The URL can be used to link to this page

06-11-1997 ARC PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS � � � AIRPORT R�L�TIOt�S COMMISSION AGENDA June 11, 1997 - 7 p.m. - Large Conference Room 1. Call to Order - 7 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of May 14, 1997 Meeting Minutes. 4. Unfinished and New Business: a. Update Airport Action Plan b. Discussion of MASAC Vote on Noise Abatement Departure Prafiles c. Discussion of NWA Fleet Plans 5. Updates a. Roger's Lake Boundary Block Request b. FAA Letter of Response to Eagan on Non-Simultaneous Departures c. Real Estate Market and Airport Noise d. MASAC Action on Quorum Voting 7. Acknowledge Receipt of Various Reports/Correspondence: a. MASAC Agenda for May 27, 1997 and April 22, 1997 Minutes b. MASAC's Technical Advisor's Report for April 1997 c. MASAC's Monthly Complaint Summary, for April 1997 d. MASAC's Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis for April 1997 e. NDCARC Agenda for May 20, 1997 and Minutes for April 15, 1997 f. Airport Noise Report for May 5, 1997 and May 19, 1997 g. South Metro Airport Action Council (SMAAC) Spring Membership Agenda h. Star Tribune Article of June 4, 1997 - �onger Runways - 4/22 & 1 1 R I. Eagan ARC Agenda for June 10, 1997 S. Other Comments or Concerns. 9. Adjourn. Auxiliary aids for disabled persons are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City � Administration at 452-1850 with requests CITY OF IVIENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINIVESOTA AIRPORT RELATIONS C(?MMISSION MINUTES MAY 14, 1997 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on Wednesday, May 14, 1997 in the City Hall Large Conference Room, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. The following members were present: Beaty, Fitzer, Stein, Gross, Des Roches and May. Commissioner Leuman was excused. Also present were City Administrator Kevin Batchelder and Senior Secretary Kim Blaeser. Also in attendance was Councilmember Jill Smith. INTRODUCTION OF NEW COMMISSIONER Chair Beaty welcomed new Airport Relations Commissioner George May. Administrator Batchelder informed the Commission that he intends to meet with new Commissioners Des Roches and May to discuss current topics presently being discussed by the Commission and provide an orientation. Chair Beaty introduced Councilmember Smith to the Commission. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Fitzer moved approval of the April 9, 1997 Minutes. Commissioner Stein seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 DISCUSSION OF NOISE ABATEIVIENT DEPARTURE PROFiLES Administrator Batchelder informed the Commission that the MAC has briefed the MASAC Operations Committee and MASAC about their proposal to implement the Close-In departure procedure for all departures off the Minneapolis end of the parallel runways (29L and 29R). He stated that the MAC staff is recommending that the Distant departure procedure be continued for all departures over the Eagan/Mendota Heighfis corridor. �, J A/RPORT RELATIONS COMM/SS/ON M/NUTES - MAY 14, 1997 1 Administrator Batchelder reviewed Parcel Count information for each community by Distant and Close In departure procedures. He explained that this analysis is based on 1994 data on noise and airport operations and 1996 population figures from the Dakota County GIS system. He explained that this analysis assumes that MSP will be using two departure procedures and that it will be up to the local airport operator to decide which departure procedure will be used. He stated that the FAA and Airlines Pilots Association (ALPA) have taken the position that they will not accept different procedures off the same ends of the parallel runways. In response to a question from Commissioner May, Administrator Batchelder stated that there is no affect on the operations when different departure procedures are used at different ends of the runway. He explained that the FAA and ALPA have taken the position that the same departure procedure will be used off of the parallel runways in each direction. He explained that according to the model analysis of DNL contours, the Close In departure procedure will benefit Mendota Heights. He stated that according to the Parcel Count information, Mendota Heights would have 101 fewer homes in the �DN 65 noise contour with a change to the Close In departure procedure. He explained that the Distant departure procedure favors the Cities of Inver Grove Heights and Eagan. Councilmember Smith inquired how changes in decibels are measured. �' Commissioner Gross arrived at 7:14 p.m. Administrator Batchelder stated that the shift from 65 decibels to 68 decibels is greater than the shift from 52 decibels to 55 decibels because of the logarithmic scale. Batchelder stated that the Close In departure procedure will benefit DNL contours (in Mendota Heights) 75, 70 and 65. He explained that the DNL 60 contour, homes near Huber Drive and Delaware Avenue, have a slight benefit from the Distant departure procedure. He stated he is unaware at which point between the DN� 65 and DNL 60, the benefit switches from the Close In to the Distant departure, and how many homes this involves. Chair Beaty stated that he would like a test of the different departure procedures before a final decision is made. He stated that he inquired with Mr. Foggia, who stated that the testing procedure would take too long. Commissioner Fitzer suggested that a comparison be completed between last June and this coming June. Councilmember Smith stated that the current scientific information is not in accordance with what people are A/RPORT RELAT/ONS COMM/SS/ON M/NUTES - MAY 74, 1997 2 C, ; actually experiencing. Commissioner Fitzer stated that the departure procedure used leaving Europe is the Close In departure procedure. He stated that population does not dictate what procedure is used. He stated that he would like to see a test conducted at MSP. He stated that the results may be better than what the MAC is currently proposing. Administrator Batchelder explained the following procedures: The Close In Procedure: At 800 to 1000 feet above field elevation (AFE) thrust cutback is initiated. At 3000 feet (afe) the flaps are retracted and normal climb is resumed. This procedure helps reduce noise close in by reducing the thrust at the beginning of the climb. The Distant Procedure: At 800 to 1000 feet (afe), flaps are slowly retracted and a little while later thrust is reduced, but not as much as with the close- in procedure. At 3000 feet (afe) normal climb is resumed. This procedure helps reduce noise to distant communities by gaining more altitude close to the airport and combining reduced thrust and altitude for noise reduction. Commissioner Des Roches inquired if fuel consumption is a major factor in determining which departure procedure is used. Batchelder responded that � � he has been told no. He stated that NW Airlines has indicated that the Distant procedure is used more frequently by their pilots. In response to a question from Councilmember Smith, Commissioner Fitzer stated that the aircraft's flap setting dictates the type of procedure used. He explained that speed of the aircraft is predicated on the gross weight of the plane along with other issues such as temperature. He stated that the aircraft can climb to 3,000 feet quicker and faster with the Close In departure procedure. Chair Beaty stated that he is concerned that the aircraft will accelerate to 3,000 feet over Mendota Heights neighborhoods. Commissioner Fitzer explained that the same power setting is used for each departure procedure and that the Close In procedure means that the aircraft will be accelerating over Inver Grove Heights and not Mendota Heights. Batchelder explained that the MAC is of the opinion that the Close In procedure should be used over Minneapolis because of the amount of homes impacted by air noise and that the MAC is of the opinion that the Distance procedure is best used over Mendota Heights and Eagan because ( ) A/RPORT RELATIONS COMM/SS/ON M/NUTES - MAY 74, 1997 3 their are not as many homes affected by air noise as in Minneapolis. Councilmember Smith stated that this will be a short term benefit according � to the computer models because the maximum benefit is three decibels. Chair Beaty stated that the Commission needs to make a recommendation on the type of procedure Mendota Heights should pursue. He noted that the Mayor favors the Close In departure procedure. Administrator Batchelder stated that the Mayor is of the opinion that• this departure procedure be in place prior to the Runway 11 R reconstruction. He noted that a test of procedures was requested last year, and that it was not pursued. Commissioner May suggested that the City consider requesting an abbreviated test in which this information could be "plugged" into the computers which would give a more accurate accounting of what is really happening with the air noise in all of the communities. Councilmember Smith concurred and stated that there are mobile ANOMS units available. Commissioner Des Roches inquired if data is available ta research what aircraft used a specific departure procedure. She stated that this information could be helpful in reaching a more educated recomme �on �� by the MAC. Commissioner Fitzer concurred and stated that annuns/�tific comparison may prove to be very helpful. He stated that if the Close In � procedure is implemented over Minneapolis, why not test the procedure � over both Minneapolis and Eagan/Mendota Heights. He suggested that a three or six month testing period should be considered and that ANOMS data should be used. Councilmember Smith concurred and stated that there is a big difference between the amount of households (101 households) who would benefit with the Close In departure procedure over the Distant departure procedure (11 households). Smith pointed out that these numbers include only households and not residents living in apartments (Lexington Heights Apartments) and schools. She stated there are more individuals who are impacted by air noise than just households. Councilmember Smith stated that the City Council needs to consider the political nature of our stance. She stated that except Minneapolis, Mendota Heights experiences more air noise than any other community. She stated that the Distant departure procedure discounts loudest noise in our community. Administrator Batchelder stated that the underlying assumption is that MAC operates in reducing noise in the most heavily impacted areas first then worry about other communities who are further away from the MSP. He stated that there are 111 homes who could benefit from the Close In departure procedure with only 11 homes in Eagan that would not benefit. Councilmember Smith stated that while the Close In departure procedure A/RPORT RELAT/ONS CC?MM/SS/ON M/NUTES - MAY 14, 1997 4 �, , benefits the City of Mendota Heights, it will not benefit other communities with the Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Commission (NDCARC). It was noted that the Cities of Eagan and Inver Grove Heights were in favor of the Close In departure procedure until the Parcel Count data information was released. Chair Beaty inquired if the departure procedures could be runway specific. Batchelder stated that the FAA and ALPA have taken the position that they will not accept different procedures off the same ends of the parallel runways. Councilmember Smith stated that runway specific departure procedures may be complicated due to different air born scenarios. Commissioner Des Roches suggested that the City consider getting other communities involved in pursuing a test of departure procedures. She stated that if everyone had better data, then we all would have bette information to make a better decision. She stated that factual dataC��nore accurate than computer modeling data. �,�?;�4��. Administrator Batchelder stated that the NDCARC will meet on May 20 and that this topic could be discussed at that time. Chair Beaty moved to recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution ' which formally requests a change in the departure procedures for the ( ) - Mendota Heights Eagan corridor. He stated that the resolution should include the following information: 1. That the MAC has established the practice of giving prime consideration to those areas most heavily impacted by air noise; and 2. That the MAC analysis demonstrates that 101 households and school properties within Mendota Heights would experience a reduction in noise levels within the DNL 65 noise contour if the current Distant departure procedure was switched to a Close In departure procedure; and 3. That a test period of Close-In departure procedure over the Mendota Heights/Eagan corridor would provide data to the ANOMS that could determine the real benefit of a Close-In departure procedure for noise mitigation purposes. � l A/RPORT RELAT/ONS COMMISS/ON M/NUTES - MAY 14, T 997 5 Commissioner Fitzer seconded the motion. (. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Stein stated that he would like to see the testing process begin immediately since the summer months are the most difficult time for Mendota Heights ne'ighborhoods and the fact that NW, Airlines may uphold Runway 11 R reconstruction in 1998. Councilmember Smith reminded the Commission that the MASAC is not the "end of the line". Administrator Batchelder stated that after MASAC reviews the Ci�ty's request the P&E Committee and the full MAC board will review the request. Councilmember Srnith stated that the MAC may not look favorably on our request. She stated that NW Airlines favors the Distant procedure and that she is sure that other carriers will follow suit with NWA. She stated that she has serious reservations that this request will make it to the full MAC. She stated that it is very important that the City be put on record with our concerns and suggestions as soon as possible. Chair Beaty suggested that the NDCARC support our request because it will be hard for the MASAC to not listen to more than one City. Commissioner May inquired about the legislature. He wondered if it is really - necessary to have the support of other communities when the City should � have support from its own legislators. Councilmember Smith stated that the City has no direct power to the MAC. She stated that the procedures at MSP are regulated by the FAA. She stated that the Governor appoints MAC representatives and that Mendota Heights does not have MAC representation. She explained that the MASAC was created many years ago to discuss noise related topics and to take the pressure off of the MAC to discuss these issues. She stated our State legislators have very little power over MAC and FAA regulations. She stated that the City of Mendota Heights does not advise directly to the MAC but to the P&E Committee which advises the MAC. She stated that the City has a very small "say" at the MASAC level. Smith stated that the City should continue to put political pressure on MAC and to keep pursuing our State legislators. She stated that the City could influence the press and court system. Commissioner May stated that you do get attention through the court system. He inquired if there is a more direct way to get our concerns through to the MAC. Commissioner Fitzer stated that using the court system has been discussed in the past and that cost is a real concern. He stated that another concern is that one half of the City (north of Highway 110) does not believe that A/RPORT RELAT/ONS COMM/SS/ON M/NUTES - MAY 14, 1997 6 � , there is a real air noise concern or that tax dollars should be used to pursue litigation. Councilmember Smith stated that the City should pursue noise mitigation through the established channels and that the City should continue to be on record stating our air noise concerns. Chair Beaty stated that he believes the City should continue to pursue the political end of air noise beginning with the Governor's office. He stated that he believes the MAC should be elected representatives and not appointed representatives. He stated the City of Mendota Heights needs MAC representation. Commissioner May stated that the City should use Representative Commers and Senator Wiener. Councilmember Smith stated that Senator Wiener has supported the City in the past, in particular, supporting the Third Parallel Runway - Third Party contract. Chair Beaty reminded the Commission that Representative Commers and Senator Wiener also represent Eagan. Commissioner Gross stated that even if someone from Eagan is on the MAC board, it would be better than the current Apple Valley representative. Chair Beaty stated that the City has one vote on MASAC. Councilmember Smith stated that Minneapolis has 4 votes, St. Paul has 3 votes and Burnsville has 1 vote. It was noted that St. Louis Park has 1 vote. Commissioner Des Roches inquired if adding additional representative to MASAC requires new legislation. Chair Beaty stated no, that MASAC has their own by-laws. He stated that the MASAC by-laws requires equal representation between communities and commercial. Administrator Batchelder stated that on April 22, the MASAC Executive Committee discussed adding Sunfish �ake as a voting member on the MASAC. It was also discussed that there are several issues that are negatively plaguing the MASAC such as sending agenda info�mation out too late to members and the actual structure of MASAC. Batchelder stated that the NDCARC will be discussing these issues at their next meeting in May. He stated that other communities are frustrated with the MASAC. The Commission concurred that it does not make sense to have St. Louis Park as a voting member on the MASAC when MSP operations do not directly impact that City. Batchelder stated that the MASAC is considering changing its quorum requirements from seven to four. Councilmember Smith stated she is opposed to this change. She stated how can there be a quorum with less than 50 percent of its membership present. Commissioner Des Roches stated that attendance may be hampered because information is being sent out too late to its members. Councilmember Smith stated there are ( J AIRPORT RELATIONS COMM/SS/ON MINUTES - MAY 14, 1997 7 currently 32 members on the MASAC. Commissioner Gross suggested that the quorum be changed to 17 and that it not matter who is in attendance. � Maybe there will be more of an incentive to attend the meetings if the quorum expectation is higher. Councilmember Smith concurred. Councilmember Smith announced that SMAAC will be meeting on Thursday, May 22 at 7:30 p.m. Chair Beaty inquired about the SMAAC newsletter and stated that the City has not received one in quite a while. Chair Beaty thanked Councilmember Smith for attending the meeting. Councilmember Smith was excused at 8:00 p.m. DISCUSS ARTICLE TOPICS FOR MAY HEIGHTS HIGHLITES The Commission discussed topics to include in the May Heights Highlites. The Commission was of the consensus to include articles on cancellation of runway reconstruction, non-simultaneous crossing pattern, third parallel runway contract, new commissioners and action plan updates. The Commission felt it important to inform the community about their work on the non-simultaneous crossing procedures and that fact that it was quite an accomplishment after working on it for three years. The Commission felt it . necessary to inform the community that the action plan will be updated and �' that the public is invited to attend an August City Council meeting for further information on the action plan. REV9EW CITY COUNCIL TARGET ISSUES ON AIFiPORT NOISE Administrator Batchelder informed the Commission that the City Council continue to consider air noise as a high priority issue. Chair Beaty suggested that this information be included in the Heights Highlites newsletter. Batchelder informed the Commission that the Council is of the opinion that the Commission has made significant progress throughout the past three years. He stated the Council is anxious to receive an update on the Action Plan. Chair Beaty directed staff to include the Action Plan on the June agenda. Chair Beaty suggested that an article on the narth/south runway reconstruction project should be included in the newsletter. He stated that figures depicting runway use percentages should be included. The Commission continued discussion regarding appointments to the MAC. AIRPORT RELAT/ONS COMM/SS/ON M/NUTES - MAY 14, 1997 8 � Commissioner Gross suggested that the City politically pursue two � appointments on the MAC board. Chair Beaty stated that this would require a significant change to the MAC that would include the passing of a Bill in the House and Senate. He stated that Districts would need to be formed. He stated that the City should consider studying who should co-author such a Bill. Chair Beaty suggested that this topic be discussed by the NDCARC. MISCELLANEOUS Commissioner Gross moved to recommend that the Airport Relations Commission meetings adjourn promptly at 9:00 p.m. Commissioner Fitzer seconded the motion. Chair Beaty stated that he would like to work towards adjourning their meetings by 9:00 p.m. and that he disagrees in making a 9:00 p.m. adjournment time mandatory. Commissioner May stated he agrees with the motion in that a 9:00 p.m. adjournment time may give the Commission an opportunity to discuss items on the agenda in a more efficient manner. VOTE ON THE MOTION: AYES: 3, FITZER, GROSS, MAY NAYS: 3, BEATY, STEIN, DES ROCHES MOTION FAILS UPDATE OIV ROGER'S I.AKE BOUNDARY BLOCK REQUEST Administrator Batchelder informed the Commission that he had revised his request to add three more homes to the Part 150 Sound Insulation Program. He explained that he had spoken with Mr. Steve Vecchi regarding the City's recent letter requesting that four homes on Swan Drive be added to the Part 150 pragram. Mr. Vecchi had informed the City.that the three homes west of Swan Drive should also be included. Batchelder stated that he has not yet heard from Mr. Vecchi's office confirming the additional homes in the sound insulation program. � � A/RPORT RELAT/ONS COMM/SS/ON M/NUTES - MAY 14, 1997 9 UPDATE ON FAA TOWER DEDICATIOIV ��. Administrator Batchelder informed the Commission that Mayor Mertensotto and himself had attended the recent tower dedication ceremony. The Commission directed staff to pursue dates for the Commission to tour the new tower. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF VARIOUS REPORTS/CORRESPONDENCE The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC Agenda for April 22, 1997 and March 25, 1997 Minutes. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC's Technical Advisor's Report for March 1997. Chair Beaty noted a low percentage of Mendota Heights complaints in the month of March. He noted that Runway 4-22 has been used more, especially during night time hours. Commissioner Des Roches stated that she would like to discuss interpretation of these reports during her orientation meeting. Commissioner Gross noted that 53.8 percent of aircraft operations were � Stage III and 46.2 percent of aircraft operations were Stage I1. He stated �" that NW is using more Stage III aircraft but that other carriers must still be using Stage II aircraft at MSP. The Commission acknowledge receipt of MASAC's Monthly Complaint Summary for March 1997. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC's Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis for March 1997. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC Operations Committee Minutes for April 7, 1997. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the NDCARC Minutes for April 15, 1997. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the Airport Noise Report. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the Northwest Airlines Stage III Compliance Report - April 22, 1997. A/RPORT RELAT/ONS COMM/SS/ON MINUTES - MAY 14, 1997 10 `, The Commission acknowiedged receipt of the Eagan ARC Agenda for May 15, 1997. MISCELLANEOUS Commissioner Stein inquired if the Commission is interested in having an instructor from Inver Hills Community College attend an upcoming Airport Relations Commission meeting to discuss private/comr�ercial aviation forecasts and the possibility of the airport relocating. Chair Beaty suggested that the speaker attend the June Airport Relations Commission meeting. Administrator Batchelder informed the Commission that the annual NOISE conference is being hosted by the City of Eagan in July. �� .L►i__� There being no further business, the Airport Relations Commission adjourned its meeting at 9:05 p.m. RespectFully submitted, Kimberlee K. Blaeser Senior Secretary � � A/RPORT RELATIONS COMM/SS/ON M/NUTES - MAY 74, 9997 11 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS June 9, 1997 To: Airport Relations Commission From: Kevin Batchelder, City Administrator Subject: Airport Noise Plan of Action DISCUSSION The Commission has requested that the Mendota Heights Air Noise Plan of Action be placed on the June agenda for review and discussion. The Air Noise Plan of Action is intended to serve as a guide and a goals statement to direct our actions, as it relates to airport operations and air noise in the community. The Commission stated their intent would be to present an updated Air Noise Plan of Action to the City Council in August. Attached is a copy of the current Air Noise Plan of Action. Attached with the Air .. Noise Plan of Action is the list entitled, Topics of Interest - Updated and Prioritized, July 10, 1996. The Commission should review the Topics of Interest list and the Action Plan and suggest changes to reflect completion of tasks, new issues and priorities. The Commission will have an opportunity to review and update the Action Plan at the June, July and August meetings be%re it is presented to City Council. � ' i 1' 1 Consider the Air Noise Plan of Action and the Topic of Interest list and provide direction to staff. Attachment: Airport Noise Mitigation Position Statement from June 26, 1996 � j (��,�' 1. '' 2. (,� � MINNEAPOLISIST. PAUL iNTERNATIONAL AIRPORT TOPICS OF INTEREST Updated and Prioritized July 10,1996 Non-Simultaneous Departure Procedures. �� - � �^-� � �`�`�~"`'� `� Global Positioning Satellite Technology � �'�0� 3. Prevention of Third Paralle! Runway � , 4.� Nighttime Restrictions on Aircraft Operations. �� ' � ��,� d�'� � �-, ��t�- `� 5. � ��. ��v �.z�.v Noise Measurement Issues • a. Usefulness of Ldn 65 Contour 5�`° b. Expansion of MAC Aircraft Noise Operations Monitoring System (ANOMS). Equifiy of Current Runway Use Syste :��;� Noise Abatement Departure Profiles. %� � ,, 8. MSP Miti ation Com �ttee. ,�� r-� c, �;, er ��. C:_!. �"i`L :� �''"c� �1 �,,.�_:_. 9 � � �- � �-_( � � �-��- ��,..1.,�L(��-��---�_��, � ��, t �,� 2 � MAC and MASAC Representation. �-�- ( Phase Out of Noisy Stage II Aircraft. i�'� ��^ ��'�'� 11. MSP Long-Term Comprehensive Planning Issues - Expansion of Existing Airport. �, � �,,,_� � r- � �..,,. r- �<a �Cx._c �s� � �-� � o � � ;, 12. Corridor DefinitionlCompliance Issues. —�� S 13. Metropolitan Council "Noise Zone Map" Update and Related �and Use Controls. Aircraft Ground Noise During Periods of Departure Over Minneapolis. Aircraft Engine Run-Up Noise. ��S � � �,�--��€� < <��, �J � 3. � � � � r � � ,��•� ,' i •'• 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 .• � � �• � • A. Q. � • . � � � . •� �•�. . . , .� . Adoption of "Close In" vs. "Distant" Departure Procedures �� . �. � � • .•i '•� . � r-�-� � 5 a ��-'z � C`'� w.�' �` vNf � ,,, �` - y � ��s ,�-esf-� D. Implementation of Narrowed Air Traffic Corridor --C� P� ,;; . , ;� 13' � � � t.[� ' V �, ��: . � i�, d "�� .,� vd'".,5:.� �� ? ^->_f Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concerns �-�� ,�-� �� . . . . . . ,�'`'-e-`� �-�- _ . A. Advertising the MAC Air Noise Complamt Line �- � � I� Expand Distribution of Air Noise Related Information Appointment of City Resident to the Metropolitan Airports Commission �,,�,�- �� ._o`�^' `; � �� 'y-r i ��`��,�1 1; � v,/`"� �..f ,� � �,�'��`� �� •• �. Prevent Construction of Third North Parallel Runway �� e� � ��,�.,. � � �+� �`,��(�,,. � Implement Noise Mitigation Needs in MSP Mitigation Committee's Plan Conversion to Stage III Quieter Aircraft � • '•� � � � �. � � � � � �. � � � . � � �� . , . .� � •. , ; issue: � � � � � 1' � � _. � Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures Goal: Implementation of Non-Simultaneous Takeoff Procedures Which Nlenim6z� Nl�ndo�a Heigh#s Air Noise Exp�sure Action Steps: 1. Revievv previaus MAC representations on issue with City Council. 2. Draft letter to MAC requesting update on revised non-simultaneous takeoff procedures - invite Mr. Hamiel to upcom�ng ARC meeting. 4. � � Depending upon response, chose appropriate means of advocating rapid implementation of nevu procedures. Continue pursuing additional follow-up with MAC and the FAA. Pursue magnetic shift affect on 105 degree heading for 11 R Fallow up letfier to FAA Copy Legislators Stafie and Federal Who When Staffl ARC Completed St�ff Staff� ARC Staffi ARC Completed Gompleted Continuous Staffl Foliowing NSDP ARC Decision by FAA Staff September < �._ ��- t�, � /� �,.... ✓ �� .-� r,,�--....a'�`�. � `..---z.2 � 1/ j } . . v ��_, � /�� r;�� . � c. � �" �- f � ,,�- , ;�-_ � �.a�.-��-F.;.r— �..-r.a .�� f _. 1 ( �� :�� <.,��. �a i � tr,� �,,�-2 � �- ��m�;;.. Issue: � � � � � � � � Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures Goal: Adoption of "Close-In°° vs. "Distant" Takeoff Procedures to Reduce � Noise Generation Over Nlendota Heights. Acfiion Sie�s: Who When 1. Review FAA requirements with Staffl Completed City Council. ARC 2. Continue participation on MASAC Operations Committee which is currently reviewing issue. 3. City recommend what procedure should ;'- � he tested. 4o MASAC reports recommendation to MAC Planning and Environment Committee 5. MAC Planning and Environment reports recommendation to MAC. � � 8. MAC recommends ta FAA procedure to be tested. FAA designs flight procedure be tested. FAA begins flight test. City to evaluate test results and make recmmmendation to MAC and FAA. Staffi Completed Council ARC� Completed Council StaffIARC Aug.ISept. 1996 StaffIARC Sept.1996 ' StaffIARC Staff►ARC StaffIARC ARCICouncil � 7 � 1997 issue: �� •� Noise Reduction Through IVlodified Takeoff Procedures Adoption of Mandatory Nighttime Takeoff Regulations to Reduce Noise Generation Over Mendota Heights � Action Ste�s: 1. Review previous MAC represen- tations on issue with Council. 2. Research nighttime flight restrictions imposed at other U.Se Airports. 3. Depending upon findings, prepare � � request to MAC far adoption of more stringent requirements. 4. Pursue designating the hours af 10:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., only Stage 111 aircraft to fly during this time period. 5. Request this issue to be placed on MASAC Operations Committee agenda � Call NOISE and inquire about U.S. Airport nighttime restrictions. Vllho StaffiARC StaffIARC Staff�ARC ARCI Counci9 Staff Staff 7. Pursue cessation of head-to-head StaffJARC (� i operations. When Completed Completed Completed Completed Sept.1996 Sept.1996 Fall 1996 Issue: � � � � � � � • Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures Gaal: Implementation of Narrowed Air Traffic Corridor which Minimizes � Mendota Heights Air Noise Exposure � Action Steps Who Vilhen 1. Investigate potential of Global Positioning Satellite Technology 2. Presentation to Commission on GPS 6y MAC or other expert 3. Advocate for Maintenance of +' ) 5 mile final arrivals and 3 mile - corridor for departures 4. Pursue the benefit of updating Tower orders to original intent befare shift in magnetic headings � ;� StaffIARC Staff StaffiARC StaffIARC IlVinter - 1996►97 J�ne 1997 Jane 1997 ' Issue: � � � � ' � • � • Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concerns Goal: � Produce and Distribute Informative Refrigerator Magnets Advertising the MAC Air N.oise Complaint Line Action Steps: Who When Investigate costs of magnet productian distri6ution. Commission to review design. Order delivered to City Nall Magnets distributed to Councii and ARC. Commission to review final letter and news release. Magnets distributed ta residents Additional magnets available at City Hall upon requeste Staff Compleied ARC Completed Staff Completed Staff Complefied ARC Completed Staff Completed Staff Completed 8. Continue ta� inform the communit� on Staff Continuous ��.-F%�� ( �i�,f �' ARC projects and concerns using the �,,.� � City's newsletter and separate single �, ��r ��_. �... page mailings. �.-�— g�;��- �( �. � � . � c� /� � ` ;r- l. ��.... � � �'C vf` "� `ii/` ✓ ` prv?J �': � �. �/` 1/"' l,n,q,,.� � e p �� .�/" �i ' � �4 \ � ;J' f� � � , � ,� �rl �� .� i � � _�. � ,�� „ �'`" � �� , Issue: Goal� � ♦ � .� ' • � � • Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concerns Expand Distribution of Air Noise Related Information Actions Steps: 1. Expand mailing list for ARC agenda to include State Senators and Reps. 2. Mail letters to State Senators and Reps. Introducing ARC 3. Invite guests to monthly ARC meetings (i.e., Mr. Hamiel, Mr. Wagoner, State �' � elected officials) 4e Expand coverage of air noise issues. 5. Devote entire page of air noise issues in the City's newsletter 6. Continue to send press releases to newspapers, State Senators and Repse 7. Promote air noise mitigation doc�ment. Who When Staff Continuaus Staff Continuous Staff Continuous (Quarterly) Staff Continuous Staff Quarterly Staff Continuous Staff�ARC Sept.1996 issue: Goal: � � � � • � � • Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concerns Appointment af City Resident to the Metropolitan Airports Comrr�ission Actian Steps: 1. Review current distribution of MAC Commissioners with ARC 2. Prepare letter to gubernatorial candidates asking for their position on MSP expansion, corridor use, MAC representation C� Discuss City concerns with our current MAC representative Monitor gubernatorial election 5. Discuss concerns with State Senators and Reps. Regarding composition of MAC. Pursue legislation to amend MAC Commissioner boundaries 6. Compare cities affected by air noise to MAC representatives 7. Review MASAC representation and MAC representation with Northern , � Dakota County Airport Relations Commission. IIIIho Staff Staff � Completed ARC Comple�ed Staff Completed ARCJ Dec.961Jan.97 Council ARC Feb.1997 ARCIStaff March 1997 Issue: Goal: � � � � � � � � N1SP �ong Term Comprehensive Plan Preven� C�n�tPuciion of Third North Parallel Runway Action Ste�s: 1. 2. U�_ pdate Commission an status of tVfSP LTCP Study Continue partici�pation on MSP Technical Workeng Committee 3. Respond to ublic camment request Dra�t Alternative Environmental Document for MSP 4. Retain expe�ts to assist in efforts , - to prevent the designation of the �___. � third north-�parallel runway as the preferred MSP expansion alternative 5. Res� ond to public comment request to Final Alternative Environmental Document far MSP 6. Research what uvould stop the construction of a third parallel runway 7. Pursue MAC contract on the prohi6ition of third parallel runway as per 1996 Dual Track legislation. 8. Research MAC Acq�uisition of Bureau of Mines property and MAC interest in off airport propert�es in 3rd runway area Who When Staff Completed Staff Completed Councill Completed ARC Council Not Applica6le Councill Completed ARC StaffIARC StaffIARC Sept.1996 Council Staff Oct.1996 � � � " � � • � Issue: MSP l.ong Term Comprehensive Plan Goai: Implemenf Noise Mitogation N�eds in NISP N'ii#igation Commott�e's Recommendations � Action Ste�s 1. Discuss Mitigation Needs Statement 2. Sup,�ort May or's Efforts on MSP Noise Mit�gation Committee 3. Consider Joint Effarts with NDCARC 4. Consider Assistance from Dakota Caunty 5. Consider Lobhying and State Legislative Efforts Who ARC ARCI Staff ARC ARC ARC When May, June, July Summer 1996 Aug.1996 Aug.1996 Oct.1996 Issue: Goal: � ' • ' ` • ' �.1►.� Conversion to Stage I11 Quieter Aircraft Assure Conversion by Federal Deadline of Year 2000 Acti�n �teps: 1. Review NWA o61igations to MAC regarding Stage I1 phaseout and research fleet mix at various airports around the country 2. Prepare letter to MAC re�ardi�n�g ongoing contract.talks w�th NWA to re quest incius�on of language specifying phase out da�e 3. Work with MAC Commissioners uvho are supportive of effort to help build consensus amongst MAC 4. Letter to NWA askin� for their , � coaperation in committing to -- Year 2000 phaseout -� �:x�. 5: Prepare media news releases and information letters explaining issue and asking for letters andlor calls fio MAC in support of contractual language. 6. Work with MAC to assure 1996 legislatiora to canvert to all Stage III aircraft by Year 2000 is implemented 7. S. '� ) Consider Backsliding of Stage 111 Conversion Request MASAC Consideration of Backslid�ng Who l�Uhen StaffIARC Completed Staff Completed StaffIARC Staff Staff � .► ARCICouncil Completed Compieted Compieted Continuous of NWAsponse � � � � ' � • • • Issue: Noise Reductian Through Litigation Goal: Determin� FeasibilAty �f a Legal Chal6enge #o Current Asr Noise Distributian � Action Steps: 1. Review history of legal challenges related to air noise 2. Investigate FAA procedures in effect at time of 1973 corridor decision - Freedom of Information Act request? 3. Continue to be kept abreast of other communities' issues and possible litigation process Who StaffIARC Staff StaffIARC When Completed Completed Continuous ` ) � � . � • � � � � ' Issuee Assure Eligibility for Part 150 Sound Insulation Program in Areas Affected 6y Air Noise Exposure Goale Air Noise Mi�igation Through Sound Insulation Action Steps; Who � When 1. Meet with schooi administrators Staff Completed to discuss need 2. Analyze MAC School Noise Manitoring Study 3. Continue to monitor chan es in the Ldn contours and monitor the�art 150 Sound Insulation program completion process. 4. Advocate expansion of Part 150 program through MSP Mitigation Committee. 5. Advocate for the use of ANOMS data for Noise Contour Generation for qualifying Part 150 area 6. Examine the feasibility of p�urchase or acquisition through Part 150 for severly impacted areas # Updated August 14,1996 Staff�ARC Completed StaffIARC On-going ARCICouncil Fa111996 ARC►Council ARCICouncil Fall 1996 1997 � CITY OF MENDOTA 8EIG8TS AIRPORT NOISE MITIGATION POSITION STATEMENT June 26, .Y996 As a community directly and severedy affected by aircmft operaiions at Minneapolis- St. Paul InternationaX Airport (MSP), the G`ity of 1t1'endota Heights is very concerned over the futrcre configuration and operation of the airport. Cost and convenience was the primary basis for the recommendation that the MAC Commission and the Metropolitan Council made to the legislature thai the present airport be expanded and that it is capable of annually serving up to 640, 000 fl'ight operations and 48 million passengers through the year 2020. 1 If the adjoining communities want to enjoy the convenience of having a major airport facility within 5 to 10 minutes of travel, then alt the surrounding communities must share in the burden of the noise generaied by the facility. It is totally inequitable for the cities of Minneapolis and Richfield on the west side of the airport, and the cities of Eagan and Mendota Heights on the east side of the airport, to be subjected to approximately 85% of the flaght opera�-io�as. �'fierefore, Mendota Heights feels that the equitable dishibution of aircrczft noise is the paramount i�sue the MSP Mitigatron Committee must address. The million dollar plus A.N.O.M.S. installation is providing factual noise data which is far more accurarte than the LDN contours generated through the use of the FAA "integrated noise formula. " This r•aises the quesiion of the validity of the LDN 65 as a basis for decision making when more accurate data is a�ailable from A.N.O.M.S. It is imperative tha�t the MSP Mitigation Committee make �ts decisions from the most accurate data base available. Accordingly, A.N.O.M.S. data shoulri be used in formulating an equitable noise mitigation program for the continued use of the present airport facalify. The Minneapolis/St. Paul Area Community �'rotection Concept Package prepared by the Metropolitan Council represents a number of tools and techniques by which Mendota Heights and other nearby communities wall be able to address airport related impacts. The City of Mendota Heights generally supports the Metropolitan Council Community Frotect�on Package based on the following considerations. 1 Dual Track Airport Planning Process, Su.mmary and Decision, Metropolitan Airports Commission, Ma.y 1996. ; � As the number of MSP aircraft operations has grown, air noise impacts within ' Mendota Heights have increased dramaiically. Many of the noise impacted areas withzn our City are older residential areas (huilt in the 1940's, 50's and 60's) which clearly pre-daie the surge in aair traffic ea.perienced at MSP during the 1980's and 90's. As a resuTt of increased noise exposure, these older Mendota Heights resi,d'ential neighborhoods have experienced disinvesiment and decline. In order to stabilize these areas and maintain their viability, the use of propeyiy value guarantees, tax credits for housing revatsadazca�aon, aggressdve soa�rad' insulation programs, and other described community stabilization progmms is necessary and warranted. The FAA Part I50 Noise Attenualion program should' be extended to cover all LDN 60 areas and beyond as necessary. At a minimum, the following residential neighborhoods in Mendota Seights must be included in the FA�4 Part 150 Noise Attenuation program: Furlong Addition along State Trunk Highway 55, Curley Addition along Leacington Avenue, Rogers Lake Addition and Rogers Zackeshore Addition along State Trunk Highway 149, the older homes south of Wagonwheel Road from State Trunk 8ighway 149 to Lexington Avenue, artd Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Fizendly Hills Addition (1950's) south of Highway 110 and east of State Trunk 8ighway 149, and other scattered neighborhoods located in id'entified noise impacted areas. All of these neighborhoods experience noise events of 85 dBa or greaier on a regular hasis as shown by A.N.I).M.S. Revitalizalion of industrial properties waihirz the City's Business Park will similarly ( ) require substantial resources over time. In order to maintain the long term economic health of this area, the City Council would consider the sedective use of community stabilization and revitalization tools described in the Community Protection Concept Package. The Community Protection Concept Package also discusses a number of airport protection measures designed to prevent incompatible land deveTopment in airport impacted areas. As a community incorporated in 1956 and comprehensively planned in 1959, the City of Mendota 8eights 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 aXready 90-95% developed. Nonetheless, the G`ity of Mendota Heights has for many years cooperated with the Metropolitan Council in adopting and enforcing la.nd use controls rela%d to the airport. In 1987, the City of Mendota 8eights became the fzrst and only city to adopt the Metropolztan Council's Aircraft Noise Attenuation Ordinance and has strenuously enforced the Metropotitan Council's Guidelines for Construcnon Within Aircrnft Noise Exposure Zones. In addition, the City has made a conceried effort to limit the total number of new residential units located in areas ovet�l'own by aircraft, and has experienced substantiaP costs in monitoring and achieving these goals. (The I'utnam Associates lawsurt to decrease the density of the proposed townhouses east of Highway 149 and south of Mendota Heights r.r� '' Road' was a very costly ordeal for the city.) The City takes seriously its responsibility to control the development of noise incompatible land uses within Mendota I3'eights. As such, the City does not support the creaiion of another regulatory body, such as the Airport Zoning Board, to usurp the land use autho�ity vested in our duly etected public officials. If "teeth" are to be put into the enforcement of land use paiterns, the cities themselves should be the enforcing authority, not some distant, non-representaiive board such as the Aarport Zoning Board: This is not to say thai the Legislature, the Metropolitan Airports Commission, and the Metropolitan Council do not have important mles to pluy in regulaling air noise generalion and exposure. It is essentral'that "teeth" also be put into the regulations affecting the operation of the airport. Long term community compaiibility with MSP is premised on the following: 1) The preferential runway use system needs to be revised. The inequitable reliance on the Mendota Heights/Eagan corrzdor should be eliminated. The capacity o, f the corridor is finite, and communzties overflown by aircmft using the corridor ought not be expected to endure air noise ea.posure beyond a fair and equitable limit. All communities surrounding MSP receive significant economic benefit from its close proximity. Simila�rly, all should' be expected to bear a reasonable and equi�able share of the associaied noise burden as well. 2) Over the Mendota Heights/Eagan area, deparling aircrnft should' be directed to utilize, to the fultest extent possible, less noise sensitive areas, such as industrial park property and highway rights of way. These areas have been planned in conformance with existing and a,pproved airport runway configurations, are in con, formance with Metropolitan Council guidelines, and have been approved by the Metropotitan Council. To fully accomplish this goal, aircmft during non-busy hours should be directed to f[y a crossing pattern in the corridor, rather than being given departure headings which overf Zy close-in residential areas. This crossing procedure during non-busy times has been apprnved by the Metropolitan Airports Commission and is currentty ccwaiting implementation by the �ederal Aviation Administration. 