The URL can be used to link to this page

1995-12-13 ARC Packet� CITY O� iV1END0'T/5 HEIGHTS DAKOT�1 COUNTY, i1�INNESOTA i41RPORT REL/�TIONS COMMISSIOfV I_��i�► � _ DECENiBER 13, 1995 1. Call to Order - 8:00 o'clock p.m. 2. Roll Cail 3. Introduction;of Bernard Gross, new Airport Relations Commissioner. 4. Approval of November 15, 1995 Meeting Minutes. 5. Acknowledae Receiat of Various Reqorts/Correspondence° a. December MASAC Agenda and NIASAC General Meeting Minutes for � October 24, 1995. � b. MASAC Technical Advisors Report for October, 1995. c. MASAC Operations Committee Meeting Minutes for November, 1995. d. Bloomington Letter to Residents regarding Runway 422 Extension e. Richfieid Part 150 Buy-Out Updates for October, 1995. f. Shoulder Hour Letter and MAC Analysis 6. Unfinished and tVew Businesse a. Discuss Status of Non-Simultaneous Departure Procedure Implementation. b. Discuss inver Grove Heights requesfi for Amendment to Corridor Procedures. c. Discuss MAC Dual Track Environmental Impact Study, Executive Summary and Economic Impact Study Status Report. C C m _ _ C. d. Discuss City Council°s response to the City of Richfield's request to � participate in legislative efforts on Community Protection Package. 7. Other Comments or Concernso 8. Adjourn. /Auxiliary aids for disabled persons are available upon request at least 120 hours in aclvance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may noi be possible on short notice. Please contact City Aciministration at 452-1850 with requests. � I j 0 „v ��?�.;.. C. C BERNARD GROSS 1723 Sutton Lane Mendota Heights, MN 55118 (612) 681-1635 VICE PRESIDENT — EXPORT MANAGER with nineteen years experience directing grain, meats, and food sales in the international azena with full P& L responsibility. Seeking opportunity to develop and direct an aggressive internadonal sales and mazketing organizadon. Strategic Planning Budgeting Market Research Logistics AI2EAS O�' EXPE TR ISE Hedging Documentation Ocean Freight Foreign Currency Streng:tis �m: Identifying and develo��ng m�rkets for new and/or existing products. Coondinating plant operations with sales and markedng. . Develop and train people. Resolving problems, controlling costs, generating profits. � Red Meats Frozen foods Grains OIlseeds Professional manager and negotiator. Energedc. Successfully handle many irons in the fire. Apply broad knowledge of the field with good judgement, inidative, and innovation. Conscientious, imaginative and practical. Can be depended on for sound decisions, prompt action, and pro�table results. SKILLS AND ACHIEVEMENTS � )DEVELOP NEW Li�'�� de in Mexico; made it evident that there was pent up demand for convenience foods. MARKETS Formulataci a strategy, a partner in Mexico was identifed, and the plan implemented;expectations were exceeded by 50 percent in ihe first 6. months. Product line was expanded and the distribudon azea. increased to cover the major markets. All product lines are now in the major supermazket chains in the two largest cities. Increased wealth of the general popula6on in Taiwan made it a natural market for high value beef products. Once identified, ihis market was penetrated by appointing a qualified agent, product supgort, and personal involvemenG Sates a�+e ahead of budget by 20 percent, and the company is now a factor in this marke� GENERATE Economic chaos in Venezuela put extreme strains on the established food chain. The currency devalued PROFITS rapidly, and inflation set in. The poultry industry was almost devastated as demand dropped precipitously. An export mazket was found that enabled our Venezuelan partner to scale down operadons rather than shut down. lfiis business has continued to .grow and now accounts for 35 percent of our profits. COMMIJNICAT�NG Conducted regularly scheduled meetings of elevator managers and traders to coordinate operations and develop mazke6ng sirategy. Minimized turnover and increased producdvity by personally coaching and motivating trainees. Improved farmer reladonships by organizing and directing seminars on the grain . business, bringing in recognized experts as spealcers, Wrote daily mazket wires to foreign offices and weekly recaps to all domestic offices, detailing market activity, trading, and strategies. Gathered crop research data and prepared timely written reports for corporate headquarters. -2- BUSINESS EXPERIENCE CON AGRA —1985 To Present IiERNARD GROSS �ce President, Con Agra Asia-Paci�c — Minneapolis, MN Report to President. Created and implemented art international food division. Plan and direct the profitabie international sales and mazkedng �of frozen meat, frpzen foods, and certain branded goods, coordinate sales and — markedng with operations, transportation, and crediG Esta'Flished a broker/dealer network in eight countries. Direct a professional staff of two with full P& L responsibility. �`�" LAND O'LAI�S —1982 to 1985 Export Sales Manager, Spencer Beef Division — S� Paul, MN Reported to Division Presiden� Directed a professional staff of five and support staff of twa Planned and directed the , profitable sales of beef and beef by-products. Developed strategic plans, new markets, and new products, apgointed brokers and agents; coordinatsd transportadon, documentation, and credi� Full P& L responsibility for sales of about 100 _. ' �;on do�?.:��s. MFA INCORPORATED 1981 to 1982 Grain Merchandising Manager, Grain Division — Columbia, MO Reported to Division �ce Presiden� Directed seven elevator managers, seven grain merchandisers and support staff of three. Responsible for over one half companies total gross revenues. Full P& L accountability for grain and futures trading. Set merchandising philosophy,�objectives, strategies, policies and procedures. C4NTINENTAL GRAIN COMPANY —1971 to 1980 Senior Trader, World Grain Division, New York, NY,1980 Report to �ce President of commodity. Responsibility for gaining expertise in soybean meal mazket, preparatory establishing new division for soybean meal, from start-up to full operation status. Trade on daily basis in exp� markeG General Manager, Ohio River Division, MG Vernon, IN,1977 to 1980. � Reported W Regional �ce PresidenG Directed 8'elevator management employees, 9 gain buyers and merichandisers, and subordinate staff of 60. Administered $2.6 million budgeG Full P& L responsibility for operations and coordinadon of 7 grain elevators. Originated local grain, traded domestic grain, set local prices, negotiated wck contracts, trained grain merchandisers, prepareci budgets and manpower requirements. � Feed Grain Commodity Manager, California Region, Walnut Creek, CA,1975 to 1977. Reported to Regional Assistant Vice PresidenG Coordinated with 5 Area Managers and 2 Merchandisers. Responsible for domestic and export feed grain programs and trading, with P& L accountability. Traded grain by-products for exnort. Merchandiser, Export Soybeans,New Yark, NY, 1974 to 1975. Reported to �ce President of Commodity. Responsible for trading export soybeans. Exposure to ocean freight and export contzacts. Merchandising'I�rainee, Memphis, TN; S� Louis, MO; and Norfolk, VA,1971 to 19�4. Series of increasingly responsible assignments in local truck grain originadon, domestic corn merchandising, and originating rail and barge grain for export. EDUCATION M.S., Organic Chemistry, University of Connecticut,1971. Teaching Fellowship,1967 to 1971. B.S.; Chemistry; Long Is1and University,1966._ _ Additional programs in labor relations, accounting, management, business writing, computer programming, EEO. `� PERSONAL Age 45; Height 5'8"; Weight 160; Married, 2 children; Health excellent� CITY OF 1VIEIVDOT�! HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, tU11N11lESOTA , - r �; . ; ; ,� � � • • The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on Wednesday, November 15, 1995 in the City Haii Large Conference Room, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 8:00 o'clock P.M. The foliowing members were present: Beaty, Fitzer, Oisen and Stein. Commissioners Surrisi and Leuman were excused. Also present were City Administrator Tom Lawell, Administrative Assistant Kevin Batchelcier and Senior Secretary Kim Blaeser: Commissioner Olsen moved approval of the September 6, 1995 minutes. Commissioner Stein seconded the motion. ( � j AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Olsen movecf approval of the October 11, 1995 minutes. Commissioner Fitzer seconded the motion. AYES: 4 IVAYS: 0 Administrator Lawell introduced Kevin Batchelder to Commission members. Lawell explained that effective December 1 st, Mr. Batchelder will assume the responsibilities of staffing the Airport Relations Commission. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF V,�4RIOl1S REPORTS/CORRESPOflIDENCE The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC General Meeting Minufes for September 1995. Chair Beaty stated that the MASAC r` �,. , , � � r • � � � � -, � Administrator Lawell explaineci that the Commission has discussed the subject of nighttime fiight operations, particularly as they related to "shoulder hours". Lawell explained that at our request, the MASAC Operations Commission is addressing this topic. Lawell informed the Commission that a clraft letter to MAC Chairman Sandy Grieve has been prepared which states the City's concern with nighttime operations and specifically asks for shoulder hour relief. Administrator Lawell informed the Commission that a similar letter will likely be sent by other ci�kies in the Northern Dakota County Coalition. Commissioner Fitzer moved to recommend that the City Council direct City staff to send a letter to MAC Chair Sandy Grieve requesting the MAC to take steps to negotiate new nighttime agreements with the air carriers to limit scheduled operations between the hours of 10:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Commissioner Olsen seconded the motion. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 � � . • , . . � � , � , • � . .. Administrator Lawell informed the Commission that on Tuesday, December 19, 1995, Mr. Nigel Finney, of the MAC staff, will make a presentation on the Dual Track issue. He encouraged the Commissioners to attend this presentation. � ADJOURNMENT There being no further discussion, the Airport Relations Commission adjourned its meeting at 10:10 o'clock P.M. Respectfully submitted, � Kimberlee K. Blaeser Senior Secretary C 4 ( i �� . . �� ■ � i � METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCI� Generai Meetinq DECEMBER 5, 1995 � 7:30 p.m. tio 9:15 p.m. 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota . 1. Cali fi� O�der, Roil Call 2. Approvai of Minutes of Meeting Oc�ober 24� 1995 3. intr�aduction of invited Guests _ ) Receipt of Communications — 4. Technical Advisor's Runway System Util'�zatian Report and Compiai� Summary 5. Approvai of 1996 MASAC Meeting Dates 6. Repo�t of the Operafions Committee Meeting November 17, 1995 � 7. Persons wshing to Address the Counal 8. Other ftems Not an the Agenda 9. Adjoummerrt Next Meeting: January 23, 1996 � � �. ' 0 MINUTES METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL ` � GENERAL MEETING OCTOBER 24, 1995 ' � 7:30 p.m. . . . . 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapotis, Minnesota _ 1. Call to Order Roil Call The meeting was cailed to order by Chainnan Bob Johnson at 7:30 p.m. and the secretary was asked to cail the roll. The following members were in attendance: Niark Salmen . No�thwest Jennifer Sayre Northwest Brian Bates Airbome Cha�ies Curry , , ALPA Bob Johnson . �gqq. � John Smith � Minneapolis CC Dick Keinz . MAC � . John Richter . Minneapolis � Scott Buni� St.' Paul . . Carol McGui�e St. Paui � Don Priebe Richfield Jamie Verbnagge Richfield .. . Petrona Lee � Bioomington John Nelson Bloomington Mike Schiau Eagan Jili Smith Mendota Heights Mayor Mertensoto Mendota Heights Ed Porter � Bumsvilie . Jim Hollenbeck Bumsviile Dale Hammons inver Grove Heights � Manny Camilon St. L.ouis Pa�lc Bob Andrews St. �ouis Park � Glenda Spiotta Associate Member-Sunfish �ake � 1 C Advisors Denis Corneli , - Commissione� Joe Gasper � � John Foggia Roy Fuhrmann Traci Erickson Guests Jan DelCalzo 2. 3. Approvai of Minutes FAA MAC Technicai Advisor MAC Supv.Aviation Noise Programs MAC ANOMS Specialist Minneapolis The minutes of the September 26, 1995, meeting were approved as presented. Introduction of Invited Guests Receipt of Communication No invited guests. CoR�espondence was received from Larry �ee, City of Bloomington� anr�ouncing that a pubtic meeting on the Dual Track Draft Environmental lmpact Statement will be heid December 20� 1995, 7:00 p.m:, Bloomington City Cauncil Chambers. If you have any questions, piease cail Larry Lee [948-8947]. A letter received October 17� from Mike Schiax, aitemate representative Eagan, listed examples of "unnecessary noise events". Mr. Schlax requested tail numbers of military F-16's � � through ANOMS data, and that MASAC support policy against private aircraft use at MSP. John Foggia responded that ali �military aperations are fiitered from ANOMS.� Chairman Johnson refeRed the cortespondence to the Op.erations Committee for response. A formai statement will be sent to Mr. Schlai�. :'� r ) Technicai Advisors Runway System Utilization Report and Complaint Summarv The Technical Advisors report was distributed. John Foggia �eported that the ANOMS technical system is working well, and reviewed the following poinfs of interest: ` Page 3 contains the new title "Availabie Time for Runway Use" which was requested . at the last meeting. * Air traftic has shifted into fali weather pattems [SE flow changed to NW flowj 34% departures over Minneapolis in August increased to 43% in September. * The�e was incr.eased utilization of the RUS. * ANOMS reported 47.7% Stage 3 use at MSP for September 1995. • �* RMT 12 is stiil out of service. _ � � :* The Nighttime flight tracks requested at the September meeting are inciuded in the report package. 2 - � , 5. MAC Update Jeffrey Hamiel, MAC F�cecutive Director, addressed the councii on the following issues: The completed Runway 4/22 extension includes an 11,000' runway surtace. Fiii is now being moved in and the foundation work is in process. Negotiations are on-going fo� the project dealing with mitigation. The 4/22 extension wiii be fully operational by summer's end 1996. The Dual Track process is on schedule. The �ommission has been meeting early every month for briefings and special reports on Dual Track. MAC's recommendation, which will strongly encourage legislature ta make a finai decision, will be sent to the legislature on time. The worst scenario is "no decision", due to increased tra�c and�costs. The Federal Inspection Service (FIS) facility project on the Goid Concourse wiil add 5 to 6 mote intemationai gates to accommodate foreign travelers. Currentiy, intemational flights utilize the HHH TeRninal and passengers must use a shuttle bus to the Lindbergh Terminal for connecting flights. The development of an FIS facility on the Goid Concourse wili •resuit in more e�cienUconvenient processing of intemationai passengers making MSP more competitive in foreign air service. Steps toward improving retaii at the terminal will aiso be made in ��n effort to become more competitive. The anticipated aompletion date of the FIS project is September 1996. Portions of the south parallei Runways (11R/29�) wiii be ciosed for major reconstruction potentially commencing in early 1997. During the first two �hases of the construction, approximately 3200' of each end of the Runway wiil be reconstructed including associated work on Taxiway A. This wili ailow approximately 6000' of the Runway to remain in service. The reconstruction of the remaining center portion (3300') will require a total nanway closure � some time after 1997� but it has not been scheduled yet. Reconstruction of Runway 11 R/291. is critical from a maintenanceYsafety standpoint and cannot be delayed. There will be noise impacts to�the north on a temporary basis during construction. . � Mr. Hamiel informed the council that Chairman Grieve has bee� thoroughiy briefed on MASAC and the Part 150 Programs. The Commissioners have not forgotten about MASAC and are sensitive to environmental and noise issues. A question/answer session followed.- `�. May 1996 Mitigation Reports from the Metropolitan Council will be shown to MASAC. * A MAC mailing wili go out to ail residents expiaining the South Parallel Runway closures. � � ` �MSP operation forecasts are continualiy updated. MAC is ahead on growth projection. Growth is being �e-evaluated. ` The Reliever Airpo�t System is being examined. * A MASAC/MAC joint meeting wiil need to be pianned at least three months in advance. Staff will coordinate and schedule a target date. :�, : 6. Update: Draft New Noise ManaQement MethodoloQv �NNMM) �etters f i John Foggia reported that the draft letter is complete. 1994 wili be estabiished as the baseline year. 1995 wili be used as a comparison year. 1996 becomes the first compliance year. Wthin the next two weeks, the letter wili be mailed and will inciude an explanation of how the baseline was established fo� each of the ai�lines. Northwest Ai�lines is on board covering 82% of operations. 7. Briefing: INTERNET The MAC Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs will be using the Intemet as the next step used for information dissemination - which is one of MASAC's Charters. The Intemet is another information management tool which staff is trying to implement to supplement an original capability that came frorn the noise complaint hotline. The Intemet is a significant way to serve the public who is interested in retrieving information through computer technology, and offers ways for staff to interface with technological partners [Honeywell, etc.j. The Intemet is also a powetful tool to communicate directly between other airports in the U.S. and worldwride. Using ATIS on phone lines is another option intended to be used for information dissemination, along with b�oadcasting infoRnation on Cable television. Roy Fuhrmann, Supervisor Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs, presented an overview of the Intemet which included: wliat is the Intemet� origin/history, growth, and cuRent users. There are multitudes of users which include federal and state agencies, informational service providers� research/academia, and public infonnation sources. Aviation users are capitalizing on . Intemet technology. Mr. FuhRnann elaborated on the specific uses of Intemet for airlines, airports� aviation service providers, airplane/aviation procurement, aviation groups, and travel agents. Denver Intemational Airpo�t's (DIAj Intemet information contains airport layout� description, environmental programs [water, energy, clean air, and noise]� directions to DIA, technical data, and ai�lines serving DIA. Miami Intemational Airport's (MIA) infonnation includes MIA mission� airport description� development contracts, airside business promotions, domesti�ntemational marketing statistics� and airport technical data. Currently there are 26 major airports across the U.S. with Infemet connections. Mr. Fuhrmann reviewed items to be included on the Home Page: Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs, ANOMS, GIS, GPS, State Report. MAC information will include mission, purpose, and operating philosophy. 8. Persons Wishina to Address the Council ►fR�7it� 9. Reao�t of MAC Commission Meeting October 16, 1995 Chairman Johnson reported that a representative from Denver gave a briefing against the ( . construction of the new Denver Intemational Airport. 4 � 10: Other Items Not on the Agenda , The minutes of the Operations Committee on Octaber 12, 1995, were distributed for review. Shoulder Hours, and correspondence directed to the council will be addressed at the November Operations Committee meeting. . � Mike Schlax announced that the City of Eagan is having an open forum on the Dual Track, November 15, 1995. 11. Adioumment Chairman Johnson adjoumed the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Jean Deighton, Secretary UPCOIVIING MEETING DATES Full Commission December 18, 1995 1:00 p.m.- Room 303 Planning & Environment Committee December 5, 1995 0 MASAC January 23, 1996 7:30 p.m. r. , r ( � �' � • � � .�all�49�1'� 23 F��i��B� �T i�BlPG:1 Zs " Apr°il 23 Nlay Z8 Jun� 25 July 23 August 27 Sep#ernber 24 October 22 tdovernber - NO MEETING Decernber 3 t . . .....�, Ca ��iiiiiii%%%. � ,,,,,,,--;, ; ,l %� 1 � ,r� � . Minneapolis / 5t. I'aul International Airpori � � � .._.:., .,......... _ MOIVTHLY MEETING - Metropolitan Airport Sound Abatement Council cnat.�,��.• Etobert P. Jo6n.00 Yice CMimrart: scott eun;n Technicn/ Adviror.• tann Fog�ta Secrefary: lean DetQhwn Air6ome £xpreaa: s� s��a AirTmmpart Araxiation: Paul McGraw nt.re: C6adeo W. Curry Jr. ciy c{etoomingraa: Petrooa Lee v� wu�: crry ye�;u�: 7uaa Riva. c�ry y��8�: ' Dustm Mieidc Ciry c{finer GmveHeighlr: De�is Maddm City efMendolaHeighls: i�719m1ih City cfMinraapolia: J�na �.9errlo 7d,n Rk6eer Joe i.ee . JudiW D«Ige c�ry �arc�m: G�eICArane n� ra� c;ty �sr.ta�Pa�r: xa�e aaro... c;ty �#sr. P�t: s�on a� c�c.wrod� cp� a� nt�c�re Delta A1rLine.rlrta: w�n taa..a� Fertem! Esprc.ra: 7bm A6daedc Fedeml Avia►!on Admirti.fhnrion: Hevice Wap�aer Romld GIan6 MAC Sfc�S Didc Kdnc MBM: Rubert P. Ja6n.m Mvabn Norlhweat Airlink: Lawrmee McCnbe MetropoJitan Airportr Conunia�iore Commia�imer Albq Gae�xt MNAtrNallomlGumd: t�tq�or Afnrlc B. xea Northwut Airlinet: �� Jmdfa 8ayre Sf. Paul CMmber af Camnaiea: Iw9c Borlctey . Sun Caradry Afrlfma: Luke A. C.omn � . Utited Airlitoealne.: Nlan 7bmt(nro� unired Parcetservicu 9te.ve Walkv - Pe�y H'illmm US. Air Fmre Ruern: Captain stevm chopmun US. Supplemen(al Cnrrierr: Robcrt anthc Metropolitan Airports Commission Declaration of Purposes 1.) Promote public welfar+e and national securiry; serve public interest, convenience, and necessity; promote air navigation and transportation, international, national, state, and local, in and through this state; promote the efficient, safe, ar�d e�onamical handling of air commerce; assure the inclusion of this state in national and international programs of sir transportation: and to those ends to develop the full potentialities of the metropolitan area in this state as an aviadon center, and to correlate that area with all aviatio�n facilities in the entire state so as to grovide for the most economical and effective use of aeronautic facilities and services in that area: 2.) Assure the residents of the metropolitan area of the minimum environmental impact from air navigatian and transportatioai, and to that end provide far noise abatement, control of airport area land use, and other prot�ective measures; add 3.) Pro�note the overall goals of the state's environmentsl policies and minimi�p � public's exposure to noise and safety hazards around airports. - Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council Statement of Purpose This corporation was formed in furtherance af the general welfare of the communities adjoining I�nneapolis-St. Paul International Airport - Wold-Chamberlain Field, a public airport in the Coimty of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, through the alleviatia� of tl�e problems created by th�e sound of aircraft using the airport; through study and evaluadon on a continuing basis of tl�e problem and of suggestioai for the alleviatioai of the same; through ini6ation, coardinarion and promotiaai of reasonable and effective procedures, control and regulations, consistent with the safe operation of the sirport and af aircraft using the, same; and through disseminatian a� information to the affecbed communities, tl�eir affected residents, and the users of the airport respecting the problem of ai�raft noise musance and ia respect to suggestions maci� and acdons initiated and taken to alleviate the problem. � � Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council Representation The membership shall include representadves apgointed by agencies, corporations, associations and govemmental bodies which by reason of their statutory authority and responsibility or control over the airport, or by reasaai of their status as airport users. have a direct interest in tt�e operatian of the airport. Such members will be called User Representatives and Public Representatives, prwided that the User Representatives and Public Representatives shall at all times be equal in numbes � The Airpoft 24-hour Noise Notline u 726-9411. Complaints to the hotline do not result in changes in Airport activiry, but provides a public sounding boazd and airportinformation outiek The hotline is staffed 24-hours Monday - Friday This report is prepared and printed in house by Roy Fuhrmann and Traci Erickson Quesflons or comments may be directed to: MAC - Aviation Noise Program l�nneapolis /St Paul Internaflonal Airport fi040 28W Avenue SouW � l�finneapolis, MN 55450 Tel: (612) 715-6331, Fax: (612) 725-6310 Metropolitan Airports Commission Aaiation Noise Programs ,� .� -, Oper�aiions and Coa�aplaint ,�u�n�nary 1 � � Operations Summary - All Aircraft .....................................................................................1 MSP October Fleet IViix Percentage ....................................................................................1 Airport.October Complaint Summary' :....:........................... ...............1 ................... � October Operations Summary - Airport Directors Office ...................................:...............1 Mia�neapolis - St. I'aul inte�°nat�onal Ai�°po�t Co�nplaint Summary 2 i j ComplaintSummary by Ciry ...............................................................................................2 TOwer .LOg' Ilepot"ts 3 All Hours .. ......................... ...........................................................................................3 .... .... NighttimeHours ..................................................................................................................3 • I r, i � � • RunwayUse Report October 1995 ......................................................................................4 i � � /i' i` / Runway Use Report October � 1995 .........:...............�.........:...:............�..�..............................:..5 , , . / � ,• i , � � Runway Use Report October 1995 :.......................::.........................:..................:...............6 ;, . � . . � /' / /; RunwayUse Report October 1995 ......................................................................................7 , , ,, /�� , i r� : Aircraft Identi, fier and DescriptionTable 9 � � � /� , '� �, • /i� � �: l �. � - . � Community OverfCight Analysis 11 ' �� 0 �arrier Jet Operati.ons - All Hours ........:...............:.:.......:.............:.:................:.....:........... l l Carrier Jet Operations - Nighttirne (l lpm - 6 am) ............:.................:..............................11 Ayiation Noise Programs � � . �; . ' � � � , / / / . �'arrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Eve�tts 13 � Count of Arrival Aircra.ft Noise Events for Each RMT .....................................................13 Carrier Jet Departure Itelated Noise Events 14 Count of Departure Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT ................................................14 Ten LoudestAircra,�'t1Voi�e Events Identified IS Ten LoudestAircraft Noise Events Identi, f ied 16 � ' / � � ', � / , , � , � [ ' / �' ' � / , , �• �[: . � ,, . , I , , �, ,'' 17 I8 l9 , / i' ,, . , , , , , , , , , � ' � � ; � , � � C Airport Noise and Operations Mon.itoring Systems Flight Z'racks 22 Carrier Jet Operati.ons - October 1995 ...............................................................:............:..22 Aarport Noise anal Operations Monitoring Systea�n Flight Tracks 23 Carrier Jet Operations - October 1995 .................:.............................................................23 Airport Noise and Operations Moraitorzng System Flight Tracks 24 Carrier Jet Operations - October 1995 .......:....:...........................................:..................... 24 Airport Noase arnd C)pera�ions Monitoring System FZight.Tracks � 25 Carrier Jet Operatioris - October 1995 ...........................:.<................................................ 25 .. Analysis of 14.ircraft Noise Events - Aircraft Ldn dl3(A) 26 �� Analysis of Aircraft 1lToise Events - Aircraft Ldn dB(A) 27 Aviation Noise Programs . . _ . � Metropolitan Airports Commissi� � . . Operations and.. Compiaint �urnmary� �', October 1995 � ' Operations Summary - Alt Aircra�t '�, , MSI' October Fleet Mix Percentage � Airport October Complaint Summary October Operations Summary - Airport Directors Office Aviatian Noise Programs Page 1 �vteaopoutan �rpores �umruission Minneapolis - St. Paul Internat�on�l A�rport Complaint Su�nmary '� � October 1995 � � Complaint Summary by City � :::;::>:::::>:> :;:>�:>:::;:::::<::::::::>:::::::::>::><::>::>:»:;::::::<: ::::>:;':::::::::�;::::::::::::;;� :::::::::::::�:::::::::::::::> :::::::::::::>::::::::::::::>::>::::::::::>:::«:>:::::;:::: :;>::::::::;:::>::::::>::::>.>°:::;;><::>:::<::;::: :>::::::::::::::>::::>::::::::;>:::;::>;:::>:::>:<:::::::: :.;;»:.:,>: :::. .:: � : : : : : : : . >::>::>;:;: ::::>: ::: ;::;::>::::> :::: . . . . . . . . . . . .: : : :. . .: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .: . . . . . ... . . . . : : : . � :: : : .: : : . .: : . : � : : : : : : : : . � : : : : : .: : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : : : . � : : : . :: . :<:::>::>:::<..�`'��:. .:::::::::»::::::>�:>:::::::::::>�:::::>::::::::>:<: :::<:;::<::;:��. ��: ; , :. : :;;�::::::: :::>::� �� .. . . ; : . . � :: >::::> �<;�€;::>:::::;;< ::: : :.: .... :::::::::><::::.: :;;::: ::..... .;; ... ... :.. :......::: ........�.a►'�!€?'�........ .... ..... ...� . .. .�t'ti�� .... :.:.::::::: .. . :::: : ::>::::: <:: :::::::::::::::>::: : :::::::::� :........:::.:.:�::::::::::::::: ............................................. ... '��.:::::..... .......�� .:. :....�....:. Apple Valley 2 19 21 Bloomington 1 6 7 Bwrnsville 0 � 26 26 Eagan 17 '738 755 Frlina 7 13 20 � Inver Grove Heights • 4 42 46 Lakeville 0 1 1 Mendota. Heights 10 22 32 Minneapolis 54 209 263 Oakdale 0 2 2 Richfield 7 . 23 . 30 . Roseville 0 1 1 S. St. Paul 0 8 g St. Louis Park 1 1 2 St. Paul 21 . 10 31 W. St. Paul 1 � p. l� :,: »: �.; �.:. :: ;..»::, :. :.r:>. : ::.�:;:::::<:::;�::>:::::>.:::::: :::h ::::.::.::.::.::.::.:>:.::.;:.:::: � . . .: . .. v . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....,...,.: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:; : . . . . . . .: : . : : : .: . . . � ... ::::,....:.::�..:�::::; ..............n..�.,:::.....�:.�::.,v�:�::v�:::::...:.::.�:. + :: . vv.. ... r...ry{rr:: i4:t;:yf. ". ' �r C . . . . .... . , }�. , ��'vh•i ::Q'{{.i:�: i '?..:: � • �. . �'ti,f:: �.: }$:: • ¢r:ti''�: n; v. : •.iii: • ... ' . v.�. . .::. }{i}'�'l}: .. :?�$J - A....r.� .. 4if..rx ? •.}. i::::r:::::::'.:::::::::.•.%�::n . . . . ::::: v::: :: r....... ..r ..n.:: :: .... vnn.v,{. n.:.vF. .; ;. . �. . .tnOirir.:h;: „� .;. : F. /.........:. : .�/.r• .xM..... n.h.. . '.iyiv.v,-... . vf� ir.+f..; . .v : +hf.+FF..; n:. � ............ . :.v... .riv. 4 ..:: • : �.. ,v,: r:J : •....... i •: .; .m: v. .... .. .� .: . .......i:Y•; v,• . .�::::: • ; :::::::::::.. ::i:� ..xA. f.�+r . }.:f...n . ..�... . n.tv.. ��•: ::::::::::::::.�nw: n:•+ti v: v: v. .......r�.rF• . . .:: v} :r .::: .;}...:.v ,.r. . . ::bv•: •ii: •:::;i{ir,'.•.ti i. � .r{. ::%'i. v:}:::::i:.. n n.f... }:�� . .:?.{:¢;. n R. . }.:::: ; ::v.:i:iii�'i ,;.: f. { } ... $ �.fir.. r... : r GF.:.v: .; . ::n�nw.�:.�:::::::..:� ........... ........r:.. {rS.....�............nrw.�::x.;.::::. ......' .,. r.y.};•; • , •, •: :::?:+.+ • • :ti{:'nwn; :::::::::: •:.� ::::::::.............: :. ::::::i :v ............ n.,},..:.m:::..:::: . �w:: •:: v .............n......... n.:v...::.:�:�: .,-..... .}.. }.i:n. .......1{L ' ty ......... • ... . {;{•;, :/.w.�n�::::::i:?�iii)::,••i:. vk.. Time of Day Nature af Complaint Page 2 Aviation Noise Programs :``.�.' : . � � Metropolitan Airports .Commissiari � Available Time for Run�vay I1se ' 'T'ower Log 1Zepor� - October 1995 All Hours � :::<'<>�;::�:;> 7 /� �. ��.��.�.�`` ' � %�;::[a!i;iF(ti;r;<:>:: . . . . . . . � :::. . . Nighttime Hours ::::::':>:::�> - � . ,::;�::�:::; � �'��:�'"�::��:��.��::� , � >:>`:5:!�e�::�:::��::::::>��> � G+� �� v � �� 29 D O�� . � . 04 _ �° :::::::::::::::::::::: �� ::::::��:: ��:: ::;�::�``�`��:::` �.� :�::��:�:: � ::ti�...:._�:. .... :..::: .;:..: .::.::. :::::::. � .::.::.::.::.. , ; ::::::::::::. . . , :::::::.:.::::.. . :: :.:::.::....:.:. :.�::..:..... �, ::.� :. � ..... :::.:. _ :..::. .::.:::. . :::::�:::�:::::::::::.: . Aviation Nadse Programs .: . � Page 3 Metropolitan Airports Commission . , , . �.�� ,,. �� f, . o ' e �: P� 4 � � Aviation;Noise Programs � ; . . �� . �- �arrier Jet C)perations Runway Use 12eport October � ::::::::::::�� ::::�:�::�:: �:`�:::::»> Metropolitan Airports Commissia�n . - Aviation Noise Ptograms . . . . Page 5 Metropolitan Airports Cammission � . : � 1' . 1; � .f, � .;�� . �� , „� P� 6 � Aviation Noise Programs . i l � � M1 Metropolitan Airports Commissiaai Nighttime Carrier Je� Operati�nns ]E2unway LTse I2eport C�ctobea� 995 Aviation Naise Programs . � :. Page 7 Metropolitan AirPorts Commission Carr�er Jet �perations by Type (�ctober 1995 :<::>:::��<:�::::::::::::;:::>;.:::::::::>::::::::;:::>::>::::�:::; ::::>::><:::>::::>::::::::>:;::::::::: ::::::::::::::>::>: ::::><:>:::<::>::::>::::::;::>::::>::»::::::::::::: :;:::::;��:a�t::::> ::: ;. .....::>:::: ::::::>::::;<�::: < ::::.:: :.. :.: ::::::>:::::::::: :::::; :....:..:.:..::.:.::.<:..:::>:.:.:�.:::;::: >:::;;;,:.':�1�::::::::>:<::::>::»�u��::;::::<;::.::.:»�*��i��t� �::;: :.;:�.:�::.;:;.:. B707 0 0.0% B72�H 178 0.8% B733/4/5 1563 6.5% B747 174 0.7% B74F 19 0.1% B757 1823 7.6% B767 0 0.0% BA46 0 0.0% CL65 277 1.2% DC10 858 3.6% DC87 1$6 0.8% DC9H 2318 9.7% EA31 3 0.0% EA32 2315 9.1% FK10 1153 4.8% � L10ll 14 � 0.1% ' NID11 55 - 0.2% NID80 . 1209 5.1% BA10 . 4 0.0% � BAll � 2 0.0% . B'72� 3636 15:3% B�3� 476 2.0% DC8 103 0.4% DC9 7499 31.4% FK2g 0 0.0% :;�::::}::>::::;�::::��>::;::;::::><�::>.:>�:>::;:<:::::::: ::>::>::>:<:::>:�::.>:;.::�:«:::::.;:::>::<;:::::: :<:::>:::;>:::.:::.::.::.::.::.:::.::<.::.::.::.::. ::::; � �: �:: <:; � �>: < :>:::::;:: ::: ;`::�::: �� . �::::::�;::::;::� :<> .......::::.. ....:. ......:: . . . .::::,:::::: :>:::�:�'�.��.er:::�::�:�r<::;:: Pa� 8 Aviation Noise Programs � � ' `. � � - //; `�'�e 1.��0 �7�a(�Q+ 11 � . Metropolitan Airports Commissi� . � � � Aireraft Id.en�ifier anci escrip��onTable � , ' ) 0 : � :.:::.::.>:.::::.>:.::.: : � :::.::.::.:::::.: ::.>:. ::.::.;::.:.::.:.:.::::::.:.::. � :::.: ::::>::: ..;: .:»;:.;:.;..:::. .:::::>::>:::::>:: :::»:::>::>::::::: ::::;.::.::.::.:.::.:::.::.::.:<.::.::.:::::>::::::::>::>:::::::::>:::;::::::: ::::x:;.:;:.:::::.: ::: ..:.::.....: �:.::.::.::.::.;::.:::.::.>:.>:::.:::>::;::::>:::»>::>::::: <::: >:::>::::::::>;.:<:::>:::><>::::;:<:::::::>::>::::>::<:: ::..:x�:��:::::;:::; :_:::::::::::::<::<::::>:::::::::::::>::::>::::>:::;::::>:::::::::::;>: ::::::::::::::;:::::::::::>:::::;>:>. �: :. ..: :. ...: . :.....: .. . .. . . .......::::::>::::::>::::::>::;>:::::::>:<::::::::<:::»::>:::::::::;::::::;�:::::::::::<:<::>;:::;:.::; ..:.......................... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::.�::.�:::.:.�.:�::::�.,��:��.�s�� .��:.::::::.�::::::::::::.::::::::::.:::.:::.:::::::: . :::::�..�::::::..� :::::::::::::::.�:::::::::::::::.:�::: :.:.�::::::::.�::: :.:::::. B727 BOEIlVG 727 B727H BOEING 727 - HUSH K1T B707 BOEIlVG 707 B733 BOIING 737-300 B737 BOEII�TG 737 . B73S BOEING 737 200 S�S B747 � BOIING 747 B74F BOEING 747 FREIGIiTIIt • B7S7 BOEING 757 B767 HOEING '76'7 � BAll BRTTISH AIIZOSPAC� 111 BEC BEECHCRAFr (ALL SERIES) BEl . BEEQiCRAFT 19� . BE80 B�CHCRAFT KIlVG AIlt BE99 BEECHC�tAFT QUEEI�T AIR . CL65 . CANADAIlt 650 : DA10 FALCON 10 DC10 MGDONNE[.L DOUGLAS DC10 DC8 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC8 . DC8S . MCDONNII.Z DbUGLAS DC8 STREI'C� DC86 MCDONNF�.L DOUGLAS DC8 60-SII2�S . DC87 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC8 70-SIItIF.S RE DC9 MCDONNELI. DOUGLAS DC9 EA32 : AIltBUS Il�DUSTRIES A320 FK10 � FOKI�t 100 FK28 FOKI�t.t F28 FK27 FOKKII2 F27 (PROP) L1011 LOC�:I�D TRISTAR L1011 IvIDl l MGDONNEGL DOUGLAS DCIl •� 1bID80 MCI�ONNII.L DOUGLAS DC9 80-SII2IES SW3 SWF.ARINGEN METROLINIIt 3 � SW4 � SWEAR]NGEN ME TROLINII2 4 SF34 SAAB 340 � Aviadon Noise Programs p�e 9 Metropolitan Airports Commission � ♦��; . i � � 1 . , � c ,,� . , . . . 