01-14-1998 ARC PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION
AGENDA
January 14, 1998 - 7 p.m. - Large Conference Room
1. Cail to Order - 7 p.m.
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of December 10, 1997 Meeting Minutes.
4. Unfinished and New Business:
a. Comprehensive Plan Update - Review of Action Plan
* Meg McMonigal and Marc Wiegle, McComb Frank Roos, Inc.
b. Monitoring Non-Simultaneous Departures
c. Monitoring Close-In Departure Procedures over Minneapolis
5. Updates
a. MASAC Appointments
b. Request for Variance - 15 Degree Separation for Parallel Runway �
Operations
c. Letter from Metropolitan Council on Air Noise Zones/�and Use
d. NDCARC - Draft of Collaborative Issues
6. Acknowiedge Receipt of Various Reports/Correspondence:
a. Airport Noise Report for December 26, 1997
b. South Metro Airport Action Council Newsletter of December 1997
c. Runway Criteria Document - Submitted by Ellsworth Stein
d. Eagan ARC Agenda for January 13, 1998
7. Other Comments or Concerns.
: �..
Auxiliary aids for disabled persons are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. !f 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.
be redistributed on Runway 4/22 during the time period in which Runway
17/35 is being constructed. Chair Beaty stated that MAC's projection for
runway completion in the year 2003 is very optimistic and he is not entirely
convinced that the runway will be up and running that soon. Chair Beaty
stated it would make sense to redistribute aircraft traffic now in order to
enjoy these benefits during the interim period of the construction of Runway
17/35.
-_� 1 • - . - . �
.,., , .,., �
Administrator Batcheldor stated that an initiative had been presented to the
Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Coalition (NDCARC) by the City of
Inver Grove Heights to request a Variance from FAA procedures for the 15
degree parallel runway separation requirement: Batchelder stated that, in
theory, a variance would allow for smaller separation requirements that
would provide an opportunity to better concentrate traffic within the air
corridor where more compatible land uses exist.
Batchelder stated the FAA requires 4,300 feet of separation for parallel
runways to operate independently. Batchelder stated FAA policy is to issue
i ) operations using such runways, a heading 15 compass degrees apart during
simultaneous operations to avoid aircraft converging or drifting into one
another. Batchelder stated that runways at MSP are approximately 3,400
feet apart and, therefore, require this separation.
Chair Beaty stated that the request by Inver Grove Heights is consistent with
our attempts to narrow the industrial corridor. Commissioner Leuman stated
that the City should support this request.
Commissioner Des Roches inquired in whose name would the application for
the variance be submitted. Batchelder responded that all three Cities would
jointly submit a variance application to the FAA with a letter signed by the
Mayors of each City.
Commissioner Stein stated that his understanding was that the runway
separation of 4300 feet is not always strictly adhered to by the FAA because
not all parallel runways are exactly parallel. The commission recalled an old
discussion from 1994 in which parallel runways at other airports had been
studied by the City of Mendota Heights. The Commission directed Staff to
research this old study to determine if there were any FAA criteria regarding
separation of parallel runways.
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 10, 199 �
Commissioner Des Roches moved to recommended that �City Council endorse
the a request to the FAA for a Variance to the 15 degree separation required
during simultaneous operations based on the distance of separation of the
parallel runways at MSP. Commissioner Leuman seconded the motion.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
TOWER TOUR
The Commission discussed seheduling a tour at the FAA's newly completed
Air T�affic Control Tour. The Commission directed Staff to schedule a
meeting in March or April when there is more daylight in the evening so that
a tour of the tower would provide better viewing of the aircraft operations.
Commissioner Beaty stated that the Commission may also want to consider
a tour of NATCO to visit Northwest Airlines Flight Simulation Instruction.
UPDATES
Commissioner �euman reported on MASAC's vote regarding a by-law change
to increase the membership for the City of Mendota Heights from one seat to
'� � two seats on MASAC. Leuman stated that by a 23-4 vote MASAC
recommended this change in their by-laws to the MAC. Commissioner
Leuman stated that the negative votes were from the City of St. Paul who
was not happy about their representation being decreased.