3) As soon as possible, the aircmft depart`u�e corridor should' be narrowed over Mendota Heights and Eagan to take full ad'vantage of the lutest air traffic control technology. The introduction of a Global Positioning Satellite navigation system at MSP should greaily improve the safety of airspace management, and wilt also lessen the distance aircrnft need to be separated from one another to ensure passenger safely. Other precision air traffic control advancements on the horizon will only help the MAC and F.AA better utilize the airspace surrounding MSP to minimize air noise impacts over residential areas. 3 4) The magnetic headings for the parallel runways need to be adjusted to reflect current reality. Flight opera#ions through the Eagan-Mendota Heights comdor need to be ( ! adjusted to restore the orzginal intent of the tower orders thai operate within the corridor. ; S) Once modified to take ad'vantage of the latest air trnffic control technology and ad'justed to correct for air noise distributional inequities, the boundaries of the aircrnft deparlure and arrivaX comdors shouTd be specifieally defined, and air noise exposure standards should be established along this corridor. • Aircrnft operaiors violating these standards should be subject to substantial' monetary fines. 6) Nighitime aircraft restrictions should be put into place immediutely to ensure that only Stage Ill quieter aircraft are fCown between the hours of 10:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Such restrictions should be mandatory and violation of the standards should result in a monetary fzne to the offending air carrier. � Noise Abatement Depariure Procedures (related to how quickly a.ircrnft gain altitude upon departure) should' be reviewed and adjusted to ensure that the full performance capabilities of all aircrnft are being utili.zed. The ability of aircraft to rapidly gain altitude, thereby minimizing aircraft noise levels experienced on the ground, should' be quantified and made part of air traffic departure procedures at MSP. This is especially true for Stage III aircraft. 4 C O � .� O � O � C � N .� -�+ (ll � � � � tCf � .� � C 0 U � Z �J Cfl tn C O :+_� '� C � V � N � L cv � N � � � � � 0 N > :�_+ C� .� N � � � � � �� C — O •�' N � � C O — U� a� � � � �cQ � o � � � q) � Q I..�.. .,�, U '� C tt3 � C? � � � t�► �t- r- N vi 0 O N � f` � � N i O L � O � cF=. � c� � � v� � O O N L M U M >Q � > � z � � �r- O -f.,, N � L � N �►, ca � 0 N � CU � cu �X O L � � i�. � c�3 �,, '+'r L � � � �- N� C � � t0 ` Q �ta •N o0 s °� o `.% � � � � N � � � � U -� � � � � � � O O N -i--� � ia N � ccs :,_., C � � N N � • U � 0 � N = -� �5�" � � � Q i � N C a. N O O � � i � :,_' v � �� O .� U Q, .� cu Q � � Z � � i _ M � .� � 0 � N ` tB � � tCf '� 'v c c� . � m U � .� c�6 a� � 0 N � � � � � �X O Q Q t6 � c N � U tLf � �. r– �� rn.II U �� 0 � � � 0 a O U � � �T� VTI V+ �� M A N �c G �X 0 L a Q c� E 0 � � -� a� � � � � U C � t� � � m (t3 C N L Q � m � � � � � � ` i � � � U Rf o O � .�. CD (n L � O Z � � J �(�i d' � M M t.C) OO) �.t� � �- N � L � Q � Z (� N O � � � N d' M �J- �- � O !.L d„` � � O O C� � �+-' � N � �i �i N � � � � � � � � � � U U U N � �r-C�Cl�t�- ^ 1 1 1 1 1 v♦ p � o � ti� C� � � 5 � 2 � O � O U iC M '� � � o �I O O � � � C � L p� O •� �I ti � LL� 'a c w �I o L i� � � r- c0 � d�l rn rn � \ 0 u'� � a � N � � C O .� � � L � ��♦ Wn` W � � � � � a� LL a� � � � � � V C CtT � O U .� .� � z rJ �-. W � O 0 �, �r.�wrno u�c�t°ac��' � � � � � � �'o � 00 �- N � � � i � i( O N �,od'cr7d'Nh- c��-r�-�-q. ,�,p � � L Q. �� W C } o ap �11�f�00�O �-NOON� � d' � CO i CO �o 0 t7�.� C7M'd'NI��-�-0��--�-'� (D i N i N iI� NI`M CA O ��T' � L Q �i � cp � . c� 00 � O � � � � � � � � p) c*� c� 'd' � ,� � � �, � � � N � N � � c 0 C� — � � � p = O O O O � � cll O O��' t'� r, 00 � ai to �`-�� Qo rn a� rnrn pcn 0 U U U U �t!)tif�r�tNQ��L�OQ �t'7�N�NId' OCr�t�- d'C'7r-NN c- rf' C� M (II O = O O O O � t(� �f' C'7 r' � °'* �� NUC..)UC.� (�I�-I`�L7�❑ N � � m � � c c V U � N � � � Ch N o�� U� cn � C �n' Wn` W V X � � � d� C C — � � � � 4� � � � -1�+ � � �n' �n i O � � Q � � � z� U N tii v cu (� L Q. � �Q � � � � U r' N `'- �� O Q C C � � � ` � �� C� �' m -�.r � Q1 t> � � � � C � '� U c ❑ * U O 0 � d' A N � � 0 � a Q m ai � � t � Q� til N >, A .II N � �i N N ,r N �'_- � O �F.- N � � '� _Q N = N ?�. O � �� Q o� � Z � � N i L .� � -�-+ t}� � N � � c 0 � N ��t �^V .�i �f� � U .� � -'� � O i � N L � U C t'6 U ��.. � � � � �❑ 'Q C O N .f2 m C .0 C .� � .� a� � � rn 0 0 •!� �n' W � V tt; C2. N tQ � � C N > N � C t6 Q. � N � � �o Q N ❑ � � O � � C � O ,� ' � � N � L � Q� � ui �,, �o c c � a`� � a�i � � � L � �A` � ` • O � Q � � U � :Y � ;*_� '�' Q N � N O U O C � •� � � N Q. "� N -+a � � -�-� V � � N '''' � � � •— O � � � � � � C �U � c� ,� � � 'v � � a� 1— O .;5 ❑ � � � � Q � 0 � � F-- � W � � z � U � ❑ Y U Qpp � F- °� rn � U W z J Q� � W rn � � � � = = .� Y �C o -c .c M � � � t � � � S tn.�,m � 3 3 � � � _ J � J W Z Z O � U � _ U Q � y. O � � � � Z �" � C9 `t � Z � W � � V p o � � fA O � � Q (,�L r.. W W � C� fn o Wp O�t �� zZ j�y„ 0o wa �W r0 O � � �W � _ �p 0� UC7 � ~ � W � _ �� U (�Q �LW �t� ZQ w= wa �� Q � Y a — M cWna uWid ~"- pp Z Q °� Z� Z� �U � � � V � � LL. e( t,t_ �-- �t � � W U W� W z Y� Y� r- t�-Q F`�-� �n¢. 0 N c� Q � � m � d � W Z Z W W � � W � � � � Q W � Y U Q H � U m '� Z � w _ U Q O � n. a ¢ � O 0 z w > " z m � Q = J (p � � U Z � � U W � � O Z � � > � � � Q Z Q � � m Q ui U � � 0 � r y� � C O CC{ � N � � (� C O � O Q � L Q � � � � � tq N � � �-.� t0 N � ccs � � 4— 0 c 0 � N � � � 'D C '� O � � � 0 �� o �, � � Q Q � � � z ci� D 00 d' N O (� M M N N r- O � c- r- ("� � 0 \ N d'I (D r': f7 (� CO e- � r� w � � � � �� rn � � �- N (p CO 0 � � � � M o0l N � N M CO r CD 00 � N O C2. N N C C � -�-+ f� L.. N � co � � .� � � � C� .� N � N � � �+- O C tCf vj N .p � � � � m .SQ, c oz o � � s 0 0 � �n .c Q � S'' � Z -c � O \ � � � � O � .-� .-� tn \ 0 M r--� O� 00 d' N � 0�1 � M N \ 0 00 Q1 � v � � a� � � � � rn rn � � � � � � � � � � � � ` � � ��[ ^\V' � tt3 C O N N C � � .� 0 v tiS .� a� � a� .� .� � 0 � -�-+ CZ N �C E o O � U � m C C � �a� � � m � o � c� � � � > � C Z � �❑ � �V O O CD 'Q C N � Q 0 0 � c a� N � � � � ,v_� � 0 �Q '� � � � as O � O C � N N m � � Z � 0 � � � ❑ ❑ V/ -�-� � � � � � � L � � � � O � � � � L � -/-� 'O � L � � � O U � � N C d ` � � � � -.-� 'F- tif � � ?� = C/� t� `C � � N U m � � � � o c`� � � o '� � o m � � � � O m � � � c a 0 — o � o ,� v�i ai o r. o � � o r- L � � � � Q � � � � � � -� Rf � � ��S »� � � v � cz --� �n c a. � _ . U U .�, � •� � C U `�= — N N O O� O O L tU N � N N �(� N N � � �_ m �t� m mN m c� rn c� � rn S"S ,°�rn S S'� Z Z m Z Z o , � � � N � � � • � 0 � y.d � W � Q C L G � � (Q . � t- m � r (� � .i� � � y-' O t� � O tn .� � N N �'' � � N � � p� C O y= N �� N E Qa� � rn � c -� � � a�i � � U O '� N � � O � � o � o a � v �' o °� � � � � � rn � � � � � Q> � � > � :►� Z o� � N � .� � C �Q � O t6 N p� � � � � � � Q Z � � � � c� .__ a� � o v°� � Q � Q� � � tn � � � ❑ ��}[ O L �"� � ? � ,-�! Q. V � � � � � � �� .�. � ��( ,O \V C p � O C/� � � � �� Q � O M � O 0 0 �, *.. a�i � � Q� O ,�, � j ,m '� C � �.-: -Q -� �' o .�., ,�. . _ � o � '� ,�� cz o� � � 0 � �C -,-+ C � W O •L c � � .II � � ` � � � .� v U � � � 'C3 N = ?, -� N ta' m � Q 'z3 Cn � � � v Z .� o � � � � �_� 0 � � � 'a ttf � � U .�. G O .� N � N .0 C �- C � C � O ._ � � M z N �, �' .p 'C3 -a N � 'a �,, � O X � N � � � �- � O C � . �. R3 O O � � O � C3i C� � � � � � C "-' O � -�-.� L- V � CCS � Q � .� .0 U s�., '� O o v� c � 0 4= U � � C V '� d� v '� CA ;.a � r-' tn � �� Q � � � Ri ¢ z � o � N � q� O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 — a o 0 0 0►n �n o a� o u� �n o�n � t�- O�'d' �7' N tC) T�- 00 tn CO C� t� W�- N�- N r- N �- � � � Cn v� N .0 ?. C = CA N O C tU tU u) C � �' ,°� � �n � a� c,�,u Q -v o � �� c c�U o�� E m v �c ' � � > -v � a� E v�� a� x c c.c � tL o ;+r Q o � � � � > � � c c� o �; o UQmOr�W�= ��fr(n�'S {� O � O ��J{ lV N � � t� C 0 � 0 Q� � L � W � -�-i � N � .�.. N � � O C � � a "r � � � U N � � � O .� '0 N 4 t� Z (!� � O � � o �' :�. O N -�=• � � � U � O �� C = � o � �oc� �� N �n • �o Z . � L � Q% � � � � .� VJ � tQ � � � ta C O O a � Q� N �C (Ti � � � N �• .... — N � � � ta �- N � U ?+ ;,�, O O �'_ C Q- � �t6 ,,_, � � o Z � ❑ • • • • C � � � � .�i �n' ` � � � CL (U � L � � .> L � � N m C N � � tc� Q� Np�j tn �' �� U � �� 'C3 � � � � � O O N � CO N � � Q ,Q o Z O � � N � � r � � � � N � a� � U � (0 .,-. O � a� C � c :�, C N A O a N � � � � �, O 0 �. • � W 1 � � � � .� Ci' � 'S � .� U � c � >. O Q N Ri O � N c � C ti.. N � 'C O Z c � ` � U �� i � � .Q � U C tQ C N � � (B N � v � 00 O _ M M �L Q N � ^W i •1� Q �1� W � � .� C O v � � C O V � � �1--� U c� n. � � -F.� ^ I.L � � � N � C � O U f C �- o � v Q •� O Q �L Q� z o � • • e ^ W � � � V � V �X ca � a� � � � O s— � � N O � � N O N Q � � � �` C2. O ?, C t/� t6 �Q. ?�,,,�. � � � � � Q .�+ y� � L � � � G � Z a. cZ � c 0 0 �a� o cu 4- ,�- � -� � � �0 o Q.o o o c`�n `� � � :,_, :�.., � ,� � � � � � � � Q •� .0 � � ` � � � � � � v � � � N N c�6 � V O � :n :� � '� � C � .p t/� tn � iZ U � � O O =' � � p Q �.. 0.. � c�.� Q"�' s e e e � � � � � � Q� �❑ C' • The environmental assessment concludes that no significant magnetic ' variation has occurred in the years since the implementation of the corridor pracedures. Since the stated purpose of the initial Mendota Heights request for the revised procedure was ta counteract the effects of magnetic variation, this conclusion actually contradicts the decision to implement the procedure, because it serves to correct a problem that does not exist. s The analysis makes no attempt to respond fio #he City of Eagan's repeated comment that a less dramatic change in heading for the north parallel runway could reduce impacts in residential Mendota Heights without increasing impacts in residential Eagan. Despite this, the FONSI asserts that "no other alternative which would meet the project purpose and need has been identified." This statement is clearly false. • While the FAA conclusions correctly state that the environmental review does not address corridor compliance, it should not disregard it either. Prior modifications of corridor pracedures without environmental review and increasing excursions from even the liberal definition of the corridor in the current tower order dramatically harm the purpose and need defined in the environmental assessment. It is inconsistent for the FAA to implement a change which demonstrates no net benefit in a context in which dramatically greater consequences for the impacted community are present. We would very much appreciate your review of and response to these comments. Sincerely, c%�!�, - e%�-�-� r Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator xc: Annette Davis, FAA Sandy Gri�ve, MAC Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights � J �?�:� � � 19�� Mr. Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122-1897 Dear Mr. He�+g�s: _ .�.,.,,,a , Thank you for your letter of May 7, 1997, regarding the Environmental Assessment/ Finding of No Significant Impact (EA/FONSI) for revised air traffic control procedures in the Eagan-Mendota Heights Corridor. Concerns voiced by the City of Eagan in correspondence dated January 17, 1996, and February 16, 1996, were taken into consideration during our decision making process and were addressed in the EA/FONSI within Section VIII, "Response to Written Comments." This letter serves to clarify the information contained in Section VIII and to respond to the concerns voiced in you� most recent letter. To begin, there appears to be a misunderstanding as to the intent of this project. As �__ � stated in the EA/FONSI, this project was undertaken by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) at the request of the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) to reduce noise impacts on neighboring communities by further concentrating aircraft operations within the Eagan-Mendota Heights Corridor. The purpose and need of the project is to provide immediate relief to some airport neighbors without inflicting significant adverse impacts on others and to address the most intense noise impacts closest to the airport as a priority. This project was not proposed by the City of Mendota Heights; nor was its purpose to counteract the effects of magnetic shift which has occurred over the past several years. Were the intent of the project to restore the h;sto�i� int�n: of the '1974 noise abatement �rocedures; it would be difficult if not impossible to accomplish. This is because of`conflicting beliefs as to the past and present true and magnetic bearings of Runway 11 L, the amount of magnetic variation which has occurred over the years, and the manner by which pilots operated their aircraft 22 years ago. As stated on page 11 of the EA/FONSI, the northward shift of aircraft tracks over the past 22 years is most likely due to the ability for automated navigation systems to fly precise courses and the ability for pilots to enter the actual magnetic heading of a runway into these systems, in lieu of using the numbers which have been painted on a runway. Although the City of Eagan has commented that a less dramatic change in heading for the north parallel runway could reduce impacts in residential Mendota Heights without increasing impacts in residential Eagan, you provided no data such as DNL levels or numbers of affected individuals in support of your asse�tion. Although the Federal ( j Aviation Administration (FAA) attempted to reconstruct the original noise abatement � 'procedures implemented in 1974 to evaluate your comment, it was not possible to do so for the reasons stated in the previous paragraph. Additionally, your comment is based on the assumption that there has been a five degree magnetic shift over the past 22 years and that the purpose of the project was to address magnetic shift. In actuality, there was a magnetic shift of less than 3 degrees befinreen � 974 and 1996. Even if it were possible to restore the historic intent of the corridor p�ocedure, it may not be prudent given residential development which may have occurred in the last 22 years. As previously discussed, this project was undertaken at the request of the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) to reduce noise impacts on neighboring communities by further concentrating aircraft operations within the Eagan-Mendota Heights Corridor. The MAC did not request that the FAA study corridor compliance. More importantly, as stated on page 11 of the EA/FONS1, Airport Noise Operations Monitoring System (ANOMS) data indicates that excursions to the south of the corrdor are no��causec� by aircraft departing Runway 11 L, but rather by aircraft departing runway 11 R. Moreover, because air traffic control has agreed to assign headings which approximate the extended runway centerline, taking into account the effects of drift caused by wind, excursions to the north or south should be minimized. Therefore, regardless of changes in magnetic bearing or magnetic variation which may occur in the future, aircraft should follow a track which approximates the extended centerline of the runway. Should you believe that other matters merit analysis, such as corridor compliance, we suggest that you communicate this to MAC as well as other members of the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) for their consideration. � ) The FAA considers an increase of 1.5 DNL or more over a noise sensitive area within " the DNL 65 contour to be the threshold of significant noise exposure. The EA/FONSI reveals that, with project implementation, no individuals would be newly included within the 65 DN� contour. Moreover, the maximum increase in noise exposure for any individual would be 0.2 dB. As such, there are no dramatic adverse consequences associated with this project. The EA/FONSI reveals that the maximum decrease in noise with project implementation is 0.3 dBA, which occurs at point 8 which is located in the City of Eagan. This decrease in noise benefits the City of Eagan. Page 6 of the EA/FONSI reveals that the east ends of the DNL 60 contour shift inward and outward by a few nundred feet. This shirt does not occur over residential areas. As such, calculation of the affected area in square miles (area analysis) was not included in the EA/FONSI because it would have had little meaning. However, for your information, the area of the DNL 60 contour without project implementation measures 42.25 square miles while the area of the DN� 60 contour with project implementation would measure 42.23 square miles. As such, with project implementation there would be a slight decrease in area of the DNL 60 contour. ' It was not our intent to analyze more noise sensitive locations on the north side of the corridor than on the south side but, rather, to present a valid comparison befinreen the Eagan-Mendota Heights Corridor Study and previously prepared environmental impact statements. The grid points utilized for the Eagan-Mendota Heights Corridor Study correspond to those used for the MSP Runway 4-22 Extension Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the Dual Track Draft EIS. For the Eagan-Mendota Heights ( ) 3 __ ' ) Corridor Study, the Dual Track Draft EIS grid points were used with the addition of MSP Runway 4-22 Extension Final EIS points 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, and 448. The additional points from the MSP Runway 4-22 Extension Final EIS were added because they were noise sensitive locations that occurred near the DNL 60 contour. There were no other practicable points from the MSP Runway 4-22 F�ctension Final EIS that could be added to the south. A noise sensitive location could have been added for Pilot Knob, located approximately 600 feet from point 9, but this location would have been essentially the same as point 9. The change at point 9 with redistribution of flights was a 0.1 dBA increase. Beyond this point the closest location to the south would have been the Eagan Family Care Center on Norwest Court which is beyond the DNL 60 contour by approximately 4,400 feet to the southeast. The change expected 4,400 feet away would be less than 0.1 dBA. We realize that aircraft noise has long been a public concern for the City of Eagan as well as other communities located in the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport area. Because the FAA strives to take a proactive role in assisting airport proprietors to reduce aviation noise effects, we believe that we would be remiss to reverse our decision for project implementation. We urge you to continue working with MAC, through your membership in MASAC, to further noise abatement. Please be assured that the FAA will cooperate with MAC to the fullest extent practicable in developing means by which to mitigate aircraft noise effects for the City of Eagan as well as other communities located near the airport. Sincerely, ��lG4�tAL SIGNED BY MANUEL A. TORRES Manuel A. Torres Acting Manager, Operations Branch cc: Mr. Kevin Batchelder, City of Mendota Heights Mr. John Foggia, Metropolitan Airports Commission . . 1 .' � V � � � � � � s • o s .. • � � � • ► • _� • ► �. / • • � -� � • ► � � M � • • ► ► � � r • • � `; �• ►_ ♦ � C " 0., s �. I t' _ ;� . , : . -..::i . ��= �---�. _ _ _ _� �� :j t ::� =: � �,. r- =! �\ ��--� �40�. sa�� . , �,:_;� ,,,� • - - - �_--� , _ _ � ~ � , . ..+ ` �, ;, � . . ' ". . ' "� C ' -! . � � n � 0 � � s • ► . ► � �► ♦ `� a ♦ . . � ♦ � . � • � / � • • •. •• • •• • • � • • • � • • • ► � � � • � � � ' . � . �� , .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . � ,�; . . .. .� • . .. � i� �� i � � �Ir �� i' i � �! �I! � �1 � � �r � �� 1 �r � �� .. r r� A� � ' � CD � � r � h"! � � � �"i � � � O n � • • � � � •• •`1 ► ► � • . ► . • �• • . Percent Increase in Housing Values (Current Dollars) � � N o cn c� v� ca • . . . . � • • • � - ► 0 � • ' ► • • � � � �� , � • � ► .. ' •� � � • r • � r ► ►:. • 1'1 •:• ► C� ►.. h ► C� � � . �� 0 � � � � o � �� s� o rt rt � � A� � � � �^ �� 4 J � rt h�� • • • • , • � � � ► � � � • • — �• � 0 � • � • � � � • • � . . • • � � � • • • � �• • ► � . � • ► � � � • • . • • 0 � � �� • � L ,' � � � o • � •f � A biweekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments Volume 9, Number 9 June 2, 199'7 Part I50 Program FAA ISSUES POLICY CHANGE TO DISCOURA.GE NEW HOIYIE CONSTRUCTION NEAR AIRPORTS On May 28, the Federal Aviation Administration issued a revision to its policy on approval and funding of Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program measures intended to discouraDe new home construction in the 65 dB DNL noise contours around airports. As of Jan. i, 1998, the agency will approve under iu Part 150 program only "remedial" noise mitigation measures (buyouts, soundproofing, easements, purchase assurance, and transaction assistance) for existfng non-compatible development around airports and only "preventive" noise mitigation measures (comprehensive planning, zoning, subdivision reb lations, building codes, real estate disclosure, and acquisition of vacant land) in areas of potentiat new non- compatible development. The policy only applies to new home construction within the 65 dB DNL contours around airports; not to liomes that have aiready been built in these areas. The policy revision is intended to get the FAA out of the business of paying to __ � � retroactively soundproof homes that local jurisdictions allow to be built wi -- � inadequate sound insulation beyond the 65 dB DNL contours around airports. (Continued on p. 68) Air Tra, f, fic Control . . .. � ,�� 1 � � i � � ' � • ' '' By Charles F. Price — Now in its second year, a relatively unheralded joint program of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Federal Aviation Administration, aimed at using cuttinb edge computer softwaze technol- ogy to improve the nation's system for managina air tr�c, has made a number of important advances toward its goal of facilitatin' �ate-to-gate free flight. The idea of free flight consists of several operational concepts which will pernut aircraft pilots to operate with fewer and more limited air tr�c restrictions and will allow them to "self-optimize"; that is, to choose a preferred fli;ht path and speed on approach to an airport. While some community anti-noise activists fear that free fli�ht will be the death knell to carefully crafted noise abatement flight paths in effect at many airports across the country, a NASA o�cial helping deveIop the system says noise abatement constraints can still be factored into flight path selection and free flight's ability to reduce delay and keep delayed aircraft at higher altitudes can also serve to mitigate noise impact. But neither NASA nor FAA is taking a serious look at noise issues related to free flight. Dallas G. Denery, deputy division chief for air traffic management in the Flight (Continued on p. 66) Copyright � 1997 by Airport Noise Report, Ashburn, Va 2201 I In This Issue... Noise Policy ... In a major policy revision, the FAA announces that, after Jan. l, 1998, the agency will no longer allow AIP funds or PFC revenue to be used to support "remedial" noise mitigation measures (sound- proofing, buyouts, easements, purchase assurance, and transaction assistance) for new development that is non- co:nFL�7 �:l � with airports; that is, located within the 65 dB DNL noise contour. T'he policy revision is intended to discourage local jurisdictions from approvina new residential developments in high noise zones. The agency is seeking public comment on the impact the policy change will have on limiting the type of projects eligible for PFC funding - p. 65 ... Text of proposed iinal policy revision, p. 69 Free Flight ... NASA and the FAA are in the second year of a program aimed at using cutting-edge technol- ogy to give pilots the ability to choose prefened flight paths, but noise is not being considered - p. 65 66 Airport Noise Report Free Flight, from p. 6� Systems and Human Factors Division at NASA's Ames Research Facility in Moffett Field, CA, discussed the joint '(ASA/FAA free fliQht R&D program and its preliminary �_ sults in a presentation earlier this year before the 12th Annual Airport Noise and Land Use Compatibility Sympo- sium in San DieQo. Later he also spoke with ANR about the program. Since aettin� under way in late 1995 under the direction of a combined NASAlFAA management team, Denery said, the program can point to operational tests at airports around the country whose outcames "are providing the founda- tions" to achieve free flight and, in every instance but one, remain in use at selected locations. The software tools tested in the NASA/FAA project are meant to improve local decision making by air tra�c controllers and pilots during operations within a 200-mile radius of an airport. "Tra�c management is a broad system," Denery ex- plained. "Basically there are two levels. There's a stra[egic or global level, which is managed out of Herndon, VA. Then there are the local facilities. The focus of the project is on local decision making between controllers and pilots." Denery defined free flight as employing the followinQ related ideas: • The safe, efficient capabiliry under IFR (Instrument Flight Rule) operations to select flight path and speed in real time. • Any activity which removes restrictions is a move � � ��,vard free flight. '--�• A key element of free flight is this: The �oal is not only to optimize the system but to allow each pilot to self- optimize; that is, to use his own preference. • Air tra�c restrictions are limited in duration and used only to insure separation and safety of flight, precedence of airport capacity, and to prevent unauthorized flight through a special-use airspace. Tools Being Developed Denery said tha[ various computer software tools to help facilitate free fliaht are in the process of bein� developed and tested at airpons around the country. Some of these tools are: • A system called Traffic Manaaement Advisory (Tiv1A), tested at the Fort Worth Center in Dallas, TX, whose output allows controllers to predict air tra�c demand and manage it efficiently. It does this by scheduling the proper flow of traffic from the en route airspace into the terminal area. It is also used when operations must be reconfi�ured due to a directional chanse at an airport. An operational prototype of an earlier version of TMA, which doesn't provide scheduled times to controllers, is in use at Denver International Airport. • TMA and a toot called a Passive Final Approach "�acin� Tool (FAST) have significantly reduced delays in i�� tests at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. Data outputs from these systerns enable controllers to advise pilots more readily about sequencing and runway use. "Early results are exceeding expectations," Denery told ANR. • Mana?ement of taxiing and other surface movements have benefited from a test at Atlanta's Hartsfield Interna- tional Airport of another tool called Surface Management Advisory (SMA), whose objective, Denery said, is to develop an information/automation system to "optimize efficiency of airport facility usage, reduce taxi delays, and mitigate the effects of contingencies." • A tool called Descent Advisor (DA) potentially assists controllers in managin� arrival tr�c "by generating clearance advisories that meet scheduled time or spacing requirements," according to Denery. "The advisories" issued by controllers to pilots "are updated on each radar sweep based on airline preferences, aircraft type, and weather." Another feature of the Descent Advisor is the ability to detect conflicts with other aircraft during descent. Tests of the descent advisor and conflict probe are under way at the Denver Center. These efforts are the fruit of a 1995 memorandum of understanding between NASA and FAA, the purpose of which was to integrate all research and development within the two a?encies related to tra�c flow management and air traffic management. Policy for the project is jointly set by FAA Associate Administrator Georae Donohue (recendy nominated to be deputy administrator) and NASA Associate Administrator Dr. Bob Whitehead. What's called an integrated product team provides overall management. The FAA representative on the team, Robert Voss, is its leader. Voss's deputy from NASA is Dr. Vic Lebacque. "Oversi?ht," Denery said, "is by a committee of users, industry, and technical and operations experts under existing FAA and NASA advisory committees." There are no citizen members of this body. No Serious Look at Noise The goal of NASA/FAA program of putting into effect nationally the concept of free flight and its related notion of user preference has the potential to stir controversy among those concerned about aircraft noise. As a result of agitation by representatives of noise- impacted communities, many airports around the country have adopted preferential flight tracks, arrival and departure procedures, and other techniques in an effort to reduce the adverse effects of noise on airport neighbors. These techniques are often overridden — all to frequently, critics say — by controllers due to considerations of weather or trafFc or safety, but are nonetheless jealously guarded by anti-noise interests as among the few effective weapons they have to abate noise. To them the notion of free flight, with its emphasis on limited restrictions and "self-optimization," is bound to appear as yet another potential erosion of the AirpoR Noise Report June 2,1997 few noise abatement tools now in use. Yet Denery concedes that in its air traffic control research the Intesrated Product Team "hasn't taken a serious look at noise.impacts." With no citizen members on the oversight committee, the effort has been dominated by industry and academic technocrats and their consultants. When asked whether free flight wasn't a potential threat to existing noise aba[ement procedures, Denery replied, "That's a good question: ' But he then went on to say, "one of the keys of what we're tryin� to do is automation. Automation will allow a broader ran�e of flisht paths, making sure there's no conflict with other trafFc. Potentially, with the expedited departure tool, aircraft can depart with unrestricted climbs. All this should help allow controllers to make less conservative judgments on assiQning uacks based on weather or tra�c." Also, he pointed out, the automated systems are capable of incorporating noise abatement restrictions along with other types of variables to be considered in the issuance of advisories to pilots. "They do give controllers the ability to implement whatever procedures may be appropriate," Denery said, presumably including noise abatement procedures. Three Phase NASA Project The NASA/FAA tools being tested aze part of an effort by the two agencies to put in place a national program of air tra�c management. `"The approach is to develop an integrated national plan in response to user needs," Denery said.lfie integrated plan is managed across the agencies; and specific elements of the program are assigned to the respective agencies. "The plan is updated annually and used by both NASA and FAA as a basis for advocating R&D bud�ets. Within NASA, the goal of the air tra�c management research effort is to bring about "the next generation of increases in e�ciency and capacity of aircraft operations within the U.S. and global airspace system," Denery said. The initiative focuses on "human factors and automation to assist pilots, controllers, and dispatchers in short-term and intermediate-term decision making." The desire is to create an air traffic manasement system with five chief attributes: • Operadonal flexibility, so as to allow users as much freedom as possible; • An intea ated terminal area, to eliminate operational bottlenecks and facilitate arrival and departure tra�c in the terminal area; • User preferred routing, in which any imposed constraints are compatibte with user needs; • Al] vehicle classes are accounted for; and, • Tolerance of human error. "As you add automation," Denery told ANR, "the issue here is whether you have a safe fall-back. And even without technology failure, there are communication failures — human error — that need to be addressed." The NASA program is intended to evolve in three phases. 67 The first phase encompasses instatlation of automated aids for manaoinQ traffic within the present system and uses existin� airspace design, current procedures, and voice communications. The second phase involves productivity improvements based on new technologies. In the third and final phase, advanced information systems called Advanced Air Transportation Technologies (AATT), will provide opecator flexibility. Under AATT, free flight — composed of shared ground/air control and user collabora- tion in traffic mana�ement decisions — would become a reality. Highly Successful Demonstration The first phase of the R&D effort was completed on schedule in September 1996 and continues to be updated. Phase One consisted of "a network of work stations inter- faced with cunent FAA air traffic systems," explained Denery. "The set of computer tools developed under Phase One "assist in the e�cient planning and control of air tr�c," he said. The tools "are a combination of expert rules and accurate four-dimensional trajectory prediction; that is, they're able to predict aircraft trajectory in the future — time is the fourth dimension." ' The testing in Atlanta of surface movement tools resulted in a"highly successful demonstration," Denery reported. The objective was to develop automation to assist airlines, tower, and airport operators in sharing information. In tower simulator and field trials, an advisory system was built up in sta�es involving information exchange among all parties. A tr�c management demonstration test at the Fon Worth Center last summer was so successful it is "still in place," Denery said, "and will continue to be used to support daily operations." The new system facilitates the feeding of traffic into the terminal area. A few of the results: Avera?e delays were reduced by two to three minutes. The tool proved usable when the standard automatic sequencing program was not. Also, controllers had to use 15 percent fewer flow control advisories, an indicator of a higher degree of e�ciency. Good results were also obtained at DFW with FAST (Passive Final Approach Spacing Tool). One version of this tool, called active FAST, which improves the e�ciency of speed and [urn advisories, was unsuitable for Dallas/Fort Worth for technical reasons; but the passive FAST version, which helps improve the efficiency of sequencing and runway advisories, brought "overwhelmingly positive" feedback from controllers and from airiine personnel, Denery said. There were significant VFR and IFR capacity improvements while IFR separations were maintained. The development process for these and other Phase Une tools differed from what Denery called "the traditional way of adding new capability: ' First a concept was defined by a team of engineers, computer scientists, human factors experts, local controllers, pilou, and dispatchers. Initial AirpoR Noise Report 68 Airport Noise Report software was then developed and adap[ed for the target site by a system development team with the help from on-site controllers and airlines. An assessment team then prepared _and staged the operational tests. At each step of the process, ( ��ontinuina en�ineerin� analysis was performed and consuttation with controllers and pilots was constant. FAA and NASA believe that when full implementation of the Advanced Air Transportation Technology Program — Phase Three of this effort — is complete, it will provide for "continued improvement in air tra�c management leading to greater opportunity for user self-optimization throu�h information sharinQ." It remains to be seen whether, in further development of this system, consideration of aircraft noise will be taken seriously into account. It may be that free flight and the Advanced Air Transportation Technology Proaram will prove to be as much of a boon for airport neiQhbors as for the aviation industry. If so, it is in the interesu of NASA and FAA to begin to work with the public now, to educate, allay concerns, and solicit comment. But if not, one outcome can be predicted with certainty: Any aircraft noise imposed without prior consultation on noise-free communities is sure to provoke opposition that will be costly and time consuming to resolve.0 Part I�0 Policy, from p. 65 On Jan. 1, 1998, eligibility for AIP noise set-aside funding and PFC funding to support Part 150 program measures will - he determined using criteria consistent with this new policy. � ,he agency said that remedial noise mitigation measures for new non-compatible development occurring after Jan. 1, 1998, will not be approved by the a?ency under its Part 150 prob am and will not be eligible for AIP noise set-aside funding or approved for the use of PFC funding, "regardless of previous FAA approvals of such measures under Part 150, the status of implementation of an individual airport's Parc 150 program, or the status of any pendinQ application to use AIP funds or PFC revenue for noise mitiQaaon pur- poses." The new policy also applies to airport noise miti�ation projects that are not part of a formal Part 150 program but are eliCible for funding under the AIP noise set-aside. The FAA did say, however, that it would consider on a case-by-case basis requests by airport for funding of remedial noise mitijation measures for "bypassed lots or additions to existing structures within noise impacted neiahborhoods, additions to existing noise impacted schools or other community facilities required by demographic chanses within their service areas, and formerly noise compatible uses that have been rendered non-compatible as a result of airport expansion or changes in airport opera- tions, and other reasonable exceptions to this policy." These requests must be justified by airport operators. The agency said its policy revision will not affect noise litigation "that is included in FAA-approved environmental � � ,--:iocuments for airport development projects." Public Comment Sought The proposed policy revision was issued for public comment in March 1995. However, the agency is now requestin� additionai public comment on the impact the policy revision will have on limiting eligibility for imposing Passenger Facility Charges to support remedial noise mitigation measures. The proposed policy that was pubiished in 1995 was �eneric in its discussion of funding limitations and did not specifically discuss barring PFC fundin'. The FAA wants to give airport operators an opportunity to address the impact of limiting PFC funding. Comment should reference Docket Na. 28149 and be mailed to Mr. William W. Albee, Policy and Regulatory Division (AEE-300), Office of Environment and Energy, FAA, 800 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20591. Comment will be accepted for 30 days, until June 27. Zoning Not Being Implemented The FAA noted that many local jurisdictions have not adopted zoning ordinances or other land use controls to prevent residential development in high noise zones near airports. The agency said that a study it completed in January 1994 showed that, of the 16 airport with approved Part 150 prob ams studied, local jurisdictions in only six locations had implemented the zoning measures recom- mended in the Part 150 program and jurisdictions in three locations were in the process of implementing them. But jurisdictions around seven airports had not implemented the recommended zonin� measures. The agency said that an independent study, which it did not identify, confirmed these findings. That study evaluated 10 airports with approved Part 150 proa ams in place and found that four locations had prevented new incompatible development but six locations had not. The study noted that, at the latter six locations, 26 non-airport sponsor jurisdic- tions had approved new non-compatible development and 28 non-airport sponsor jurisdictions and one airport sponsor jurisdiction had vacant land that is zoned to allow future non-compatible development. The independent study finding is consistent with FAA observations and with an earlier report by the General AccountinD Office which found that "the ability of airport operators to solve their noise problems is limited by their lack of control of the land sunounding the airport and by ttie airport operator's dependence on local communities and states to cooperate in implementing land use control measures, such as zonin� for compatible uses," FAA said. It appears from the FAA's proposed final policy statement that airport operators will be expected in the future to distinguish on airport noise exposure maps between the location of existing non-compatible land uses and the location of potentially new non-compatible land uses. Many airport operators currendy record this distinction on their noise maps, the FAA said. The text of the FAA notice begins on page 69.0 Airporc Noise Report � � June 2,1997 [4910 -13j ^� DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION � Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 150 [Docket No. 28149] Proposed Finai Policy on Part 150 Approval and Funding of Noise Mitigation Measures AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice of Proposed Final Policy on Part 1�0 Approval and Funding of Noise Mitigation Measures, and request for supplemental comment on its Impacts on Passenger Facility Chazges. SLT],VIlVI'A7[ZY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has prepared for issuance a final policy concerning approval and eligibility for Federal fundino of certain noise mitigation measures. This policy wouid increase the incentives for airport operators to prevent the development of new noncompatible land uses azound airports and assure the most cost et%ctive use of Federal funds spent on noise mitigation measures. This would include certain limitations on the eligibility of auport improvement program (AIP) funds and passenger facility ' charges (PFC). The proposed policy was published in the i Fedezal Register on March 20, 1995 (60 FR 14701), and public _. � � comments were received and considered. This document sets `.-_-- forth the revised policy as proposed for issuance. However, prior to the issuance of the policy the FAA is requesting supplemental comment on the impact of its limitations on PFC eligibility. The FAA will consider any comments on PFC eligibility thus received and revise the policy as may be appropriate prior to issuing the fmal policy. All other issues are considered to have been adequately covered during the ori�inal comment period. Accordingly and aftez any revisions resultin� from supplemental comments received on the impacts on PFC eligibility, as of January 1, 1998, the FAA will approve under 14 CFR part 150 (part 150) only remedial noise mitigation measures for e:tisting noncompatible development and only preventive noise mitigation measures in areas of potential new noncompatible development. The FAA will not approve remedial noise mitigation measures for new noncompatible development that is allowed to occur in the vicinity of airports after the ef%ctive date of this fmal policy. As of the same effective date, eligibility for Airport Improvement Proaram (AIP) funding under the noise set-aside will be determined using criteria consistent with this policy. SpeciFically, remedial noise mitigation measures for new noncompatible development that occurs after the effective date of this fmal policy will not be eligible for AIP funding under the noise set-aside, re�ardless of previous FAA approvals under part 1�0, the status of _ implementation of an individual airport's part 150 program, or �� the status of any pending application for AIP funds. This policy `� � also applies to projects that are eli�ible for noise set-aside funds without a part 150 program. This change in AII' eligibility will change in a similar way the eligibility of noise projects for 69 passenger facility charge (PFC) funding. That is, the FAA will not approve the use of PFC funds to remediate noise impacts for new noncompatible development that occurs after ttte effective date of this policy. DATES: Comments are due 30 days after publication in the Federal Re�ister. This policy will be effective January i, 1998. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. William W. Albee, Policy and Regulatory Division (AEE-300), Office of Environment and Energy, FAA, S00 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-35�3, facsimile (202) 267-5594; Internet WAlbee@mail.hq.faa.gov, or Mr. Eilis Ohnstad, Manager, Airports Financial Assistance Division (APP-S00), Office of Airport Plannin� and Programming, FAA, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267- 3831, facsimile (202) 267-5302. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Baci:ground The Airport Noise Compatibility Planning Program (14 CFR part 1�0, hereinafter referred to as part 150 or the part 150 program) was established under the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 (49 U.S.C. 47501 throuP,h 47509, hereinatter referred to as ASNA). The part 150 program allows airport operators to submit noise exposure maps and noise compatibility programs to the FAA voluntarily. According to the ASNA, a noise compatibility progcam sets forth the measures that an airport operator has taken or has proposed for the reduction of e:cisting noncompatible land uses and the prevention of additional noncompst�ble land uses within the area covered by noise e:cposure maps. The ASNA embodies strong concepts of local initiative and fle:cibility. The submission of noise exposure maps and noise compatibility programs is left to the discretion of local airport operators. Airport operators may also choose to submit noise exposure maps without preparing and submitting a noise compatibility pro�am. The types of ineasures that airport operators may include in a noise compatibility program aze not limited by the ASNA, ailowing airport operators substantial latitude to submit a broad array of ineasures—including innovative measures—that respond to local needs and circumstances. The criteria for approval or disapproval of ineasures submicted in a part 150 program are set forth in the ASNA. The ASNA directs the Federal approval of a noise compatibility program, e:ccept for measures relating to flight procedures: (I) if the program measures do not create an undue burden on interstate or forei�n commerce; (2) if the program measures are reasonably consistent with the goal of reducing existing noncompatible land uses and preventing the introduction of additional noncompatible land uses; and (3) if the program provides for its revision if necessitated by the submission of a revised noise e:cposure map. Failure to approve or disapprove a noise compatibility program within 180 days, except for measures relating to flight procedures, is deemed to be an approval under the ASNA. Finally, the ASNA sets forth broad eligibility criteria, consistent with the ASNA's overall deference to local initiative and fle.cibility. The FAA is au[horized, but not obIigated, to fund projects via ihe Aicport Improvement Program (AIP) to carry out measures in a noise compatibility program that are not disapproved by the FAA. Projects that are eligible for ATP 70 Airport Noise Report funding are also eliDible to be funded with local PFC revenue upon the FAA's approval of an appiication filed by a public agency that owns or operates a commercial service airport. The use of PFC revenue for such projects does not requue an �%"` �, approved noise compatibility program under part 1�0. In establishing the airport noise compatibility placuung program, which became embodied in FAR part 150, the ASNA did not change the le�ai authority of state and local governments to controi the uses of land within their jurisdictions. Public controls on the use of land aze commonly exercised by zonin'. Zoning is a power reserved to the states under the U.S. Constitution. It is an e:cercise of the police powers of the states ihat designates the uses pemulted on each parcel of land. This power is usually delegated in state enabiing le�islation to local levels of government. Many local land use control authorities (cities, counties, etc.) have not adopted zoning ordinances or other controts to prevent noncompatibie development (primarily residential) within the noise impact areas of airports. An airport's noise impact area, identif ed within noise contours on a noise e:tposure map, may e:ttend over a number of different local jurisdictions that individually concrol land uses. For etiampie, at five airports recently studied, noise contours overlaid portions of 2 to 25 different jurisdictions. While airport operators have inciuded measures in noise compatibility programs submitted under part 1�0 to prevent the development of new noncompatible land uses through zoning and other controls under the authorides of appropriate local jurisdictions, success in implementin° these measures has been mixed. A study performed under contract to ihe FAA, completed in 7anuary 1994, evaluated 16 airports having approved part 150 programs for the implementation of land use control measures. This study found that of the 16 ? � airports, 6 locations had implemented the recommended zonin� . __ measures, 7 locations had not implemented the recommended zoning measures, and 3 were in the process of impiementation. Another independent study evaluated 10 airports that have FAA approved part 150 programs in place and found that 4 locations had prevented new noncompatibie development and 6 locations had not prevented such new development. At the latter 6 locations, the study reported that 26 nonairport sponsor jurisdictions had approved new noncompatible development and 28 nonairport sponsor jurisdictions and 1 auport sponsor jurisdiction had vacant land that is zoned to allow fucure noncompatible development. The independent study identified the primarv problem of allowing new noncompatible land uses near airports to be in jurisdictions that are different from the airport sponsor's jurisdiction. This is consistent with observations by the Ft1A and with a previous General Accounting Office report which observed that the ability of airport operators to solve their noise problems is limited by their lack of control over the land surrounding the airports and the operator's dependence on local � communities and states to cooperate in implementing land use control measures, such as zoning for compatible uses. The FAA's January 1994 study e:cplored factors that contribute to the failure to implement land use conttois for noise purposes. A major factor is the multiplicity of jurisdictions with land use control authority within airport noise impact areas. The grea[er the number of different jurisdictions, the greater the ( probability that at least some of them will not impiement �_� conuols. Some jurisdictions have no[ developed cooperative relationships with the airport operator, which impedes appropriate land use compatibility pianning. Some jurisdictions are not aware of the effects of aircraft noise and of the desirability of land use controls. This appears to be caused by a lack of ongoing education and communication between the airport and the jurisdictions, and to be worsened by lack of continuity in local government. Some jurisdictions do not perceive land use controls as a priority because the amount of vacant land available for noncompatible development within the airport noise impact area is small, perhaps constitu[in; only minor development on dispersed vacant lots, or because the current demand for residential construction near the airport is low to none:cistent In such areas, land use controi changes are not considered to have the ability to chan�e substantially the number o£residents affected by noise. Jurisdictions may also ?ive noise a low priority compared to the economic advanta�es of developing more residential land or the need for additional housing stock within a community. A 2oning change from residential to industrial or commercial may not make economic sense if little demand e�cists for this type of development. Therefore, a zoning change is viewed as limiting development opportunities and dimu►ishing the opportunities for tax revenues. In some cases, zoning for compatible land use has met with organized public opposition by property owners arguing that the proposed zonin� is a threat to private properiy rights, and that they deserve monetary compensation for any potendal property devaluation. Further, basic zoning doctrine demands that the individual land parcels be left wi[h viable economic value, i.e., be zoned for a use for which there is reasonable demand and economic return. Othenvise, the courts may deternune a zonin� change for compatibility to be a"taking" of private property for public use under the Fifih Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, requiring just compensation. One or more of the factors hindering et%ctive land use controls may be of sufficient importance to preclude some jurisdictions &om followin� throueh on the land use recommendations of an airport's part 150 noise compatibility program. When either an airport sponsor's or a nonairport sponsor's jurisdiction allows additional noncompatibie development within the airport's noise impact area, it can result in noise problems for the people who move into the area. This can, in turn, result in noise problems for the airport operator in the form of inverse condemnation or noise nuisance lawsuits, public opposi[ion to the expansion of the airport's capacity, and local politicat pressure for airport operational and capacity limitations to reduce noise. Some airport operators have taken the position tha[ they will not provide any fmancial assistance to mitisate aviation noise for new noncompatibie development Other airport operators have determined that it is a practical necessity for them to include at least some new residential areas within their noise assistance programs to mitigate noise impacts that they were unable to prevent in the first place—particulazly if they have airport e:tpansion plans. Over a relatively short period of time, the distinctions blur between what is "new" and what is "e:cisting" residential development with respect to airport noise issues. Airport operators currently may include new noncompatibie land uses, as well as esisting noncompatible land uses, witllin their part 150 noise compatibility prograzns and recommend that remediai noise mitigation measures—usually eicher property acquisition or noise insulation—be applied to both situations. These measures have been considered t� qualify for approval by the FAA under 49 USC 47504 and 14 CFR part � � � � ( � �! ,--.. ( � June 2,1997 150. The part 150 approval enables noise mitigation measures to be eligible for Federal funding, althougt► it does not �uarantee that Federal funds will be provided. Similaz remedial measures aze eligible to be funded with PFC revenue collected by public agencies pursuant to the provisions of 49 USC 4011'7 and 14 CFR 158. Project eli�ibility for PFC use is established by the eligibility of such a project under the AIP. While approval by the F.AA for a public ajency to use PFC revenue for noise mitigation purposes does not require an approved part 150 noise compatibility pro�ram, the public agency must demonstrate the e.�istence of noncompatible land uses azound the airport and the eiiicacy of the proposed noise project The Change in FAA. Policy Beginning January 1, 1998, the FAA will approve under part 150 only remedial noise mitigation measures for e:tisting noncompatible development and only preventive noise mitigation measures in areas of potential new noncompatible development As of the same date, criteria for detemuning AIP eligibility under the noise set-aside and the use of PFC revenue that are consistent with this policy will be appiied by the FAA. Specifically, after the effective date of this final policy, remedial noise mitigation measures for new noncompatible development that occurs from that date forward will not be eligible for AIP funding under the noise set-aside, regardless of previous FAA approvals under part 150, the status of implementation of an individual airport's part 150 pro�am, or the status of any pending application for AIP funds. This policy also appiies to projects that are eligible for the noise set-aside without a part 150 progam pursuant to 49 USC 4704( c). Additionally, because a project must be eligible under the AIP to be elioible for PFC funds, this policy will affect the eligibility of noise mitioation measures for PFC fundin�. Consequently, after the ef%ctive date of this fmal policy, the FAA will not approve the use ofPFC funds to implement remedial noise mitigation measures for new noncompatible development that occurs from that date forward. Additional Comment Period for Effects on PFC Eligibility This fmal policy e:�plicitly includes passen�er facility char�es (PFC) within the prohibition of funding for remedial noise measures for new noncompatible development. However, the proposed policy that was published in the Federai Resister and made available for pubiic comment was more generic in its discussion of funding and did not specifically cite PFC eligibility. The public comments on fundin� that were received focused almost exclusively on Airport Improvement Pro�am (AIP) funding. The policy's impact on PFC eligibility is identical to its impacts on AIP eligibiiity. Accordingly, a docket is open for a period of 30 days after the date of publication of this proposed fmal policy for public comment upon those issues related to the policy's impacts upon PFC eligibility. All other issues are considered to have been adequately covered during the original comment period. After consideration of any pubiic comments thus received, the FAA may fuNier refine the policy by revising portions of the policy related to PFC eligibility. Inasmuch as the FAA anticipates that any such revisions may be incorporated and the final policy issued within a reasonably short tune, the effective date of this policy will be January l, ;�� 1993. � 71 Discussion The continuing development of noncompatible land uses around airports is not a new problem. The FAA, airport operators, and the aviation community as a whole have for some years e:cpended a great deai of effort to deal with the noise problerns that are precipitated by such development. With respect to the part 150 program and Airport Improvement Program (AIP) noise grants, the FAA considered in the 1989-1990 timeframe whelher to disallow Federal assistance for new noncompatible development (note that these deliberations occurred prior to the advent of the PFC program). The choice posed at that time was either (1) allow Federal funding for airport operator recommendations in part 1�0 pro�rams that included new noncompatible land uses within the parameters of noise mitigation measures targeted for financial assistance from the airport (e.g., acquisition, noise insula[ion), or (2) disallow all FederaI funding for new noncompatibie development that local jurisdictions fail to control througt► zoning or other land use controls. No other alternatives were considered. The FAA selected the first option—to continue to allow Federai funds to be used to mitigate new noncompatible development as well as e:cisting noncompatible development if the airport operator so chose. Several factors supported this decision. One factor was lack of authority by auport operators to prevent new noncompatible development in nonairport sponsor jurisdictions, although airport sponsors bear the brunt of noise lawsuits. Intense local opposition to an airport can be detrimental to its capacity, especially if any e�ansion of airport facilities is needed. The FAA aiso considered the plight of local citizens livin� �vith a noise impact that they may not have fuily understood at the time of home purchase. Land use noise mitigation measures, funded by the airport either with or without Federal assistance, may be the only practical tool an airport operator has to mitigate noise impacts in a community. The FAA �vas hesitant to deny airport operators and the affected public Federal help in chis re�ard. In addition, the FAA gave deference to the locai initiative, the fle;tibility, and the broad eli�ibility for project funding under the RSNA. Since this review in 1989-1990, the FAA has given e:ctensive additional consideration to the subject of noncompatible land uses around airports. The change in FAA policy presented here involves a more measured and multifaceted approach than the proposal considezed in 1989- 1990. A primary criterion in the ASNA for the FAA's approval of ineasures in an airpoct's part 150 noise compatibility proQram is dlat the measures must be reasonably consistent with obtauun� the goal oFreducing e:tisting noncompatible land uses and preventin� the in[roduction of additional noncompatible land uses. Until now, the FAA has applied this criterion as a whole �vhen issuin; detemninations under part 150; that is, if a measure either reduces or prevents noncompatible development, no matter when that development occurs, it may be approved as bein� reasonably consistent. No disiinction has been made by the FfIA bet�n-een remedial noise mitigation measures that reduce noncompatible development and preventive noise mitigation measures that prevent new noncompatible development. Airport operators may, therefore, recommend and receive FAA approval under part 150 for remedial acquisition or soundproofing of new residential development. The FAA now believes that it would be more prudent to distinguish bet�veen (1) noise mitigation measures that are 72 Airport Noise Report reasonably consistent with the goal of reducing existin� in which noise from an airport's operation has significantly noncompatible land uses (i.e., remedial measures) and (2) noise increased, resultino in new areas that were compatibie with � mitigation measures that are reasonably consistent with the goal initial conditions becoming noncompatible. Airport operators of preventing the introduction of additional noncompatible land will be responsible for makina the case for exceptions to the 3 �'� '} uses (i.e., preventive measures). Using such a distinction, policy guidelines in their part 150 submittals. airport operators would need to identify clearly within the area It should be noted that noise mitigation wouid covered by noise e;tposure maps the location of existin� contulue to be eligible for AIP and PFC funds if approved as noncompatible land uses versus the location of potentially new mi[i�ation measures in an FAA environmental document for noncompatible land uses. Many airport operators currently airport development project(s). This final policy does not affect record this distinction in their noise e:cposure map submissions, that eligibility. when identifying noncompatible land uses. Potentiatly new Eligibility for Federal funding of noise projects noncompatible land uses could include (1) areas currently through the noise set-aside of the AIP wili follow the same undergoing residential or other noncompatible construction; (2) policy as the FAA's part 150 determinations—remediat projects areas zoned for residential or other noncompatible development for e:tisting noncompatible development and preventive projects where construction has not begun; and (3) areas currently for potential new noncompatible development The FAA will compatible but in danger of being developed noncompatibly apply the same eligibility criteria to those few types of noise within the timeframe covered by the airport's noise compatibility projects, such as soundproofin; of schoois and health care program. facilities, that are eligibie for AIf' funds under the noise set The purpose of distinauishing between e�istuig and aside without an approved part 150 program. The change in AIP potential new noncompatible development is for airport eligibility will cause a like change in the eligibility of noise operators to restrict their consideration of remedial noise projects for PFC funding. mitigation measures to e:tisting noncompatible development and The impact of revising the FAA's policy on part 150 to focus preventive noise mitigation measures on pocentially new noise determinations and funding eligibility will be to preclude noncompatible development The most commonly used the use of the part 150 program and AII' or PFC funds to remedial noise mitigation measures are land acquisition and remediate new noncompatible development within the noise relocation, noise insulation, easement acquisition, purchase contours of an airport after the ef�ective date of this final policy. assurance, and transaction assistance. The most commonly used By preciuding this option while at the same time emphasizing preventive noise midgation measures are comprehensive the array of preventive noise mitigation measures that may be planning, zoning, subdivision regulations, easement acquisicion appiied to potential new noncompatible development, the FAA restricting noncompatible development, revised buiidin' codes seeks to focus airport operators and local govenunents more for noise insulation, and real estate disclosure. Acquisition of clearly on using these Federai prograrns to the maximum e:ctent �_ vacant land may also be a preventive noise mitigation measure to prevent noncompatible development around airports, rather �, �- with supporting evidence in the airport operator's part 1�0 than attemptin� to mi[igate noise in such development after the ( � submission that acquisition is necessary to prevent new fact. The FAA has determined that such a policy will better '-- " noncompatible development because noncompatible serve the public interest. Unlike the FAA's previous development on the vacant land is hi�hly lil:ely and locai land consideration of this issue in 1989-1990, AIP and PFC funding use controls will not prevent such development 01ten, may be available to assist auport operators in dealing with new combinations of these measures are applied to ensure the noncompa[ible development that is not being successfully maximum compatibility. controlled by local jurisdictions, so lon� as the airport's methods Under this final FAA policy, airport operators �vouid prevent the noncompatible development rather than mitigating it not be limited to applying ihe most commonly used noise after development has occurred. This should be a more cost- mitigation measures in their noise compatibiiity pro�ams. effective use of available funds since remedial noise mitigation Local flexibility to recommend other measures, includuig measures generally cost more for a given unit than preventive innovative measures, under part 1�0 would be retained. measures. However, all noise mitigation measures appiied to existin� In selectin� a date to impiement this final policy, the noncompatibie developmen[ must ciearly be remedial and serve FAA is balancin; a desire to implement a beneficial progam the goal of reducing e:cisting noncompatible land uses. chan�e as rapidly as possible with practical transition Similariy, all noise mitiga[ion measures applied to potential new considerations of ongoing part 150 proorams. One approach noncompatible development must clearly be preventive and considered was to implement it on an airport-by-airport basis, serve the goal of preventin, the introduction of additional selectin� either the date of the FAA's acceptance of an airport's noncompatible land uses. noise exposure maps or the date of the FAA's approval of an Any future FAA detetminations issued under part 1�0 airport's noise compatibility program under part 150. will be consistent under tlus policy. The FAA's approval of This approach would have the advantage of directly remedial noise mi[igation measures will be limited to z�cistin� tying tlus policy to a point in time for which an airport operator � noncompatible development. The FAA's approval of prevendve has defined, in a public process, the size of the airport's noise noise mitigation measures will be applied to potential new impact area and has consulted with local jurisdictions on noncompatible development. The FAA recognizes that there measures to reduce and prevent noncompatibie land uses. There will be gray areas which will have to be addressed on a case-by- are, however, disadvantages to this approach. More than Z00 case basis within these policy guidelines. For example, minor airports have participated in the part 150 program, beguuung in development on vacant lots within an existin� residential the early 1980's. Thus, selecting either the noise e:cposure � neighborhood, which clearly is not e:ttensive new noncompatible map's acceptance date or the noise compatibility program's `�,-_ l development, may for practical purposes need to be treated with approval date for these airports, which includes the great `.__: �the same remedial measure applied to the rest of the majoriry of commercial service airports with noise problems, neighborhood. Another esample would be a remedial situation would entail either applyin� this final policy retroactively or June 2,1997 appiying it prospectively at some future date as such airports update their maps and programs. �' The selection of an airport-by-airport retroactive date would have required the FAA. and airport operators to revie�v ( i previous part 150 maps and programs, historically reconstructing which land use development was "e:cisting" at that time and which development is "new" since then, potentially to withdraw previous FAA part 150 deternunations approving remedial measures for "new" deveiopment, and not issue new AIE' grants for any "new" development (which by 1997 may have akeady been built and in place for a number of years and be re�arded locaily as an integral part of the airport's mitigation proaram for e:tisting development). There was the further practical consideration of benefits to be achieved. It may now be too late to apply preventive noise mitigation measures to noncompatibie land uses that have been developed since an airport's noise esposure maps have been accepted or noise compatibility program has been approved. If remedial noise mitigation measures were now determined not to be applicable to such areas, the areas would be left in limbo, having had no advance warning of a change in Federal policy. There would also be disadvantages to applying this final policy prospectively on an airport-by-airport basis as an airport either upciates a previous part 150 program or completes a first-time part 150 submission. The major disadvantages would be in the timeliness of implementin' this final policy and the universality of its covezage. Since part 1�0 is a voluntary � program, airport operators may seiect their timing of entry into the program and the timing of updates to previous noise exposure maps and noise compatibility proerams. The result would be a patchwork implementation, with some airporrs operating under the new policy regarding part 150 noise _ mitigation measures and funding and other airports operatui� � � under the old policy for an unspecified number of years. An unintended and counterproductive side effect could be the postponement by some airports of updated noise exposure maps and noise compatibility programs in order to maintain Federal funding eligibility under the previous policy. __. ,_ The FAA has deternuned that its preferred option is to select one prospective date nationwide as the effective date for this finai policy, rather than to implement it based on a�� individual airport's part 150 activities, either maps or pro�rram. A specific date wiil ensure nationwide application on a uniform basis and provide a more timely implementation than prospective airport-by-auport implementation dates. A specific date will also eliminate any perceived advantages in postponing new or updated part 150 programs. The FAA considered ttvo options with respect to the selection of a specific date: (1) the date of issuance of a final policy foilowing the evaluation of comments received on its proposal or (2) a future date, 180 days to a year after publication of a final policy to allo�v transition time for airport operators to accommodate previously approved part 150 progtams, recent part 150 submissions, or those programs or submissions under development. While the date of issuance of a fmal poticy �vas considered to have the advanta�e of [imeliness, this �vas outweighed by the disadvantage of too abrupt a transition from one policy to another without giving airport operators and local communities a chance to react. The FAA anticipated in its notice of this change in policy that there woutd be a transition period from the date of issuance of a final policy of at least 180 i ) days to avoid disrupting airport operators' noise compatibility programs that have akeady been submilted to the FAA and are undergoing statutory review. The FAA also announced in its 73 notice that provision for this period plus an additional margin of time beyond 180 days would allow airport operators adequate opporiunity to amend previously completed noise compatibility pro?rams or proarrams cunently underway, in consultation with local jurisdictions, to emphasize preventive rather than remedial measures for new development. Accordingly, the FAA sought comment on how long to extend a transition period beyond the 180 days noted—to a possible maximum of i year from the date of issuance of the final policy. In view of the e.ctended time period since pubiication of the original notice, pius the opportunity for supplemental comment on the impacts of the policy on PFC eligibility, the effective date of January 1, 1998, is considezed to more than fulfill the i year impiementation timeframe that was proposed in the original notice and should provide adequate time to revise or update noise compatibility pro�rmns that are in preparation. The potential future expenditure of AIP funds for projects to remediate new noncompatible development during a transition period is believed to be minimal, based upon the FAA's review of the sampie of auports included in the FAA's recent study and in an independent study, as well as general proeram knowiedge. Not all airports have a problem of continuin, uncontrolled noncompatible development within the area covered by noise contours. Among those that do have a problem, few of them offer to provide remedial financial assistance for the new development, as shown in their part 150 submissions. Even in those cases where financial assistance for remediation has been recommended for new noncompatible development, it has generally been limited in scope and identified as a lower priority than funding remediation for e:cistin, noncompatible development. Further, funding for such new noncompatible development tends to be anticipated only in the latter years of an airport's part 150 program when it may not be needed because of shrinking noise contours resulting from the national transition to the use of Stage 3 aircraft. Since part 150 is a voluntary program, each airport operator has the discretion to make its own determinations re�ard"u�� Uie impact of this fmal policy on e:cisting noise compatibility programs. If an unpact is found, each operator can detennine whether to immediately amend its program during the allowed transition period or to wait until the program is odienvise updated. The FAA will not initiate withdrawais of any previous part 150 program approvals based on this policy. However, any remedial noise mitigation measures for noncompatibie development that is allowed to occur within the area of an airport's noise e;cposure maps af�er the effective date of this final policy wiil have to be funded locally, since the measures wiii not be eligible for AIP assistance from the noise set-aside or for PFC funding. New part 150 approvals after the effective date of this final policy will conform to this policy. Discussion of Comments On March 20, 1995, the FAA issued a notice of proposed policy (60 FR 14701), and solicited comments from the public on the proposed policy change. The issues raised in the comments are summarized and addressed below: Twenty-one individuals and organizations submitted conunents on the proposal. Comments were submitted by airport operators, airport associations, aviation associations, pilot associations, public agencies, community civic organizations, and businesses and business organizations. Of the 21 commenters, all but 8 commented favorably upon the policy as proposed by the FAA. Those eight commenters expressed preferences for three of the five alternatives upon �4 Airport Noise Report which the FAA had solicited comments: retain the existin� policy (alternative Number 1), retain the e:cisting policy for auport operators that have taken earnest but unsuccessfui steps to prevent new noncompatible development in jurisdictions outside their control (alternative Number 2), retain the existin� policy for noncompatible land uses within tt►e DNL 6� dB contour wich an all Stage 3 fleet (alternative Number 3), retain existing policy for part 1�0 approval, but eliminate Federal funding eligibility for remedial measures for new noncompatible development (alternative Number 4), and implement the proposed policy on a airport-by-airport basis (alternative Number 5). Three of those commenters expressed a preference for alternative Number 1; three preferred altemative Number 2; and two preferred alternative Number 4. A discussion of the issues raised bv the commentezs follows. Comments were also requested on how ]ong a transition period beyond the 180 days to ailow—to a possible maximum 1 year total—from thz date of issuance of the policy. Discussion of the comments on the effective date of the policy and the FAA's response fotlows the discussion of issues. Issues A review of the comments on the substance of the proposed policy revealed six general issues or concerns. Each of those issues and the FAA's response is presented belo�v. Issue: Airport zrpansion causing die noncompatibiliry: Four commenters e:tpressed concern that airport e:�pansion which increased the noise exposure of previously compatible development might become ineli�ible for Federal noise mitigation funds. FAA Resparse: The new policy will continue the eligibility of such properties. From the discussion of the � proposed policy (60 Fed. Reg.14701, March 20,199�), "The --- FAA recognizes that there will be �ay areas which will have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis within these policy guidelines. [An] esample would be a remedial situation in which noise from an airport's operation has si�ificantly increased, resulting in new areas that were compatible wich initial conditions becoming noncompatible. Airport operators wouid be responsible for making the case for exceptions to the policy guidelines in their part 150 submittals." It shouid be noted that noise mitigation would continue to be eli�ible for AIP and PFC funds if approved as mitigation measures in an FAA environmental document for airport development project(s). This final policy does not affect that eli�ibility. Foresighted airport planning, the pro�rammed phase out of noisy Stage 2 transport type jet airplanes and the subsequent shrinkaae of noise contours for many airports, plus aggressive noise compatibility planning and implementation throuQ,h effective local land use controls and buildina codes, can and shoutd lar�ely preclude situations in which airport expansion causes new noncompatible uses. Issue: Compatible developme�rt ort bypassed lors within existing noise inrpacted neig/rborhoorls: Sevecal ' commenters expressed concern about development of bypassed lots or additions to existing structures within noise impacted neighborhoods. FAA Respo�rse: Bypassed lots, e.D., vacant or in-fill lots and other small parcels of vacant land within othenvise developed neighborhoods, are usually unsuitable for �' � development with uses significantly difFerent from that of their _._ nei;hbors. It would be impractical, for example, to requue industrial or commercial development on a vacant lot within an existing residential nei�.hborhood. Any poticy or Imid use control that effectively prevents any economically viable development of such properties raises the specter of pubiic use of private property without due compensation. The new policy will continue the eligibility of such properties, althougtt on a case-by-case basis. From the discussion of the proposed policy (60 Fed. Reg.14701, March 20,1995), "For example, minor development on vacant lots within an e:cisting residendal neighborhood, which is clearly not e:ctensive new noncompatible development, may for practicai purposes need to be treated with the same remedial measure applied to the rest of the nei�hborhood." Also from that discussion, "Airport operators would be responsible for making the case for e.cceptions to the policy guidelines in their part 150 submittals." In interpreting this, any such new structures or additions to existing structures shouid have the appropriate sound attenuation measures incorporated as an integral part of their initial construction rather than plannina to have them added through a subsequent remedial soundproofing program. Those remedial programs are desi�ed to brin� relief to pree�sting structures. Issue: Sclrool additions serving population growth in esisti�rg noise impacted neighborhoods: One commenter asked for continued eli�ibility for school additions necessary to serve rapidly �owing school age popula[ions within e:cisting noise impacted neighborhoods. F.�Li Response: Generally, when a school addition or other community faciliry is necessary to serve the local neishborhood and relocation outside the noise impact area is impractical, it should remain elioible for Federal funding assistance for the additional cost of including the appropriate sound attenuation measures in its initial construction. Eligibility for remediai noise mitigation measures for additions to e:tisting noise impacted schools or neighborhood service facilities required by demo�aphic changes within their service areas will be considered by the FAA on a case-by-case basis. Issue: Proposed Policy will be more costly and weakens ihe position ojthe airport operator.• One or more commenters felt that the proposed policy is less preferabie than the present policy and may be more costly since it encourages airport operators to acquire land or rights in land in lieu of negotiations with neighboring communities. Concern was expressed that it aiso removes an important negotiating tool— that of Federat matching grants to mitigate the noise in nei�hborin' jurisdictions. F.�Ll Response: Purchase of noise impacted lands by the airport without their use for an airport purpose, or their lease or resale for an airport compatible use, is costly both in terms of the acquisition costs and of the e:ctended costs of maintenance and loss of tae base. The proposed policy is, in part, designed to give airport operators who do no[ exercise land use controi jurisdiction an incentive to press responsible officials into action and to engage in more vioorous neootia[ions with land use control jurisdictions that have lands impacted by the airport's noise, but do not have proprietary interest in the airport. The policy does so by assuring both airport sponsors and local land use control jurisdictions that no AIP of PFC funds will be available to miti�ate the airport's noise impacts upon the noncompatible uses that they pennit to be developed in the face of and in fuil knowled�e of the airport's noise. Issue: CoirJlicts with state noise compatibility programs: One commenter e:cpressed concern that the proposed change was not compatible with its e:tistin� state noise compatibility laws. Fi1.4 Respo�rse: The state cited, California, has been a leader in the aiiport noise compatibility effort and has noise � � � June 2,199'7 standards in place that require airport operators to bring noncompatible land uses into compliance with those standards. E3owever, the auport operator has no direct control to prevent the introduction of new noncompatible uses. The new policy is � not intended to work counter to such positive noise compatibility ' efforts, it is intended to reinforce such efForts. VJhere noncompatible uses e:cisted prior to the effective date of this policy, they are still eligible for AIP or PFC assistance for remedial noise compatibility measures_ The new policy is designed to provide the airport operator with additional leveraae to discourage the introduction of new noncompatible uses. Issue: Sharing of responsibilities: One commenter sugaested that the language of the original notice tended to suggest that local communities that are not the airport's sponsors might not be predisposed to act in a fully responsible manner to carry through with noise compatibility pro�ams. FAA Response: This was certainly not the intent of the notice, nor is that the FAA's perspective. The FAA recognizes that by and large most communities act, within their means, in a quite responsible manner vis-a-vis airport noise compatibility. However, we also recognize that such communities may be under locally si�nificant economic and political pressures to aliow noncompatible developmen� It is the FAA's view that the active cooperation and coherent efforts of all parties involved are required to successfully plan and implement an airport noise compatibility program that meets the community's economic, political, and aviation needs. That is a central goat of the part 150 program and the rationale for its e:ttensive consuttation and community involvement elements. Efjective date of the policy Several commenters made recommendations on dates �, ' for the provisions of the policy to become effective at�er its � publication in the Federal Re�ister. Their recommended dates ranged from "as soon as possible," to 90 days, to "no earlier than 18 months." In selecting a date to implement this final policy, the FAA balanced the desire to impiement a beneficiat pro�am change as rapidly as possible wi[h the practical transition considerations of ongoing part 1�0 prograu�s. •In the notice for public comment, the FAA anticipated a transition period of at least 180 days from the date of issuance of a final policy to avoid disrupting airport operators' noise compatibility programs that have akeady been submitted to the FAA and are under;oin, statutory review. The notice also suggested an additional mazgin of time to a maxunum of 1 year to allow airport operators adequate opportunity to amend previously completed noise compatibility programs or pro�ams cuirently under development, in consultation with local jurisdictions, to emphasize preventive rather than remedial measures for new development. Accordingly, and after carefui consideration of the public comments on this issue and the e:ctended time since FAA issued notice of this proposed policy, the FAA selects a transition period to end December 31, 1997. This should afford airport operators, local land use control authorities, developers, and others with ample opportunity to revise their plans, proQrams, land use controls, and building codes. Issue: Use of statements from the proposecl policy: We note that statements in the proposed policy (60 Fed. Reg. 14701)have been misread. �( ) FAA Response: These statements reco�nized the role -' that state and local govemments pIay in airport noise compatibility planning. They did not reach the issue of whether �s zoning decisions that regulate airport development and operations within an airport's esisting boundaries may be federally preempted. The statement "Neither the FAA nor any aaency of the Federal Government has zoning authority" has been deleted because it led to some conCusion. NOTICE OF PROPOSED FAA POLICY: Accordingly, by this publication the FAA is formally notifying airport operators and sponsors, airport users, the ofTiciais of ali public agencies and planning agencies whose area, or any portion of whose area, of jurisdiction aze within the noise contours as depicted on an airport's part 1�0 noise exposure map, and all persons owiung property within, considering acquisition of property within, considering moving into such areas, or having other interests in such azeas, of the following proposed fmai FAA policy concernina future approval under 14 CFR part 150 and eligibility for AIP and PFC funding of certain noise mitigation measures. PROPOSED FINAL POLICY STATEMENT: Beguuung January l, 1998, the FAA will approve under part 150 only remedial noise mitigation measures for e:asting noncompatible development and only preventive noise mitigation measures in areas of potential new noncompatible development. As of the same date, eliQibility for AIP noise set-aside funding and PFC funding will be determined using criteria that aze consistent with this policy. Specificaliy, remedial noise mitigation measures for new noncompatible development occurring after the et%ctive date of this final policy will not be approved by the FAA under part 150 and will not be eligible for AIP noise set aside fundina or approved for the use of PFC fundina, regardless of previous FAA approvais of such measures under part 150, the status of implementation of an indi'vidual airport's part 150 program, or the status of any pending application to use AIP funds or PFC revenue for noise mitigation purposes. This policy also applies to projects that are eligibie under the noise set aside without a part 150 program. Eligibility for remedial noise miti�ation measures for bypassed lots or additions to existing structures within noise impacted neighborhoods, additions to existing noise impacted schools or other community facilities required by demographic changes within their service areas, and formerly noise compatible uses that have been rendered noncompatible as a resutt of airport e:tpansion or chan$es in airport operations, and other reasonable exceptions to this policy on similar �ounds must be justiFed by airport operators in submittals to the FAA and will be considered by the FAA on a case-by-case basis. This policy does not affect noise mitigation that is included in FAA-approved euvironmental documents for airport development projects. Issued in Washington, DC, on May 20, 1997 Paul R. Dykeman Deputy Director of Environment and Ener?y 76 Airport Nozse Report ! ANR EDITORIAL j ADVISORY BOARD � --� Mark Atwood, Esq. � `i Galland, Kharasch, Morse & Garfinkle Washington, D.C. Lee L. Blackman, Esq. McDermott. Will & Emery Los Angeles, Calif. Dr. Clifford R. Bragdon, AICP Dean. School of Aviation & Transportation Dowling College Eliot Cutler, Esq. Cuder & StanFeld Washington, D.C. J. Spencer Dickerson Senior Vice President American Associadon of Airport Executives Edward J. DiPolvere Administrator, National Associadon of Noise Control Officials Richard G. "Dick" Dyer Airport Environmental Specialist, Division of Aeronaurics. Calif. Dept. of Transportation E. Tazewell Ellett, Esq. Hogan & Hartson Washington, D.C. Julie H. Ellis, Esq. �� ManagingDirector Federat Express Corporation Angel M. Garcia Co-Chairman Citizens Against Newark Noise E.H. "Moe" Haupt Manager. Airpon and Environmental Services, National Business Aircraft Association Robert P. Siiverberg, Esq. Bagileo. Siiverberg & Goldman Washington, D.C. Joanne W. Young, Esq. Baker & Hosteder LLP Washington, D.C. ON THE AGENDA... June 1�-17 NOISE-CON 97, The 1997 National Conference on Noise Control Engineerins, The Pennsylvania State University, 5tate Coilege, PA (contact Conference Secretariat: NOISE-CON 97, Graduate Program in Acoustics, Applied Research Lab, PSU, PO Box 30, State College, PA 16804; tel: (814) 865-6364; fax: (814) 865-2119). June 16-20 Semi-annual meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, The Pennsylvania State University, State Coilege, Pa (contact ASA at tei: (212) 248-0373). July 23-26 Annual meeting of the National Organization to Insure a Sound-controlled Environment (NOISE), Minneapo- lis, MN (contact Betty Ann Kane, Executive Director of NOISE; tel: (202) 546-9062). July 20-23 Transportation Research Board's A1F04 Conference on Transportation Related Noise and Vibration, Toronto, Canada (contact Soren Peterson at the Ontario Ministry of Transport, tel: (905) 704-2291). Aug 21-23 ACTNE 97, the 1997 International Symposium on Active Control of Noise and Vibration, Budapest, Hun�ary (contact Symposium Secretariat, OPAKFT, H- 1027 Budapest, Fou. 68, Hun�ary). Aug 25-2� INTER-NOISE 97, The 1997 International Conference on Noise Controi Engineerins, Budapest, Hungary (same contact as above). Sept 28-Oct 1 6th ACI-NA Re'ional Conference & Exhibition, Detroit, MI(contact ACI-NA; 1775 K St., NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20006; tel: (202) 293-8500; fax (202) 331-1362). AIRPORT NOISE REPOR�' Anne �I. Kohut, Publisher Marguerite Lambert, Production Coordinator Charles F. Price, Contributing Editor; Anne Jacobs, Circulation Editor; Maria T. Norton, Production Editor Pubtished 25 times a year at 43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 22011; Phone: (703) 729-4867; FAX: (703) 729-4528. . Price $495. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by Airport Noise Report, provided that the base fee of US$1.03 per page per copy is paid directly to Copyri�ht Clearance Genter, 2'T Congress Street, Salem, MA 01970. USA. Copyright � 1997 by Airport Noise Report, Ashburn, Va. 2201 t � 1. 2. 3. �. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. • �• METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUiVD ABATEMENi COUNCIL General Meeting May 27, 1997 ' 7:30 p.m. to 9:15 p.m. 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapalis,. Minnesota Caii to Order, Roii Call Approval of Minutes of Meeting Aprii 22, 1997 Introduction of invited Guests � Receipt of Communications ��C�i.11'ra^.a�nv�iSO�S �liiTIWB`�.�'7j/5��(ir vz�l��ataar� P.ep�rtai5u .��ifY6'3'9'pie?b:el� Summary ANOMS Update City of Sunfish Lake and DHL Airways Membership Vote MASAC By-�aw Quorum Requirements Vote Noise Abatement Departure Profiles (NADPs) Vote Report of the MAC Commission Meeting Persons Wishing to Address the Council Other Items Not on the Agenda Adjournment Next Meeting: June 24, 1997 ( MINUTES METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL GENERAL MEETING Apri122, 1997 7:30 p.m. 6040 28th Avenue South Nl6nneapolis, I�linnesot� 1. Call to Order Roli Call The meeting was called to order by Chairman Bob Johnson at 7:40 p.m. and the secretary was asked to call the roli. The foilowing members were in attendance. BobJohnson Mark Saimen Jennifer Sayre Brian Bates Mike Geyer Charles Curry Dick Keinz Jim Serrin John Richter Joe Lee Pamela Neims Carol McGuire Tom Hueg Dawn Weitzel Kristal Stokes Petrona Lee Jill Smith Lance Staricha Jon Hohenstein Ed Porter Rue Shibata Peter Amish Manny Camilon Advisors . John Aamondt Ron Glaub Traci Erickson Chad Leqve �, � ) �,. c �^- .�-� e (.c� � _ c��n C� � j, �r-v�.5,.� �. i �..Q r C �- _ � O�, �, j �!�- ✓ ,�-- , ) 1 G � �'" � d �� M BAA NWA � NWA Airborne UPS AL.PA MAC Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis �Viinneapoiis St. Paul St. Paul Richfield Richfield Bloomington Mendota Heights Eagan Eagan Burnsville Inver Grove Heights Inve� Grove Heights St. Louis Park FAA FAA Technical Advisor MAC �r ) �- ;J �,�;2 �- � i r ,. J , � Visitors Brian Simonson Steve Hughes 2. Approval of Minutes DH� Inver Grove Heights The minutes of the March 25, 1997 meeting were approved as distributed. Joe Lee, Minneapolis, wished to go on record as agreeing with Jim Serrin in regards to the conversation between Jim Serrin and Jeff Hamiel recorded on page 7, paragraph 5. 3. Introduction of invited guests Receiqt of Communications There were no invited guests. A letter from DHL Airways was received designating Brian Simonson as its representative to MASAC. A lette� from Northwest Airlines was received designating Mark Salmen and Jennifer Sayre as the representatives to MASAC. Nancy Stoudt and Caroline Fullerton were designated as their respective alternates. 4. Technical Advisors Runwav Svstem Utilization Report and Comalaint Summary Traci Erickson, Technical Advisor, presented the March, 1997 Technical Advisor's Report. The highlights of the repo�t are as follows: ➢ Traci reiterated fo� the benefit of the representatives who were not at the previous meeting ( that the FAA Airport Traffic Record information is now coming directly from the FAA. It used to be calculated using a myriad of sources. ➢ Complaints are about the same as last month. Although, complaints from Inver Grove Heights are high, of the 258 complaints, 218 came from one address. ➢ Available time for runway usage at night in the Corridor was up considerably. ➢ ARTS data was missing for 8 tlays, which is a significant portion. In September 1996 only 2.3 days were missing. In January 1997 4.2 days were missing. There has been a steady increase in the number of days of data missing. Traci said the reason for this is there has been trouble with the ARTS diskpack reader. The reader had to be shut down for a number of days. Since it is covered under a maintenance agreement, staff was able to get it fixed. She noted that only a few people in the U.S. can fix this older technology. And, although it is fixed for now, the tower has informed staff that they will be changing over to an optical disk drive May 19, 1997. New equipment may need to be purchased to receive the ARTS data in a format ANOMS is able to input. ➢ Arrivals on the Crosswind runway have increased. Because the Noise Complaint Line had received a number of calls from St. Paul regarding overflights, Staff checked the tower logs � and found that there were a number of days in March and April with strong southern winds, which made it ideal for crosswind runway usage. Jim Serrin, Minneapolis, asked about the Stage II and Stage III fleet mix. He noted that (; ANOMS reported 53.8% Stage III and the scheduled operations for March showed 59.5%. Traci said the actual �anding Fee Reports showed 58.4% for Stage III operations. She said ANOMS repo�ted a lower number because (1), 8 days of data are inissing and (2), ANOMS cannot positively identify hush-kitted DC-9's. Lance Staricha, Eagan, directed the council's attention to the flight tracks departing off Runway 22. He noted that it looked like at least half of the flights to the south veered off toward the east (Eagan). � . Traci Erickson stated that, due to a number of recommendations from council members, staff would attempt to mail the Technical Advisors Report with the agenda package beginning next month. . 5. Executive Committee Update Chairman Johnson said that the voting item noted on the agenda would not be voted on at the meeting because members had not been given the required10-day notice. Chairman Johnson said the Executive Committee considered the membership for Sunfish �Lake and DHL Airways. These items will be voted on at the May MASAC meeting. Another item discussed were the quorum requirements stated in the MASAC by-laws. This item will atso be voted on at the May MASAC meeting. (� ) 6. Operations Committee Update Mark Salmen, NWA, reviewed the Operations Committee meeting minutes of Apri17, 1997. He said John Foggia would give more detailed information in his briefing. Mark noted that the committee moved, seconded and approved the motion to accept the data and to have the full council briefed at the April 1997 MASAC meeting so that members could bring the information to their respective communities and a vote could be taken at the May 1997 meeting. The next Operations meeting is scheduled for June 13, 1997. 7. Noise Abatement Departure Profiles fNADP) Briefina — John Foaaia John Foggia, MAC, briefed the council on the NADP analysis. He noted that the information included with the Apri17, 1997 Operations Committes meeting minutes should be replaced with the information provided at the MASAC meeting. Mr. Foggia said that last y.ear's analysis used population data from 1990 census. This new analysis uses parcel counts from 1996, which the communities provided. Mr. Foggia then explained the basic differences befween the Close-in procedure and the Distant procedure. The Close-in procedure is designed to benefit the communities close in to the airpo�t and the distant is designed to benefit the more distant communities around the airport. Mr. Foggia said that most airlines around the country and at MSP are currently flying the distant procedure � ) _ 3 outiined in the Advisory Circular,91-53A. The difference procedurally between the two is when thrust is reduced or flaps are retracted. In the close-in procedure, th�ust is �educed first and then the flaps are retracted. In the distant procedure, the flaps are retracted first and then the thrust is reduced later. Mr. Foggia showed an overhead that dipicted the difference between the two procedures for a (� 8727 (Stagell). The close-in procedure showed less of an aggregate impact. For Stage III aircraft, such as a B757, the differences almost disappear. Mr. Foggia noted that the Advisory Circular was issued in 1991 when it wasn't clear that there would be no Stage II aircraft by the year 2000. Mr. Foggia then showed an overhead that depicted the extent of the cfose-in benefit (22,000 feet from brake release) on a map of the Twin Cities area. He said the mid-section of these areas is where the impact is the largest. � Jill Smith, Mendota Heights, clarified with Mr. Foggia how far out the benefit actually went from the end of the runway. Ms. Smith also asked about the actual decibel levels experienced at each point. Mr. Foggia explained that he was unable to get the raw data from FAA. Instead lie used a baseline departure profile in the INM. He said that the difierence in decibel levels is the only information � available. Mr. Foggia also ezplained how these differences were calculated. Rue Shibata, Inver Grove Heights, said his perception of jet departures from airports in Japan are that they climb out faster and this noise abatement procedure is not used here at MSP. • John Foggia, MAC, said that he was not there to debate which procedures airports in Japan are using, but to discuss AC91-53A for MSP departures. . . Mr. Foggia explained how the contours were developed for each procedure including type of �� aircraft, ANOMS flight paths, and how many aircraft flew along each path. He said all� aircraft types are included in the contours. He also said that ALPA has asked that 29L and 29R have the same procedure and 11 L and 11 R have the same procedure for safety purposes. Mr. Foggia then explained the handout that included the number of parcels for each community that would be added or subtracted from the contour if the close-in procedure was used. Mr. � Richter asked if the information accounted for the numbe� of flights. M�. Foggia clarified that the contours took the number of flights into account. As an additional parameter, the number of� acres added or subtracted were also included in the information. Mr. Foggia noted t�iat the . benefit of the distant procedure compared to the close-in departure profile in Eagan would affect a mainly non-residential area. Pamela Nelms, Minneapolis, asked Mr. Foggia which procedure would be most beneficial to those living 5 to 11 miles from runway ends in Minneapolis. Mr. Foggia said the distant procedure would benefit this area the most. Ms. Nelms also asked when the baseline was developed. Mr. Foggia said the model for the baseline was developed in 1991. � Ms. Nelms then asked Mr. Foggia to explain how the contours included information on the number of flights. Mr. Foggia explained how the INM contours are developed using ANOMS flight track data and other variables. C �� t �, Mr. Foggia reminded members that the differences between the two procedures wili become almost non-distinct as MSP becomes all Stage II1. �' , A member of the audience asked how often pilots veer from using the default (distant) departure procedure for legitimate reasons. Mr. Foggia said that the�e was very little leeway for � pilots to change standard procedures in today's airspace environment. Chairman Johnson asked the members to take the information back to their communities and come back �n May and be ready to vote. He reminded members that if there is a total lack of agreement the fall back would be to do nothing. 8. Federal Interaqencv Committee on Aviation Noise fFICANI Briefinq — John FoqQia . John Foggia, MAC, briefed the council on the public FICAN meetings that will be held at the Thunderbird Hotel on May 13, 1997. He explained who the members of FICAN are, what the purpose of FICAN is, and what types of issues the group deals with. He said that FICAN does not deal with local issues. He said FICAN is soliciting comments on aviation noise issues that can be applied at a fede�al level. Mr. Foggia clarified that FICAN does not do the research but collects research being done on aviation noise and then holds public hearings. Although they solicit information and comments from the public, they do not have public members on the committee. He said verbal comments would be taken at the meeting. � Mr. Foggia reiterated that the members of FICAN wauld not entertain comments or questions about local aviation noise issues. O Jill Smith, Mendota Heights, asked why the National Park Board was a member of FICAN. Mr. Foggia said that they have a number of concems with overflights of national parks, such as the Grand Canyon. Jim Serrin, Minneapolis, was concemed that FICAN was not interested in local issues. Mr. Semn and Mr. Foggia clarified what types of questions and comments would be allowed. They also discussed a number of issues o� questions that would be appropriate to comment on at the meetings. 9. NWA Staqe III Fleet Compliance Briefinq Jennifer Sayre, NWA, briefed the council on NWA's Stage 111 compliance. She said that she was giving the council a snapshot of where NWA was that day. She said the fleet mix can change monthly. She told the members that each carrier's Stage II base level was determined on one day du�ing the period of January 1990 and July 1, 1991. NWA's base level was determined to be 284. Ms. Sayre explained that there are two methods of compliance, a phase-in method and a phase-out method. Ms. Sayre said that NWA chose the phase-out method for 1994 and 1996 and the phase-in method for 1998 (see attachments). i j -- 5 Ms. Sayre said NWA plans on exceeding the 1998 requirement of 75%, but also emphasized that these numbers were projections. . She noted that by the year 2000 62% of their fleet is scheduled to be newer aircraft with the rest being retrofitted. She also noted that the current number of hush-kitted DC9-30's was 81, �. rather than the 85 reported at the last meeting. She said NWA is planning an aggressive hush- kitting schecJule from now to the end of the year to retrofit their DC9-10 and 727 fleets. Thomas Hueg, St. Paul, asked if the number in the fleet included leasd aircraft. Ms. Sayre said it included owned and leased aircraft. Ms. Sayre noted that compared with Detroit and Memphis, the Stage III operations at MSP are higher. The information depicted was for ave�age operations for a week in May. Joe Lee, Minneapolis, asked if this was representative of a whole year. She said that it was. Ms. Sayre explained that in 1995 and 1996 the percentage of growth was unusually high. Part of the reason for this is the Canadian Open Skies. Numerous departures were added because of this. 1997's forecast is 1.4% Ms. Sayre then highlighted some of the Noise Agreements with MSP since 1970 and said she would be happy to update this information on a quarterly basis. 10. Report of the MAC Commission Meeting Vice Chai►�man Hueg briefed the council on the Part 150 Ventilation Standards Committee's recommendations. He said that the program is pre-testing homes for a variety of ventilation related problems. If a hom� does not meet the standards ou#line� by the pro�ram, the homeowner will be responsible for correcting any problems b�fore the Part 150 modifications � are begun. Once the problems are fixed the modifications can be completed. A post-#est of the home is then done. If the standards are not met at that time, the program will pay for the necessary modifications. Petrona Lee, Bloomington, asked if there were financial options for homeowners who could not pay for the fixes to their homes. Chairman Johnson said that the homeowners will be made aware of a number of neighborhood and community low-interest loan programs. 11. Persons Wshin4 to Address the Cauncil There were no persons wishing to address the Council. 12. Other Items Not on the Agenda There were no other items. 6 (. 13. Adjournment Chairman Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m Respectfully submitted. Melissa Scovronski, MASAC Secretary � � 7 ,; � , , � ;; �,, �;; �,� :. , � .;� ^� ••::-- ; ; „.. , , ,: , . . F; �� (.� .�� /''�' 1� 1 t t t�1 t 1 1 1 1 1! f C r �'!!! .-,-- _ �IF.�� -.�;r �� `..� ! �, �-: .l / / ' Y . , . . . . .. . �� -.: . / �� _ . , ► , .:-�'--•� °'---� ,r �-� , Minneapolis / St. Paul International Airport � =�" ~ MONTHLY MEETING - Metrorolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council c��: Ra6ert P. Johnvoo v;�� a,d,�»�: rn�,� x�� r«ea�i a�r�m�� 1Yacl Erlekson Acting Secremrv: M�u�a s�ovronvkl Airbome Espress: Brlan Bates Air Tmnsport Assainrion: PaW McGruw ALPA: Charies W. Curry Jc Cirv oJBloomingros Petrona Lee v�� wu�: City of Bumsvilfe: Ed Porur Ciro ajF�gan: 1Um Egan Ciry oj/rrvar Grovr Hcrghu: n�� Ciry ojMendom Herghrs ,1iU Smith Ciry ojMinneapd'u: ]ames & Serrin � .Iohn Rlchter 7oe Lee ,t„aim noa� C;tv ojRichfie(d• Krktal SWkes Dawn WelRei Grv of sr. c.ou;s A�rk: RnbertAdrews Citv ofSt. Prtul: c. s�a s� rmm� x. a�� Carol Ann McGutre Deltu Air lines Ina: Rtch Kldwell Federal Exprrs.x ' Dau DeBord Federal Aviarion Administmrion: Bruce Wagoner �o�a cieon MACSwjF Dl�k Keinz M&W: Ro6eR P. Jo6rcun Mesaba Noahwest Ai�linM. Daniel S6ee6ao Melropolrtan Airporls Cammissian: CommBsioncrAlWo Gasper MN Air Narioml Gwud: M�ar Rny J. 56etka Northwest Airlinrr M�x sem,�o Jennifer Sayre SL Paul Chumber ojComme,ce: c,�g w�„�a Sm CaunrrvAirlinrr Dsle Kariya Unired Airfines lna: BID Yantka Unrred Pa�rel Servicr: Mlke Geyer US. Air Force Restrve: Caplain David J. Gerken Metropolitan Airports Commission Declaration of Purposes l.) Promote public welfare and national security; serve public interest, convenience, and necessity; promote air navigation and transportation, international, national, state, and local, in and through this state; promote the efficient, safe, and economical handling of air commerce; assure the inclusion of this state in national and international programs of air transportation; and to those ends to develop the full potentialities of the metropolitan area in this state as an aviation center, and to correlate that area with all aviation facilities in the entire state so as to provide for the most economical and effecrive use of aeronautic facilities and services in that azea; 2.) Assure the residents of the metropolitan area of the minimum environmentai impact from air navigadon and transportation, and to that end provide for noise abatement, control of airport area land use, and other protective measures; and 3.) Promote the overall goals of the state's environmental policies and minimize the public's exposure to noise and safety hazazds around airports. Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council . Statement of Purpose This corporation was formed in furtherance of the general welfaze of the communities adjoining Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport - Wold-Chamberiain Field, a pubiic airport in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, through the alleviation of the probiems created by the sound of aircraft using the airport; through study and evaluation on a condnuing basis of the problem and of suggestion for the alleviation of the same; through initiation, coordination and promotion of reasonable and effective procedures, control and regulations, consistent with the safe operation of the airport and of aircraft using the same; and through dissemination of information to the affected communities, their affected residents, and the users of the airport respecting the problem of aircraft noise nuisance and in respect to suggestions made and actions initiated and taken to alleviate the problem. Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council Representation The membership shall include representatives appointed by agencies, corporations, associations and governmental bodies which by reason of their statutory authority and responsibility or controi over the airport, or by reason of their status as airport users, have a direct interest in the operation of the airport. Such members will be called User Representatives and Pubiic Representatives, provided that the User Representatives and Public Representatives shall at all times be equal in number. The Airport 24-hour Noise Kotline is 726-9411. Complaints to the hotfine do not �sult in changes in Airpon activity, but provide a public sounding board and airport information outlet. The hotline is staffed during business hours, Monday - Friday. This report is prepared and printed in house by Chad Leqve, ANSP Technician Questions or comments may be directed to: MAC - Aviation Noise & Satetlite Program Minneapolis / St. Paul Intemational AirpoR 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 Tel: (6 (2) 725-6331, Fax: (612) 725-6310 ANSP Home Page: http://www.macavsat.org Metropolitan Airports Commission Aviation Noise F� Satellite Programs s� _.. ! � i i Operations and C'omplaint Summary 1 Operations Summary - All Aircraft .....................................................................................1 MSP April Fleet Mix Percentage .........................................................................................1 Airport April Complaint Summary ...................................................................................... l April Operations Summary - Airport Directors Office ........................................................1 1Vlinneapolis - St. Paul International Airport Complaint Summary 2- Compiaint Summ b Ci 2 ar3' Y h' ............................................................................................... Available Time for dcunway Use 3 TowerLog Reports - All Hours ...........................................................................................3 Tower Log Reports - Nighttime Hours ................................................................................3 AllOperations 4 RunwayUse Report April 1997 ...........................................................................................4 Ca�-rrier Jet Operations 5 a RunwayUse Report April 1997 ...........................................................................................5 Nighttime m All Operations 6 RunwayUse Report April 1997 ...........................................................................................6 Nighttime Caf-raer Jet Operations 7 RunwayUse Report April 1997 ..............................•••-••---............................-----••-•-..............7 Carraer Jet Operations by T'ype 8 Air°craft Identifier and Descript�'on Table 9 Runway Use - Day/Night Periods - All Operatz'ons 10 DaytimeHours ................................................................•............................•--...................10 Co�nmunity Overflight Analysis 11 Carrier Jet Operations - All Hours ..................................................................••-•-..............11 Carrier Jet Operations - Nighttime (1 lpm - 6 am) .............................................................11 Aviatinn NnicP Rr iate�11C8 PI'O�iatI1S Remote Monitoring Site Locations 12 Carrier Jet Arrival Related 1�oise Events 13 Count of Arrival Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT .....................................................13 Carjzer Jet Depczrture dZelated Noise Events �4 Count'of Departure Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT :................................................14 Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identi aed Ten Loudest A�rcraft Noise Events Identi ied Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identi, f ied Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identi, f'ied Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identi, f ied Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identif ied Flight Track Base Map 21 IS 16 li 18 l9 20 Airport Noise and Operations 1Vlonitoring System Flight Tracks 22 Ca.rrier Jet Operations - April 1997 .............•-.................................................•--................22 Aarport Noise and Operatc'ons Monitori�g System Flight 7'racks 23 Carrier Jet Operations - April 199? ...................................................................................23 Airpo�-t No�se and Opera�i'ons .l�lonitoring Systena �light Z'racks 24 Carrier Jet Operations - April 1997 ..................••--............................................................ 24 Airport 1Voise and Operatz'ons 1Vlonitoring System Flaght Trczcks 25 Carrier Jet Operations - April 1997 .....................................•-•.......................................... 25 Analysis of Aircraft 1Voase Events - Aarcra,�'t Ldn dB(A) Analysis of Aarcraft Noase Events - Aircraft Ldn dB(A) � f�J ._:.. . .:. " " Metropolitan AirpoRs Commiss►on " O t° d C . l' t S - .__.._. pera lons ar� omp ain urnmary Ap ril 1997 Operations Summary - All Aircraft Runway Arrival % Use Departure °10 Use 04 250 1.5% 97 0.6% 22 261 1.6% 810 5.2% 11 5946 35.8°!0 6035 , 38.5% 29 10157 61.1% 8725 55.7% MSP April Fleet Mix Percentage 5�� Scheduled Scheduled ANOMS ANOMS 1996 1997 Count 1996 Count 1997 Stage 2 51.7% 42.1% N/A 44.8% Stage 3 48.3% 57.9% N/A 55.2% Airport April Complaint Summary Airport 1996 1997 MSP � 653 977 Airlake 0 0 Anoka 1 1 Crystal 2 1 Flying Cloud 0 1 �.ake Elmo 0 0 St. Paul 4 2 Misc. 1 2 TOTAL 661 984 April Average Daily Operations Summary - FAA Airport Traffic Record Avi�tinn Nnica Rs C:IiPIIIYP Prnoramc P.....> 1 �; � Metropolitan Airports Commission Minneapoli� - 5i.1'aul International Airport Complaint SumYnary Ap ril 1997 Complaint Summary by City City Arrival Departure Total Percentage � Arden Hills l 1 2 �•2% Bloomin ton 1 3 4 0.4% Burnsville 0 9 9 1.0% Circle Pines 0� 1 1 0.1% Ea an 27 25 52 5.6% Eden Prairie 3 12 15 1.6% Edina 0 7 7 0.7°Io Falcon Hei hts 0 1 1 0.1% Inver Grove Hei hts 1 310 311 33.3% Jordan 0 3 3 0.3% Mahtomedi 1 0 1 0.1% Mendota ei hts 8 28 36 3.9% Minnea olis 88 193 2�81 30.1% Ninin er Tw 0 1 1 0.1% Oakdale 2 2 4 0.4% Prior Lake 0 2 2 0.2% Richfield 3 17 20 2.1% South St.Paul 0 3 3 0.3% St.Anthon 0 1 1 0.1% St.Louis Park 22 23 45 4.8% St.Paul 110 10 120 12.9% Sunfish Lake 0 16 16 1.7% �o� 267 668 935 100% Time of Day Nature of Complaint Time Totai Nature of Complaint Total 00:00 - 05:59 49 Excessive Noise 853 06:00 - 06:59 27 Early/Late 72 07:00 - 11:59 164 Lo�' �Y�g 4 12:00 - 15:59 91 Structural Disturbance 5 16:00 - 19:59 280 Helicopter 0 20:00 - 21:59 193 Ground Noise 41 22:00 - 22:59 137 Engine Run-up 1 23:00 - 23:59 36 Frequency 1 Total 977 'I'ot�l 977 Page 2 Aviation Noise & Satellite Prograrns � Metropotitan Airports Commission `' Available 'Tigne fo� Runway Use Tower Log Reporis - April 1997 � All Hours l 0°% 39% � 4% � � 30% _ � , 13% 9% Nighttime Hours 0°Jo S% CZn—, z 22 11 � �� 04 � 3% 11% Avi�tinn Nnica ,P� C�tr Ilita Arn�rrn.,�,� 80% 76% Metropolitan Airports Commission All Operations IZunway Use Report April 19 � Arrivall Count Percentage AP� 1996 April 1996 Runway DeP�� Count Percentage �, A 250 1.5% N/A N/A 11L A 2905 17.5% N/A N/A 11R A 3041 18.3% N/A N/A 22 A 2(1 1.6% N/A N/A 29L A 5524 33.2% N/A N/A 29R A 4633 27.9% N/A N/A Total Arr. 16614 100% N/A N/A �, D 97 0.6% N/A N/A 11L D 2794 17.8% N/A N/A 11R D 3241 20.7% N/A N/A 22 D S 10 5.2% N/A N/A ZgL; D 4815 30.7% N/A N/A 29R D 3910 25.0% N/A N/A Totai Dep. 15667 100% N/A N/A Note: ARTS data missing for 4.7 days n.._.. � Aviarion Noise & Satellite Programs , . . ,,�. �, � � • � ' / 1 '�I ' '/ �' . 56.0% 35.4 1.2% vz Metropolitan Airports Commiss�bri '' � • '� 62.2% 38.6% Runway `�'�� Count Percentage Aprii 1996 April 1996 I)epartui'e Count Percentage 04 A 125 1.2% N/A N/A 11L A 1855 18.0% N/A N/A 11 R A 1797 17.4% N/A N/A 22 A 125 1.2% N/A N/A 29L A 3342 32.4% N/A N/A 29R A 3076 29.8% N/A N/A Total A�rr. 10320 100% N/A N/A 04 D 17 0.2% N/A N/A 11 L D 1732 17.6% N/A N/A 11 R D 2064 21.0% N/A N/A 22 D 516 5.2% N/A N/A 29L D 3001 30.5% N/A N/A 29R D 2506 25.5% N/A N/A Total Dep. 9836 100% N/A N/A Note: ARTS data missing for 4. 7 days n..:�.�__ r.r_:.._ o_ e.....ii:... �_____—. Q • Metro�olitan Airports Commission Nighttime - All Operations � Runway Use Report April 1�7 ; t 1 ( j �5.4% � ArrivaU Count Percentage AP'� 1996 April 1996 Runway Dep�� Count Percentage pq. A 94 12.2% N/A N/A 11L A 20 2.6% N/A NIA 11R A 64 8.3% N/A N/A 22 A 92 11.9% N/A N/A 29L A 398 51.6% N/A N/A 29R A 103 13.4% N/A N/A Total Arr. 771 100% N/A N/A pq, D 12 3.6% N/A N/A 11L D 59 17.5% N/A N/A 11R D 128 37.9% N/A N/A 22 D (,� 19.9% N/A N/A 29L D 62 18.4% N/A N/A 29R D 9 2.7% N/A N/A Total Dep. 337 100% N/A N/A Note: ARTS data missing for 4.7 days P�aa � Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Metropolitan Airports Commission " � Nighttime Carrie� Jet (Jperations Runway Use Report April 19�7 Runway A�� Count Percentage Ap� 19� April 1996 Departure Count Percentage 04 A 49 9.6% N/A N/A 11L A 9 1.8% N/A N/A 11R A 34 6.7% N/A N/A 22 A _ 59 11.6% N/A N/A 29L A 2$4 55.8% N/A N/A 29R A 74 14.5% N/A N/A Total Arr. 509 100% N/A N/A 04 D I 0.7% N/A N/A 11 L D 30 19.7% N/A N/A 11R D 61 40.1% N/A N/A 22 D 43 28.3% N/A N/A 29L D 12 7.9% N/A N/A 29R D 5 3.3% N/A N/A Total Dep. 152 100% N/A N/A Note: ARTS data missing for 4.7 days n..:.,.:,.., r.t,.:..,. �. e,.«..�c.,, n..�._..-- - - Metropolitan Airports Commission ( j D.,..e 4 Carrier Jet Operations by Type Aprii 199i Aircraft Type Count Percentage B707 0 0.0% B727H 249 1.2% B733/4/5 612 3.0% B747 88 0.4% B74F 43 0.2% B757 2001 10.0% g�67 Q 0.0% BA46 1 0.0% CL65 270 1.4% DA10 0 0.0% DC10 911 4.5% DC87 106 0.5% DC9H 2853 �. 14.2% EA30 24 0.1% EA31 36 0.2% EA32 2009 10.0% FK10 847 4.2% L1011 56 0.3% MD 11 5 0.0% MD80 1010 5.0% BA10 16 Q.l% BA 11 0 0.0% B727 2164 10.7% B737 1394 6.9% DC8 72 0.4%a DC9 53$9 26.7% FK28 0 0.0% Totai 20156 100% Note: ARTS data missing for 4.7 days Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs 5�.2 % 'u'tage III , , .• � � . � . . _ ' Metropolitan Airports Commiss'ion Aircraft Identifier and DescriptionTable Identifier 8707 B727 B727H B733/4/5 B737 B747 B74F B757 B767 BA10 BAl l BA46 CL65 DA 10 DC 10 DC8 DC87 DC9 DC9H EA30 EA31 EA32 FK 10 FK27 FK28 L1011 MD 11 MD80 SW3 SW4 SF34 Aircraft Description BOEING 707 BOEING 727 _ BOEING 727 - HUSH KIT BOEING 737-300/400/500 • BOEING 737 100/200 SERIES BOEING 747 BOEING 747 FREIGHTER BOEING 757 BOEIlVG 767 BRITTSH AEROSPACE 125 BRITISH AEROSPACE 111 BRIT'ISH AEROSPACE 146 CANADAIR 650 . FALCON 10 . MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC 10 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC8 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC8 �0-SERIES RE MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC9 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC9 HUSH KIT AIl2BUS INDUSTRIES A300 AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A310 AIRBUS II�iDUSTRIES A320 FOKKER 100 FOKKER F27 (PROP) FOKKER F28 LOCKHEED TRISTAR L1011 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC 11 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC9 80-SERIES SWEARINGEN METROLINER 3 SWEARINGEN METROLINER 4 SAAB 340 A..:....:�_ wT_'__ O_ C_•_tl'._ n__ C P . Metrapolitan Airports Commission itun�ay �.Tse - Day/I�ight Periods - All Operations Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport April 1997 Daytime Hours Runway Departures Percentage Arrivals Percentage Total Day Name Day Use Day Use p4 gs 0.6% 156 1.0% 241 11L 2735 17.8% 2885 18.2% 5620 11R 3113 20.3% 2977 18.8% 6090 22 743 - 4.8% 169 1.0% - 912 29L 4753 31.0% 5126 32.4% 9879 29R 3901 25.5% 4530 28.6% $431 Total 15330 100% 15843 100% :- 31173 Nighttime Hours Runway Departures Percentage Arrivals Percentage Total Night Name Night Use Night Use pq, 12 3.6% 94 12.2% 106 11L 59 17.5% 20 2.6% 79 11R 128 37.9°l0 64 8.3% 192 22 6� 19.9% 92 11.9% 159 29L 62 18.4% 398 51.6% 460 29R 9 2.7% 103 13.4% 112 Total 337 100°Io 771 100% 1108 Note: ARTS data missing for 4.7 days Pa�e 10 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Metropolitan Airports Commiss%n " Community Overflight Analysis Minneapolis -�i. Paul Interr�ational Airport April 1997 Carrier Jet Operations - All Hours Number Number Total Percent Number of Overflight Area ��vals Departures Carrier Jet Carrier Jet Operations Operations Operations per 24 Hours Over So. Minneapolis/ 3652 5507 � 9159 45.4% 362.0 No. Richfield ' Over So. Richfield/ 125 516 641 3.2% 25.3 Bloomington � . Over St. Paul - 125 17 142 0.7% 5.6 Highland Park � Over Eagan/ 6418 3796 10214 50.7% 403.7 Mendota. Heights T�� 20156 100% 796.6 Carrier Jet Operations - Nighttime (11pm - 6 am) Number . Number Total Percent Number of Overflight Area A�� p�,�� Carrier Jet Carrier Jet Operations - Operations Operations per 24 Hours Over So. Minneapolis/ 43 17 60 9.1% 2.1 No. Richfield Over So. Richfield/ 49 43 92 13.9% 3.2 Bloomington Over St. Paul - 59 1 60 9.1% 2.1 Highland Park Over Eagan/ � 358 91 449 67.9% 15.6 Mendota Heights Total 661 100% 23.0 Note: ARTS data missing for 4.7 days Aviaticyn Nnice Rr 4�tPllitP Prnar�mc n_ __ �, (". � ' Metropolitan Airports Commission ' �2.ermote Morutoring Siie Locations Airport l�oise and Operations Monitoring System U7RP � � .._.n:,:�,s,��"�"� `�� Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Metropolitan Airports Commission " Carrier Jet Arrival Related 1lToise Events ' April 1997 .� Count of Arrival AircraFt Noise Events for Each RMT �T City Approximate Street Location Events Events Events Events ID >65dB >SOdB >90dB >100dB 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Avenue & 41st Street $86 66 0 0 2 Minneapolis Fremont Avenue 8r. 43rd Street 949 146 1 0 3 Minneapolis W Elmwood Street & Belmont Avenue 1010 431 13 0 4 Minneapolis Oakland Avenue & 49th Street 1501 445 20 1 5 Minneapolis 12th Avenue & 58th Street 1430 872 162 2 6 Minneapolis 25th Avenue & 57th Street 1368 860 149 7 7 Richfieid Wentworth Avenue & 64th Street 267 11 0 0 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Avenue & 43rd Street 189 11 0 0 9 S� Paul Saratoga Street & Hartford Avenue 99 57 7 0 10 St. Paul Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street 213 82 26 0 11 St. Paul Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue 49 4 . 1 0 12 St Paul Alton Street & Rockwood Avenue 177 17 1 0 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court . 20$ 4 0 0 14 Eagan First Street & McKee Street 4296 180 1 0 15 Mendota Heights Cullen Street & Lexington Avenue 403 27 0 0 16 Eagan Avalon Avenue &�las Lane 3490 1060 10 0 17 Bloomington 84th Street & 4th Avenue 41 5 1 � 0 18 Richfield 75th Street & 17th Avenue 206 39 2 0 19 Bloomington Idth Avenue & 84th Street 48 1 0 0 20 Richfield 75th Street & 3rd Avenue 67 9 0 0 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Avenue & 67th Street 115 4 0 0 ' 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 2018 21 0 0 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Avenue 1233 43 5 0 24 Eagan Chapel Lane & Wren Lane 2789 88 13 0 Note: ARTS data missing for 4.7 days ( ,' - Metrapotitan Airports Commission Carrier Jet ]Departure IZelated Noise Events Apri11997 Count of Departure Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT �T Events Events Events Events ID Caty Approximate Street Location �5� �g0dg .>90dB >100dB 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Avenue & 41st Street 868 168 1 0 2 Minneapolis Fremont Avenue & 43rd Street 1485 � 432 5 � 3 Minneapolis W Elmwood Street & Belmont Avenue 2726 216 20 � 4 Minneapolis Oakland Avenue & 49th Street 2662 662 65 3 5 Minneapolis 12th Avenue & 58th Street 4636 2224 673 63 6 Minneapolis ZSth Avenue & 57th Street 5091 2717 1172 220 7 Richfield Wentworth Avenue & 64th Street 2957 1010 137 4 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Avenue & 43rd Street 400 � 105 10 2 9 St Paui Saratoga Street & Hartford Avenue 28 2 2 � 10 St Paul Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street 254 21 3 1 11 St. Paul Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue 86 19 ' � 3 0 12 St. Paul Alton Street & Rockwood Avenue 198 46 2 � � � 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 1392 315 18 0 14 Eagan First Street & McKee Street 2397 526 59 1 15 Mendota Heights Cullen Street & Lexington Avenue 2236 500 38 � 16 Eagan Avalon Avenue &�las Lane 2664 966 196 10 17 Bloomington 84th Street & 4th Avenue 579 90 13 0 18 Richfield 75th Street & 17th Avenue 1459 320 107 10 19 Bloomington 16th Avenue & 84th Street 524 218 53 2 20 Richfield 75th Street & 3rd Avenue 754 50 7 � 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Avenue & 67th Street 750 189 3 � 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 1135 187 2 � 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Avenue 3184 989 334 39 24 Eagan Chapel Lane & Wren Lane 1530 255 6 � Note: ARTS data missing for 4.7 days PaQe 14 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Metropotitan Airports Commission '• � ;�. . �., . . �. ,�'- . RMT #1: Xerlces Ave. & 41st St. Minneapolis Date Time � M� A/D Level 04/11/9716:20:36 B�27 91.6 D 04/0�/97 20:33:17 DC9 89.7 D 04/04/9718:53:25 B727 89.4 A 04/15/9719:35:07 B�27 88.7 D 04/07/97 20:39:26 B�27 88.6 D 04/02/9716:05:57 B'727 88.4 D 04/07/9.7 20:20:52 DC9 88.4 D 04/26/97 17:16:20 DH8 � 88.3 D 04/15/9'7 20:24:18 , DC9 � 87.6 D 04/OS/97 13:17:19 B747 87.4 D RNIT #2: Fremont Ave. & 43rd S� Minneapolis _ Date T'ime �C M� � Type Level 04/18/9719:20:43 B727 97.1 � D 04/26/97 15:05:04 DC9 91 A D 04/Ol/9712:23:05 B737 90.6 D 04/OS/9712:11:30 B727 90.6 A 04/29/97 9:40:50 B727 90.4 D �04/02/9716:05:49 B727 90.2 D 04/30/9� 21:46:08 DC 10 90.2 D 04/15/97 21:22:49 DC9 89.9 D 04/02/9'7 20:34:18 DC9 89.8 D� 04/04/9718:54:59 B727 89.4 A �.. i2NiT #3: W. Elmwood St � Belmont Ave. Minneapolis Date Time Ty� . M� A/D Level 04/03/97 9:51:50 -.. B727 98.6 D 04/23/97 20:17:24 B727 9�.6 D 04/18/9716:25:41 B727 96.4 D 04/25/9719:04:51 DC9 96.0 D 04/29/97 8:20:20 B727 95.8 D 04/25/9714:55:51 B727 95.4 A 04/13/97 15:05:10 B747 94.4 D 04/20/97 9:16:08 DC9 94.3 D 04/26/9715:04:31 DC9 94.3 D 04/27/97 21:45:18 B727 94.3 D RMT #4: Oakland Ave. & 49th St. Minneapolis Date 15me A/C Max � Type � Level 04/29/97 9:40:13 B727 103.1 D 04/24/97 7:22:54 B727 101.3 D 04/29/9717:05:22 DC9 100.8 A 04/0?J9711:47:30 B727 100.5 D 04/18/9719:19:4� DC9 99.9 D 04/03/9712:17:28 B727 99.5 D 04/19/97 9;48:01 B757 99.1 D 04/30/97 9:21:22 B72'7 99.1 D 04/27/9711:55:15 B72'7 98.0 D 04/23/9? 20:44:09 B727 97.9 D Note: ARTS data missing fo� 4.7 days A_._...___ Ai_•. . n l�.�_tt.�_ T._ Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten I.�oudest Aircraft Noise Events Id.entified RNIT #5: 12th Ave. & 58th St. 1Vtinneapolis Date Time `vC Max � �'ype %evei 04/03/9711:52:46 DC9 106.4 D 04/03/97 9:51:36 B727 105.6 D 04l26/9714:46:42 B72� 105.2 D 04/03/9? 