1 1' ; �' . ' . � . • � 1 � � �; • l l Daytime Hours Nighttime �iours Page 10 Aviation Noise Programs �. C � Metropolitan Airports (:ommissian Community C�verfiight. Analysis IVlinneapolis - St.1'aul International �Airport October 1995 Carrier Jet Operations - All I�ours Carrier.Jet Operations - Nighttime (llpm - 6 am) Aviation Noise Programs Page 11 Metropolitan Airports Commission • a Rernote Monitoring Site �Locations Airport lel�oise and. (�perations Monitoring Sys�ern ` Page 12 Aviation Noise Programs -. '� ) Metropolitan Airports Commissioai , , . � . . � � . . .; . . Count of Arrival Aircraft Noise Events for Each R1VIT `::::�:�:<�>�:�`'�:�><:>:'::;::>;:::`�:>::;;>:��:::;:::»<'��:��<::;:;�:'::'':;:'::�:>�:::''::>':::` �:>':::::::�:�:�;:r:::::>�:::::>::>:':'::>'��:�:<�<''�:�:��>'>::::��'_��`�>�>��::�::::::�:�::��`�;>::>:''�::��:::::�:;::<:>:'>::><::>:'::�;::>��:��iai'`�:::<::..<: ::;>`��::>:::::>�::>�::::::>'' _�::;:��`�:i��``:::;;::��' �::;:�';;�,::�::;:;:«; :<:.::<. � :.:.::::::� :::: .::::::::::;�:�:::: .::::::::.. � �� er��s:... <:::;<:::::::<:>��t�:. �:>:::::::;:<:;::>:::::>::::>:_:<::;�:. . :��:::��:;:�a��i��::;.:.:.;;.:;;.::::<::<:::>:.::.;:.:.:.:.::::;::::;:::::;<::;::<.>:.:::.:.;:.;::.::::»:::::;:<::>:::>:.:;:;:.:>:�:.::.::::::::::::::;<;�:>:>:..;.:.:::::..;.::.:�:<::::: :.::.;::::.::.::.::.>:.;>;;;;;:::.: :.;: : <.::.:;: :>:>;>::>::::>��: �::��:;:::::>::>:<:> :::;::::>::<::::::::::.:�::::::::.� :::::.::::::::.�:::: ::.�:::::��:::.�.�.:�::.:�:::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::............. ...:. .. :»::>::>:<::�:::::>:::>::::>� ::::<:::;»::::>:::»>:<:::>::»::>: :<:::»:::>::::::»>:::<::>:::>:<; :<::�::>:>::>::>:::::<:::::::>:>:<::::::>::>::>::»<::<::<:»<:::<::::::>::>::>::>::;::>::>:::;::::>:::::>::::::::>:::::::::::::> »:::>� : .f��:>:::<: <:>::::: :: � �:::::::: :::::::>�::. : ..... ....�. . ... .....��fi��..... ..... .��:;:::;: ::>:>��;€1�:d�:::::: 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Avenue & 41st Sireet 2115 79 1 0 2 Minneapolis Fremont Avenue & 43rd Street 1439 162 0 0 3 Minneapolis W Elmwood Street 8c Belm�t Avenue 2083 972 52 0 4 M'inneapolis Oakland Avenue & 49th Slreet 1997 631 2 0 5 Minneapolis 12th Avenue & 58th Street 2205 1543 419 1 6 Minneapolis 25th Avenue & 57th Street 1887 1355 349 1 7 Richfield Wentworth Ave & 64th Street 10 1 0 0 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Avenue & 43rd Street 17 0 0 0 9 St. Paul . Saratoga Street & Hartford Avenue 51 23 0 0 10 St. Paul Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street 81 35 5 0 11 St. Paul Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue 18 2 0 0 >:<;�;::`'"<?:::>:::<:::: �:::::::::�::``:'::>�;>::��.�`�`��':".'.::::�:::::'::::::��:�:<:;:<:>>:<��>�:::;<:'>��:>::::;.:><.:;.;...�:::::>::::;?.::::;:>:::.;..<>.:<::::::��::>::::>::.::;::;>��::::��::::::::>:::::::;<:::::';.:;:>::' �;:<::�<�<�;�><�:<::�`::;'��::>::;�_; ::::::::<:::::::;:::�:<:>::;::�::;::::<::; :�: :::::;::::;:;�:>::>::>:<::::::>::>::>::> . ::>::::>::.:>: ::::: »::;:<:::::;::<:>::>::::::; :::: .. . . . . ........ . ...... ::>::;;:::>: � ......... . ....... ...��: . . .... .. . . ::<»:::»::»:::<::<:::::::>::::::;�:�:;>: ::;»::>::>::>:::::::>::: ::<::>::::::.. . � ..............:.�:�'�...�.�...€�c:�.�€.�i�rr�e. :... ......... .............................::.:�»:.;::r::.:::;.;:.:::.;;>;::.::.::.:.::.>:.::.:>:�:.;:.;:.::.;:.; . . . . . ...... .. . ........................... ........................... ... �....................... ........................... 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 23 1 0 0 14 Eagan First Strcet & McKee Street 4547 267 2 0 15 Mendota Heights Cullen Street 8c Lexingtaa Avenue 302 5 0 0 16 Eagan Avalon Avenue Ft V'�las Lane 3417 1652 32 2 17 Bloomington 84th Street & 4th Avenue 31 8 �. 0 0� 18 Richfield 75th Street & 17th Avenue 88 39 1 0 19 Bloomington •� 16th Avenue & 84th Street 32 3 0 0 20 Richfield 75th Street & 3rd Avenue 17 1 0 0 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Avenue Ri 67th Street 89 2 0 0 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 2468 33 0 0 23 Mendota Heights End of Kendon Avenue 1968 32 2 0 ?� Eagan Chapel Lane & Wren Lane 2229 181 58 2 * Site 12 is currently �being relocated due to city stre�t improvements. Aviation Noise Programs Page 13 Metropolitan Airports Commission � . , �,�� . �. � .� �, . , � � i� � '' Count of Departure Aircraft Noise Events far Each RMT � �(�.�'�'t ::i::'z::::::::::t::::s:>:E::::;::::::>::::::::::::::`:;:::;:::::?:?:<::::::�:>:�<:::::;:?:::<:;::z:::;<:::; ::r:`:;?:> ::::::::::::::::::::':::;::::::`:: ::<>r?:>::::::::::::::s::::::::::s:::::: :::::::�::;::::::?::::�:>:::>??':::;E:::::::? :9::::?::::>::;?:::?::>:?:::::::::>.?EE:: :.;o-::.:::;.::.::•x.>:::::.: �:::: ::::::•:x;:::::::::::;::::;::i::r::::::::::f;;;::r.s: �:;:::: x:::;:: ::::;:::::;:::::5:::::;•::::: ii:i:t:: ii : : ................. .:::::k:ii::r:;:::;:::;::i:::::::::;::i::::::::i:,`v.::;:::i: :;:;:::;::::: ::::5:4<:::;:;:::::::::;:::: yy ;:::::::��•Y.�l;i�3::i�ir::<ii .:i;i:::i:'ti:i::?i:<ii:i::i:::i;iif::::::�:,::iii::ii;;i::i:iik::ii:ii'c`2%:iii[: i::::::i:i>'i:i;$:ir:::i:i::::::ii:ii::i::°i:::i::ii:t:%::::i::£:::i::if::ii;ii:ii:::ii:ii:;::::i>:i:S::;::::;i3r'i;::::fr?::ii:: ;:ii::i{.�':�: ..�: ..{!..�.},:�.t..,,.:: ..::., : ,.1:�.�).:p•:. �:.: •:: ,iii:i:i i:i::::: .�::r.::::n, +"::i;:`.i i:i::iii: �j:.`::::::::.: +•:::i:i' ::::::nn:::::::::.�::.�: .�:::::.::.�.�:n.: :. ,'...w:::.� ::::::::::.:.::n:: .: 5.....::...v..Y....v..: :::n .. .:::::::::.:: :::::::::::..b::::.:::::: :::::i:f�iliii ::i: .i:??�'�I• ��Q v::. :n�. �. . p. . .Q .::.� :::n . .� �. p.y� : :.., f`�*y,�.��Y. .: :: . . . . ::..� ::::::::::::::::: :.:!i!::::: .::: :...:.: 4[LR?f.w:. .:�:�;T,.;�f!��:7.:::: :::: 3:t,..F:.Y.Ii�: •. :i'.:r.'•::Y:Yi:?ir!#�' :::i::;?::::.i::::i:{::::::::: :::i:::$ . `. : : . . ��y } �y�. 1� #►y� �::i:::::::fi:y:;...::`':`•v:::i:i::::::::.`:S::Si:� ...,� ' . .�i.�rl1#:f11�.' �: ..' : : ' •;i ':: . : ' :,.:t.::.:>:t.»::::.:::.::.::;t.;r..>;>: :t.:;:.::::::;:ti::::::$:::::::::>::i: :i::i::i::::^:::::::::�:::::$3::'::::::i:::::::>:::;:>;Y::>:i'::i:::;S3i :::::::::. . .. :.:::::::: .::::::::::::::.�.:� :.:::::.�::::.�::<.�:.::.�:..:........ . ....................1�!:?y1�,�F,,..,�r.%'rL. ..�.�r7�F�t!qNk.t:::. ra:.::.;:.x : :: . . +::.::. .x.:ri.s;: . : . .::.: ........ . ..... ....... . .. ::. � :::::::::...:::::.:::: .:::::::::.:::.....:................::..:::::::::.::..�::::��.::::..�.�:::::::::::::.....:....:...:.::::::::::::::.�:::::::.�::::::.�::::. �.. .a .� ::::: .:::: ... . ..:..:::::..: . . :.�::.�:..::.: . ..... :.:::.::.>:.:�::.::.:::<.x :::.:� ::::::.:::.:::.:::>rx�:.::.::.::.::.::.:.:::r:.::.::.r:.:::.r:.:.::.::.::.::.::;::::::,<:::::;::::::::::<.>::.::.::.;::..:::.:::;.::::>:.::.:::;::.::.::.:.::.::.::.:.:.:.>::.:::.> .. •::. :..�:.i+� �.ia�:�::::::: :::::::.. ::.�:.:� :::::::::::::::::: ::.;:.:.::.:;:.::.::.;:.;:.:•.;;::.:::::::::::::::::.� :.:.�: ::: :.:::::::::::::;.:.:<.:::;;:.:::.::.:�:>:.:;;::::.::::::::::.:�:::.:::::::::.�::::::::::. .. .....�h!�� • �::::>:: ::#:::>•� :.: :::::::>:::�:. •: : : . ::a . .... ... ............ .. .... .. . .. ......... . . ..:... :.. � ::::::::::: . � ::::: :..:: ..........................................:: :.::.:: :. � ::: .:: .: :: : : :. :... :........ ..... ......... ...... .. . . . ...... . . ............: �.:::: :.: .: ��::::: : : : �:�,�.� �:.:.. 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Avenue & 41st Street 744 254 0 0 2 Minneapolis Fremont Avenue & 43rd Street 808 328 6 0� 3 Minneapolis W Elmwood Street & Belma�t Avenue 1543 325 32 0 4 Minneapolis Oakland Avenue & 49th Strcet 1801 752 96 8 5 Minneapolis 12th Avenue & 58th Street 4124 1907 853 190 6 Minneapolis 25th Avenue & 5'7th Street 4693 2263 1079 681 7 Richfield Wentworth Ave & 64ch Street 2863 1134 126 6 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Avenue & 43rd Stre�t 1711 S68 41 3 9 St. Paul Saratoga Street & Harlford Avenue 1 0 0 0 10 _ S� Paul Itasca Avenue &. Bowdoin Strcet 101 4 1 0 11 St. Paul Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue 27. 2 1 0 ::'::��2::::::::::::::�:<�: ;: ::>::��Ct: �.<;: ::::::::. .�::::::: :.: :.::::, ::::::.:::::.::: .............. .............. ........ .......... .... ��::: �;:::::�;;`;:::;<:;: €:::;::<::;>�":<::r:;;<.;:;,:.<<..>`>.:;<::��.:: �:�.::::>::>;>;::::<:;:.:::.::.;.::;::::::>:::::::;:::<:::;:::::<;;::; �:::-::>:»:r�::r:;:<;�:::>:�:::�>::::: ::> ,.{.. . .;..;.:::. :::::::.�.:.: . ..........:.:.......:..:: . ..::::.::.: ::::::.�.::: ::::::::�..,:.�:.�:.�..::. .: .......� :.:::::::::::::::: ........................... :........ . :::::::::.::: .. �at.�`,.�.. €� :::::::..:.:.:::.�:.....:.:.:.�:::.:.:.::::;::::.�:::.:�::::.::.::.;>:.:<:.::.;:.;:.::.::.::»: ::::::::. :.:::::::..: .::.;:.::.::;�.:.:::.� .::..:. :::::::..>:;::..::::.�:::.: ...:.:::::::;.:.::.;.::::.::.. � .........:::.�:: r.:::::: .r::.;;>::.::>.�:.:>::.::.:::;:.: .:::::.;.:::.. :..::.�::.�.:: ............ . .....................<,,....:..:. .:::::,�.:::::::::::::::: .:.�:.:.:::::::::::::::...::::::::.:::::::.:.�::::::::: : :::::::. .;:.: :.:::.:;::,., ................. . ... ........ �.. .. .......... ............. .. . . . :c�..1�� ..... .. ............. .. . .... ..., ..... ...... ....... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : : : . : : : : : : : : : :.: : : : : : : : : : . : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :. : : : : >: >:.;:,:.::.;::;.;::.::.:::.; 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 1654 476 . 12 0 14 . Eagan � First Street & McK'ee Street 2324 789 57 3 15 112endota Aeights C`�llen 5ireet & Lexingtaai Avenue 1112 392 � 34 � 0 16 . Eagan � Avala�n Avenue 8c V'�las Lane 2887 1647 143 � 3 17 Bloomington $4th Street & 4th Avenue 30 5 � 2 0 18 Richfield , 75th Street 8c 1'7th Avenue 315 178 79 12 19 Blooming�cm 16th Avenue & 84th Stx�eet 235 137 42 3 20 Richfield 75th Street 8c 3rd Avenue 131 21 2 p 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Avenue c� 67th Street �1006 254 1 0 22 Inver Grove Heights � Anne Marie Trail 958 259 1 0 23 Mendota Heights End of Kendon Avenue 2417 1476 . 423 55 24 Eagan Chapel Lane &. Wren Lane 1592 � 230 22 0 * Site 12 is currenfly being relacated due to city stneet improvements. Page 14 Aviation Noise Programs � � ,�� Metropolitan Airports Commission , � �, , • . 1 . . � ,. . �'.., IZMT #1: Xerxes Ave. & 41st S� 1Viinneapolis RMT #3: W. Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. Minneapotis RMT #2: Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. Minneapolis RMT #4: Oakland AVe. & 49th St. Minneapolis Aviation Noise Programs Page 15 Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified RMT #5: 12th Ave. & 58th St. Minneapotis RMT #7: Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. Richfield Page 16 Aviation Noise Progcams RMT #6: 25th Ave. & 57th St. Minneapolis RMT #8: Long%llow Ave. & 43rd St. I�Ianneapotis �' C-< Metropolitan Airports Commission �'en I.oudest A.�rcraft Noise Events Identified RMT #9: Saratoga 5� & Hartford A�e.. St. Paul RMT #11: Finn S� & Scheffer Ave. St. Paul R1VI'I' #10: Itasca. A�e. & Bowdofn St. S� Paul R1V�T #12: Aiton St. & Rockwood Ave. S� Paul Aviation Noise Programs Page 17 Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten I.ouciest Aircraft� Noise Events Identified RMT #13: Southeast End of Mohican Court Mendota. Heights RMT #15: Cullon St. & Leaungton Ave. Mendota Heights Page 18 Aviation Noise programs RMT #14: lst S� & McKee St. Eagan RMT #16: Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane Eagan (. � Metropolitan Airports Commission , � �. . � � . . �. .� �2M'i' #17: 84th St. & 4th Ave. Bloomington RMT #19: 16th Ave. & 84th St. � Bloomington . RMT #18: 75th St. & 17th Ave. Richfield RMT #20: 75th S� & 3rd Ave. Richfield Aviation Noise Programs Page 19 Metropolitan Airports Commission , � � � ' 1 ! ' ' 1! ' ' 1 , RMT #21: Barbara.Ave. & 67th St. Inver Grove Heights RMT #23: End of Kenndon Ave. Mendota Heegh�,s Page 20 Aviation Noise Programs RMT #22: Anne Marie Trail Inver Grove Heights RMT #24: Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. Eagan �. � Metropolitan Airports Commissi� � Fligh� 7[�rack �ase IViap Airport loToise and. Operations Monitorin� System � Aviation Noise Programs. ` _ Page 21 Metropolitan �irnorts Commission Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events - Aircraft Ldn d�(A) October 01 to Octobe� 31,1995 Noise Monitor Locations `'...`;;..�'.;`.:::;.``...::::`?>:>:�::;::>,.;..>.;;>:;:: �''<:::>:��.`��':<::>::�<`:»>:`�.<..;>::::::::::;:;:;:<,;>,;>�.::<:>':::::��'>�`�`'��:�';��>::::;:::::'`''"::::;:;::;;>:>:�':�'��;::�::::::;:€::;:::>:::'::><:>< :::.:.::::.::::::::::;>:::>:::;;<:::::<;`<::��>:::::.,:<:::.::::: ,:::>;;:;::.>::.<::.........�.:.;...;::>:;<::;.::<.':::::: �� #�. . �,� .::;; :.;>::>�� . .....�''#:;>::::: ::;.::;�#.,�.�',.::.;:::: ::::: � ::::::»�:::;:::: :.:;::.:�$:; � �'�(� .. ...: ..: � �€:��.:::: .: :.��.:::: ........... ................. ..........: :.::::. 1 56.3 56.7 61.0 62.2 74.5 77.8 69.3 62.0 * 42.6 47.5 * 2 60.7 62.1 68.0 66.5 7'7.8 78.2 66.2 58.1 * 44:8 43.8 * 3 47.6 51.2 53.2 55.8 67.7 74.3 ' 48.� 49.6 45.9 48.4 43.4 * 4 58.3 61.4 66.3 64.2 71.8 72.0 47.6 50.0 46.9 * 53.'7 * 5 55.2 57.5 621 58.7 75.2 69.5 43.8 40.8 47.4 50.2 SOA . * 6 61.8 62.5 65.8 68.0 77.4 80.7 68.4 60.8 * 44.0 SO.S * � 57.6 58.1 60:'7 68.3 76.9 79.6 67.1 60.3 * 43.3 .40.3 * $ 54.7 559 64.5 59.2 67.6 67.2 53.3 45.3 59.0 63.7 42:6 * 9 59.3 61.7 652 68.4 76.6 Z9.4 64.4 619 * 48.7 42.0 * 10 569 64.3 65.8 66.9 75.1 78.9 62.3 61.3 43S 54.3 52A * 11 58.9 61.3 61S 67.2 77.1 78.1 65.1 6L� 58.6 58.8 52.1 * 12 58.7 60.6 68.0 64S 72.6 72:3 25.9 47.2 48.1 54.9 48.6 * 13 39.5 40.5 47.5 51.6 68.3 74.6 53.0 52.9 * 4'7.6 43.4. * 14 57.9 57.7 60.7 59.1 72.0 '76.6 61.9 57.6 * 40,7 � * 15 58.6 58.4 58.5 665 735 78.4 65.7 62.1 * 45.8 49.8. * 16 63.9 59.6. 68.6 61.7 72.4 69.3 53.9 52.2 50.0 53.8 44:4 -* 17 59:0 61.3 � 66.3 67.1 76.7 SOS 68.4 63.3 46.6 49.6 49S * 18 56.9 58.4 64.1 60.7 69.2 68.2 59.8 53.7 49J 54.8 55S * 19 59.9 60.9 63.5 68S 77.9 81.T 69A 67.9 , 47.6 42.0 44.2 * 2p � 57.3 58.3 60.9 67.9 �6S 79.8 69.4 66.4 *. * 4q..6 * 21 55.0 57.9 63.4 64.8 ?6.5 79.1 69.8 * � * 48.6 � 22 559 58.7 61.8 65.3 75.4 77J 64S 60.6 �* * 44.,� * 23 64.8 * 68.9 66.3 72.8 71.9 52.0 40.4 * * 50.0 * 24 58.6 59.2 62.0 67.4 75.4 79.9 67.0 63.5 * * 42.2 * 2S 56.7 59.8 63.4 67.3 * 802 67.6 66.0 *� * 42.3 * 26 61.3 62.6 69.7 64.7 74.1 72.6 48.7 45.0 * * �p,g * 27 58.4 * 67.4 65.7 78.7 50.2 71.6 63.9 � � * 43.9 * 28 59.8 * 64.0 � 66.1 77.2 80.1 69.3 65.7 * � 47.2 * 29 59.4 * 61.6 64.3 74.8 78.9 65.6 61.8 * * 49.6 * 30 55.2 * 62.1 64.0 72.5 76.1 62.3 595 * * 53.1 * 31 62.2 63.7 68.3 64.3 72.6 71.0 43.3 41.9 * * 49.6 * Mo. Ldn 60.7 61.6 66.5 67.2 � 76:5 78.6 67.8 64.0 55.2 60.6 53.5 * "' Less tlurn twenty four hours of data available Page 26 Aviation Naise Programs . . . � �� ( ) Metropolitan Airports Commissi� � � , � � , . . , � � �; .. . � �� 1 � 1 ��. ','_ Noise Monitor Locations `�;;::<: ::`:�:��,�::<:;:; `;>:::��:;��:: >:::<:>:<:>::>:.»::;::.;:::::.>::» :::;;::»::»:.:»;::.> ;�::;:::::;:::>:.;>;;:::: :.::::>.;::<:.>::»:<.: :»:.;:<;:.:::»:<:>:<:: :::>::>:.;::>::>::>::»:<: ::::::>:<:»:::::>::><:::: :<::;:>::>:::;::::.>:<:>: ;:.;:.;»»>:.:::>:.>: :::>::;::.>:::::>::>;:<.> ::>::>::;:::>::<:: �:��::::: >�:::��.... ... �::::>: �'::::<�� .. . ::>::>::>::::::>::>�>:<:::>::>:>:>.:>::::::.::;::.<:;::::;::»::.;...>:.:>::;:::�::::�:,:.:;::.:>:::::::>::>:::::.;;��»::;:::::::>:::::;::::::»:»;:;�:.>�::�:�::::>::><::»�:�:: �:»:::::;:;::��::::. :>:»:<.: :: �. � ::»::>::: ::>::: : :>. ::<:::: ::>:::: :: :� �::>::::::::::> ; ::.. :�::>::::;::: : : .�<:;::::::::::> ;: >::.>::>::: :<::::: ; } ::_:>::::::::�:: :�:>�.:;:::: ;:::::��. . . ..... ................. ................. ::::::: . ::::::. .::: .: . . :.::. .�:.#��.4:::: :::.:��.�..:�..:::.��.�::.;:::��.:�.:::. ::::#��$:.::..::::��f:�.:.>:..::::::::.:.�::.�: .:::::::::::::::.� :.�:..::::::::.:::: .::::::::::::::::: .:::::::::::::::: ::::::.��.�...... ::.:�� .:::. ::::.............. ...................::::::::::::::::.. ................. ..........::.::::..::::::.::.:::.... ...............:.. :..::::::.� :::.::: :.�:::::.�:....... .................. ..........::...:.. .: :.:::::::::::.�::.:...... .................. ......... . 1 * � 42.5 69.8 * 40.3 * 44.7 42.6 61.1 55.8 65.8 2 61.2 * 62.7 69.2 41.5 67.2 59.9 60.4 59.5 60.7 71.6 63.7 3 57.3 62.0 60.2 66.1 40.9 46.3 48.6 T 52.0 52.9 65.2 55.4 4 62.5 68.1 62.6 68.3 51.1 60.2 42.3 42.5 59.8. 62.1 75.2 61.9 5 54.3 54.6 56.5 62.4 50.1 54.2 41.8 45.0 51.0 48.9 .63.2 48.6 6 55.8 64.2 56.3 69.0 43.6 585 52.7 52.5 49.0 60.7 62.6 62.4 '7 SS.8 64.3 55.4 66.8 * 65.4 61.0 52.1 57.1 61.2 65.3 63.2 g 56.8 63.6 56�4 61.2 . 59.4 67.8 64.2 46.7 57.2 58.1 712 54.9 g 58.8 68.3 60.2 67.9 57.4 61.1 52.4 46.3 57.4 62.1 71.0 63.5 10 62.6 65.3 . 64.8 66.4 40.4 70.5 69.0 50.8 57S 61.1 72.5 61.2 11 64.0 71.0 62.1 69.1. * 68.5 61.0 53.4 585 61.1 72.9 62.2 12 69.3 68.5 70.6 72.0 * 46.3 44.4 46.9 62.7 63.0 '77.7 62.6 13 * 58.4 44.7 67.0 * 43.8 45.8 42.2 * 53.3 53.0 64.3 14 * 63.7 45.3 69.8 * 61.8 53.2 44.0 *. 56.8 56.7 62.9 15 * 63.8 46.9 69S 59S 71.6 70.3 64.3 '* 56.9 54.5 63.8 16 62.9 66.6. 64.6 67.3 45.0 475 44.2 40.8 61.6 62.1 71.3 59.8 l� �56.5 64.4 59.8 68.2 * 60.9 58.7 48S 55.4 58.2 62.9 62.6 ig 60.0 66.9 � 59.3 68.7 * 68S 52.4 51.3 58.7 61.7 72.0 61.4 19 5$S 66.0 50.1 70.5 57.0 73.3 64.8 53.2 45.7 61.3 66S 66.3 2p * 65.9 45.4 71.9 * 53.5 46.8 46.8 * 62.3 56.9 65.'7 21 * 64.7 42.8 69.9 * 66.4 58.7 54.7 * 61.8 55.4 64.2 22 55.1 67.7 54.0 70.1 45.3 72.2 72.5 52.1. 57.5 59.3 71.9 64.3 �3 64.6 69.9 66.'7 70.5 61.5 63.8 48.9 46.7 61.9 63.3 75.4 65.1 24 * 65.0 52.6 69.7 51.0 67A 68.2 54.7 42.2 59.9 61.7 65.2 25 48.2 65.0 52.4 68S 36.4 67.5 70.5 50.2 45S 58.3 � 61.8 60.3 2C 66.1 69.6 67.5 71.4 41.9 50.7 45.5. 46.6 642 65.0 * 63.0 2'7 56.9 71.6 58.6 72.6 43.7 59.1 56.2 51.5 54.9 62.9 66.7 65.1 28 52.3 65.1 * 69.8 43S 67.7 64.3 58.5 42.0 60.3 55.8 69.5 29 57.1 65.6 * 68.8 52.6 71.3 68'.7 54.8 52.5. 60.8 68.6 62.7 30 58.8 64S * 67.7 46.4 74.1 71.4 58S 60.3 60.0 69.9 63.8 31 64.8 70•7 * 71.1 . 57.0 62.6 50.7 42.6 61.7 62.1 74.2 67.4 Mo. Ldn 63.0 69.1 65.7 71.4 62.2 . 68.1 65.0 58.9 60.6 63.1 73.2 � 69.6 * Less than twenty four hours of data available Aviation Noise Prog�rams Page 27 Metropolitan Airports Commission �` � �'1' ''1 / i 1 1 . �; �'� �:, �. . � 1 ' . � � � � � � ' , i ,; � � � � t�. �� i �', , . . ��. � ,; � � �,� .� �� . �, �'1 '� :1 ' �. Page 2 Aviation Noise Programs � C� � ,� ; ; Metropolitan Airports Comm.issian , IVlinneapolis - St. Paul Iniernational t�irp�rt October 1995 4681 ... �'ota111L and 11R Carrier Jet Departures 25... Carrier Jet Departures (0.5 % North of Proposed 095° (M) Corridor �'olicy �oundary ...,, . . . . .. �:t . . . .. . . .. . . . . . ., .. . . _ . . . , ,. . ..:� , . : : : . : : . : �;:.> : . : . • . . : : ._.. . : : ._. s • : , o : ' � •' e , : e : e � ; � :• � : . : . . :• � • � ' � : cC]> i , . � . � . . . C::.: i � �: O � � , ... ... .• . ; . : . ..... � ' . � . • . c::� : S :� ^ Aviation Naise Programs r; Page 3 Metropolitan Airports Commission 1V�inneapolis - St. Paul International Airpoa-t Octolber 1995 i ::.:. Page 4 4681... Total 11L and 11R Carrier Jet Departures 2_ .e. Carrier ,�et Departure - Early Turr�out 0.1 0) (North Side �efore Three M�les) < t_::> ,.. . . .. . � . . . . . .. , . . .. .. . . . . .. . : . : : t::; : � � . ,.... : . .... . .... . : : : .......................................... . �.:, .......................................:.... ....... -.�.v, Aviation Noise Programs � r Metropolitan Airports Commission Southern �oundary Corridor Gate P°enetration Analysis .,,:, �, . , � , . �� i� '' � i� �:� � '� , . �;, � � , / 1 1 1 1 1 1 � 1. i , Aviation Naise Programs Page 5 Metropolitan Airports Commission li�[inneapolis - St. Paul International Airport October 1995 � 4681 ... Total 11L and 11R Carrie� Jet I�epartures 599 ... Carrier Jet Departures 12.8%) South of Corr�dor tSouth of 29L Localizer) C::.: � • . . . . � . .. .. . . ; " . . ... .. . .. . � . �'" ' s �- y • • : °• • • . � e e � . : . • � • ; , . � • s o •wf � ' � c,: z : � '�r • • : s . , • ..:. '!�'��g{ � '° � ; : : ... . � � � � • �.� � , . - . •� �a� •ode• t• i�i : : � . A � �tF e . . � , • a ,i' ��.'i i � �,° ;. • , °� : � : ... A . �{ . . . . . . : . �e •� . . . : r ♦� . � .... �.� � : �. s�� • �sI' � . . : : .... �::,: . �;s� a �. , . � . � ��•+ •• : s : . . � rN ..' •. t •' . . . � . .... ; s � M • • • ♦ • � � �ib • • ' : . ....�. •�i �!b� • • : . , : ; ... • . < ri � . • . • . , . . .. .. .. . . . . � .. . � . t.` . .. . Page 6 Aviation Noise programs , , Metropolitan Airports Commissio�n 1Vlinneapolis - St. Paul In�ernaiional Airport � October 1995 4681 ... Total 11L and 11R Ca.rrier Jet Departures 1... Carrier Jet Departu.res - Early �urnout Oe4%) (5outh Sid.e �efore Three 1Vliles) ,,: �:::7 ._. .. .. . . ... . ... . .... .. . . . . ... Av.iation Noise Programs Page 7 Metropolitan A.irports Commission i `' i 1 1, i 1' 1 ,.�. . 1 ' . ,; �� '� �� ' • 1 . ` � 1 � �;�. ,�� 3.0% (141) Carrier Jet Departua-es 5° South of Corrid.or (5° South of 29L Localizer) Pa� $ Aviation.Noise Programs � : ; � . . Metropolitan Airports Commission Minneapolis - 5t.� Paul International Airport October 1995 4681 ... '�ota111L and ll�.i Carrier Jet Depa�tures 140 ... Carrier Jet Departures 3.0%) �° ,�outh of Cor�idor (5° 5outh of 29L I.ocalizer) t�... _... .,,. .. .... .... . .,... .. . . ., �.:-. .:: . : : _.. , ; : , _. . , . :• . o : � : e • • • : •: o • : • :C'� � � � •' . . ; . .._. ' M • . � . : • . � ... � . `�!�°. ` . � s't : . : . . ... e • � • a ' • . o • • 1• • • : . : ... .'r ` • • _ • • •• • : d �� • � . i ♦' •8�' :• .... ••- =ey : : _.. ra• �� • •: . ; M °° - � . . i: � • : : .... v � . � s . : : �-:, : � . ... , : � ....� --.,:'. -....., ..... t'.... Aviation Noise Programs Page 9 Metropolitan Aicports Commission Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport October 1995 4681... Total 11L and 11R Carrier Jet Departures 1 a.. Carrier Jet I)epartures - Eaa-ly Turnout 0.0%) (South Side Before Three Miles) Page 10 Aviation Noise Programs � � � i 0 - I� I I I I I� � 0 0 00 0 C_ C .. � rn o0 0 0 0 0 � ► 0 ►, � 0 0 C � O t�D n � fJQ a CD � Q,. O � x (C UQ � �i�'i � 01 0o O O O O M • • � � • � � • • • ; ❑ n-+ � . � Q 0 Q J C� � o, o0 0 0 0 0 CD � O � � `•C N O � ► � _' � O� 00 � O O o � M o � � "�.3 M �(� � W � O � O � �.... � � R. � CxD «... W �" � � � O � � t"� N O v ' � s m � rn o0 0 0 0 0 � -. •; � 0 0 0 ;; `� C7 ;• , , C� $city of bioomington, minnesota 22 � 5 West Old Shakopee Road November 13, 1995 Dear Homeowner, This is to update you on e�ension of runway 4-22 (crosswind �Th s letter/is be ng mailed t�W it affects the future of house insulation programs in Bloomington. addresses within the 1996 LDN 65 contour which would be eligible for insulation if the Runway Use System (RUS) were modified. First — � uP date on events in the last few months. In July the Metropolitan Counc��i1 sPa� d work MAC's funding request to eactend 4-22 t�1996.SBut he Met opolitan Co nc 1 d d not approve funding on the extension and will complete it in for the plan to route up to 100 additional flights a week e� �oeas changi g he Runway Use System or completed. This flight redistribution is commonly referr RUS. Instead of changing the RUS, the Metropolitan Coun riedican devlise a bet er,emo ehc stC�ties of Bloomington, Eagan, Minneapolis and Richfield to see if t y effective noise mitigation measure. The timeline for devising alternative mitigation is by May 1996. �—� ' of Bloomin on supports extension of runway 4-22 but opposes changing the RUS. The The Crty � reasons for opposing the RUS are: • the RUS could add 7,000 people to the LDN 65 contour southwest of the airport; • the RUS will not produce noticeable noise reduction for residents in Minneapolis and north Richfield; and • it would cost over �44 million to implement the RUS, but the RUS would have a useful life of only 3 to 8 years. Februa 1, 1995, 78 Bloomington homes had been noise insulated thro b eMnsutla ed pending As of rY program. Several blocks are in a statueS a�5 houses a d redevelopet saland for a non-residential use. __ __. _ a MAC decision whether to acqu�re th Second — what can you expect to happen now? After 67 additional Bloomington homes are insulated this year, MAC's Part 150 sound insulation program will be b�e this wBl be after May 1996. the degree of use of runway 4-22 is resolved. Accordtng to the t�met , Two possible outcomes could be: • The RUS or similar flight redistribution is approved by the atem ntlrenu es insulatinglhomes the � � mitigation plan incorporated in the Environmental Impact S a ' within the LDN 65 contour. Depending on the specific flight redistribution proposed, the eligible y area boundary (also called the LDN 65 contour) may be �rial noaseans at on e�pect the FAA. and MAC to revise the block priority order for any addit ��n Afiirrnn'��e ^ =;:�n/Equai Opporfunittes Empioyer • Another possible outcornc would be a scenario which does not increase the number of planes using runway 4-22 so that your homes are not in an area eligible for federal AII' or PFC funding for acquisition or insulation. In that case, the City Council has requested MAC to fund noise insulation for the 75 homes in the deferred area using MAC funds. Our reasoning is that these 75 homes would have been insulated during the 1992-1995 period ifthey had not been placed in deferred status until the City of Bloomington and MAC decided whether these homes should be acquired. One reason MAC needs to extend runway 4-22 is related to reconstructing the south parallel runway. For the period when the runway is being rebuilt (probably 1997 or 1998), tra�c on 4-22 will be much liigher than normal because the configuration illustrated here wili be used when weather permits and two runways are needed. The City and MAC will work together to keep residents informed when reconstruction is scheduled and how the runway will beused to manage its impact on Bloomington residents. And finally — what do I see happening in the next ten years? In late 1996, the legislature will receive a pile of reports comparing the costs and benefits of expanding MSP vs. moving the airport to a site south of Hastings. The city supports keeping the airport at its current location. Runway Use During South Parallel Reconstruction NORTH N�9r •��Fo H,o q ��I ��F Sp��,,, � I A„��<��<`,4I CLOSED FOR RECONSTRUCTION MAC's Long-Term Comprehensive Plan shows the need for building a fourth runway within the next ten years. This is referred to as the "north-south runway", located parallel to THZ7 with its south end just north of the 24th Avenue/I-494 interchange. If this runway i� built, use of 4-22 will be limited to planes needing an 11,000 foot runway and wind or weather conditions requiring use of 4-22. If the north-south runway is built, we expect the use of runway 4-22 to decrease. The City supports prompt implementation of the north-south runway both as a means for increasing airport capacity and as a way of mitigating noise impacts of existing runways. I hope this information is useful to you. Please call me at 948-894'7 with any additional questions raised by this letter. � Sincer y, ct.�✓' , e Director of Community Devetopment /c-insulate C � ��., -� . �.. M'i�uTES FiAASAC OPERATIONS COMIUIlTfEE � NOVEMBER 'i 7, 1995 The meeting was held at the Metropolitan Airports Commission Gene�al Office North Viking Room, and called to order at 9:40 a.m. . The foilowing members were in attendance: Mark Salmen, NWA - Chairman (Jennifer Sayre, Alternate) . Bob Johnson - MBAA John Neison - Bloomington Tom Hueg - St. Paul Mayo� Mertensotto - Mendota Heights (Kevin Batchelder� Alternate) Jon Hohenstein - Eagan � � � . .� .' Cha�les Curry - ALPA � . Advis9AC: . ' .� John Foggia - Technical Advisor . � Roy Fuhrmann - MAC _ - , . . , Traci Erickson - iU1AC . �. , ::'. Bruce Wagoner - FAA . Ron Giaub - FAA . . ( ) . .' ; - ': ;; , /e1 C..E N . D /�! _ , . ._ . ' `, — , _. . . ;.. , - . . .. . . ., . , . . :.; . .. , � � ` ,,1 ;Contour Generat�on Status � «4�r �, �;�x �� rr, a i r ; r ; ; �, ,: :. .: � -r... '. . . . .,.�,, . .�.. . . �.:.... �'.��. .. �.:� . � � .7 t �,:�'.c:. .�`d ~,� ,*...:t�.. , :��.i,.?�. .. ......., � , s...�,:Y..... _.. ...�,... ,... ;= < .;: : ;� ,, = 3: }:: Correspondence ;Response �� i��`` y';� , - � 5 ti i � t� � ,� � � ti � � . ` i F � � . .. . t �- t E . . � . ..� I ��. � � 4. �NADPs F: ; y. � � ; �� .; �..:� � , : � � 5. ; Discussion. Topics for February-1996�MASAC/MAC Jointi�Meeting ` �� . �� ' ,, , - , . 8. � � OtMer items. not on the Agenda =' � � .. �-- . .. ,,- , <: : _. . .. .. , , Please refer to the Report handouts distributed fo� each agenda item attached to the �minutes for � ` � � reference. �� ,:. .. : . Contour Generation Status ` � � . �Generation of the NADP contour analysis wiii `be completed by HNTB January 17; '1996; for review '�� by the Operations Committee before the January MASAC meeting. ` `' ` �' � ` The co�tou� analysis for the Comdor: crossing maneuver is complete � The FAA Great Lakes Region signifled furthe� analysis was required for an EA (Environmentai Asse'�'s'mentj. John Foggia indicated additional analysis would cost about $12,000.�.-�The FAA aiso requested: . , ;.... _ . , . . � T� , �.. : � . � . . . ;;:_.�. - � . � . �. :, , �� A chronology of Comdo� history `` � a� � _.��..- ; t.. ..;,,,- _. , ; . , : ;. , ; _ , _ 1 . . ,, ,. . - _ . ,_... .: .. . : ,..'�..� �.., hM _..� : � ' ' .. . , .,. . , .. . ' . . k. �:� ,��.' . ::... . ...: : :. ' . ._. . .. . . . � � � � � , � .': . . . � . ' . . . � , .. . ... �: � :. ', ..'.' _ . .. .. . . . . '�. . . .. . . .�.��.': ,. . ..: ' '"� ' . ��.� :.. -... . ... � � . . .' . .. .' .. �' � .. . .. _ . . .��' . . . . . . .' � � . . � . . . . � . . ' , :', . : ... �. . � . :,:.. . . . •'. .' : � �. . . � . . + �r �. i N r � ` Y s � ° Letters of crossing maneuver support from the two communities impacted by the contour analysis (Eagan and Mendota Heights) to eliminate any controversy on this issue and to ailow the EA to go through in approximately three weeks time. � John Foggia p�epared the requested chro�ology of Corridor development, revisions and modifications from 1968 through 1995. This document is attached to the minutes. When the above _ requirements have been met, it wiii take approximately two weeks - Letters of support from Eagan and Mendota Heights have not yet been received. Jon Hohenstein, indicated that Eagan is supportive of a crossing maneuver but wouid like to discuss with Mendota Heights. Eagan prefers a 110° oP 115° heading rather than centerline - split the difference somehow and not go quite to the centerline. Kevin Batchelder� Mendota Heights� expressed concem �egarding time. it has already taken two years getting to this point - and they do not want another two ars time taken to discuss headings. The other concem is that if the FAA and MAC . �-----support.# 105 eading, is there a need for community support letteirs. John Foggia added, that • C a in order to .any changes and re-open the issues at this point would require a"public process" � ( � and a MAC process. � Mr. Foggia summarized the options: (1 j go back to the FAA without the community support lettecs and ask what wiii happen. FAA could then FQNSI o� do an.EIS, (2) or move forward as approved by MAC and FAA. Staff wili foilow-up. . Cha�les Curry �xpressed ALPA concems over any kind of a'cross over situation. He asked that the FAA define simuitaneous versus non-simuttaneous departures to aileviate any type of conflict. Bruce Wagner, FAA ATC, responded that single position on both runways is already specified - a new conversion has not been created. The crossing maneuver was specificaily desig�ed for law volume periods. � � C John Foggia reviewed .the attached analysis requested at the October Operations .Committee meeting. `fhis included refinement of previous analyses �Ocusing on 10 p.m. to Midnigh4�� and 5 a:m. ,to 7 a:m. Th� most receni availabie �IONIS data was used (July. August, and September 1995j. Aiso� attached are summaries reflecpng analyses of operations by 15-minute increments, a camparison of the Consalidated Schedule to actual ANOMS arrival and departure times, � a nighttime survey (airports similar to. MSP) of nighttime restrictions and/or agreements, and an Airport Comparison telephone poll of 23 major �airports, Staff is looking for suggestions and soluiions. Mr. Foggia asked that aii committee members review the new report anatyses to see what the ramificatio�s are, and not ask for further analysis untii this has been done. Discussion will take ptace at the upcoming January meeting. Chairtnan Salmen suggested that flight impacis at other airport �egions affecting MSP is another consideration and shouid be shown at a future meeting. , NAOP.�, � Chainnan Salmen infornied the committee that Northwest is developing a generic comparison of close-in and distant departure procedures. This will be presented to this committee and then to MASAC. The NAOP contour analysis for MSP will be compieted and ready for evaluation on 2 �e January 17, 1995, at the Operations Coinmittee. HNTB will make a presentation on the contours �'• and help fo�mulate a recommendation. ` . .. .-, - ;- .. Tom Hueg and Carol Ann McGuire contacted� and met with the Portland Avenue Neighborhood Organizaiion (PANO), a St. Paul group of citizens conce�ned about nighttime air t�affic noise. Mr. Hueg explained MASAC, noise abatement procedures already in place, weather and maintenance problems which affect operations, air safety� �unway repai�s� and nanway use percentage comparisons. PANO citizens were invited to attend the January MASAC meeting. Chairman Salmen and the committee acknowledged receipt of two letters: one fram the City of Eagan and one from the City of Inver Grove Heights which were received by MASAC and referred ta the Operations Committee. Both letters were in regard to expansion of �the Voluntary Nighttime Agreements. Chairman Salmen noted that the subject matter is under consideration and will be covered by issues being add�essed through the Ope�ations Committee. � ' John Foggia respanded to a letter referred to the committee by MASAC, from Mike Schla�c� MASAC alternate mem6er from the City of Eagan, expressing his concem on "unnecessary noise events" -� ' at MSP. M�. Schlax �equested the tail numbers of two F=16 military planes through ANOMS data. Mr. Foggia �eiterated that�all milit�ry�ope�ations are filtered from ANOM� in concunence with the Memorandum of Agreement with the FAA. The seco�d item was a request for MASAC to fonnally support MAC against promoting private plane use at MSP. Mr. Faggia explained that MAC does support this concept through its Reliever Airport system which was developed to support general aviation operations. The six Reliever Airports meet the needs of non-scheduled, corporate/business, flight training� private and recreational operations. MAC Chairman Grieve and _ the cammission encourage general aviation use at the Relievers. Chairnnan Salmen explained that ) action cannot be taken against a public airport by excluding planes firom using the facility. This is —. not appropriate actiott. Jon Hohenstein. Eag�. moved. and Tom Hue�. St. Paul. seconded. that staff Rrer�are a written resoonse to Mike Schlax to include the a6ove inform�fi..�n. A vote was taken an �„�nanimauslv �assed. � � • � us 1u_ • i u-- �• John Foggia suggested inviting N9AC Chainnan Grieve and Jeff Hamiel to the Febn�ary MASAC meeting to discuss 1996 noise issues. This would give Chainnan Grieve the opportunity to meet, and interact with members of MASAC. John Nelsono Blaomi�gton, �eiterated that the jaint meeting should be very thorough and business- like �- the February date is "rushing iY'. MASAC must be firm on a �umber of our issues. Mir. Nelson suggested only doing two to three items� review the highlight points, and firm them up. Use a long-term plan with lasting effects - keep tfie focus simple. All members of MASAC should be commenting on camMon-ground goals. Areas of focus need to include GPS, and the EagaNMendota Heights Comdor. � The committee agreed to invite MAC Chainnan Grieve and MAC Executive Directo� Hamiel to the February MASAC meeting. . The MACJMASAC joint meeting wi116e planned for August or September 1996. ; j � � . �° , � . � � Other Items Not On th - Ag nr�a � a;, Mayor Charies Mertensotto, Mendota Heights, announced that Kevin Batcheiderwiii repiace Tom Laweli as the alternate member on this. committee. Mr. Lawell is moving to the state of (� Washington. Agenda items fo� the next Ope�ations Committee meeting are: NADP contour analysis presented by Evan Futterman -HNTB, discussion �f Shoulder Hour data provided, and MASAC goals and objectives for 1996. . Bob Johnson, as a �esident of Bloamington within the 1996 LON65 contour, received a lette� from Larry �ee, Director of Community Development. The purpose af the letter was to update residents on the Runway 4/22 extension and how it affects the future of home .insulation programs in . Bioomington. The City of 8loomington supports extension of Runway 4/22, but opposes changing � the RUS. The letters aiso announced the 1997-1998 reconstruction af the south parailei runway. . John Nelson, Bioomington� expiained that Bloomington's Public Relatians are taking a boid stand on• a highly sensitive matter [noise concemsj by initiating this � letter now (14,000 letters were mailed). The letter is attached to the minutes. • . Jennifer Sayre, Northwest Ai�lines, presented a response letter to �arry �ee, City of Bloomington, ,.' requesting it�formation regardin g Northwest Ai�lines' prog�ess towa rc ls meeting the Federal Stage � 2 phase-out requirements. 