort W orth Intzrnationa] Airport �tary L. Vigilante President, Synerey Consultants Seattle Lisa Lyle Waters M anager, Noise Abatement Proeram Palm Beach County Departmen[of Airports FICAN Symposium on Supplemental Noise Metrics The Federal Intera;ency Committee on Aviation Noise (FIGAN) will hold a public symposium on the value of supplemental noise metrics in conjunctiori with the University of California's Airport Noise Sympo- sium to be held in San Diego on Feb. 25-28, 2001. Last year FICAN also sponsored a public symposium in conjunction with the conference. It addressed the effect on noise on children's ability to learn and was considered very successful. FICAN just released a position paper,on the issue cailing for a pilot study of the effectiveness of school sound insulation programs and has invited the Department of � Education to join the federal interagency group. Atlantic City International EIS The FAA announced Sept. 28 [hat an environmental impact statement (EIS) wil] be prepared for proposed improvements at Atlantic City International Airport, located in the environmentally-sensitive Pinelands National Reserve, which FAA described as "an internationally important ecolo�ical re?ion that is I.1 million acres in size and occupies 22 percent of New Jersey's land area. Two public scoping meeting are scheduled reQarding the EIS on Nov. 1 in Eg� Harbor Township, NJ. For further information, contact Daisy Mather i� FAA's Eastern Regionai Office; tel: (718) ��3-2� 11. AIRPORT NOISE REPORT Anne H. Kohut, Publisher Published 46 times a year at 43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashbum, Va. 20147; Phone: (703) 729-4867; F:�X: (703) 7?9-4523. e-mail: editor@airpo�tnoisereport.com; Price $549. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by Airport Noise Report, provided that the base fee of US$1.03 per pa�e per copy is paid directly to Copyri?ht Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, M:� 019�3. USA. r \.