9:14:48 B727 104.9 D 04/03/9710:02:18 B727 104.9 D 04/11/9717:34:36 B727 104.3 D 04/30/9715:39:56 B727 104.2 D 04/03/9713:58:38 B727 104.0 D 04/24/9716:30:40 B727 104.0 D 04/25/9719:51:23 B727 102.7 D RMT #7: Wentworth Ave. & 64th S� Richfield Date Time 04/20/97 7:46:24 04/OZ/97 17:02:55 04/03/97 13:39:10 04/30/97 16:18:48 04/12/97 14:45:30 04/30/97 18:35:07 04/30/97 12:08:56 04/27/97 13:50:5 t 04/29/97 11:38:12 04/30/97 15:15:04 A/C TYPe B727 B727 B727 B727. B�27 B727 B727 DC9 B727 B727 Max Level 100.9 100.5 100.4 100.2 99.6 99.5 99.2 99.0 98.7 98.5 0 R1VIT #6: 25th Ave. & 57th St Nlinneapolis Date Time �C M� � Type Level t?4/30/97 13:51:23 � B727 112.1 D 04/03/97 7:39:47 B727 109.4 D 04/24/9713:23:06 B727 108.7 D 04/02/9718:29:36 DC9 108.3 D 04/29/9717:04:57 B727 108.0 A 04/02/97 21:07:58 ' B727 107.7 D Q4/19/97 9:4737 B757 107.7 D 04/18/9716:25:06 B727 10�.6 D 04/18/97 22:17:08 B727 107.1 D 04/30/9718:31:30 B727 107.1 D RMT #8: Longfellow Ave. & 43rd S� . Minneapolis Date T'�me A/C Max � Type Level 04/24/97 7:23:23 B727 100.9 ` D 04l30/97 7:51:39 B727 100.6 D 04/02/97 7:31:44 B727 94.6 D 04/23/9716:18:46 SW3 94.6 D 04/16/9717:29:53 B727 94.4 D 04/15/97 20:31:54 B727 94.3 D 04/03/971225:04 B727 94.1 D 04/08/9711:25:11 DC9 93.7 D 04/ 19/97 12:29:0 l EA32 93.7 D 04/30/97 7:�14:44 SW3 93.7 D Note: ARTS data missing for 4.7 days n�eP �� Aviation Noise & Satellite Prob ams Metropolitan Airports Commission � �'en Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified � RMT #9: Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. S� Paul Date Time �C Max � Type Level 04/OS/97 13:1�:46 B74'7 97.6 - D 04/29/9714:00:30 DC9 93.5 A 04/01/97 3:01:18 B727 93.4 A 04/06/97 0:22:28 B72� 91.6 A' 04/30/97 9:40:56 S W4 91.5 A 04/23/97 21:4�:47 DC 10 91.4 D 04/28/97 22:43:40 B727 91.4 A 04/06/97 0:43:07 B727 90.7 A 04/03/97 23:27:21 B�27 90.3 A 04/22/97 12:34:25 DC 10 90A D RMT #11: Finn S� & Scheffer Ave. St Paul Date Time A/C Max A/D Type Level 04/24/9718:55:57 DC9 96.6 A 04/24/97 13:48:14 B A31 92.8 D 04/30/97 12:32:01 DC 10 91.0 D 04/ 19/97 15:15:05 B74� 90.8 D 04/30/9715:13:48 B74F 89.5 D 04/OZ/9713:08:04 LR24 87.9 A 04/30/97 8:01:30 SF34 87.9 D 04/23/9712:26:11 DC9 8'7.2 D 04/19/9712:18:33 B747 86.7 D 04/07/97 9:14:04 SF34 85.4 D RMT #10: Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. St. Paul Date T'une �C Max � Type Level 04/OS/9713:17:19 B74'7 101.7 D 04/19/9712:18:17 B747 98.0 D 04/19/9715:14:49 B747 98.0 D 04/06/97 0:43:50 B727 97.9 A 04/21/9711:47:50 B�27 97.7 A 04/28/97 22:44:29 B�27 95.4 A 04/O1/97 3:02:00 B727 95.0 A 04/06/97 0:23:10 B�2'7 94.9 A 04/20/9� 4:08:59 DC 10 94.4 D 04/06/97 0:01:31 L 101 94.2 A RMT #12: Alton S� & Rockwood Ave. S� Paul Date TSme , A/C M'� A/D Type Level 04/08/97 8:46:46 B727 99.0 D 04/26/9714:29:33 B72� 98.1 A 04/29/97 22:57:42 B727 93.5 D 04/02/97 8:42:16 DC9 8�.1 A 04/07/97 9:33:14 DC9 86.5 D 04/28/97 9:43:11 DC 10 86.4 D 04/ 15/97 9:42:56 MD80 86.2 D 04/25/97 7:09:08 B�37 85.8 D 04/14/97 8:07:23 B727 85.6 A 04/04/97 7:07:12 BE80 85.4 D Note: ARTS data missing for 4.7 days Avi�tinn Nnica ,P C�tallitn T3.��.....�.,,,,.. . n--- t^� Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified � RMT #13: Southeast End of Mohican Court Mendota Heights Date Time A/C Max � �e I.evel 04/04/97 9:39:24 B727 96.9 D 04/28/9713:23:52 DC9 96.4 D 04/24/9717:16:00 DC9 95.1 D 04/02/97 7:48:51 B727 95.0 D 04/03/97 20:20:59 B727 94.3 D 04/03/9718:54:24 B727 94.2 D 04/O1/9719:36:31 B727 93.9 D 04/23/9717:52:18 B727 93.5 D 04/28/97 13:25:48 B727 92.8 ' D 04/03/97 22:23:52 B727. 92.1 D RMT #15: Cullon S� & Lexington Ave. Mendota Heights Date T'u�e 04/O1J97 20:09:23 04/O 1/97 13:33:34 04/03/97 18:53:59 04/O1/97 20:43:01 04/O 1/97 9:14:44 04/O l/97 22:21:36 04/14/97 9:26:40 04/Ol/97 20:32:40 04/04/97 20:38:27 , 04/04/97 7:49:06 Pase 18 A/C 1`ype B727 B72� B727 B727 DC9 B727 BA31 B727 B727 B727 Mag Level 0 RMT #14: lst St. & McKee St. Eagan Date Time `vC M� � Type Level 04/28/97 15:19:52 � G2 101.6 D 04/22/9716:17:55 B727 99.0 D 04/22/9713:19:40 DC9 97.6 D 04/O1/9712:40:43 B727 97.3 D 04/19/97 4:56:22 8727 97.1 D 04/04/97 Z0:17:56 SF34 96.4 D 04/O1/9716:55:39 • B727 96.3 D 04/03/9719:04:18 B727 96.3 D 04/03/9718:48:59 B727 96.2 D 04/04/9� 13:35:52 DC9 96.2 D RMT #16: Avalon Ave. & �las Lane Eagan Date Time A/C Max � 'I`ype Level 04/14/9715:43:07 B727 102.0 D 04/02/9710:00:06 B727 101.8 D 04/23/9715:40:55 B727 101.6 D 04/Oi/9712:40:25 B727 101.3 D 04/Q4/9717:02:55 B727 101.3 D 04/22/9713:19:27 DC9 101.1 D 04/23/97 7:37:50 B727 100.5 D 04/23/9719:25:44 B727 100.4 D 04/04/9713:35:43 DC9 100.3 D 04/ 14/97 9:35:32 DC9 100.3 D Note: ARTS data missing for 4.7 days Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten Loudest t�.ircraft Noise Events Identified RMT #17: 84th S� & 4th Ave. Bloomington Date Time �c Max � Type Level 04/04/9713:27:26 B747 98.2 D 04/03/9712:40:58 B727 97.6 D 04/13/97 7:11:37 B727 97.0 D 04/13/9'714:11:53 B747 96.2 D 04/20/97 6:11:28 DC9 96.0 D 04l19/97 21:07:45 B727 95.5 D 04/21/97 6:15:18 8727 ' 95.0 D 04/25/9711:12:00 B727 94.8 D 04/13/9713:21:34 DC9 94.7 D 04/09/97 7:34:21 DC9 94.3 D RMT #19: 16th Ave. & 84th St Bloomington Date Time AJC Max � Type Level 04/19/9? �:18:50 B727 102.5 D 04/19/97 6:54:35 B727 101.0 D 04/12/97 6:48:42 B727 99.7 D 04/26/9719:04:25 B727 99.6 D 04/13/97 6:07:58 B727 99.5 D 04/19/97 7:37:51 B�27 99.2 D 04/12/97 7:18:42 B727 98.7 D 04/30/97 22:48:38 B727 98.5 D 04/19/97 7:12:28 B727 9$.0 D 04/20/97 6:1 I:30 B72`7 97.5 D RMT #18: 75th St & 17th Ave. Richfield Date Time �C Max � Type Level 04/ 19/97 7:33:04 DC9 104.8 D 04/26/97 21:34:51 B727 103.2 D 04/09/97 7:14:49 B727 102.6 D 04/04/9� 13:27:05 B747 102.5 D 04/13/9716:11:33 B72� 102.3 D 04/20/97 8:3�:33 B727 102.0 D 04/25/97 5:08:10 . B72� 101.8 D 04/08/97 7:09:24 B72'7 101.7 D 04/15/9716:14:15 B727 101.3 D 04/03/9712:40:41 B727 100.6 D RMT #20: 75th St. & 3rd Ave. Richfield Date T'ime A/C Max �. Type Level 04/1S/97 4:53:02 B72� 96.9 D 04/27/9710:23:53 B72� 94.1 D 04/26/97 21:35:07 B72� 93.4 D 04/18/97 22:55:00 B727 92.'7 D 04/13/97 6:10:33 B727 92.0 D 04/08/97 4:51:03 B727 91.$ D 04/26/9719:30:40 B727 90.3 D 04/27/97 7:59:27 B�27 90.0 D 04/ 19/97 7:33:12 DC9 89.6 D 04/18/9716:31:30 FK10 88.7 D Note: ARTS dala missing for 4.7 days Aviation IVni�e Rc Satellite Prnar�mc n.,,.,, � n Metrapolitan Airports Commission Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified RMT #21: Barbara Ave. & 67th S� Inver Grove Heights Date Time �C M� � �yge I.evel 04/04/97 7:50:16 B727 91.6 D 04/O1/9717:12:03 B727 90.5 D 04/21/97 7:40:28 B727 90.1 D 04/28/9717:29:07 B727 89.3 D 04/ 14/97 12:05:50 DC9 89.0 D 04/14/97 13:13:07 DC9 89.0 D 04/Ol/9718:45:56 � B727 88.9 D 04/14/9717:36:07 B727 88.8 D 04/22/9716:21:04 B727 88.7 D 04/25/97 22:20:14 B727 88.4 D RMT #23: End of Kenndon Ave. Mendota Heights Date Time 04/26/9? 9:34:13 04/03/97 17:10:45 04/02/97 11:55:46 04/14/97 9:26:2'7 04/28/97 13:25:13 04/21/97 20:52:46 04/04/97 20:38:18 04/02/97 9:29:40 04/01/97 12:13:12 04/O 1/97 13:43:13 Pa�e 20 A/C T9Pe B727 B727 B727 MD80 B727 DC9 B'727 DC9 B727 DC9 Max Level 104.2 103.6 103.2 103.2 103.2 103.0 102.6 102.5 102.4 102.2 0 RNIT #22: Anne Marie Trail Inver Grove Heights Date Time �C M� � Type Level 04/O1/97 7:52:20 � DC9 96.0 D 04/Ol/97 7:53:56 DC9 96.1 D 04/28/97 7:56:14 B727 90.0 D 04/03/9� 16:25:05 B727 89.3 D 04/03/9717:10:08 B727 89.3 D 04/23/9715:01:51 B757 89.3 D 04/28/97 7:43:28 B727 89.0 D 04/14/9� 14:51:56 DC9 88.6 D 04/24/9� 16:53:18 B'727 88.5 D 04/14/9714:54:51 DC9 88.2 D RMT #24: Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. Eagan Date T'une A/C Max � Type Level 04/13/9� 10:07:43 B727 96.8 A 04/12/9711:55:41 DC9 96.3 A 04/14/97 9:13:20 B737 96.0 D 04/02/9710:00:27 B727 95.9 D 04/02/9716:55:24 B737 95.5 A 04/15/97 6:10:25 B757 95.1 A 04/02/9712:20:18 DC9 94.9 A 04/09/9710:29:34 DC9 94.9 A 04/02/97 8:39:41 B727 94.4 A 04/IS/97 8:56:44 DC9 94.3 A Note: ARTS ciata missing for 4.7 days Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Metropolitan Airports Commission Flight �`rack Base Map � Airport Noise and Operations 1Vlonitoring System . ( e.,c�r�.,� �r,,:�o r, c.,*an;*o n,.�.......,,... .. ,.. 1�`�'� ri a.: u 0;' - ��, � . � ..i .��,��rVT ��_'�.,��. i a q� �pr hp�J v�" ' � a '� �` '��` ,.��cry : r : � � �;t��✓ � ;��," ,�'' � f, t �.�,. Y..+.' . . . .... .._ ... - _.C; ..,.. •,�...: �.'.'.... �:en `:.yi ..-.c�-g'il��~� ...,... ... Metropolitan Airports Commission . A.nalysis of t�ircraft Noise Events - Aircraft Ldn dB(A) Aprii 01 to Apri130,1997 � Noise 1Vlonitor Locations �" � Date #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 1 59.5 51.2 66.5 64.7 71.8 71.5 48.2 63.9 68.1 61.3 55.7 56.9 2 58.3 56.1 62.6 67.1 74.8 78.5 68.5 61.9 59.3 63.1 55.0 56.2 3 60.3 54.2 66.6 65.6 76.6 75.6 69.2 64.5 64.1 67.3 53.7 58.9 4 62.8 61.2 67.9 66.0 73.2 72.0 54.2 65.3 46.5 59.7 53.5 55.1 $ 59.6 59.6 68.2 63.8 72.5 69.4 54.6 65.5 55.3 60.8 45.1 53.2 6 * * * * * * * * * * * * '7 62.6 * 61.7 64.9 75.5 79.4 69.6 61.3 48.0 50.3 � 42.9 51.6 g 52.2 49.4 52.1 58.9 67.5 72.6 63.3 68.0 50.8 51.5 46.2 53.0 9 53.5 48.8 61.0 62.5 70.6 75.4 60.7 68.1 52.9 54.4 49.9 51.2 10 60.8 56.9 66.6 63.7 72.5 69.5 59.4 61.0 49.6 54.9 49.8 53.1 11 56.5 47.2 58.5 62.8 �3.8 * 67.4 71.2 56.3 57.3 51.4 51.0 ], 2 55.3 43.3 57.6 63.0 73.5 74.8 67.1 71.6 48.1 49.1 50.4 52.6 13 55.9 46.1 58.2 61.5 71.6 73.5 64.7 * 56.5 46.1 50.0 43.2 14 59.1 48.0 65.0 63.8 73.6 71.9 61.3 66.2 54.9 60:8 49.9 60.9 15 59.4 55.4 59.0 64.2 73.3 77.7 69.8 73.1 59.1 66.4 52.8 58.2 16 53.1 43.1 56.5 55.8 68.9 69.4 64.5 56.9 60.0 40.4 50.0 47.3 j 7 57.9 49.8 63.8 63.� 70.0 69.6 57.2 58.4 59.7 65.6 52.5 55.5 1 g 58.5 59.6 63.6 66.3 75.9 78.9 69.5 72.7 56.8 60.9 59.4 63.4 19 55.5 49.9 58.2 63.3 �3.4 76.1 67.2 58.9 49.1 62.6 51.7 47:5 20 54.6 38.0 56.8 60.1 65.6 71.8 62.2 * 55.6 61.9 55.0 48.0 2l 58.3 53.9 64.4 63.6 70.3 68.9 57.4 67.0 47.3 58.3 49.9 49.2 22 57.7 50.0 643 63.9 71.1 69.6 59.2 64.5 51.9 55.1 51.1 53.9 23 60.5 51.4 64.6 64.5 71.3 74.5 67.9 55.4 53.5 58.5 54.5 53.2 24 50.3 48.9 59.8 64.6 75.6 75.6 68.1 64.2 51.0 51.1 60.2 51.3 25 57.4 51.9 62.5 64.5 72.7 7�.3 66.5 70.3 51.1 54.6 49.3 52.1 2C 54.4 53.0 59.9 65.8 71.3 75.4 61.4 65.3 51.5 57.6 50.2 54.5 2'7 55.3 54.1 59.8 64.4 71.7 75.7 65.2 * 49.6 53.2 46.8 52.8 28 57.2 48.8 62.5 63.5 68.1 71.8 54.1 68.5 64.4 67.1 43.7 52.1 29 52.5 52.1 58.9 65.8 73.0 77.2 68.9 66.6 60.3 56.0 58.1 62.9 30 58.0 53.9 64.3 66.4 773 79.7 72.5 64.0 56.1 57.7 56.7 54.5 Mo. Ldn 58.2 53.9 632 65.2 74.8 76.5 66.4 68.9 59.9 63.3 53.5 56.9 * Less than twenty faur hours vf duta available Note: ARTS data missing for 4.7 days Page 26 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Metropotitan Airports Commission Analysis oi Aircraft l�oise Events - A.arc�afi Ldn dB(A) April Ol to April 30,1997 Noise Monitor Locations Date #13 #14 #15 #16 #1'7 #18 #19 #20 #21 #22 #23 #24 1 6�.2 68.� 70.5 71.5 * 52.9 48.5 47.3 62.7 * 76.3 68.8 2 63.2 70.0 64.3 73.0 * 70.6 69.6 57.2 60.7 * 73.1 65.2 3 66.0 69.4 67.3 71.9 60.1 67.3 67.8 � 53.2 *, 62.9 74.6 67.3 4 65.9 69.5 67.5 71.5 57.9 65.2 63.1 47.2 61.0 61.4 76.0 57.3 5 58.9 67.2 61.1 70.7 46.1 52.8 62.1 49.7 53.8 58.7 70.5 63.$ 6 * * * * * * * * * * * * 7 44.7 64.4 51.9 70.4 56.8 63.3 55.7 59.4 47.4 59.6 59.6 64.5 $ 42,6 69.7 463 * 53.7 62.5 57.8 61.8 37.5 54.9 52.0 59.1 9 62.2 66.3 61.7 70.3 57.5 67.0 64.5 50.2 62.7 58.8 71.7 71.0 10 65.6 71.6 65.4 75.1 S 1.5 54.5 44.1 47.7 65.5 66.4 753 67.9 11 51.9 55.9 43.1 63.8 62.2 55,5 42.3 43.1 40.5 46.0 61.4 63.9 12 45.2 62.5 49.0 68.5 61.2 67.5 68.9 48.6 50.5 52.4 61.4 63.8 13 39.0 59.8 46.5 65.0 69.0 73.5 71.0 64.6 41.8 52.7 69.1 66.0 14 64.8 67.9 68.1 71.8 57.9 65.5 61.7 54.1 62.7 65.6 75.6 �0.1 15 59.1 64.8 63.8 69.5 59.9 70.5 66.1 64.8 57.6 59.8 68.4 63.9 16 60.0 59.4 46.5 65.4 45.4 48.9 40.7 51.7 60.0 56.7 51.3 70.1 17 65.2 72.2 65.7 75.6 57.7 65.2 65.7 52.2 64.4 66.3 75.1 59.3 18 57.1 66.4 63.4 70.4 60.0 71.0 64.7 64.1 55.9 60.6: 68.0 66.8 19 49.2 65.7 51.6. 69.2 64.4 72.3 72.4 59.0 48.7 59.4 61.7 64.4 20 44.2 63.4 38.7 66.6 633 72.2 70.4 56.5 49.6 57.2 50.8 60.0 21 63.0. 68.3 63.7 72.3 57.7 58.4 52.2 44.9 64.6 64.2 73:7 57.2 22 66.0 69.7 66.0 73.2 60.7 59.4 46.4 55.8 64.5 63.2 753 59.3 23 63.0 69.2 63.2 74.1 63.9 62.6 44.8 53.7 60.7 64.1 71.9 68.8 24 56.6 63.2 55.6 * 60.8 69.4 68.5 56.1 54.0 57.0 66.6 59.8 25 60-2 67.8 57.9 70.4 58.2 68.4 66.9 55.9 61.8 60.2 66.4 60.8 26 59.2 65.4 59.6 69.0 58.5 69.4 66.6 583 57.4 58.3 69.6 51.9 27 53.8 62.7 58.8 66.3 65.9 71.1 64.0 58.3 53.0 55.4 62.4 60.0 2$ * 69.0 67.9 71.0 56.9 60.7 54.2 51.1 64.8 63.1 76.1 54.9 29 48.8 65.7 ' S9.2 * 61.9 69.9 64.8 55.7 48.3 59.9 63.2 60.2 30 51.5 65.6 5 t.9 7(.2 63.7 69.8 67.6 62.8 * 60.4 58.2 62.7 Mo. Ldn 62.3 68.2 65.4 72.3 61.2 69.2 65.9 61.7 62.0 62.7 72.4 68.4 * Less thun twenry four hours of data uvailable Note: ARTS data missing for 4.7 days Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs page 27 � l ; . _.. r.'i:?:'ir::;i ..yf;r • i•:::�:; ��i:'F;,{%'.St>: ,,;�'i}!;,•':;:2+'.: .:: ;f:.'�i'ri �.:':v... . l.•i i•%.l.•: :•.'l: .; •.!:•:�:Si%•:': �%: iF.: ii J .r. 'J.•;: . :. .'J.�:ii:.: } Y: ili:'::''::k;: . fF:i'::•r:.•.Y::�r.. �'.�1�="• :'"' . /.•i':i:Y „I..,'.�,i:;: :.t;�!'�.:'•'!.'�=:;i:i+ri'�: � 1.�.�:r{�1,.;:i:} "%•'::•Y.:''l.•:'': i:S:•'1•'Y: ?: '• . Iv':: .:� {::.:.'r'�i: '..'•l.i' ::+:.•},:� ?'>'l.<:?•: %:�.iY.?..� f .. . '+:•••'.:••• •••'�r••f �i:::'f.:: k' / j:�Ff::i'i�'�'�'!:':: ':fft: f� •�f;: ".�.��,'.r'�: ..•j,..e . . .:. ' i::`�ii+�::.'b;::::� w.;?;�: �i'{•�:`/':�:%': ;.y::• .;:::;•.:.; :, �::}'?j^. �.:;:v :i%.':%%<...,..i . fi� � ..y::.:c:�.x�:.•.r.:-..,:::;i;.;: %.i'r:•i:�%•:.�:i::.�:.�:.^ii:' .�.� /.L• ::. `'•.`:�'/,.:' . '.::..:r:::i�:%:':..:�! .. �. F�(� • :: :�:..i'-.::. iJ�r�i: ; :+: �i ��ii%_:1�;"�,•.:;�;�ri:i '•Li �:%:•:�:.�i .i:: :y::j�:''r:j ..'1.•:::"i',l.:i:i:/::::.::%:.. l ��.i'f.:•ii •'f.•'� 'i:%�:l•;:::.:Y.�:jr. � j.}. .:i.:. .. . ..:/:> '•:�:R''!{ir iii?l;ii: 'i?��lf;::::ti�i::.. %`r�'r:;... ,%!r:`'�:;;•;r{:'i,' �:k: r-: ::f�;:;:'•:,. ..; :.:,,-:;�E's,';_rs, ::.r`.:,;�[:r<ii>,':;!:i;' : �:y ::>.`:`:�.'•tf;.�'� `S;{`:;:i:q::%:? ':.i:;>::�.p:v..: .:!;�r:_<.;:. t`�fi<o:... .::::r: ;� :r::;:::::. . ••':•':::..:.::..'it:. ..�,,:s:r ..... ..i::.:; .'r.$� ::•f.•: •-":: �i:i;`:t:::d>; • ro/:'::•x:::::.•'r,-::•>:•::<••,.:; : i::..:;•l.••.:>:::::i.:::::..:»:c :y,:: ::>::•r::�::....+:::�%;::••»: i t;��:•x.:�::3i�"::�i•:; �•:'f.iiJ;:�::.ti:i {,.;::•::.; "•:�:;f�,�{,fr::. f.::•'},.;ye i•`:•�`3 .:;::: r, ... .:��:�: x;x�; L� i �. t � � I �ti �� :.Y : iL.'�, t* N�: � � O � _ ii� ;:1:}� :i•',l.•:i.: ':''.=�r.::;: 4:i::•r::; �y .r�'. >'�x:�, r.,_ 1:;:�?.:;xy: ?;if1?< ' %�':': '<::;}�:jfn: fi:� . ; ;.• r.•�.::;%� �.., �:i' �::. � � ` .'f:L }:{i�.;��.i:; ii:?::iiiii::�i�;;i:�;:t_:��. ��• :: �, ��..�i'�`ii':�:�•:F�'i;'::..}':�:,y:i::ii,::�'.��,:i::•iY.�-:•: �: ;.:Y�=J::i: �iii;::i: �ii:i'ily:_:i::; r.;,f}`:..1i i',%-" �i,'.';f.:t•`:ii`{� �:i�:Y3'�:Y:�=;i:{:i'�i:;}':y>:''�.'•'{�•X . ,..:...: :iF?.i:�.'�r ..............:............s:::%��:; � -' 'k'te�� ::{:r{��i >}%�i`�,' j.�ri':! " _ " i:�f:�: ' i ;,f.�.yuJ+:Fii:�::'l,.::SJ::�?:}:i:�;�ti•:::?.:!::�.i?:+� i:i';f.;ii }�':�;?� �`i�:' ';''f.•::= �.'r.:.i {.t'y ,` z•.•'r'<i�r:: r -::¢.;'&i:.`•i%;;5:�'iy�tl:�'::� :?;i;:'''S;;`•. . fi:.v..i::i:•��.'�:ll:�'i:iif:<�'�:i;::i::i':.:�.:'i�.. .' •';l.•::i::i.; f4i1;�. ;: �i .: 3::::r::; :.: � Fi'..:yi.'•ii: "�. �" f:::i.:::{$:'. ivi?"i:��i:`.i4i%??�:Y.:'f;.i:�ii::•!�+' •',%•'::i':i:•i::.;:..i'l,.. �:�ii;;.l�.}:'� ':'J.r '`::'f.i�;i;`:y%Y.'>ii''. ".'i`:' :. f::::>.�:!•i::' `: i;.;',f•;:>f: • ..�.�`7�'c;�`.. �+'f`3 ::%j.ii::i::'=::i:�'�'�^'�:'>i:!:;::;:i:::�::;�:i �?�:'�::;i i�;si: " - `•'::',l.;:r:. X:..x.r . :i.::=:....:: �r'.'J.•: ::�:. . 'l.•::�:i:.:;;iY.;:..,.. . . :v �.�.:'Y.•':�'..,:. w :.1.::::.i.';::::{;..;:;ili:iii:i::.:: vi:;ii.::�i`:� :j:}i %�i:'i�•ii: '•:fin.♦,:.::; :::�'f.:•:�:.i:i::.i:0::-::•:�y;��yi:Y" r•:,+.:'i''•:+:::::ti:>:i.. :: : • . 'U.�iiii::�i'l,C:�:;;i:�:y:::::::ii•:Yi:::::.:. .:i-:i::l� ;r'.yi::f,: '..i:�f:�WiY•i'::�:�ii::ii ii{:+::i .....::::•.:... ::l�:i: �f'': �i�%?::i: :ii:}?yiii:i�ii::�l:ij:i..-:''i.::..:..i :i�:ti.':� ±.i'::fi:� : ;',l.•_:;.:: :ryi::�: �i:;:: {:i� .�,fi:... : ., i: .;,}.:ii: •�� :il .:: . -i:iv;��i'r.�� " :;}':�i i i.y�';?%;:;?" : C�.titi.i.'��.'f.�.'�.!; �;:;f:?.�.:::i:C+,:• 1 ' :.},. 'i/::i�:%:j'til:��:it�:;:i�.: � �'-•"�f:!��:•.�'L-:i�;��_��: �_ r�.�'..- -.::riE ----------_. _. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . FLEET % .� � � O G7 � O ; : '� � • � � � j � �j l:'' � � �. , � _ - _ - - - - _ - - - - - -�..-. :��c •�=�-�: ��,�.��-�.��_'�;�'' _ �a-`�� ",G �.v' �r..;,7� �`� ��^�`�.-=�,'V :� -� � �-�. v "��`-'��,� r�• t,4_ � L .2 µ;-�•�.:»_ � �� '��3 '�M'�� `A��L"`, ._ ��n `�1� �t...� C � <. - ;:=r:.;;:,;:<. i��fi;: .]; $ri,ijs� - �:i:t::r::. �� f�� ':.fj.fi •".i%:;::�;:'"� �� i:j'". J:::i: ryy � : �t1 � `� -� =�•'�C � � ti , o J6. �""A��..�`,"�—�= ;,'1v�`�.�� -�� j , �:.�� `'`:��.:�,`\� �,.�ti~I�� '�. \ ` •/•'�;\,i,�rh�` u' .�„�. �� '.'J�'� � ' � � `'1i� 1� � � �r �I ��+!1 '�� < < � . "'�' L t � ��'i��1-'�,��i'��'�. /, �.'` � , J''� .i �,�� , III�III% /.IM � / . Y ' i ,I�,��ri. � � � �. j�x,. �`\ : ....,r ;-��,,y _ �r :r. ' �3"-; ' '• �i' r. � i ._:b1 �`� / �r! ;:v �► ��'� � , � __/ �� - ,.- � �� `:1b ��, ; 1�, � �� '�� ; :�./►-�-�'� " : . �,, u .. : ! 1�_fri�!�%�r, . ,�, ,: .— -- � r ,.�'" `�. :� �-� .�►—�i ,-�-" �:. �: z � - r�� ,�' ; ~ \ �is;: .�/;'� s: �`'•.;` �!t�,r�iii .�:; �`\� r . � , �' �� ,`\: . `�'.-.' t 1 � � ` , ; �: , �+'� J� r J. .cr X 1 ...'��r'�✓ ...i.....��_.. i .......♦ .J... . , �ti �.� ... tF'.. t� � � `st,C \�, > ', \� �� ,.,; � ,��, : •�� , , � ',.'`_ ;,,1 Metropolitan Airports Commission � `� � 1 11 ' 1 / i 1 1 . 1 1 i , , . � . . �; � . � '•'11 �. • . 1 .; ' 11 ( ' � � � , . . � ' / . /, 1 � ;� '� � • � ' '� • 1 i 1 1 �/ i 1' 1. Page 2 Aviation Noise & Sateliite Programs C ( ' Metropolitan Airports Commission , Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport Aprii 1997 - 3796 ... Total 11L and 11It Carrier Jet Departures 8... Carrier Je� Departures 0( .2%J North of Proposed 095° (M) Corridor Polacy Boundary � �� $ TRACKS CROSSED P-GATE LEFT CO�NT=O (0.0�� RIGHT CO�NT=8 (100.0�) -4 ; j DEVIATION FROM CENTER OF GATE (fl) Aviation Noise & Sateliite Programs , ' Page 3 Metropolitan Airports Commission . 1Vlinneapolis - St. Paui International Airport April 1997 � �� 3�96 ... Total 11L and lllZ Carrier Jet Departures 0... Carrier Jet Departure - Early 'I'urnout (0.0% (North S�de Before Three Miles) . DEUTATION FROM CENTER OF GATE (ft) Page 4 Aviation Noise & Sateliite Programs ( � j Metropolitan Airports Commission Southern �oundary Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis Minneapolis - 5t. Paul International Airport April 1997 11.�% (448) Carrier Jet I)epartures South of Corridor (South of 29L Localizer) Aviation IVoise & Satellite Programs Page 5 Metropolitan Airports Commission �_ �� O 0 �J o W d � � �— o J p '�C O cV � '. 11 �.;' ' � 1 . ' 11 3796 ... Total 11L and 11R Carrier Jet I)epartures 446 ... Carrier Jet Departures (11.7% South of Corridor (South of 29L I.,ocalizer) 446 TRACKS CROSSED P-GATE LEFT COUNT=446 (100.0%) RIGHT COUNT=O (0.0�� • • • • S� ��• • • e � � � � � � � � � -----""! • � � � #�'-. �---'--s-s-+--'-'+----'--'----'-"'.,-'-'-'-'--'-------+-"-----------"" � � � � �---------------- �r••'O s• � ��i � �+M Mr+• �_S�'�'�ls�� e . � • . . �S� �y s •e � � . r �•1�� • 1�� .� •• is � ��S +t �� f °s � � � � • � : • • � ' ' ' � � � � � � � lO7r � � �� • � � � --�----------------- � � -------- 'ti"'�j'*�j' i'.r_'__.i.?�""""""'. Y"_"""""""�"""""""" �� 'i �� i � a~�� • � �• o � � � � � � •� �` : ,'�� n;• � � s • _• � e • � � � � � "'---'--"'.R"' """"""""' � i � -'-""'--"""'' --------'-"'-' t r"""""------�"-'----------'-'-r r' � � ,.. � � � � '�'.._�'_'��'��1��"��..'��1��'��_'_"J"'�'�'�"_"�"� � __"'_��"_""��L""'..""��"' i OEVIATION FROM CENTER OF GATE (fl) . Page 6 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs �`: r �_ � O O r'"'J W � � O � � � � � J Q d O O � Metropolitan Airports Commission ,: . 1V.linneapolis - St. Paul International Airport �. April 1997 3796 ... Total 11L and 11R Carrier. Jet Departures 2.o. Carrier Jet Departures - Early 'Turnout (0.1 %) (South Side Before Three Miles) 2 TRACKS LEFT CO�NT=O (0.0�} CROSSED P-GATE RIGHT CO�NT=2 (100.0�} . , � , , �--------------------------i--------------------------�-----� --------------------;--------------------------- � ' � """"_"'_'' """'_"""'_"' ""'""""'__"'_""""'T'_""_""""_"""'""'�""""""_' ; """_" "'-""' ----""-"'---""'-"--"---"--"' -"'-"-^'-"'--"'--_"""---'----^"-----"""--"' ^ ----"- �■,`,�'� DEVIRTION FROM CENTER OF GRTE (ff) Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 7 Metropolitan Airports Commission 1 ' i 1 1 . 1 1' 1 • ' � ' ' • i ' . •.i1 �. ' . 1 .' ' 1� . �, , � � 2.5% (96) Carrier Jet I)epartures 5° South of Corridor (5° South of 29L Localizer) � Page 8 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs � � Metropotitan Airports Commission Minneapolis - St. I'aul International Airport April 1997 3796 ... Total 11L and 11R Carrier Jet Departures 94 ... Carrier Jei Departures (2.4 % S° South of Corridor (5° South of 29L I.ocalizer) 94 TRACKS CROSSED P-GATE �EFT COUNT=O (0.0�) RIGHT COUNT=94 (100.0�� m DEVIATION FROM CENTER OF GA1E (ft Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs � �� Page 9 Metropolitan Airports Commission 1Vl�nneapolis - St. Paul Iniernational Airport April 1997 � 3796 ... Total 11L and 11R Carrier Jet Departures 2... Carrier Jet Departures - Early Tu.rnout (0:1 °Io ) (South Side Before Three Miles) 2 TRACKS CROSSED P-GATE �EFT CO�NT=O (0.0�) RIGHT COUNT=2 (100.0�} �� . , , , , . , �___________J�_..__�__��____��_..__L____��____��________��___ � , ""'""""�"""""""_ """"_"""'"r""""""' _""""""""' DEUTATION FROM CENTER OF GATE (ft) Page 10 Aviation iVoise & Satellite Programs � �� ...._ � � � �. � � � � �'": it�.. ..iissr...�. //`7�i� !ii!1!�\1\�1\ //f��\ ///��!'i\�i►�\ � 1/��. �i�� \Ci1117�� . � ! ..• • • �. • . � . ... � t..�Yuu�w � �. L : " ��_�.�._-.—n �� e� , :.�_...... -..��:... .. . 11�Iri ��ia� �a• ' �11�l1w � , • . • - • • • . u�i r�v �mi �� rn•. e�rr �:.. ..�,r _ • • • • May 20, 1997 S a.m. Mendota Heights City Hall Large Conference Room 1101 Victoria Curve l. Call to Order. 2. Adoption of Agenda.. 3. Approval of March 18, 1997 and Apri115, 1997 Minutes (Attached) 4. Unfinished Business _,. � � A. Discussion of Noise Abatement Departure Procedures B. Discussion of Joint Workshop for Commissioners C. Updaxe on Northwest Airlines Challenge to Runway Reconstruction D. MASAC - Proposed Changes to Byla.ws and Quorum Voti.ng 5. Other 8usiness 6. City Updates. 7. Future Meetings * Sunfish Lake on June 17th * Agenda. Topics/Assignments 8. Adjourn. MINUTES FOR NORTHERN DAKOTA COUN'.I'Y AiRPORT REZATIONS COALITION _-�.. �-- An informal meeting of the Northern Dakota County Airport Relations was held ' on Tuesday, Apri115,1997 at 8:00 a.m. Present were Jon Hohenstein, Eagan; Jim Toye, IVlendota; Steve Hughes and Chris l�Ioates, Inver Grove Heights. The following topics were informally discussed: Noise Departure Profile Analysis -Close-in and distant deparhzre procedures. Discussion of Workshop for Commissioners -Evening meeting with other Northern Dakota County airport commissions, consisting of bus tour with several stops, possibly ANONIS sites, 11�Iendota Heights overlook, and others. Date, time, locations and route path to be determined later. Northwest Airlines Runway Construcii.on Challenge -Construction on the south parallel runway was posiponed for one pear due to NWA's concern with Ievels of fraffic. Some discussion occurred regarding possibility of an EIS. Ciiy Updates -Brief inention of Mendota being in corridor for pt 150. OEher Bnsiness -l�litigation didn't surface at the Lej slature. -American Association of Airport Executives Conference in 11�1inneapolis, I�Iay 12-14. -FICAN public hearin.g on Tuesday, Nlay 13,1997 at Thunderbird. Two sessions, afternoon (1-4) is technical, evening (6-9) is community issues. -IGH is lookin� for consensus from other NDCARC cities for NtASAC abolishment Future Meetings Ne;ct meeting was set for Tuesday, Nlay 20, 2997 ai the City of l�Iendota Hei�hts Conference Room, 8:00 a.m. �� - - i - ;i;. � - ;1r: •�r,.. : . .. .. . ._ .. -.. ....... . � .. .. _.. �.... .. ...'_' ._ i :fi ti � M;�'�t�TE5 FC?R iHE NO�t'CHERN DA�Ct7TA COUNTY AIRPORT RkLATiOt1S C�AL.1710N March 18, 1497 � `A mee�ir�g of ttie Northern Dakota CouncY Airporc Reiarions Coalicion was held on Tuesday, March 1 8, 19�7 at 8:00 a.ii�. Presenc were Chris Moaces of [nver Grove Heighcs, Kevin Saccheider and Elisworch Sre�n oFiMenclota Neighc< and )on Hohenstein of Eagan_ � AGENDA ; Upon modon by Qacd�elder, seconded by Moates, all members vocing in favor, the agenda was approved as presen�ed. M tNt3tES � Upan mocion by Batchelder, seconded by Moates, al( members vocing in favor, the mfnute$ of the Februa ;'ry 20, 1997 meeting were appro��ed noting one change in the Four�h line on the Final paragr3ph on page [vVo SUCh [li�c [he sencenc:c wou(d rtad "Ne �Iso reported thac inver Grnve Hei�hcs is considering a resolucion to abotlsh MAS/�C_" STAGE II PHASE OUT BACKSLI�ING ' Bacche�der i�idtcaced that h? had receh�ed a respanse from Nonhwest Airlines and thac while cE�e ( � figures'i��dicaced slight backsiiding in se.veraf months, Srage Ill gro�vth has occurred over dze years. He noced �- chac cl�e requirements fn the MAC and Norchwest agreemenrs are that che air[ine not backs(ide on an annuaf hasis and iC appear5 that [h3[ requlremen[ is being mec. He scaced thac ic is not clear whPther Northwe5t is mee�ing che requirement thac the percentage of operaclons macch the percencage of S[.age Ill aircraft in che Eieee. f-lohenscein indicated chat Ms. S�yre is being invited to aaend an Eagan AirpoR Relatioru Cumni:�ssio„ rneeun� anei if odter citi�as had c�u?sunnc concernin� the infom�acion tE�3c had been received, [I��c could be pass�d on �t t�a[ time. Bacchefder asked E,agan fol(ativ up on [he quescior� of whether Norif�wrst's operatio�u at Minneapo(is macch or exceed the Scage I1l percentage In [he fleet. He also indicaeed d1�t it would be wor[hwhile �U know ho�� o�her air(ines are doing. Stein a<ked tha� Eagan as NoRhw'est hc�w Minneapo[is compares in percencages to the other Northwest hubs. Hohenstein indicaced chac such qtiPtcions would be passed on to Ms. Sayre. [1f'�ATE ON COALITIOAI CORRESPONDENCE � Hohenstein revlewed che {etcer �hac had been prepared for submisslon �o MAC Chair Sandy Grieve conc.e.i-ning moving forward tivith the mitigation cornmittee recommendations. Gfenda Spiocta would be con4�cted f�r 5[acus on that letter and ic would be fuiwarded eo [nver Grove E-leights at the ear[iesC opporrtunfty. Hohenscein also reviewPd c�rrespondence to MAC Executive D(rector jeff Hamie( conceming resnon�c�s r.o Cicy requesrs and leccers. Members noted several instances in which Inadequate inEoi macion was provicled cv cicies, inEormaCion �vas provided ro MASAC racher ctran co the person who �ad requesced ic and oCl�er Situaclon5, lc tivas also suggesced chac che MASAC minuces diFferentiate between wlto were voting rnen`ibers ancl who were alcernaces from each of the clties. j r ' ' ' "' . . . � ...., _ . i . .. ..: �.. � _1 .I�_ . _�.. j i!I� NUCARC Minuces Marchs � 8, 1997/Page Two NO[SE ABATEMENT D�pARTL1RE PROFII.ES ; lc tivas notPci diat a mee�ing of the MASAC Operations Committee was planned for Friday, March 21 ac :10:0� a.iti. (c was expeczed c(�ac the Nolse Abacemen� Departure !'rofle informatio►1 would be made avallabic �o ci�ies in Marrh ar.c1 chac Ic Gvould be returned co MASAC For consideration In Aprit. • OTHER BUS[N�5S ; Batchelder nozed thae Bioomingcon had requesced special communicatians during the reconstntction of the:south paratle[ cvnway. Con�crn was expressed that cl�is request apptied only to Biouming[�n �nc! Richfield �a�her than afl citles that would be affected. It was suggesced that MASAC members supporc tF►e idea of beccer communications but tf�ac it not be specific ta a single ciry. Batchelder atso noted chat the MAS�C Operations Commtct2e had signiticancly Ilmlted the City oF Eagan's request for the ternporary iocaci�il of a monitor on Highview Avenue. He s;aced that when the ANOMS system was insta[Ied, i� was indicated ChaC it had [he abillty [o loca[e [emporary moni�nrs �nd c.mm�arP inp�i� from a variety of locacions from the permanent monicor (ocations. He stated �hat chis expectation is not being fuffil(ed. C17Y tt�DA�'E$ Hohenstein stac�d that che CEry of Eagan had recefved information chat the FAA was making a tinding �f ryc� si�ni�canc impac� on [he corridor crossin� procedure reques�ed by the ciry of Mendota Heighcs. Bacchelder noted that FAA Tower Chief Bruce W�gner- had �een at their most recent meeting and discussed likely aoeracion scenarios durin� che 1 1 R reconscru<tinn. H? sta[ed that 422 wou(d he used more whiie che nprLh end of the rumvay Is under construcrion and thac when the south parallel was aut of commission, opera�ions would use cEncerfine deparcures on 1 1 L. He further noced that Northwes[ Airlines is chalienging �, ci,e airp�rc's need to do �unway r�coiU�iuc�iun �r ac least che middfe porclon whl�h woufd cIose both che south parallel and Rw�way 22. Moates staced that the Inver Grove Neighu comrrtissia� was asking its Ciry Council c<� corisider a leaer to ics Iegislators and �he MAC requesting che abolishment of MASAC. � FL[TIIRE A�f��TtNGS ThE commissinn discussed the conrept of a jofnt coa(ition meecing for city commissions. EI(swor-�h S[ein offered ro c:oorclinate a bus Caur of the nofse affected cities. AD�OtIRA1MENT Upon mocion by Bacchelder, seconded by S�ein, a(I membe.rs voting in favor, the meeting was adjourned ac 9:35 a.�il. JDH Secretazy C ; � 05i09i97 10:06 3M B�DG 42—OW-06 -► 612 452 8940 N0.075 D02 � ` �"' � , � Mefiropolifian Aircraff Sound Abafiement Counc�l (MASAC) 60d0 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis. Minnesota 55d50 •(612} 726-9411 Cha►rman: Robert P. .lohnson Past Chairs: Scott Bunin, 1990•1995 Walier Rockensteln, il. 1482-1990 .ian Dei Calzo. 1979-1982 . Stanley W. Olson. 1969•�979 Technical Adv45of: John Foggia � �) � - � � � • - _ - . � i • � � CaUNC1L voT�NG �oTicE � Please be advised that at the regularY {�s� w��f�e taketn�on;the fa'llo i g�lt ms: Abaiement Council an May 27, 1997 City of Sunflsn Lake as�d ONL Ain�rays Membershtp MASAC By-�.�w Quorum Requtrements Noise Abatement Departure Proflies �NADPs) Piease refe� to the enclosed minutes of the ExecUtive Committee meeting �f Apri! 22, �1997 and ti�e Ope=ations Commi�tee meeting mi�utes �f� Aprii 7, 1997- � RECYC;.�D PA? 65i�9i97 10:06 3M H�D6 42-OW-06 � 612 452 8940 N�.875 D03 � � N u T � S MASAC EXECUTiVE CQi�iM1T7EE APR1L 22, °! 997 The mepting was heid at the Meircpalitan Airports Commission West Termina! Buiiding MAC ANS� Conferenc� Raom, a�d calied to order at 1Q:05 a.m. The fcqowing memb�rs K+ere in attendanca: 8ob Johnsarr Chairman Jennifer Sayre - MBAA Dicic K�inz — MAC Tom Hueg — St. Paut John Richt$r - Minneapoiis Ke�in 8atchelder - Mendata Heights .lon Hchenstein - Eagan Advisa : Traci Ericksan - MAC AGENDA• SUMFtSN LAKF 3 QHL AtRWAYS ME�+lBERSHIP Jennifer Sayre, No�thwest Alriines, moved and C}ick Keinz, MAC, s�conded to ac.�ept Sunftsh {�aake and DHL Airways as represen#atives to MASAC. A discussion follaweti. John Rict�ter, Minnea�olis, asked haw rnany peopie lived in Sunfish Lake or are in ths Part 1�0 FAA approved 6� cr 6Q �NL cAntour. Traa Ericicson, TeG'�nicai Advisar, said that Sunfish l.ake is not in the 6v DNL cantflur. Traci Eric.'csen said that 90 singie-family homes are included in #i�e 6i� O�1L dis:ant NADP c�n#our and 111 homes are inciuded in the c#osa-in NAOP cantour. Sev�rai members r�at�d that both 6umsviile and St. Lauis Parfc are rot in the Part i50 FAA approved 65 DNL cz�ntour but are raprasanted at MASAC. A discussia� r��arding MASAC represantation ensue�. 'il�ere was alsa a discussion regarding general MASAC procadures, inUuc3ing getting th8 T�chnical Adviso�'s Rapert befor� MASAC maetings. � 05i09i97 10:07 3M H�DG 42-8W-06 � 612 452 0940 N0.075 D04 A vote was taks� on the mction and passed unanimous4y. Thomas Hu�g, moved and Dick Keinz, MAC, sacondad to change Atticle It, paragraph 4 to ihe � ! fol(owing: � e aca'one Repceseniative from the Cargo Air Carders' with'two Representatives fram the Cargo Air Carrierr,' d Ad 'one RepreaentaUve f�cm the Cliy of Sunt�sh L.ske' A vote was taken on the motion and passed unanimousiy. gU(?RUM REQUIRFMENTS Chairman Johnsan said t H� $aia fi a quorvm M natpresent,n he�co RG canno#uconduct quorum was not present. business (taka a vote). Traci Ericicson, Technical Advisroens�g� fo� $ quo�m bag d an PUBLIC and USER�d PUBLIC mambe�s were racom representativss' past attendar�c� re.cards. Dicic Keinz, MAC, moved and Thomas Hueg, St. Paul, saconded to cttange Articie IV paragraph 1 to the toliowing: � � � 'Ai ali meetings of the CaunaE, attendanca by lou� {t} US�R reQresarstatives and four {♦) PU6lIC rep�esert3tives shali cans�tute a quorum for the conduct of business, p�ovided that no acdon relaied to an ftem not en tne published meeonfl sgenda or to the astablishment of the budge� cr w�'uci� wiA �esuit in a cha�ge in the budge� shail be taken unSess tttere are in attendanc� and voang thereon at leasi sixteen (16� represa�ta�vea.' A vote was taken on the mation and passed unanimausly. The meeting was adjoumed at 11:30 p.m. Ras�ectfuily submittsd: !�elissa Scavronsk's Aciing Ccmmities Sacretary i 2 � � � � :` � ' �/ I �,: ; A biweekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments Volume 9, Number � May 5,1997 Grand Canyon FOUR LAWSUITS FILED CHALLENGING .. � , �� , . � � �� • � Forced by the Clinton Adminisuation to address, by the end of 1996, the growing noise problem from air tour operadons in the Grand Canyon National Park, the Federal Aviation Administration issued a bifurcated regulatory package that is being challenged on all sides. A coaiition of environmental d oups, a coalition of Nevada-based air tour operators, the Hualapai Indian Tribe, and Clark County, NE, and its tourism 6ureau have all filed lawsuits in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit seeking review of a final regulation issued on Dec. 31, 1996, by the FAA which set special flight rules in the vicinity of the park. � Most of the litigants challenged the rule on procedural a ounds, contending that the FAA has violated the Administrative Procedures Act and the National Environ- mental Policy Act by separating its rulemaking into three distinct parts — a final rule establishing flight rules over the pazk and two proposed rules regarding the l 1 Grand Canyon air tour route structure and quiei aircraft requirements — instead of —J issuing one rule encompassing all these interrelated matters. Most parties feel the FAA took this approach because i[ simply ran out of time to (Continued on p. 50) Research �. � � � . �� • � ' • : 11 / ;• � . • 1 Reseazchers at Comell Univezsity have released the findings of a soon-to-be- published study which suggests that children living in noisy azeas around airports have poorer reading skills than children in quieter azeas because it is more di�cult for them to recognize and understand speech. The study— the first to explain the link between noise exposure and the ability to read — will provide ammunition to anti-noise activists who seek more stringent noise restrictions at airports but have bad difficulty proving that aircraft noise is harmfuL The study was conducted by Gary Evans and Lorraine Maxwell at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY, and will soon be published in the journal Environment and Behavior. They were unavailable for comment on their study, but their findings were reported in the New York Times. The researchers compazed seven and eight year old children from a school located in the flight path of one of New York City's airports (the paper did not specify which airport) and 50 children of the same age from a quiet neighborhood. All the reading tests were carried out in a quiet azea. -�, � The 58 children from the noisy neighborhood under the flight path had paorer reading skills than the control �oup, and atso had more difficulty understanding (Continued on p. 54) Copyright m 1997 by Airport Noise Report, Ashbum, Va. 22011 In This Issue... Grand Canyon ... Envi- ronmental groups, air tour operators, Clark County, NE, and the Hualapai Indians have all challenged FAA's rulemaking package limiting air tours over the Grand Canyon National Park - p. 49 Research ... Cornell reseazchers fmd that aircraft noise makes it more difficult for children to recognize and Lnderstand speecii - p. 49 Burhank ... City, airpo�t are back in court again over compliance with state law requiring city approval of land for terminal- p. 51 San Diego Int'Z .. . FAA awards $1.7 million grant for master plan - p. 52 Hush %its ... Flight tests begin on Burbank Aeronauti- cal kit for B-707s - p. 53 . Air Quality ... Tighter EPA standard would delay airport expansion projects - p. 53 Boeing Field ... Airport plans to do Part 161 study to support barring Stage 2 night operations - p. 54 Blue Grass ... Urban County Council passes resolution withdrawing virtually a11 support for new parallel runway - p. 55 50 Grand Canyon, from p. 49 issue a more comprehensive rulemaking. President Clinton in an April 1996 Earth Day speech promised that the Grand Canyon air tour noise problem would be addressed by the end of the year and the agency was stuck with that time- table. Many of the litisants also assert that the environmental review of the rule is inadequate. The FAA should have issued an Environmental Impact Statement on its rule instead of a Finding of No Significant Impact based on an Environmental Assessment, they contend, and the environ- mental review of the final rule should have considered the new air tour route structure necessitated by the rule's expansion of fliaht free zones and the effect of the use of quieter aircraft. Most of those challenging the rule also contend the agency failed to provide adequate opportunity to comment on the impacts of the rule and to consider alternative proposals to what it issued. The court has not yet set a briefing schedule for the lawsuits, which have been consolidated into one case, Grand Canyon Air Tour Coalition v. FAA (No. 97-1003). The litigants have asked the court to require atl briefs to be presented by Augnst and to schedule oral argument for October. ` Move Deck Chairs on Titanic' Walter Smith oF the Washington, DC, law firm Hogan &. Hartson, represents a coalition of environmental b oups challenging the rule, including the Grand Canyon Trust, the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, and the National Park Conservation Association. The environmental groups' main concern, Smith said, is that the FAA's rulemaking does not carry out the mandate of the National Park Overflights Act of 1987, which directed the National Park Service, with the assistance of the FAA on safety matters, to "substantially restore the natural quiet" in the Grand Canyon National Park. Congress thought in 1987 that the noise problem in the park had already gone too far and wanted the quiet restored, but the FAA rule will not do that, he said. The rule "will only move the deck chairs on the Titanic." Not only will the rule not restore quiet to 1987 levels, Smith asserted, the full effect of the rule will not take effect unti12008 — 20 years after Congress enacted the legislation to address the problem. The reason there is no plan to roIl back aircraft noise levels in the park to 19871evels, he said, is that the aovern- ment is still taking into account the concerns of the air tour operators. "We understand that, but Congress struck a baIance on that issue in the Overflights Act and said fhat protecting the environment is more important " There is room for air tours in the pazk, Smith said, but noted that they have doubled since 1987, aze still b owing, and must be halted. Our main point, the attorney said, is that there should be a ;�� balance, but it's the balance Congress about. The FAA is not trying in its rul back to 1987. It is trying to accept a h since then and to let it continue. �':�� . .. . .. .1. � ti: 3. �'`� 3'. . +'''T • a3 Cril� Impact on Air_Tours:�%� .. � : :..: , .:-:<�;�.::� �.: ' y.�_-�,:- The FAA's final rule would hurt the air toar indus based in Los Vegas because it would force~the air.to :-.:.,,��- operators to fly over less scenic land to get to tlie canyE said John Putnam of the Denver o�ce of the law Cutler &. Stanfield which represents Clark County,,:NE the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority. T'he FAA was under a deadline to get the rules ou"t by ..,s�s�� end of 1996 and went too quickly, he said. The agency failed to consider all the alternatives it should liave and led to an unduly burdensome rule being issued:� ,� Pumam said that Clark County feels that the`nile� a disproportionately negadve impact on the air tour opi �� tors based in Los Vegas because their routes will be m� impacted. � : `::`:; �� ._ ,�-:;: . In a statement of issues to the court, the attorney askE whether FAA's decision to disallow the use of the air t� routes which account for well over 80 percent of the ai revenues o,f Las Vegas-based operators was unlawfiili discriminatory, azbitrary, and capricious. � . ".'<:-`� The county and its tourism }iureau also feel�that the:� definition of quiet aircraff adopted by FAA is flawecl a inflexible, but with minor changes could be made acce able. ._ .::r_.'°>'F;.�� The Grand Canyon Air Tour Coalition, representing , Nevada-based air tour operators, questioned whethei iE even is a noise problem in the pazk. They contend that, the approximately five million visitors to the Grand Ca park in 1996, only 26 complained to the National Parlc Service about aircraft noise. Since 1988, when the FA� into effect a speciai flight rule moving the air toursyaw; from the most crowded azeas of the park, complaints�h been reduced b 98 ercent, the coalition asserts. "�� Y P �;:� They also note that the air tour industry is a strong ;:� contributor to the southem Nevada economy. The dira indirect economic impact of the air tour industry in tlia is more than $118 million, according to the coalition�� The air tour operators contend that flying over the� a is the most environmentally compatible way to viewit because none of the 800,000 passengers who saw the�� canyon by air in 19961eft anything behind to degrade i park's environment. - - :,=�?� In a statement of issues to be presented in the case, � attorneys for the air tour coalition questioned the FAA interpretation of the statutory terms "provide for..subst restoration of the naturai quiet and experience of thepi and protecrion of public fiealth and safety from advers� effects associated with aircraft ovezflight": used in tfie'- Overflights Act. :- �: : .: •;�=�: FAA's definition of tYiis phrase as the absenceiif det able aircraft sound in a particular percentage of th_e�pa�, .