7he exhibits are attached to th� minutes �nd enclude: � Curr�n# Fl�et Mix, Gurrent Fleet Mix by Departure; Stage 2 Compiiance Plan, and Stage 2 19941996 Nushkit °.. � . Update._ _ The next Operations Committee meeting wili be held January .17, 1996. �. � _.The meeting was adjoumed at 11:25 a m: �� r= - _ ,� , � f Respectfully submitted: �,.. + � J C � �: .,, .:, ,, � f , . ; � �� `: , ` , � } � � � �� s � aJean Deighton �� a � , � ,(•t. .. , _ . . .. . ............. .� . .,. . ,... G�. . _. . : ._..,>. .,. _ . ., .... .._. . ....,..�... . . ,� i� ....,.!!� .. ... .... ... .._. : . -- - -- ! �.�:� � y , i� . . . . . . . .. . � . .. . . . .. , . . � ' '. ' .�,`,.� . . � .): . . . d�-� .' rc��. � . . .- . . . . , . . �.. � . . . . . . . . . . . � . 4 f�',i'r .,,., � � . . . . . . . � . . . . ' . .. . . . . . .. . � ;;z+� . , . . . . . . . . . . . . .: - . �� . . . � �. �.. . . . . . .�:. .,., .� � . 4 . : ..�7, . . . �� .. - � . �, . . . .. � . . . . �. . � .. . • . ' � f . . . , �.�. .., . . �. �.. # . . , . .. . ... � . . . ' . . . � . . �.. .'. . � �. . ' ' ' S _ i.":�'f Yr�. .��' .�...�• ,': . �.�.' ) r � i ��-,� J '.,r f \ s . ,�, ' .'. ,r t . � r . . , . . . . . . � < .., . "'".. ,r. , .' . � „ , . . . . .. . �. ..: - , �.:. � , t ' 1 ..f , ; ,�frrt"„t","m"",��,eter"or��wr��,i�ra��irai,��'�e��a��„��rti� wt�t rt+w,tQ L�D '1 U 0 K ,: � PART 150 � . � . b .! C ISSUE 24 A view looking North after Phase I demolition, returning the m�ea to a park like setting. "�'""""„��",�"��„"""��00'�„�'�t't"�",�"�„'B„0A„'��,0'� PHASE I: DEMOLITION COMPLETED The demolirion process for the remaining homes located in Phase. I which could not be sold at auction was.completed on Monday� November 20, 1995, ahead of ihe projected time frame. The contracting finm of Veit & Company completed the demolition of sixty-six (66) houses and three (3) garages. The process of back filling all af the basements, grading and putting topsoil an each lot has been completed as we1L Each lot will. be seeded and mulched for grass in the spring of 1996. No major problems occurred during the demolirion, although the contcactor did rattle a few china hutches iluring the process due w the size of some of the soil compaction equipment that was udlized. Mf,.0 and WDSCO waulil like t� apolo,gize for any inconvenience the demolitiori process has created for homeowners still residing in the area, PHASE II: DEMOLITION TU BEGIN With the first round of the demolition process Snishing ahead of the projected schedule, and completion in such a successful manner, MAC has decided to begin the demolition process for an additional twenty-fiye (25) houses and one (1) garage before the end of tbis year. These additional homes were unable to be auctioned, with the majority of these homes being part of Phase Il. MAG's decision to add these homes for demolition at this time is to avoid costly property management fees to maintain these homes. Tbe required asbestos abatement testing process for the additional homes was conducted during the week of November 20, 1995. Any necessary asbestos abatement will be performed during the last week of November and the first week of December. Once again, prior to the start of the demolition process, the area surrounding each home will be restricted, and no unauthorized � people will be allowed into the work area, for strict safety purposes. The salvage company wi11 inspect each home and salvage as many items as possible. Veit & Company anticipates this second round of demolition to begin the week of December 11,1995, with a projected completion date the third week of December. MAC and WDSCO would again like to thank all homeowners and tenants still residing in the neighborhood for their patience during the completion of this second phase of demolition. PROPERTY MANAGEMENT UPDATE Dumpster Hours: The December dumpster availability dates are Saturday, December 2, 1995, and . Saturday; December 16, 1995. As reported in the October issue of the Buyout Update, the new winter hours for the dumpster site are now 9:00 am. to 3:00 p.m. Na�ardous Waste Dispasal: The property management team must encourage each homeowner to be responsible for the proper disposal of al! hazardous materials. Please remember that hazardous materials cannot be placed ' in the dumpster, nor should these items be left at the property site once a homeawner or tenant has vacated.. Recently, there has been an increasing problem due to a high incidence of used paint cans being left behind on properly sites within the project. The property managemeat team cannot dispose of these items. Paint cans that are partialty or completely full are classified as hazardous materials. The Hennepin County Recycling Center cannot accept hazardous waste from businesses, i.e. Pham Express or WDSCO. This recycling center is only available to residents of Hennepin County, and is free of charge to those residents. There are two options available to each homeowner/tenant to dispose of unwanted paint The Part 150 Buyout Update is a newsletter by the Metropolitan Airports Commission and W.D. Schock Company, Inc., containing information on the A4S:' Land Acquisition and Relocatian Projects. CBIIS; l. Take all partial or full paint cans to the Hennepin County Recycling Center for proper disposal (see enclosed pamphlet for � more detailed information). � 2. Should any paint cans be left behind, a homeowner or tenant may be asked to forfeit ail or part of the occupancy deposit to cover the cost of proper disposal. MAC and WDSCO appreciate each homeowner and tenant's patience and cooperarion on this matter. PHASE Ili itELOCATIUN Closing URdate: The relocation closing process for those homeowners iu Phase Il is now 84% complete as of this November issue of the Buyout Update. As of November 22, 1995, there has been a total of 59 homeowners who have now closed on their relocation homes. "Properties Vacated• As of this November issue of the Buyout Update, 57 • properties in Phase II have been vacated. The total number of properties now vacated. for both Phase I and Phase ll is 202. PHASE III: ACQUISITION AND RELOCATION Offer Update: As of November 22, 1995, the offer process for those homeawners in Phase III is 81% complete. Fifty-six (56) offer meetings have been held, with 31 homeawners accepting their offers. Depending on the individual needs of each homeowner, any or all of the siacty day time frame may be utilized to accept the written offer. Once the written offer has been accepted by the homeowner, WDSCO will schedule the acquisition closing date to take place within tiuriy (30) days. Acquisition Closin� Update• As of November 22, 1995, there has been a total of 20 acquisition closings conducted for those homeowners in Phase III. The acquisition closing , W. D. SCHOCR COMPANY, INC . !'\ 5844 28TH AVENi'tE SOUTt� "'N[I��TF�POLIS, I�T 55417 �612)724-8898 (800)260-7062 �� process for this Phase is 29°/a complete. T'he ninety-day, rent-free time period for each eligible homeowner begins the day the acquisition. closing takes place. Many homeowners choose to urilize this time frame for many reasons, i.e. to save addirional money prior to closing on their new home, to have additional time to "fix up° their new home with painting or wallpapering prior to moving in, or for many homeowners who are building new homes, the extra time needed for the builder to complete the home. The financial responsibilities for the homeowner during this rent-free period will be to maintain all utilities on the property and maintain payment of insurance on personal properly owned by the homeowner. The physical responsibilities will include lawn care, snow removal, and garbage removal during the time the homeowner is actnally living in the home, prior to tumiag a11 keys in at the finai walk through inspection. Relocation Closiag Update• As of this November issue of the Buyout Update, eleven (11) Phase III homeowners have closed on their relocation homes. The Phase III relocation closing process is now 16% complete. • As of November 22, 1995, two (2) Phase III properties have been vacated. BLOCK 16 FUNDING It appears at this time.that no surplus funds will be available from the Phase III budget to add in Prioriiy Block 16. The next issue of the Buyout . Update will discuss the futuie� funding possibilities for subsequent phases. ' � BUYOUT FEEDBACK Q. . FIow many, : homeowners/tenants in Phase •i; �, Phase ll,'and now Phase IIl have relocated back to the City of Richfield? . A. Of the 212 homeowners from Phase 1, II and III who 6ave closed on their relocation properties, 51 have relocated back to the City of Richfield. " e� . :..,,,_ � �•--,�,_,,=, � +'4' �ru'..___. ,� � ��E A,o' �,y,,.�. �.. . � ..� pr' �; U.S.aUS Ai GE = �, Z kOV-- 9S N i''%% �' � I< �` b m :��7.-, � z z �Y. .��r� ,_t,; ` : ..��a::�� _,� Tom Lawell 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Hghts, 2�T 55118 � C � ,. �` � s r:. . . _ November 22, 1995 tVire Sandy Grieve, Chair Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 Dear Chair Grieve: I am writing to you to express our concern over aircraft noise in general, and nighttime aircraft noise in particular. Many of our residents have expressed to me their concern regarding this subject, and the many negative family impacts caused by such noise. Over the years, the MAC has made use of voluntary nighttime agreements to limit the amount of scheduled traffic operating between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Recent discussions by the MASAC Operafions Committee suggest that the MAC has an opportunity to expand this time frame at the "shoulder hours" to benefit those in our communities most affected by aircraft noise. On behaif of Mendota Heights, 1 respectively request the MAC to take steps � to negotiate new nighttime agreements with the air carriers to limit scheduled operafions between the hours of 10:30 p.m. and 6:04 a.m. 1 look forward to working with you as we cooperatively seek to improve the noise environment around MSP. Shouid you have questio�s regarding this request, please let me know. � � cc: Jeff Hamiel, MAC Executive Director Bob Johnson, MASAC Chair Sincerely, CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ,�.t',,.�, �. Er�r..�,.:�:� Charles E. Merter�sotto Mayor 1101 Victoria Curve • 1Viendota Heigl�ts, �R�J�t • 55.9.18 45� • 1�5� ,�.�4 � 1VI�'T]L�.OPOLI�'.c�,l� AIRI'O1ZT� CC71��MI�SIC� 2�PPt i5 S4-tirq Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport r t�� 6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799 i z Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fax (612) 726-5296 ~t t N A 1 N � � ro g o �. '�' t o° 9� 41RPOR2� December 12, 1995 The Honorabie Charles Mertensotto Mayor of the City of Mendota Heights ; 1101 Victoria Curere Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Mayor Mertensotto: Thank you for your recent letter regarding aircraft activity during the "shoulder hours " of �—� operations at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) is currently evaluating the concept of e�ending the � voluntary night agreements into the shoulder hours. This discussion is taking place in the Operations Committee of MASAC. The recommendation of MASAC will be reviewed and evaluated by the Planning and Environment Committee of th+e MAC, with a recommendation then to the Metropolitan Airports Commission for final action. I welcome your input and involvement in this process and would encourage you to participate in the present discussions. Sincerely, .,, r C%� Pierson Grieve Chairman The Metropolitan Airports Commission is an affirmative action employer. . Reliever Airports: AIRLAII� • ANOKA COLTNTY/BLAINE ' CRYSTAL • FLYING CLOUD • LAKE ELMO � SAII�1T PAUL DOWN'POWN � C S � TO: FRO1Vi: SUBJECT: DA'I'E: MA.SAC Operations Committee DEPARTMENT OF EIYVIROIYMENT John Foggia, Manager, Aviation Noise and Satellite Program Shoulder Hour Considerations . November 16, 1995 Contour Generation Status. Contour analysis for the Corridor "crossing" maneuver is complete. Discussions with the Great Lakes Region indicated further attalysis was required for an Environmental Assessment (EA). Additionally. FA,A requested a chronology of Corridor acdvities &om MAC, and letters of support from the two communides impacted by the coritour analysis. HriTB's report on the additianal anaiysis and MAC's Corridor history aze included for your peavsaL Noise Abatement Departure �Profile (NADP) contour anaiysis is undeiway. Analysis should be to the Operations Comunitteti by mid-January. 6�snoutder�9 a�our Data Ana�ysis. Requested aaalyses from the previous MASAC Operations Committee included a refinement of previous analyses, focusing on 10 P.M. to Midnighi, and 5 A.M. to 7 AM The most resent available ANOMS data was used in the �analysis. i.e„ July, August� and September 19g5. The data sample include� 8� nights for the 10 P.M. to M'idnight pericxl, and gg marnings for the 5 A.M: to 7 A.M. period. Almost S6Q0 Carrier Jet operadons were consideaerl in this sample. .The data reflax Federal Express flying re-engined and hushkitted B•727s. and Northwest Sying 30% (23 of 7� of their DC9-30 aircraft as Stage 3. T'�'° attached summaries refie�t analyses of operations by 15-minute increments, with a Stage 2/Stage 3 breakout, and an analysis of anivals and departures by runway, by 15-minute increment during both 10 P.M. to Midnight 81id S A,M, tp 7 AM pe,riods. A third analysis compares the Consolidated Schedule to acwal ANOMS arrival and deparaue times. The flight's full itineraiy is included as requested, 'The 15th day of July. August, and September are compazed against corresponding scheduled activity Because the Consolidated Scl�edule is only an estimate of daily flight acxivity for a given month, some flights are unmatched for the mid•point day of each month. A nigharme suivey of airport restrictions aad/or agreements is also includefl. An extensive survey of .�iiports similar to MSP was conducted in March 1995, aad disseminatect to MASAC: The nighttime survey covered the same airports to.provide some oontimuty ta the pmcess. The originai survey is attached for reference. MSP has a Stage 3-only agreement in fa�ce betweea 11 P.M, and 6 A,M„ with��its major carrier Northwest Airiines (NWA) as part of the loan covenunts between NWA and MAC: Also part of the loan covenants are an agreement to utilize ai MSP the same pmportion of Stage 2 tha,t eacists in NWA's domestic fleet, and the proportioaal utilizadon of Stage 2 aircraft cannot i�c�ease from year to year. These concePts will attempt to be exteaded to all carriers� seiyiag Msp througli the Noise Management r '� . � , ` M � ! Methodology. In addition, MAC has voluntary nighaime Stage 3-only agreements with 6 cargo .aud/or charter carriers. Operationally� our RUS defines a preferential runway system at MSP at night (so-called head-to-head in the Corridor, and crosswind runway use balanced at each end), similar to other airports' � schemes. NADP Chairman Salmen. ' . � Topics for joint MAC-MASAC meeting. � � Page 2 C Juty, A.ugusz, ana Jepzemuer lyy� 87 Nights 22:00-22:15 22:15-22:30 22:30-22:45 22:45-23:00 23:00-23:15 23:15-23:30 23:30-23:45 23:45-24:00 Total ss Mornings 05:00-05:15 05:15-05:30 � � OS:30-05:45 05:45-06:00 � 06i00-06:15 06t 15-06:30 • 06:30-06:45 06:45-07:00 Total � 22:00-24:00 # Ops Avg # Ops # Ops Avg # Ops Carrier Jets Carrier Jets Stage 2 Stage 2 631 7.3 275 3.2 517 5.9 221 2.5 386 4.4 I66 1.9 308 3.5 143 � 1.6 2�3 3.1 160 1.8 206 2.4 132 1.5 227 2.6 132 1.5 177 2.0 135 1.6 2�25 • 31.3 1364 15.7 # 4�ps Avg # Ops Carrier Jets Carrier Jets 47 0.5 91 1,0 165 . 1.9 lb3 1.9 534 6.1. 433 4.9 826 9.4 603 � 6.9 2862 32.5 � 05:00-07:00 # Ops Av� #�Ops Stage 2 Stage Z 21 0.2 8 0.1 26 0.3 31 0.4 . 257 � -2.9 •208 2.4 � 524 . �6.0 369 4.2 1444 16.4 # Ops Stage 3 356 296 220 165 113 74 95 42 1361 # Ops Stage 3 26 83 �139 132 2�7 225 302 234 1418 5587 '�otat C3perations 22:00 - OO:OOI. and 05:00 • 07:00 � Avg # Ops Stage 3 4.1 3.4 2.5 1.9 1.3 0.9 1.1 0.5 � 15.6 Percent Stage 3 56.4% 57.3% 57.0% 53.6% 41.4% 35.9% 41.9% 23.7% 49.9% Avg # Ops Percent Stage 3 Stage 3 0.3 SS.3% 0.9 91.2% 1.6 84.2% 1.5 81.0% 3.�1 51.9% 2.6 52.U% 3.4 36.6% 2.7 38.8%' 16.1 49.5% � c. ' � � V � rt �T M.� �'1' �0 f^� NI M/'1 N O aq u a� o0 0 o c6 0o eio oc �!~I Ne�+� M� Mb v�iN NN .,�0 a � . S p� O w � t N N N r P N t�' 1 N M � O � a Q n o 0 o c o 0 0 o d o 0 0 N a 01 N� �� C b N N � N Q 00 O g � �� O �O �O t�t � O� v'� C� b v'f �G t+f. O � C C O C C� C C G C C 1 D 00 e� Y � 6 � � � o v°}'i v�i .� t�i n� n� v�i e v�i � S . u� dd �m � �� rr �r «,�� 0 � N = L � ~ �� g � �' .� g�'� °�rn .-� N°v �g N� N N r e� N u� v� �n v� i i i i aa aa �� N � � � � W W W W a� aa a� �� o^ - � oo ao 00 __ ao 00 ��,,, CC CG OC CC .GO GO 'Q � . � � � Q O^ 00 O� ��0� ON �.O 2 y � � ~ a�� O O O O �� O O O O O O C C C O C O O O� G C O C a. Y O.°r o.- o o h a � o e� o.+ o-+ sy � � • 9 ,O� 00 00. .�++ �+� 00 00 y oa o� o0 0o ao 00 e V S, �' . O� ocv oo �� ^ oen .-�.+ : v � • rr �� : �� . �r„ �� J 4." J Q N H �� y N e� � � ^' N O N N r' �- ..N�� JJ ii =_ 'aa aa aa �� Ny �� W W W W m � �� aa� �� aa a� . a� a a !,y � y N e�f e�'1 O � O �n e�f .-. v1 .. O a a� oc oc o-� co 00 00 � Q � N N'�' 00 a�0 Q M .N.. � v1 ... 3 y �. � � �N R� Nh NN �+M �O �? O G C C C O O C C C G O a' �' « � c�� O� .�.� M�` ..a0. v�i .�.. �+�j l'� M F O � � i. y o� t�f N �O .•. t�1 l'� P� �O N 00 �. O Z y GOO OC C•+ CC CO �00 a' U � 9 , o� N V rbf� N� �Ov�1 .��+P .N+"' i u � o �_�_ �� _ _ d d � �g �� .��. � r � � « � .s � J Q' �J �,' a N� � J C.' J Q' N N p N N S � Of Qf r e� 1H N � r N �J JJ �� aa aa aa �•� �� _�� N� � �� s o� QM q0 � 00 00 NN �O �.+O y O G . C�O O G �O C �C C O C M'! A Y � �O �. O�O O � y.N �00 PO $ y O ~ �.� 00 00 O•+ 00 00 00 ys O O O O G O C G G C' O G � y ' O� ~ Y O„� o0 0- o�o o-. o0 00 a y O � �O 00 O� vfe�l �O �O :� ,� ao 00 00 oa�oa o0 a � G� n . . �� o.. o.•. o� ;r� vo �o. s .0 � ,�� - :��a��$�� o �� rn� �� N a�.Ng N(�V �'� � N tl) N tlf = _ _ _ aa aa �� '.r�� .aa �� •'� WW WW m �N d a� a� aa. a� a� -a� r � \ �� . � w � N M O -. v� � N1 N,'1 �+ O '� � � G C.� O 7 O O C C C C C w � 6� Y ��1 � ry ry M a �. a0 � N O O � d' f+1 N N :� ' a. ,.J N � � p� N N -� O -� r1 et t�7 ••• ••• N O �� C O C C O C C C CJ C C G d � � .�„..�. �N ..N..N �N .N.�.�.. .�r� Z � � • G. � �� M �!' M.. N P 00 V t�f V' M O a O O O O O O G O O O O O a� Y 7 � � cf0 V1 h o fV �'1 �Q'f N b b N N t�Nt N � � v� — — � �' � � e► :! •". �c r r '� � � �� . �� Q� N �� C�f� . �� •`N �N .�p N N e� e� � J J J J � � aa aa �� '� � � � W W W W a� �� o. o Y -•o 00 00 oo.n �.o 00 � � 4y co 0o co 00 00 00 � '. C '� .o . . . a. Y � Ox'#� ,:;v .:o .o.. F� v�o vo i. �' O � 0 H . � O O O O O.� N O 'O O O O � � O O O O C O C O O O O O 00 a � 8.~ Y O�, O.+ 00 NO ^�f �O N.. � � 8' 9 _� ^� �+ O O O O O V► �+ O �+ p y GG 00 CG �+G GO CC Q u A O � .^..vf "O � N... �,r �0O �O„� Z V QQ� � � _ ' 'lqp . � ` � •� �� d y�� ,�i�y �. � JQ.' O� G70 Jp,' p �� N � Q� ' �NN ��- � N . � J J J J T aa aa �.� �� °L9' �� :� v�N � g ` W W W W �a �� ..�� E. � y . � � NN r0 �+N �PM N.�. � O ��, O C� C C CO O O C' C C O C w � 4 YM O�q . � .�.. �.. O� .�.. t�'t N .�-. `0 ^ .�. � � a. ' O '" ; u ^ N O ... t�'1 � �+f N ... .... .,. p >�� C C C C C O O C C C GO O a a� ~ Y o � �.�t�. .�b N._.. N� � � .^..O i � � Q V �� t�1 < N�+ V Pf F v� pf N N O M CC GG CfO CC CC CC 4 G Y 7 o'C Nt��f �� t��1N vFiQ N� NO U . $ �� JGC �� ,,,�� q�� h ,�� pJ�0p.'� J0.' NN O� Ny� . (V N � � , N ' O JJ 1J ii iS aa .aa �� NN a� �� $ O� � Op � 00 O�N 00 ..O � �. ^ 4� co ao 00 00 0o co $. � O� ��.00 oM.�� vo ao : O 'v'�� ; y � O O O O O •+ r p O O O y�� O O C O O O O O O O O O e'� ' . 3 y O� P N 00 O� ^�O �+f O �O Y y �.1 � :� �N.� 00 00 �+l'�'1 �+O r0 Y O G G C G Q, � C G O O G !V w�'! . O� �,N., 00 O�t q� P O „�+O . x V g �.� 0 � O � � : J� 8� . �� $ �,�. �Q �� JQ: JQ' ,�,�� . OI � � � N N � � JJ JJ � �T� �� CS, aa aa �� N �'� �,�� W W W W � a� �� a�: �� a� . �� w ^ "'1 � y� � O� = O N N N-� O N �- O 4G .�+ O O O O O:J . D O "� :J � t� O Qn . �, G u C� � •T � � N .�. � � t�1 „�., v1 O x j� S. ,.J N u ... p M M M M r N ^ O � ^ �. ��=„ O G O O O O O C C C O O 4 J' N a� O� O� N ? t+f N� N N `0 ..�. 00 �, � � o.,� �� + N N O vf �n vf '0' � R + O � o0 00 00 00 0o co Q u � a� O t �..�. N p � C �l' rb'f � eM+1 �"'� � u •� �� ycqi1 q0�.g�1. �� .� C 8 J�.^ p0 00 Jp,' �e�(� �O H �'�' � Of 01 �"� NN oN �S . �y N r• � N ��.lJ JJ � aa aa aa wu`�i WW �� eg �a �� . �. . o� . a� N Nf N.�. V1 Vf �n N .�. �D r O N O G G C G C G C C I C C G S. �y . A 11 .�•. N �� R T Q ..Qi P N N t�1 $ q . s � ~ . aV N O t9 AM . O v'� .r M �O Q� O O y GI C O`O C C C�O G O C G �« , Yy � 9 .�..� N.^w rN+1� OCN �!� p�IN 3 � • i ; � Y. O �I' v� N 08 O �O vf ..� vf ... �+ _ ; a o0 0o c.» o0 0.-: oeo a� •i 0 �� N O � �y h O .p � � e�1 Nf !R !� 00 v1 .il'4 ,� � 00 V1 . $ V N � �' � � � �� qt� �y. . �� i � J0.' O� O� Jp,' `�a �� g �� JQ.' JQ.' NN �!y 'C . .. QlOI . �.� ... . . . _N. ..$ � N N � e- JJ' J� �_ _= a � aa aa �� Ny �� W W W W m �� a� aa aa a� �� aa r �� . � p�j O C7 � O N N -� O-� 7^.� �� G C ^••i O J O O:J CJ G O� �� a 3�Q � ?. r�1 f� N ��„ � l� � � O�O N M Y� � ~ Y00 �... v1 O .....+ .. p � 7e ... r a y C C � C G O C C G C O G O N a ur �i y �� ^ O �O 00 Q. � v1 a0 l'� O � � . a. Y' O' ;� NN �O Ne•1 v�N .rN �+O w oed oeo 00 00 od do d u a' A � .rn ..�. � N N N � �!' �„ ..�.i T. M * V � � � � � � � �� i'� �C �� C 'C .. �� O� �� y�� T �� N N O N N O N N � � N JJ JJ E ao. aa aa �'�'�u �� u�v� �� o� . iu...v'� ..p ...N �OM .O � �.O � . O C G O O O G C O O G C 4 � M � CI h. � .�r a .N. N V�f N "' M .�n N � � 6 Q ~Y � y �N �O � Q v�tA O��O 00 �� O O� C C G C G G G G G C a� . �"Y C a �� .�.N �i�+f CN �<. """r 7t `�j d 1 a � N '�O r'�1 .r e+1 �D .n �O �O O� � .. Y oo do 00 ..:o 00 00 e . U Y 8 ^ eV O .h.� v�i N� N�r�i T r�i�. '� 6D .N�. � � V o m M• �� . �� .��. ��p �� a O �� .QJ/O�f �� N.N �N N.a'. . .N N ..�.e� . . N aa aa °E� � �� NN �."� �� W W W� �'i �8 �O �� aa aa a� aa 9 C � 0 � � �� V y ^'� "0 �f N O� �+O' a +e -' -� a� o0 00 0 o cio 00 • co: a � 6. Y C� � v� �7' v� N O. P� N N N P� P� O a � o. h � y a -� N O O O O vi �f .•. O N O �� :J O O C O�C C C O C7 C C d r s� C x �^ MO rf V' Q� b0 �O a � � V �! g� NN ..iq ...�. 00�0 ..... MO ya O C C G C C C C C O C C 4 C� � O�c .�...�.. �N ..N.w~.� �vbi ooP �O Z �� V • �, _� �� m� _ _� m �� ..- �� _ �� J� �� N •' � .� N �� N N � N N� J J J J E aa aa �� a $� v�iN `�nE �� WW WW aJ� �-�.. �a a� �� a� �� aa � o "' ;� V vf +l'r ...�eF hM 0... ...p ey G�O GO GO OC CC� OG d�' ' ' g. � �p 0 4 . R Q fN�1 „ 08 M V V- O M � O � Vl O '"� YM � q ^��+ C O 00 �� O� 00 ey �+ . CO GC g N a � e� C O� WO HO �OQ� �O Q wwt. NO � � y � ^y Ys Non �n Or ..p �� 00 CO PIPI OC G'C e � " N� 0 � .M...�. �„• � � .N ^ • "'� .N..� i u � -- �� — � o � �� 8� �,� �� r� �� a� �a JJ '. JJ x= __ . aa aa �a da �� Nv�i �� WW WW a� �� b� �b �� . � y . = Y O�+ ^,' O ...... �..� �O 00 � oo do� o0 oco od cod a'" w M 6 Y �� + �O N N �n � �O vi N O M O s � o. • � N Y -+O 00 O O �O 7 .-� O NO Y a y C O O C C C :.J C C G J C S Y O'� � V' ^'�O <O r� .a'f... ^O x� • ' G ' *� ...... p0 �.... Pv1 ..O NO Y O O C C C C O C C C C C Q U � O� .Mr.�.r NfN O� � b R P"" .�..0 � u g ero mo ..� � m m � �� g� �� p�q1. ��p � �.r.� J� JQ.' N�y �N NGl p� Ny� N�. e�-� . N O J J J J � � aa aa �� aa �g �� W W W W aa �a �� a a a^ - � u N Nt �n rf en ! �+f N O�+ .. p � CC .00 CeD OC GG GC e � . ' MI Q� �N V�'N NM N.Ai 000 �00 a O''' • • . Y � y a00O Q�. r� O��O O N 00 �y OC OC CCi 00 ,OC OC o� b b N�'1..� �..NiN O�OMM1 "'.�'.. ^�O a v� !i y �� Q� ••� O� f Yf P N M O �+1 .. O y G� OC CO �+O OG . GC �' (% 9 . Q� ONOO� 't�� R'�O �l+ ^N !�O Z q v �lgQ! �� $� �� . � 'Q' �� Ja' � �� . � �� .�� v� v� v� v�'. s s s x • aa a.a '�T`�.. aa �� ugivgi � � � �, W W W W �� a�.a� �� July 1995 Consolidated Schedule 22:OOI, = 24'.00L, and OS:OOY, — 07:OUL Scheduled Actual Flight Days of Time Time AJD Carrier Number Equipment Operation 0515 0525 0547 0552 0558 0600 0600 0600 0600 0600 0601 06Q3 0603 0609 0614 0620 0623 0623 0630 0630 0635 0640 0640 0641 �0642 0645 0645 � 0645 0646 0647 064� 0648 0648 0649 0650 0650 0650 0651 0652` 0653 0653 0634 . 2200 2203 , 2204 Unmatched A 0522 A 0615 A OSSS A 0546 A Unmatched D 0615 D 0620 D U600 D 0632 D 0608 A ' OS51 A OS53 A 0623. D 0609 A -0631 A Unmatched � A 0618 A 0639 D 0620 A Unmatched A Unmatched A Upmatched D 0638 A 0628 A Unmatchcd D Unmatched A 0636 A 0655 D 0635 A 0634 A Unmatched A 0640 A 0640 A Unmatched D 0650 A 065'7 D 0651 ' A 0652 A Unmatched , A Unmatched A 0644 A Unmatched . � D Unmatc�ed D Unmatched A SX FM NW 1F NW NW NW UA NW DL SX NW NW FM HP NW 8W NW T'V{/ NW NW ER US NW NW NW lA NW SX� NW� NW NW NW NW UA NW AA NW NW N1�i NW NW NW SX HP S60 1407 398 . 354 836 118 451 458 740 1044 572 570 714 1407 916 300 824 844 253• 928 906 422 1090 1428 500 , 398 �67 770 sn lOSS 1284 � 786 1468 401 279 '738 2097 122 599 1280 1492 1i96 455 559 583 D8F D1F 320, D8F � 757 D9S 72S 72S M80 M80 75F 320 M80 72F 733 i57 D8F ?57 M80 D10 74F 72F l0U DC9 D9S 320 72F D9S 75F D9S D9S �2S D9S D9S 733 D9S 100 p9S D9S D9S DC9 D9S DC9 DSF 733 m Full Itinerary ( 2345 SDF—MSP 23456 MEM—MSP—YWG 1234567 PDX—MSP—LGA 23456 ILN—MSP 567 ANC—MSP • 12345 MSP—ORD 1234567 MSP—MEM 1234567 MSP—ORD—BUF 1234567 MSP—DTW 1234567 MSP—ATL—GSP 6 SDF—MSP—FSD 1234567 SEA=MSP—MIA 1234567 LAS—MSP—LGA 2�456 MEM—MSP—YWG 1234567 LAS—MSP 1234567 LAX—MSP—DCA ' 2345 TOL—MSP 1234567 ANC—MSP—DTW—YYZ 123456 MSP—STL—SMF 123456'7 HNL—SFO—MSP—BOS 6'I SIN—BKK—NRT—ANC—SFO—ORD-� � 2:i45 CVG—DTW—MSP � 1234567 MSP-CLT 123456 LSE—MSP—CVG 1234567 RST—MSP—IND 123456 PDX—MSP—LGA 2345 HUF—MSP � � 123456 DSM—MSP—EWR� � 6 SDF—MSP—FSD 1234567 MDW—MSP 1234567 MOT—MSP—GRR 1234567 YWC,',—MSP 1234567 DLH—MSP—BNA 1234567 OMA—MSP—DFW 1234567 MSP—DEN—SJC 1234567 FSD—MSP—ATL 123456� MSP—ORD—AUS 1234567 FAR—MSP—ORD 1234567 SUX—MSP-STL 1234567 BIS—MSP—DSM •.1234567 GFK-MSP 1234567 CID—MSP • 1234567 �MSP—MEM � � �, 5 MSP—SDF 1234567 LGB—PHX-MSP . 2205 Unmatched D EB 12:i 2307 Unmatched D FM 1207 2210 Unmatched D ER 122 - �210 Unmatched A NJ 128 �2210 Unmatched A DL 412 2211 Unmatched A NW :i10 2215 2233 A NW 830 2?20 Unmatched D 1F 3S3 2228 2219 A NW 146 2230 Unmatched D SX 555 2239 2302 E1 M 822 2244 Unmatched A CO 532 2245 Unmatched D lA 766 2245 Unmatched D 8W 823 2246 Unmatched A NW 7S7 2250� 2259 D HP 758 2300 2316 D• NW 310 Z300 Unmatched A EO� 649 2302 Unmatched A AA 1995 2318 Unmatched A UA 26'7 2�35 2331 � A DL 920 2340 Unmatched A� UA 1144 2349 2329 A TW 391 D8F D1F 72F 73S M80 320 D9S D8F 320 '75� 100 7:35 72F D8F 75� 733 320 72S 100 72S 733 733 M80 12345 MSP—DAY 12;i4S YWG—GFK—MSP—MEM 12345 MSP—CVG 123457 DFW—MCI—MSP 1234567 ATL—RDU—CVG—MSP 1234567 LAX—MSP�DTW 12:i4567 DFW—MEM—MSP 12345 MSP—ILN 1234567 SEA—MSP� 12345 MSP—RFD 12:i456� MSY—DFW—MSP 123457 BHM—IAH—MSP 12:i4 MSP—HUF . 12345 MSP—TOL 12:i456? YYZ—DTW—MSP 1234567 MSP—LAS 1234567 LAX—MSP—DTW 147 LAS—MSP 1234567 ORD—MSP -1234567 DFW—ORD-MSP 1234S6i SLC—MSP 1234567 STC—DEN—MSP 1234567 LGA—STL—MSP 3 x [ 0 August 1995 Consolidated Schedule 22:OOL — 24:OOL and OS:OOL — 07:OOL Scheduled Actual Flight Days of Time Time A/D Carrier Number Equipment Operataon 0515 0525 OS4;i 0547 0558 0558 0600 0600 0600 0600 0600 0601 0603 0609 0614 0623 0623 0623 0630. 0630 0635 0640 0640 0641 064� 0645 0645 0646 0647 0647 0648 0648 0649 0650 0651 0651 0652 0653 0653 0654 0655 2200 2200 2204 2205 OS15 A 0519 A 0551 A 0545 A 0547 A Uamatched 0609 0614 0616 Unmatched ' 0614 Unmatched 0549 0622 0620 0605 Unmatched 0608 Unmatched 0625 Unmatched 0648 065i � 0624 0628 0655 0633 Unmatched 0652 0636 Unmatched . 0635 � 06.i0 Unmatched 0649 0643 0644 0644 .' 0641 0650 0655 Unmatched 2310 Unmatched 2210 A D D D D. D A A D A A A A D A A A D . A A . D A D A A A A A D A A A A A A A D D A D 5X FM NW NW 1F NW NW UA NW NW DL SX NW FM HP NW 8W NW TW NW NW ER US � DtW NW NW SX NW NW NW NW NW AA NW N1�ii N�V NW NW NW lA EB NW HP EB 560 1407 714 398 354 836 118 368 451 ?40 1044 572 S�0 1447 916 300 824 844 253 928 906 422 . 1090 1242 500 398 '770 572 1055 1284 . �86 1468 401 2097 122 738 599 12�8 12$0 1796 76i 123 1052. 583 123 D8F D1F M80 320 D8F 757 D9S 733 72S M80 M80 �SF .i20 '72F 733 757 D8F 757 M80 D10 �4F ?2F 733 D9S D9S 320 D9S 75F D9S D9S �ZS D9S D9S 100 D9S D9S D9S DC9 D9S D9S D8F D8F D9S 733 DSF Full Itinerary �� 2345 SDF—MSP 23456 MEM—MSP—YWG 1234567 LAS—MSP—ORD 1234567 PDX—MSP—LGA 23456 ILN—MSP 56� ANC—MSP 12345 MSP—ORD • 1234567 MSP—ORD—FLL 1234567 MSP—MEM 1234567 MSP—DTW 1234567 MSP=ATZ—GSP 6 SDF—MSP—FSD � 123456T SEA—MSP—MIA 2:i456 MEM-MSP-YWG 12:i456'7 LAS-MSP 1234567 LAX—MSP—MKE 2345 TOL—MSP 123456? ANC—MSP—DTW—YYZ 123456 MSP—STL—SMF 1234567 HNL—SFO—MSP—BOS 67 SIN—BKK—NRT—ANC-SFO—ORD-� .2345 CVG—DTW—MSP 123456'7� MSP—CLT 123456 LSE—MSP—HOU 1234567 RST—MSP-IND � 123456 PDX—MSP-LGA . 123456 DSlbfi—MSP—EWR . 6 SDF—MSP—FSD 123456? MDW—MSP 1234567 MOT—MSP—GRR 12?f4567 YWG—MSP 1234567 DLH—MSP—BAtA 123456'7 OMA—MSP—DFW 1234567 MSP—ORD—AUS 1234567 FAR—MSP—ORD 1234567 FSD—MSP—ATL 1234567 SUX—MSP—STL 1234567 GFK—MSP—GRB �� 1234567 BIS—MSP—DSM . 1234567 CID—MSP � 2345 HUF—MSP 5 MSP—MKE-DAY ` � 1234567 MSP—SUX ' �` � 1234567 LGB—PHX—MSP i 1234 MSP—DAY � 3207 2224 D 3210 2216 D Z210 2204 A _ 2211 2208 A '2213 2219 A �315 Unmatched A 2220 2208 D 2230 2227 D 2239 2247 A 2244 2254 A 2245 Uamatched D 2245 2326 D 2246 2234 E1 2250 2256 D 2259 Z:i07 D 2:i02 Unmatched A 2313 Unmatched A 2335 • 2348 A 2349 2334 A 2352 2351 A FM 1207 � D1F 12345 YWG—GFK—MSP—MEM ER 122 72F 12345 MSP—CVG DL 41'2 M80 1234567 ATL—RDU—CVG—MSP NW 310 320 1234567 LAX—MSP—DTW NW 1�6 320 1234567 SEA—MSP NW 830 D9S 1234567 DFW—MEM—MSP 1F 3S:i D8F 12345 MSP—ILN SX S55 �SF 12345 MSP—RFD AA 822 100 1234567 MSY—DFW—MSP CO 532 73� 123457 BHM—IAH—MSP lA 766 72F 1234 MSP—HUF 8W 82:i D8F 12345 MSP—TOL NW 757 757 1234567 YYZ—DTW—MSP HP 758 7.3:i 1234567 MSP—LAS ' NW :�10 320 1234567 LAX—MSP—DTW AA 1995 100 1234567 ORD—MSP UA 267 72S 1234567 BOS—ORD—MSP DL ' 920 733 1234567 SLC=MSP TW � 391 M80 1234567 LGA—STL—MSP UA 1144 72S 1234567 SJC—DEN—MSP �� y -; : r 'e. i 4 :i , .j :j 'i'� September 1995 Consolidated Schedule 22:OOL — 24:OOL and 05:OOL — 07:OOL Scheduled Actual Flight Days of Time Time AJD Carrier Number Equipm,ent Operation osis 0527 0546 OSSS 0600 0600 0600 0600 0600 0600 0600 U601 0601 0611 0614 OG23 0623 0628 Db30 0630 0635 0640 0642 0645 0645 0645 0645 0646 0648 0649 0649 0649 0649 0650 0652 0652 0653 0654 0654 , 0655 2200 2200 2205. 2206' 220'7 osos 0629 , 0541 0550 Unmatched 054� 0610 0610 0607 . 0614 0608 0554 Unmatched Unmatched 0606 0546 0603 0631 0654 0640 Unmatched 0657 0631 Unmatched 0634 0646 0639 � Unmatched 0644 0642 0636 0634 ' 0644 Unmatched 0653 0641 0645 0650 . 0642 • 0659 Unmatched Unmatched 2214 Unmatched Unmatched A A A A D A D D D D D A A D A A A A D D A A A D' A A A D A A A. A A D A A A A A A D A A D SX FM NW NW NW 1F UA NW AA DL NW NW SX FM HP 8W NW NW TVN US NW ER NW NW NW NW NW SX NW Nw NW NW NW UA NW NW NW NW NW lA EB HP EB NW FM 560 1407 714 300 118 354 39$ 451 796 1044 I110 i58 572 1407 916 824 844 928 253 1090 906 422 7'70 300 500 1055 1212 572 �73$ 510 .680 �86 1468 215 599 12$0 1492 401 �1246 767 123 583 123 218 1207 D8F D1F M80 320 D9S D8F 72S 72S 100 M80 320 757 75F 72F �33 D8F 757 D10 M80 733 74F 7�F D9S 320 D9S D9S DC9 '75F D9S 72S D9S D9S D9S 72S D9S D9S DC9 D9S D9S DSF D8F �20 D8F D9S� D1F � Full Itinerary ( 2345 SDF—MSP 23456 MEM—MSP—YWG 1234567 LAS—MSP—ORD 12�456'7 LAX—MSP—LGA 12345 MSP—ORD 23456 ILN—MSP 123456 MSP—ORD—BDL 123456i MSP—MEM 12345 MSP—ORD—EWR 1234567 MSP—ATL—GSP 1234567 MSP—DTW=RSW 1234567 SEA—MSP—MKE 6 SDF—MSP—FSD 23456 MEM—MSP—YWG � 123456'7 LAS�MSP . 2345 TOL—MSP 1234567 ANC—MSP—DTW—YYZ 1234567 HNL—SFO-MSP—BOS 123456 MSP—STL—SMF 1234567 MSP—CLT 6i SIid—BKK—NRT—ANC—SFO—ORD� 'P 2345 CVG—DTW—MSP 1234567 LSE—MSP—EWR 12345 LAX—MSP—LGA 123456 SUX�MSP—IND 123456 NIDW—MSP 123456'7 DLH—MSP—DAY ' 6 SDF—MSP—FSD 1234567 RST—MSP—ATL 123456 OMA—MSP—MIA 1234567 GFK—MSP—PHL 123455 YWG—MSP—MSN . 12�4567 MOT—MSP—BNA 12:i4567 MSP—DEN 1234567 FAR—MSP—STL 123456� FSD—MSP—GRB 123456 QD—MSP—CMH 1234567 DSM—MSP—DFW 1234567 BIS—MSP—HOU 2345 HUF�MSP S MSP—MKE—DAY � 1234567 SNA—PHX—MSP � � �12� MSP—DAY -� . � � � � 123457 MCI—MSP �12345 YWG-GFK-MSP—MEM 3308 Unmatched A NW 2210 2313 D ER 2210 Unmatched A DL 2217 Unmatched A NW �2217 2212 A NW � 2220 2222 D 1F 2221 2300 A NW 2223 2209 A NW 2230 2228 D SX 2237 2303 A AA 2245 2234 A CO 2245 Unmatched D lA 2245 Z245 D 8W 2250 Unmatched D HP 2256 2246 A NW 2300 2309 D NW 2301 2252 A AA 2313 2309 A UA 23:i5 233'7 A � DL 2346 � 2343 A . TW 2349 2339 � A UA ( �) � : � � � :3,58 320 122 72F 412 M80 S62 320 1�16 DC9 � 353 D8F 148 320 310 320 SSS 75F 822 100 S:i2 735 766 72F 823 D8F 352 :i20 1441 D9S 358 320 1995 100 267 :7:i3 920 733 ;i91 M80 1144 72S 123457 SFO—MSP—DTW 123�15 MSP—CVG 1234567 ATL—RDU—CVG—MSP 123457 DEN-MSP 123457 TYS—MEM—MSP 12345 MSP—ILN 123457 SEA—MSP 123457 LAX—MSP 12345 FSD—MSP—RFD 12:i4567 DFW—MSP� 123457 IAH—MSP � 1234 MSP—HUF 12345 MSP—TOL 1234567 MSP—LAS—RNO 1234567 PVD—DTW—MSP 12345 SFO—MSP—DTW 123457 ORD—MSP 123457 DFW�—ORD—MSP 1234567 SLC—MSP 123�3567 LGA—STL—MSP 1234567 ABQ—DEN—MSP ti � � S . '` ;� o � `� b a ; �, � g � � � �� $ ga ' .Q � N , O . � • • � O •� ' 'C � � � �� •� w {� � g 3 g .� s� N� a. �] � y '° � � � • • ,�'$ c*i � ,Qv, � "�� 3 $ '� � i ? �. � � _ � o N � � � � �o a.� ;3 �`�' �, � � � $3 °i �, � S � p" � `� ; •� � °� � o, 3 °�• � � � � '�j Q � o� p �S 3' o o a '$ c� Q i. A Z �N � � 'C Z :�� O � •N u C / �C � � �N� � � � �.a �:b �N�. �p... \.. a � 3 u a��5, a� � c. "�= � c °°� � p q' ,.,y � °'a ;� 3 � �� ,� z. .�� y "o � '�'� a �o O � �.. _C. w'� ' Z Q" . i U � . � � I�i. a N . :. ._.:..: i� . � � �' '$ z ' � a � i.�. ..� 3 z 3 a ' � °�' a � • � � a �,: � � L � � G , .. . �� ... . . .r�wa�advww.+wa.s�.+F.� . rfawwwsr.nv.u,.......-:.,.,�—. . .. . . .. .. .. .. -o.wSes..,.N+vf....!.r.m.snaw.r�..,.....,. N � :A b a n M i'�� : � � �D �5 ..; N �t' O,^ _ I M M M 'V' .—i• 9 .� M V'1 O � = � � • � � c, � � I . i �-�+ •-Ni � � � 00 e}' � O Q � . : C �O .� � $ g .g • �� °° � `= N a $ g g g '� ^+ r` M d' N N �O N d' M � C i� V M ¢ �� $ � � $ ��: � I� � z � N � � � � � � a N �� M ; � a� � i a� a� y i � �o � � � � � � � �� w +s � - � ;, � � � ~ ~ . � " " `� o '� '� N �`; ,:; � . � ._� � � ,, �y O y � �� a a � � � � � Q% :4 ��.. y pq ^� �: � e o :� � > °a`3 a°°i '� o '� '� . o a � i � °o � � � c > g b ,� ca � � � a�, � v :a � A r� , � . � � . .,� a � � � . �. , . :�_�. ; � i .0 . `' �. � �� q � . a .'�c .°� ~ _ ~ ' �� °� �� .� '� 3 3 � � � � .:,'o � � �S � `� � .� '� A 'Z: a� c� p � � c� � � •y `y�'' ' � .� I ... *�� ;�p. �q.� c�R; patY .,rn v�� v��Q �� a1 � +"' p v� ��' . � � � � � a� � � � h.�.r � � g g� M V'� d' �. �C N S 00 `e� � II� MN M �� N.-� N..y r�„ �p�p � O �M V �M �� I qqpq p,••�� N}M NM � � � e�� M ' � � � � � e}� �D �O v�y IT V�'� M� M� N N N Q� t`M� � Y�D� � N � e� N N M �' � �' �j N � N N s � � M t� N eT � �O � o � �D M M � � ; � � � . ; .,. ., .. ;, ..,. . . . r .. .,.,.•: •r:. • . •• i� : i.^ "�� > `.:;i�;;i;:; ;�'y'`.�tt3�'i:`;�%.:y, i `�o-'�`�- ' ./••:,•:iif.•;''z,.; : x,:�,::; •'• x •: .. 6� � .y :,�.• • :. .. ' ' }. { ': e � •:o- :..:: •• . :: . . �;�rS.;;:; ' ' . •� :y �:r:::,: . � •'.',r. . ...; •,>�'vx u�•.2.-.: �ti � . (��`.�'.'. • }' .�;,t •` :: ,C',,,,./ t, " .;�f' ' ,� . ,� l, vs.... ��-�+ . .. ' ...*.'::� . .�•+�;��: � •�v`'� # y. _`�`�rew�+ew O .i'r n.� . 1 + :� ..yn:.:. �•.r`.��~~,� �� • � 4�,,�� Y �;�":;�:�:.>+tS }P}• C� . .4 '•' Ttiv' .,n4;:4r{{: � .v�}:'itix:::: : ..t; •>. �n ;n�,Y:;`.�,�:., ij� f.?:�.:.. �i .�rr : {% �1 YQ�y . � 5a• .. �r � x �' • �� a • a n,.. �}� ' � .. .; s�� MM � � . �'r�g.:: . . . ,'4, � : S_ %ti�c Y, t > h�' . F , �x., �*. . �.. »• �; . . 33i: °z .�• x% ; �++� ,E:;> : ,% :c: �`:,y� . ' : •r:. "�.� � :+Mw�:� •. Sr�; Q l+ , � . . : ?�+.i . ', :Fi• ; `ti,�r: ~ '`�'� .: � :??'. i`' ,. .{ ,.;�;y� � . � . �$�' " ...� .: v; �:�. ..�y,.{ ,gs; ,�v:: i :�t . . �., n} . :�. x.:i�:. � � :.4*:.;,.;.r v S . %Y�: :� �' ?•. ''� x:: . „s:� : �� 'Y+: ` r,}�.: ,�; ` f .w, . ;''y�i,'c, ' ':Y:k:.'�� ,. :`+l!!{..F`:: . :rir;.f . d, . } ;. . . .' %c�?�. �. ` : tII � . 4: : '�� • :' : �r . �, ` ?: : .�}: . `�`�' , r .� •::'W'� M ti::;:�;., :�. ' < ,..,�. ��,,. . . :. ,' %�<� L'� v. :r•< � �y: x � ::�`:�":: °'� N a ... � .1`.:i �..� � . � . � . .�:i�i 4 6% ..:�r'� �' ,�,�, . .. f..;�.�'ii}� a`;. .:,.,•.: ' . ?�f. '.' ' .' . �:'. u .... : V y;:Q'i:. i.. . . o � } � ., :: '• f�y:X T�r. \ u p M� },. #j�. .. ' Y`•� T. �l � ro � :�•` �.�^i�#�.� � `��`p��': % �� .� �� r� . � � � � , }` .. : c�.�,: .:�i: ?'