Administrator Batchelder presented a(etter addressed to Mayor Mertensotto
from MAC requesting that the City appoint a second MASAC Commissioner
to fill this new seat. The Commission discussed their willingness to serve on
MASAC as a representative or as alternates. Commissioner Stein
volunteered to serve as MASAC representative and Commissioners Leuman,
Beaty and May volunteered to be alternates. Administrator Batchelder stated
the City Council would make appointments at their January 6, 1998
meeting.
Commissioner Leuman stated that MASAC announced that the ANOM
System would be up and running on December 18, 1997.
Administrator Batchelder stated that he had received a phone call from Mr.
Tom McElveen, of the Met Council, stating that Mendota Heights would
receive the awaited correspondence from the Met Council regarding Land
Use Compatibility in the policy noise zone areas by the end of the week.
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMNIISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 10, 1997
c
�=
� � � ' • � ' •
••' � � •' '� �
The Commission acknowledged the MASAC Agenda for December 2, 1997
and the October 28, 1997 Minutes of MASAC. Chair Beaty noted that on
Page 2 of the October 28, 1997 MASAC Minutes Mr. Roy Fuhrman,
Technical Advisor, reports that the growth in Operations at the Airport was
up 3% from last year. Beaty stated that with 465,000 operations in 1996
an increase of 3% is approximately 478,000 annually. Chair Beaty
wondered how many years it would be before MAC would reach their
capacity of 640,000 operations given this growth rate. Commissioner Stein
noted that on Page 3 of the MASAC Minutes that the MAC is working with
the City of Minneapolis on Sound Abatement in respect to the operations of
the proposed North South Runway.
The Commission discussed the Airport Noise Report for November 7th and
November 21 st. The Commission felt these were valuable Newsletters and
provided a lot of substantive information that helps them analyze what other
communities across the nation are doing in respect to airport noise. The
Commission expressed their desire to continue the subscription for the
Airport Noise Report Newsletter.
The Commission reiterated their request that Staff contact the St. Thomas
Academy Science Class to determine if they can test waters in Mendota
Heights for aircraft emmissions related substances.
The Commission acknowledged the MASAC Operations Committee Agenda
for December 5, 1997.
The Commission acknowledged the MASAC Technical Advisor's Report for
October 1997.
The Commission acknowledged the Eagan ARC Agenda for December 9,
1997.
The Commission acknowledged the Part 150 Policy Advisory Committee
Agenda for October 30, 1997 and the June 17, 1997 Minutes.
The Commission requested that Staff provide an update on the Northern
Dakota County Airport Relations Coalition as a regular agenda item each
month.
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER I0, 1997
5
�� •
Administrator Batchelder submitted a resignation letter from Commissioner
Bernie Gross due to his relocation to Phoenix, Arizona. The Commission
directed Administrator Batchelder to thank Commissioner Gross for his
dedication and commitment to the Airport Relations Commissian and to
acknowledge is efforts and contributions.
There being no further business, the Airport Relations Commission moved to
adjourn its meeting at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kevin Batchelder
City Administrator
AIRPORT R�ZATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 10, 1997
►�
Vl-
!.
li.
Mendota Heights Airpo� Noise Ch
apter of Corryprehensive P/an
Overall Goa1(s)
��TO Red'uce Air Noise in Mendota {y .
e1ghts„
Histor'r anci g��kground
Iil. Agency Responsibilities and
A• Metropolitan Airpo�S CommiSs°on tes
�. Purpose, Responsibilities arid p�anC)
2. Interaction with other agencies n�ng Authority
3• Interaction with local communifiies
B. Metropoiitan Councii (N►C)
1. Purpose, Responsibilities and Plan '
2. Interaction wifih other agencie n�ng Aufhority
3. interaction with local commun ties
'�• Technical inforrnation
A• Noise Contours
B• Noise Land Use Zones - old and n
C, eW
D.
E.