>:r . .. `YAS . Airport Noise Report �� u' ;; � �; May 5,1997 51 a• particular percent of the time was arbitrary and irrational Burbank xin"view of the legistative history of the act showing that Congress was concerned with visitors' enjoyment of the s CITY, AIRP4RT IN COiJ�2T AGAIN park and Conb ess's policy of accommodating multiple uses p�R STATE I.AW COMi'LIANCE of parks, E. Donald Elliott and Michael A. Wiegard of the Washington, DC, law firm Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, which represents the air tour operators, told the � court. � Bob McCune, executive director of the Grand Canyon Air Tour Council, and spokesman for the coalition of air tour operators challenging the FAA rule, said he feels it is possible to reach compromise on routes. In February, the FAA delayed implementadon of the portions of its final ruling dealing with the air route struc- ture until the end of 1998 in order to give the agency time to examine alternative routes that may be less objectionable to the parties involved in the litigation. Hualapai Want To Choose Routes The FAA rulemaldng would push the air tour operators out of much of the Grand Canyon park and would direct them over the reservations of iivalapai and Havasupai Tribes. Both tribes already have overflights but would get many more under the FAA's new rule. The HauIapai Tribe already has challenged the rule. The Havasupai want all current air tour overflights off their land but are waiting to see if the overflight issues can be resolved without going to court. The two reservations aze located in the Grand Canyon adjacent to the park. The boundary of both the tribes is the center line of the Colorado River. Some 108 miles of the river run through the Hualapai reservation. The Haulapai are concerned that the FAA did not consult with them before issuing its rule, said Teresa I. Le;er of the Santa Fe office of the law firm Nordhaus, Haltom, Tayor, Taradash & Frey, which represents the tribe. Because the reservation land is held in trust by the federal government, the government has a fiduciary duty to make sure that the land is protected, she explained. The FAA did no environmental analysis of the impact of pusIun� more flights over the reservation, she said. The agency wants to move the flights out of the pazk to protect the natural and culturat resources there, but will move them over the reservatian where the cultural sites aze still in use, she explained. Leger said the FAA "informed" the tribe of what it was going to do but failed to follow the consultation process under the National Historic Preservation Act . The tribe daes not mind flights going over some of its land, she said, but wants to decide where the routes should be to avoid sensitive cultural and wildlife azeas. The tribe also will argue to the court that the FAA has violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by directing air tour operations over its reservation. The City of Burbank and the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority ha•re each gone to court again over a California state law tnat requires the airport to get city approval before it car� acquire land in Burbank on which it plans to build a new, (arger passenger terminal. On May 1, the City of Burbank filed suit in Los Angeles Superior Court seeking to block the airport authority from acquiring property in Burbank owned by Lockheed Martin Corp. for the new terminal until the airport authority complies with Section 21661.6 of the California Public Utilities Code (PUC). That section requires existing publicly owned airports in the state to submit their expansion plans to the board of supervisors of the county or the city council of the city into which the property the airport proposes to acquire is located and to get the supervisor's or city coun- cil's approval for the plan. • Un May 2, the city filed a second lawsuit in the Caiifornia Second District Court of Appeal seeking to enjoin efforts by the airport authority to take possession of the Lockheed Martin property on June 8 though the condemnation process. � The same day, the airport authority filed a modon with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for expedited appeal of its cfiallenge.io the procedures the city adopted for review and approval of the replacement passenger terminal. Last fall, Burbank rejected the airport authority's project to build a new terminal on land within the jurisdiction of the city because the project did not meet the review criteria adopted by the city under Section 21661.6 of the PUC. The airport authority challenged those review criteria in U.S. District Court on constitutional b ounds, but the case was dismissed by a Los Angeles federal court judge at the end of March on jurisdictional �ounds. The judge ruled that the airport authority lacked standing to sue the city and the State of Califomia, a co-defendant in the case, in federal court because current precedent in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals bars a subdivision of a state from suing another political subdivision of the state in federal court on constitu- tional grounds. ' Peter Kirsch of the Waslungton, DC, law firm Cuder & Stanfield, which represents the City of Burbank, explained that the PUC was enacted in the 1970s at the request of Los Angeles International Airport, which wanted to prove to the community that the Los Angeles City Council would have oversight of the airport's expansion process aithat time. LAX is getting ready to expand again and airport officials have said they will comply with the state law, Kirsch said. He said it was significant that no other airport in the state is backing Burbank Airport's position that it need not comply with the law. The issue at Burbank is whether the state can limit the power of an airport, Kirsch said, or whether the state gives AirpoR Noise Report 52 Airport Noise Report� � up all power when ic establishes the airport authority. He feels that state can impose restrictions on its own entity. If not, he said, you have a super political entity answerable to no one. But it will be years before that issue is resolved at the federal appellate level, he predicted. If the Ninth Circuit complies with the airport authority's request to reconsider the case, it will only rute on the jurisdictional issue of whether one state agency can sue another in federal court and, if it sides with the airport, will send the case back to district court. But the appeals court will not consider at this point the issue of whether the airpart authority must comply with the PUC. Reconsideration Urged The airport authority's motion urges a special panel of judges in the Ninth Circuit to reconsider as soon as possible the airport authority's case. "We should say at the outset that the Ninth Circuit would only grant a motion such as this under extraordinary circumstances. Nevertheless, we think our case may meet the court's special requirements, and we would be remiss if we did not make this effort," said Richard Simon of the Los Angeles law firm McDermott, Will & Emery, counsel for the airport authority. T'he lower court's dismissal was based on a standing Ninth Circuit precedent, set in South Lake Tahoe v. California Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, which prevents political subdivisions from suing their sfate or other political subdivi- sions in the state in federal court. In its appeal, the airport authority noted there are cases in other federal circuits which have held exactly the opposite, and there aze other cases within the Ninth Circuit that call the South Lake Tahoe case into question., A panel of Ninth Circuit judges was scheduled to hear a case in Mazch which could have overturned South Lake Tahoe, thus allowing the airport's lawsuit to be heard, but it was dismissed on procedural a ounds, Simon said. "Our hope is that the court will consider our morion as a vehicle to settle the inconsistencies in the Ninth Circuit on the jurisdiction issue," he explained. `Open Defiance' of State Law In a press release, newly-elected Burbank Mayor Bob Kramer said the city was faced with the airport authority's "open defiance" of the state law. The mayor said the airport authority has said publicly that it will defy the state statute because it believes Section 21661.6 to be invatid. "No public agency, including the airport authority> has the right to unilaterally decide what laws it will obey and what laws it will disobey," said Mayor Krarner. "What message is sent to the public when a government agency openly defies a law that no court in the land has ever declared invalid?" `"The City of Burbank should not have to spend taxpayer dollars to compel another public agency to fotlow the law, but the airport authority's arrogant and ouuageous conduct gives us no choice," Mayor Kramer said. "While we would prefer to see the airport dispute resolved outside the courtroom, we are prepared to do all within our power to force the authority to comply with state law," he added. In it Iawsuit filed in superior court, the City of Burbank asserted: "It makas a mockery of our legal�system for a public entity such as the airport authority to baldly announce that it has chosen to flout a valid state statute. The airport authority needs to be reminded that the State of California, like its sister states, is a republic of Iaws, not scofflaws: ' On May 2, the city also filed a second independent action, a writ of prohibition, in the state Second District Court of Appeal. In the suit, the city is asking the appellate court to halt further proceedings in the condemnation action until the airport authority complies with the law or until the Superior Court rules on the validity of the PUC section. "Section 21661.6 is an important state law which protects the right of cities to control land use within their bounda- ries," said Mayor Kramer. "If we prevail, as we expect to, it will bring a halt to the airport authority's efforts to unlaw- fully take possession of the Lockheed Martin property. However, in the event the actions we have filed do not result in the law being enforced, we aze prepazed to take the case to the CaIifornia Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary: '0 Lindbergh Field ' 11 ,� . . �. , . ` . � � � � � ; � � � . The Port of San Diego announced Apri128 that it has received a$1,791,303 grant from the Federal Aviation Administration for completion of a comprehensive master plan for San Diego International Airport, Lindbergh Field. The Board of Port Commissioners last June authorized a two-year, $2.3 million master planning effort to define how to improve existing operations, redevelop adjacant proper- ties; and link the airport with other forms of transit. The Board selected H1VTB Corp., an airport planning firm, to develop the master pian. "As we move forward to improve this region's airport, we will actively solicit widespread community input from the entire San Diego region," said J. Michael McDade, chair- man of the Boazd of Port Commissioners, in a news release. "Lindbergh Field is a major economic engine in the rea on. This planning study will chart our course well into the next century as we prepaze the airport to meet the future commerciat air carrier needs of the area," McDade said. A priority this year, the Port said in its news release, is completion of a$232 million airport expansion program, now underway.� Airport Noise Report �� — . C _ 53 M.ay 5,1997 ` Hushkits FLIGHT TESTS LfNDER WAY �� FOR BOEING 707 STAGE 3 KIT Burbank Aeronautical Corp. II(BAC II) announced April 30 that it has begun a flight test prod am for its hushkit for Boeing 707 aircraft which has been in development for over three years. The program will include flyby noise tests witnessed by the Federal Aviation Administration to demonstrate compli- ance with Stage 3 FAA noise certification standards and compliance with similar International Civil Aviation Organizadon (ICAO) Chapter 3 noise standards. • In 1996, the FAA witnessed ground tests which indicated "marked improvement in noise levels, specific fuel burn, and engine performance" over the unmodified engines, Burbank Aeronautical explained in a press release. It said that Pratt & Whitney, the original manufacturer of the engines used on the B707, has assisted in the design and testing of the BAC II hushkit. The flight test program will compare tha performance of a B'707 aircraft modified with the BAC II hnshkit with that of baseline flight test data on unmodified aircraft• The flight test prograin is scheduled to end in Augus� FAA certifica- tion of the hushkit for both JT3D-3B and TT3D-7 powered B707s is expected in September. The company expects to be� n production and deliveries immediately thezeafter. Burbank Aeronautical estimates that there aze approxi- mately 150 B707-300 series aircraft being flown commer- cialiy — mostly in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East — that are candidates for its hushkit, according to Tom McGuire, vice president of marketing for the company. He said that only about 15 percent of the aircraft in this mazket are being operated in the United States. Further information on the hushkit can be obtained from McGuire at (818) 843-8242. AvAero Contract AvAero, a major supplier of Stage 3 hushkits for Boeing 737-100/200 aircraft announced recendy that it has sold a second hushidt to Canadian operator WestJet Airlines. The AvAero kit in the only hushkit certified in Canada for aircraft fitted with JT8D engines and will enable WestTet to operate under Canadian noise regulations. AvAero also announced the delivery of a third hushkit to AirTran Airways of Orlando, FL. The current delivery is the third shipsat on an order of five hushkits with oPdons for four additional kits.d. Air Quality � . � . � . � � _ � � � i�:�• • ''�'' Tighter air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter, which may be issued by the Environmental Protec- tion Agency in June, would significantly delay airport expansion projects, b[ichael C. Rose, senior vice president and head of the envirunmental division of the Chicago consulting firm Ricondo & Associates, told members of the Environment Committee of the Airports Council Interna- tional - North America at a May 8 meeting in Austin. Already 30 of the nation's busiest 50 airports are located in ozone non-attainment azeas, he said, and tighter EPA rules would pull virtually all commercial airports into that category. The current air quality standards affect all airports west of the Rocky Mountains, he told ANR, and the significandy dghter standards proposed by EPA would impact all the airports east of the Rockies. It is unclear, however, whether EPA will issue tighter standards. T'he Clean Air Act requires the agency to review periodically the air quality criteria and national ambient air qualiry standards for ozone and particulate matter. Last December, after being sued for not properly cazryina out this review function, the EPA published a proposed decision to tighten air quality standards for both ozone and particu- late matter. A final decision to tighten the standards is expected in June because t�'�e lawsuit moves to court in July. But, even if the agency delays its action or goes with less stringent updates to its standazds, air quality is an issue that airports will have to face in the future, Rose told ANR. Quieter Stage 3 aircraft engines burn hotter that Stage Z engines and thus produce more oxides of nitrogen (NOx), he explained, putting airport operators into the position of trying to find ways to offset this increase by using d ound vehicles that do not burn fossil fuels. Ozone cannot be modeled because it is a complex reaction among a number of chemicals, but increases in NOx are assumed, with some exception, to indicate a concurrent increase in ozone. Conformity Determinations Federally-funded projects or projects subject to federal approval require air quality Conformity Determinations, Rose explained in a paper presented at the meeting. The lead federal agency on a project is assigned to conduct the Conformity Determination, but, in the case of airport projects, the FAA does not have the resources or the expertise to perform them, he said. So what happens, generally, is an airport hires a consultant to perform a"Conformity Analysis" — essentially a Confor- mity Determination without officially being called one. That analysis is then presented to the EPA for its concurrence. But the EPA does not have a clear understanding of the operation of airports and methods for analyzing a project's Airport Noise Report 54 - � Airport Noise Report ' , impact, Rose said. Rose told the airport o�cials that Conformity Determina- tions can add significant delays to expansion projects. There is no requirement for public hearings but there aze require- ments to post announcements regarding the fact that the determination is being conducted. The requirement for airports in non-attainment areas to conduct Conformity Deternunations has only been in effect for three or four year, Rose said, and was not taken seriously at first. The FAA has issued very little guidance on how to conduct them, he said, but predicted tliat more guidance will be needed in the future as air quality standazds riahten. ACI-NA is opposed to tighter air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter. The trade group asserted in comments to EPA that existing air quality standards have reduced air pollution to its lowest level in 30 years; that EPA does not have the authority to tighten the current particulate matter standard, which was set by Conb ess; that the cost benefit analysis done to support the rule tightening was arbitrary; and that EPA has nndertaken a new risk analysis showing a lower risk than initially reported for both ozone and particulate matter. The EPA said the ozone standard needed to be tightened to protect children and others at risk against a wide range of ozone-induced health effects, including decreased lung function. The agency said a more stringent standazd for particulate matter is needed to provide increased protection to the elderly and individuals with cazdiopulmonary disease and children and cthers with asthma. . Growing Issue Air quaIity is a a owing environmental issue for airports and for the communities surrounding them, which are concerned about health problems arising from exposure to aircraft emissions. The South Metro Airport Action Council (SMAAC), an activist group azound the Minneapolis/S� Paul International Airport, recently issued a press release noting that "citizens opposed to massive worldwide expansion of airports" wiil gather May 13 in Minneapolis to protest during the annual convendon of the American Associadon of Airport Execu- tives and wilI voice their concerns at a May 13 public hearing held by the Federal Interagency Committee on Aircraft Noise (FICAN). "Air travel is projected to triple within the next 20 years," Jack Saporito, director of the Alliance of Residents Con- cerning O'Haze, Inc. (ARCO), said in the press release. "Yet airQort noise polludon already affects millions of U.S. residents daily and air and water pollution from to�cic chemicals is a growing problem. Unless government regulations are tightened and new technology deveIoped, many more citizens' health will be threatened in coming decades:' He said that messages of protest will be displayed by groups from at least 10 communities, including those in northern New Jersey, azound JFK International Airport, Columbus International, M3P International, O'Hare International, San Jose International, Seattle-Tacoma International, and Manchester (England) International.0 Research, from p. 49 and recognizing spoken words. The researchers concluded that, in order to better cope with their environment, the children near the airport reduced the noise they were being subjected to by "filterin� out" certain sounds, which include human speech. "Because reading skills are in pazt acquired by listening to others, ignoring speech hampers their development," the Times reported. "Researchers believe that by listening to speech, children learn to distinguish phonemes, the distinct sounds that work together to make up a word — such as the three phonemes that make up the work `cat'. Once children have developed this ability from listening to speech, they can apply it to tex�" 0 %ing County Int'I ' • '' , I ,r / 1 � : 1 • :� I l 1. King County International Airport, also known as Boeing �eld, plans to soon begin both a Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Study and Part 161 study to support restric- tions on Stage 2 aircraft operations at night. The Federal Aviation Administration's Part 161 rules on Notice and Approval of Airport Noise and Access Restxic- tions require auport operators to conduct a cosUbenefit analysis prior to imposing restrictions on Stage 2 or 3 aircraft. Nght cargo operations have been conducted at the airport since 1990 when UPS began them with all Stage 3 aircraft. Only three night operations were being conducted until 1996 when Alaska Airlines, unable to meet the noise budget rule at neazby Seattle-Tacoma Intemational Airport, moved its two night cazgo operations with Stage 2 737-100 aircraft to Boeing Field. The introduction of these new nighttime cazgo operations (takeoffs and landings) upset some residents in the Geor- getown neighborhood close to the airport and in the upscale community of Magnolia, located 10 miles from the airport but under the flight path at the point where flaps are lowered. Noise complaints increased from 403 in 1995 to 2,525 in 1996, although Claire Impett, policy analyst for the airport, noted that only 100 additional people filed complaints with the airport in 1996. She said there is a relatively small group of residents that is very ugset about the nighttime noise. But the Seattle City Council is also concemed about the nighttime noise problem. At the end of Mazch, the City Airport Noise Report � �- .- ( � May. 5,1997 55 'Council unanimously passed a resolution requesting that ti�e King County Executive, through the King County Interna- tional Airport management, pursue a program for night flight restrictions at Boeing Fieid. The City Council also asked the King County Executive to pursue a program "that has the effect of significandy reducing overall noise levels at all hours in communities affected by airport operations: ' Plans to Address Noise In an April 7 letter, King County Executive Ron Sims outlined for Larry Phillips, a King County Council member, what the airport plans to do to address the noise issue at the predominantly general aviation airport. There is a b owing nurnber of corporate jet operations at Boeing Field, but only one scheduled commercial operation. About 340,000 operations were conducted at the airport in 1996. Sims said that the airport staff will proceed with the Part 161 rulemaking to restrict Stage 2 aircraft at night, but believes that the restrictions will not necessarily be needed after Alaska Airlines completes hushkitting their aircraft now being used at the airport. "However, community concerns about the gossibility of an unanticipated new nighttime operator at KCIA using Stage 2 engines prior to the Stage 3 requirement in January 2000 are significant enough to pursue this measure," he said. He said the airport is committed to doing a Part 150 study and that the staff will issue an RFP for the study in 1997 but that a contract will not be signed until the County Council has appropriated the additional funding required for the study in its 1998 budget. The airport is in the master planning process and will ask its consuitant to develop an additional altemative for consideration in the plan. This alternative would reduce future operations at the airport compared to current levels by identifying some less intensive uses for the east side of the airport, such as avionics manufacturing or mechanic services. The county executive said he plans to meet with Alaska Airlines executives to discuss in person the county's concerns about Alaska's adherence to their stated hushkit- ting schedule. "I will make it very clear that it is imperative that their stated schedule for returning their two nighttime aircraft to SeaTac with hushkits shauld not slide," Sims said. Sims said he has directed the airport staff to approach the tenants and request voluntary participation in a pilot project for 12 months, beginning in May or June, to limit large planes azriving between 11 p.m. and 4 a.m. In addition, airport management will continue to meet with operators and the FAA to investigate and recommend procedures that could divert air traffic from residential neighborhoods, he said. Sims aiso said he plans to proceed with plans to set up a new Airport Advisory Committee "with a balance of membership, including both community and operator members and the FAA, to address key airport issues and advise the airport management, executive, and council on airport plans, budget, and proD am." Boeing Field is located five miles from downtown Seattle and five miles north of SeaTac.O Lexington Blue Crass C��JI�TC� OP'POSES NEW PARALLEL RUNWAY On May 8, the Lexington-Fayette, KY, Urban County Council voted 11-2 to approve a resolution to withdraw virtually all its support for a proposed 9,000-foot pazallel runway at Blue Grass Airport, which airport officials contend is needed for safety reasons but opponents fear will have a negative impact on nearby residential areas and horse breeding farms. The council members said they did not oppose an upcom- ing study by the Federal Aviadon Administration on airport expansion alternatives, but stressed that they wanted to make clear to the FAA their opposition to new runway parallei to the current ?,000-foot runway at the airport. `"The FAA should lrnow how this council does feel," Councilman A1 Mitchell, told the Lexington Herald-Leader. "They should know we will not support that runway." The latest resolution is the second in the last six months in opposition to the new runway. Last November, a previous council approved a similar resolution that was less force- fully written than tt�e current one. Following passage of the first resolution, the FAA and the airport board moved ahead with plans to study the new runway. But runway opponents asked the council, which gained five new members in January, for a more strongly worded stateinent, which �they got this time round. In its latest resolution, the council makes clear that it would not use its power of condemnation, its zoning authority, or any city money to help build a new parallel runway at the airport. The Leader reported that about 100 runway opponents gave the council a standing ovation after its vote. "We're hopin� the FAA will listen to this message this time around," Joseph Zaluski, an attbrney for Airport Watch, a citizens a oup fighting the new runway, told the paper. "We do not want this runway." But Mike Fiack, executive director of the airport, said he expected the FAA to move ahead with an environmental study of all the airport's options, including construction of the new parallel runway, despite the latest resolution from the council, the Leader reported. Other options include lengthening the current runway, moving the location of the new runway, or doing nothing. The paper said that the council's vote came despite a last- minute efforts by several area business leaders to get the council to support the new runway. But runway opponents Airport Noise Report 56 Airport Noise Report ' �,. ANR EDITORIAL E�DVISo�2Y BOAR� Mark Atwood, Fsq. Galiand, Kharssch, Morse & Garfinkle Washington, D.C. Lee L. Blackman, Esq. McDermott, Will & Emery Los Angeles. Calif. Dr. Clifford R. Bragdon, AICP Dean, School of Aviadon & Transportation Dowting Coilege Eliot CuUer, Esq. Cuder & Stanfield Washington, D.C. J• Spencer Dickerson Senior Vice President American Association of Airport Execudves Edward J. DiPoivere Administratoc, Nationat Association of Noise co�c�� or��s Richard G. "Dick" Dyer Airpoa Environmentat Specialist, IJivision of AeronauUcs, Calif. Dept. of Transpoctation E. Tazewell Ellett, Esq. Hogan & Hartson Washington, D.C. Juiie H. Ellis, Esq. Managing Director Fedecml Expcess Corpocation Angel M. Garcia co•ct��► Citizens Against Newark Noise E.H. °`Moe" Haupt Manager, Airport and Environmental Services, Nadonal Business Aircraft Assaciation Robert P. Siiverberg, Esq. Bagileo. Silverberg & Goidman Washington, D.C. Joanne W: Young, Fsq. Baker & Hosteder L.LP Washington, D.C. mounted a barrage of radio ads critical of the new runway and contending the airport is trying to amact cazgo operations. Runway opponents also had the support of some civic leaders. State Rep. Joe Barrows (D), who represents part of the area near the airport, and Fayette schools superinten- dent Peter Flynt, who lives neaz the airport, asked the council to oppose the runway. In March 1996, a horse farm and two homeowners near the airport asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to stay the FAA's approval of a revised Airport Layout Plan for the airport, which calls for the addition of the new parallel runway. They challenged the FAA's approval of the layout plan on the b ounds that no Environmental Impact Statement or environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy Act was done to support it. Last August, the court of appeals dismissed the petition because the FAA had not yet completed its process of considerina the�need and impact of a new runway.� / � � ;� • June 15-17 NOISE-CON 9�, The 1997 National Confer- ence on Noise Control Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA (contact Conference Secretariat: NOISE-CON 97, Graduate Pro- gram in Acoustics, Applied Research Lab, PSU, PO Box 30, State College, PA 16804; tei: (814) 865-6364; fax: (814) 865-2119). June 16-20 Semi-annual meeting of the Acoustical Soci- ety of America, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pa (contact ASA at tel: (212) 248-0373). July 23-26 Annual meeting of the National Organization to Insure a Sound=controlled Environment (NOISE), Min.neapolis, MN. AIRPORT NOISE REPORT Anne H. Kohut, PubIisher Marguerite Lambert, Production Coordinator Charles F. Price, Contributing Editor; Anne Jacobs, Circuiation Editor; Maria T. Norton, Production Editor Published 25 times a year at 43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 22011; Phone: (703) 729-4867; FAX: ('703) 729-4528. Price $495. . Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by Airport Noise Report, provided that the base fee of U5$1.03 per page per copy is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, 27 Congress Street, Salem, MA 01970. USA. Copyright m 1997 by Airport Noise Report, Ashbum, Va. 22011 � �---� > � % �, 's �� . . ,�{;'. � � ; � ._ � � � ,�;: � A biweekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments Volume 9, Number 8 May 19,1997 , �,. . � �. . .,�.� � l � / 1 , 1'' � ' � "' � About 6.4 percent - or $976.1 million - of the total $5.1 billion in Passenger Facility Charges that the Federal Aviadon Administration has approved for collection by airports is being designated for noise mitigation purposes, according to data provided by the FAA. Last spring, FAA data indicated that about 8 percent or $785.2 million - of the total $12.9 billion in PFCs approved at that time for collection was being devoted to noise mitigation projects (8, ANR, 73). In its record keeping of PFC projects, the FAA subdivides noise projects into six different categories. Following is the total amount for each category as well as the percentage that category represents of the total PFCs for noise being collected: • $355,079,851 (36.3 percent) to purchase land; •$245,543,807 (25.1 percent) for "multi-phase" projects, which include two or more different projects devote� to land acquisition, avigation easements, home ( � buyouts, sales assistance, and soundproofing; - •$354,384,447 for soundproofing projects. This represents 36.3 percent of the total noise projects. •(Continued on p. 64) , • �'�:�� ,' � ''�' • 1 • � '', • �' ' � A total of 52 airports five more than last year at this time - aze imposing Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) to support airport noise mitigation projects, according to data from the Federal Aviation Administration. Chicago O'Hare International leads the pack by far in collecring PFCs for noise mitigation purposes. The airport plans to collect $205.4 million in PFCs, most of which will support the airport's residential soundproofing program. Minneapolis-St. Paul Intemational Airport comes in second with $98 million approved for PFCs devoted to noise mitigation, followed by Las Vegas McCarran International ($91.1 million), Lambert St. Louis Intemational ($'72.8 million), and Greater Cincinnati International($70.8 million). Following is a list of airports that plan to impose more than $5 million in PFCs for noise mitigation: Cleveland Hopkins Intemational ($68.3 million), Seattle- ' Tacoma Intemational ($67.5 million), Indianapolis International ($43.2 million), Louisville International ($40 million), General Mitchell International ($39.4 million), San Jose International ($29.9 million), Chicago Midway ($29.5 million), Boston Logan International ($26.9 million), Ft. Lauderdale Intarnational ($15.6 j � million), Detroit Metro ($11.5 million), Palm Beach Internadonal ($10.2 million), ' Kansas City Internadonal ($9.8 million), Baton Rouge Metro ($8.5 million), Huntsville International ($'7.7 million), and Sarasota-Bradenton ($6.8 million).0 Copyright � 1997 by Airport Noise Report, Ashbum, Va. 20147 In This Issue.. e Noise Policy ... This special issue of ANR pro- vides data obtained from the Federal Aviation Administra- tion on a.irports that are collecting Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) to support their noise mitigation proj- ects. It shows that 52 airports aze now imposing PFCs for noise mitigation projects with Chicago O'Hare Intemational leading the pack and planning to collect $205.4 million, most of which will fund its residentiai sound insulation program. Most of the PFCs being collecting for noise projects will be used to purchase land and homes and for sound- proofmg programs. About 6.4 percent - or $976.1 million - of the total $5.1 billion in PFCs ap- proved by the FAA is being used for noise mitigation. Table l, showing PFCs being collected for various categories of noise projects, begins on p. 58. Table 2, showing PFCs being collected by specific airports for various projects, begins on p. 61. 58 � Airport Noise Report Table I : CITY Huntsville Internationai Huntsville Internationai Fort Lauderdale Int'1 Pensacola Regional Pensacola Regional Palm Beach Int'1 Palm Beach Int' I Palm Beach Int'1 Palm Beach Int'1 Palm Beach Int'1 Quad City (Moline) Greater Peoria Reg. Capital (Springfield) Capital (Springfield) Capital (Springfield) Capital (Springfield) Capital (Springfield) Capital (Springfield) Indianapolis Int'1 ' Louisville Int'I Minneapolis-St Paul Ind Kansas City Int'l Lambert St. Louis Int'1 Lambert St. Louis Int'I Las Vegas McCarran Las Vegas McCarran Las Vegas McCarran Las Vegas McCarran Las Vegas McCarran Akron-Canton Reg. Akron-Canton Reg. Akron-Canton Reg. Akron-Canton Reg. Cleveland Hopkins Int'1 Cleveland Hopkins Int'I Port Columbus Int'1 Port Columbus Int'1 Port Columbus Int'I Dayton International Loveil Field (Chattanooga) Loveli Field (Chattanooga) Salt Lake City Int'1 , �..�. � , �. � ..� � �' � � • � • �i , y (Projects Approved by FAA as of 4-30-97; listed by project type) STATE AL AL FL, FI. FL, FT.. FL FT. FL FT.. II. iI, II. � II., � IL, II, Il�T . . KY N�V MO MO MO NV NV NV I�tV TtV ox OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH ox 'IN 'IN � CODE Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land AMOUNT $6,'796,960 $920,Q00 $ I5,000,000 $1,000,000 $365,000 $374,616 $1,387,548 $5,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,302,300 $335,915 $650,000 $10,500 $11,958 $9,000 $7>OOU $Sa0 $88,167 $42,532,859 $40,000,000 $11,100,000 $9,880,000 $32,861,850 $40,OOO,QOU $17,793,000 $35,000,000 $5,250,000 $26,250,000 $6,300,000 $19,300 $14,'700 $5,300 $21,000 $7,137,500 $29,685,�0 $119,600 $3'79,070 $519,723 $336,333 $2,00O,OOa $100,000 $479,200 Airport Noise Report Ilb11POSE 03/06/92 03/06/92 11/Ol/94 11/23/92 I 1/23/92 Ol/26/94 Ol/26/94 Ol/26/94 Ol/26/94 Ol/26/94 09/29/94 09/08/94 03/27/92 03/27/92 03/27/92 03/27/92 03/27/92 11/24I93 06/28/93 Ol/29/97 05/13/94 12/21/95 09/30/92 Ol/31/96 02J24/92 02J24/92 02/24/92 OZ/24/92 02/24/92 10/21/96 10/21/96 10/21/96 10/21/96 09/Ol/92 04/25/9'7 07/14/92 07/14/92 07/14/92 07/25/94 04/25I97 04/25/97 10/Ol/94 USE TOTAL 06/ZS/94 $355,079,851 11/22/95 11/01/94 11/23/92 08/10/95 08/29/96 08/29/96 09/29/94 09/08/94 04/28/93 04/28/93 04/ZS/93 04/28/93 04/28/93 03/l 1/97 06/28/93 Ol/29/97 OS/13/94 12J21/95 09/30/92 03/15/95 02/24/92 06/07/93 06/07/93 06/07/93 10/21/96 10/21/96 10/21/96 10/21/96 02/02/94 04/25/97 03/27/96 03/27/96 03/2'7/96 0'7/25/94 04/25/97 04/25/97 10/O1/94 May 19,1997 59 CITY .' -. Lynchburg Regional __. Bellingham Internadonal � Bellingham International Bellingham International Outagamie County (Appleton) General Mitchell Intl (Milwaukee) General Mitchell Intl (Milwaukee) General Mitchell Intl (Milwaukee) � Pensacola Regional Chicago Midway Chicago Midway Chicago O'Haze Chicago O'Hare � Indianapolis International Detroit Metropolitan Port Coiumbus Int'1 Metropolitan Oakland Int'1 Sacramento Metro San Jose International Fort Lauderdale Int'1 (� � � /� � Chicago Midway Chicago O'Hare Greaater Cincinnati (Covington) Minneapolis-SG Paul Intl Port Columbus Int'1 Dallas/Ft. Worth Int'1 Dallas/Ft. Worth Int'1 General Mitchell Int'1(Milwaukee) Sarasota-Bradenton Sarasota-Bradenton Chicago O'Hare Greater Cincinnati (Covington) Greater Cincinnati (Covington) Blue Grass (Lexington) Blue Grass (Lexington) Baton Rouge Metro Detroit Metropoiitan Minneapolis-St. Paul Intl Las Vegas McCarran Manchester Long Island MacArthur (Islip) Erie International McGhee Tyson (Knoxville) Seattle-Tacoma Internationai Seattle-Tacoma International General Mitcheil Int'1(Milwaukee) Sacramento Metro Pueblo Memorial STATE VA WA WA WA � VVI � VVI FZ. IL. II. IL II. IN MI OH CA CA CA FI. II. II. KY MN OH 'I�� TX VVI FL. FI, IL KY KY KY KY LA NII NII�T NV TTH TtY PA TTt WA WA WI CA CO CODE Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Misc Misc Misc Misc Misc Misc Misc Misc Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Multi-phase Multi-phase Multi-phase Multi-phase Multi-phase Multi-phase Multi-phase Multi-phase Multi-phase Multi-phase Multi-phase Multi-phase Multi-phase Muld-phase Multi-phase Multi-phase Multi-phase Multi-phase Planning Planning Airport Noise Report AMOUNT $113,000 $166,000 $732,000 $454,350 $14,502 $5,676,000 $3,074,000 $1,806,000 $200,000 $11,493 $297,707 $41,448 $6,206,967 $600,000 $192,000 $61,�52 $345,000 $?61,000 $140,000 $660,000 $124,969 $3,000,000 $999,000 $2�+8,8Q0 $16,509 $617,853 $384,027 $256,000 $1,474,904 $5,400,000 $1,000,000 $41,953,000 $27,605,000 $159,783 $184,322 $8,532,260 $11,350,000 $76,303,300 $0 $1,100,000 $1,150,000 $100,OQ0 $642,'750 $10,430,488 $34,40Q,000 $23,'758,000 $30,000 $21,500 IlVIPOSE 04/14/95 04/29/93 10/OS/94 12/11J96 04/25/94 02/24/95 02/24/95 02/24/95 11(23/92 06/28/93 06/28/93 06/28/93 06/28/96 12/20/96 09/21/92 07/19/93 06/26/92 04/26/96 Q6/l 1/92 11/Ol/94 06/28/93 06/28/93 03/30/94 OS/13/94 07/14/92 11/07/96 11/07/96 02/24/95 06/29/92 06/29/92 06/28/93 03/30/94 11/29/95 08/31/93 08/31/93 09/28/92 09/21/92 OS/13/94 02/24/92 10/13/92 09/23/94 07/21/92 10J06/93 08/13/92 12/29/95 12/21/95 04/26/96 04/11/96 USE TOTAL 04/14/95 04/29/93 10/OS/94 12/11/96 04/25194 OZ/24/95 02/24/95 11/24/95 OS/10/95 $7,611,36'7 06/28/93 06/28/93 06/28/93 06/28/96 12/20/96 09/21/92 03/27/96 06/26/92 "$7,553,158 04/26/96 06/11/92 06/28/93 09/16/94 03/30/94 OS/13/94 10/27/93 11/07/96 11/07/96 OZ/24/95 Oi/31/95 $245,543,807 � 12/15/95 06/28/93 03/30/94 11/29/95 04/21/95 09/27/96 04/23/93 09/21/92 OS/13/94 OZ/24/92 03/04/96 09/23/94 07/21/92 10/06/93 08/13/92 12/29/95 12/21/9S 04/26/96 $5,946,595 04/11/96 60 Airport Noise Report CITY STATE CODE AMOUNT INIPOSE USE TOTAL Southwest Florida Int'i (Fort Myers) FL Oriando International FL Palm Beach Int'1 FL, Chicago Midway IL Chicago O'Hare IL Indianapotis International IN Greater Cincinnati (Covington) KY Duluth International MIv Las Vegas McCarran NV Albany County NY Akron-Canton Reg. OH Akron-Canton Reg. OH Cleveland Hopkins Int'1 OH Laredo International TX Lubbock Internationai TX Phoenix Sky Hazbor Int'1 A,Z Fresno Air Terminal CA Monterey Peninsula CA Metropolitan Oakland Int'1 CA Lindberg (San Diego) CA San Jose Intemational CA Chicago Midway IL Chicago Midway IL, Chicago Midway IL Chicago Midway IL Chicago O'Haze IL Chicago O'Hare IL Chicago O'Hare IL Greater Peoria Reg. IL Portland Int'I Jetport NIE Logan (Boston) MA Minneapolis-St. Paul Intl NiN Minneapolis-St. Paul Intl MN RenoJTahoe International NV Cleveland Hopkins Int'1 OH Cleveland Hopkins Int'1 OH Port Columbus Int'1 OH Port Columbus Int'1 OH Port Columbus Int'1 �- OH Port Columbus Int'I OH Seattle-Tacoma International � WA Seattle-Tacoma International WA General Mitchell Int'I (Milwaukee) WI General Mitchell Int'1(Milwaukee) WI Planning Planning Planning Planning Planning Planning Planning Planning Planning Planning Planning Planning Planning Planning Planning Soundproofing Soundproofing Soundproofing Soundproofing Soundproofing Soundproofing Soundproofing Soundproofing Soundproofing Soundproofing Soundpmofing Soundproofina Soundproofing Soundpmofing Soundproofing Soundproofing Soundproofing Soundproofing Soundproofing Soundproofing Soundproofing Soundpmofing Soundproofing Soundproofing Soundproofing Soundproofing Soundproofing Soundproofing Soundproofing $132,000 $22,500 $168,628 $1,425,000 $2,500,U00 $75,000 $315,000 . $18,000 $6Q0,400 $45,00 $S,OQO $31,100 $508,570 $15,786 $33,511 $4,000,000 $444,400 $824,321 $240,000 $1,461,000 $29,�78,000 $1,140,000 $6,032,088 $8,000,400 $12,SOO,d00 $50,841,883 $80,000,000 $61,812,001 $500,000 $225,000 $26,990,000 $10,000,000 $446,200 �1s�,soo $22,362,400 $8,675,000 _. $20,323 $71,974 $60,54� $269,810 $22,377,000 $304,000 $2,335,000 $2,516,Q00 $976,I19,225 Airport Noise Report 08/31/92 08/28/95 Ol/26/94 07/OS/95 06/28/96 12/20/96 03/30/94 0'7/01/94 02/24I92' 09/2'7/96 10/21/96 10/21/96 04/25L97 0'7/23/93 07/09/93 Ol/26/96 09/18/96 10/08/93 04/30/9'7 07/26/95 06/11/92 07/05/95 06/28/93 11/15/96 11/15/96 06/2$/93 06/28/96 06/28/96 09/08/94 10/29/93 08/24/93 OS/13/94 05/13/94 10/29/93 09/Ol/92 04/25/97 07/14/92 07/14/92 07/14/92 07/19/93 10/25/93 10/25/93 12/21/95 12/21/95 08/31/92 08/28/95 07/05/95 06/28/96 12/20/96 03/30/94 07/O1/94 02/24/92 09/27/96 10/21/96 10/21/96 04/25/97 17J31/96 02J15/94 Ol/26/96 $354,384,447 09/18/96 10/31/94 04/30/97 0'7/26/95 06/11/92 07/OS/95 06/28/93 i l/15/96 11/15196 06/28/93 06/28/96 06/28/96 09/08/94 Ol/2'7/97 OS/13/94 OS/13/94 1Q/29/93 09/Ol/92 04/25/97 10/27/93 10/27/93 10/27/93 03/27/96 10/25/93 10/25/93 12/21/95 $9'76,119,225 + ) 19,1997 Table 2 , .,�. �, .;. �•� �� '' � ' � ' � � (Projects Approved by FAA as of 4-30-97; listed by airport) AIRPORT Huntsville International Huntsville International Phoenix Sky Hazbor Int'1 Fresno Air Terminal Lindberg(San Diego) Metropolitan Oakland Int'1 Metropolitan Oakland Int'l Monterey Peninsula Sacramento Metro Sacramento Metro San Jose International San Jose International Pueblo Memorial Fort Lauderdale Int'1 Fort Lauderdaie Int'1 OrIando Intemational Palm Beach Int'1 Palm Beach Int'1 Palm Beach Int'1 Palm Beach Int'1 Palm Beach Int'1 Paim Beach Int'1 Pensacola Regional Pensacola Regional Pensacola Regional Sazasota-Bradenton Sarasota-Bradenton Southwest Florida Int'1 (Ft Myers) Capital (Springfield) Capital (3pringfield) Capitai (Springfield) Capital (Springfield) Capital(Springfield) Capital (5pringfield) Ctucago Midway Chicago Midway Chicago Midway Chicago Midway Chicago Midway Chicago Midway Chicago Midway STATE AL AL AZ CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CO � FL FI, FI, FZ FZ: FI. FZ. FI. FZ FL FI., FZ FL. FZ. IL. II. II., IL, II. II, IL II. II. IL. II.. II. II.. WORK CODE Land Land Soundproofing Soundproofing Soundproofing Monitoring Soundproofing Soundproofing Monitoring Planning Monitoring Soundproofing Planning Land Monitoring Planning Land Land Land Land Land Planning Land Land Nfisc Multi-phase Multi-phase Plannina Land Land Land Land Land Land Misc Misc Monitoring Plannin� Soundproofing Soundpmofing Soundproofing Airport Noise Report AMOUNT $6,796,960 $920,000 $4,000,000 $44�4,400 $1,461,000 $345,000 $240,000 $824,321 $761,000 $30,000 $140,000 $29,778,000 $21,500 $15,000,000 $660,000 $22,500 $374,616 $1,387,548 $5,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,302,300 $168,628 $1,000,000 $365,000 $200,000 $1,474,9Q4 $5,400,000 $132,000 $10,500 $11,958 $9,000 $7,000 $500 $88,167 $11,493 $297,707 $124,969 $1,425,000 $1,140,000 $6,032,088 $8,000,000 IMPOSE 03/06/92 03706/92 Ol/26/96 09/18/96 0'7/26/95 06/26/92 04/30/97 10/08/93 04/26/96 04/26/96 06/11/92 06/11/92 04/11/96 11/Ol/94 11/Ol/94 08/28/95 Ol/26/94 Ol/26/94 Ol/26/94 Ol/26/94 Ol/26/94 Ol/26/94 11/23/92 11/23/92 11/23/92 06/29/92 06/29/92 08/31/92 03/27/92 03/27/92 03/27/92 03/27/92 03/2'7/92 11/24/93 06/28/93 06/28/93 06/28/93 07/OS/95 07/OS/95 06/28/93 11/15/96 USE 06/28/94 i 1/22J95 Oi/26/96 09/18/96 07/26J95 06/26/92 04/30/97 10/31/94 04/26/96 04/26/96 06/11/92 06/11/92 04/11/96 11/O1/94 61 AIRPORT TOTAL $7,716,960 $4,0OO,OQO $444,400 $1,461,OQ0 $585,000 $824,321 $791,000 $29,918,000 $21,500 $15,660,000 08/28/95 $22,500 - $I0,233,092 08/29/96 OS/29/96 11/23/92 08/10/95 08/10/95 Ol/31/95 12/15/95 08/31/92 04/28/93 04/28/93 04/28/93 04/28/93 04/28/93 03/11/97 06128/93 06/28/93 06/28/93 07/05/95 07/OS/95 06/28/93 11/15/96 $1,565,000 $6,874,904 $132,000 $127,125 $29,531,257 62 Airport Noise Report AIRPORT Chicago Midway Chicago O'Hare Chicago O'Hare Chicago O'Hare Chicago O'Hare Chicago O'Haze Chicago O'Haze Chicago O'Hare � � Chicago O'Hare Greater Peoria Reg. Greater Peoria Reg. Quad City (Moline) Indianapolis International Indianapolis International Indianapolis International Blue Grass (Le�cington) Blue Grass (Lexington) Greaater Cincinnati (Covington) Greater Cincinnati (Covington) Greater Cincinnad (Covington) Greater Cincinnati (Covington) Louisville Int'1 Baton Rouge Metro Logan (Boston) Portland Int'1 Jetport Detroit Metropolitan Detroit Metropolitan Duluth International Minneapolis-St. Paul Ind Minneapolis-St. Paul Ind Minneapolis-St. Paul Ind Minneapolis-S� Paul Ind Minneapolis-St. Paul Intl Kansas City Int'1 Lambert St. Louis Int'1 Lambert St. Louis Int'1 Manchester Las Vegas McCarran Las Vegas McCarran Las Vegas McCarran Las Vegas McCarran Las Vegas McCarran Las Vegas McCarran Reno/Tahoe Intemational Albany County Long Island MacArthur (Islip) Akron-Canton Reg. STATE � IL IL. II. Ii. II. IL IL II. II. IL IL IN IN IN KY KY' KY KY KY KY KY LA ME NII MI MN 1�II�T MN l�II�t MN MN MO MO MO �i NV r1V TtV T1V NV NV I�tV TTI' IV�Y OH WORK CODE Soundproofing Misc Misc Manitoring Multi-phase Planning Soundproofing Soundproofing Soundproofing Land Soundproofing Land Misc Planning Land Multi-phase MuIti-phase Monitoring Multi-phase Multi-phase Planning Land Muiti-pnase Soundproofing Soundproofing Misc Multi-phase Planning Land Monitoring Multi-phase Soundproofing Soundproofing Land Land Land Multi-phase Land Land Land Land Land Planning Soundproofing Planning Multi-phase Land AMOUNT $12,500,000 $41,448 $6,206,96'7 $3,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,500,000 $50,841,883 $80,000,000 $61,812,001 $650,000 $SOO,OQO $335,915 $600>000 $?5,000 $42,532,859 $159,783 $184,322 $999,000 $41,953,000 $27,605,000 $315,000 $40,000,000 $8,532,260 $26,990,000 $225,000 $192,000 $11,350,000 $18,000 $11,100,Od0 $248,800 $76,303,300 $10,000,000 $446,2(}0 $9,880,000 $32,861,850 $40,000>000 $1,100,0{l0 $1'7,793,000 $35,000,000 $5,250,000 $26,250,t)00 $6,300,000 $600,OOU $157,500 $45,000 $1,150,000 $19,300 Airport Noise Report IlbIPOSE 11/15/96 06/28/93 06/28/96 06/28/93 06/28/93 06/28/96 06/28/93 06/28/96 06/2$/96 09/0$/94 09/08/94 09/29/94 1?J20/96 12/20/96 06/28/93 08/31/93 08/31/93 03/30/94 03/30/94 11/29/95 03/30/94 Ol/29/97 09/28/92 08/24/93 10l29/93 09/21/92 09/21/92 07/01/94 OS/13/94 OS/13/94 OS/13/94 OS/13/94 05/13/94 12/21/95 09/30/92 Ol/31/96 10/13/92 02/24/92 02/24/92 02/24/92 OZ/24/92 02/24/92 OZ/24/92 10/29/93 09/27/96 09/23/94 10/21/46 USE 11/15/96 06/28/93 06/28/96 09/16/94 06128/93 06/28/96 06/28/93 06/28/96 06/28/96 09/08/94 09/08/94 09/29/94 12J20/96 12/20/96 06/28/93 04/21/95 09/27/96 03/30/94 03/30/94 11/29/95 03/30/94 Oi/29/97 04/23/93 Oi/27/9'7 09/21/92 09/21/92 07/Oi/94 OS/13/94 OS/13/94 05/13/94 OS/13/94 OS/13/94 1?J21/95 09/30/92 03/04/96 03/15/95 02J24/92 06/07/93 06/0'7/93 06/07/93 02/24/92 10/29/93 09/27/96 09/23/94 10/21/96 AIRPORT� TOTAL $205,402,299 $1,150,000 $335,915 $43,207,859 $344,105 $70,872,000 $40,000,000 $8,532,260 $26,990,000 $225,000 $11,542,000 $18,000 $98,098,300 $9,880,000 $72,861,850 $1,100,000 $91,193,000 $157,500 $45,0(?0 $1,150,000 $96,400 ( �, May 19,1997 63 AIItPCJRT Akron-Canton Reg. _ Akron-Canton Reg. ' ! Akron-Canton Reg. Akron-Canton Reg. Akron-Canton Reg. Cleveland Hopkins Int'1 Cleveland Hopkins Int'1 Cleveland Hopkins Int'1 � Cleveland Hopkins Int'1 Cleveland Hopkins Int'1 Dayton Intemational Port Columbus Int'I Port Columbus Int'1 Port Columbus Int'1 Port Columbus Int'1 Port Columbus Int'1 Port Columbus Int'1 Port Columbus Int'1 Port Columbus Int'1 Port Columbus Int'I Erie International � Lovell Field (Chattanooga) Lovell Field (Chattanooga) _ McGhee Tyson (Knoxville) �. � Dallas/Ft. Worth InYl Dallas/Ft. Worth Int'1 Laredo International Lubbock International Salt Lake City Int'1 Lynchburg Regional Bellingham International Bellingham International Bellingham International Seattle-Tacoma International Seattle-Tacoma International Seattle-Tacoma International Seattle-Tacoma Intemational General Mitchell Intl (MiIwaukee) General Mitchell Infl (Milwaukee) General Mitchell Ind (MiIwaukee) General Mitchell Int'1 (Milwaukee) General Mitchell Int'1 (Milwaukee) General Mitchell Int'1(Milwaukee) General Mitchell Int'1(Milwaukee) Outagamie County (Appleton) STATE OH OH OH OH OH ox OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH PA '1N TN TN 'I�� TX TX TX [JT VA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WI � WI WI � � WI VVI WORK CODE Land Land Land Planning Planning Land Land Planning Soundproofing Soundproofing Land Land Land Land Misc Monitoring Soundpmofing Soundproofing Soundpraofing Soundproofing Multi-phase Land Land Multi-phase Monitoring Monitoring Planning Planning Land Land Land Land Land Multi-phase Multi-phase Soundproofing Soundproofing Land Land Land Monitoring Multi-phase Soundproofing Soundproofing Land AMOUNT $14,700 $5,300 $21,000 $5,000 $31,100 $7,137,600 $29,685,000 $508,570 $22,362,400 $8,675,000 $336,333 $i 19,600 $379,0'70 $519,723 $61,752 $16,509 $20,323 $71,974 $60,547 $269,810 $100,OW $2,000,000 $100,000 $642,750 $617,853 $384,027 $15,786 $33,511 $479,20U $113,(}00 $166,000 $732,000 $454,350 $10,430,488 $34,400,000 $22,377,Ot30 $304,000 $5,676,000 $3,074,OQ0 $1,806,0(}0 $256,000 $23,758,000 $2,335,000 $2,516,000 $14,502 $976,119,225 Airport Noise Report IMPOSE 10/21/96 10/21/96 10/21/96 10/21/96 10/21/96 09/Oi/92 04/25/97 04/25/97 09/01/92 04/25/97 07/25/94 07/14/92 07/14/92 07/14/92 07/19/93 07/14/92 07/14/92 07/14/92 07/14/92 07/19/93 0'7/21/92 04/25/97 04/25J97 10/06/93 11/07/96 11/07/96 07/23/93 , 07/09/93 10/Ol/94 04/14/95 04/29/93 10/OS/94 12/11/96 08/13/92 12/29/95 10/25/93 10/25/93 02/24/95 02/24/95 02/24/95 02/24/95 12/21/95 12/21/95 12/21/95 04/25/94 USE 10/21/96 10/21/96 10/21/96 10/21/96 10/21/96 02/02/94 04/25/97 04/25/97 09/Ol/92 04I25/97 07/25/94 03/27/96 03/27/96 03/27/96 03/27J96 10/27/93 10/2'7/93 10/27/93 10/27/93 03/27/96 07/21/92 04/25/97 04/25/97 10/06/93 11/07/96 11J07/96 12/31/96 02/15/94 10/Ol/94 04/14/95 04/29/93 10/OS/94 12/11196 08/13/92 12J29/95 10/25/93 10/25/93 02/24/95 02/24/95 11/24/95 02/24/95 12/21/95 12J21/95 AIRPORT TOTAL $68,368,570 $336,333 $1,519,308 �� $642,750 $1,001,880 $15,786 $33,511 $479,200 $113,000 $1,352,350 $67,511,48$ $39,421,000 04/25/94 $14,502 $976,119,225 64 Airport Noise Repori ;, ANR EDITO�.2IAL ADVISORY BOAR.I) Mark Atwood, Esq. . Galiand, Kharasch. Morse & Garfinkle Washington, D.C. Lee L. Blackman, Esq. McDerrnott, Will & Emery Los Angeles. Calif. Dr. Clifford R. Bragdon, AICP Dean, Schooi of Aviadon & Transportadon Dowling Co(lege Eliot Cutler, Fsq. Cuder & Stanfield Washington, D.C. J. Spencer Dickerson Senior Vice Ptesident American Association oF Airport Execudves Edwacd J. DiPoivere Administrator, National Associadon of Noise Controi Officials Richard G. "Dick" Dyer Airpon Environmental Specialist, Division of Aeronautics, Catif. Dept. of Transportation E. Tazewell Ellett, Esq. Hogan & Hartson Washington, D.C. Julie H. Ellis, Esq. Managing Director Federa! Express Corpomtion Angei M. Garcia Co-Chairman Citizens Against Newark Noise E.H. "Mce" Haupt Manager, Airport and Environmental Services, Nationai Business Aircraft Association Robert P. Silverberg, Esq. Bagileo, Silverberg & Goldman Washington, D.C. Joanne W. Young, Esq. Baker & Hosteder Washington, D.C. PFCs , from top of p. 57 �$7,553,158 (0.7 percent) for noise monitoring systems; •$�,611,36'7 (0.7•percent) for a"miscellaneous" category that included noise barriers, blast fences, hush houses, maintenance run-up pads, and residential surveys; and •$5,946,595 (0.6 percent) for noise mitigation planning projects.