>' , :. : $:;' f ��i.. � . a a.. a .. •:ci . i �. . ?;.. `�i,;: :�� ' � ..;�: �� S�d: ' 7k �':' � �{ 9y..•.:? �;` � .� � ':i:, p .a . : : '.•: . : _ : , �{{:: ., .' 3X '' a; �7{y�`��> ;�; � • Y:.. � : � . . �. 11K� �'�.. �• •�• `�`• r �j ti��. T"T`.+`.: . .�,'+�.'.• • �^+�.�;. • :j}., ` i;. t<:; ':i:' . . ::. ' r .• �` ... :x5: .g: p2: . %i. � `v� ;� :ri'. � �y�:: '; ?y/ C' • ,y,.'',.'' x� '<. :A}iati? .. :. . .. .:.. :k�r . . . +r'� v '�. , ,� . .: !��'6 •S:. .;• .. '' r:.,. `' � w. �' ' � S ': . f{. .i. , f. � , • a: ly, . ....... .. .�. ,..,.�,...; ..:: .,: •, ' .: : . f#2':�!^:. ir, w•f' +c�.... CS^�.t�i1� Cc.i. ^rc.: 4y,:.�:• „;�� `: �;. . ?9� <; `•''� �; ' .�::�� .. _ ::i'`. :.:�..*r�.'.. :`'. ...�,. � . .. •. : .. .. fi �:.�.y.. �" _ 4 .;'�2.. ... 't •i+ll�k`' ;<` ,. .. __._ .....,.. ._.._'.... ____. _....�.;....:.: r-.:o.-�>:�:r:._ :-::::... . . , �yy�• � f�[ j •:��{y; :, ..�.c«;;:, • .r::,•.{�x-:; .: ...,., . . :�.:.•::;►^;:;:t' :•..c�... . %:%:`:%t:cv':: .i,t:{':%•....�..}... . ..:v}x ; . w;;a, �v:};;.:•;•;:'•:�:t :� ?.;C:r. . ff�f5'4 l�f ti .;'Y,.�t':?:¢nt;::::. ... .a}.: . :;f<:S::C:... .. vc t k ` ::?i:{�:+C�::::i:�:�:{:+ii:<:'i i•'.�::::. �::. . .+.v}.ni \qi•i:•: :i?.�r " ii:C � � .,k;. �ti+',{ t � :.:............�n . : t'�+v..�iS.�:r:{: �: vx.:�:... . •:::�4�'l.� � ,r:: i::$• �'. . . J{•{.., , � ��ii :`� T„ F t h�f h� 4 ..�,` , .:i. , . _ .:;;--�=�..-=�s..,:,<.>. -- ' � . �...: - . � � • � = = � � z � N � R w � �� o �o � � � �o �r � � � : � �4 i �. g o :� N a g 3 � � � � � � � � ;w � �C1 �!' t`� M �r V'f V"f N � N �!' � y o �� ,��, � p G� I� �:.S M G O S _ � pp ^ � � M � p � � '",�`, N '. O N$ M Vy d' � � �� I` � i � a� � i4; � � i °' � u a� � � v ;g ... � e� � � �g � �e � e � � E� '� � � � ;:. OO N .�-� C� o N 00 .-�°i O � � N C" . ��"' `� ..r � u • � . � i� bA `� •C � � p � � ;a ' � C� � � '� ' C .a = g '' : o '� � ,� � •; .�' � � � � b ;, � i� a Cjc,�� °�' Z a� � � .� C� A> i'C "' �~ $. � . � ^ � �, � 1 Q a� a a .b � °a .yt � 'c° � o °' .� y a�''i � y � � �e .�a .c a � � . >+ g ' . � � = ax �r� �� y �x �N oC7 A � �,� y o tiA � i� � � ,a v� y � � � !� iy a. � g � �'f O M Q� � N �p C o�0 � h �D ON1 �� a� � �+ 00 h v� C� O �D � [� N rt �-+ t� N N 0 M M C'� N I� ['� --� N 00 V'1 t� M M 00 CO ` � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � N M t� Yf O� C� vy O N M 00 M N d' �i' y� � t'� 00 �A h t� �r'� v] I'� �' N M et 'd' � d�' V'�' v"1 d' N t`� �L1 v"1 00 00 N 0o Q� d� N N d' � � C� 0�0 tt d' �D O� � p � � � •M-� � � N .�'� N N 00 M �/'f v'1 � � ;;:;::;::•:>s:.>: �>:::::;:::;.;,�:•. ... :::ij'::;� �'; i;:iri�': i:i{.; s.%:>: � :ii4 i ;:i �'::i:::�i:::• � i�i:: $.�:+'�ii �:� :>.:�iii>.' •: w:::.i.�:nr. ::::: ;...: vsf:v. ................ .............v.. ::::::::::. • .:.. . . ..f...fC:.r ...5.. v:i?v:�i:i+�iii'iii:t�i:J:ti:vii:'t:�: ,�:::.:.::: � r:. •.y;.:...,;i; .,. ..::.v::.,.•:.:�.;;:: ti..�.;•.;. : .: rS.'.`•:`•�n :�:�: ' +.;•:ik►::::�::.:: . .:ti;:i•:::::;;•: ;:;;;};:::.<:a:.» • r.�' : ::..>�. :r :il`4':Lx:)i::ii: S4i}:4:4:i}:i}i' ........ r�:t?�:•.'•>i:i�: } ::::•::?:iri.:i::-: r v)Yii:; i i'•':ti�=:y;;:{ti;f+. :+i� i::�ri',`�iti:y S :::....,••..v. :: • :::.:::::::.:.. .... .�. ......:....:... ; ::::::::::. :•. ..... ::::. .�. <:•::;::.;r;y.;;...;; : �.. ..........: .: .: . . ......... ..........:.:..: : ... .. .... :::.:...:•: ::::............ :x.. .:..::.:... •.:. � •»::::::: ::-::o:. : :. �:: :•:...:.. .; .. • ..:.. �. ::::::..•:::::...:� •:.:::.;�.r .:::..r::to:�x:;•: ••..+;. -...... ..;.;;.;.;.:. ,y.;;:,;:.:;:..r:� ............. .:�x��:x:::••:r>: . c t:..::::•.. .�s:>::.:.....:: . ..... .. ... ....... ...... ... ...... . .. .t .x�u..: �r::•;::::•sr:•:::•x .....•::.t::::::., •�: •.:.r,<:.:.�:: .:.::.;•;..:::•::: •::::�:::::.::•... ::..;..;;`;x;:, ..S::rv:?: v. v::v...:: � •::v: •: •. r.:}: :4::: iY•i •..A::::::. :•i. :•yy:•:.i�:: " r....r. S3�}• . � �:::.:� :.:.... ............:.. +�r�rp�.::.;...; : ::::. ...... v.... ry}.: ?::�:�:>::::w::. ::im . .!{9::\ ...v1. . i•:}:}�,v��:x:: •i v.{ •:�{ti^h :;. . . :. .......�..vw:ri+ :w.� :::::::.::: :. ...::.... ::.y... ;n; ' � ....vr. ...r•:ri•: • •.. rv::: v: w.�: ....v::x:::::::: v ♦ ..... :.: t:. ::.:...:::.::.� .:�.�,.,. ;., }ii �. :.... �..�..r::::::::.�. ........... . t.�.. :.. 4:4:ti+•.�.v::..�. . rn .....::::::: .�v,..Xti.:.r{: :.;: ; :.;.,, ni�.;•::,•:::::::.�:.:};:::. �� ................�. n�:��~• :..�..:nv.::::n,..;.::::::...;:.. v. xw. '• .0.. x. •. F••}::: }::;�,..w: • . \+Y•i.�ii ?'+i:i iiY{•ii::� ii: .: .......: .... .:.. ::ry.. ... .;.,•.rs; ;.::.� . .•:::::�•: :•' .k... . :•. .v..... . . .: :.; ... .. J • ::4r:�;:�:�::'t:�: :;Si�i:�>:::2�:%;�:�i`. ...?$�•Y.• .'>. •w::t kti' :+^ON: •::. �.• r n�iC.. . 4... � .�.A•::.w..:i-ii: �:�:v}}<iii%iiiii ��:�F.. .:::i:::.:::: ..:. : •.�n �.�:. ... y• K..y:. .. n..x::: .p.vr'y^,S:;:iiri;. ;. v,•;t:i•:n�:(>.4:.. ::.�.;:;.;:•::;;..:.;:C.E.: •:.� ••:. .� ............ :...�z.,<...;•;., :.:• ; ..� .. .;:M..�;:•::::.:•:;: .�...... ..: ::•. . > . . �.. . .:.t.:.....;,,; :; - � nb . x }`nr:•.C. .� • :�B.fiV: •. : + .l � . �n�}":: t:r'�'ri:iv i:rv: . . I.• •"''+x: .::::.:....:... .... .,..�-.,.; ;. ....:.:::•:s . �,.:�,:,.. ..; .,.::•::;;::;;>•::::.�::.>.:,;...: •:.:d : ..h � a:,::G:t••:•:::::6;r;: i:fi:i�:'s:i':k#:: �:i;: . i. :. ..;.;�... .: f�t... :$G.. . Q . `22?.S:t':'+: ;v+xa :. : .a<•: y. ,�,;,;y� .}� .j,,;+. : :.::. ... ...•..•. ;•:t:,•'•$:: r...... ...a: : irrox:a. . . �:a:3sf+:�: �� .::be.•:: ' ..C. : '•'i% •` .,;:�:i:. .7.�:5+" � , K: . r . r. .,. :v�T� �'i`: .. `.��'. r�< :. :;q�•. }� h�}�I ...k?..^'.+.'5+:. •: 2 • .o. ....Q. /� .;; •:: .; . •::sd:::rr:: ..;:;. . .R�.:... . . Sk�'n�l•:+...•.,..,.. ::£�'•�..,. n:k:;a,• ��::tv :+4 .i: �.y}x.-.•.;., v::::: `•' .}'.•n.. .::y ..:•;+ ..::�<•:: •>: �::�t::�R�;:?y�;:� . � ... . •. ta; ..,.;.y.;�:, tto;:t%r:: • .f. ,. :,\.., :•.;{.k.:. . ..r.... :��w:.�••>:.::;:: r ..::.::: :�:::: �::: .... •: .: ...;; •.;�:.:: ..::: .: • .. . . . . :..:.:.. . �:.: �:: ?• . .. . :A . .... •::. : ): •: r,:::..,.::. �... .Y......... .:�.•:. .. v4�.. • \x�+vvvv. �. : n.7�: .. ..}v.. .Fs. .. W .v:n�:::: v :: ... .:.. .... . }.,-..::: •. .:.. . .w+ .... . .r.+.v:} .:::y . .:: •::: •.}y}r.n..n... .. �..v. :•w.•:. : F� n.......n....w. .. . .....�+.....7�.�.2'.... ... .. }........ y ..v........ ...<�:?ii::::'f•'}:'i::;;$:;:i;:i�. .. ft%. :f:�::.: • .;;�:: . .9'k�:s:.; ., ..r,,,....:: •:;r•:. ., .s:: :'•+.'�„�' x. r:-::.x•: r :.... .:.�::....y: .. •� " .,+ ;:y�. � b::;>,r':: al:;�{:;' 'S,'•,k; . :t:}; +v ::::::::.y:..�. ,;a.;...;..: s:•:c••::: � . �:: • :::.....: ... ::: : ..::.,: ' ..•::::::.:.,•:: .; ... . :n:t:•,••. n.-., ..;... .. • .:;: .......:.. . x;•:•,'•''•:v:<:'::ii . : �:..: .... j�j ..... . r�: •..... •i:��C•h\.��i:::::. .?f,•i:�::..• �:•:Y '?i.:•...� h"�tivi•X�•ii�i:•::: ....:: •. • :r::::: .....:. ti; � : .....i:. :. . .. n ..v : .... .v .. .v .. ...... ....v.� . .1�[.. +� .. ... . .. n . . r �ii::Y}$i:�:4��:;:;: �'j:::i:?i::::�i'�?i:::�' � � a::M��:; >:�!.Muyyy :. >::�:. .,:71!rv.:a q;.•�y;.y.�....;�.: SS:: • `v�tk%:`f . ..;Mr;/. �. t;:; $ .:>:�:• i[ :. :.u►::.: ..,.; :..:. .. .t.. y yy. 00 -:.CCE��.: l� ::: •: ::•.. :,+,< ;?•:.'•.;• �: ,��. �,� ��( ::.'f:`:::i:::;; f: �;:'+."�::v ii:`Y,:i: i .f:�Ti: : ±.i .:9%v. : i:::ti+h.:•:.di •�`i� M .•::.. .. :...r.. ::.. :.. . .. :: wi'i:�f� .. +:�:>.? :�' .t9.' ". i.`•i.!!'F..i�•`.•$ �} ..Ic ?{::.�.':. u-::n :: {•:�•; • •••�:}: :•' :}tih:i4}i: •i:iiiiii::��i: ri :$:•.�.'ri: }:�: �M ;f': •::M�/:iy Q {:::�: y;> :: .�.;.. N :4.';:<to;: •::' :: . :.: ....�.4:'; ... �';.�ti::: ;.. . : •:�?�i :: ::::;rr'�i'+.'. ' � :�.: :'.:. , . .••. ,.;� ... . •.::::�>;:: <;: ;<• �;<�G:•::; ::: •:r �:« •. . ..:s�:�.: :. ::::le�:s':: ' :::<;�::::'s ':€:�::>::>:<;:::: �:::.>::>::... �.;, :::•::c..x•�}� :.:::!o�>�•: :<�:>..: .; :� :<:C::•:? �' /�.� :�s:: r� . :i4' . .k�y► a .ii �•:. � ::•.Q.:;: ;. ...:<::.i�n: v �`Q:$: r fk y /�/� ::>:i;;:;Q�>: • +F /�.�, ��y/ �y:Q�$; i`;,�:r'�n`ti �.� ;;i�i%'•'i � ':.vw.�.y; y:•`:i:Y'+.ii�",•`•�: ' ':3i�i:: � ;�r!:: x>' ,''�. <.> •r`:?�!''•'::7wtc.` 'tv`: •�Y�t'�; `Eifii':; ::� :}ti�F.;. , :�i� .�..,-. . S:: ;y. � fi�\�: ,.� , ;'F,., ri •iLNM.,V:• {;i.,�,,.:;iiwY:+•: :};(I,i\:: '::•:�r%•: � •�,:: • ,`,'�"t,i•: i :•�`rill�?:: :y n�i.:• �L'iW.i; :G:*i\ti �{i ', � ,�(:'t$;: •`•'> . . ... :: i%:Q.:.' ;.;. ::: }�,.,,, ' a.: �Y ?i i{. " ��' � .:: Y:: ::< i� .;} �..,2.; •p• .,ti:iMliri: r��:j`: :;r 'y4: :• ..T✓;t ':.!!ai' i': :r ^Y :;:: LC:::; �::.. •: !l�::i :�: ::: �... :. n; .: : •.,z.; } <.; 7. :�::AG.... .. :••:1'.�ia:� •:; E'E�:�;:. . �::,.i.: #:>t1'�v�::•: •::��::• •`::. �+4`•:::i'�l::: '"r '? ; a� .. .i?�'�i; . �::: : ;:,.: :.7�'•'•:..: ikt. :: i.,,;:: ;;:2.�'Y:•>• •?�:`. . ,... . .;...�:.. •::.::.� .:.;. ...:: � ... �! �Y: + ;i'+.': r,:w�e> :? ;'�� :o-••: .,�4 ; :::;G�;� � �•�::t�:?�': >.. .. •L"s::>: :o.. .�: :; ..t.c�::. ::. •,• .>:•� ::. �' ` . :. . .... ..:.-: • ... :. :,. . : Y: :. : .�:r+ 3$ .,� :::i �+;i; ::.. ... .:;� .:• . .; . •:.>. ,!: .. . :.: . . .;;; •.:::. ::: .r. ..... .. :. • ..... .:v:. :: .. .. . : •.... ..::: ,.. .4•`� ....: :::1y��.:., '�` , iy,: : .::Q�: ` :SCCi:.. . •:.+�J:>.. x. ::.�w%. .;�•' : .� :.:fr::•: Si:Qx:. w:: .... •:: ::. :.; .:.: .. ,r,Q� ... n..... ::: ..... :. ' �.•:: .::. :: ... a: x:. .;;:; :n .:.�..�.'.:: •:••: .:: ..... :::• 4i4" ••i;� wi '>�. �> . :SY::sy.:: ' `Y: >': ::: irF:� .x .. �yr. ♦ : .. � .:�t%i .. .s . .jr.,.� :: {�: :,. w:4i•:r •;: .�:•: ,: :<:�C'►.:<:: :::::C:;::; :.::::�;.: ., ...�` . .$:. .; :,>�:::;: �::. <:::.�.:::> :,::a�.,... �;.:�:.>'' .:�'��''.:�::::.::: +v:s: .y �r ^;:i+i<..,y. <.::�ss.,...'�tc...�.::.: :;>�i:... ......."�...{::•`:..;..., s ;::;,�.e;:; :: •::t�':<:? .: : ::>: •.:;ai.t:;; .. ..,r�::•; :• .�.:r.r.�:• ... .. . ..; ...Q.... .�rt..•:: •.:�> .; :::�;'v,' ;; ;?;�::# :: �iL:::. Wi:>; ii:•�e.: wr4.? :�.'•�•�::. K>.: �;:?�=i>'ir:�:'.• ::: ..rx: r>:. :. : y:!Q%a: rr.:.: t.��'t�r,:i. ;::::a!lF;;:..n:,, ::'C� :a.c<,. ..?Y�Sic;`:::::::::: i::?•::::e: �� K � 0 y � S::i � C 1 i ,1 1� � . ; � ; i�ecember �, 1995 'Toa Airport ltelat�ons Commission , From: Kevu� Batchelder, Interim Ciiy t�dmim � Subject: Discuss Community Protection Concept Package ; On November 16, 1995, the City of �chfield made a request to all the municipalities participating in the NdSP Communities planning process to support legislative effons that Richfield has uutiated with the dr�ft Community Protection Concept Package. Because Richfield requested a response prior to December 8, 1995, this item was placed on City Council's December S, 1995 agenda. for acti.on without a recommendation from the Airport Rela.tions Commission. City Council unanimously voted to decline to participate in, or support, the Richfield i l uutiated legislation. This was primarily due to the MSP Communities gmup's decision to not include air no�se mitigation needs in the final diaft Community Protection Concept Package. City Council directed that a letter be sent to Richfield notifying them of Mendota. Heights' decision, (Please see attached December 8, 19951etter to Mr. James Prosser, City Manager for Richfield.) . A1so attached is the November 30, 1995 memorandum to Ciry Council, Richfield's. letter of request, an executive summary of the Community Protection Concept Package, and a copy of the final Draft Community Protection Concept Package, and our own MSP Airport Noise 1Vlitigation Needs. Acknowledge City Council's action on the Community Protection Concept Package. < r: � � � � ' � � ` • ... December 8, 1995 Mr. James D. Prosser City Manager City of Richfield 67(}0 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423-2599 Dear Mr. l�iosser: Thi,s letter is to inform you that the City of Mendota Heights resp�ctfully decliaes to paaticipate in or support legislati.on to further the Community Protection Concept Package. The Mendota Heights City Couacil, at its regularly scheduled meeting on December 5,1995, unanimonsly adopted a motion directing that the City of Richfield be notified that Mendota Heights declines to participate in or surpport Richfield's legislative efforts. � Wbile Mendota He' hts has l �g Parti�iPated in the year long d,iscussions n�arding the Commwuty �.. Protection Conc�pt P�kage, we disag� ys,ith the clecision to delete _air noise mitigation needs . . ... . , . fmm the draft concept pa�kage• A�copy of our:response, entitled "�;ity of Mendota Heights' .�. MSP A' . . - irport Noise Mitigation Needs" is �attached for �eady reference. ° - . _ . _ . The City of Mendota Heights �emains willing to participate in the implementation of effective airport Planning methods as part of the MSP Communities group. � Should you have aay questions, or concetns, please contact me at 452-1850. Siacerely, (�",�,�,�^--(3�cv�`,l''u'%.�„�.... r Kevin Batchelder � Interim City Administrator :,_,` . . , . cc: State Senator James P.1Vfetzen State Representative Ed.wina Garcia � State Senator Deanna Wiener All MSP CoYumu�ties members State Senator Phil Riveness The cities of Sunfish Lake and Inver Grove State Representative Tim Commers Heights °"� . Sta.te Representative Tom Pugh � � � � .,, � 1101 Victoria Curv� • 1Viendota I�eights,lV�N �• 55118 ; 452 • 18�0. ;, 1' ' 1�! i � , ,� ; �� November 30, 1995 �To: Mayor aad City Council ' '`" � From: Kevin Ba,tchelder, Interim City A r Sub,lect: Community Protection Concept Package �1�MM: � i Y i . The City of Riclifield is requesting Mendota Height's part'rcapation in promoting legislation during the 1996 Legislative Sessi.on on a Community Y�'rotecti.on Conoept Package. The Com�wiity Prat�ction Co�cept Pa,cl�age is the result of a y� long Planning Pr�cess by the Metropolitan t:ounc�, the A��olitan Airport Commiss�on (MAG�, and the cities of Bloomington, Eagan, Mendota Heights, M'inaeapolis and Richfield (a.k.a. the MSP communities) and it is intended to offer solutions to the eavironmental impacts of the Minneapolis-S� Paul Internationai Airpart. . � ) The Cnty of Ri�c� as a member of the MSP Commwuties Gri�oup, has moved � forward on their own initiative to introduce 1��;islaiioa iacorparating the midg�on tools and techniq�ues identifie�. in the draft Concept Package Prepared bY Me�mPalitaa Coun� � . consult�rtts uader the direction of the 1ViSP Commwtifi�e.s. Richfield is asking that the other MSp communities pa:rtic;ip�ate in and support their legislati.ve efforts. . DISCUSSION A�tached you will find both an executive summary of the Community Prot;ection Concept Package and the fiil1 document, as prepa.red by Clarion Associates in association with Richar�dson, Richter and Associates. Clarion Associates has been working for the past year with representala.ves of the the local governments suirouading MSP Airport to identify aad review tools and techniques that can be utilized to address MSP's impacts The Concept Package inclades community stabilizatioa techniques, community revii�lization approaches, incentives progra.ms and airport pmtectioa measures. (Please see attached Concept Package and Ficecutive Summary.j � Mendota Heights can agree to many of the proposed protection concepts. However, Mendota Heights has argued from the st�t in the MSP Comu�unities project that any Commun�ity Pmtsction Pack�ge should include air noise mitigation practices that address the operation of the airport. We subnaitted the City of Mendota Heights - MSP Airport Noise Mitigation Needs report to the gmup for inclusion in the pmtection concept package. Because operational issues are divisive among the member communities, these suggested techniques were not included in the Community Protection Concept Package. (Please see atta.ched City of Mendota. Heights - MSP Airport Noise Mitigation Needs document.) � Richfield is moving forward with their own legislative initiative and have asked Mendota Heigh�s for cooperation and participation. Whil.e we can agree tha.t selective use of community stabilization and revitalization tflols described in the package are useful, particularly pmperty value guarantees, commercial.-indu's�ial revitalization and tax credits for housing revitaliT.,a.tion, we have also goae on record as opposing certain portions of the airport protection measures, particularly the creation of an Airport Zoning Board. Mendota Heights is included within the boundaries of the area of participation for MSP communities, should legislation provide any of the suggested programs, whether or not we participate. During meetings, Richfield discussed sharing the cost of a lobbyist to cazry this leg�islabive package thmugh the session for an appmximate cost of $25,000 to be shared by the participating communifies. However, the attached letter of request does not include this suggestion. ' Finally, at the last A�ISSP Communities meeting, it was saggested triat all the communities me�t with the Rurt Johnson, Clhair of the Metropolit�n Couacil to discuss the possibility of the Metmpolitan Council canying this item forward in their legislative package. A meeting with Sandy Grieve, Chair of the MAC was also suggested to discuss the possibility of including these noise mitigation efforts in the Dual Tra�ck �iS. Neither the Met Council or the MAC has contacted us to date on these sdggested meetings. Due to the request by RichfYeld for a December 8,1995 response, this issue has not yet been pa�esented to the Airport Relations Commissioa for consideration. - . � � � � i� ��, Discuss the request by the City of Richfield to pazticipate in the pm�wsed legislative package aad consider whether the City of Mendota Heights desi�res to participate. 6700 Portland �4venue � Richfield, Minnesoia 55423-2599 City Manager Mayor Council James D. Prosser Martin Kirsch Don Priebe Michael Sandahl November 16, 1995 Mr. Tom Lawell City Administrator City of Mendota. Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota. Heights, MN 55118-4167 r Dear Mr: I�iwell: �� -�.'.___ Susan Rosenberg Russ Susag The City of .Richfield is seeking your support and parkicipation in promoting legisla.tion to fiuther the commnnity protection concept package. The community pmtection concept package is a product of more than a yeaz of discussion and pl�uming by the Metropolitan Couneil, Metropolitaa .Airports Commission and the cities of Bloomington, E;agan, Mendota Heights, Minneapolis and Richfield The planning process was a result of requests made by airport iin.pacted communities to the Metropolitan Council. The prat�ction concept package includes community stabilization techniques, community revitalization aPProaches, incentive Programs, �a �rtp��uonm��. . . � .. The City oiRichfield intends to�iniroduce legislation to promote these coacepts in fhe 1996 legislative session, An exec�rtive summacy aad a full text report are attached. If your ' community/organization is interested in participating in this effort, we would like to hear from you not latet than December 8. We realize that there ma.y be some concern regazding the timing of introducing this legislation, however, Richfield legislators believe that a delay in introducing the community proteetion concepts uatil the 1997 legislative session may decrease the likelihood of approval of these concepts. :s D. Prosser Manag�r JDP:ds . Attachment The Urban Hometown - Telephone (612) 861-9700 • Fau (612j 861-9749 An Equal Oqportunity Empioyer � ` � EXECUTIVE SUMIV'IA�RY Community Protection Concept Package MSP Surrounding Communities -_ - �=.� .�:., '•` Bac gxound: The Community Protection Concept Package is the product of more than a year of discussion and planning by the Metropolitan Council, Metropolitan Airports Commission, and the cities of Bloomington, Eagan, Mendota Heights, Minneapolis, and Richfield. Met Council 'uutiated the planning process as an unofficial supplement to the Dual Track Planning Process. A similar process was begun among Dakota County parties. The collaborative community Planning amund MSP has pmduced a proposal that recogniz$s the current and future airport impacted environments, and offers solutions for the potential impacts that are Iikely to be experienced ` There were two competiag rationales driving the MSP collaborative, relative to the Dual Track Planning Process. The first scenario was that a mitigation package agreed upon by all airport impacted parties would make it more palatable for legislators to keep the airport �at its present location, kaowing that tools would be available to prote�t communities from g��+eeater airport unpa�s. The second scenazio envisioned approval of a new airport, but one that pmbably would aot'be fimctional for 15-20 years or more. The reality of such a scenario is that ia the interim period MSP will continue to adversely �. impact sutrouading +communities. It is � vital that pmtections .be implemented now to avoid the potential disinvestmeat which is likely to or,cuc: . Whichever rationate the reader subscrihes to, the faGt is that the concepts included in this package represent pmactive reinvestment now rather than reactive rehabilitation later — which is more expensive and less l�cely to succeed. Protection ConcpFt� � ` The concepts that are included in the community protection package are a combination of those which have proven successful in the MSP impacted communities aad others from around the country that have been similarly successfiil in achieving desired. outcomes. Concepts that would have merit in application are: • Community Stabilization Techniques - Possible programs include property value � guarantees underwritten by the participating municipalities, tax credits for housing revitalization in noise impact areas similaz to recent Met Council incentives; for homeowners in declining neighborhoads, and acquisition of incompatible land ��use prior to deterioration such as the New Ford Town and Rich Acres buyout� ; i � t � z Community Protection Concept Package Executive Sumrnary Page 2 •� � • Community Revitalization Approaches - Examples would be tailored tax increment financing districts and community development banks, both of which would make it easier for communities to revitalize or redevelop areas where necessary. Tax � increment financing represents one of the few iej�uung tools for fully developed cities to implement needed redevelopment, given the costs of such projects in an environment of increasingly limited financial resources. o Incentive Programs - SimiIaz progruns are often utilized as a trade-off for developments and other land uses that provide more of a benefit for regional users ihan as received by those directly impacted; e.g., recrea.tion centers built as compensation for large industrial developments. • Airport Protection Measures - These�would include local land use controls to prohibit or control future developments that may be incornpatible with airport impacted areas, unless appmpriate mitigation measures aze taken. : Desired Oatcome of Proposed Pack�e � � Much of what is included in the Community Protection Concepts Package would r�quire �,_ � ? legislative approval ancUor funding. ��Ydeally;�tlie package would be accept�ed completely ___ � aad implemented to utilize as , many of the programs possible: . However, the Planning group recognizes that sbme o%the pmposals are mare�poht�cally feasible. than others aad ,� a more realistic approach woutd be aa incremental phase-ia of thos� progr.ams most iikkcly �� to show measurab�e resi.ilts. � � � - The best selling point for this package, when faced with the competing iaterests inherent in the legislative process, is that this collaborative planning effort represents the best progress ever made in remediating airport impacts. ; � - ��....__ MIlVNJEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL AIRPORT-AREA COMMUNITY PROTECTION CONCEPT PACKA,GE 6 . ::: . ....� � :._.. .. . . . _._.:.i. -• � `Prepared.For . " .: ..: . . ...... ._..a � . . _ .`::,t� .. .. . _ .. ... . . .. ..... � . . .. �t .. .. _ _ . .. . _. . . . . . . . . � � ... . . .' 1Vdefropolitaii':Cotuicil:.�:. .:' . . . . . '_ �_Metropolitan Airports.,:..,..._ . . y. . . . . . .. � -`.City of Bloo .mington � ,.. . .� : -. . - � � , Coinmission � . . - , �. . . �. . Ci'ty of E;agan � � �� City of Mendota Heights , City of iViinneapolis Caty of Richfield . :. ��S k . . By �:I�C10I1• i�SSOC1a�S � Denver, Colorado � � in �association with � � Richardson,�'Rfchter & Associates, Inc. St; Paul, Minnesota � 1 � � :October 1995 � • � 1 � � :i � � � _ i , � - �� C -�� MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL AIRPURT AREA COMMUNITY PROT'�CTION ' CONCEPT PACKAGE—DRA.FT Clarion Associates in assaciation with Richardson, Rich#er & Associates, Inc. �� October 1995 ,,� � -,...-._ The Minneapolis/St. Paul (MSP) Airport is widely recognized as being one of the primary economic assets and engines in Minnesota. Not only does it provide substantial direct economic benefits in terms of jobs, but it is a key link for the state in an increasingly global economy. The state legislature is currently studying whether, if MSP is r to remain a smoothly functioning, modern and competitive facility, it should move to a new sit� in Dakota Counry or remain at its current location and expand. A decisian is expected sometime in 1997. It is clear, however, that even if MSP moves to a new site, that move will not take place for up to 20 years given current capacity and projected demand. While the airport obviously has many positive benefits for the region .and state, it is also � j appazent that it has significant impacts .on the � communities around it. Noise unpacts are always the fust issue that spriqgs to mind, but in a�eality there ar�e others of equal significanc�-- safety, ground traffic, fiscaUtax base impacts, environmentat influences, and ef%cts on , property values and overall commwuty statiility. Most �airport-niipact midgation efforts .focus . almost exclusively on noise-�and the Metmpolit�n Airports Commission has �es�tablishcd a good � track record with its noise instalatioa and pr�operty�buyout programs. Iiowever, it is ba�.oming increasingly obvious that because of limited federal fiuiding, the noise mitigation pmgrams are 4 limited�in their outreach. Moreover, if the airport.is to be a good neighbor for at least the nexC twenty years. and the vitality of surrounding communities is to be maintained, the.se other impacts need to be addressed. Simply buying pmperty and tearing ie down or insulating existing houses closest to the airport is not enough.. Airports are dynamic facilities, at least if they are successful. Operational requirements are constandy changing and new runways and other facilities need to be added from time-to-time. Thus mitigation efforts at MSP must also be dynamic, continually changing and being adapted to respond to changing airport impacts. At the same time, steps need to be considered that will prevent any new � incompatible development around MSP that would hamper its efficient aperation in the long term. �� To tackle these issues, staff representa�ives of the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan � Airports Commission have been meedng informally since late 1994 with representatives of local governments that are located in the vicinity of MSP. These uiclude Bloomington, Eagan, Mendota Heights, Minneapolis, and Richfield. The group's primaiy goal has been to identify and_ explore tools that can utilized to address MSP impacts and to enable communities iiu the ` , airport environs to take the initiative in dealing with them.' In essence, these discussions have focused on how to make the airport a better neighbor and to ensure the continued vitality of � surrounding neighborhoods and.businesses. Recognizing that this effort was a two-way street, the group also examined ways to. prevent new. incompatible development that. might adversely affect the airport. . � . . � � . .. . . . . � . �7uring 1995, the group has examined a wide range of fbZs� and techniques and has developed a midgation package that the group recommends the legislature consider regardless of the decision regarding location of MSP.2 This package includes several of the most promising approaches identified over the course of six months of study and deliberation. It would require cooperative action by the state and its agencies, the Metropolitan Council, MAC, and private sector businesses: � e Gommt�nitv trtabili�ation t�hnia� such as property value guarantees, tax credits for housing revitalization in noise impact areas, acquisition of incompadble land use prior to deterioration. r s► Comm�nity rev�tali a�ion aF roa hes such as tailored tax increment financing districts and community development banks. . � . • Incenfive nro mc similar to � those� commonly used. in-�siting large �fac�lities �to pmvide offsetting benefits (such as r�ighborhood recreation centers) to a community or neighborhood. These would 'u�clude:�ncentives.�from private� firiiis - (e.g., the airlines, car rental companies) as well as from public agencies. � ......•� � .. .: .... ..� � _,..... ....._....... �...t_..-��... . �� o��= :•Air�r�,-�ra�ection mea��res suchas impmvod�iocal �a�d iise�contmis�i4 ensure �that developmeots that are i�compatitible from a noise or'safety pecspectave�do not � occur in the airport environs unless mitigation measures � a�e undertaken. ��f The group also examined the issue of where such tools and incentives might be made available. While airport impact, mitigation programs often are confined to areas affected by a certain level of noise .(typically within the so-called 65 Ldn contour), the group believes a convincing case can be made that the impact ar�a should not be�so�narrawly defined. When-homes��are demolished within a�70 L,cin noise contour, the impact on the availabitity of affordable housing.inay be significant throughout the entire community. Likewise, their may be a significant effect on a community's tax base. Of course, airport expansion can have a range of other significant ;impacts on a community, for example, major changes in traffic°levels and patterns. �� ; � -..: .:M iA summary of the operating� priiicip(es adopted by the group is attached'�to this �document. .., ; , � . , �: . . • _ .:• � �?The measures discussed by the group did not discuss changes m airport operataons, .such as limitations � on �hours of operat�ons � and. alterat�ons of flight patterns; �that ma.y be nece.ssary to (� fully ameliorate adverse.impacts. ` � � . . .__ . # 2 .. Based on such considerations. the recommendation here is simple two-step screen to determine � which communities should be eIigible to use the range of tools discussed in this memo. First, only communities that have within their borders a 60 Ldn noise contour as defined by the MAC . would be eligible to participate. Second, to put reasonable limits on the geographic area within which the tools might be employed, the group suggests they be available in neighborhoods� within one mile of the 60 Ldn contour as depicted on the attached map. The defnition of the precise � boundary within these general parameters should ��elegated by the legislature to the Metropolitan Council to negutiate with each jurisdictions to ensure logical coverage of affected neighborhoods. i • � � � : � �� 1 � � ��r�_1 � .r .,�� Communities across Minnesota and the United States have used a variety of programs to help stabilize and revitalize their neighbarhoods and commercial areas. For example, in the airport area the City of Richfield has undertaken an innovative housing development program to stabilize neighborhoods around the airport. Similazly, the City of Muu�eapOlis has utiIized programs such as the Family Housing Fund to renovate deteriorating housing. However, these programs are limited in. scope and do. not address other key community stabilization issues. :�. �i'roperty- Value Guacaatee.s:�. . _ . . � . ; t - . . . , � . . . . . . . .. . . . : . . .. . . ; Where landowners anticipate that .their . ro .:: rties will be adv .. .. . - , � . _ : : P Pe ersely aff� by noise from airport operatians, they maY perceive a threat to their property values: This peroeption may � iead to a pattern of flight from the neighborhoad, thus lowering values, damaging the iritegrity ag the area, . and rendering the area unstable and winerable to disinvestment and an influx of incompatible land uses. Additionally, perceiving a potentiai loss in value of their most important investment, some owners may strongly oppose any airport expansion that will affect them. � Experience in the Village of Oak Park, IIlinois, a middle-class suburb of Chicago, demonstrates that iocal governments can bolster co�dence in an area of potential deterioration by providing guarantees against property value depreciation. Oak Park u6lized a property value guarantee program to stabilize a racially changing neighborhood. In brief, the program worked like this. Owners of eligible single-family residences submitted an application to join the program with an $90 application fee that covered the cost of an appraisai and administrative expenses: If after five years the homeowner sold at a price lower than the original appraised value, he was endtled to be reimbursed for 80% of the loss, assuming the house had been maintained adequately during that period. If substantial improvements were made during that time, a reappraisai was possible. AIso, if the property �ould not be sold on the open market, then the owner was eligible�to have it purchased by a village-established Equity Assurance Commission: � � Oak Pazk tielieves the program was successful �in Galming fears of pmperty value loss. While over 160 �omeowners �inidally ,�oined, less than �60 properties remain in.�the programi. Interestingly, 3 no claims were ever filed for reimbursement. Today, the village has successfully integrated and ,remains a desirable residential community. . ( Emulating this concept, local �governments around MSP should .be authorized to establish a program that pledges to. reimburse landowners for losses in property value caused by� airport operations and impacts. Backup -funding to cover any payouts might come from the state or the � =Metropolitan Airports Commission. The local gov�ipments would pass through such reimbursement upon the landowner's sale of property. The landowner might be asked to waive any state relocadon benefits as a quid pro quo for any equity reimbursement, the rationale being that such reimbursement would make them whole and that the move was voluntary. Where owners are unable to sell their properties, such programs might require locai -governments to purchase the properties in fee simple at fair market value, again with backup funding from the state or MAC. Participation would be. optional for all property owners within a designaced eligibility zone (such as a noise�overlay zone): • � ' � � � � � � � � � `� � �� " - � Prefereatial Tax P'rogra�ms To encourage citizens to continue to live in an area that is under some form of physical or� socaal stress or to move to such areas, states and local governments across the United States have adopted• a�variety. of income : and pmperty • tax �redit� prograni"s: �- Fcir. ��example; the �State ��of :,�vtinnesota recently:�adop�ed�an�urban�•hbm�,st�adiug�prograzri that�auttiorizes•�the��Metropolitan Council to designate urban'revitalization �nd°st�bilization zflnes that�ai�e�in�'ti�isition to iitight•and � po�erty:: Any person buyin� �r oocupying a�hbme widun suc� a�zone�is eligi'ble �or ari exemption from� iVtinnesota • tauc�able �income � for .up�: to five ,years �(up� to $`� �imit of $15,000� for married individuals filing a joint retum)•in•specified circumstances.�.�...=. . .. . - -- � - �� . . .. - . . . Similazly, th� 1995 Omnibus Tax� Act provides special property tax benefits to enc:ourage owners of commercial and industrial businesses to locate within one fourth mile of major transit stops. � The goal is to encourage job density around transit stops, thus maldng m.ass transit more feasible. The state's enterprise zone legislation also provides property tax benefits to businesses locating . in designated areas. (Amends Minn. Statutes Secdon 273.13, Subd. 24 and adds Minn. Statutes Section 473.3915) � �- . � - � . In the context of the airport area, such tax benefits might be geared towards trying to keep existing residents in place. Thus a credit might be offered to all persons who have lived in a designated impact ama for a specified period and who continued to do so. If the person moved out of the area within a certain time of claiming the credit, a portion of the tax credit might be recaptured. , . . � . � . . :<... _ . : .:: .: .. ..... �Housing Itevitalization Programs,_� � . . : .:: . ..�. �. , . .. . . : : - .. . . . . .. . � . . .......: . . . :.:- . : _ .. .. . .. . . : . . � .: . _. � . . ~:t�. . .