�tr Noise Priority Issues
At►° Noise Poiicies and Ac$'on Ste
ps
McCombs Frarrk Roos Associates
January 14, 1998
1
� Menalofa Hei hts Air
9' port iVoise Chapter of Comprehensive P/an
Mandatory Elements for Local Comprehensive Plans:
1. Adopted land use compatibility guidelines for aircraft noise
• aircraft noise zone map
• identify incompatible land use activities
• strategies to remove incompatibility
• describe overiay zoning ordinance
� describe local building codes
2. Map of airport airspace safety zones
• preparation of airport land use safety ordinance
3. Identify all structures 500 feet above ground
� local height ordinance
a incorporated Mn/DOT notification/reporting procedures (over 250'
)
Non=tViandatory Elernents:
1. Identify locai participation process for input to aviation lannin
p g
2. Airport related economic development plan
_--------------
Documents --""-"""""'---------
Referred to: """'-�-------
1. Dual Track Airport Planning Process - MAC
2. Aviation Guide Plan - Met Council
3. Contract Pertaining to limits on Construction of a Third Parallel Runwa
4. Priority Issues for Mendota Heights y
5. Air Noise Plan of Action for Mendota Heights
6. Legislation
McCombs Frank Roos Associates
January 14, 1998
_��, lVlendota Heights �1 irport /Voise Chapter of Com re
' p hensive P/an
Relevant Legislation:
' MAC shali prohibit operafiion of non-Stage III aircraft a
� 999 fter Dec. 31,
' MAC shall implement MSP 2010 LTCP
' �MAC to develop diversion plan
� By Jan. 1, 1997 MAC must enter into contract with eac
indicating no construction of a third parallel runwa h MSP city
Y
' MAC to develop future �dn 65 noise contours
reserve funding in budget to complete noise m ti at onunWay and
9
' Established MSP urban revitalization and stabilization
one mile of 1996 L.dn 65 zone within
McCombs Frank Roos Associates
January 14, 1998
.� �
�, ,
.. ,,
��`
' �4
N�w �-aN� � "� << ,
� ��:.{ �
��p C,�N�'outt�'
,�.,
(� �i � j� � �
1 G� 1 J ' �..' � ',>,�. _ �:)•) ( �
I;
Tabie 7
Major and Intermediate Airports Land-Use Compatibility Guidelines
Land-Use Types / Noise Exposure Zones
Land-Use New Development Infill - Reconstruction or
Compatibility Major Redevelopment Additions to Existing Structures
Guidelines
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Residential
Single / Multiplex with INCO' INCO INCO COND COND COND COND COND
Individual Entrance
Multiplex / Apartment with INCO 1NC0 INCO COND COND PROV PROV PROV
Shared Entrance
Mobile Home INCO INCO INCO COND COND COND COND COND
Educational and Medical
Schools, Churches, Hospitals, tNCO INCO INCO PROV COND COND COND PROV
Nursing Hornes
Cultural, Entertainment,
Recreational
lndoor COND- COND COND PROV COND PROV PROV PROV
� _.
Iztdoor COND COND COND CNST COND COND COND CNST
Office, Commercial, Retail COND PROV PROV CNSI' PROV PROV PROV CNST
Services
Transportation-Passenger COND PROV PROV CNST COND PROV PROV CNST
Facilities
Transient Lodging INCO PROV PROV PROV COND PROV PROV PROV
Other Medical, Health and COND PROV PROV CNST COND PROV PROV CNST
Educational Services
Other Services COND PROV PROV CNST COND PROV PROV CNST
Industrial, Communication, PROV' CNST CNST CNSZ' PROV CNST CNST CNST
Utility
Agricultural Land, Water CNST} CNST CNST CNST CNST CNST CN5T CNST
Areas, Resource Extraction .
'1NC0 means lnconsis[ent
'COND means Conditional
'PROV means Provisional
�CNST means Consistent
C
C
�� �� Item 4.b continued �
However, there continues to be anecdotal information that departing aircraft
not flying runway centerline headings during non-simultaneous periods, are
Therefore, the Airport Relations Commission should consider a request to
MASAC's Technical Advisor to monitor when non-simultaneous procedures
in place and to monitor and record the headings given during non-simultane are
periods at MSP. This monitoring activity would be reported in the MASAC Us
Technical Advisor's monthly report.
Action Repuired
The Commission should discuss what monitoring should be done by MASA
ensure that the new tower order is being followed. If they so desire, the C to
Coinrnission should make a recommendation to City Council that Mendota
Heights make a formal request of MASAC to monitor non-simultaneous
departures and headings to be included in the monthly Technical
report. Advisor's
Item 4.c Monitorin Close-In De arture Procedures - Recentl
MAC implemented close-in departure procedures for the�Minneapol s side o' the
`} parallel runways. To determine if Minneapolis is benefitting from this f the
procedure, noise levels out to the 60 DNL contour should be record new
compared with pre-existing noise data. This information may, or may not�,
prove beneficial to Mendota Heights in pursuing further action to implement
proper departure procedures on our end of the parallel runways.