� ON TI�iEE AGEl�TIDA... June 16-20 Semi-annual meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pa (contact ASA at tel: (212) 248-0373). July 23-26 Annual meeting of the National Organization to Insure a Sound-controlled Environment (NOISE), Minneapo- lis, MN (contact NOISE Execurive Director Betty Ann Kane; tel: (202) 546-9062) July ZO-23 Traasportation Research Boazd's AIFU4 Conference on Transportation Related Noise and Vibration, Toronto, Canada (contact Soren Peterson at the Ontario Ministry ofTransport, teI: (905) 704-2291). Aug 21-23 ACTTVE 97, the 199'7 International Symposium on '�- Active Control of Noise and Vibration, Budapest, -� Hungary (contact Symposium Secretariat, OPAKFT, H- 1027 Budapest, Fou. 68, Hungary). ' Aug 25-2� INTER-NOISE 97, The 1997 International Conference on Noise Control Engineering, Budapest, Hungary (same contact as above). Sept 28•Oct 1 6th ACI-NA Regional Conference & Exhibition, Detroit, MI (contact ACI-NA; 1775 K St., NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20006; tel: (202) 293-8500; fax (202) 331-1362).0 AlRPORT NOISE REPOR?' Anne H. Kohut, Pubiisher Marguerite Lambert, Production Coordinator Charles F. Price, Contributing Editor; Anne Jacobs, Circulation Editor; Maria T. Norton, Production Editor Published 25 times a year at 43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 22011; Phone: (703) 729-4867; FAX: (703) 729-4528. Price $495. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the intemal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by Airport Noise Report, provided that the base fee of US$1.03 per page per copy is paid directly to Copyright Cleazance Center, 27 Congress Street, Salem, MA 01970. USA. . `.., �� AGENDA 1997 SMAAC Spring Membership Meeting May 22, 199'7 -- Mayflower Congregational Church 1. Welcome 2. Review of agenda 3. Election of 1997-98 directors 7:30 P.M. Frank Ario -- Minneapolis Chuck Mamer -- Minneapolis Greg Bastien -- Minneapolis Meg Parsons -- Minneapolis Gary Bourg -- Mendota Heights Dick Saunders -- Minneapolis Neil Clazk -- Minneapolis Eileen Scully -- Minneapolis (10 seats to fill -- two are open; nominations from floor accepted) 4. President's report 7:50 P.M. 5. Panel discussion on home value trends 8:15 P.M. 6. Charge to elected officials 7. Response by elected of�cials 8. Adjournment �. � � � W�.en Will. M.,�C Neec�. A 7�c1 Paralle� Runway? ..�,.Ctua�. Csrowt�i at M SP �rs PrediCtions �y 1�✓IAC Back � 1993 the .M.etropo�,i.tan 1�iirports Commission (.��C') predicted t�ie growt�a. oi our Minneapo�is St.Pau�. .��irport (M,SP). �iey �rec�ictec� an average of %ss Summary MSP Operations 19941995 t�ian 1% growt�i u� to t�ie r�ear 300 2�2�. Whai nas aci`ual/r� 250 ��p�pened ? 0 0 �200 x 0150 c� Q100 O �o 0 Overall +2% j ARejor Repionai G�a! Av. Air FreigM Charmr Miiitary ❑ � ssa� 1995 Carrier Type tize Expanc�.ed MSP, �nvironm.enta.l �Snpact Study done by MAC in Dea. 1995, tb.e avera�e increase �rom 1994 to 2020 �11 be 4% per year. In. tb.e year 1994-1995 we experieneed -f-9%. T�ese actual �rowt� ��ures demonstrate conc�.iserable pressure on MAC %r an eventual t�ircl parallel runway at MSP. "I"b,e �i� question is wizen? �e ba.ve experienced �rom 1993 to 1995 an avera�e �rowt�i: rate o� 3.2% in operations. Just �ram 1994 to 1995 we e�eriencec�, -I-2% a�ter MAC made a �oo�- �eeping correetion to General .Aviation o� -40%. Pa.ssen�er trai�ic may be a more accurate esti.mate. Accorc,in.g to SMAAC 5116 COLUMBUS SOUTH, MPLS 55417 822-8! 18 SOUTH METRO AIR:PORT ACTION COUNCIL AUGU3T 1996 Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton of Minneapolis has adopted many of South Metro Airport Actian Council's recommendations for noise abatement in her role as Minneapolis' key delegate to the new MA.0 Noise Mitigation Committee. The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) committee was formed by the 1996 Minnesota Legislature to work out ways to invest at least $185 million in noise mitigation steps. It consists of the mayors of the eight communities � = �ounding the Minneapolis- � �Eaul (MSP} airport, plus four MAC Commissioners, iwo Metropolitan Council members, one represeirtative from the Metro Area Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) and one representative from Northwest Airlines. Each of the rna.yors preserited his or her basic positions on noise relief in the first four sessions. A public hearing on their preliminary recommendations is set for Aug. 29. The full MAC board is to vote Sept. 16 on final recommendations for the next legislative session. Sayles Belton specifically proposed the following ideas: (1) No third parallel runway; (2) Increased use of the newly expanded 4/22 crosswind runway to lessen traffic over Minneapolis fi'^�n the two parallel runways; � (3) More data on the ground noise effects of a proposed north- south runway, and the budgeting of all mitigation costs at both ends of the runway as projects costs; (4) Cease all Stage 2 aircraft flights between 10 p.m. and 6 am; (5) Monitor and enforce national legislation mandating a.irline fleet conversion to all Stage 3 by 2000; (6) Until then, require airlines to use the same percentage of Stage 3 aircraft at MSP as they do at other airports; ai present, Northwest, the lazgest carrier here, uses more Stage Z (specifically DC-9's) here than elsewhere; (7) Ensure that operational requirements, such as the three-mile corridor for departures over Eagan/Mendota. Heights, aze noise- reducing measures, not simply measures that increase noise m other areas; (8) Use actual current sound data recorded by the Airport Noise and Operating Monitoring System (ANOMS) instead of computer- generated data whenever possible to analyze noise effects; (9) Enco" �e the MAC and other aviation or�°''aniTations to promote the development of Stage 4 aircraft; (10) E:ctend the home insulation program to Ldn 60 contour, but only after completing the present Part 1�0 progra.m (covering some 4,000 remaining homes by 2000, all in Minneapolis); (11) Insulate Ldn 60 homes at the same rate in each community, rather than one community at a time, as was the Part 150 practice; (12) Notify homeowners of the planned insulation schedule for the remaining four years of the Part 150 program; use only quality contractors and matenals; create several ombudsmen, funded by the program but responsible to the homeowners, to resolve disputes; (13) Expand eligibility for insulation to multi-family dwellings, churches, nursing homes, commercial and recreational buildings; (14) Institute a system of progerty value guarantees to encour�age occupants to stay and invest in their homes; (15) Provide some form of tax abatement to compensate homeowners for the loss of tranquillity; (16) Increase amenities such as decorative street lighting, recreational facilities, athletic programs, reforestatioq etc. to strengthen neighborhood appeal; (1�) Study the long-#erm health effects of exposure to aircraft noise; (18) Upda.te MAC's emergency/disaster plan. As to fmancing, Sayles Belton urged that the state shoulder some of the responsibility for mitigation "as the airport is a benefit to the entire state." She suggested the MAC and the state create a trust fund from higher landing fees or a percentage of annual capital expenditures to finance the ne.ct round of mitigation needs. Observers aze concemed that because the Federal Aviation �"'-�inistration (FAA) is restricted � .ederallaw to fund home insulation prograins only in the 65 Ldn zone or higher, the rule would have to be changed or new funding sources found to qualify 60 Ldn homes. Of the $1 SS million floor mandated by the Legislature, an estimated $135 million has already been budgeted by MAC for home insulation and buy-outs through 2000. Thus, at least $40 million in "new" money is needed to meet the legislature's floor. Neighborhood organizations, churches and elected officials were invited by SMAAC to a meeting on July 31, at Mt.. Zion Lutheran Church on 57th and Chicago Ave. S, to participate in joint decision- maldng on airport issues. Included are the following: If - .. '1..,�comis East, Standish-Ericssoq Hale-Page-Diamond Lake, Windom, Arinatage, Kenny, Pershing, Linden Hills, West Calhoun, Fulton, Tangletown, Lynnhurst, E. Harriet Farmstead, Field-Regina Northrup and Kingfield. Churches invited include Mayflower Congregational, Mount Zion Lutheran, Diamond Lake Lutheran, Bethel Assemblies of God, Edgewater Baptist, Edgewater Emmanuel, First Evangelical Free, Nokomis Heights Lutheran, Our Lady of Pea.ce Catholic and Richfield Lutheran. Elected officials include all south Minneapolis City Council rnembers, south Minneapolis state legislators and two Hennepin County commissioners, plus two appointed MAC commissioners. i i S1K�.�C N�E18lSL�TT�$t SMAAC is worldng with some 15 neighborhood associations, 10 religious institutions, and 20 � elected officials to create a coalition of organizations representing a broad spectnun of south Minneagolis residents. The purpose of the newly founded South Minneapolis Airport Noise Mitigation Coalition (SMANI�IC) is to advocate long-range solutions to airport issues affecting our neighborhoods. With the new state law keeping the Minneapolis- St.Paul Metropolitan Airport (MSP) at its present site for the foreseeable future, our role will be to recommend noise mitigation strategies that will retain and improve our quality of life. SMANMC has been formed now for two reasons. Firstly, the community needs to be a part of the decision-maldng process regarding new noise mitigation strategies. Our health, homes, property values, schaols and churches are at stake as well as the quality of our environment. We want to make sure new dollars are distributed fairly. Secondly, we need to be united to fight the potential e:cpansion of the airport at its present site. SMAAC, acting as the temporary steering committee, sees this coalition as critical to fighting future issues from a broad community base. As part of the recent legislation, the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) has created a Noise Mitigation Committee comprised of ma.yors of affected commuruties including Minneapolis, Bloomington, Richfield, Eagan, Mendota Heights, St. Paul, Bumsville and Inver Grove 2 Heights. This committee's purpose is to make recommendations to MAC about the allocation of funds. While airplane noise is not distributed evenly over the communities represented on this committee, representation has been assigned one vote per community rather than proportionally to the number of homes or people affected. It is this fact that especially is of concem to SMANMC and SMAAC — South Minneapolrs receives some 87% of the noise generated by the airport and thus we feel the ma,jority of the money spent on noise mitigation should be in south Minneapolis. SMAAC presented a preliminary list of recommendations to Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton in late June. It is our belief that our recommendations need to be represented strongly at the MA.0 committee and that without strong representation we will not see sufficient dollars to address our concems. To be heard on noise mitigation issues, contact your City Council and State representatives, or attend the second round of public input me�tings with Sayles Beiton at: Roosevelt High School at 7 p.m. Aug. 7, or at Diamond Lake Lutheran Church, 5760 Portland Ave. at � p.m. Aug. 12. To find out more about SMANMC, call at 861-1061. Public ire over airline monopoly pricing tactics spilled over into legislative chambers June 14 when four Senate cornmittees met to esplore the reasons for and impact of such pricing on the state's economy. After some four hours of questioning of an airline industry F _ �mist, Metropolitan Airports l,_�.imission staff, Northwest Airlines esecutives and two business leaders, no cleaz answers arose nor any solutions proposed. At issue was a recent study by Prof. Severin Borenstein of the University of California.-Davis showing that airline prices at Minneapolis-St. Paul airport were the fourth highest among the busiest 30 hub cities in the U.S. They ran 32 percent above the national average for same-distance trips in 1995. Ranking ahead of MSP were Charlotte (56 percent higher), Cincinnati (54 percent) and Pittsburgh (39 percent). The lowest fare differentials were found at Oakland (35 percent), Honolulu (-26 percent), Phoenix (-24 percent) and San Diego (-23 percent). i '�ing only at the prices of the �l�.�est carrier at one airport, Borenstein found that Northwest Airlines' prices at MSP "are in the same range as those of dommant airlines at some other large airports: American at Da11as/Fort Worth, US Air at Pittsburgh and Delta at Atlanta. But they were beiow US Air at Charlotte and Delta. at Cincinnati." Meanwhile, the largest airlines at some other hubs -- Baltimore, Chicago, Denver, Houston, Salt Lake City and St. Louis — charge prices much ciaser to the national average. "'Though these prices do not necessarily indicate that there is a lack of competition at MSP that results in prices well above cost, Borenstein said, "that inference deserves serious attention. The U. S. Departments of Justice and Transportation have eacplicitly recognized this hub dominance e�ect." Northwest controls about ' �ercent of the MSP market. S1�Ii4.�t.0 N�1�'SL�'TT�R "I believe frequent-flyer programs, travel agent commission override programs, share-based corporate discount programs and 1'uruted gate availability aze among the major causes of this hub dominance effect. These factors make it very difficult for new entrants to compete with a dominant incur�bent. . "At hubs where comperitors have managed to gain a foothold, prices have generally fallen and consumers have benefited. I am not in a position to evaluate all of the costs and benefits, but if gate availability has impeded competitive entry, expansion is a logical step to consider as part of an attempt to increase competition and lower MSP airfares," Borenstein declared. Northwest contended that higher fares aze the result of several factors: a higher percentage of business versus tourist traffic, high quality service, and the cost of maintaining and servicing a diversified fleet of aircraft types (Bceing, McDonnell Douglas and Airbus) for international routes. Both Northwest and MAC officials denied there is a lack of gate space at MSP. MAC said it has been unsuccessful in attracting a ma.jor discount camer (such as Southwest Airiines), but Vanguard and Frontier have begun limited service in the past year to Denver, Chicago, Kansas City and St. Louis. Observers noted that Sun Country Airlines, a Minneapolis- based unscheduled line, has begun advertising more heavily lately and that Notthwest has countered in a few marlcets. One fact became clear: airline prices aze set by competitors' rates, not by costs. One corporate travel manager, Gloria Cazlson of H. B. Fuller Co., noted wide disparities in ticket prices pez mile traveled, depending on the competitiveness of the route. She said list prices were prohibitive and that more companies aze tuming to video conferencing to reduce travel costs. Cazlson added that she'd beea told "there aze no extra gates available at MSP" and that Northwest takes 90 minutes to tum azound a plane,. versus 45-60 minutes for other carriezs. "Does Northwest use these gates to a maximum, or could a reasonable compromise provide extra. gates for others?," she asked. (Northwest has consistently said it does and will lease extra gates to competitors when asked, and that it provides gate maintenance services TASLE � PRICE6 OF LARGEST AIRIJNE AT U.S. HU8.11RFORiS COMPARED TO NATIONAL AVERAGE PR1C�5 FOR SAME-DISTANC� TRlPS,19&1-1905 3 S16I��C N�EIA�SL�TT��Z. to smaller airlines at several airports as a source of revenue.) MSP has 69 gates, and is considering the addition of 15 gates over the ne:ct 20 years under its modest growth scenario. Irving Stern, chaixman of a voluntary association of MSP carriers, air freight shippers and other industry interests called � � _'�ADA, contended that MSP �-..,.iould continue to press for more international flights as a way to make this hub more attractive to other domestic carriers. He credited MAC for helping increase MSP's weekly international flights from 60 to neazty 200 over the past year, but noted, "it isn't easy, and it doesn't alwa.ys work.° Icelandic Airways attempted to schedule service here, but couldn`t reach agreement with Northwest on a wholesale passenger relationship, and went to Boston instead, accordingto NWA. If the MAC is required by the new state law to fund noise insulation for a11 of the homes in the 1996 60 LDN zone (see map), the bill could esceed $200 million, according to a SMAAC estimate. That's based on a conservative guess that 410 residential blocks with roughly 8,200 homes in south Minneapolis, Richfield and Bloomington alone fall into the expanded noise eligibility zone. At a limit of �25,000 per home, the tab tops $205 million. And there aze an uncounted number of homes in the less populated sections of Mendota Heights, Inver Grove Heights, Burnsville and Eagan to be considered. Since an estimated $140 million of the $185 million minimum mandated by the legislature is committed to finishing the present home insulation program by 2000, and since the FA.A doesn't presently fund any residential properties outside the 65 LDN zone, the MA.0 Noise Mitigation Committee and le�islature have a challenge ta find adequate sources. The current Part 150 program is insulating 1,200 hames a year at the rate of $20 million a year, a11 in Minneapolis, since other suburbs ha.ve been cornpleted. If run at the same rate, the 60 LDN zone work would take about seven years. 4 ::::,:: � ::::>::::>::>::>: :::>::::>::>;::::>::>::;:::: �"::i�.�:�:�%�`::;::;::::�<:;>`:::::::�::<:::::::�; :::��:...... .>. l`�L: =:<`:.:::>-:;.;;:<.;:.;:•::<•:<•;:•::::::>: i::::::>::::::::>:::::>::»:::: :.:;:>;; �:>::::;:;>::»>::>: ::::::: :v: ::v: :.:::: :..� ` The shortage of paridng spaces in the main parking ramp has forced MAC to improvise an additional 1,000 spots by converting the present employee parking lot near the Humphrey Terniinal to public use for about $1 million. The spaces are to be ready in August or September. Meanwhile, however, the plan to add 1,200 pem�anent spaces on the east end of the present multi-story ramp for $25 million may have to be scaled up dramatically because of sharply increased demand this spring and summer. There's talk now of having to add up to 5,000 more spaces for upwards of $140 million (worst case) over the ne�ct five years. Stay tuned. The new MSP federal inspection center, providing customs and '�arance services for the five new �� rnational gates on the Gold Concourse, is due #o open in December. FAA ceztificatian of the new Global Positioning System (GPS) is expected in September, not June. Test fli ts by commercial aircraft � aze to start shortly thereafter. Sun Country and Northwest aze showing more interest than three months ago. The satellite aavigation aid is supposed to a11ow more accurate landings and ultimately wider noise dispersion. Passenger traffic at MSP rose 9.2% to 8.97 million passengers in the first four months of 1996 from 8.22 million in the same period a year earlier, according to figures released July 19, 1996 by the i ,. �C. S14I�.�C N�10�SL�TT��t number of fli ts both The gh , inbound and outbound, jumped 6.1 percent to 147, 893 from 139,366 in the first four months of 1995, with April posting a 14 percent gain. Charter flights increased 35 percent; major camers were up 8.� percent, $eneral aviation climbed 7.4 percent and air freight 0.76 percent. Regional operations decreased 2 percent and military flights dropped 18.1 percent. Among the major carriers, Northwest Airlines increased its MSP ma.rket share to 82.4 percent during April. United was in second place at 4.1 percent, followed by American at 3.25 percent, TWA at 2.24 percent, Delta. at 2.15 percent, US Air at 1.19 percent, Continental 1.18 percent, KLM at .57 percent and Air Canada .25 percent. Arnong the discount airlines, America West was the leader with 1.28 percent of the commercial market. Vanguard held .77 percent, Frontier .38 percent and Pacific Intercontinental .21 percent. 'The discount ca,rriers held a measly 2.64 percent of the total MSP market. ��7��:;::��:�:`<;::<:>::»��<�::::` �:;: ..� .: �y<:'.`<::�:'�h ::;::i � �::::}::r::;:;iS.`: tfR;:::::;;r::::;:::k :::<:::;`:>�<::t�:��:�� :::::::::: :::.:.;;:;:.:;;>;:;.;:;.;>;:;::.: ::<:;>:� ::>::>=:>;:.;:.:;:::.::.;�.;;:.>�.::; :::.::::::.: :..:.....:: .............�:.:. �:.;:.>:.::. :.;:.;;;;:;.::.: ::::::<::::<:>::::::��:>:>::::::;:::;�t�::��: �.��#:::::<�;>:€::::>::»::::>:<:>::::>:;:; The I O percent airline ticket tax and an air cargo waybill tax generate about $5 billion a year to fund the FAA's air traffic control system, airport improvements and the FAA budget. The ta}ces haven't been collected since Jan. l, 1996, when President Clinton vetced a series of broad spending bills that included an e}ctension of these levies. As a result, the trust fund is seriously depleted and could run out of cash by next January. However, Congress is e:cpected to reach an agreement in August to 5 either reinstate the excise tax or set u a new user fee system, which is P backed by the seven major airlines. The big camers azgue that the excise tax gives an unfair pricing advantage to low-cost airlines. They have proposed a user fee of $2 per airplane seat ($1 for commuter planes), $4.50 per passenger and 1/2 cent per � passenger mile traveled. The Metropolitan Airports Commission had a record year in 1995, with operating revenues, net income, passenger trips and flights a11 exceeding any previous year. The quasi-public body said operating revenues rose 10.9 percent to $87.2 million from $76.4 million in 1994. Operating expenses increased 6.7 percent to $'74.9 million from $'70.2 million a year earlier. Opera.ting income � climbed 98.4 percent to $12.3 million from $6.2 million last year. In addition, the MAC booked $44.9 million in interest incorne compazed with $41.8 million a year ago, and received $32.3 million in passenger fac ili char es at $ }��p 3 er � P "1 O passenger) against $28.5 million in 1994. So net income rose to $56.6 million from $42.9 million, a strong 32 percent gain. At year's end, retained earnings amounted to $409.1 million, up from $345.9 million a year ea.rlier. Passenger traffic at MSP increased 9.? percent to 25.3 million in 1995 frorn 23.1 million in 1994. The number of arriving and departing planes increased 2.7 percent to an adjusted 415,685 in 1995 from an adjusted 404,723 a year earlier, aftez deducting an estimated 50,000 general aviation flights and overflights in each year. 5��4.0 N��SL�TT�� MAC Income Sources Sio. Charges � Fees 535.3M Rentais 1995 Opernting Reveaue: S8�•2M Concessions (including parking, auto rental, food and beverage sales) were the main source of revenue again in 1995 at 47.9 percent. Airline rates and charges (including landing fees, ramp fees, terniinal rentals and noise surcharges) contributed 40.3 pP° -�nt of revenues. Building rc ,.�, lobby fees, utilities and other fees made up the remaining 11.8 percent. :.:.':.::::':�:;�<::;::::::: ,:;::::>:.::..:�::.'::;:��'� ; '�'� ::;::>�«<:: � ;<::>:;:»�:::::::>::;::»::::::::»::>::>::� >::; ::::::::`;;: ��:C:��:'��:��1�:.>:;�:;..._....,��.�...r..�:.»:.: ;�.;:.>:::::>;:;> � �->::: :.:;.::;:.;:.>::.::.::.::>::>:>::;:;> :::.: :.:: .: : : :.: : .;:.::.::.;: : ::: : : : :.: : : : : : : :.: : : : . . . . : Detroit Metropolitan Airport announced plans May 24 to add 74 new gates -- the equivalent of a new Minneapolis-St. Paul a.irport -- and a fourth parallel runway for $1.6 billion in the next three years• What does this mean to Minnesotans? It all depends on your perspective. To the boosters of Minnesota's air transportation industry, including Gov. Cazlson, the state legisiature, the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the state's construction, tourism and import- export industries, it must be a sta�gering blow. ( i Cancessions S�i1.8M That's because Minnesota. probably has lost any chance of becominS Northwest Airlines dominant international hub, and a11 the economic fallout that irnplies (see story ne.ct page}. What's worse, NWA will in effect use some of the $800 million in loans and grants advanced by the state legislature and the MAC in 1992 to help finance the Detroit e:cpansion. Yet, there's not been a word of public concem from either Democrats or Republicans in Triinnesota over this stab in the back. Meanwhile, NWA and Miclugan officials are beating their breasts over the anticipateci economic shot in the ann. "Detroit has become Northwest's most important international launching pad in North America," said Don yVashburn, an NWA e:cecutive vice president. "When our customers come to the U.S. from Europe, Japan, China, Me�cico and Canada, most will arrive in Detroit." Said Robert.B I�lr b lieve this Metro airport, Y opportunity could be as significant for the region s economy in tlie coming century as the auto industry was to the last century.° To the residents of noise-battered communities surrounding MSP, it means both good and bad news. There won't be the noise of some 100,000 additional flights a Yea�' �g �neu aay lo y� n��, but there won`t be as much ne.ed for a new airport anyv�'here in Minnesota in the ne� 20 years, with associated job opportunities. Observers are quick to goint out that MSP probably never had much of a cbance. Detrort Metro serves a population of more than 21 million compared with seven million in MSP's natural trade area• Furthermore, the U.S. and Japanese auto industries aze big customexs of the Michigan airport. Finally, direct flights from Detroit to Beijing are expected to relieve congestion in Tokyo and bypass the U.S. west coast Faa' East hubs because of a more efficient route over the North Pole. Ironically, the news was released only weeks after NWA haci lobbied the Minnesota legislature for a minimal expansion plan here, and dent ind en only weeks before an ep study found MSP operating costs to be up to 42 percent lower than competing a.irports. That built-in advantage didn`t seem to matter to cost-conscious NWA. FUNDING PLANS Funding for the $1.6-billion Detroit Metro expansion project will come from four sources, a11 airport- related: 1} $700 million from passenger facility charges (currently $3 per passenger); 2) $350 million in ternunal rental fees and other chazges paid by �, .__tf1eTS; 3) $275 million in federal funds (ostensibly the aviation trust fund); and 4)$225 million in concessions, parking and other traveler fees. The expansion will add 64 domestic gates and 10 international gates at the new mid-field terminal, with an option to add nine more domestic and two international gates by 2010. Six current international gates at an older terminal will be converted to regional and charter flight use. The economic lass to Minnesota from Northwest Airlines' decision to locate its China gateway in Detroit rather than Minneapolis-St. Paul will be substantial. Some ;' ��mples: ��1) An estimated 20,000 permane�t jobs, including ticket agents, baggage handlers, concession stand, security and maintenance personnel at the airport, plus an undetermined nurnber of "second-wa.ve" jobs in the community; (Northwest alone employs about 3,000 people at Detroit Metro, out of a total airport staff of 15,000); 2) Constniction wages, estimated conservatively at $300 million for the new terminal, runway, a 5,000-car pazking garage, new access road and renovations to three existing terminals; 3) An estimated $50-$100 million a year in increased retail and ladging purchases; 4) Increased import and e:cport cargo handling fees; ( � SA�i��C N�1l�SL�ETT��, International Passenger Tra�c MSP vs Detroit 25 � � Z rn c m � � 1.6 a � o � � c 0 � 0.6 > ' /i, '��"""'-' '�p 5) Additional growth in foreign- owned businesses in Mictugan; the total already has risen from 157 in 1982 to 916 in 1995; Michigan will be no more than 14 hours a way from any foreign destination; and (6) Creation of a "China clearinghouse" at the airport, providing senrices for both Chinese and U. S. finns doing business in each other's markets. Meanwhile, Minnesota struggles to build a vision for economic growth in world markets from a second- class vantage point. South Minneapolis residents who assumed the threat of a third parallel runwa.y sa%ly was buried with the passage of the new airport law may have been premature. Within six weeks after the law's approval. MAC officials announced preliminary discussions were under wa.y with the U.S. Bureau of Mines and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for MAC to acquire 141 1990 1996 Year acres of the upper bluff azea of Fort Snelling state pazk near Hvcry. 55 and Hiawatha Ave. A MAC official assured the SMAAC Newsletter in late May that the land, if successfully acquired, wouid be used only to house a regional airline terminal and auto rental centers. iater he told reporters the acquisition of the Fort Snelling property would delay or eliminate the need for a$1.2 billion westside main passenger terminal in 20 yea,rs. However, the pazcel sits in a position that forms the easternmost end of a hypothetical third parallel runwa.y, long known to be the favored runway expansion site of Northwest Airlines and Richfield. The runway was dropged from the MAC's 2010 e.cpansion plan in March. The law stipulates that no such runway can be built "withaut the affected city's approval." Minnea.polis city offcials initially reacted with a"bad faith" charge by MAC and said they were looking into the details. Still fresh in their memory was the MAC's use of the second parallel runway for commercial jets in the mid-1970s after promising the public it would be restricted to general aviation ^;*craft. j wny transfer of the land as a result of a three-way swap between the DNR and the Bureau of Mines for additional park land is expec.-ted to require three to five years to negotiate. Four new directors were elected to the board of SMAAC at the annual membership meeting May 15 at Mayflower Community Church. 'The new board has since set priorities for the next six months. New board members aze Greg Bastien (Nokomis East), Margaret Parsons (Hale), Dick Saunders (Diamond Lake}, and A1 Wellnitz (Bloomington). Reelected board ` � �embers aze Dean Lindberg �' ..lokomis East), Frank Ario (Diamond Lake), Eileen Scully (Ha1e), Charles Mamer (Nokomis) and Neil Clark (Kenny). Officers elected for the coming year aze Saunders , president; Lindberg, vice president; Mamer, secretary; and Scully, treasurer. Pr�orities established for the next six months of 1996 by a new strategic planning cominittee, incorporating ideas suggested by the breakout groups at the annual meeting, include the following: (1) Preparing and submitting members' ideas for new noise mitigation measures to the MAC's new noise mitigation committee and monitoring the process of deliberations with the ma.yors of the eight most affected communities; S14I�C�C N�1�SL�ETT��. (2) Creating stronger bonds with south Minneapolis neighborhood organizations concerned about long-term prospects for noise resolution; (3) Fighting any efforts by the MAC to acquire Fort Snelling land that might be utilized in time for a third para11e1 runway; (4) Expanding SMAAC membership through a new marketing flyer, expanded quarterly newsletter and neighborhood summer festival participation; (5) Establishing clearer lines of responsibility beiween the board and SMAAC committees, with agreed-upon goals and budgets for each azea of activity. Any SMAAC member with a few hours to spaze is encouraged to participate in this exciting new round of summer-fa11 programs. p�rticulazly needed aze your skills in coalition-building, legislative relations, media relations, reseazch, publications, graphic desigo, fund- raising, rnembership expansion or legal matters. Please cail Saunders at 861-1061. :.:.;�i!�;�!?��:��!`i:::�'::::>:::�:<;> `::':�<:;<;::::��.3�:..>�.;•;:::.;;:.; :.::::: :..:: :.:>�::::::::.;:<.;;:.:;:.:;:.:; �::�::«::::>::::��'� �::�::..::�'�:i'�:'�`::��:.�E�2::�:=::::<::::::::::> ::>:;.;:.: :.:: : ::: �.� : . ... . .. . . ..... ... . . . . SMAAC and at least one neighborhood organization, Hale- Page-Diamond Lake Community Organiz.atioq have urged the MAC to upclate — and expand, if necessary -- the airport disaster n+an�ement plan. Not clear in th� present plan, the groups said, are the fallowing seven issues: (1) The frequency of evaluation of mutual assistance agreements with the communities surrounding the airport; (2} The plan of action in the event of an off-airport disaster in a rural setting; (3) The plan of action in the event of an off-airport disaster in a highly populated urban setting, involving, for exarnple, a s ma11, office buildings, school, church, or densely populated residential azea; � (4) The plan for handling in excess of 500 casualties, including the interface with National Disaster Medical Systems (NDMS). (Recent changes in heaith-care delivery systems ha.ve altered response potential); (5) 'The specifics of responses to multiple types of disasters, including hazardous chemicals, biological materials, radioa.ctive materials and epidemics; (6) Plans for crisis interventian involving individuals and whole communities; (7) Plans for longer-term grief counseling and post-traumat�c stress disorder management. A review meeting with MAC officials for a staius report is planned in the near future. It was also urged t6at MinneaPolis Mayor Sayles Belton take a leadership role in follow-up. �' � w Can I Help? The number of airplanes flying directly ovez my house at P�a�ly �oy;n� �� increased dramatically since spring. The most troublesome time is after 10 p,m. Sundays, because I must get up at 5 or 6 a.m. to get to my job on time. On several occasions, airplanes have rattled my windows af�er midnight. If I am watching the news, I can't hear what is being said. I don't see why they fly so low at 4Qth and Cedar. Wha# can I do to support an airport group? Please let rne lrnow. (From Marianna Stotssbury) Longfellow Ave., Minneapolis) A neighborhood organization has --�'�ed the MAC and the City of ' .�neapolis to spearhead a siudy � of the impact of chronic noise on human health, as part of the state's decision to kcep MSP in a metropolitan azea. Baseline medical research studies should be conducted particularly on persons lvith the following physical conditions: srtress, hypertension, sleep disturbances, sleep deficits, hearing loss and cardiovasculaz disease. Long-term effects of noise on ciuldren living under intense noise levels and the effects of chemical pollution (from reieased jet fuel and engine emissions) should also be investigated, in light of an anticipated 100 million flights at MSP in the next 20 yeass. This proposal came from a study group of Hale-Page-Diamond Lake residents. ( �; S1NI�c�C N�1slSL�TT�� :::;»::.;::»>::�:�«>....;>:::;:_:>:<>:>_.::;:<.::::>::;;.`:`:> �'_:::::>::::::>::> _>::>��> ::::��:::>:::::::>:::::; »::�:�:�'.:......��. ...: :::>�� :-:::: :::::: :::::::: :::: ::::::::::>;:�:;::: :::: Au�ust b National Nght Out SMAAC Brochures For Your Block Party Ca11822-8118 � 7 p.m. li�iayor S. Sayles Belton City Noise Mitigation Plan Recommendations Roosevelt H'igh School 9 10 a.m. 12 7 p.m. MAC Noise 11Ttigation Committee MAC Headquarters 6040 28th Ave. S. Mayor S. Sayles Belton City Noise M'itigation Plan Recommendations Diamond Lake Lutheran Church 14 7 p.m. SMAAC Board Nokomis Community Center 19 1 p.m. MAC Commissioners Mezzanine, Airport 27 7 p.m. Public Hearing MAC Noise M'itigation National Committee 2i 7:30 p.m. MASAC MAC Headquarters 29 10 a.m. MAC Noise Mitigation Committee MAC Headquarters 0 Au ust 29 '7 p.m. MAC Public Hearing on Noise Mitigation Thunderbird Hotel September 16 1 p.m. MAC Commissioners MAC Headquarters 18 7 p.m. SMAAC Board Meeting Nokomis Community Center 24 7:30 p.m. MASAC MAC Headquarters November 14 7 p.m. SMAAC General Meeting .. Mayflower Congregational Church �sia�.�cu �od.zcE uo �clqnd �esaua� ac�� pere diuslaqcuauT ��y�s aq� `�,uacuulano� au� ui siapea� pa}�a1a uuo�cn o� spun� au� saprnoid sanp lno� -re�in si uoi�Edi�c�d lno,� pu� dno.� s,uazi�i� � si ��5 •�uaun� �ou a.re no��i ��po� d�slaqcuacu ino� nnaaal asEaid •dn{siaqruaui dn pred�o .rea� �s81 aq� sa�E�cpui ia�aisMau 1no�S�o IaqEi �sTi �ucireui aq�. uo iaqvunu aqZ ( . �aa�iucuio� ��y�s E uo ansas o� �uTijTnn a.re no�C�i �aau� asEatd :diZ :a�g�s ��1i� :auo�{d �OS$) �ui�nqu�uo� (SZ$) �ut�oddns — iS I $) IElaua� LIf�SS I�UA� `�!Iodgauniy� •g �an� snqcun[�� 9IIS �i��1IS L1I2tO,Fj 'I�'M�I�,�-.L[�I3Lti'I'IO2II�I r3 ,��'y�IS i��.L.L�'IS%R�11I :i��IhIS �� 1 SOUTH METRO AlRPORT ACTION COUNCIL SMAAC 5116 Columbus Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 5�417 (612) 822-8118 Meeting Announcement: With Mayor Sayles Belton on Airport Noise Mitigation August 7, Roosevelt High School, 7 p.m. August 12, Diamond Lake Lutheran Church, 5760 Portland Ave., � p.m. :ssaippy �� o� puag Bulk Rate South Metro Airport Action Council May 22,1997 ` J. Scott Renne, l�ZAI City Assessor — 6�3-2391 I. Mass Appraisal Methodology A. Factors; Quantitative and Qualitative B. Development and Application II. Residential Trends A. Minneapolis — see tables B. Other cities see Multiple Listing Service Single Family Trends C. Number of properties within various LDN boundaries III. Impact of Airport Noise on Residential �lalues A. Minneapolis studies �,- �� _ B. Other studies IV. Part 150 Sound Insulation Program V. Airport Corridor Urban Homestead A. Purpose B. Requirements C. Benefits 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1997 1992 Y993 1994 7995 ysss Lfstings Processed 33,635 33,966 27,865 31,271 34,940 38,879 36,095 40,007 37,018 35,580 41,465 50,794 53,646 51,492 58,382 55,422 80,771 89,170 78,548 71,850 72,730 70,685 63,369 64,556 Totai Dollar Volume $436,396,177 489,373,859 500,401,086 585,954,410 773,837,914 1,115,698,038 1,296,246,066 1,351,465,288 7,340,772,915 .1,249,787,584 998,693,468 1,344,916,756 t,S44,535,531 1,866,291,1 S3 2,523,647,113 2,460,309,715 3,211,389,403 3,277,302,913 3,372,262,409 3,522,813,135 4,309,040,911 4,300,305,967 4,733,426,199 4,947,765,241 Unit Sales 14,788 15,518 14,481 15,381 18,476 23,271 22.780 20,466 18,351 15,675 12.193 15,914 18,231 21,335 28,015 25,772 34,244 33,962 34,496 35,598 41,944 39,842 42,454 42,310 Average Sales Price $29,510 31,536 34,555 38,095 41,883 47,943 57, 7 78 66,417 74,069 80,238 82,288 84,953 85,007 87.789 90,319 95,914 93.977 96,658 98,016 99,402 103,264 107,569 111,806 117,053 AVERAGE MEDIAN January $129,300 $109,000 February 127,400 707,900 March 725,100 107,000 April 125,000 107,300 May 126,000 108,000 June 126,200 108,500 July 126,400 108,900 August 126,800 Y09,000 September 127,100 109,500 October 727,100 109,200 November 127,200 109,200 December 127,500 109,500 ' Fgures are rounded to nearest 3�00 and inciude ali residential sales for AM�S. � • ' 1987 7988 1969 1990 1991 1992 1993 Y994 1995 7996 "' """+"xTr`"' t r"'"+ ° d £ Y � .