-... . . . . As��noted above; several�of ttie �MSP-area cominiinities �have undertaken aggressive and innovative hous' revitalization m � . .. _ , , .. _:. ` � uig p grams: �.However; wliere��these efforts�iavolve clii�ect government�action � 4 r � � as they do in Richfield to purchase deteriorating properties, they can be quite costly for local ; � jurisdictions. Experience with programs tike the "This Old House" rehabilitation tax � credit � program in Minnesota, which provides a tax write-off for owners who inake improveinents to homes over 35 years old (Minn. Statutes Section 462A.203, Housing Preservation Program), and sirnilar initiatives in other states demonstrates that if individual homeowners can be enticed� into spending their own funds, government exgenditure can be significantly leveraged. Interestingiy, �n Minnesota half of the.credits have been claimed b�uyners of homes with values less than $85,000. Thus the state legislature shoutd consider repl%�ting such a rehabilitation tax credit program for homes in designated airport-impact areas� tailoring it to be more effective by reducing the age limitation Co fifteen years instead of thirty five and thereby encouraging renovation of a wider range of housing. In the same vein, experience demonstrates that private investment in housing can be greatly encouraged with a modest reduction in mortgage lending -rates� down payment requirements, reduction in closing costs and similar appinaches that reduce initial investrnent and carrying costs for prospective homeowners—especially first-time buyers. As applied to the airport area, special lending prograrns embodying th�e c�n�p�, � addidon to those already in effect in other areas, �o encourage mor�e �ggressively first-time home buyers, thus helping to stabilize the airport area neighborhoods. , Housing, renovation�revolving loan funds.have•Iikewise:proven to be:usefui tools in broader community _stabilization� a�xi housing: Preservatiom pmgrams• �;Typically; local� governments create ;.low-interest;.loan-.rehabi�itation.:loan funds�:fQr.;�designated.�..aneas:(e:g:;-aa-historic district). Homeawne�s: in the.district_can borrow fiinds for�rehabilit�tiou.atiaelow market.interest rates,�thus . encouraging in�►estment of xheir private dollars.: : Payment can be;made�over.�a�specified term or upon sale of the home. Repaid funds- are then recycled by a�lang new loans. A�similar pr�ogram is cun�endy available in ��pOlis through MCDA—�e Middle Inoome Housing Program: This Prab''� �s �ot limited � to iust-time homeowners; it makes loans. available "for housing rehabilitadon such as putting a new roof on a house. •. Funding for such a program taiiored for the airport area might come from a one-time appropriation by the state Iegislature, an annual c,ontribution by the MAC, issuance of revenue bonds by MAC, noise impact fees on late-night flights, or a combination of sources including some form of local match. , � �� :•� .A�, Community revitalizatioa prograins are generally seen in areas that are past the stage of "preventative medicine" such as the property value guarantee. Communities have generally discovered that there are no "silver butlets" when it comes to revitalization, but rather success will depend on utilization of a variety of programs to address problems such as � lack of capital investment funds. Again, MSP-area communities have some substandal experience witti commercial and residential revitalization prog�rams, but more programs .are needed to enable�them to .deal .more effectively. and comprehensively with airport impacts. . . . . . . � � Tax Increment Financing Tax increment financing (TIF) districts have proven to be an effective community revitalization , too1� throughout the state. There are currently five general �types of TIF districts, and the � municipalities surrounding MSP �may qualify to use one or more of these districts. �Generally, however., there are limitations imposed retating to percentage of substandard structures iri an area, -�iurposes for which funds can be spent, the basis upon wlil'cirthe increment is calculated, and'areas within which funds can be expended that tend to limit the usefulness in dealing with airport impacts. With relatively modest tailoring, the aiiport area working group believes that TIF could become a powerful tool to deal with a whole range of airport-impact issues. These recommended changes include: •� Qualifications: � Alter basic t�ualifying language so that, in addition to a specified percentage of substandard housing, location within an airport impact zone would trigger use'of the district. � ` � Spending of incremen� Pernut the increment to be used for several purposes in addition to the standard land acquisition, site icnprovements, etc. Other qualifying expenditures might be noise insulation; rehabilitation laans; mortgage revenue . bonds,: community: facilities, �tc: � .: � �. . �: . .� . � � � �. � • .. � . . . . - � .._ ..� . -__. .:;�..... _. . s Geographic restrictions on spending: Allow expenditure of inc�rement anywhere ., . . . . .. . .witiun broader•project area;�pei�haps tt�� entire airpbrt;impact•�oae;� �do�not limit � .. � •�. _ just�todistrict. .�t..., . . �� . .: . ... . .�. .... -�r..�. . . . . , .• Increment basis: �::�►llow localides to write� �down� iincrement bafiis� to ��z�m. Addressing the associated reduction in local government aid is important to the corrununities. �One alternative would be to allow use of tax iacrement financing in the qualifying communities without local government aid penalty. Another aIternative for consideration would be to spread the reduction over the seven county region the reducdon to reflect the regional importance of the airport and the special burdens borne by airport-area communities that benefit others throughout the region. ❑ : � ....... Inclusion of commercial airport property in districts: An increasing number of airports azound the United States are encouraging non aviation related commercial developmen�t on airport land, particularly in open buffer areas on the periphery of an airfield. MAC should be specifically authorized to allow commercial use of buffer properties for non aviation commencial uses; and such properties should be included in districts, the increment equivalent being paid into' a�fund to be used �ta address airport impacts. _ _ _ . . , � . .. . � . . � � : . . - . . . . . . : � . . . . . ��;: ... . .. ..; ::� .. .. _. . . � � �. t' t i Community Development Bank Availability of a steady flow of investment capital or low-interest loans is often a key ingredient in the success of community revitaIization programs: Experience shows that �in blighted� or deteriorating areas, bank. lending and other traditional sources of renovation and revitalization funding may dry up .or conventional financing may not be sufficient to stimulate private� .+ investment. To address this issue, several commuiii�:�evelopment banks have sprung up that might be emulated in the airport environs to deal with lack of private loan funds or low-interest financing. . � One of the most successful of these com�nunity development banks--the South Shore Bank in Chicago—is described more fulIy in the attached report. Using a combination of targeted residendal and commercial ioans� strategic development projects, and education programs, it has been responsible for revitalizing a neighborhooti that had been written off by most observers In most respects, this commu��, development ba�k is no different than any local neighborhood financial insdtution. Criteria for lending is tlie same used by other i�anks—cre�it worthiness of the borrower, debt to Ioan rada, and similar indicia. One important difference, however, is that a significant amount of the banlcs funds are ia "development deposits"—deposits by institutions and individuals located outside the South Shore� area who want to see their money used for . neighborhood rehabilitatian. As .the bank's executive "vice. president �as stated, "We are owned by shareholders who wish to invest in profitable :operations,. � but. who �are � also interested in � economic development. " - ... ; ;.. ..._.. ,.. .;..: ;-• --� '= -_,:-: =. -; �::.'.!. . •,...; �,;.......- �.- � .••;-'-_:. � •,:ci,-•'-._•,- -�- C . . . .. .... .' . _ ..:.:. .•.e : . : i.'.. : s� . . . . . . _ �... ; ommunity,d�telopment�anks�ofte�r:.�naice�rehabititationfiuids.available:atbeIow maricet.interest . rates or with extended payment �schedules. This non-traditional fu�ancing :is �often the key to ,�etting .the revitalization balI roUing. Funds for such non.traditional progra�ns co� �m a• � variety of:soumes--community development fwxls, Community;Reinvesmieat Act programs, and private seceor�contributions, to name only a few. =�� The idea of a community development bank for MSP-area communities is �,�ior�y �p ��er cxploration.. While the indicia of distress and disinvestment are lower for these cornmunities than was true in South Shore, a community development bank may be able to help stem detei�ioration in some residential areas and provi�e veniure capital and nehabilitadon funds in commer+cial areas, particularly neighborhood commercial. ehartered by the state legislature, start-up c.apital for such a ban1: might come from a combination of sources, including MAC, area governments, and even the state who could deposit funds therein. Area companies (particularly those associated with the airport) could also assist by depositing funds and making program-related investments (�vhich typically must be paid back, but at very low rates of interest.) �»>i .� � •! • ' �a ..�� In the rea! estate development business nationally, it is an increasingly comman practice to �- � provide incentives and benefits to neighborhoods and communities that are asked to bear the ---' impacts or burdens associated with a large facility (e. ` g., a large industrial development or ski 7 � resort). These might range from road ixnprovements to ease potential traffic jan�s to set asides of significant amounts of park land to offset lass of open space on-site or increased demand on. local parks associated with .an influx, of new workers. The rypes of other incentives offered � by developers include: . � : � � . � � � Community and recreation centers; -_ • Contributions towards local p�ii�ae, �- •fire; and emergency medical services/equipment; '' + Planning assistance to help cope with anticipated impacts; � Special rates for use of commercial facilities (e.g., discount tickets at a ski resort). In a general sense, these incentives and benefits are�intended to protect and possibly enhance the quality of Iife in an area �in which a new development is� viewed as potentially compromising that quality of life. They can also help take the "sting" out of having to live with a major development. { In the context of the airport, an inceativeJmitigation pac.lcage might include, for example, funding for additional indoor recreational.facilities. .The logic would be that such facitities would help "compensate" surrounding neighborhoods for:the.adverse innpacts airport noise�has on the use of outdoor recneation sit,es. MAC has already taken some impartant stt,erps in this. direction by making some of its land available for a�public golf coutse that not only provides additional recreational oppo�.tunities,:but:also:,�ro�ide�:an:imgortant.buffe_r.��or.neighbor.ing:It:�chfield�� ` . • _ '+• : f• .°:; r; r : . .. ...__ . , .. _ ........... .... ::... ...� ........._ . . Private companies.might atso be enlisted in this effort. In�many communities, airlines contribute free or discount tickets to worthy community causes �in �airport environs. For example, to encourage community involvemeut in pla�nning for the redevelopanea�t of Stapleton Airport in Denver, Continental Airlines contn'buted airline tickets and lodgi�g as prizes in a contest for school-age children to suggest intrerestiug uses for the site. The MSP coaununities feel that the many companies and firms that are dependent on the air travel and cargo business and are more than willing to weigh in on the aide of keeping the airport at its curnent locadon have an obligation to assist in dealing with the adverse impacts of the airport as well. Noise insulation pmgrams, because of limited funding, do not even deal with the major adverse impact associated with the airport, let alone the serious, secondary effects discussed above. : � � r _' � zK i i ►l' '.. c,, A recurring problem around most major airports throughout the United States is the continuing construction of uses that are incompatible frum either a noise or safety perspective. Several steps have been taken in Minnesota to guard against this persistent pmblem. For example, the state has enacted the Airport Zoning Act (Minn. Stat. sec. 360.061 et seq) that requires municipalities `within airport hazard areas to enact special protective regulations to prevent construcdon or expansion of certain lugh density and other uses. Similarly, the Metropolitan Council; as part of its regional planning responsibilities, has promulgated model noise protection standards� that are � � � �. � ) � � to be incorparated into local comprehensive plans and regulations. Unfortunately, these � requirements have not worked in practice. The joint zoning board established around MSP pursuant to the �Airport Zoning Act is no longer active. And while a few airport-area municipalities have adopted the Met Council noise standards, the majority have not {although most have some noise protection/insulation standards for new construction). . �f the airport is to continue to function in an efficiene; �a� manner, it is important that steps be taken to rnake these processes more effecdve. To do so,'�t�ie legislature should consider: • � uitegratuig the aiiport zoning ordinance safety mquirements. with the Met Council noise standards to be adininistered by a revampeci Airporc Zoning Board. Putting "teeth" inta the enforcement pmvisions of the Airport Zoning Act so ihat .local compiiance is ensured. At the same time, the state Iegislature must address the issue of compensation if local regulations prevent a proposed use and local governments are threatened wi'th "takings" litigation th�t may result in a damage award against them. _ • Recluiring that local implementing regulations be performance based, that is, they specify prefened. result, but give local governments regulatory flexibility in .. . . . . . . achieving a specified objective. � .. . - . . .. . � . . . . . . . . ..._ . . :. � _ .. .. .. _ . �_ . . . . . .. !.. ..._.. . . . :.. . .. .. . .. -. . .. .:.. • Pro`riding �land: use.. assist�ce °to Iocal.gdvernments �so: that• tti�y�ican P��S: . comprehensively assess and plan areas subject to�airport impacts. .... ._.... _. . . .. �... _::. � -...:.-. __ _ :�:.: : .._... . � ... . :. . . . . .. � ... . ...- -: _.._ � 9 � u ..._- AIRPORT IMPACT MITIGATI6�I TOOLS SUMMARY ..:: TOOL SOURCE OF EXAMPLE AUTHORITY/F'UNDING Property Value Guarantees MAC/State of Minnesota Oak Park, Illinois, equity assurance program. Preferentiai Tax Progranas .� State of A�iinnesota �.. Minnesota urban home- ste�ding legisladon. Housing Reaitalization State ofMinnesota Minnesota "This Old House" �'°�'� legisladon tax. credits for home renovation. Ta1c Incremeni.Financing . . State.of Minnesota .. G�rrent state tax increment Expansion . . . � � financing legislation. � .. ._ C�mmwuty DeveIopnaent �1VtA�/.'Statee%Air�wtt Rel�ted .. :South Sfio�e -Bank in � . 81I1�C ' . ' . .. ��1YS111C�SSCS • CI11C2g0. - . .. .._.... I � Commnnity Incentive Airport Related Businesses/ Large real-estate �� . MAC developments; ski resorts. 0 C • \. ' . ' v �� ,, . ': + � /. : C� � �f �, . i i , 'L_.�•, .. ; ,� 1{ Q I' � � '� rl �� c' � � I . �- � W !: �, N. � � , . . , , _ , � � - : i 8 �? ' !' �-.:.`� i C� ; � � I; N I� I' � i � � ; 1; �-- -----.--�- _.-�.- -------�- --�: _ _- o � �. ; o �_ � ----- -- .-- �,,, "�.� � . L— --- I' � � c� � � `� ' , o t �� __ D ; � � � �'� i � / ; � I t' r ; � � • � !, 1, r. .o. ��,/ Q r f 0`` I i / i 1� I.� � ,Z = �, �L , � ♦ - � 'S • � '' �,y` 0 . � �? O r= -�- =-.�-=-__ _ r % Ui ..�,! �r � � � � � i ; j� � . ',�� .''`�.,�` __r • w- ` ' is ♦ .,,� '•' " . ; �, N . ..,...� _ � � � Y r ; ;j ... . '" .. .. � ... w 7 . ._ . �;` ri �' • • � � ( _. . . _...�.._... �'....._.. '' .. . _ .�.. ' ! ..__.a.... . . .. ....._,._;.._ . _ .._ : �~~� � I _ / ( . �� . . _. , � _ ...... _. . '1 � N i �. rw�. 1�.'. .. ...... •�� .�...��.r....�..... .. ��.. � .. ' .. ��'- ��1'.. -' M• � � ` '� �N � ' "�`••i . . . {/� . ��! . .� . . .. . .. �. . . i ` ~ M / ;�' . �` ,� i � � . .. 1i '1 � ; � � �,'�,,� . ; t� � � , � � �. �"`^ ... i i � t s � �o � � ' i t / �+ � � � ��-..�.--�.a-_ _._ —.�:- . •-:.-�e— .._...... � v�+i su J. � { � �� _—jj'�'j � 3. I ; . . . , � � � �"V � .''�� a/r� r+ ��.'� r `�' ' � � %� � N.� •i� ! � � : � � N e �, � ; � — . i = � . � ; i �� . � � � ; �, _,.,�,�...� — -- �.._. _ _ i . . � �.i^ii � �� 'p .}``. . � N C �.5-. .. � w � � , tp .._..,y � �' �• • ' _,,.�.r�� u� r. t^ • � _,: .�.e. � ' � � � .. ...�, i . . . � . : �, . • . � . � r . . .. . „� . . N � .,,_ i :. ' � O �,U � „� �.�. 1; ' � : �+ _--a? _—r. -,-e- •--- , . . .... C m +� � �• z � � � ' '� � �' x� � ...� � � �' ' ir�MM � � J�.�.�.' ��0� � w , . . .. .�• . . . I . �. h � ( . . `.. _ � r . . . I-�- .... � . . « '' .. .. ,. ' (� " I . . ;. . . .. . . . . . .. � , : .. , . . .. .. . .. , . ' � � r � � ' '� - . � ' .. . � ,.. + . � Principles and Concep�,s of MSP Communifres' CoIIaboraiive �ffor�.s in ( Airpoz-i PIanning _�°�. __. GOAL� Assuming that Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport (MSPj will continue to operate for an undetermined length of time at its current location and possibly expand, the local governments affec.ted by airport operations are committed to maintaining themselves as healthy communities from a social, fiscal, and quality of life perspective. To that cnd, they have agreed on the following principles and concepts to guide their cooperativc planning �fforts to r+edevelop the air�wrt area with the Mctropolitan Cowncil (Mct Council, and .the Metmpolitan Airports C-onunissioa (MAC). This pianniag effort wili i�clude an idcntificadun of the unpacts of MSP opesations on these svrrounding communides, prepa�tion of a conununity stabilizataon and revitalization document, identification of soumxs of funding and. agreement on a proposal for inclusion in tbe Dual Track Pracess for mitigating the impacts of continued operations of the airport at MSP. However, the commtuuty stabilization and, revitaii�aqon m�asurres ava�able to aiiperrt area c�%minunides �shoutd not be applied in �such a way as to result in widue burden to individual a�ents of affectod communities. . � � These cooper�ve�planning efforts should not.6e inierpreted as.suppoirting the reteation of IMSP �at its curient %cafion or �moviag it�to Dakota�Countp. � �. � �• �� i• �, � . 1. To enable communities to take the initiative in dealing with tbe adverse impacts related to the airport, a range of "airport specific" redevelopment tools, to incIude new tools and the broadening of existing tools, suchh as targeted tax_increment financing, should be made available in the airport development area. 2• Aixport development area boundaries established for the application or availability of mitigation measures and tools must go beyond noise contours, because airport impacts are varied. and may affect a community in other ways. , 3• If expansion of MSP results in demolition or removal of buildings and uses and a _ concomitant Ioss of tax base in adjoining communities, this Ioss must be compensated by a Iump sum payment or annual offsettin tax a _ g p yments to Iocal governments and scfiool . districts.. . ,; � , �_ _ __ __ .:__ . � 4- When housing in a comrnunity is removed for a' rt u upo p rposes,� funds should be provided to the affected local governments tu constzuct or rehabititat� equ`ivalent housing elsewhere - in tbat community if �feasible. ." : � ) 5. The benefits of airport expansion, such as increased economic development and impact �assistance, and the butdens of airport expansion, including impact on the environment . and quality of life, should be shared equitably among affected communities to the maxim:um extent feasible. 6,�—. Steps should be taken over time by each commu�ity in partnership with MAC and the Met Council to create compatible zones around t.�"�,.�irport. These zones should be accomplished through a combination of acquisition, zoning, � and redevelopment tools to assure that the zones rernain an integral, functional part of adjacent communities. 7. Steps shouId be taken by each community to identify and phase out over time existing high-intensity uses in areas where existing uses preclude application of safety zone development restric6ons. Redevelopment tools should be made available to communities to faeilitate and �xpedite this proccss. No new schools, hospitals, and multi-family housing shouId be built in these areas. ffi 8. .Airport development azea communities should take steps to e,nsure that all aiew and infill development within tbe airport development area is compatible from a noise and safety perspective. This should bey accomplished �through the use of nnproved'building codes, zoning re,gulations, and sunilar restrictions. . 9. Steps should be taken to assure that . existiug as well .as future community-wide redevelopment plans assvciated with airport developmern area impacts are integrated into the community's overall plan. (to include the addition of communitywide amenities...) 10. The Met Council should take primary respons�'b�ity on behalf of anci in cooperation with affected airport development area commuaities to enSure that the abovo-listed principles and conc,�pts are fuliy considened in � tho dual track process. These pri.nciples and concepts should be reflected in the Metropolitan Council's Development Guide and the •. Dual Track Decision Document. Tax Treatment of Industrial/Commercia[ Uses on Airport Property Note: The group has discussed whether the issue of tax treatment of industriallcommercial businesses on airport property shouId be included in the.,t�itigation package. Cunently, industrial and commercial properiy on MSP property is apparendy no� subject to full locat taxation (city and school district taxes do not apply) nor to fiscal disparities treatment. It has been suggested that this should be changed so that such property is taxed equally with non airport property. Set forth below is a first-cqt discussion of this issue that needs to be reviewed by the group and discussed further. Privately owned commercial and industrial uses on airport property are cunently not subject to fiscal disparities treatment. i Furthermore, such uses pay county but not city or school ta�ces. As a result, privately owned uses oii�airport pmperty pay only about 2�.5� of the property taxes compared. to similar property off-airport. Given the fact that these private users have the advantage of tax.dQllars being used on the airport, as well as for essential govemment services such as streets off-site, a strong argument can be made that they should bear a more equitable tax ��. -burden. Indeed, because surrounding jurisdictions bear a disproportionate.innpact from the airport, the argument can be made that addidonal tax revenues from on airport�private.businesses could be used to fund several of the midgation measures discussed above. �: 'Fiscal disparities is based on the theory that tax revenue from industrial and commercial development which is taxed at a much higher rate than residential development should be distributed to all jurisdictions in the region based on a formula that:takes into account per capita ( population and wealth rather than allowing the jurisdicdon witliin which the development is Iocated to capture all of the tax revenue. ��' . � � • CITY OF MENDOTA HE[GHTS tVISP AtRPORT NO[SE MITtGATlON IVEEDS As a community directly and severety affected by aircraft operations at .�iinneapoiis-St. Paul lnternational Air ort (MSp�a ��9/ eoncemeci over the future configuration an opera on o�f the air a e19hts �s of the Duat 'frack Airport Planning Process, the City has been approach d b �ert M�'�'aPo�rtan Council to discuss ways in which our community 3s Hmpacted..by the airport, and strategies for mitigating these 3mpacts. The ,Minneapolis/St Paul Area Commu�ity Protectio� Concept Package prepared by �he 1�e�a��rq� �uncil represents the product of tfiese di$cussions and attempts to provide a number of tools and techniques by which Mendota Heights and other nearby communities wi�l be able to addr�ess'a'rpor� n�'�d impacts. Tfie City of Mendota t�leights supRo�ts the adoption of the Metropoliian COu�acii Cornmunity P'rroteci�on Package based upon the foliowing justification cf .need anci operational considerations. As the number of MSP aircraft operations has grown, air noise 8mpacts witfiin Mendota Heights have increased dramaticaity. Many of the noise impacted �� areas witfiin our Cii,yy are older residential areas (buiit Bn the �940°s, 50•s and 60°s) which clearly pre-daatB the surge in air traffic i980's and 90's. �Aerienced at MSP during the As a resutt of increased �ctse exposure. tfiese oider Mendota • Hei9lrts c+esident�al neighborhoods have exper�ei�ced di�nv�e� and.de�tine. 1� ander tn sqbii3ze these a�+eas and maintain thetr viabitity, the use of proP value � guarantt�etes; t�x credits �r housing Pevitari�zati'on, agg��e �,und insu[a� Programs, and other cieser3bed commu�ity stabil'�zation programs is necessary and warranted. Residential neighborhoods potentially eligible for these programs include the Furiong Addition along State Trunk Highway 55, t;urtey Addition along �.exington Avenue, Ragers �.ake Addition atong Si�te Trunk Highway 1q.g, Frienall Nills Addition along State Trunk Highway 1�49, anci other scattered neighborhoods located i� identified noise impacted areas. Revitaiizafion of indus�rrial properaes within the Citys Business Pa�ic wi11 • similarly require subst�ntial resources over time. In order to maintain the long term econamic health of this area, the City Council would consider the setective use of community sqbiGza�ian and revitaiization toots described in the Community Protection Concepfi Package: �i Cify af Mendota Heights MSP Airport Noise Mitigation Needs Page 2 ..._. The Cammunity Protection Concept Packag�=also discusses a �umber of airport protection measures designed to prevent incompatible land development in airport impacted areas. As a community incorporated in 1956 and comprehen- sively ptanned in 1959, the City of Mendota Heights has a number of established land use patterns which limits its ability to make sweeping land use modifications for the sake of airport expansion. For instance, the City of Mendota Heights is already 90-95°�6 developed. Nanetheless, the City of Mendota Heights has for many years cooperated with #he IVletropolitan Council in adopting and enforcing land use controls related to the airport. ._, : In 1987, the City of Mendo� Heights became the first and only c�ty to . adopt the Metropolitan Council's Aircraft Noise Attenuation Ordinance and has strenuausly en#orced tfie IVletropol'rtan Council's Guidelines for Construction With�n Aircraft Noise Exposure Zones. , In addition, the C'rty has made a concerted effort to limii the total number of �ew residentiai units located �in areas overfiown by � aircraft, and has experienced subst�ntial costs an suppart of litigation to achseve these goais. � • ' . . �_ The City taices seriously its responsibiliiy to controt the devetopmerrt of •. noise incompatibte land uses wrthin Mendota Heights. As such. tfie City cloes not support the crr�eaation of another regutatiory body, such as�ihe Airport �ora'fng 6oard, � to usua�a th� tand us�► sutfioci�y v�d in our duly etecied pubtic offi�ials: �fi "teeth" are to be put into the enforcement of land use patriems, the cities . themselves shoutd be the enforcing authority, not some distant, non-representative board such as the Airport Zoning Board. This is� not to say that the �egisiature, the Metropolitan Airparts Commission, and the Metcopol'rtan Council do not have important roles to piay in regulating air noise generation and exposure. If MSP is to continue to exist in its present locatian, it is essential that "teeth" aiso be put into the regulations affecting the operation of the airport. Long term commun'rty compatibility with � MSP is premised on the following: � 1) The aircraft departure corridor shauid be narrowed over Mendota Heights ' and Eagan to take fult advantage of the tatest air traffic controt technotogye The introduction of a Gtobai Positioning Satettite navigation system at MSP in Fatl 1995 shoutd great�y improve the safety of airspace management, and wiil also lessen the distance aircraft need to be separated from one another to ensure passenger safety. Other precision air ixaffic co�trol advancements (. on the horizon will oniy help the MAC and FAA better utilize the airspace surcounding MSP to mi�►imize air noise impacts over �residential areas. � City of Mendota Neights l� j MSP Airport Noise Mit�gation Needs Page 3 2) e , The inequifabte reliance on the Nienciota Heighis/Eagan corridor should be eliminated. The capacify of the corridori3�'fiflite, and communifies ��°��n bY airce�aft us�ng the cora idar ought not be expecied to endure air noise exposure beyond a fair limi� Ail communities survounding IV(SP receive significa�nt economic benefit frorr� its close proximitye Similar(y, all shoutd be expected to bear a reasonable and equitable share of the �� associated noise burden as well. 3D Over the Mendota Neights/Eagan area, departing aircraft shoutd be directed to utiliae, to the fullest extent possible. 6ess noise sensifive areas, such as industrial park p�opeh,y and highwray ecghts of �ray, Vh�se areas have been planned in conforenance wrth existing and approved airport e�unway configur�,tions, ar� in con%rmance ��►B�Qpoerqn Coueacii guidelines, and have been approved by the IWetropol"i�an Council. To fulty accomplish this goal, aircraft during non-bcesy hours shculd be directed io fly a cross�ng pattem in �fie corridor, rather than beiag given departure headings which °Vert1Y dase-ir� nessidential areas. This crossing procedure during non-busy times has been approved by tfie �Retanopaiit�n qbpor�; Commisston and is currenily awaii�ng imptementation by the Federa! Aviation Administratian. 4� Once modified to take advantage of the latest air tratfic acntrQo technalo �-� and adjusted �o cocrect fcr air aaoise dis�bnn'�urponal inequities, the boundaries of the aircraft depart�uure and arrival comdocs shauld be speaiiicapy defined, and air noise e�osure standards shoutd be es�tablished along this corridore Aircraft operators violating these standards shouid be subject to subst�ntial moneiary fines. 51 Nighttime aircraft restric�ions should be put into place immediately #o ensure tfiat only Stage ii' quieter aircraf� are flown between the hours ofi 90:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Such restrictions should be mandatory and violation of the standards should result in a monetary fine to the offending air carrier. 6) Noise Abafiement �eparture Procedures (related to how quicldy aircraft gain . altitude upon departurej should be reviewed and adjusted to ensure that the futt performance capabitities of all aircraft are being utilized. The ability of aircraft to rapidty gain altitude, thereby m��imizing aircraft noise levels experienced on the ground, shauld be quantified and made part of air traffic departure procedures ati MSP. This is especialty true for Stage 111 aercraft. � . . . . . . ,, m � City of Mendota Heeghts IVISP Airport Noise Mitigation Needs Page 4 � 7) In its tVtSP Camprehensive Plan, the MAC has identified a future runway construction project located on the west s.ide of the airport property. This .�:: new North/South runway, if buiifi, is expectecG�o accommodate air traffic needs weli beyond 2020. The face of aviation will be considerably different by that time and will hopefully include tater generation aircraft which wiil be substantialty quieter than the current Stage tll quiet aircraft, and high precision air traffic control technology which wiil ensure safe airspace management with a eninimum of aircraft separation. With this in mind, the MAC shouid commit that any airport expansion identified in subsequent MSP Comprehensive Plans will be "noise-neutrai", meaning that no new noise in�pacts over resident�al areas will be generated off of tfie airport property as a resutt of the future addition of new runwa�is. 8j Aiso retated to the MSt' Compeehensirre Plam, the MAC should est�blish measurabte criteria by which the performance of MSP is to be judged in . deciding whether or not airport expansion is warrantede These performance � criteria shoutd be frequer�tly and regulariy reported to aliow interested pardes to cnonitor the need to u�dertake the improvements described i� the ��/Ni9Bp��I,��S�Ve �i�Cea (/ \ �. � 0 � i �C / � ; �, 01 :: '�'�I `_; `�' I3ecember �, 1995 To: Airport Relations Commission From< Kevin Batchelder, Inter�m City A tor Subject: Discuss Non Simultaneous Departure Procedure Implementa.tion �a�cus�aor� La.st month, the Commiss%n discussed the situation regarding the implementation of a "Non-Simultaneous Departure Procedure" for aircraft departing MSP to the southeast. The intent of this procedure would be to direct aircraft tQwards non-noise sensitive ar.eas during those hours when aircraft traffi.c is light enough to allow the FAA to use such a procedure. (Please see attached November 14, 1995 memorandum.) � 7ust prior to last month's meeting, the City of Ea.gaa had notified us that they were concerned over the expanded DNL contour shown for Eagan as a result of implementing the ( ) new crossing procedure. Eagan had suggested that we might consider revising the procedure so that azrcraft departing 11L would not be �ssued a"runway heading" inshuction, but rather some minimalleft turn, such as a departure heading of 110 degrees or 115 degTees. �'he Coinmission indicated at that time that it would be best for the Mayors of the two cities to meet to discuss potential common ground. Mayor Mertensotto met with Mayor Tom Egan on December 7, 1995 to d.iscuss this issue. Also in attendance were Jon Hohenstein, Assistant to the City Administrator, Tom Hedges, City Administrator of Ea,gan, Denny Cornell and Bruce Wagoner, of the FAA Tower Control and myself. Although there was no agreement reached at tlus meeixng on a heading for Runway 11L that both communiti.es could agree to, each city agreed to return to their respective Airport Relations Commissions to discass a recommenda.tion on a heading of 115 degrees for non-simultaneous departures from Runway '11L. Mayar Mertensotto will be present for Wednesday eveni.ng's meeting, and will be prepared to discuss non-simultaneous depariures with the Commission. � , ACTION li;EOUIRED Discuss the non-siinultaneaus crossing procedures and corisider a recommendation to City Council. . TO: s FROtVI: . SUBJECT: DISCUSSIOiV CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO November 14, 1995 Airport Relations Commission Members Tom Lawe11, City Adminis a � Discuss Status of Non-Simultaneous Departure Procedure Implementation Since the incep#ion of th� ,qirpor� Re1��pons Commission, we have been discussing the anficipated, impiementation of a"Non-Simultaneous Departure Procedure" for aircraft departing MSP �o the southeast. The intent of this procedure would be to direct aircraft towards non-noise sensitive areas during those hours when aircraft tra�c is light enough to allow the FAA to use such a procedure. C� Under this procedure, aircraft�de artin ( would be issued a departure heading of run a headi g� A �� ft de a��1 L) . sauth parallei r u n w a y (� 1 R) w o u l d b e i s s u e d a fiea ding of 105 degre s. �q �� e showin g 'these d e p a rt u r e p r o c e d u r e s 3 s a tt a c he d. i i��se procedures were foe�rv�ail approved b� the MAC severai years ago and have been awaiting FAA review and implementation ever since. � After receiving repeated complaints from Mendota . Heights and Eagan about the delay in having the procedures reviewed and impiemented, the MAC commissioned their consulting firm, HNTB, to pertorm the necessary environmental analysis of the proposed non-simultaneous crossing procedure. A copy of the report submitted by HNTB �s attached. The report shows that the� largest noise level increase expected as a result of implementing the crossing procedure is .2 maximum DNL at Trinity Lone Oak Church/School. This increase falis well below the Fqq esstap�ashed criteria which if exceeded, would require that additional environmental review work be: =performed on the procedure: Despite itiis criteria, the FAA has expressed concern that those parties affected by the procedural change be in agreemeni on its implementation. � .. On November 13, 19951 received a telephone� cail from Eagan � �� representative Jon Hohenstein who indicated that his Ci.ty Council has a concern � — n ' ' - . i: � over the expanded DNL contour shown for Eagan as a result of implementing the � new crossin g procedure. He inquired as to whether or nat we might consider revising the procedure so that aircraft departing 11 L would not be issued a "runway heading" instruction, but rather some minimal left turn. At present such aircraft are issued an instruction to turn left to a heading of 105 degrees. in keeping with the FAA's policy of issuing headings in five degree increments, Eagan°s new proposal wouid mean that aircraft would be issued either a 110 degre� or 115 ei�gree heading off of runway 11 L. r ' I have placed a cail to John Foggia regarding this new development and ;. hope to hear from him prior to our meeting on Wednesday night. 