Action Required
The Comrnission should discuss how MAC should monitor the close-in
departure procedures and provide direction to staff. If they so desire, the
Commission should make a recommendation to City Council that Mendota
Heights make a formal request of MASAC to monitor, document and re ort
the impact from the transition to the close-in departure procedure on thep on
Minneapolis side of the parallel runways.
J
�
i' �
'
MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL IIVTERfVATiONAL AIRPORT
TOPICS OF INTEREST
Prioritized by City Council, September 2, 1997
HIGH PRIORITY ISSUES
�• MAC and MASAC Representation.
2. Equity of Current Runway Use System.
3• Noise Abatement Departure Profiles.
4. MSP Long-Term Comprehensive Planning Issues - Expansion of Existing
' Airport.
5. Corridor Definition/Compliance Issues.
6• Metropolitan Council "Noise Zone Map" Update and Related Land Use
Controls.
MEDIUM PRIORITY ISSUES
7• Globai Positioning Satellite Technology.
$. Nighttime Restrictions on Aircraft Operations.
9. Noise Measurement Issues - a. Usefulness of L.dn 65 Contour
b. Expansion of MAC Aircraft Noise
Operations Monitoring (ANOMS).
10. Implementation of MSP Mitigation Committee's Comprehensive Plan.
ISSUES TO BE MONITORED
1 1. Prevention of Third Parallel Runway - Monitoring Contract with MAC.
12. Non-Simuitaneous Departure Procedures.
13. Phase Out of Noisy Stage II Aircraft.
14. Aircraft Engine Run-Up Noise and Aircraft Ground Noise During Periods of
Departure Over Minneapolis.
TOPICS97.INT
C
MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
TOPICS OF 1NTEREST
Updated and Prioritized August 13, 1997 ��v �p�� .��
HIGH PRIORITY ISSUES �v�nw��SS c o✓�
�. MAC and MASAC Representation.
2. Equity of Current Runway Use System.
3. Noise Abatement Departure Profiles.
4. Global Positioning Satellite Technology.
5• Nighttime Restrictions on Aircraft Operations.
MEDIUM PRIORITY ISSUES
6• MSP Long-Term Comprehensive Planning Issues - Expansion of Existing
)
Airport.
-' 7. Prevention of Third Parallel Runway - Monitoring Contract with MAC.
8. Noise Measurement Issues - a. Usefulness of Ldn 65 Contour
b. Expansion of MAC Aircraft Noise Operations
Monitoring System (ANOMS).
9. Implementation of MSP Mitigation Committee's Comprehensive Plan.
LOW PRIORITY ISSUES
10. Corridor Definition/Compliance Issues.
1 1. Non-Simultaneous Departure Procedures.
12. Metropolitan Council "Noise Zone Map" Update and Related Land Use
Controls.
13. Phase Out of Noisy Stage II Aircraft.
14. Aircraft Engine Run-Up Noise and Aircraft Ground Noise During Periods of
(
Departure Over Minneapolis.
TOPICS97.INT
AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION
�
1• Noise Reduction Throuah Modified Takeoff Procedures
A• Implementation of Non-Simultaneous Procedures
B. Adoption of "Close In" vs. "Distant" Departure Procedures
C- Adoption of Mandatory Nighttime Takeoff Regulations
D• Implementation of Narrowed Air Traffic Corridor
2• Hei�hten Awareness of Mendota Hei�hts Air Noise Concerns
A. Advertising the MAC Air Noise Complaint Line
B. Expand Distribution of Air Noise Related Information
�_ ) C. AppoinCment of City Resident to the Metropolitan Airports Commission
D• Advocate for Equita.ble MASAC and MAC Representation
3• MSP Lon� Term Comprehensive Plan
�1• Monitor Contract with MAC on Third Parallel Runway
B• Implement MSP Mitigation Committee's Comprehensive Plan
4• Conversion to Sta�e III Ouieter Aircraft
5• Noise Reduction Throu�h Liti�ation
6• Expand Eli�ibilitv for Part 150 Sound Insulation Proeram in Affected Areas
� � � • � � � �
Issue: Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures
Goal: Implementation of Non-Simultaneous Takeoff Procedures Which
Minimize Mendota Heights Air Noise Exposure
Action Steps:
1. Request Copy of Tower Order that
Implements NSDP's
2. Monitor Co.mpliance with Tower Order
3
0
NSDP's - Request Compliance
Pursue Magnetic Shift Affect on
105 Degree Heading on 1 1 L
��
Who
Staff
Staff/
ARC
When
July
Continous
Staff Sept.