�-r't -q�c-� 'r''T:: Minnea OIIS � 550 Gathaun-Harrtet �� r� x r$98 682 $112 634 „$175,451.$116 029 $121 �17,$122 U08 P + ' ->�z i� : 3 � � �� 2tx � r 1 + u1 F� ; � ,:�- k � '�� . .; 300 Calhoun-isles $153.168 $178,990 $213,029 $240,692 551 mCesiar isies-LorTng rn , 122 760 � 175 545 '171 830 219 862 211 267 �200 881 �.�5> .,.� ,�K �x � �� ^4 ��, � ,� *,1-'�zF� si rv� 5;,,'� s�� w: 301 Camden 57,388 55,026 59,129 6Y,818 ;,552 North ,,;s�� -3� ��§`w�� a.,, � �� 53 997��, 52 825 �fT�5 66Ts�,.53 435� t54,'I81 ,z,-53 080 ,' 302 Central 114,600 73,000 78,000 71,200 '� �}�*�� `��C"�' �t`""�4� ��?�^h �^`�"``��-r ��'6'..i045�a 63370�iL63,8�40�.��6_4.645�".,_66414*.66,234 ` 303 Longfeltow 69,180 73,246 76,169 79,389 s_553„IVorthea�..ti+.�ts:�•.�..�..��,...._.�.tr�-:::,�,� _., ._..�, _. -�--•----'. 554 Parkway West 98,163 100,405 105,461 107,090 109.846 109,588 304 Nokomis 82,748 84,565 87,633 93,607 555 Parkway Gentral 76,851 80,189 83,241 83,712 86,840 88,446 305 North 51,568 43,953 45,568 47,793 556 ParkvraySouth 67,130 68,616 66,973 70,761 70,595 70,652 306 Northeast 67,556 65,748 72,361 76,685 557 South 61,825 62,317 63,127 63,695 66,944 67,495 307 Phiilips 47,253 32,732 35,962 47,865 308 Powderhorn 63,277 57,002 58,487 61,700 558 South Central 51,587 49,136 49,630 51,220 50,510 48,894 309 Southwest 118,534 128,723 136,642 149,515 ! c .r v- �, 1559z$outheast-' �2�?,� ,� i �' s.� 74314 l 73196 ;� 786�85 ;rv81215 65697 79124 • 310 University 82,370 83,946 87,105 94,124 i� t'�� e 'r r F1 � '�� .* �'*�u ; � s y� ^'r Subur6anandotherareas 560 SL Paul & Suhu'"br an � k � �q�10 473 �,� � x�x ,� � , , �"'��"''tUe'xb'.t-� r r "� �Ft �.1 ""' r ��,�' '� ,ri" � ` `� � ' � .�s- ° 340 BUffalo 97,702 101,236 108,085 107,267 � 563 IsanttCountY� Y;' r t� �'4,, ,'4 69 830 , 63 830" 66 235 "� � 4 , � ' ��' ' > -• ��"�s � -w -E' "'` t , � �'"a �'r. �`-�, 341 Wright County 85,103 93,406 102,149 112,384 ::564 ;Blafne-Leicington,.CGcte Pmes `: �..;. �„�75,052~:�-..�_� . ..,�_.=....y.;._,-_ . .. . _. . . . _. � 342 Hutchinson 75,702 79,526 94,521 100,184 565 Falcon Heights-Roseville, Arden Hiiis 107,244 ' ' � � � 343 Mc�eod 65.250 66,646 62,519 76,301 Shoreview ' ' ' � � � 360 Rob6insdale Tl,874 82,274 84,796 89,933 566 New Brighton-Moundsview, St. Anthony 95,504 98,878 102,486 106,085 ' ' 361 Crystaf 80,323 80,663 84,911 89,841 567 Coon Rapids-Anoka 77,887 ' ' ' ' ' 362 New Hope 93,094 103,443 108,340 112,352 568 Fridley-Columbia Heigtits, Spring Lk Pk 76,404 ' ' ' • • 363 Brooklyn Center 77,897 78,878 82,562 85,072 569 Suburban NE 76,903 ' � • • . 364 8rooklyn Park 96,775 105,641 109,632 115,912 �.{,..�4r - -• � 365 Mple Grve / Oss 130,387 142,872 143,879 162,545 570 SibleyCounty, ='86,176 =.n• 366 Cham Im 102,558 113,0.57 120,806 128,154 � ;" , _ •_ p . 571 ;B�ooWyn Centet Park, ,, : ,; 77,837 ;- 87 606_ , 89 466 89 401 : 89 104 ; 91 869.; 367 Hnnepin Co No 129,863 136,165 134,871 155,194 � . ;. _� 1 .. _.. ,� 572 Wnght/Sherbume CounLes ;. 65,081 .;-' 69,880 �' ?2120. �74,130 77,850 ; 82442 :_ 368 Hnnepin Co NW 179,230 178,293 171,131 202,010 573 ,Goiden Vatieyliyrol .Hilis . , "'".10.5,371 '`:114,238� . ,113,613 ;�118,860 '.119,438 :.119,699r_ 370 Si61ey County 59,000 75,038 60,611 67,830 574 Plymouth 126,910 145,748 151,612 153,820 151,483 160,141 373 Golden Valley 128,603 732215 137,388 1h1,432 575 Robbinsdale-Crystal-New Hope 77,689 80,144 81,266 81,370 81,146 84,468 374 Plymouth 171,532 187,918 203,651 208,258 378 Richfield 86,150 92,260 96,095 100,655 576 Dayton-Champlin-MapleGrove-Osseo 92,627 104,199 106,767 112,030 112,070 115,466 379 Bimington-E 88,070 94,569 99,179 103,373 577 Suburban NW 98,805 107,938 125,869 117,650 148,008 135,817 380 Bimington - W 157,418 156,131 161,256 162,771 578 Richtield 7�,274 79,801 81,753 82,847 82,994 85,181 381 Lake Mtka N 238.535 306,287 238,422`k 256,502 579 ;East Bioomington . 79,500 83,435 ' 85 919' . 86,052 85,943 89,375 382 Lake Mtka W 155,471 144,015 580 West 8loomington .., � 715,103 134,625 133 679 �'131,377 136,269 .144,396 383 Lake Mtka S 223,746 262,619 581 - Me�dota Heights-Eagan, Inver Grove Hts 105,342 ' . � • 385 Edina 214,290 226,948 243,550 250,558 582 Bumsviile'. � 101,801 114,829 122.581� 123.956 123,590 • 386 Hopkins 97,882 107,208 176,266 128.959 387 Minnetonka 168,031 184,818 194,061 207,265 583 Suburban South 87,231 ' ' ' ' ' 391 St Louis Park 100,584 106,856 111,008 179,402 584 Appie Valley-Rosemount-L.akeville 103,109 ' ' ' � � 392 Eden Prairie 175,454 2�6,057 218,497 225,050" 585 Edina 152,634 179,852 796,486 188,380 189,921 200,868 394 CarverCounty 99,438 109,824 124,278 134,932 587 Hopkins-Minnetonka 122,772 138,603 150,368 148,849 148,371 154,544 395 Waterfront 85,099 92,295 97,030 108,99.' .. . . ... 589 Lake Minnetonka ., � 158 729 _ 172208 ' 180 700 r 178 719 . 171 361 ._ 190 743 - 396 Chanhassen 164,240 182,828 206,592 215.6o8 _ a- ,... , 397 Chaska 126,421 132,502 145,115 165,211 ' a91 Si. Lou(s Park "6 � 79,587 . 90,582 .: 90 369 -.- 91,206 93,633.,. 94,582 : ..,.._,� �� .:.:.. _ . � . .. . •c..., . . ' 398 Victoria 174,270 207,068 185,296 224,754 592 Eden Pra��ie •. . 126,63Z 148,971 163 400 :167,836 157,322 :168,219 _' 399 Out of Town 94,807 73,861 68,489 82,533 593 Eastem�CarverCounty�. : 89,643 112,418 120,318�;130,022 '•129,359 -141,155 . * Lake Minnetonka area combined in 1995 16 • The REALTOR� • February 1997 � � 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 � 600 West St Paut M .-. $85,546 $83 510 ; ; •i$88,428 _ _.. $85 024 $87 238 :. $91.SN $99.414 $99,412 $104,677 :,602 tSouih SL�Paui ' � '66,041 =' 71 577 ;�71,724 � 73 587 ', 72 047 '' `> 74,732 79,275 ` 79,950 84,199 ' � 604 Mendota=Ll(ydale-MendotaHts ;, �- 165,615 '767,698 ' .167,591 ,179,676 162,838 ; 187,27s in,189 189,846 214,506 805 ; Sunpsh Lake '" y �s 165,612 380,000 285,700 333,000 324,633 . • 218,833 269,600 315,980 . 545,000 B08 'inver Grove Heights �:. . -'' 96,665 1�3,334 110,166 112.606 118,158 . 118,602 125.728 133,025 135.533 610 Eagan ' 122,767 127,454 126,177 135,619 138,307 139,791 152,913 164,618 167,104 612 Burnsvilie ' 114,829 122,581 123,956 123,950 133,404 131,022 142230 146,482 149,399 614 Apple Vailey ' 179,879 126,574 123,585 130,504 127,550 136,134 145,949 153,879 163;774 616 Rosemount ' 92,749 94,311 100,534 113,496 112,238 114,146 126,670 127,559 139,055 617 Hastings ,„ 81,426 83,775 88,158 92,672 92,108 100,163 170 i66 ,. 114,849 118,869 :. 618 ;;Eastem Dakota County ,;r 94,119 '' - :96,432 ; .�.•403,584 100,388 ,• 709,922 ,: ; 11.7,781 139 Q46 : ; 122,557 . :. -141,596 . �r624.,Farmingtod'; , *-85.489 �85,937 � -�89.013 �c93709 .'.97786 .,J .98,076 : '. 110611 111,137 .12i,089 '__ 626 Lakevitie , t 106,329' 118,663 ^ 113,253 =117118 125 541 >132,534 147,663 . 154 432 163,607..,, 'y,"628 xSouthem Dakota County r ' �. .73,389 , 74.034 � . 89,410 93 279 `'"84 973 'i . ` 143,836 ; ' 122 904 . r' � 109 573 ,129.115 :,. :.630.'i:Noithfieid y::n, ,:�..z :.:, . , .• : ,, , ,, , , . ' . . . , ... , , _ _ . _... .. _. .. . _ : . s . . : . . . . . _ ,.. . . , . .. _ . . • � :.; "� 109.726 �• 110.979 114,172 -125,506 632 R(ce County ' ' ' ' ' ' 103,638 88,039 91,030 89,529 640 Shakopee ' 101,958 100,606 101,492 104,488 112,966 112,907 109,126 116,415 124,072 642 Rice County ' ' ' ' ' ' 133,432 738,904 157,878 168,241 644 Savage ' 114 727 125 852 138 183 140 018 ,y646 JOfdan . � s ',� ,�', 5: - 1 95,025 r , 98 030 �,: 117 151 ;123 030 . = 648 �,New Prague ` �° T � r � t • i s � � �_ : 92 891 102 153 z 112 693 � -'118 313 i. ; 650�'�et(e Ptaine ' � � 'a :2� 37,341 �.� :48 310 -; '�51 720 59 117 �66 427 : 76 765 _ 87 803 � 97 299 F 105,170 ? � 655 : Rice COUnty � s. �' `' ��"'' "' 84,772 '` 83 794 '� 89 124 -86 757 `97 244 �:^' .., .. � ; . , . .. . :�658.:CeSueur.County..._...:.._ ._..._`:,�._...w.:........__ • .,�...._...._.._._,_: : ' ..: . .� ._. . '.._._ 57.867 . 67.506 ....._,74.002.. ..72.961, 660 Goodhue County ' 77,105 81,795 80,762 83,879 82,556 106,962 98,879 96,994 101,058 � . 702 Falcon Hts-Lderdale-Rsevlle 91,100 105,453 102,007 704,482 106,224 109,361 115,854 112,809 121,663 143,905 130, 525 132, 225 144, 083 inw nnI ....::. �(1C A'l� ��. _::�I[fA�liCfl�:: ��0.:�..:._ 711 Southern Chisago County 57,400 68,008 72.065 75,371 78,192 80,883 88,047 96,505 103,706 111,457 712 Maplewood-North St. Paul 79,800 91,138 96,288 94,313 96,076 97,958 107,329 101,800 108,897 116,275 713 Hethel ' 76,067 72,576 79,573 81,514 81,647 91,921 99,462 110,257 112,532 714 Phalen 59,800 59,839 64,046 60,314 62,882 62,902 63,247 61,652 64,007 67,380 ' 716 H�IlcresUHazel Pk/Dayton s 81ti60 800 60,444 60,365 61,207 63 776 61 884 62,942 62,723 65,143 69,004 !20 Sovtheast SL Paul .: 75 900 a,Y .78,263 79 827 � 81,306 :83 155 :B8 499 88,430 �.88 557 99 400 103�319 ., ` • . - � " ,. .. i ' , 126,539 135,578 ;127176 133,476 130 313 151 04D.. ,. �157,838 > -;721 Lakeland Af#on Denmaric , 90 1004 '",.�.;"'t101,048 106783 ::722 Nwprt-St Paul Pk-Cottage Grve 78 000 ;."`. 85,5/4 89 650 -90,198 � 91,490 . t. :98 023 100,965 703 854 � 111 159 ;, 114 851 � �:725 sPirie Spnngs=Lk Elma-Oakdale 88 400 ��" ? 102,288 � 1D7 620 : i09,312 - 109,895 ,109 949 ' 115,396 `123 664 ,=129 149 140252 ' >726 Woodbu � :. _ '1,08 200, �' ;: �`' 129,619 138 352, ' 446.799 � 141,654 , ' �152 980 ' 162,338 ' 177 737 . .: 183 276 ` ._ 185 �76 . . . _� __._ �Y..,.._1� .. _ ., . _.. . ., . . .. _ _ ._ . 727 Stiilwater-Bayport 82,500 103,829 114,769 120,145 125,400 122,849 134,632 147,516 156,548 175,085 728 Riverview-Cherokee 58,900 55,463 54,907 57,086 58,999 58,787 59,243 60,697 62,699 66,622 738 Home Croft-W 7th 50,100 50,759 53,185 52,8D8 55,059 50,036 54,064 53,671 55,621 58,522 740 Crocus Hill 91,90p 111,521 122,725 135,311 121,453 146,659 171,734 158,909 172,538 188,071 741 DowntownlCapital Heights 12,000 65,000 ' 38,400 82,000 65,566 56,000 50,358 ' 74,600 742 Centrai 51,500 48,520 46,653 49,080 47,089 48,035 46,705 48,133 51,079 54,101 744 Como �. ' � 69 600 :71,469 75,745 77,763 79,543 80,871 83,412 83 474 86,482, 93�676 746 St. Anthony-M�dway '" 66 400 66,497 69,047 66,290 6&,705 �.' 75,590 72,955 70 406 � 75 946. 84,347 '748 •Town & Country Memam park 75 600 > 79,259 .�'-76,076 87,731 85,788 ' 93,027 94,227 . 94 749 ... 702.562 117,411 ` 750 ,Mac-Grovelnd-River Road Area91,000 ''`" 102,960 "• 99,222 101,784 99,015 104,476 109,801 173,657 _' 117,595, ;133,274 : 752 ��HighlandArea _ 90200 - 104,428 �`` 109.811 114,172 111,009 115,272 121,975 � 118,778 ; 129.972 ._ :149,089 , 754 BigLakeTownship ' 62,406 62,022 67,762 74,362 77,804 82,155 93,503 93,319 104,278 756 EIk River ' 82,401 88,402 88,454 87,816 95,867 103,580 106,053 109,028 721,201 758 Northwestern Anoka County 76,700 83,744 85,844 86,861 91,286 96,730 99,195 107,279 115,298 119,783 760 Ramsey ' 86.609 90,505 92,819 94,274 98,478 709,5i5 116,459 124,806 125,657 762 Andover ' 96,048 100,706 105,347 104,024 177,173 118,1�; 122,592 735,489 137,390 764 Biaine 75,400 82,304 85,640 88,259 91,408 94,075 96,360 102,750 109,795 . 113,231 765 Arden Hiils-SHoreview 107,000 '� •124,284 129,742 137,058 135,537 140,689 147,474 163,420 157,069 155,390 766 Mndsdw-Nw Brghtn-St Anth Vi1194,200 98,878 . 702,486 106,085 102,910 101,953 112,702 113,708 119,413 120,513 767 Coon flapids .: 76,800 �'.'86,158 89,971 90,046 92,556 93,414 99,092 103,390 ' 106,415 110,145 � 768 Spring Park/Fridtey 76,600' �79,936 .'`86,614 86,B42 88,584 ' 85,915 92,399 96,028 : 98,424 104,843 769 Anoka ' 73,437 �8,097 78,744 81243 81,542 84,602 89,099 94,572 101,115 770 Hilltop-Columbia Heights ' 72,562 72.702 77.957 72,814 75.374 7a,602 74,842 77,960 82,079 771 Spring Lake Park ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 97,225 97,346 772 �exington-Circle Pines ' 82,729 85,817 96278 95.955 93,96a 94,592 104,079 106.206 100,536 780 Sher6ume County ' S8,269 61,�7 67,088 69.832 73,380 78282 83,195 88.192 98,985 782 Isanti County 52,300 59,830 63235 66,339 68,694 69,076 76,060 77,922 89,772 97,355 783 Cambridge. '� :, ,,' ,'.�64.961 ..:,:;,;,60,519 61,873 ' 67.380 66.484 70,789 80,620 ', . 81,292 82.$71 784:NorihemChisagoCounty .' .51,9Y8 .61,565 '66,628 51,225 72,561 65,508 'fi9,065 70,803 97457. *?85 Southwestem Wisconsin 107,600 �:93,400 ` 103,900 �'-90,275 85,515 113,963 105,825 107507 � 94,344 *786 •:iNestCentral �sconsin � -91,300 t ; � '111 798 r it11.211 � '=99,754 i103,133 100,238 :: 120,501 -141 404 : 136,780 ' ' . :.: . . . .. ,. . . �87 -.Northwesterri �sconsin ' . ... ' ' 72,625 67,050 . 73,600 �122 589 . > ..105,866 , :; : .. 35 Waterfront -.. .. , • - .. .- • . • � ' ' ' 80,855 93,832 82,446 97106 -/98 Out of Town ' ' " ' ' ' S9.325 55,771 61.450 62,553 805 Western Wisconsin 111,325 'K Combined in[o Distticc b0� in 1996 Thc REALTOR� • Februarv 1997 • 17 o c�r, o u�, d z O C O C O C O C ► � � � � � � � Q" C y C Q' �� a � � � ti ti ti ti 7G' '�-ti �" ^�+� X" M T. "'y �-3 C � � � � ° C � � �'. � °r. � ?' �' �' � � c� � � � �° ic' �° .in' �° �. cCc �� ['r1 y N y y � V b1� r � "C7 C=7 ��-3 � C� YO W � N � � O W � �i Vcn �.l O� �O N VA �y O J O ONi �-w O �� O�O O Q1 O 00 O W OC (/� i17 r tn w cn N ��-3 w vc.'A'i� N N � VA V.n �w C� � N O z O v O� O OWO O w � Cd � A Cn N � N N Oo w � Q� tJi -�1 CTJ N CJi O�o O� W N � - C/� t1� �O tn N �D G� �A N �O O w O O O O O W O �P cn N Q� Q� W N CJ� 00 �O W ln �D � �U Cn ►� Oo J O W V� O Q� N N W O�O V� N O� C� J� N �O O� O N O O O � � A tr N � w O W O �O � � �1 ►� N N �I w cn p� �T oo N C� 00 �D �O IJ v� O� VA N �D O� O O O O O �h N Cn C11 N �p A N GT J� N w �O W �L'+ �I Co �-- O �1 � �D V� .-� Q� N N �.n V�i O�O O ONO O �F O VNi i0 O tn O Vi O�F O V� W cr O� N � � o�o w W N O G'� GO �--� �P W C'� .. Cn Cn W Q� �O N y C O Oo O OO O J O �./� �R Ctr - :Q�� '.. h,Z . N. y �.. w a� :F- � N •--• �O �O �J O cn ,._. G� G� N w ..r w�p W N 00 G'1 .� N �O O Oo O 00 O F- O vi �O O tn O�O O tn O �F- � � � MIHKEAPOLIS COMMUHITIES AND NEIGNBORHOODS j�. . .. �-------- --------, . � j Sbinql• Cn�k 1 ' , I lind • Bahanen � Hnmb�idt Ind. • 1 I Rroo � � � � "I 1 1 . ''�--------------- ---------� I � � Ylct�ry � 1 1 � C�� u ` W�It� Park � � C�Irmbia 1 � � CAMDEN � i �iE16NBORN00D BOUHDARY � � NORTHEAST � � � � a M"'h'�� COMNfUN11Y �OUNDARY ' � • Y�r��ee 1 .e..��..� ; i�vala�d Friatll MeKinity s� � Ardus�n . , � __1_____ ___�_ =' '.`k ,-- � , , '� H011�Rd � � 1^ BetUAser WIe1�m Park � j J�rd�a � �--- . H�alpere� ��t . � � L��n N�NAt�tt t�rk �� 1 � � / Eherli�a ��rk � r`��,,,,i� i � NEAR-NORTH i . � � I j � ( Si. Aalh�ny � Mid-Cfly indnstri�i A�t� ; � Willu�•Ne� 1 B�il��mi I . 1 Nt�rN�rth � W�st l E�st � � � I 1 j�'"--''�`��..� i '� L� �.a ' 1 � ■u�n�i i.. ' � C�m• � 1 1 � E.�e �..t M�reyHNmu � ; :� i North L��p �` UNIVERSIIY � .:� � « P��, Hurltia "I eori:f • `��►� �� ♦ � CENTRAL e.+.u.■ � �.,_ �,,,,�„s � I � r---� �..._..�. En� � UnlrarsllY 1 ♦ 1 �1 1 -- � e�ya-w�.► i j Mlnn�:eU pnsp�et P�rk � � ( �; � • Elll�t P�rk � uf 81r�r Il��i� - _ . l�Anq P�rk rC�d�r•Ritiersidt- � i l�wr� Htil ' __..----"�� W�st D�nk 1 � � ��------� � � . sun.� t�.•lu�.� xt�. � � � ; Ktnwaed �—__ __ _; � �� E�tt 1 � PHILLIPS \ Sewird �`` 1 i itlss Uwr�� Whlttl�r % ` ♦ ( � CALHOUN-ISLES N�� i � � I E�si ; �� ; Ced�r•i:les•Oean � � ♦ / � —r------ r--- � l�n,ttllew C�eptt i ' �_�� ... pOWQERHORN ` � j Wt�l � C�re�r�n � i ECCO C�req Lyadsle ♦ � IC�ihorn � �rwderharn LON(3FELLOW � 1 � CteU�i P�rk � � —__ __�._ . 1 • i �^ r� 1.`y j I ; Hrwt i . � � \ � � � Etyanl 6itctNt =t�ndith �� KIn� Fl�id �' � ( . iLf��en NIIit H� �f�t ;---- ------ L-----r---�; ; � 1 Neqint � ► � ( NertMrnp � Eties:�n �` Nl�w�iM� ` ! � ♦ � � � � Fitid �� I 1 i Frit�■ Lynnhrtst Felitr ; K�tw�ri(a ,�` 1 � MlentMsha � \ � SOUTHWEST k�� NOKOMIS �� Iiqe __._=� �_"__ 1 1 � � W�n�n�h Merris ►�rk � � i � �_ � � Ar��i��• K�nnY � � • Wind�m ; Dta�n�ad L�k� j i = 1 � �------ --- --------�------------ -----------------� o � o o � o 0 o a � � a � ��!' � � �' � � ° � � - 6 �'t ti m � `G .�+ � N� Ui o y � � � rn y � �^ � m 4�.�,y l�I � � � �..1 v d .7� N � � OWo O cwjr �� O W CA W N W . �O .P 00 U�'� O � � r:i.. - z z � �' oo w .ta n� oo w cn n� � c,�i, "�d �.. o. o vJi °ni � � .�.n o�o a � a � �°„ "'� rr. �o � _ C�iz ZC' ,-, c'� p: � v ^ oo � A t.� .- o ,is � m� � � N :�a `N, �^ w O ( q ° ,�, .: . v � y:.: _,,, O: e,� � ?. �' � ..' � oWo -�a w � o�o � o "c' � '�, . o —� Vo A• a. � "�p . ~ � � �y- � .p v N O ~ � N O�o � � � I� o N � a` r.r _: �D . �O'. .. (J1: 69 � � � v 00 N � V� W J J� 00 J Uf v �� r��'. � p � pp .p W W O Oo IJ ��, C/�'.� . � O p O O O O O O �O � ro� x C� � n' Q` � ..' �-' r: . � �. N .J �1 � � �1 O 7a �-' � J m � � 0 W �.1 v v C oo C� cn C W �° �j cD �Or �.. "�y'. i y� ds �o H � � p W rONO v N rt�Jt W � W t�1� pJp �'P . t'� .�A N O W � c.�ii � � N � CD 6�,,� 01 W N N Oo W tn CT CT p .� . � N � v v � O�O C,wn N C�n J rC�1 r0 W ro C�ii A � VQi N J N � 0�0 W � � � �� ao W O� N �O 0 W W .i� �l � y� � Cn oo tJ C� �O J C1 C v� Q �� cD A O � y � � p � o o � o 0 0 0 � m a � � � ,�. � � o � , �. o ��-}� -� N � � � � r�D �G .y-•, O � vi � y � Ci'J � N a �^i m ��.r�yJ l+! � � � 00 W � N 00 W Cn N � CJ� � O VJi N W � .�P O�o � � � J y Q � y � z. e� w �° i''"' :�' � o°Oo 'i' o o m°� � h0° . W N N l�n N �D 00 �O �.I Cn y � �', O � �, �r �. n � c,n .'�A� Oo -.1 � W N ►� �1 V� W m� O� �� .A G r W v �1 v �A �I W � �� (D �.�.. - .. H �.,:: 0 � � z J 00 N t!� W J �P 00 J Ch .J `O � ��J, ��. �p p p pp .A r W W O 0o N ..^.. p„ �` : �' ,Np, O p O O O O O O C�n � �� N � � O p O O O O O O �D p �;: ' �: . �OI . �0:: a �.. EfJ � � �. �. O� �.., ' W W � .�P � ��.1 O � W O .�A � � �. pNp O p O O O O O O O p �� (�' ' � � �.. n �:. N1 W V1 � ,'pA, �l 0�0 v J� ►�' �� .. 00 00 CA � � 00 v W CO �O �� . O �: 69 � N �D � J rOW1 ONo � N U�i v � � � j ro C�n N A � C�ii N ��.1 N � � w � � � � � J 69 � r.�p � � J 01 v W �D � '�'p ro� N N O Q�i o�o � O 00 � A � O .D t,n O Cn Cn W �l W C� (�j �� n p 00 �O � W � �P 01 �A 1� W � o i,,� .A �O � �O Oo tV N O �i c9 p � o o � o 0 0 0 � � a � � c��u ,c• � � � '�°'ro'� � � � .�. y 5- � �; o � � _. ,-. o � y � � y a � `� m � m �.. �: ��''� oo N w N �.7 .L� W .P � W Z N � � « W � `" W � � o y o � �. � ro. 0 r � � W � ° W � � � � � o o � ° :n � N N t�i� N �D 00 '�O J c� y O . o h.� m ro _ � � ,-, n cn �-• N N � O� N � O W N �-. W �.I W CA O'� �O �O a Z� . (W � :-� 4.1 W �D �D ? (n O� y dq � � � � '� 69; � �J'; "J `� 0 �j � � � � r0�0 J (�j� � � �O � Z� C "' V� • C. pp CA �p i-+ �I C� W n" N � • w�. ....Ir.; W �—. .A Oo N 00 Q J �. � .�0: � � � W O� W (J� 00 00 .p. �O� O W,, a z: s� � � � ' s � 00 N O� .A J .A Oo ,.1 Q� v �= .�0:: w w p� .P �O ,a O r0 W O ,p ,P's, � �. � O p O O O O O O O p �� ; A� CD �s � N � � C� �S C' Oo Q1 O .A �O W �O N �7 .A� tn = o (/�. W O .P .A N v v N �D .P dp �"'e:: � � � 69 � �D ►�1' . pp oo � C� .A O� � oo Q� Cn �n ''O W o �p N Oo W ►• �1 N r0 v W � O .? ��.1 W C\ O�0 O�o O 00 � �• � �. � � � �O 0 � � � r+�I 01 J W � � p �� N� � O CT 0�0 0�o O 00 � �p �� O t,n Cn W J �D Q� N � �P .ON1 N 01 W v W .A �l J �\ � W � � � N � � � o o � COMMENTS BY TI� CITY OF EAGAN TO 'TI� FEDERAL INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON AVIATION NOISE MA.Y 13, 1997 The City of Eagan, Minnesota. appreciates the opportunity to make the following comments as part of FICAN's series of public forums. The focus of the comments is the encouragement of continued or new research in areas which will benefit the aviation industry and noise affected communities. , • Noise Abatement Depa.rture Profiles - Current FAA policy ca11s upon airlines to define a distant and close-in deparhzre procedure for all aircraft types and permits airports to select which of the procedures are to be used from each runway end. Both of the procedures, as defined by most airlines, involve reductions in climb rate at certain altitudes. Certain distant communities and some others with lazge azeas of noise compatible land use may be better served by departure procedures which eliminate such climb reductions or implement them later in the take off procedure. Since distance from the noise source is among the key factors in determining its impact, reseazch regazding the noise abatement effectiveness and opera.tions and mairitenance consequences of more aggressive departure procedures would be valuable for communities and the industry. • Ldn 65 Standazd an.d Methodology - The Ldn 65 standazd is extremely controversial. - Supporters argue that it may not be perfect, but it is the best indicator we have of the � � significance of noise nuisance. Noise impacted communities are always interested in � finding a better indicator. Even if that is not possible, two issues ought to be considered. First, the Schultz curve used in determ;ning nuisance levels is based on surveys of individual responses. These surveys should be regularly updated and validated because changes in the nature of the noise environment has the potential to change responses. A related second point is that noise impacted residents aze beginning to note that with the decline in single event noise levels and the continued growth of operations, the repetition of overflights has become bothersome at greater distances from airports. Even if Ldn remains the most appropriate metric to quantify noise im.pacts over periods of time, research may indicate that the nuisance level at different Ldn levels is changing over time. There may be validity for the federally recognized level of nuisance to be at 60 Ldn or even lower. • Land Use Compatibility - In addition to noise abatement departure profiles, cities which have provided areas of noise compatible land use aze interested in other operations or air tra.ffic control procedures which will effectively contain noise impacts within those areas. In the case of the City of Eagan, the City is actually penalized for its foresight in planning compatibly for the a.irport because air traffic priorities place the majority of alI operations over not just the commercial areas of the City, but the residential ones as well. If the federal government is going to continue to encourage compatible land use as the means for local governments to participate in `� i the noise abatement effort, operational means must be found to further min;n,ize impacts adjacent to but outside of the noise compatible areas. FICAN can be effective in undertaking studies in this regard. • Aviation Noise Effects - The noise abatement community and others have long debated the potential health effects of extended noise exposure. Definitive reseazch in this area could better inform federal, state and local decision making about capacity growth� and the actual costs to airport neighbors. ., o Source Noise Reduction - Encouragement of further means of source noise reduction will be essential to the continued growth of the airline industry. While the definition of actual Stage N standards may occur at some time in the future and ultimate fleet conversion to such technologies would occur after that, continued study may offer some benefits to not only the noise affected community, but to the efficiency of the industry as well. Study should focus not only on engine noise which is significantly reduced in Stage III aircraft, but on air&ame noise as well. • Compensation for Noise Impacts - As a part of the recently concluded Dua1 Track Airport Planning Process in Minneapolis-St. Paul, considerable discussion revolved around tools for community stabilization and receiver-based noise mitigation strategies in azeas of continued and e:cpanding operations impacts. As demand for capacity growth continues, communities would benefit by a broad based study of successful means of noise abatement and noise impact compensation. These may include eYpansions of Part 150 programs, gradua.ted sound insulation programs, purchase assurance programs, preferential tax programs, direct compensation, additional tools for redevelopment to noise compatible land uses and other concepts. It would appear ihat further research of innovative noise compensation alternatives would be worthwhile to a11 noise impacted communities. ► � � O O � O ^., �� {.+ LO � A w � a � N O O •y N O •� ��s�. Uo �� : � T �' �s rt � � � � � '� C� W , r� ��., � `o' m j p � T � � � � • T ` � 0 � � � � �� ^ '� pq' � 3 � � � t e��D A � -� � G. 9 � 0 � O A i �, �, ro � ` � � . T � n .i �, � � � � � � =� ° �m � � � n� � � � �. `v°, � � � A � e�p �e � � � � � A `.� � � O � � n =a�' ,;" � `°� �a' � ..R, � � � v�o �'; � � � °o r. � y. � � a � � -�s o' � � ��a � �e �e -s �,. � �� c � � ^' �S a �, M "�, A .Y G O . a � � � _ ( ` � � � ✓: n- •' � � ; !'; ► . � W � Q d � W Z � O a. � Q a N � �: �� • • ; • 'r�j" bA O�>-�t� C� G R, C�� S�' Q,,, rh v� p O v� ��...+ o y c��• .� a ^-' a� L� e. p U� s o ai .G `" G� � C 3� � w. o a �;� c,,3 E.�� en�,� c y o � °� C° e° ^ '� � � o � c,,��°.�aia�• ��w> E .-� U"^! W�� '�a� .r+ "..7' O d � C G' '�' V CO •O .� U O � O � � � � C � � N � '.�'1. M�1 G > y a�V �� a°'Q `� ��'� �� E ca � Q 'v, .0 ��" o �-L; 0�.�'��''b,� C �.jb 3-r'a��"o� °'a�3 3.cywo � .?� .� � �'' � y .�' �: C�� y w C•� �� N C� y pp 'oa�ac � � o � a�.�c°� o•� �a "�,�, ao ��.� , � a"�ci Q a� 4`d'. ��, �.:� � a> W'•t�/! +.�+ i3r ��" f�q �V] � t^ N� Q� i�.� �J- � � � bA '� ..�.� "t� '� � �� a� E �� a~+ y � � p, o a� �� 0 cu � ""' U � .�c 'c � � � V �C.�� .��aa^ '�w'°�� N C "� � �. M y U � ' 'd �, c� � Q •�.^ R� C � �. � 'O "O p ��j: C•,S' d N � C C w>. C C�C p C� �`7I �y�t'�� E.�' �33 ��,. m ��g �N,o�� yo �� p � O.y� � �� C� .. O��,'.7 dl .� C'.r_'i .d' Cs� C� V � � � ' � � R.C) bD C N .O bo.�o o��o��m Z�°p g�3�� ° � `� . y T' � '� a�i � `� b � a�i a .� v�..... � e`� .c a•� ,p � � p � t� -N � •C��C � •v�i O bD ;o � � `��,� °a'�'� c o a�i �� c :� �,w a'�i�°n c a+ c� �'0 3�� a.a � � � C � � � � O .S O p �' c� � y O C � � .� 6�j � 'tV0 � � � � � O � �U • � .�., � O � : .�. '{p"" y Ci� O �. .�S bA � Cy C^" >+ ,u N � � ecJ � � � y > � ,=M ;O � v� � U ni O �q •,="J- •��., �o a' v�-ri 'o a> � � 'o t�3 - .`~� e�a � '�' ^ �, 3 v� '� �, A`"�+ a�i a�`�°� `�' o � a� c•b�� 3 � � .G 6� h � `� b4 C R, v� •�a � ° � �p °�' � � C � a�i a> �-s�a �? o�•�_;�°a g aA y�°�,; 3. o�� `�° .a•'w�a�� a� a• �a� y a � p„ � r, °�'v��oo4.� �� a� 3� .�'��p � ��.�'��,�o3c '�°Q'�y�3'" °'�� w o w y Vb•��,'�>"^y�o��.a�i,gwg� �p..c Q � C V C7 ".�'l. U'C' � v� �i � G' C vr �p w C� 0�0 ' y� M Qy aE•o,3 orJ. •� � aeaa� G� �� 3�0 0� a c�� " � 'tJ E� U .� °�i .0 � � O c� �ii � i� '� w .fl �+ '� W � � +-� �Sg�:� d �•�r��. c � � � S �:o� ; ,�° �� .�. bc�,-� � � � �o � 9 �' c�i.a y� � � �'� °�' a.3v. �� c°��.��i~g��°'8 oa��ic�i�.�.��'�� i�� ab a3 0 �� o � aR �.,��,� �� „ a� ��.,� � o � � °a,� o � aUi � � �'��' �� .°a�E. o� N w � .s��yw�a�i,�a'��.��c�,��o`�' �a3iCa��,� > a��'a,�oc��°� �'°°' ��°'HoE�o—�E ��.� o' ,o c>�a��0� �,�a E� ��a` a,�'�� a S a� x; .� ''� ¢ � � 3 o a5 a �' `��' � � � c�v c � 3 •� °� � � oo .Tqa Hw �� b � a�''i'�� a��•�U° G.� a� c°,�� c�• �d �' Q w � 'G '� �a'r�'i at � � � o w •e'3 'O �� ' � b ° p, b Gi O c� �n .� •o ..., O :� � W��'wv�, �;• c�d' 75.� c� ��.a 3,��. p�,'� W o.:. C F> o e�v C ��.� '�p ,�,� e'r'd � .c 3� ea a) t� d � 'C7 "^7' U� C. .-� C. ►�"y °� E ��"c°'i �w° E �P.-�r- " � �co� o.-r o ��,��w�� a � � r • •' .. a, I � .� ,.,; y � � � � , ti ' � a� � o M � � .� . � a� c b ,,r � � L .,� o w , c3� Q,p C� v'� w � y,� p� � � p,� � � �j U � � p � '� -"'i �i CC av � � O � � ^G at '� 'C '+.. w C� ' �\ •� V � •C�d '�'� N � � N d O C � v�i � 'C ��,a`��e�o°w'3. pao�, �b' �� d Vi CCI a�. ' b �� V�"��' y Q ��-�,,,+ �y 'Cy L: 1� a'�`y`�d`dZ- ��a.��p '7�A .Q i � � W ' a U 'l7 O � N ++ ^�' '.. � �,-� �'C�'"j e�q°4 b° - w N 3 0� a> a�i �� . • � y "" � V 'G S�'� V . . � a`S '� .c � � ea p. >, y ,� p � rj �� ,-, tw 3 y• c> a� ' a> ^' o,> o w v, � �� vy� � � � C7 00 c`d � '� � � '. � w 3 C :d � �, � a1. . U � 'C �C � � p3q.i.. �: . � � N Aist � ,°�n ,_'�, a, o c, o ;c � pp ,� •g .� c'�i :b a � ,¢.�c °�� a a�iH �.�C7� � t�..fl 3 a�i C ) =ptes dauui3 „`�urnour io �ur10E�s asanl ann za�.aunnMaux ann ira.un �odirE s;�. �.E �uaur�san -uT �o punj �Ec� axeui o�. �utj� - SEM 1�pOC(t�IIE xLIITj.� ��lIOp j�� ( l •p�sdauuT3'am�.n� s,�odne a� �a �Ipn�s �a�i-uaeas a� �o uot�ajd -r.uo� a� �u�n am�tpuadxa �s� pa�t$Iap �� at{a '�.�nq uaaq anEu p�tous �ur�iEd aioui ��no�� •suomEiado apispuEi�o za�EueUa ��'uEaa7 �ai� p�s �sa�uol sa�Eds .�u�dn� -�o puE uod� a� o� saejasuia� �urnup a� a�doad aioui asnE� -aq �i�a�zei.,'�uin+�oz� �s s,�i � •�ua�iad S£ uasu seu �unt.�d �zodzrE io� pusnaap a� `�66i a�utg. B'�'ll� dfld�e� � --'P�s ue�o3'�sam�zoN o� alq�lda��E si Eapt auZ '�u?PI?TiQ a��o .�sod. a�p: ;o .do; uo ��nq aq pInonti �u�z�d aa�iojdnag -uod -aTe a� ;o �no �uip�al pEo= a� �o apis �.�u a� �uo st ��a�M '�oj ��d a� �o �eq �noqE ddn��o nuv► �u��nq aa�o �sod a�Z .� � •p�s :�autn3 � •. ��ot �u��d . aa�toldUaa sau�iry �san�►�o,� a� o� panoui aq � a��o.�sod atp. 'asmo�IIo� �aai� a� IIo sa�E�_ n�au �o uo� -anstsuo� at�.�zo� �En�► a�etu oy � . � "�Rqnd ai� dq pasn �an� st a��o �scid �od2re ar.� '�CEp E smou �z uado a��o �sod 8aie u��r�odor�a�a dTuo a�. sy •a��o �sod �odiie aq.� aeona o� azat{�v� st uia�uo� io[Ecu-aup ' . . ' . 'S�IIOI� �e=anas ua� sats=aeo�uo� pas�i anE� � sii"Eid' uoisuedxa. au,I, � � sanss! y�ti►o1J. � •�a� �xau aq� ur pa�is;nai aq �r�n s�.sE�aio� a� piEs aH ' . •pres dauur3 „'�uc -aas ai� ana �o.z� �o piroj �a� �rn� �sEt:uE� �t,�uot N►ou puE Teu -�a�. �utj.spca a� �o ��tqern a� st s�uaLuaia io[Eut a�. 3o ac�p„ ' '�Imcj az� sa�E� �aca pu� �uo�.�d azotu'dEnnuni N►au E au� a� �.q �cnuua� n�►au � pl?nq o� auin aq �iEiu �,i 'sanu�uo� �nno� .pai�adxa-us�-ia�se3 � a�.- 3I 'OOOZ jquri; pa�aadxa. �ou;��o� �:008`£Lfi� � a� �i��ozdde si i�niiu►`-`OfiS`8S� - � �ni l��o�; au,L 'aio�aq �a�Ca�: uer.� `' ia�iq.�ua�zad:Z�L aia�► s�oa��.. puE. ".s�uiPuEi. .te�.o�. `;.`966i uI - � ' : �� •.rea� � �ua�iad � �noqE aq o� s�oaxe� pue s�utpuei� ut �iu�ox� , pa��a[oid �uiuuEid uotsuedxa'. �o �aq a� �E ise�aio� £66'[ �' .. •pa��adxa ue� sar�rq azE ssaqumu. �.��'.`nz au�. uI • , 00� `titl /�W��e �1�. ° � � . •�u�.ied aioru �ut -p�nq.uo pa��s �uT1�a�.�nd�u+� sa�Ei as�i oi sElndociun aq pTnonn j.T 1ET�1 }�BiIIEM jCIL'�j '�S �o aTptu►oQ uuo j iauoissiva�uo� -aseaiaut.a��i �up�.red E asodo.rd �i ��zs acp uaunn aun( ui uotst�ap �E�.,a�uz o� anEc� dEui. siauotssturu�o� „•��qnd a� o� a��ds zo [saiu -Edtuo� .re�-Teluai] o� a�Eds an�. o�. �.Ren+i no� iat�a�nn �o �uoud E �: sauio�aq �ineai �I„ `P�s �auui3 . . � .ptes usnu�o3'IeunuzaZ �uor�Euia�ul daiudumH a� oi �xau �.oZouo�g a� uo sx�ap p�nq o�. st anpEu=a�te ia�o djuo a�y �, �ano� o� �.uEn1 �,uop �ia�. �E� �� ac� P1o��.anEc{ sai�ua�8.. �a-��.uai au1 `siauio�sn� �ut�uar � -uanuo�ut �noqE pacuaauo� . '„�si��ap a� IIT St�EM'[E � Si jrnap aqy„ •prns e�g. „`uozst�ap aq� �ut -xecu �o ssa�oid a� sE �Tn�r,�rp s� � aq �Etu [p.uedxa �o�.j uotst�ap a� �uc�uazualdun o� anacu auy„ •uo�uzuioojg 3o aT�?H uuo[ iauaTssiunuo� s�i�s �xatd -uro� st �inr��E �o jstnas aqy •uodz� a� �o apis �iou a� uo ��nq , aq �ou � �iEnnuru �3� E �Eu� � uE�Eg puE sitodEauuiy� asruioid ! o� am7.n� ac� o�uT �� ntioH .� � '�r.,ge.n � �znn aia;za�ur �oc� : prnonti a�is ac� uo �uauidolanap os �En�unz naau a� so� „auoz a�aF�„ E se uo��utruooTg ut a�.is ia�ua� �ay� ar.� dnq o� zaz�a� ,C •�upjzed ��qnd puE sa�E� a=oui so� uiooi a�uz o�. saz� -ua�E iE�-��uai p� a��o �sod uodz� a� anout o� azac� .� ' •sp�ag �q puE asmo� �o� E s� sasn pia��ig pueT �zod -ne a�. x�Eq aXe� o� ua� .� :se suotsi�ap uotsuEd -xa q�ns �tnn papn�oi� �pua�e uotsstunuoa E o� pappE uaaq seu �u�ied a� pjmq o� aia� •.rea�C �xau �i�enninu z.�nos-�au _e �ur�.�ruasuo� ut�aq puie saTpnls Te�uatuuo.rcaua a�a�dvaa� o� ��s �yy� a� uo spuEuiap o� pappE sEu �tmj.zed aioui so� paau auy -(�� uois ��-sivauio� s�od� uE�r�odo�ay� a� io� �uiuuetd �o �a�� `�auur3 � ja�iN p�s u�s�na .�tno� �.sn( sr �ut . -xied — �unT.�d �o �.no ai a�.. -Xead TanEsi Xeaiq-�uuds a� �urmp sautR lE jin� sEn� `du�i uiscu a� io; dnx�Eq pa�ud-=an�oi E`�oZouo�g a�ouiaia�q� Bang •pasoj� =anau sEnn �t 'ggsi �o sauEnb �sn� a�. �uunQ -�.renuE j a�uis saLun gg pasol� puE � uaaq sEu �umaial uieui a� 30 �.uo� ui dtuss �untisd auy •i�d �urn�o� �ja3 didz��s ;so� a� st a�E�o�s �u�ied a� `N►ou �� •ssea�i pI �xau ac� zo3 s�isnauTu a� uo zo ��u =�a� atp ut 'spsoi s,uodsie ar�. uo uor��nzisuo� =a� -uno�ua �rn�► siajansz� `P1o3un�suETd uotsuE�a s� � •assonl unao� sEq a��euoqs �u�ied a� paE qu�� o� sanu�uo� s�q�i� �o iaq�nu a� '�uiiauruns ase satsiano.�uo� uotsuedxa ��.zodi� � -uopEu�a�ui InEd •�S-s�od�auuiy� a� �E sa�8� aioui pu� A�n�►uni � p�nq o� uoist�ap a� ia� z�a� � la�uM,�'n�s aunqus .t�s a�i8 al,ne'i �8 _ 1 i / . ! . - i :'i ' . / n�� r r r� •..� �f� � i � . �r�� t � �� ii��.� • �r•i .� ..� �i . ��r�� . r �� •.�� .. . ��.� .r z 6 -� �-,s -�n�� .L ..�.� �� •pres ozTe� �aQ `s�odEauury� ut �Enauns �nos-�zou a� o� uoi� -tsoddo ��t�.r�od nnau as�z pjno� �tnod �E� uo �� a� �� uaui -aai�e u��az O� t�jijiQELIt u� •�.j.t� acp o� �ue�irisuoa E s� oqnn iauotssnucuo� S�IOCI3TE sauuo� E bz�� jaQ uE j p�s '�uasuo� s�t �no�uu► ��nq aq Plnona ianau 1�EMIMS t� E �Eijl 2�iIE3ilSSE a�. io� um�ai uT �Enr►uru �nos -'[.[�,IOLI M2LI E �0 ZIOT��itI�SIIO� a� puE �odz� a� �o uoisuEd -xa a�. o� paa�3E sr�odEauuty� •au�pEap OZOZ a� pa�cIa�� s�.��tag E�opuay� 'OZOZ puo�aq �anti pua�xa pjnoi�s ��E�uo� au� �iEs pue a�.EYaua� p�nonl �Ennutu �� e asiou a� o� pasoddo azE �oq uE�Eg pue stlodEauuty�. ,�•spaau uo� -Er�E �ut�.�a[oid io� ajeuor�Ei �iuE pEu aM aia�n� pouad auip E puo�. -aq �no a��.s aui putq o� �duza� -�� qaiar.� perE saeiasmo putq o� 'si� op o� sn plo�. ain��staa7 au� ssajun �qo[ sno sEn� �t Taa� �,upip aM •�� i�top zo� sisEq �dt�utid acuos �urn�i� �nor.�uvi �E� puo�aq s�uauz�tuiuto�_a�ui o� �uE�isau aiE aM 'OZOZ �Q a�iti xool o�. �uro� st �oci�� ac� �EqM enoux ann xui� aM„ •pTEs uossapu� „'uua� � anEz� o� aaEu no�t — ianaio3 uo sao� �E�1 ��E=�uo� � anEu �,uE� no�„ •p�s uosiap -� bZOZ I?�un �En�uni at�1 pimq o� �ou aai�E Ijuu� �yys au.L •�uasuoa na� mo�.�rnn �iEn�uru u�� pItnR o� �ou �utaaz�� sat�i� �urioqt��iau • ac� �.Tn1 I�E3�LI0� E o�.rit .ia�ua � o� �� a� paxsE am�ETsi�az auz '��EMLTriI Ij1�� E 30� s�Eld arn�n� iaao �yy� a�. u�tn� �ut�.Et�oAau aze ue��g puE silodEauury� •ptes uoszapuy �puEl �urdnq , s�zE�s �t azo�aq �En�uni aq� io3 sarp��s �.�Edurr �e�uauiuoir�ua au� �stt�,� o� a�I PtnoM �HY�t au.L •�iEn�uru nnau , a� io; auoz reai� E sE sa�ua� �ay� pjo a� �o a�is a� �.nq �uu� �T za -�aqna apt�ap o� �� au�. �uz�zn St IIOtSSTiIIiIIO� sai�in�E3 s�ods � � uE�nodo�.ay� a� `�.IOC�.TIE a� �o apts uo�utuioolg a� up � •uosiap . -u� uioZ �iauto�.1.E �yT,�t ptEs `g661 ' �. `I£ '1�p ipun �sBal �.� �S.atunuztuo� �, a� o� aiqEjrenE aq � spTa��eq ' aus •d�nauru i�nos-uuou a� �o � uor��nrasuo� io� puEt a� a�E�En ` o� a�r�ou ,s�iEp 06 PIa��i�?2i anr� o� paa.t��e d�ua�ai �� a� ��Es � -sa�au sEnti �i.aio�aq tua� �utsoT -° o� pa��a[qo �.t� ar� asnE�ag ' , •�sod=re ar.� uioz� pas�ai pue� . uo ��nq spla��q puE . asino� 3Io� aqa asol jiuv► �.i� ar�. uauna st . P1ar,�c1�� io; ��nu� uonsanb � � sJoqy�iau �uu4'�oN �sat�ua�E iE�-��uai a�{� �q paidn��o a�Eds ur dui�i uceui at�� o x�Eq au� �E si �unt.�d �iiqnd asocu p�nq o� a�Eid �saq aul prEs u�cu�zo3 � •�uiuu�td lzodt� 3o io��ai -tp `LIELI11103 LLIt j piES 'SIE2� aA� uI OOO�S IaLI�OiIE 'PiiE MOLI OOO`S jEuot�ippE ue -spaau �sodliE at�� 'sa�Eid �unlsEd 000`T i �?M •�.iuno� E�o�Q ur auo pimq u�� sa��s uod.rcE au� pczBdxa o� pa�on — uoisuedxa ��odit� o� u��oxd -dE papaau-sE-pitnq '�su ssaj `anisuadxa ssal E io� a�uaia�aid � •puE uodiTE nnau E �o �.so� u�tu a� �ui�t� — am�Eist�aZ atTi uaun� �uuds lseT papua �ipn�s au,�„ • • /♦ r / • � . / / , / II I` 1 // , . � , . �.. . C �� ' O y �?� "a'��'� � C n W y „a,.��,.tl.�.O �cD� �s A m C"'' "" � �p v� � � G C '� � � •" f�y.. y cn �"3 G" �� ""Y .�-�+ p CS' cD � . � . , co w � y, ,..,. � Gp O cp "'Fy' �.. �S � p`C cD O . cp � � ^' ^ ' O � � � c�II tS. ""^", , �„��, tD � � �� -"^s � � �. Q,'co � y �' A �ij- .' . o�n cc aq ", �'V,�'C p� `� -. N•�j. "Cf b wrna a� �� o g w � � � 7`'r crn .".`�`H c�o_ � �. cn aq ^ - .. ��-_ ..� c7•p._....Z�{v- �.a' �, °' � . c�n�� c�o�°4�°' _ . w O � � Sc � v' 'C R � M ` • O"1' N - ' � lD • � � (p � y�=n �. T C�n `Ci O yi Uq ' '.'� _ � O p o �, O o o'• p� O�7 "'�,rl •. �r ° o R¢m y� o � � �'�o � � r � . - A- � �' � < � �' . c�`o o 'Q � �. to� C ��'��fi:fl�c��''v�'^,ssi_. � �:c�ow�'��m�ic`�omy GA < ^ ¢, � n y C�D �n-. � � � '.�' O `r7 ' � '�° . � � n y ¢1 � � '� � Q- � f� .. uGi O� � O.,""�. n m�. .+'a - , � y v'. �. � ,� „�, ""' m N cD v�yi. � � CC7 � - _. � �. ^" � EA � " O " - ' - �, Q � ti. cc..". G c�D a' � tD � � O - ��l • ..,_ . �- � .a ,,� ".3 n �» .��3_ � n � A� fD � _ � . ��,�� Q �� y' �.�. .. �d? �� ro ,c�n � �'.��0.i �.�p°,Q . (� - fD 'C `J .". «... .... ("� G. a ," .~,.. �� . �'0'�R � C" � p '''`� .. _ . ; w �-t - �' -. p � � fD w. �=* � . : C'r+ - . � � ,r�..:y � . � Q . `G fy �. cfl �' ' _t�/�. f0 'r'S �. O '.± G7 ^- _ . - - ;' f�V . . _ � +y". � �' °a ' ¢. m o 7q a+ `-' C/� , . � l .��'%. _ . � c° T F3'.�. �-'"i ro ,�43 w � . � - :. , y, '�.Z': � y � frD� "J' GU .z "'"f ` ` y .L�t. � ;._ � � C. � � ..�-'7� ''3 � "" � CD � .. `� . CS,'.3 fCUq � Q 't .. Q �'.�` O A; .� :: C.`C� O c'� .. ' `^`".� ,.�.� �, ai :.:� . � � _� � V�.y O..' � O� o� ro��, �.`C., ' -`.�-�', d0 "�'� , - O �Q" "cD'`_��`3 . •' �-ns -^- p-�y.'� :: � �n�� ". „ ` p .. us co "s "''T � � �'II �. Q' \ v . "'^� � � � 0. � � .�� • ""M 0 Jy ,."'+�,_ �n cD O "'"�'�(nD: �,� , � i1,�y� � � � � � � � �' � - . �- �A �. oQ„a.� �G�.w`�. t�'p ,��, A� � ('C 'G 6� '� T G� �, : . l9 oq� c�oww� coc�"'��„ . � �, n ai o ..�"""+ ID :; � A; � '=i=::�.....,:� . ='��'=' �" . .:. �. . .r" :"'' t9 fD ".S fD .`S (0 4G (D ' � : , . Y .,4_��+__-. . . _ , _ ..-...... � � Q . � � �. ' . p) � -p O �, O ... _ _ .�_ - . 'a =a � � m -~ �m � � - .�..A� �.a� ��• . �. vr •" � "' .. m N � ..� _..�-� ��„ : . . � N � M �. 3 �� ^ a ��..c: G . 12 -, 'x �p a . �- rn � . Npq • � . .. o �p.,p: � _ 4, � �c'� O Qq � � / _ .�. i M� �� .�0..... Q� CO�D � O C �i,,,/i/ ��'+, � � .. 3 lA X �. � ` }�- ,� �.. . �-� '- /� t_4' ��i.,ar� " � ' O.. n . Q �7 N O ' �y . . _ , i-"�^„ . c �.: 3 � �p. � -< : !� .� r� - , s � � - o � � .p � � /�,. pf. � �^�� i�`ur' � '.,m.,. �. n p N� �.' \V .:j'�. � _ '��'��'�`� ' 'P . � � C O I-� _ � .." _ � �j��'�T N � � m ,-" O� � _. �� 4 q � `i+.,�'r [�J�� . GI ��. `'� lD. � � Q � e. �-- � x-��'� r Gt� O`° � c o c ;'��„ � Ov m a'= m�4 ��' e . ,eyte�. �� -c.��` �- . m � �p � �� e/ � . y� i'L G ^'`�'%.�- ,. fli � � 03. � �c,�o��1- .�r��.;. � " ro �, � , ;. � d Q . �i'�- „ "` ''�,�� .�-..;;,. N � a�n � o�u � �?'w's . w��`�,��,_. a._ N' �.l'Y ;�� X N�p o :y � ,...�.E��.�D � a :: . y = � fJ � �/!�� • _:xs�+ ��. i� '�'. ' C -p C � CD �y ��, � � " �� 3 � Q � :^ :Y,f''6"'"f�� F�� , � � '�. (� Q O . ro �� `s ^�� ' � � � N �=' `� � .c� � �'�.'_.z'a _ �. + � O � � ;.� � �, . . • � �- � �, m a r%' �. � `7 `,Y,,, k� �K 91 a.' . . � � -p f->'p ' :.-a '� �: ' �. � .�. � � c, � o -�o Q ,�. . a. ` � ". ',w�„'�"�� .+ O tn & 4�,� . ��_ �i� �N��o . 1 d -.+r.. '� -'. ,�7� . p. � n• � 3 '� .�' �"� h . if+'C''"�'" .a � . . _ ��k.�..�-� >'°,, s�,�,., `�`.�''-`��"�.� . o�i y � � � ir�a,.�. �c �„'�,�+.**c � �.�, � m � ��'� # ._vai"� -Fv.,,,3�,�2.... in m � � •------�--...... a s �► �_. 0 , -• ��.-. �y, '' . _. �' A �.� �°c � � o�� z,�'� � � c�a?.m n � o ...o� �, c.-�c G d`�a�x�"�'"3� �v m`c �� M^ �� < „� � � � Fp °' .` � m '_' `� O ,.,. O � O �- � . �'�C �� Q�C d" O„„ `,,,{ ^ p¢ A� "'"�' �"..± n� �' fp drn �7 �. c�o - �y M n o �, °w c�'o � ,,,w� ^ � � w, � � � � y a�"�p � : .�� w'0 C.� � ,.m �►.. `C C7 � � � � `C Vi � � � n � N ~ ►� � C�D � .. � w ,-. o ca � a� � ... m � �s � o � � � �" �.� o 'i'x��w�a.`� .�°'w� 'o� .�;.o NO u~'i ai r-� �',.� . y. '.3' '„3" � m O�„�,, O cD G n �ry N�' ,ti, cp ^ tD "�.1' �_ r"„ w `C Cy co l °° c o a� ro�"�" ca' �" o�° M`- y "�1 � � c� �� m �'ro �� ;; � ��- °; ow�a�.� ��_�°°� -�'ro'o Q . �'m �:°��wco° om:°'�'.^ c�oo° �. r-� o �-s .-. ., � '=r � �-�t '� � '� "J' N G CC "'"S� � CD .��, � ^' G � !D O �C � .-. ,.,. � C c�DU„p.,, '"� � n '•7 p �" !�y �.-, w�'.wv,�,��o,�o��A:a�e�-�.`-.r^i � y `C �-e `C c.`Y� C°�°c a'� °�� oQ�„� °� y°^�`�c`..� o $ n.v O" �@., w� f� ,-�C. o y`�' C c�o r"'i � �; (�, . �� :ycwo�'� '�`��N��`�° �.'.� � co m a ,.,, t� c � � .n.�T ,.C, O � „��'„ � �' O: a• C' O lp � ..� T � � "a oc�o�'oc�� .��`a�^Q-'��yrn • � • � � .. ao a� c', �� r� rf' .°-��ofD�� :°�c�v�`,n�o: � �+ � ow�� acn � � ► °►�' � o C� x .'C � � G'�•°"m ."a" Vj � ww ,..� ro �,-.�.., o c��•�°d� ��a.�`D�,�w� o �e � n. ..� cc �e aa �c ^ ,,. � a. � yo _� N� _��'�w ��'�pyo o yoo , i �"ct � � ` G x � �S c�e °.'a �- � � ac �. p:� x .-t� „"' �, cfl -_ �" co• w��° �- �, c� a v, �. .t co co �� a w�' ye ;... 'C fD 'T Q' rdn.'C m v, Q � �. -� :-r'C �C r. "� S� "1 "'�i`. �v' O O" f9' '-' . .:_ �� y o •sr �s"w o•v, o n�,.� o•'-� fD _ •lC• � rt 131. y r..f .� Q � y r�y. �. M � � �� r�� .....� � �' _..'.`- ""3 y CD '" "� w iC m � tn 'S ¢' `rT �' . Q O 'r3 . � r7� �,:.'{fl.'L? � cs. :' :; � �. w � � co o _ � ,.�, w c w vr c,�i " � -. a� ,.�� ,A ' � . � a, � cr' �D,� �� o .:p.�e � � o �- � -. .ia, °�'. i'v :� - �� "J f�. CD fD o-'i G`'< .G A fD �-n fp A� o--.•� N'•,. � �' � � c w �- �, co ' a;, C �,�' � . 'B o yt �, �• .0 � �°. . . ,^. � co dq. ,.�t .v�i � •�•r � m c0 y � i-�i 'C vs' t�. �. � .�; � n- � - �v `� �, w co m ,., .* -- cc v; . G o � G °7 �o � .° � �, . : ^'" � N w ra � ^' ""' a ► y '� in � Q" • ' . � � � . ' . • _ 7"' � O. �' �: Sv � CD '`3" � rJ G y "� ,-. � �3. �-r ' ' "'v'' r"i. � ... .. _ ° m� on, .:° am . fD y w ►y � � o o� o.� .__�.a.".. � �-i O t^p vi .. �-n '� �S V' C tn a �-s � fD y '-[ �p .. � . v� Q�q - .- , � "C7 � f] M dLi. �p ^' "�' w r...3.� � � fD -: O -"O �-.. , �� w C�o � �A ^" '��' CD ri CD � . � 1� �' Lr CO � ' . � � .. - ' � a � "� � .'S F� n� � � fD � ."'S tD ►t QQ � - Q. fC �" - � y� "O O 'L7 � � c9 "' n �'C O � C!� �v' � p •' n C �. � n, 'y."' °��Rc�o��o��,� oa��v4 _.c� a � 9 w � �"cc �nco � m w C:ro c~o � •co �E� '� �..� �C'�� .. L^. .��r Q 'r1 `� � '.± G ``J 'CS 5'+ «S' � (D Qq y .� a '�7 � '� ro �' � r�-. CC � ;: � � m � w c�D =� �.O.fD � �.H�� Q'p a'�` � �� p' � , ow v; .,w�,-* �ccc w� �� 'wo� � '�,� 7�C."CS y GC ",,,{' y m 'CJ "_ � fD "CI CD ."""+ � ?p ' t�i� C � � � � p' y ^ � ^ n � � .y.�. �-�, � � C3� C G. ='C `� ....'C .�+ � � �? � :aa � � y m � � � ¢' � �' O.� m c� n ro a' � � ��wa�'i":�w�;'G.c�m��u'�° �r.^�v��D �_v'='i,e "'`e � Ly � y `C � �, „►eGt � "w �. iy ¢' y c�"D m O' p; ' � � `� n � � ID :. C .�.. � f�D .C.'_". � a ��., O C " � Q .' ^ C. � � � "' .G ' ' C � � � =- `S' � '�'� � c�� m G. A) cD ►ti ' � G H O .* "' ,� C ?;.'�o� ..°�wa,o�,v ��ca'c cn ��.�y o��,� ~ co ,-. �� y,o a� �� c M`o -�•c y-n� c;� o o' �.�0 Q-c�o .�-.m��°cro o�'��o��`o'�.o c.�coo ��. i � r"'J � � .~+ .�+ i-q fD � i"�.i' ..i � `C �t �, fD. , fL V� 7"� N G. y A"�' ^*, ' O"C � f1 � � t� pi �-* tD ,,,�"'',. _ . ty _ y C tD O� r�.^� cD �p O (p � �'� ��-X+ ��p-- ('�') f'� �-�+ i-: W 'C � � ^ f�. .�.� pp' "�..5' O C7 C. `.w7' � A' � CD (a, - �° ,-. ,-. °� � ;�. " � � ° c�o c° � w �' v�i `�.0 co F� �'O�C .eDe C�"��'.'L7 v' �• G. �� r* �� G 7i'� O � � � �-• 'J �. G. W '.""'+ ,^, .. "„3' � ' O ':-'2 � � � x, .•~ �. ,,. � � w �. ,� �: ac . � �, � �..' °, � � � y... y �� . <.. ��c o yaa � a`c �-+^a � a�mm��^o�'_CDo�c 67a� oc�o^�� .. co� o�o o � � � � �� s-� o � w'd� ��.� w:° �n a � o� c- .c�a�ow�.�oNQ-co�a:o �, �...�o � �oo�e��oo,�a��`��.� 4.0 �, �e�. �'"'c°�e�x•-,a;-�.aao�w��'x �° °O,�.y . wa�i�v`�;�o�cxo��a�iTG o� ,.�'°'°'N�-. r,' ", C o Qq :`d cn `G a' tS. �� o� c�o o :° � " �"� �'�'•w vfD, ~.� c'�'o �•o � a� � •, � � • " `�G � co a � .�. v`, � co io � c� _ "" "^._..."".�. ".. ".. . " ' _ ' ... .._� � r� r"'3 _ _CD UQ q� p�. . . .. AGENDA . -, REGULAR MEETING !, � EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS C( EAGAN, MIIVNESOTA EAGAN CITY CO�TTNCIL CHAMBERS June 10,1997 7:00 P.M. '� � . �� i � �• f .►�•� � U 11 i' � i I .,� V. � �� .: !�,% Vi�/� -,: cJ� (�t� � )�N' � • � �� r 4� 4..; . M�U +''.�:"'^J..,��,.h� w., h �F ;'�: �.� '� •� ``43 . ..y�� b_ OLD BUSINESS A. MASAC Representation - Population and Procedures NEW BUSINESS . A. Schedule FAA Control Tower Tour and Airport Tour . �:. ,�' : '�: VII. STAFF REPORT A. NOISE Conference in Eagan - July 23-26 -�' j B. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor - April Corridor Violations � ` C. MASAC Update D. Northern Dakota County A.irport Relations Coalition y 1 �• IX. FUTURE AGENDA X. NEXT COMtVIISSION MEETING - 7:00 p.m. Tuesday, July 8 NEXT COMNIISSI4N WO1tKS�J[O�' - 7:��► n��. '�'��s��, ��3�p ?� NEXT MASAC MEETING - 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, June 24 XI. ADJOU72;l�M:ENT Azailiary aids for persorzs with disabilities will be provided upon advance notice of at leasz 96 hours. If a notice of less than 96 hours is receivec� the City of Eagan will attempt to provide such aid r �