1 will be better able to expiain our options at that time. , , • • � The Commission shouid discuss the status of the non-simuitaneous departure procedure issue, and should decide whether or not to recommend to the Cifiy Council that we consid�r Eagan°s suggestion that we modify the proposed runway 11 L departure heading. � � ' 11'13-95 02:47PM FROM CITY OF EAGAN ..".. � ill81I2995 18a39 5227256328 TO 94528940 MWC AVSAT �i - - _ . - -- -- � � ��ir • � -• . . . ,` - - Augvst 29, 29�5 ,�, ,..�: : �r.. . �.+'. • . .. .:: .a.:��....�; / . .f.. � •1 �: r�,'. � � ..,i i: 1 .. � 1 /1 " - ♦ i� . �, �. �' � %1 � ��t. . �� , , /. .tl i�:.: � s. : / 1 � .ti`� •� ', � �� P002/005 r i i. ... .. � ......��tt.+- : 'r: t a� � � r. ' � � � ,,, �:�- _ • � . . � :r : . . u�.: :. ... � ' �.� ' 1 r� . .. s 1 �. �� f 11 � r. �.:.� • � , �... : M..�_ • i .. � . . / �•F • i��..'. � 1" � 11. . � .. ., . , . '� . ��r�ll 1Y � � �C' 1 . �..1' � (1 . �: : .:-1 ' � ( 1 �� 1` � : �.1.:• : :. �.Iifi� : M►. ._ ' ��1 ��.1 l �:i ft f: l —• . / �L : � ( J .�.. � / ' 1 � : :....� � ' : l : .. � �:� 1: t�•1 �.♦ .. . � �• �.�: � . � ,.� . � �. ' �' � � 1 —i::.l 11 �1..:. . ( ' � �1 � �.. '�t,s - � � � � • t . � � 1 .. i �1 �� 1 Y. . ��.:..+��.� . , ,, , _� � ..: .. ...,� . ►' 1 •,,ii,� � : :,, a . �. ,i� i 'l,� .., ..; . , �. . �_' _� _ � �:+� ! 1 ' �' t �.� i�. : �� .. � � . 't. f � 1. .."� �� ; '�.�. � e :.• �� :.' �.1" � 11 :. �.1,.±: • (i ' � ' '/w � .� �- �a� .. : � ..: . � • •4 �• � � -...... .1 .i •Jt 1 r. il�. � • : ... 111�� .`�. �.��.: ":�.. ,. �_. � - s+ . .::. � :i�:� ��.t .r' � 1 i� ;! .I/ � '.� •• l��...: 1 �,. ��. •. _ � II. ' . , � • v�r,.� ��" �:. � ... .; : � • i �. . r �: i �.� .� �. � { � 1: 1 � ..� � � � .- ... � �. {1 �� = 1 � rti• 'f � �. � Y. . , .. ..i.- : � .. . :,. ::. , ,,., : �,, • : • .,r... � , . �: �� : : �. :. t . ; ; i �i . . � :� :, i� � , � ' :...�� • _ � � '� • i�, • {. ` �.�i� . �� . . :• �• • - ��.a e .". '.. �.: � �� tt� . ... � :. • 1 • � :ar : � f�` �1► �..� �t.� � � : � : � : � h:: �r •: � _ _ : u� ... i�n � :� . l • .i� � . .:.. .. ., . , .� . � : . �. .� r , c � ,.. ...�� , � . . � ► ..�r• �. � . . . . , .. ' • � - .1. .. � . , .� u...�t 1� .: «, .:1 � ..i � �r�� firc �. �..•.. -, . 1'• : . . _ �� .: �• � :. �.. !' y.� .. , � r.�, 1. `. ' �«�.. r ...0 . � : t ... � �. t .�� ..: �i � (. �..• n v� ..' �:��.� �: �'l � ��..• �t. • n;.� . ... • ..��. �..,..� ., • ^ . �<. , .. . ...• . . �. � . � � � r �E : •r• r : � � ^ . �` . � ��r•1�:. �i... iri N ,._■ ��•It •�a�. � �1 :_ �.' ��7 { :`��r. irr: � � _ , . . ,. �. � .r: � � . ^ , � . : . . - ►t �. � • � �� ' 1► � ' �:1 � . _� :�.. •'... . , ,�. . � , ... � ' : . F y�a�� a �� .�. - � ,.� �� . . � I�{ • ��I{ . � � �� II �1 �. {' • . � • J� -� ! .,. � . , � .� . ..�'� !' �'. r: 1 :riit•►I�" ' � {: i.�f �� . . � � �:. � �. � � . ��1� . .1 1 . 1 .• � � �.t ... • . .. � . � ...� .� •.�. i�l .' . : 1 . i •� ia• ,. I�. .r�-� � . � � ,.,� _ � . . , . 1 � . _ ��. _ . �.w� �. •E� •� :r� �t.t � �� .�...I.In • .. : • •i Yi � �. ✓. �.. , �. •-� t� . 1. � ' ' r• � ��u f_.. �. � wi G.: il ;. �n :Y� . .. �� tc:l� : :•.. .. L�/. � i1,' ia ._ � ` �� ...•• �e �• � � •� IU � 1 �� :n :.t ��..L� }. '1f..e • ��•�' .. v. � t .�� _ •� � _ . . �• ►� nt� : � � � � �,� a •r: . � � � � • c. . • � � : � �i : ' � •� {� .,� :_� • n •� � • _•• �> � • �:.. ' s � � . 1 .� ,� � � � ,� , ., � : .� C � ~• 7 C� 11�-13-95 02:47PM FROM CITY OF EAGAN TO 94528940 P003/005 , � � � ; . � . ._..._..... ... . . . :� . • ' • . ; .. -� . . . . .. . . ; � . � tad�is,�� ie:�s �2�as�,e � ��ac avsaT � �J� e . , . ' . . Mr. John Roggia ' . . . : . _ ..... .. . ' � . �� ►, �s�s � � �� . : , j . �� _ � _ ... . . � . : � _� _ _ . ... _ _. : � . . . . . ._. ; .; � Qi�rt�thr� schaoI� � poi�t Ya �S�ric l�eidOffi w�r ,. of d�e� �� poi� i�e �te� �Ymosc B�tYx aYo�g tF� r�v�sy h�adii� (soe �sras�od �bYc9. � i : v` � . +� , i� �i• • ,• 5�v � • �ii� �BL �BiiYi W' � � ! �{�d� � 1�o W �� •• � !e aw =:�� Q ii�7i�D6 � i . iC1�E�lt 1�P1 �Q3� 1ttV� �fl ffia1t1ld tliC �CD�QOffi aAT � � Ptease fmCI fro� t0 give m� �, c�t if you have �r qu�o�. . V'QY Y "Y°' : . ' . _. _ .+ . � . . 8N"1'�t • . _� • ' . r � � � . a • �N�il L`.' �td�iD, L�� • . . . �'" ��j �'" �8� � • � � . f . B�F/tf . . � . ; ` t �- a , • . . . _ . , . , - . . ' . . ; • . � � . , ; . . . . . � : ' - ; . ! _ . . . - I . � • � . � . ,. � . — �-- - i , ✓ � " 1'1/15/1595 16:19 6127256310 MAC AVSAT �� HOWARD NEEDLE6 TANiMEiM � BEROENDOPF. INC. � ARCH9TECT5 ENGINEERS PLANNER61 October 27, 1995 Mr. John Foggia Manager, Noise Abatement Mctropolitan Aisports Commission 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota. 55450 6, r AGE „ 02 vy c'v�r.rt r�c,n+�. /7o�Z« A'loce�.idrkt �tn« :?2j 1Q.l.f� �m.s� .l,�a.xxm tAX(7�i�) 3•tn7S9j RE.� Eagan Mendota Corridor Reyised Procedures- � Noise Analysis for Redistribution of Non-Simultaneous Ftight Tracks on Runway ,IIL Aear John: Per owr telecon of October 19, 1995, enclosed find an updated chart of existing noisc levels�connpared to levels associated with the proposed redistn'bution of flights on Runway 11L. The updated chart has three addirional paints add�d as requested by the FAA. Twa of the three poi�s aze located further out alon� the atrai.ghc depanure track rhan Poinc 12 and the other poinc is locar�ci m proximity of rhe test DNL 60 noise contour. The campazison indicates that the lazgest change in DNL vaiue is 0.2 (for the additional three poinrs) and it occurs on the test 60 conwur. With the 0.2 increase at Foint 501, chere is na crassing of significant thre,sholds in land use coznpaubility. This should address�s the FA.A,'s concern chat 0.2 is the lazgest changc to DNL values. � � � Also enclosed is a eopy of ttie 1994 DIVI. 60 and 65 wntouzs with th� conesponding test contours on the stanclaicd MSP srareet.map backgmwn�i. We have included a copy of the pIanned land ust (utilized in the MSP Lorig-Tetm Comprehensive Plan) with the coirtours added for your referenc�. although they go beyond .the azea for wluch 3and use inforniation is available. We a+ill be receivin.g new CIS land use infarmacion for che Duai Track I�IS by disk on Monday; hoanver, it is noc cercain �hat the forthcamin� infazmation will dctail the area, of the thxee additional poincs. In efiart not to slow the process by waiting on forthcoming land use material thax may not aerve our purposes, we aze forwarding the above inforaiation. Please feel free to give me a ca11 if you have any questions. Veary cruly yowrs. HOWARD NEEDLES TAMMEN & BERGBNDOFF, INC. � Evan C. Futte , AICP Project Manager ECF:KCI�:wab-b Enclosure C �" ..:. � ,o a � ¢ � c 0 �; �. a.. ' � I �i�+ � J � , _ _ • . - . • . . � - . .. . .. .. � .i .. . � � �� : � � � �. � � � � � � r. � � � . ,.. . . � � � � � � T � � � � r ! � .. . 1 �� y. . � �� ♦ .� .. � • �� + ELrM • • ♦ � • � � r � � � �� • r � yp � �. � � • � • w � .. . . . . . ... � �� . . . , , I� 1 „ .._. .. _.. . . � . .� . a. � - + • • � ..;�. � � � � � .. . � •., �. . • • • . . .. . � - . - .. � . . . . � �T, � � � � � � � � .�j � �` �'.�n. � � ir � � � � � � 1 � � � W � ' - � � � � � 1 � �•�.�� ?.:a_ ��'�,`h'�..!''�'� aa,n`n.qY y - I � ... . I 'll .. V �. ri9vo:�� • �... .r.... ' .. ....... .�• .. � i � � . �� . ��t ,�:,. �.�,�.;< ., . . ... . � .. .. . .. �w.-�t, � A: • - - - - • - - • • - - r�r�.,<u�� a.'v�� `� . �.. +�.. r+ a . . . . . � . . � . . . .. ' ' �"��`� ��' - . _ , . . � . � . . .. . .. . . �.�::,,, ��: • - - . . . _ . . - - - ,w:...��.,,.��, � �; �S_o,��. An� 4 '� ^'-'. �✓='^a'1"��'! �ti.h.•s:;ao3iy . } � ° � o.. � 1~ �u ��g _ -.�� „ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - ,��,u ...,�...,h t!;at�9"s ��;�;;:Y �^� r;� �; �;,;.:; ;= r:�:�.� >:N .q:, �::-" `; :�h:,:.3.c „r; s,��N� � °::i�Y.';i ... `��','�'�„,�.� ;.a ,��-�.,,^~^^,� ,r , � �, < �: _ . . . . _ . . . - - - N.v4y ` .....�. i�Y.1M1YI n2 NN�j�� .M")!n`'� nt • A . ... �� M N. 'i �. . . .. M �.%h ? . .� � � � �r �. � � � r rr � .. . � i � � a5._. i.�. � ' �. �. ar ... � � � �► � � � .� � � i � . � .� + .+ , ��. ` y + � ... r � W a � � � � y. • avY' n � i • � . :i31 h H;t y .. . . ' � ,� � ,�, � :oa. .~i .'",a . .. .. .. .. . - . . . . .. .. . . ... . . .�. r.� � �� .r r � � � � � � �. .�. r .r >/.y7i• . .� r. �. � . . . .. � � �� . { , � � � ! .. - - - - - - - - - - - - .� � ... ... _ r � k � �. � � ' - - � . . . � �. .. @�a,_,;,�4,�e a �L«�+`� r ! . � .. . .�. �. � �-� • M+�ati1, '°3''� vS.'�.' � ' ' ^ "^'.7'^'X2�SF C.j.Yw«' ,� �,.7"��S,p W ~ A'v ,''�� ., � R,S:NA � �e ♦ . . . . . . . . .. �, w _, � . . • � �r � .. • � . � � � °`��,o .. . • • �. g .v. Sii�i�i�'v.i.�"i[, st{: },:.2:�' °�'.+a�.,� �"�' � h" � � ah� .�a �ae� �4 o� � � �� °"v'�'f`- Y �� l4'+�Nwn(µ'i.: . • . � �,.�� n �. . � ,,,,,y . ��"�'is �.�c.�..��; • . . . .. . � �- .. • . . �, � � � • � � • � � H�l.� Q4.5rH��•� i • • • • • . . � . . .. . . �S'�~�F � iC� r � � ... � � �'.1.�� \ . � �". . . ' .� � .. . . r . � �. . � a e t+:r:n��:: � i � ' � � _ � � � � . � w �^�`ilswM `}�ir�".cG�a r -^-�- »s : K� ��r ?y?.YK�0. `Sh`�Wvnfry D'T:�Y1AZ1 "�G�S �a. � �'��'�,�«Ax,L.I..t t:ia x,,,-v: CNw�arMaia+:��j,-�yy}y N?1 (.% Y�tnti.Yt�? �/ �� 4 fi'Y `� �v�1Nw.�W�� 1 . 1 th Y�ojv� C/��]�S 2y�'fi.,,�y+� ` .• , �.J o„� � $� � � ♦ `y'T'.� - � K. • � � .. - " � ��j �{�� ' , tir. �Aa4b. . � �� .� . . �+.'S,»,+i N . ' . � � � • s w`G r �w� . . . r 9� '"aaN2 a �i%�`1"�........... :... C bGl ��iHri It/Sliti '1HIni LITFQC717TQ �T :QT CGGT /CT /TT � . .. .�r. ,.YYt, 3,� '.r'�.rr.v.+': . ) r - . �tM..�'yi� � - �/ •�� y . .�' � ::'�,;:).:�•. HiCSi , " �/` Saint Paui +� ` � ��/ , .. .�;�Y ao � . . . ,. — — �;. � .. � - ., ,�: � . � • - _•� .�. . . . . . .� 'i� .wu ;=;.: ..;., - :.�;.,:��. L= � �l _. : :� _ ':�.: .. :�.t�;., !.•' _ ..,,;'> . . . . •:>i .�1�. ,.e. .. . �:;r E �c a.`,-.' •.�� , . - ., � ro� � � I Minneap � ;� � „ • . :. � Inter Ai � <.,�. . 6! � • • s Sunfish lake ' � _ _�; w..��- .. . y .,�. , : " ' , , :.: nf'�_a.� n� �: }w:;��F,� �� hr t e�ei�„Q�`' •�='t�''�r�t•'::'�y�'''dia o`' � ti.L� pw:,? • So=a': fti En 3�` 2t�,, ,�� r i S s�� 2 :! ��.d�.F��`�� 12 i f�4�}��"��t�ti'�;�, .,{�.�:,.._'`�` ' 7�„��i �E's^.a�..tar �� 5' w � �:�:ti .rS..:' e.L•a- yn e� .: ,rf { y� �t.�`��4•�. .' . a. � 5 - - . ..[. u. � .r.a� , ' '��Nw .. ' � ' � .:' yt . . .. '. . , } ; -t:�� y. � � � �e �. . '' ' ' G _� : � .� ' f � ��..t' •t�• � Y r �.Y'..'1�.-iT t`1'a 7 E : s..' ��!)i�R� �• � � } f" f i .. : s' . ' L ; t ., 2 �$ J ; �s ,�S' �Y'i O � •' � y`'f',,yy�,. .. . �� xii.x.i{�_'�-,�..,��'�'� �... 6! iL_ .. � ,.; �.,c . ` �J . '. i.,,•._ , � .,•_� , ,1 ,,,,7�.�r � ;. . 's- .�� e� �- �.._�; i�l`S`-' �a''v�'. . .;" . ,5�,�„�`3' Si„ yF! "1�J'r Y y• J�+ a� _+1 �'�' SS r � . ^'ry„ 1 � �� . t �,'. ['q4J3r� ? r kr�"T � . t�"� � �j ,� �. � '�,i .F"g ,r $ �i�' Ss 1 � . � +. r i�-t'i }ti �*a � y � ��tui y e iJl y, ��d'rt 1Y�f,'�� . � . � ` �i K F s�3�n rt ,yf�f ��..r ,,,r,� i �/ • t � � r�. r S � i ; f { �, �'y�% .'�}�J.t ir r `'� � �+ R-� ? P� � .v F3 �t� tz�^„' tK �'t S'� 'si ..�... � �.uo� !61 - ♦• � � � tr' I:.�e n ^\ '' f � 7 i,� �' /� \ ' I ��' .�in'y�' =.� �°l� .L�. ..4 /////� T�WwCeu1 / � i./ , ,�,,,, 5„ 4 �i �.: ». . Inner Grove Heights � � f � � � ��."-` �, .t..r ri �i �s.' i ..._ ,~• �• ( �hrF# +na5 44V�Y.r• �.�..Esf . ♦n �e- �:/ ..� \ � ,� LON �"/ ' / afT O � 1 /� a / ' nf l (�.._aif• y'• ` S � � / :�� • � � . t /' „�, � . !"�`�, ��I�. ... \ � a.�w " �v . . r � ` � ra::i� � f °� r: :; �. � �� nver Grove Heights » �� ! � � i% ' fl �\\ ac �0� `� ' �' - J e � t . . � �J _ � '� ' ` _ - `4�' .� t � j + i � ';z� � '� . ' _ . � .� • �� . - i a .. � . . ) � ': r : y,�Sy�o `'`� e�� . { . . .... � . . . . .... .. . •-- �s ' "'� .;�y. N . �Y�� , S{. r, �x: .�.,,. e �� P �, �. . ' /:.1 ' s� � rs . `J 4 Z .. : ' . � ,' 4 � � _....__ _.... _._. _-_ _._ _..__ C _ : •I..cts�v c� � �-- p.- • ' �%27�(�1YI S �� u: c�.� dY L' e7 �. .� .�: �,�, '54TN ST. vi E o`�� 54TN ST. SAINT ': ''9 ::• o�c • •; ; G R= � . ,��,= PAUI: o �' �'� F.A Q � � � :: .u. s � FS.. P '� 6 .. : : > =` 58TH � ST. ' •A• P ENTWORTH 8 � � SOUT , � � x x . F.A.v. -� � �SAINT ' i mond �x jy�o' her . Lake P`�� ake. � ,�, 8_ PAUL � •,:_,��-�� 52 c �:: BIVD. . ... ;;j: ,� : SOUT VI EW .. g 10 •Z� .. .� Q o r;. � . ..... ,L,. AAINNFA�'OCO •.. > ST. p ltdTER ......... � R��. ............ _ ] , 53 - . •.r:: ::::•::•:::: . ............ c� . Al '....... ............ F.A.0 . . .... • • • : . .. . •� � ... ..r. .:*�:• -... z , ::: • :;'::::::: .... 14,.... .:...�... ,, .,� , .• ......... ........... . .. .'�''�'•• � 35 . o : '•::.. ...•;... ::::: ...:: ., . , ..::.. ..; . .,, � 3 �: :. <, . •'� • .,; .. •: 13 � .. • .:.. F ;� :•: sr. m : �fish � ::;:; . ' ,�G .. .. : �'IEL . ake -: :: F.�A�.P., . . .. ; � : a; • • ";'°"� - - - � t/� a( .•.• �'� : . . ISH �'' Ch1211$ ::; • i W Foar s •• a � sT. � � > r, .A��E . L. ::• �: 77 ¢ �• •.; .. . � . , �� _ :. :• ST. _� F- ..: .�TN s , 1 � .. .. ..5� � ... ... :: :. :. . ... ; .. ::. . F.A.�. • ' 494 ':'.�:,ljicicman 18 �::•: � . ... ;. ;.., . .; . . Lake ""' ..... . .. ........ ..... :::: 5 .; .;; .. ;.. + .. ..,, .......,... ...... . .. ..... .: : . i�:=::_... .. . _ .. .. •V:... ...... , Q � �eshoe � � y a 1 �ake 10� . � ` , 3 � � RO• ""�� 3 ' j >Q � Q ; . -~..�.. �'��' :.1 D5": 75 F.A. I �. y.: :��'S° ST. --�� 26 I s � � N �� _ rT�TER� i. � m RCJVE � - " ¢ .....:. 52 � m o � ...�:....... � ............ 73 � , � 0 .... .. . . b .. _ 4 . •• ... Sv • :�....:: ci . _ . �Q ...,,. �'�' ; , � �.� Q � 93RD " ST. � �' � .. '� ' " E» .�„~~ : i "'^ •, .. ^.�--^^ .:•. � 80TN 28 8 . 35 . . . , :. } ..::::: • ...... .;,u o '� '' � • • • • c� o`' ,` .: .... �: ;:.••• o ... . �� 3 G .. ;� T ::: � . . � ::: • �,, .:;c �'� �> . � �� 5 C01.lEGE R' .• • : ,' � 1,gG `_ � 'S'O�/s 'c•�P .: --� C, �� '_ � Marcott F 52 '�� Q`� ��• �"� �� 71 � �Lakes 73 55 � P � � � Q J ��`� p'� `_ � �� .. _ �`�.op.`� •:; ::, 3 � � �.:. a ' ot� �: .� ::` 71 �g �.i V Cr :: _ • � ��: .. ;;i�'� � o R/ Q ,• .,. •• , a q � � � PQ �,y �p�A .. : ,� W a� 23 . �n .,.. [. � ,; C�a a` .. . . ... \. . _ � ` 7 1 1 ' ��. C)' ; I�ecember 7, 1995 To: Airport Rela�ons Commission 3 From: Kevin Batchelder, Interim City A r Subject: Discuss Request by Inver Grove FIeights to Amend Corridor Procedures 1' � On December 5, 1995, MAC's Planning and Environmental Committee considered a request from the City of Inver Grove�Heights to change the turning order procedure for aircraft departing to the southeast. Inver Grove Heights desires that the turning order procedare be cha.nged so that aircraft are turned toward their destination at the end of the 3- mile corrm.dor. Supposedly, this would mean aircraft would fan immediately at the 3-mile mark instead of banking into their turns when they are five to six miles out, over Inver Grove Heights. () The Planning Environment Committee of MAC referred this matter to MASAC for review and to report back within 60 days. (Please see attached memo from Dick Keinz, Director of Environment for MAC, a September 28, 1995 letter from Linda Cummings, of Inver Grove Heights, Resolution No. 638'7 from Inver Grove Heights, a November 9, 1995 letter from Will Eg�inton, of Inver Grove Iieights, and a seven page Lagan-Mendota. Heights Corridor document from MAC.) Inver Gmve Heights has made this request in the past arid has been denied. The � Planning and Environment Committee inquired as to what had changed since the previous denial of this request and MAC sta.ff's answer was that there were na changes, it was a repeat of an earlier reqaest. John Foggia, of 1VIAC, did however, sta.te that MASAC could consider a cha.nge to the Tower order from "turn no earlier than 3 miles out" to "turn as soon as possible after 3 miles out." I do not know precisely what the difference in semantics means for jet aircraft operation, but I have pla.ced a call to Mr. Foggia and will attempt to have more clarification on Wednesday eveni.ng. . Discuss Inver Grove �ieights' request for a change to the turning order procedure for aircraft departing to the southeast and make a recommendation for our MASAC representative. NOV-2?-1995 16�00 METRO. AIRPORT COMM. 612 ?26 5296 P.02i1� ITEM 8 _ � TO: FRCiM: Sl1BJECT: DATE: Planning and Environment Committee Richard B. Keinz, Dir�ectar of Environment {726-8734) INVER GROVE PROCEDURES November 22, 1995 NEIGHTS RESOLUTION RE; CORR{DOR The attached letter and resolution once again expresses concem on ihe parf of residents from the City of I�ver Grove, Heights over air traffic activity in the EaganlMendafa Heights Carridor {Gorridor). Gommittee members may recall periodic studies and lengthy discussion on #he Corridor procedure. In an effort fo provide background for the Committee, a chtono(ogy and description of more recent deveiopments in the Corridor is attached. The City indicates that if "...has not been ailoweri any input or voice, and has been virtually ignored by the Metrapotitan Airports Commissio�'s decision on implementation of the corridor." During #he iasi Corridor evaluation and formulaiion; - A City Spok�sperson attended and participated in all of the meetings. - The City submifted a proposal for improvements to Corridor operations, as did other communifies. - TF�e proposed improvements were not forwarded by a vote of participants but rafher based on a �onsensus. - The MAC Noise Staff has met more often with the Inver Grove Heights City Council and the City's Aircraft Noise Abatement Commission than with any other city to review data, discuss Corridor operations, and answe� questions. The MAC has established MASAC as the forum for the discussian of noise �related issues. MASAC provides an oppartunity for all communities, as we[( as airport users, fo review and discuss opfions and potential impacts. Sfaff suggests that this issue be referred ta MASAC for review and recommendation fo the Planning and Environment Committee for further action, COMMiTTEE ACTtON REQUESTED REC4MMEND TO THE FULL COMMlSSION THAT THE LETTER ANp RESO�UTION FROM THE CITY OF IiVVER GROVE HEIGHTS BE FORWARDED TO MASAC FOR ANALYSIS AND EVALUATiON, AND REPORTBACKTOTHE PLANNINGAND ENVIRONMENTCOMMlTTEE WITHIN 60 DAYS. � � NOU-27-1995 16�00 City of I R �o�v� r��S 612 726 5296 P.03i14 8150 SAR&LRAA�VE�NT� • INVF.R G�tOVE I-�It��tg,, MN SSQ?7 s'iLLEpI�UNE (6i2} 450.7So� • FAX (612) 450-2502 Sept�mber 29, 1995 Patric�c O�Neiil, Chaiz� MAC Flan�ing & Envi=vrnnental Cvn'ac�.ttee 6040 28th Avenue South Mirineapolis, i�.+1' S5450 Dear Cocc¢ni �sioner 0' Neill ; The City o;E Inver Grove Heighte neede your help to correct an unintended, but very real tragedy, oE the operational p2an known ae the Eagan-Mendota Heighte corridor, Though ou= conanunity is heavily impacte8 b�r the corridor, =nver Grove He3ghte ha� not been allowed any iaput or vaice, aad hae� beez� virtually ignored by the Metropoli�an Airport Conanfeefon'e deci�ion on implemsntaticn of the corri�cr. As a resu].t, since �he adoption o� the corridor or, November 16, 1992, the noise impact has been Btead3ly s.nc=eaeing ia lnver Grove Heights. The corsidor should be wo=kable, it the aircraft were placed aacordirtg to it� �ortcepe. However, t=acking data from the � last twa years and regular obeervation indicate th8t the ma�ority of the aircraft are no� Curned at the end of the corridor. Rathe=, their fanning is concentrated over the City of =nver Grove Heights. Thie fanning cause� the same e�feCt as if the runway was moved next to�our eity. Since the caszidas w�e developed by MAC staf£ and adopzed by the MAC Commiasionere without public input, we wouid like to make �ure it is p=operly implemented. N�V-27-1995 16s09 METRO. AIRPORT COMM. Commlssioaer O�Neill September 29, 1995 Page 2 612 726 5296 P.04i14 We are =equesting tha� you pl�Ce our attached City =e�olutio� on an up�oming Corranittee agenda and le� ue know when it is scheduled. Membera of our City Councii and =GH Aircrsft Noise Abatement Corr�nis�ion will attend your rneetit�g to answer any queetiane you might have. In the ccming days, wa wi13 be Bending you a packet of inform�ation regarding the City reeolution. we look torwar� to working with you to achieve real woskable air traffie noiBe eolutions. � For your convonie�ce, please contact me at 450-Z512 w��h any questions you might have. A3.so, please infontt me' of the date our resalution will be scheduied before yaur comtnittee. Sincerely, . �J�� %._ (X «''v' Li�u'ia J . Cut�tIIninga � Staff Representatzve Afrcraft Noi�ae Abatement Commission � C� NOV-27-1995 16�09 METRO.. AIRPORT COMM. CITY OF INVER GROVE HEIGHTS DAKOTA COt1NTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION N0. 6387 � 612 726 5296 P.05i14 R�SOLUTION RE�TJ�STZNG �i�AT T{TRNZNG ORDaR PROCBDURES AT THE MINNF:APOLiS ST. PAUL INTEFNATIONAL AIRPORT $E Ci�NaBD SO T�3AT TLl'RN 9��TtS �1Z aaIRCR�T D�PARTSNG ON RUNWAYS 11L AND 11R ARE GI�TEN �iIIaS AIRCRAFT RRP ON TH� GROVND i�iEREAS, the MeCtopolitan Airport Cot�tiegion tMACj and the Federal Aviation ni�trativn (s�►) have eet 3n place cer�ain depaxture pzocedures for aircra€t departing to the � Boutheast from �he Minneapolie st. Paul intemarional Airport; �R�, the8e procedures, utilizing the Eagan Mendota 8eights 3-tnile corridoz, epecify that depareing airoraft wi3.1 be turned from the�.r initial departure heading as eoon se passible once the 3-mile limit is reaehed; wHEREAS, the cugzent p=ocedure is ta issue �he tu�rn ordes to i j aircraft depagting to the southeaet aftes a�,scraf� reach the 3-mil� 11mit; e WHEREAS, the current p=ocedure �or iseuing the tower order to aircraft departing to the southeast does not allow theee aircraft enough lead time to init�ate their turn aC the end of zhe 3-mile corridorj wHBu�n,s, this to r�ine miies deetination; procedu=e causes depa=ting ai�craft �o t=avel up be�o=e exscuting a�urr� toward their wHER�B, this delay reeult� ia exce�agive aizd unaneceesary �et noise over �o�xtieB located souCheaet of Che airport beyon� the end of the 3•mile cor=idor; and WI�ERS�S, aircraft depazting to the narthwegc are given the turn order while still on the ground. � NOV-27-1995 16�10 METRO. AIRPORT COMM. 612 ?26 5296 P.06i14 Resolution No . 6387 Page 2 NOW, �R$gpg�, BE IT RBSOLVED 8Y THE CITY COUN'CIL pF =N�R GROVE HEIGHTS, in the intereeC of airporC eafety, e��iciency of operationa, and peacefu]. enjoymenC o� our ccsc�nminity,, that app=opsiate meaeuzee be takea by MAC and/or FAA �o change the tu=ning o�de= pzocedure �or aircraft deparGing to the southea�t so that aircraft are turned towaaYi thgir deatination at the end of the 3-miie corridor and keep unnece�eazy and excessive flightg ovex =nver Grove Heigh�e to a minimum. Adopted by the City Council of the City o� inver Gx�ove Aeighte �his llth day of September x� , 1995. 1�1yes : 5 Naye; a AZTEST: i � :, �► , � /;; /, � � �y� • - c- _ . _ ,,,�•, � o-'�. i►'.li �,/.i • -s /• / . � C� � ' NOU-27-1995 16�10 � 1 r� � � �•: .� � �.�� .� Uur com�tu"�i.y Iias six miles '' ovec�gl� noise eve�s from � cc�nclude thaz tl�is sta�ion � �P�Y Para�el iun.wa5►s. METRO. AIRPORT COMM. ��y of R ROVE �-iEIG�[i5 612 ?26 5296 P.0?i14 N'ovember 9,1995 �utheast oftl� pa:allel nia9vays at the aupoYt. We are c►ureatty su$"�+� imm % of all lake o�'s and 44°/a af ali ]aadliags. A�rport use pmjections farve as to uaiy wotsen as phys�cal re,sbrictions wzll r�x�uire "vncrea.sed urilizatian of t�ie high Sin.ce increases in. airport use e beyond att�►one's conitol, and rhe c�tretrt, not to mention grojected, oveiflig,ht frequeacy makes lif'e in our mmtiuity unpleasan� we are Ieft w�h n�o alternative but to s�c relief tbmugh changes ia the opecational patt of the parallel runways. Currer�ly, the operatianal p £cr southeast depattutes ut�izes a geographic "corridoP' to proteci some neigbborhoods, but as an. ' nded conseg,uencre, focases all tlte overtlights and t}a�c dire.�tianai. ��an�u°ecs over bTvcr Gcove 1��i�hts.- staff'iasists that 'coce�wes a]Iowia aircraft ia ivrnout at tbr+ee m�1es are " uts. The fr data shows a alread bein but tra�c cia�z. do not cor�fitm these � � sa m�e turn i� consisteatly m e, thus impacting 3n.ver ve . We feeI the naed to poiIIt a Heigl�ts was speci5�ally prec area.". , We are admitt�dly an real operatiQn we beca,me tb intet�se naise created during sw.face: 't�t'e believe, as we v� ather than to tt�e s�autheast sh You �rill be re�cetv'm�,e a caIl sugport a resolviior� we are F the "conido�" operational pl necessary ir� the light of inc� aixport f�,ci.lity, Please help u .••" .,• �s•{�•,�•i�.r.. • ' �, ' •' .. .,.. .. � �� . ._ . . . 8150 7ELEPNONE (612} 46C . tbat when the "conido�" was be�ng groposecl and established, Inver Grtove uled fro�t the distussioa because �e were supposedly "beyond the impacted �yed thaot we were exclnded. from the initial discussion only to discover that ia commwr�ty most impacted hy � ov�tflights, and more impar�.y by tlne � irectiunal clsanges during which the noise is fo�sed dire�t].y on the graund :e gromised u►hea the "concida�" was proposed, that no plane with a de.�tination �td be dire�ecl to fly over Ym►er Grave Heigias. � one of our cornmissson members to discuss t}zis issue and ask-ing you to rting to the MAC to coaect these un'uitc�aded, but very rea�, consequ�nces of a,]1 we seek is an equitable sharing of the overflight noise. �e ��1 this is s in airpart use and the s�;erniz�gly remote possbility of a relocarion of the 1 �i�r+�.��y� • 1 � � • � . . . . w � . . � � •.� �(,J�" .... �: ' ", ' w�lEgiIIzoa •• ;,;,, � ';' ', :;: ' ,�;,. - . . . . .. ._ ,,. -ti � . . , _ - -: � . . r � ;�.,••,�; , ,i� av�NllE °�NVER GRO�E HEiGHT�. MN 550?7 • CT1Y OFFICE FAX (612) 450-2502 � POLICE FAX (612} 450-2543 NOU-2?-1995 16�10 METRO. AIRPORT C��M. 612 ?26 5296 P.00i14 Eagfln-Mendota Heights Corridor. • ' � ' i; i , " � ,i; �' � A long standi.ng noise mitigatioa aperationai procedure at the Minneapolis-St. Paul Iaternarionai Auport (MSp) has been to d'uect as many aircraft operations as possible over the more noise comparible land. use areas of Eagan and Mendata FIeights, southeasc of the asrpoa. Significant indus�rial, ofi�ee, and commerciai zoning and deve2opment have been purposely coneentrated in this commcreia]/industrial corridor. Pablic review of eorridor util4zadon dates track to 1968� and in 1969. the Prefereutial Runway System (PRS) formalized a publictairportlusers consensus to concenuate aircraft vverSights o�er the Minnesota River bottoms aud rhe predominantly commerci�ndustrial land uses within thr� miles of MS.�, in Eagan and Mendota Heights. Various adjustm.ents and refcnements to r]ie Comdor occurred during rh� 1980s. In 1989, af�r muc�h publie debate, the basie principle of cAnti.nued first pciority to overHight of ehe river bottoms and the g,agan-Mendota Heights commercial/'industrial corridor wr�s reaffirmed in the Runway Use System (RUS); a refinement t�o the original PRS. A chronalogy of Corridor development, revisions and modifleations follows (all headings are magrietic): 1968 - MASAC and lflcal FAA mview MSP aperadanal altematives. 1969 - Development and implementadon af Pre£e.�ntial Runway System (PRS). 1972 - Sout�i boundary established. (�nnway heading. Eagan-nuaway 11RJZ9L). 1973 - South bo�uudary m.o�,ed, north, i14°fmm iun.way i1R departure end. � 1974 - New Tetmiaal Conizol Area at MSp estabi,isbed requiring 15Q sepazadon for depm��iu�es. 1974 - South bwndary moved north,105° from ninway 11R depariure end. � 1975 -"12ivcr Depar�i:re" established for prop aucrsft. 198i - Air-Traffic CoatmIlers Strike. 1982 - New voiees heard from communities on north side of cor,rldor area. 1984 - Si�ificant increase in traffic at MSP. 19$4 - MASAC i+eviews discriminadna uf corridor headings toward Mendocs Heights. 1984 - MASAC unable to resolve equity issne, 19&!� - FA.A implemeuts "cane" of {�9Q° ta 118° departure headiags. 1985 - Towes 1)ual Local Control implemeuterI:115° Rwy l IR, 090° to 100° Rwy I lL. i986 - ATC unilatera.tly sets soutb baundary as Rwy heading and no nortbern boundary. 1986 - ATC agreed� 09p° {although not o�fficial: nurth boundary) was operational(y re�cognized. 1987 - MASAC establ.ishes specie] Eagan.Meadota Heiglats Corridar Coaimittee. 1988 - MASP►C special committee considers alternative carridur operadanal procedures. i9$9 - EaBaa an@ Mendota Heigl�ts submit proposstls €or review, 1990 - MASAC unable to resnlve issue: MAC Exec. Dir, appoiats Blrre Ribbon Tcrsk Force. 1990 - MAC / MPCA caaduct CorridQr Definidan Study. ^ _ . (\ Metropot�Jctn Airparts Commrssion - Aciation Noise and Satelliie Programs � \ � NOV-2?-1995 16�11 METRO. AIRPORT COMM. 612 ?26 5296 P.09i14 � 1941 - FAA-ATC conducts 60 Day Corridat Test requested by I31ue Ribbau ?aSk Force. 1991 - Task Famce reviews 60 Day Test resuIts and separate city proposals. 1992 - Tasl: Farce unable to agree after twa years of deliberatinn. I992 - MA.0 makes final racomm�udation to FAA f� appravaL 1993 - FA.A-ATC Man�;er suggests minnr changes in the wording of the two pmpasals. 1993 - FAA Regiun mqe�ires further enviranmental data is nc�cessary befare im.ptemeutacivn. 1994 � MAC sepazates proposals far �AA cansiderati+on, begins new 1994 baseline contonr. 1994 - Ca�rrridor "Edge ComplianceT' scudy quantifies aircraft gasition relative tv 3-mile point. 1995 - Mp,C completies 1994 baseline cantour, submits "crossing" propasa] data vs. baseline. 1995 - MAC completes package fnr LA suiunittsI on "crossin�" proposal, Corridor refinement is an on-going issue. Sy the mid-I980s, the Corri�lor basically included a. southern boundary of the extended centerlina of the south parallel runway (11R), an operarional consrrainr of 090 °from the end of the north pera11e1 runway (lIL), and a turn resiricxion prior to 3 miles from the runways' ends. designed to take advantage of rhe commerciat/industrial areas and river botrom sauthesst of MSP. Refinement of che Corridor has been an issue before noise abatement groups in the 'Twin. Cities for 20 years, Most recen�.y� an extensive, joint MAC1Minnesota Pollution ConErol Agency (N.�'CA) Cvrridar Definition Srudy in i990, revealed potential far pushiug the nnrthera operational boundary over rvlendota. Heighcs. south to 095°, essentially maving aircraft Sight tracks away from residencial areas nonh of Highway 11d` . Len,gthy test,c and public debates culminated in iwo Corridor Refinement Prapasats being passed to the Federal Avia�ion. Administrazion (FAA) for implementation. These proposaLs established a notthern policy boundary of 095°, and artempted to use the cetiter of the carridor to the greatest e�rtent possible. The "final recommendation" origina,Lly with FAA for en.vironmentat review, was in the form of two separate "propo.rals", as follows: ,�ROPos,�z 1 �Vheuever possible, u�rder non-simuttaneous deparhare conditions: �}- Aircraft deparfiug Rnuway IlR wiII be assigQe,d a heading to maintain an approxiwate grauad track of 105° (M). �3- Aincraft departing Runway llL w�71 be assigned a heading ta msintain a ground traek atong the extended runway eent.r.rline, apprcncinuateiy lli3° (Ni}, �RUPOSAL 2 'Whenever possibte, under simullaneous departnre canditions (when cliverging patl�s are necessary for simrafi separaiion}: a- Establish H Northern Boundary of 95° {M) from Runway 11L departure end. �- Maintain a Soiithern Boundary a2on�; t6e Runway 29L locatiaer. '�' Assign aircraft headings sucli that approximate gronttd tracl:s, as close as feasible, remain on or within the above bound�ries. � ) 2 Metropolita'� Airporu Comtnission - Aviation Noire and Satetlite Programs NOV-2?-1995 16�11 METRO. AIRPORT COMM. 612 ?26 5296 P.10i1� Eagan-MendoW Heigub Corridor. During 1994, communications errors slowed the implementation process. The Corridor (; Refinement Re�ommendation was originally submitred to FAA as two separate proposals, but some expliaE def�ning was necessary to isolate the non-simuitaneous (so-ealled "crossing") proposal as the portion to implement immediately. By ttvs time, a new contour was being developed for major sirport planaing, and fi.uZher delay was introduced as all parties waited for a new basetine contour to use in determ.i.ning impacc of the crossing procedure. The new baseli.ne contour, developed far MACs Dual 1Yack Planning for the existing MSP site, and for a Dakata, County propased site, was available by mid-summer 1995. Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring Systsm (ANOMS) data were used to define actual aircrafc iracks and�profiles� for input file generadon used in FAA's Integrated Noise Model (INl�, Assumptions d.efirting the "crossing" pracedure were input into the INM far comparison agai.nst the 1994 baseline cantotv FAA ori.ginally believed an Envirouinental Impacc Statement (EIS) m.ight be necessazy to implemenc the complete recommendatioa After considering ouly the "crossing", or n�n- simnlxaneous procedure, FAA Great Lakes Region staff indicated an Environmemal Assessrrient (EA) was necessary. NlAC aad consultant HNTB moved, forward with the regvisite additional. anaiysis to satisfy tY�e EA, and a new, updated package for FA.A review was campleted by October 1995, Final determination of the procedure's status, and. ultimate implementation is pending. Departure Comidor Compliance De�ring 1994, complaints from the southem edge� of the Corridor, in Eagan� grompred MAC Aviation Noise Program scaff to quandtatively analyze aircraft rouring compiiance relaave to the ESgarUMendota, Heighu corridor boundari�s. Using ANOMS, gates were established. accordi.ng to Corridor boundary deSninons. On the south side of rhe Corridor, . FAA's Minneapolis Tower Order states tbat aitcraft depazting runways 11R or l IL wi11 be issued a heading to k�;ep them on or north of the 29L I,ocalizer: Since the lacalizer is ttuied. to be �p0 fj; wide at the approach threshold of a runway, sraff deteimined the Iocali2er width south of the extended centerline at 3 miles, and establuhed this poinc as the sourhern "edge" of rhe corridor. An inclusion gate was construcced sourh from this point to capture aircrafc sou�h of the desired corridar boundary (Fi;�ur� �. A northern gate extends from the edge of the pro��osed nurchern "policy" boundary. Th'rs proposal is still under environmental review with F�SA..1'wo gates basically parallei to the extertd�d centerlines of 11L and 11R, captvre "early turnouts"; i.e., turns execured before 3 miles from rhe runway ends. C� _ -- (. Mefropolitan Airports Co�mission - Aviation Noise and Salellite Progr�am.r 3 ' NDU-2?-1995 16�12 METRQ. AIRPORT COMM. 612 �26 5296 P.11i14 • � .. ....._� `�� ) Figure ] ANOMS basemap showing corridar gate structures for both the north and south sides of the fiagan/Mendota FIeiqhts Corridor. The southern gate perpcndicular to the extended ceaterline is coastrvcted scuth from the 29L Localizer edge. The northem per�endicvlar gate extends from the proposed northetn "�olicy" boundsry, sdll under envuonmental. nview ihe' pazallel" gates capture early turnoutc, ie., turns before 3 milos. 1, �) _ .—. , .. 4 M�tropotimn Airports Commisaion • Aviahon 1Voise and Sal¢tlite Programs NOV-2?-1995 16�12 METR�. AIRPORT COMM. 612 �26 5296 P.12i14 Eagan-Mendots Heights Ccrrridor. � Departures uff Runways 11I.