ARC
Staff/ARC FAA is
implementing
�
C
;
� � � � � � � �1
Issue: Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures
Goal: Adoption of "Close-In" vs. "Distant" Takeoff Procedures to Reduce
Noise Generation Over Mendota Neights.
Action Steps: Who When
1. Seek Political Assistance from Staff/ARC August
legislative leaders - Send Correspondence
to MAC
2. MAC Planning and Environment reports
recommendation to MAC.
3. MAC recommends to FAA procedure
to be implemented.
4. FAA implements tower order.
5. FAA begins NADPs.
2
Staff/ARC August
Staff/ARC
Staff/ARC
Staff/ARC
C.
� � � � � � � � �.
Issue: Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures
Goal: Adoption of Mandatory Nighttime Takeoff Regulations to Reduce Noise
Generation Over Mendota Heights
Action Steps: Who When
1. Inquire with FAA Control Tower about Staff August
current head-to-head operations
2. Suggest Using crosswind runway more ARC Fall 1997
frequently during head-to-head operations.
3. Monitor MSP Mitigation Comprehensive Plan ARC/ 1997
designated Stage III only from10:30 p.m. Council
until 6:00 a.m. and assist MAC in Implementing
Voluntary Agreements with Airlines
K3
� � � • • � � �
Issue: Naise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures
Goal: Implementation of Narrowed Air Traffic Corridor which Minimizes
Mendota Heights Air IVoise Exposure
Action Steps
1. Advocate for Maintenance of 5 mile final
arrivals and 3 mile corridor for departures
2. Pursue the benefit of updating Tower
orders to original intent before shift
in magnetic headings
3. Presentation to Commission on GPS by
MAC or other expert (Mr. Harold Pierce)
0
Who When
Staff/ARC Continuous
Staff/ARC Fa111997
Staff Fa111997
Issue
Goal
� � � � � � � �
Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concerns
Expand Distribution of Air Noise Related Information
Action Steps: Who When
1. Continue to inform the community on Staff/AFiC Continuous
ARC projects and concerns using the
City's newsletter and separate single
page mailings.
2. Work with Northern Dakota County Airport Staff/ARC Continuous
Relations Commission on possible Legislation
for MAC representation.
3. Mail letters and Heights Highlites to
State Senators and Representatives
regarding ARC issues
4. Invite guests to monthly ARC meetings
(i.e., Mr. Hamiel, Mr. Wagoner, State
elected officials)
5. Expand coverage of air noise issues
by pursuing informational meetings with
editorial staffs of major papers
6. Continue to send press releases to
newspapers, State Senators and
Reps.
7. Update and Promote air noise
mitigation document.
��
Staff Continuous
Staff Continuous
(Quarterly)
Staff 1997
Council
Staff Continuous
Staff/ARC Annually
C
� � � � � � � �
Issue: Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concerns
Goal: Appointment of City Fiesident to the Metropolitan Airports Commission
Action Steps: Who When
1. Discuss concerns with State Senators ARC/ Dec. 97/Jan.98
and Reps. regarding composition of Council
MAC. Pursue legislation to amend
MAC Commissioner appointment process.
2. Discuss and Compare cities affected by ARC 1998
air noise to MAC representatives
3. Review MASAC representation and ARC/Staff 1997/1998
MAC representation with Northern
Dakota County Airport Relations
' � Commission. Propose new structure and
representation on MASAC.
�
AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION
Issue: MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan
Goal: Prevent Construction of Third North Parallel Runway
Action Ste s •
Who When
�• Monitor MAC Compliance with Contract Staff/ARC Continuous
2• Research MAC Acquisition of Bureau of
Mines property and MAC interest in off
airport properties in 3rd runway area
3� Monitor EIS Process for N/S Runway
4• Monitor EIS for 12,000 foot Runway
7
Staff � gg�
Staff/ARC 1 gg7/� ggg
Staff/ARC 1997
;
�
j
AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION
Issue: MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan
Goal: Implement Noise Mitigation Requirements in MSP Mitigation
Committee's Comprehensive Plan
Action Steps Who When
�• Implement MAC's MSP Mitigation Plan Staff/ARC 19g7/1 ggg
a• MASAC Action Plan for Implementation
b. Joint Efforts with NDCARC
�• Dakota County Assistance
d• Legislative Assistance
:
issue:
Goal:
♦ � � � ♦ � ♦ �
Conversion to Stage III Quieter Aircraft
Assure Conversion by Federal Deadline of Year 2000
Action Steps:
1. Work with MAC to assure 1996
legislation to convert to all Stage Iil
aircraft by Year 2000 is implemented
2. Consider Backsliding of Stage III
Conversion-
3. MASAC Consideration of
Stage III compliance
F'7
Who
Staff
ARC/Council
When
Completed
Upon response of
NWA
Periodic
� • � � � . � � �
Issue: Noise Reduction Through Litigation
Goal: Determine Feasibility of a Legal Challenge to Current Air
IVoise Distribution
Action Steps:
1. Continue to be kept abreast of other
communities' issues and possible
litigation process
2. Consider Freedom of Information Request
for EIS or FONSI's on Increased
Operations
3. Consider Legal Challenge Options if
North/South Runway is Delayed
�
Who When
Staff/ARC Continuous
Staff/ARC 1997
Staff/ARC 1997/1998
C
r�
' i
AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION
Issue: Expand Eligibility for Part 150 Sound Insulation Program in Areas
Affected by Air Noise Exposure
Goai: Air Noise Mitigation Through Sound Insulation
Action Steps:
1. Continue to monitor changes in the Ldn
contours .and monitor the Part 150
Sound Insulation program completion
process.
2. Examine the feasibility of purchase or
acquisition through Part 150 for severly
impacted areas
3.
*
Who When
Staff/ARC On-going
ARC/Council
Ensure AN011/IS data used for Noise Contour Staff/ARC
Generation for 2005 Part 150 DNL 60
Updated August 1 1, 1997
ACTION.PLN
�
..;
..;
C
12/11/97 THti 13:5� F�� 612 450 2502 INVER GROVE HTS CITY HaL C�005
I
�
NORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTYA)RPORT RFLATIONS COALITIQN
STAT�JS OF COLlABORATIvE 1SSUES
M�fVNEAPQLIS-S7. PAUL 1NTERNATIONAL AiRPORT
At the inceptlon of the Ncrthem Dakota County Airpo�t Relations �oalition,
➢art(cipating cities compiled fihe follawing list of possibie callaborative issues.
The list was prioritized by the cities based on the potenttal fo� the Coadition ta
achiede a consensus and the abiiity of the Coafitian ta impact the issues.
TIER 1
�AA `"Ciose-In" tis. "Distant" Departure Procedures — Unfortunately, the
twa procedures developed d�d nat offer dramatica!!y difFerent exposure
patterns. The differenc�s in exposure that were identified for the altematives
resr�lted in Ca�l�tifln Cities fo take conflicfing positions. At the present time,
the AAAC is moving fiorward with cantinuation of the distant departura
procedure southeast, souihwest and northeast of the airporf and
impiementation of tFte close-in procedure norEhwest of the airpori.
i'he Coafition has previous(y taken a pasition with the iU1AC and FAA that at
least one of the altematives fle sufficiently 6ifferent than current operatiqns ta
9ive communities a reasonab(e range of choir,�s_ In particular, the Coalltion
has asksd fhat a procedure be d6veloped that op#imizes ihe noise absorbing
capacity of the corridar and mir�imizas noise impacts to neighborhoods
outside tE�e carridor_
2. Plighftime Restr;etions on Aircraf# Operations — MASAC and MAC are
moving �orward with an expansion of the vo(untary nighttime restrictian from
11:�0 p_m. to f:00 a.rn, to �0;3I3 p,m. io 6:00 a.m.