&R were analyzed for 3une. 7uty, and August of 1993 aad 1994. ANQMS gate capabilities collecte� carrier jet depanures penerrating the perpendicular gates at the 3-rnile point, and early turnours off both sides, as faur separate ffies. Penetrarion diagrams graphically depicted the spaual distribution of "out-of- corridor" operanons, and frequency distribudons were developed for the soutk perpendicular gate, a function of distanca fram r.h,e corridor edge. Interestingiy for all monrhs, 4Q% to 50% of south oi corridor operations passed within 500 fe of the desired boundazy. Si.milazly, ?0% to 80% were within 1000 feet of the coaidor edge, and 95% eo 98% were vcritbin 1i2 miie of the corridor boundary. Significantly betu�r "campliance'° occurt�d on the norrb. side of the corridor, compazed to south side compliance rates. The FAA was interes�ed in exploring corridar operauonal compliance, with 5° error to account for the Ai.r Tlrafftc ControPs limitation to issue heading assignments to ehe nearest _ 5°- lai report analogous to the gate analysis described was prepared for each of the siac summe,r months surveyed. Results �uith a gate 5° south of rhe above-described gate indicated that south-of-comdor excursions were significantly reduced becausz of the high density of aircraft within.1000 feet of the corridor bonndary. Eagan Mer�dota Heights ComidorPerspeetive MAC encotuaged comrtiunity membees of the Metropolitan. Aircraft Sound Abatement Cauncil (�vIASAC) to address the corridar issue during the mid-1980s. After meeting for three yeazs without success� the MA.0 Executive Directar appointeci a`Blue Ribbon � Committee'• of parcies directly involved with the issue. Mendoia �Ieights and Eagan we.re the only ciries appointed because ttti�ey adjoin rhe airpart and cotridor azea, have eausting. implemented land use policies relating to rhe corridor, and aze exposed to the mosc intense noise impac�s southeasc of MSP airport. Because Iand use p�tection in Mendota Heigbrs and Eagau extended approximately w three miles from the ends of the parallel runways, an agreement was reached witli the Federal Avia.aion Adminisrration (FAA) to issue turn insuuctions after airarafc were th�ee miles from. the runway to hel.p mainrain the integrity of this commercial/'uidustrial corridor. This sirategy kept airccaft from overHying areas soarh of the corridor. The northern boundary v,ras maintained �� aperar.iorurl limirarion due to the proximity of the St. Paul Dowrttown Airport {STP). When considering aoise distribution equitability, naise level and intensity of impact must be considered. An. aircraft producing 90 d8A measured on the ground one to iwo miles from the airpart produces about 75 dBA seven miles frotn the airporc, due to increased altitude farCher from the aupon. Both ieveis crea,te an impact for residents, but the intensity of impacc is signifieantly different. No mstter what the initial noise level, ciistance from the airport equates to altitude above the grou,nd, and increased distance between noise sources (aircraft) and noise receivers (residents). Consequentty� aoise abatement programs ac MSP, and at aupons around the world, have concenrrazed on programs addressing the highest level, most ineense noise impacts close ro rhe airporG before addressing those impacts far�her from the runways. Mebapatitan Airpvrts Commission - Avsatio�c 1Voise and SaleJlits Programs g ` NOV-27-1995 16�13 METRO. AIRPORT COMM. 612 ?26 5296 P.13i14 From the Mississippi River nartheast of MSP, caunterclockwise to the Minnesota River south of t6e airpo�t, a nearly homogenenus development of residenrial land use exists. No direction for aircraft departures provides lesser residential naise impact than another direction. On the other hand, to the southeasc, thanks to effiorts on the part of Mendota FIei�ts. Eagan, tbe Me�ropolitan Council, and MA.C, lartd uses within. three miles of the runway ends are predomin.antly river batEom, commercial and ind�strial T.his allows the highest intensity noise (when aircrafc are close to the airport and departing) ta be concenrrated over an area purposefully intended to exclude residential deveiopment. Land use poliaes close to an airport represent the most powerfi�3. �oise abacement tvol available. The FAA over8ies compatible land uses wherever possible, and encourages development and praection of compatible land uses as its top priority for noise abatem.ent strategy through the Part 150 Program. MA.C's goal is to affect the lowest number of residents wirh the hi.ghest intensity noise levels. This requires assigniag areas closest to the aupon the highest priority relative co noise abarsment strategy. To the aorthwest. over south Minneapolis and north Richfteld, this n¢�ns spreading the hi�hest inteasity noise impace over a greater area, since no favorahle direcuon exists to impact the fewest residents. The same technique must be employed for depar�ures southwest, over south Richfield and Bloomington� and nor�heast over I�ighiand Park. Disregazding the noise advantages of the comm�erciauindusnial corridor for southeast depanvres would open residenrial areas very close �o rhe airport in the a�y of Mendota, residenriat azeas in Meudota Heights north of I�ghway 110, and residenri al. areas in Eagan south of Interstate 494, to extremely intease jet aircraft noise impacts. Noise events from 90 dBA to 100 d8A aze i.ufrequendy experieacced in these areas today. but wout@ become commonplace within one to three miles of the airpon if a"fanning" deparnue were i.mplemented. This level of intsnsity is unaccepta.ble in lighr of the aprion to o.void ir by op��rating over the existing commetcial/lndusaial "corridor" close to the airport, As with evezy public poliey, trade-offs in beneSts impact the most well-intenrioned proposal.s. With respeet to maintai.ning the integrity of the commerciaT�'industrial corridor, frequency of averHights for small poc�ets af residendal uses i�:.ride of three miles from the runway ends is the immedaate eost for protecang as many residents as possible from excessive aircraft noise Ievels. MA.0 is firmly dedicated to an extensive Part I50 Land Use Compadbility program to address rhose residenrial areas close to the airport impacted by intense noise leveis. The Part 150 pro,gram utilizes soundproofing, purchase guazantee, property acquisition. and corrtbinarions of these land use eompadbility tecbniques to alleviaze intense noise impacts. Diszributional Fairness is an on•going issue with respect to noise impacts. However, numbcrs of overfiiglits must be weighted by rtearness to the ai'rport because aircraft close to the facility are doser ta tt�e ground., cxearing a greater impact than they do farther oa� Retaining a compatible land use corridor is aot the final word. on eoiridot issues, Moving ahead wirh the eorridor-re8ning proposat is just one phase ia an on-going ei%rt to mi.nimize noise impacrs for all airport neighbors. This posi'on has been made clear on nvmerous oeeasians. MAC has explicidy sta.ted that sta�ff would address the most intezise impacts closest to the airport as a priority, then move farcher out to refine grocedures. This ; ) 6 Metropolilalt Airports Commission - Aviation Noise and Salellite Programs NOV-2?-1995 16�14 METRO. AIRPORT COMM. 612 ?26 5296 P.14i1��. _.:. _ � Eagan-Meudota Heig6L�a Corridc►r. � � �d a�enue is chosen precisely because the Metropolitan Airpons Commission does not � represent one or two neighborhoods, but rather communities thraughout the metropolitan azea. Au airport propriecor must exercise effective management by maki�g the best decision based on the available l�owledge. MAC policy is to minimize naise impacts for airport neighbors. Those closest to the airport are burdened with the most onerous noise impacts and should be addressed firs� The next step is to consider opuons foe airspace managemer� beyond three miles from the airport. Spreadin,g aircraft overiii,ghts over a wider area does not necessaril.y spread noise impacts out "fairly". Ta the case of areas north� west and south of the airport, faaning represents an attempt ai equitability. This so-called "fanning" presents ftself as the hese alternarive given the avaitable technologies and existing demographics. However, MAC is ofr,�n attacked. for not reducing noise impact, but mere�y "spreading it out". By over.flying relatively unpopulated azeas in the industria]jcommercial corridor, we reali2e aa opporNnity to actually redu.ce intense noise impacts on residential , azeas, by not overfiying them. Additionally, maintaining the commerci.allindustriat corridar sautheast of the airport does nat "targe�' communities downstream from those areas cl.asesc to the nu�ways. The Airport Noise and Operatians Mo.nitori.ng System (ANOMS), udlizing radar traeking infarmarzon, contimious `noise moair,oring data, and GIS informazion, provides a multidimensional view of airport operations previously unavailable. The most saphisticated af its kind in the world, ANOMS . will help the airport, surrounding cammunities, and the FAA reach reasona.ble, viable conclusions regarding how to operate the airport ia the most resppnsible maruier possible, esnecially farrher fram the ninway ends where more flexibiliry in operations exisu. ; � �. Each community surrounding the airport petceives its impacts to be geater thaa they slwuld be exposed to. MAC understands this perspective, and agrees that the unpacts should be minimized to che greatest excent possible. It musc be noted that airspace decision-making is not accomplished by consgdering only the airspace above individual comintmities. Noise impact per fligh� is approximately equsl at eqnal distances from the airport.. In general, that impact decreases the farther a receiver is from the runway, Therefare, in co.nsidering impacc at distances farcher from rhe airport, number aad frequency of over8ights' provides a reasonable measure of impact, The Metropolitan Airports Co�nission is prepared to work with the various comm.unities surrounding the airport using ANOMS generated daca to review alt:ernatiye airspace managernent techni.ques to minimize distant noise impacts. . —�--,,. etrapolitart Airports Commission • Avirrtivn Nais¢ und Satellite Progra�ns � � - - • � � 1! 11 ., ;� ,; - i:� 1 December 7, 1995 To: Air�ort Rela.tions Com�ssion From: Kevin Batchelder, Interim City 'strator Subject: Discuss MAC Dual Track Environmental Impact Study P,xecative Summary and Economic Impact 5tudy Status Report At the December '7, 1995 Dua1 Track Task Force meeting, the MAC Dua1 Track Environmental Impact Study �ecutive Summazy and the Economic Impact Study Status Report were distributed to the public. (1'lease see atta.ched copies.) A full copy of the Dua1 Track Environmental Impact Study (EIS) will be made available to the public on December 15, 1995, which officially opens the comment period for the Draft EIS. The comnaent period for the DEIS will be open until February 13, 1996. The Commission should d.iscuss the executive summary and the economic impact study and consider how the city will respond during the comment period. :•M�� : .� i�� Discuss the enclosed documents relating to the Dua1 Tra.ck process and provide direction to staff. IVI�TRO]POLiT.AI�T AII�OIZ.TS C(J11�IIVIISSI01\T ,:.�� 7� '� Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport *�' 6040 - 28th.Avenue South •:�linneapolis, �fN 55450-2799 �z Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fax (612) 726-5296 r . � l 'T' � Hvo.+• , TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Interested Parties Nigel D. Finney, Deputy Executive Director - Planning & Environment CHANGE IN DRAF7 ENVIRt7NMEIVTAL IMpAC`i SYATEfVi�N7" AVAILABILITY/CHANGES IN CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS December 5, 1995 This memo will update you regarding changes in the availability date of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the 'Dual Track Airport Planning Process and changes in a number of the presentations to City Councils regarding the document. As a result of coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration in order to prepare a joint DEIS, the document will not be av.ailable for public and agency review on December 4, 19.95, as originaily indicated. The revised date for availability of the DEIS is December 15, 1995. The comment period for the DEIS will be revised to December 15, 1995 to February 13, 1996. . The foliowing changes have been rnade to the City Council presentations: City of Prescott, Wisconsin City of Burnsvilie City of St. Paul December 11, 1995 January 9, 1996 January 10, 1996 Thank you for your attention to these changes. The Metropolitan Airports Commission is an atfirmative action employer. Reliever Airports: AIRL�IKE • ANOKA COUNTY/HLAINE • CRYSTAL � FLYING CLOUD • LAKE ELMO • SAINT PAUL DOWNTO�'VN , L.o l..J L7.� �l t17. �11 � .�9.I.,�4.I'OR T PLA.l�l1�lI1�� PR �JCESS - - -�- - - -�- - - . - - - - - - - -�- -�- - - - - = - - -�- - - . ��Ppp��a Sq�N A f �� + 9G � �' � + , � . i" O " �-, 1' 'q � RP OR'"�5 • `� r , ' ' ' � � '' . � � �� ' � � � Economics Research Associates Consulting Planners Landscape Architects I d I. R.EGIONAL LAl�TD TJSE CONTEXT t�F THE AIRP(�RT What has hastorically happened here? /' � / //, ,� , , , , � , I ': � '. ,_ ; l � What is expected to happen here in the future? i � � �; . � . . . 9 . � �. , ,iI �� r� , _.___ -� . � � i �,. �., �,. �. . i 1'11'1' ,1 I. 1 I'' '� i I I' , �, � , �• �. . �,'1.,• , r �• 1 il1' .L1' 1i ': 1. 1'1 � 1 1 1 1 1, . .� � � 1 1• �, �' 1 1'1 , i ,1 1' .'1 1;1 .' ''1 i 11 ' 1 I •.� , 1', 1' i . ' 1' 1 i; '1 . ( C� { �� I • �. �.�. .� :,, • . v Data Sources: Airport Operations Staff Regional Planning Brokers/ Pubtished Market Data Impact Studies • Identify Key Chatacteristics of Each Airport o Establish High-Medium-I.ow End of Findings for Selected Case Study • Eaamples: Upper End Range: Atlanta and Da11as-Fort Worth . Middle �tanges Sea-Tac and Cincinnati (under comptetion) , Lower End of Range: Washington-Dulles, Kansas �ity For`ecast (No Track Record): Denver s Compare Qualiltative and Quantitative Similarities and Differences �_� • Define Other Factors that Have Caused Trends in Case Study Economies and Iteal Estate Regionat Economic Characteristics _ National Business Trends Y,ending Poticy Direction of Growth � . Othe� Regional Airports Land Controls/ Speculation , L , , � � . � • Denv�r international �: • Dallas - Fort Worth � • V1/ashir�gton - Dulles r vw', W �y � �y V 3 V •fl V �� a�� Q�� . o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o � � o 0 o � � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o� � � � ri �o N � N +-� �i r--� v1 N V N v v . � � � � 0 � � � � 0 � � � � Q � � � � � � � O � Q Q � � � � r� rl � � Q n n w n n M d' M N �--� . N �n M � � 00 � � O v v � � � nl o � �--� �O N � ;`<;�;,: O O O O O � ,: ;; _� O O O O O O � N; O v�.o0 O M O o �.; > M�O d' O�--� � � > i . >` `>.�: a> . ::. .-+ N N N �--� v1 � -- � A� G�j v' �� i .��aR . . � a aa ,� ' :� �:: � o , N . a, �n , ';'.o .� � N � ; :::Lr. � N v� vj .� � � � I �"" > � 4) i °�' � � ; �` � � � w � U • p W.�t=,G�G :�aQQQ� z�::�: � N r� et u C, • • • . � • . � . � . � _ __ � � . • . �; . • _ � _ .. . , � � . ' � • � � , , .► � � � � � ' � �� • � • • � � . � � � . . . . • • � � � • • • • � • • , , � • � • • � �. � , , . . � . , � . . � � . � � � � • ' � ' o ' •' � � • • � � � � � • �, . ' • . . ' . . • • �r ` � rR � � • � � • , w � �' � , � .� . �r � � � � • � ' , - � . � - � , � � � � � . � • . . • . , _ � � • • • • • � • � • • • • � • • �, � , • � � � � - • . . . � . • � � . , • '� • . � � � , � � � , , ,. � • • • � . . , . . . . . � • � . � o � o °- � � o � � � � � •° � ° 3 � � � � a�i"i o .� a°�i �. td.�. � � � '+=+ O �+=+ U O -.b � Q cct f�" > � �' 0 y � O � � � ,� a � � "Cy 'C��+ . 0 bA ' ' �n � i, N pA � � �n � � r v •�'i y� O f.. 'p .D "� � � O t., � O p "Cy C� � � �. � .� .3.." ,. �± � •� •� '� 4'' "C7 � � � � � , y � z �,�j O'� y p T.., ,'F; C �, � � Q, � a � � � 3 a� .� � � � � Q) a�.� {�-+ �� v� � ,�„i � � � O .� � .� N � . k � � bA � C� 'G � � O a H � '� � � o � .'C c ,�, on � °�' � � o � ° ° �r i� o a�i " a o o'� �� a�i w a-� �.�v��a� � V � '�=+ o � � � � � W y � y ?, O � � � � � � O � � b � O O � � i �..�.+ � ,�.' '.� � U � 3 0 � � ¢,-o ,.0 k ,�, O � � � C� P! �p t"" � 4-� .�+ � O a � �� 0 � � k � y p �" v +�-� C� � � � • � «s w.. N � � v � � � �' y O E-� O Gq ' y � �, � Y � •� � . � 0 � �� y �h � •� � y . . � •� Q � � .0 b � � ..� � ' � � � �' � O O ^C7 Q+ U C7 � U H � � ° � � � �; H � � � y � � � a� -o � ' � . � a' ti a x 0 i a�i A ��; Case Study Implications Washington-Dulles • Although designed as a completely modern facility, Dulles was perceived as a white elephant for many years after its 1962 opening, partially due to its distance from downtown Washington, D.C. � _ • Dulles was built in response to a perceived need for greater passenger capacity in the future, which could not entirely be met by National Airport in downtown Washington, D.C. alone, which today serves a high volume of passenger tra�c. • The designers used considerable faresight in creating a highly expandable terminal on a site with� considerable expansionary capacity. o Minimal economic development activity occurred in the airport environs in the first 15 years after Dulles was completed. • Construction of Dulles extended water and sewer service into primarily agricultural areas to the west of Washington, D.C., thereby est�blishing a likely corridor for future growth and development. � • Office development ultimately concentrated in Reston, a planned community designed in the 19?0's. . • Construction of t�e Dulles Toll Road in 1987 substantially improved. access to the airport environs from downtown Washington, D.C. • Extension of the Dulles Toll Road into �Loudon County is expected to dramatically . improve access from Fairfax County and Washington, D.0 and generate substantial � economic growth. � ( j Kansas City International o KCI was built to satisfy a need for a modern airport facility in Kansas City. (' • When Braniff ciosed its KCI hub, the city lost about 100 daily flights and direct access to 14 cities. • A site was chosen to the north of the downtown in an effort to redirect economic development efforts in that direction. o Although two significant planned developments were stacted soon after KCI opened in 1972, the airport environs failed to attract significant development activity for a minimum of 10 years. • Development activity was hamstrung by several factors, including a perception that anything north of the Missouri River was much further away then the actual distance would indicate. Land speculation and rough topographic conditions in the airport environs were primary economic reasons for the lack of initial development activity. • According to an employment survey conducted by the City of Kansas City in 1978, between 1,200 and 2,500 airport employees moved to Platt or Clay Counties over a four year period. (the airport is in Platt County). - • When development in the environs began after 1982, speculation was the driving force (, behind new oi�ice and industrial development, funded primarily by savings & loan institutions. • In general, ofiice and industrial development in the environs came before substantial up-scale residential development. . • Despite the lack of direct international air service at KCI, several international firms, including Sony, Mazda, and Toyota, chose to locate distribution centers in the airport environs due to proximate interstate access, a foreign trade zone, and convenient access to air travel. • According to Site Selection magazine, several national firms, including Transamerica Life, New York Life, and TIE Communications made location and/or expansion decisions in the Kansas City area based on the convenience , of KCI. These firms did not necessarily locate in the environs. Dallas-Fort Worth International • DFW was developed on a 17,630 acre site, giving it the distinction of possessing considerably more expansion room then Atlanta-Hartsfield and Chicago-O'Hare. • The airport environs,located equidistant between Dallas and Fort Worth, were seen as the ne�ct logical area of development in the Metroplex, with or without the airport, given the strong nature of growth in Dallas to the north. • While industrial development activity in the airpart environs pre-dated construction of DFW by almost thirty years, office development was slow to occur. • Industrial users were attracted to the environs due to its central location relative to Dallas and Fort Worth, as well as proximity to the airport and a well developed interstate road network. , o Office development activity, which began in earnest after 1980, was concentrated primarily in the planned community of Las Colinas, a 10,000 acre commercial, residential, and recreational development adjacent to DFW. o The success achieved by Las Colinas in attracting office and industrial users was tied in part to the community's use of zoning, planning, and design specifications for new buildings, which. maintained the devetopment's image as a preeminent community. 3 Atlanta-Hartsfield International (\, . • The present site of Hartsfield International, located 12 miles south of downtown Atlanta, was originally developed as an airport in the 1920's. • The �iistoric role of Atlanta as . a primary distribution node for the Southeast encouraged the development of industrial development, which first emerged in the airport environs by 1947. • During the 1970's when planning for a new terminal at Hartsfield began, the City of Atlanta purchased two 10,000 acre parcels for possible development of a second airport. Apparently the city is cunently interested in selling both parcels • As roughly 75% of the passenger traffic at Hartsfield was connecting .rather.than originating, the second airport was never feasible because there was no convenient way to transfer�connecting passengers over the long distance between two distant ai�ports. • The decision was made to further expand Hartsfield in 1977 due to its close proximity to downtown Atlanta. • Over 1,000 homes within the highest noise�contours were bought and dernolished. • Although office and industrial activity became concentrated primarily to the north and � west of Atlanta, the airport environs emerged as a viable industrial market due to proximity to Hartsfield and the interstate road network. � Denver International o Initial planning for DIA was begun almost 15 years before the airport was ever built. • Although several studies determined that Stapleton did not have sufficient capacity to meet future demand projections, Denver voters approved the new airport by only a narrow margin. There was substantial concern about the 23 mile distance to DIA as well as its cost. m According to the Airport Environs Master Plan, approved by Adams County, the DIA environs can expect fo contain roughly 1.3 million square feet of office space, 4.3 million square feet of industrial space, and 6,100 new households by the year 2000. • It is anticipated tha� industrial activity will predominate the environs, due to the proximity of DIA to existing industrial developments along the. I-70 corridor. s Initial development activity in the environs has been hindered by uncertainty over land value and the very large .supply of developable land (about 250 square miles) in the environs. • At present there are three planned developments in the airport environs. Of these, only one development has experienced limited hotel development activity. • Redevelopment efforts at Stap(eton are presently concentrating on infrastructure improvements and short term leasing activity. Aithough the City of Denver expects to run short term operating deficits while redeveloping the site, they anticipate that it may ultimately be worth in excess of $75 million. � • The high cost of landing fees at DIA appears to be inhibiting the competitive advantage of several "low cost" airlines. Overall Conclusions Significance of planned communities to development In the situations where a new airport was built a significant distance from the CBD, developrnent in the environs always tended to concentrate in large planned communities. • The level of development activity attracted to planned developments was driven in part by the existence of recreational amenities and up-scale residential development. Restrictive building design standards and zoning codes were also important in that they created high standards of development and value in the community. Planned communities, such as Las Colinas, were able to attract considerable development activity over the long term as a result. Reat Estate Devetopment Patterns • Considering that both Atlanta and Dallas-Forth Worth have emerged as regional distribution nades for the southeastern U. S. and Central America, the existence of considerable industrial development in their airport environs is logicat. The existence of distribution operations at KCI is logicai given Kansas City's central location in the U.S. • Office development activity in the environs of �the four older airports was driven substantially by speculation during the 1980's real estate boom. The glut of office space built in the 1980's has only recently been absorbed: �• More importantly however is the reality that financing for office construction in the near future will be dependent on substantial pre-leasing by credit-worth tenants: Discussions with real estate professionals in several cities indicated that the magnitude of office development seen in the 1980's was unique in recent history, and is unlikely to happen again. � (' A r � . 1 . i , . . � . + �, � � �` � ; , � • � � ,; � ♦ �, • I r: F'JI ; �� I •�>� � .. � . � � . . �''.� �`�� "�� ' �� •�� ; .. 1 1' � 1� � � 1 1 I �' 11' i I .. • • � i ' lik 1 1 • • `� ' 1 ' 1 . ' � � 1 ' 11 1 1 . . �, � � ' � ' ' I'1 1 , 1 . . � I 1� i 1 1 i� � ' 1 1 .' � i11;1 ' .i i'i' ' � , � , � � �� 1�il��lill�ti'1 .,1' �' . 1' I 1 1 ' . . • �y, � �, . . � :�� . ,�� .. , ` � � � �' � � ' I1 1 1, .. , II � , 1 � �` �'� �• II 1 1 ... � � � �� i 1 � �' ' 11 1 1 .. • • ' . 11 � �, . . � � � � ' fi' 1 1 . . r o. C � a � , ° � .. , L � i Travelshed Population % Employment % Within 15 minutes 458,321 - 15.5 368,444 22.4 Within 30 minutes 1,993,893 67.3 1,312,848 79.7. Within 45 minutes 2,797,802 94.5 1,611,552 97.8 Within 60 minutes 2,951,750 99.7 1,645,821 99.9 I • '��' � �� T�avelshed Population % Ea�iployment % Within 15 minutes 31,699 l.l 55,522 3.4 Within 30 minutes 526,845 17.8 292,419 17.8 Within 45 minutes 1,909,658 64.5 1,213,392 73.8 Within 60 rninutes 2,'791,244 94.3 1,617,389 98.2 s� ,. 1 � L ' � ; • �. ,`, � • 1 I' � '■ . � a 1 F�CE�UTIVE S(JMIVIARY The Duai Track Legisiafive Directive The 1989 Minnesota Legislature directed the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and the Metropolitan Council (MC) to examine how best to meet the region's aviation needs 30 years into the future. The agencies were directed to urdertake seven years of planning studies comparing e�ansion of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP! with construction of a new replacement airport. That seven-year process, known as the Dual Track Airport Planning Process, is nearly complete. By July 1996, MAC and MC are required to submit a report to the Legislature containing their recommendations an future major airport develapment. The Purpose of the Documerrt This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) contains the evaluation of the impact on the environment of three development alternatives: a plan to expand the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP), a plan for a new airport in Dakota County, and a no-action alternative. These have been studied by MAC, MC and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Other development alternatives that were considered are also described. This DEIS is both a state and federal document, and all portians apply to each unless stated othenrvise in � the text. MAC and MC will use the environmental evaluation found in this document, along with operational and technical data developed for these options, to make a recommendation to the Legislature in July 1996 of how best to meet the region's aviation needs. ' ' A final state Environmental Impact Statement, which requires no recommendation on an action, will be submitted to the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board for a Determination of Adequacy in March 1996. A final federal EIS containing a preferred development alternatNe will be completed following a decision by the Minnesota Legislature. Future Needs Recent MAC and FAA studies have independently concluded that without substantial airfield, terrninal, and access improvements, future growth in aviation activiiy at MSP will result in a significantly decreased level of senrice and increased user costs. Peak-hour demand will outstrip capacity of the runway/ta�dway system without major improvements. Airfield simulations show that if no improvements are made by 2020, peak-hour departure queues for the south parallel runway could reach more than 25 aircraft. That would result in excessive delays and aircraft blocking access to the terminal, producing gridlock. Peak-hour (6:Q0-7:00 p.m.) delays by the year 2020 are e�ected to average 15 minutes per aircraft during instrument conditions, with the highest delays in excess of one hour. � � � Dual Track Draft EIS i The FAA's Capacity Enhancement Pian for MSP shows that the annual cost of delay would increase from ' about $26 million at current levels of demand to about $66 million annually by 2020 (with a new Precision Runway Monitor planned for 1996). This projected increase in delays, decline in service and resu(ting increase in user costs threatens MSP's ability to proyide good air service and economic benefits to the region as a major connecting hub. MSP's role as a connecting hub is integral to the air service the airport provides the region. Further, MSP provides a major link in the nation's airspace structure, because it is the 15th busiest airport in the nation. In addition tp airport improvements, the regional highway improvements identified for each alternative in Sectian III also are needed to provide adequate access to the airport. Aitematives Considered fio Meet Future Needs When considering how to meet forecast demand for 2020, a number of alternatives were analyzed. The foltowing is a summary of the alternatives that have been considered: • No Action � MSP Development • New Airport � High-Spe�d Intercity Rail (between Twin Cities and Chicago) • Remote Runway � Supplemental Airport tuse of MSP combined with other e�asting airports) Below is a brief description of the alternatives analyzed in this EIS. The location of the MSP and New Airport alternatives are shown on Fgure ES-1, which is attached to the Executive Summary. ( ) MSP Developmertf — A new 8,000-foot north-south runway would be added to the current three-runway - airfield. A new replacement terminal building would be built on the west side of the airport and connected to gates on the east side via an underground people mover. See Fgure ES-2. Other improvements would include highway access from Trunk Highways 62 and 77 to the new west side entrance to the terrninal, and a parking/drop-off facility on the east aide of the airport. New Airport — A new replacement airport would be built on a site of 14,1 QO acres east of Verrnillion and south of Hastings in bakota County. The airfield would consist of six runways: four parallel runways and two crosswind runways. See Fgure ES-3. Main highway access would be from the north by a new eight-lane freeway to a centrally-located terminal. No Action — This alternative consists of the e�sting airport facilities at MSP and those committed projects with funding approved by the MAC in its current 1995-1997 Capital Impravement Program. See Fgure ES-4. Projects that increase capacity (terrninal, ai�eld, other) would not be permitted beyond 1997. Altematives that were eliminated from further analysis in the DEIS are listed below. High Speed I�rtercify Rail — This alternative includes the construction of high-speed rail connecting Minneapolis and Ghicago and examination of the extent to which this would divert passengers and operations from air service to rail service so that in 2020 additional runway and terminal facilities at MSP would nat be needed. A 1991 Mn/D�OT study of the implications of high-speed rail alternatives on air traffic showed: � � • High-speed rail service would not divert enough passengers and operations by 2020 to preclude the need for additional runway and terminal facilities at MSP. � � Dual Track Draft EIS ii Remote Runway -- Under this concept, terminal ticketing, baggage and support facilities would remain at � MSP while new runways and gates would be constructed at a site in Dakota Gounty, about 15-25 miles away. The two sites would be linked by rail transit. A 1995 MAC study of this concept showed: • 7here would be signi�cant operational inefficiencies. Nowhere in the world does an airport have split landside/airside operations over 15 miles apart such as those described here. That is because the staffing requirements would make air service for this type of configuration prohibitively expensive; • A two-terminal system would inevitably evolve, with the public demanding ticketing, baggage and parking facilities at both sites, which would ultimately result in a fu8-service airport at the remote site. It would be very difficult to force passengers to take an intermediate form of transpartation, such as a train. Lacal passer�gers will want ta be picked up or have a car available for immediate transport to their finaf destination, rather than having their trip prolonged by intermediate mode changes. In addition, certain basic amenities must be provided to passengers as they embark from airplanes. These amenities, such as faod and rest facilities, require a passenger terminal; as would the required queuing and seating areas for transferring to a train; � Costs would be slightly higher than the new airport alternative; and ' There would be adverse environmental impacts, including the need for a one-mile long bridge over the environmentally-sensitive Minnesota River valley; Supplemerrtal Airport Concept — Under this concept, a cornponent of MSP operations (general aviation, military, regional, cargo, international, and/o� flights to major markets) would be diverted to another e�asting state airport. The intention would be to accommodate the remaining 2020 demand without having to develop new terrninal and runway facilities at MSP. A 1993 MAC study evaluated the transfer of various aviation demand components from MSP to Rochester Municipal Airport (MSP Third Option Scenarios). An on-going study by Mn/DOT on the use of supplemental airports also addresses the feasibility of supplemental airports. A summary of findings to date follows. • Diverting military operations, cargo activity, international operations or general aviation would not delay the need for new runway and terrninal facilities at MSP. 0 If regional air carrier tra�c were transferred even to the nearest airport — 5t. Paul Downtown Airport — it would farce nearly 6,600 regional air carrier passengers a day to iravel across town to make their connecting flights at MSP, making MSP a very unattractive connecting hub for regional service. It would be extremely difficult legally to force air carriers to relocate regional senrice to another airport. St. Paul Downtown has site constraints that preclude extensive development of this type. As with regional carrier service, transferring service to major markets such as Chicago to another state airport would force the passengers making connecting flights to travel long distances to MSP. In addition, originating and destination passengers would have long driving distances. Once again, it would be extremely difficult legally to force airlines to relocate senrice to major markets to another airport. Neither the MAC nor the FAA have the legal authority to dictate to airlines the level and location of service that they can provide. Environmerrtal Evaluafion To attain the MSP development plan and the new airport plan included in this document, a tiered state EIS process was used. The tiered EIS process was approved by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (MEQB). That process consisted of the following steps: (1) selection of a new airport search area; (2j selection of a new airport site within the search area; (3) selection of a new airport development plan on the selected site; and (4) selection of a development concept for e�ansion of Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. . � . - \ Dual Track Draft EIS iii �- , The alternatives were examined for impacts in 32 environmentai categories. Those categories are: Air qualiiy, archaeologicai resources, biotic communities, bird-aircraft hazards, construction impacts, coastal barriers, coastal zone management program, endangered and threatened species, economic, energy supply and natural resources, farmiand, floodplains, historic/architectural resources, induced socioecanomic impacts, land use, light emissions, noise, parks and �ecreation, site preservation, social, Section 4(f}, solid waste impacts, transportation access, major utilities, visual impacts, wastewater, water supply, surface water quality, groundwater quality, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, and wildlife refuges. The environmentai evaluation dici not reveal any critical finding that wauld preclude development af any of the altematives. It did reveal differences between the MSP development alternative, the , new airport alternative, and the no action alternative. Those differences are more substantive in the social/economic categories than in the natural environment categories. Below is a summary highlighting some of the findings. A matrix summarizing impacts on the alternatives follows on pages vi, vii and viii. More detail on any one or all of the impact categories is found in the appropriate section of the DEIS. • Natural Environmerrt — Impacts of the alternatives on the natural environment are relatively minor (air quality, water quality, wetlands, endangered and threatened species, archaeological resources, biotic communities, floodplains, parks and recreation areas, wild and scenic rivers, and wildlife refuges). Economic — The development cost of the new airpart alternative, including acquisition of property, construction of the ai�eld, terminal, on-site and support facilities and roads, is $4.7 billion. The development cost to expand MSP is $2.8 billion. MSP e�ansion would involve land acquisition, construction of a new north-south runway and west terminal, relocation on airport praperly of airport facilities to accommodate the new runway and terminal, and road improvements. The cost of the no action alternative is $20 million. Noise mitigation costs are $1 million for a new airport, and $13 million to expand MSP. All costs are calculated in 1995 dollars. The e�ansion of MSP would generate 92,000 jobs and $6.3 billion to the regional economy during construction, compared to 154,000 jobs and $10 billion by the new airport. These are .preliminary economic impacts; the full study shauld be completed in mid December 1995. • Famdand — If a new airport is built, more than 17,000 acres of farrnland would be lost in Dakota County (including over 4,000 acres due to induced develapment and relocation of displaced farm households). This is about eight percent of Dakota County farmland and would have a major impact on the farm economy of Dakota County. The total is less than one-tenth of one percent of existing state farmland. No farmland would be lost under the expand MSP and no action alternatives. • Noise — In terms of adverse noise impacts of DNL 65 or greater: e�anding MSP would expose 7,620 persons to these levels, compared to 175 for the new- airport, and 7,350 for the no action. In 1994, there were approximately 22,030 persons in the DNL 65 contour for MSP. The lower number of persons exposed by MSP in the future is attributable to the continued introduction of quiet aireraft. Dual Track Draft E1S iv • Social -- The number of residents and househoids that would be displaced under each of the �'" alternatives is: e�and MSP, 227 residents, 96 households; new airport, 787 residents, 229 households; and no action, 0 residents and hauseholds. The number of businesses and employees displaced would be: e�and MSP, 76 businesses, 2,920 employees; new airport, 147 businesses, 712 employees; no action, 0 businesses and emplayees. : • Transportaiion Access -- The percentage of the metro area population that would have no more than a 30-minute trip to the airport's main terminal during non-peak hours in 2020 under each of the options is as follows: e�and MSP, 80.2 percent; new airport, 17.8 percent; no action, 76.6 percent. The average iravel time during non-peak hours would be 22 minutes for MSP expansion, 41 minutes fior the New Airport and 24 minutes fior no action. The number of lane miles of highway improvements that would be required under each alternative is: e�and MSP 25; new airpart 116; no action 0. • Historic — The number of historic/architectural resources on or eligible for the National Register that would be demolished is e�and MSP, 1(the Original Wold-Chamberlain Terminal Historic District); new airport and no action, 0. The MAC is committed to providing the appropriate level of mitigation for significant adverse environmental impacts, as required by applicable environmental laws and regulations. Hearing and Approval Process Below is a schedule far the remaining activities of the environmental process of the Dual Track Airport Planning process. A federal final EIS will not be prepared until the Minnesota Legislature selects the preferred airport development altemative. Following the federal final EIS, FAA will issue its Record of Decision. Public Comment Period Public Hearings on Draft EIS MAC Adopts State Final EIS, and submits it to the MEO.B MEQB determination of State Final EIS Adequacy � MC/MAC Report to State Legislature Dec. 15, 1995 to Fe6. 13, 1996 January 17, 18, 1996 March 1996 May 1996 July 1996 Dua( Track Draft EIS v SUMMARY OF IMPACTS .............�.._.................................................._......-•---......---....................................,........................................................................................................................................... '• CRITERION � IMPACT OF ALTEf�VATIVE ............. :................................................................................................................:.........................................; ................................................................................................. � : . MSP € NEW AIRPORT NO ACTION .Air�Quality .........., ' ................. .. ............................•••...... ...............: ...... .................... ............................................. ........................................ .. .... ..y ... . ..... ....... . ........ ................ ..........j.........................................F..........................."" .....................j.................._.......................... 1. Number of receptor sites near criticai aff- = 0 0 0 airport roadway intersections over air quality ; : standards in 2020 ..2:.....�.-Number �of receptor �sites �on �airport�perimeter �� --••---.........o .................:.......................0.......................;...................0................. � over air.quality standards in 2020 � � 's � ..........._�...... ... ... . . . ...................... . ........:.........................................:...................................................:.......................... ................... 3. Total airport CO emissions in year 2020 6,280 7,201 7,047 .............�...�tons).......... _.. y ......... . ......................................... _......................................;....---•.................................;......................... ..............;.................................. ............ .. 4. . Total access traffic CO emissions in ear 10,200 13,300 10,500 2020 (tons) ` .............: ... � ...._.....................................y...................... . ............l.........................................':...................................................:.... ......................................... 5. Totai ai ort SOx emissions in ear 2020 163 146 162 ......._...::...�tons> ; : ' Archaeological.Resources .........................................................: ................................... ..........................................._ ........................................ . . ..,.._..... ... . .. ... ...... ...... ............. ........ ...�......................... ................�...................................•--.............i............................................. 6. Number of known archaeological sites � 2 1 0 potentialiy eligible for the National Register : . : that could be disturbed : ......_ ...:...............................................................................................................:........................................:..................................................:... � .......................................... � .&otic Corritiunities ; ; : �7. ... . Number �of_acres. of.wiidiife, habitat dis ��laced. ' ..,.....�.......360 . �.�.......�.. ...�.........6,865.....� ....... ............. ' 120.............. Bird-Aircraft Hazerds .....A ......... . ................................... ............................................. ................................... �8. � � Number �of ��monthly.:aircraft...operations...less..�............4,940...........i...�� ..............0..... .........�..............2�910............. , than 500 feet over areas where birds : __. cangre�ate :..............._....................---........... ' : ........ � _. ...............................s........................................'•...................................................._......._.................................... Economic ............. v...............................................................................................................;.......... ...............................: 9. � Total 'obs on ai ort : ............... ... .. ........... ......... . ........ .. ... ............ ...�... .. ................... .. _.-• ........:.......•--......�.....................rP.............•••--.................................................... :.... 16,040......... ...... 16,040 15,480 .............. ......... ...;... .............. .. . ........................ :.............. ....... ....................... 10. : Total annual direct and indirect wages ;$837 million : $837 million $808 million _ = generated by airport jobs ..............................................•....:... ' ......_. _ ......................................... .....................................:... ................................................:............................................. 11. Impact of construction Jobs : 92,000 154,000 0 Wages . $1.9 billion $3.3 billion 0 .__.......�..._ ..................................................•--.......--- Ec ic Ou ut .3 billi 0.0 bill 0 onom tp ; .$6 on. $1 ion • .................................... .................. ......:.-- ........ . .....' ......... ...........:... .......................................... 12. Estimated cost of alternative (millions of 1995 2,820 4 716 20 : dollars) € ; _ : _........_.w . ...........................................................•---.............................................:............---..............--•--...........................................................:.......................••-................... 13. Percentage of tax capacity lost by affected : 1.82 35.0 0 ..�municipalities/townships ;. (Total) .................................. '. ' ..... ........ ... ........................................:................................................ : Endangered and Threatened.S�ec�es........... '• ........................................ ......, .............. ......... ...... .............................;.........................................;...................................................;........................ .. . .................. 14. � Number of species on federal list of � 0 ; 0 : 0 endangered and threatened species that : ; would be,jeopardized. - � ........................................ ......................................................:....... .......................................:.............................. ..... .......:........................ :. ... ...... .................... 15. ; Number o� threatened or special concern : 1(forster's 1(loggerhead • 0 = s ecies in Minnesota that would be disturbed. � terN shrike) ................_. p........................................................................................................;.....---.................................;.. .......................---................... ............. . ...;... ............................. ..__ nerg� Sup�ly_and.Natural Resources : : : ..... ..................................................................:................... ..................... :...................................................:... ....... ................................... 16. Consumption of aircraft and vehicle fuel in 160 � 9 56 161 ear 2020 (millions of gallons er ear) � Dual Track Draft EIS vi SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ..............: ...............................................................................................................:........................................................................................................................................... � CRITERION = -�--.........� ........................................... .................................................................s....................---••---..........IMPACT OF ALTERNATIVE..................................... .............:................................................................... : MSP : NEVV AIRPORT ; NO ACTION ............................................:...................................................................................................... ..... .. ......... FarrNand . .............:............................................................................................................... :........................................ :.................................................. �............................................. 17. Acres of farmiand that wouid be lost. 0 17,000 (12,700-site, 2,800 4,300-induced/ relocation) .............�................................................................................................... ..... .............. . .............. ... .. .....;... .. .... ...:............ .........8 .......................:........................... ' oercent of existing Dakota Co. faRnland : 0 """""""" .............;...............................................................................................................;........................................ :.... '• .........P..ercent of existing State farmiand '• � .................< 0.1.................. ;..............._..... �.............:....... .............:.........:............. .........................................................................:........................................:...................................................:..........:...........�..................... 18. ' Impact on farm economy of. Dakota County � .............t........p......................_..................... Y ............................;..............None..............;...................Major ....... � None .... ... .......... .......:............................................. 19. Im act on farm econom af State of None Minimal None Minnesota : � Fioodplains ....--•....�.�_ . .....::................................................................... ..:.. ................................... ..:.. ............................................. ..:.. ........................................ ........ ... .... ...... ...........................................y .... ...................:.........................................:.. ..................:..... . . .. ................. . . . ;.... - ............................. ............ 20. Is there a potentiai to significanti increase : No Na {with Mitigation) No ewsting flaod fiow elevations in adjacent : rivers? .Historic/Archifiectural�Resources . .......:: ......:........_ _.._.... ............_.................... ............................................. ........................................ .. .. .......... . .. . .......... ........... ......... . ............. ....... ......._. ...; . .._ .....................................�...................................................i........................... .................. 21. : Number of historic/architectural properties/ : 1 0 0 districts on or eligible for National Register � � that would be demolished. ; .............:.. ........................................................... ............................... _.. _........:.... ..............._................... :... . ............. . ........ . ................ 22. : Number of individual properties and historic ; 5 ;�� 1 �� 4� ""�'� districts on or eligible for the National Register : _........;, that could be adversely affected.by.noise:.___ ; � . ......................•--............... ...;.............._ .........................: .............................................. Induced Socioeconomic (to be added) "' "" "" ........ ...................._......_...................._--- --....... ........... ..._._._.... ,......................... .M ............................................. { . .. 23. ; Number of households induced b 2020 "�' ""' . Y........._...........__....: _ .............,....................._.........._.......................................... ;.............3,400.. $,020 24. : Number of residents induced b 2020 . .....' ...................... . ..................:.:............. 3,400............. .............:................................._...................................... Y......................_............ :.......... 8$ 00 21 519 8 , .......c ......................::....................... �. . ....................... i._............: , 00 ............................. .,25.. � Number of ernployees_induced_by 2020.�_., s 4,500 ; 11,140 ! 4,500 ... ........................_........_ ..,.........................................,............................................... Land Use . , .................................................. .............:........................................................................................._........_..........:........................................ €..................................................:.............:............................... 26. Number of municipalities requiring changes in . 5 13 0 :. existin�.or.planned. land use. : ; ............... . .... ...........�............._.....__-__...;................._..................... ;...................................................;............. ................................ Noise . . ........................................_..............................�.............................._._._..............;.. .......................................: ........................... ..... . ...............:..:.......................... ......._.......... 27. ; Number of persons residing in the year 2005 ; 7,620 175 7,350 : DNL 65 + noise contour. � � � _........... t ......................................................................................... _ _............. .....:.........................................:...................................................:.. .................. � ...................... .; Number of persons residing in the year 2005 ; 22,030 560 27 690 � DNL 60 .65 noise contaur. � .............t........ ....... . .... ....... ... ............................y._................. ..... .. � �.; .. . :... ... ...:.. ....................:.................................. . ................:....................................... ...... 9. ; Number of persons residing in the ea� 2005 ; 121 000 2,300 106,000 .............:...��.465 noise contour. _ : .............................................................................. :.... .................................... �.......:..........................................:....................................... 30. Number of. noise-sensitive land uses with 1 p 2 "" : noise greater than FAA Guidelines. ': � • • .............. .......................................................................................................... :........................:............... :.................................................. :............................................. Section 4(f) Paric and Recreation �ands : � .............................................................................................................................. �.. ....................................... � ............................:..:................... � .................:...... .. . .................. 31. ; Number of Section 4(fl park and recreation : 1 p p : lands displaced_ .............¢...................... ................................................................;......................... ................:..................................................��--........................................... 32. Number of Section 4(f) park and recreation ; 0 0 A ' lands. adversely, affected _by, noise: . : � � � ` .............A.... ... � ........................................E...................................................j............................................. ..SOC18� : . : ; : ...............................................................................:....................................... :.....................................:.. :.................................................. :.................:........................... . 33. : Number of residents that could be displaced. ' 227 787 � ........:................................................................................................................�.........................................ti..................................:..............:.�..................... 0..................... 34. Number of households that could be • 96 . 273 0 dis laced. � Dual Track Draft EIS vii C-. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS .............. ..................................................................................................................................................................... . ... ... . . ... . ... .. ....................................................... � CRITERION - IMPACT�OF ALTERNATIVE ............:....................•---......._............... ........................................................................ ................................................................. ............ :................................................................................................................:.. ........................ .. ... ... ................ .... MSP ; NEW AIRPORT :' � NO ACTION . ..............:.................................................................................... . ........ 35. ; Estimated number of businesses and •; ; employees displaced. ; � ..............:. ....................................................................................................;............... ....... ............ . .. .. ...:... .................147 ....................;.... ..................... .................... '• Businesses ' 76 : p ..............................................................................................................................:........ : .............................................................. . .. .......................................... 4 .. .................. ' Em lo ees ; 2 920 ' 712 ; .............:�......................................................................... : ................ . p....Y .........,................ c.......................;...................................................,.. Surface Water Quality ; ; : ........................................... .............:................................... ........................................................................:........................................:...............................:...................:............................................. 36. ; Stormwater discharge as percentage of : 18 10 (includes 17 rpceiving v�rater's av�ilable low flow {7Q14? �A�astewater 80D/COD.assimilative.capacity. _ Treatment) .............:........ ...........................:............. Groundwa�ter .......... ........................................ ......................... ...... ......... ......... ........ ........ ........ , . ..................................... s................ ................ .. . ......... :........................ . .. .................. 37. : Sensitivity of affected significant aquifer : Low to : High to Very High ; L.ow to Moderate lPrairie du Chien/Jordan) to potential Moderate. contamination. .............:...... ........................................................................................ _......... . .. ....:............................................................................................ :... .............. _ ......................... 38. '• E�astence of drinking water wells 's No Yes No 's downgradient from site. � ............. •.. . .... . . .......................................................s...................................... Trans�ortafion.Access • ...................................................... . ................................. ............... .................. ...............................................................................;.........................................;...................................................;.. ........................................... .; Year 2020 average travel time to terminal for : ; Metro Area residents {minutes) � ....... _...._ .......................................................•-.....off:peak hours..;................22...............;.....................41....................;..........---......24:................ ... ...... . .... . . .................. :.........................................:... : PM..p..eak hour..�.. 26 ...................46................... .............. ............ .............{........«.»"""........................................................... ................ """...........�.. ' '.... ....e.�....... .... : L� 40. : Percentage of Metro Area population within = .................... ..........................'............................................. 30-minute travel time to main terrninal in 2020. : ; : . ..�......r........_..........._ ..................................................off-peak hours..�..............$0.2.............�..................17.8..................�................76.6............. ._... ......... .... ................ PM,peak hour ' ............67:4..............,...................13:6................. ..,................62 :5............. .............:......._ ....... .................. ....... ..... .... .. ......:... ...;... ..._ .. . ........ 41. Percentage of Metro Area population within 45-minute travel time to main terminal in � 2020. .� .... ....................................•-.�............................--�off-peak�hours .....:.....97.9............ ................64.5............... .............96.9............. ..rt .. ....... . ......... .... .............. .PM.peak�hour •�..............94:6..............ti................ �.52.0........... . ..i.............. �92 :g'............ ..........- -•.... ...... .................. ....... ...... .... ----.....;.. . ...;... .. .. ....................:................. . ................ 42. Percentage of Metro Area population within 60-minute travel time to main terminal in ; 2020 ' : : ..........t ............................................................._........... off_peak hours .'............. -100.............;...................94.3....--•----........;.....:........ -99.9............. ... ..;... . ..... .......... ...:........................................ :.................... .. .. .. � •' PM peak_hour..� ...............99:8..----.........>....................83;7 . ............ .............�99;6�............. .............:...........................................................•--.............. . : ................. .............. ........ . .. ...�... . ...... 43 Number of lane-miles of off-site highway 25 116 0 improvements required (e.g., adding 2 lanes :. for 3 miles is 6 lane-miles} � � .............�. ...........................................................................-•-••-•---................ ;........................................ :.........................---..................... .:......................................_..... Wetiands � ................................................................................................................:.............: ._44. : Number of acres of wetlands affected. :.............. 34.1............ ..................-5.9.................. ................1.5................ ...;... ...;.-- ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Wildlife Refuges : ............................................................•---..............................................................�.........................................i...................................................�............................................. 45. Number of monthly overflights less than 5,620 0 0 : 2,000 feet .............�............................................................-•-.................................................;.. 46. � Number of humar� use areas within DNL 65- :.................1...................;................_................................,;............................................. 0 0 70 noise contour. � � - Qual Track Draft EIS viii r . , � New Airport . J�_ Entrance � �� :New _1Nest � . � . .. - . . ��_:.Termina! :..,. . - . . . . :�... - �"�: � ' . . . - . . _ - .� s; _ ��..� ."� ' •. •. . ,� . , . .. : . . •.� .; ,a � • � iy : , ...�, . ....�.,��.. . . - �.. . - .Y , .,:., :.'.: . � - �.. ,.. .... . . @� . " . . . � �-" - ., . .-:.: t: . ,�� • . c. : � . . _::. • • � - Ter,�i .a -� . . � •.�,. �� . . t �' . � � . ••, � _ a/ �� =: ; �- i � . - ��.` . . � • � - .��:o . ,� .:.. �- ,X . . � , � � • �' � � � . . , .� : . , � � �� . .. . . .. . ... . . � . . . . - ,. .. . „ :� ,..; e .. r�i .,'`- � . ) �: y . °'� �. '♦ ..• ::�� . � :� ::i � �.,�� e.��'`��° . � �-.d ��o� '�� G� . .. cs� : �„ - :. . . C� . `.�► : . . _....:.. , :� : � ' . ....... . . ........ . ; .. _ - :.. . : "•...• . .■ . : :.. s �� ...: Future � °s . .. � . ' �'-.• �� Aircraft .::v . . - ,i ::: Maint. t7 �o '9�,� °�`e � . dr�'i� - . \� g. - . � : �r' . . o ,000 2ooa • SCAIE IN FEET - MSP Aiternative .. .� � .. � � , . i .. ..' � ,,.. . � . . . �. � � ' '.�. .. . � , .�. . . .... . � � � . .... . .. . . � . . ... . . . .. ,.. . . . . . . . ' ('� ' ' . � � � � � . . '.,. . .. . � . . ' ..v ..- .i .. .. .. ' . � .. . � N111..1'C AAY : ,I-,.-�- -�----- — - :.:.._ _ ... � .., .. _ . : .. .�.:.-.. .. . . _ . � � _ ; :: .. �.. �- - � : � - t� � ' 62 � y �� .. - . .. -�� - - O � - � _ ' fi _ , r�L . - �:: 47 : �:' . : . . . ,,. ; r�P�Ol15 5,i��yT. �1 _� � A -% � f A� � 1 1 �� .� .. 61 . N - o z000 . a000 • �- . SCAI.E IN.fEET � a .� . �1..� .� �' � � � c New Airport Alternative �`��RPORZ� - � (� ct_vi • � ) _ o iaQo zaoo. . �— . ' � SCAIE IN FEET . I ____ _ a��e�us s,�,tir Z � � 7f : : . . . . < . ' �."_�� rni' Z a� � �� ^ � � � / !�j � � Or + 'N a..--- <5 � r.rn � �a�� ,,...,.,�;.,,, �.,r, ,�. � � � �� ' � �� ' � i I ' I I I� � � �' ' The Dual Track Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) — documenting the environmental consequences of MSP (Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport) Deve�opment, a New Airport and a No Action altemative — will be available for public and agency review and commenc on Dec. 4. The DEIS is being published jointly by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and the Federal Aviadon � �Administration (FAA), in cooperation with the Minnesota Department of Tru►sportation and the Federal Highway Administration. The FAA selected the consulting firm, CH2M Hill, to assist with FAA input and review of the DEIS. ' According to Nigel Finney, MAC Deputy Executive Director, Planning and Environment, the document compares the three alternatives in 32 environmental and socioeconomic categories, including air and water qua(ity, azchaeological and historic/cultural impacts, noise, surFace transportation, social impacts, biotic communities, and natura.l resource impacts. Key findings in the DEIS include: • None of the alternatives would jeopardize a planc or animal on che federa( endangered species list. • In terms of adverse noise impacts of DNL (day-night level) 65 or greater, expand- ing MSP would expose 7,600 people to these levels, compared to 175 for the New Airport, and 7,350 for the No Action alternative. • Approximately 910 residents would be displaced by the New Airport; MSP development would displace about 230; and the No Action alternative would not displace anyone. • Some 34 acres of wecland would be affected by the MSP alternative; six acros would be affected by the New Airport; and no acres would be affected by No Action. Two public hearings are scheduled for che week of Jan. 15,1996, to receive public and agency commencs on the Draft EIS. Written commenrs can be submitted to MAC until Feb. 6. Both the MAC and the FAA will then produce separate Final Environmental Impact Statements, incorporating appropriate comments. ................................................................................................................................................................................. TECHNICAL REPORT READY IN JANUARY A Technical Repott on Dual Track alternatives is being prepazed by the Metropolitan Airports Commission and will be available in January 1996. The report evaluates and compares ( �perational, ground access, air service, -'f nancial feasibility, and economic and environmental impacts of che Minneapolis- St. Paul Intemational Airpon (MSP) and New Airport alcernatives. Operational issues include runway capacity and de)ay, taxiway efficiency, airspace efficiency, aviation facility needs, Continued on page 2 - �' 1 � 1 "� Several informational meetings will be held in December and January prior to the public hearings on the Draft Environmental.Impaa Statement. The locatiqri, date and time of these informational sessions is as follows: • Mendota Heights City Hall Dec.19, 7:30 p.m. • Bloomington City Hall Dec. 20, 7 p.m. • Hastings City Hall Jan. 2, 7 p.m. • Prescott Jan. 3, 8 p.m. • Richfield City Hall Jan. 8, 6:30 p.m. • St. Paul Jan. 9, 7 p.m. . • surnsville City xatl Jan. 10, 7 p.m. • Note — A meeting was held in Eagan on Nov 15. � __ _ . _ _.. � C � � � � � � ( � � � �. � � � A number of studies and analyses are being completed as parc of the Dual Track Technical Report and the Draft , � invironmental Impact Statement. Hete is the status and a brlef summary of these studies: • Econamic 1 mpact Anulysis — MAC selected Economic Research Associates of Chicago; and Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban V of Minneapolis to provide economic and community development analysis. The firms have developed five case studies on airport development, and aze addressing impaccs on local communities, the region, Minnesota and adjacent states. The analysis will be completed in December. • Financial Analysis — John F. Brown Co. of Cincinnati is preparing a 6nance plan for the costs to expand MSP or to build a new aitport. The study will cover allocation and recovery of MAC's costs from airport system users; amortization of major improvements at MSP before a transfer of operations; financing methods, and sources ofpublic and private funds. The report is due in December. • Site Preservation Study — Compleced in October, this study exarnines che costs, financial impacts and social impacts of using site pteservation to maintain a viable site for a potential airport. • Supplemental Ais�iort Study — The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDot) is studying the pocential for adding capacity at MSP by moving some airpon functions to other airporrs. Although che study will be completed in December, preliminary findings show that not enough activity could be divetted to avoid building a new runway and terminal at MSP. • Ground Access Study — MnDOT, working with a consultant, MAC, Metropolitan Council, Dakota Gounty and WisDOT, completed an analysis of roadway needs for MSP development and for a new airport. This information covers the highway improvements required in Minnesota, and identifies impacts of a new airport on Wisconsin roads. � Remote Runu�ay Study — This study was completed in July by Turner, Collie & Bracien Inc. and analyzed sepatating MSP airside and landside facilities, with the existing Lindbergh Terminal linked to an airfield located some distance away. The concept was eliminated from further consideration by the MAC due to cost, adverse environmental impacts, and operational inefficiencies. ........................................................................................:..:.....................................................................................................................................................:.:.:.................::..... Continued from puge 1 passenger convenience and expansion potential.' "Ground access, a key cliffeience between MSP and the New Airport �ltematives, lists needed highway � nprovements, compazes grouad access travel times and identifies other highway considerations," said Nigel Finney, MAC Depury Executive Director, Planning and Environment. Financial considerations in the report anclude faciliry development costs, airport revenues and operating costs, user costs and funding sources. Economic unpacts, including ittduced development associatecl with both alternatives, will also be quantified. Environmental im�, which are detailed in the'DEIS, WiII.I� Snmmari>� in the Technicat Report. .; ': Dual Trrrck Update,�s publisbed by tbe Metmiiolitan Aitriorts Commissian to prnvide info►ynation on tbe Dual Traek Asrport Planning Pmcess. Brocbures about tbe MSP Long Ternt Compt�ebensive Plan and tbe New Airport Com�irebensive Plan are available. _Por additioiral information, please callJenn Unrub at726-8189. � ] �� h ..... .... .. . . '... . ...... . .,.._ .._. . .. . . . .... . . .. . . . .... ./} �.. . ..._.... �l • _ �