3. Nort-Sirnultaneous peparture Procedures - The erossing procedure was
er�clorsed in cancept by the Coatitian. As with ihe departute
procedures, however, tt�e analysis af the procedure resulted in differer�t
pvsitions by Coafitior� Cities on #he details of its ezecutiort. The FAA is in the
process of implementing t�e crossing praced�re for Iow traffic periods wher►
air traffic controllers can coo�dinate parallei runway deperture operations_
�
4. Expansion of MAC Aircraft Noise Operativns Rlfonitaring Systern
(A�ION4S) — The MAC contirtues ta oppose the exparlsion af the system on
runway ends where rnonitors are currently lacated. An expansion of the
system is antieipated with the future co�struction of the nort�►-south runway
because of its impads in areas not currently cavered by monit�rs.
C
f,
12/11/9i THtT 13:54 Fal 612 �50 2�02 IN�'ER GROyE HTS CIT� HaL �I006
5. Composition of Alf�t,C Body — qccountabitiEy Issues — Coafition Cities have
dscussAd the re-composition of MAC with their (egislative delegations. Ta
date, no legisfative initiative5 have been brottght farward due to the
complexity of the paiitics assoclated wiih such a cnange_ MASAC is currently
cansidering a re-compc►sit(an of the pubfic representatives to ihat body due to
changes in traffic conce�trations and population graurth i� the thir#y years
since the group was �'�rmed, The current discussian involves increased
representatian from communities affected by the paralle! runways, primarily
�vlinneapc►lis �nd the Coalition Cities.
6. Corridor DefinitionlCompliance issues — Except for the crossing procedure
discvssed above, (ittle �as changed with respect tv the definition of the
corridvr. Irt addition, excursions from i�e corridor represent about ten percent
ot a�� tra�c to the soutF�east of the airport and about twenty percent �f afl
sauth p�raHef runway� departures.
7. Runway 4�-22 Extension fssue and �quity of Current Runway Use
System — Rur�way 4-22 has 6een ext�nded, but currently it is not be(ng used
for traffic redistribution due to Iega! �haltenges by the City of Richfie(d.
Coalition Cities have supported a more equitable distribution of #raffrc to the
Runway 4f22, but current traffi� leveis (imit the amount of time fhat the runway
can be used,
8. Noise Measurement Issues — Usefulness cf Ldrt 6� Contour — At the
encauragement of Coalition Cities and othcrs, the MAC has included in its
MSP Mifigat3on Plan sound abatement assisfance to the ZOQ5 Zdn 6Q. Ir�
addition, they have indicated aI1 Mt�tention to us� ANOMS generated flight
trac� c!a#a in gene�ating contours for #hese prog�ams. A reguest has afso
been made to the Federat fnteragency Committee on Aviatian No'tse (FICAld}
to study the effect of increased frequency of oparations on the annoyance
assumpiions in fhe Ldn modei and the appropriateness of 65, 60 or some
other level as the fcd�raily recognized standard for noi5e r•�uisance.
07H�R iSSUES —These itet'ns were icientified in th� original (jst of issues, but
were not among the pric��ities because they are: 1}(n progress on their own, 2)
Beyond the {ikely intl,�ence of the Caa(ition ar 3) Not rated as highfy by the Cities
as were the Tier I and Tier i! issues.
- Phase-�ut of Noisy Stage lI Alrcraft — Northwest Aitlines reports that it is
on schedule to meet fhe S#age If phase-out requiremertts through a
combin�tion flf retirements and replacemenfs and Stege !J retrofiis. Other
airli�ss serving MSP are also on irack to meet the phase aut deadlines. 7'he
Coaiition has afso asked far info�m�tiort ta insure that IVorthwest is
conforming to its contractual �b{igations with the state and MAC to not
backslide on the use of Stage III aircraft at the airport.
12/11/97 THU 13:55 F.�� 612 450 2502 INVER GR04E HTS CITY H�L [�OOi
NtSP Lcng-Term Comprehensive Planning Issuas — Expansion of
Existir�g Airpart _ Coaiition Cities heve be�n involved In negot�ations for
contracts to prohibit a third para►IEI runway and in the Mifigation Cammittee
for the expansion o'f the airport. Cities coniinue to participate in the
environmenta! discussians and o#her decisions affectfng the airpa�t's
compre�ensive plan.
• Dua1 Track Airport Relocat7on to Hastings Site —1Nhi)e this issue is off the
table, ca�tinued air traffic growth and demend suggest that the alrpvrt
exp�nsion vs. re)ocatio� deba#e will be revisiEed in the near futl�te. Du�irtg the
relocation debafe, Coalition Clfies lob6ied the pakata County Bosr+d and o#her
agencies to give fulter�cansld�ration t� the relacation option.
* Remote t�unwa�r Development Optio� — This opticn w�s elirninated during
the Dual Tr�ck discuss�on, but may resurFace if tFte lacatior� issue is rais�d
agair�. _
- FAA Airspace L!$agc Study — No informet�on is av��)a�,�� an this item.
•�4Aetropolitan Councit "Noise Zone Map" Upda#e and Rclated Land Llse
Controls — The Ntetropolitan Council's Aviafion Systems P(an was updated in
December, 't 99g_ Caalitian Cities submitted comments. Policies and land
use controis remain large(y uncF�anged a(fhaugh the �oise 2one Map was
mvdified io fake �nto account current traffic levels and the futu�e additian of
the narth-south runway,
4 Saund Insulation of Air Pfeise Impacted Homes — FAA Part ��{� Prograrn
— The Part 150 Program is neating completion in Mendeta Heights and
Eagan. tt is possible that some additi�nal, srnall areas in fhe two
communities wi11 became etigible far sound insulation wFie�t the MSP
Mitigation Program is imp)emented,
• Aircraft Ground ldoise During Periods af Depa�ture Over M�nneapolis —
The incide�ce of comments conceming this phenomenon are increasing, but
no clear aEternatives have been idenfified. To date, the impacts tend ta be
less lntrusive than departure noise,
a Airc�aft Engirle Run-Up Noige - The statutory requirement that a"hush
F10U56y be part of the MAC Capital Improvements Program has been
eliminated. The MAC indEcates no i�c#ention to co�lstruct such S faci!(ty.
Comments ak�fluE run-ups continue to come primari(y frorn residents along the
river bluffareas. As an aside, Chicaga-p�yare has recently installed a hush
house for run ups thcre.
C
�
�
12iiiis7 THU 13:55 Fal 612 450 2502 IN�ER GRo�E HTS cITY H3L
td�1M ISSUES — Coatitian members may wfsh to suggest issues to add to the
previous list.
• Environmental Assessments for lncreme»ial Growth in Noise impa�Es
B A,d�rocat� for �anv�rst�,n f�ore� Fiushki� Stage Ili to i'rue Stage 11!
___
C
C
� I�����������.� ����ci� r_��-,:-�,;`,'�'y _ "';
'i . ! r �
n+,
Working for the Region. Planning for the Future �;� 4�...�-�-=-"�"'"� � ,
December 24, 1997
Kevin Batchelder, City Administrator
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 5511 S
R�: City ilesolutiun l�l0 97-74
Dear Mr. Batchelder:
'l ' . � �, �i. :.� l� ,
i�, � v �, t �yi,''�
- `.�. -' .J ,. -
r._`--- _ -
Mendota Heights resolution 97-74 requests instructions and informational guidelines on a comprehensive
plan amendment to facilitate proposed residential housing developments. Council staff has reviewed the
proposed project information provided by Hoffman Homes, Inc., reviewed the site area, and discussed
the proposal with the developer and city staff. We have the following observations and comments:
1) It is understood that until the December, 1998 Land Use Planning Act, deadline for
j � comprehensive plan updates occurs, the City ir�ay permit development on vacant parcels where the
�- existing comprehensive plan land use designations and zoning are conslstent. Under that situation the
city would not normally submit a comprehensive plan amendment, and�therefore, the Council �vould not
be required to perform a plan revie�v.
However, if an undeveloped parcel was affected by existing or future aircraft noise impacts (from
operations at MSP International Airport), the C'ouncil �vould encouraQe the City to implement the Land
Use Compatibility Guidelines as described in the 1996 Aviation Development Guide. Consistent,
continuing implementation is important in high noise impact areas.
2) We agree that the proposed residential townhome development on the Resurrection Cemetery
�roperty w�ulci necess�tate a land use redesiUnati�n; irom its curren� insti+�.�tional desi�natian. to a
residential use designation. This �vould require a comprehensive pian amendment from the City, and
action by the Nletropolitan Council
It is apparent, however, that the proposed to�Y�home project is located in the Noise Policy Area for l�ISP
International Airport. The development site is located �vithin noise zone three; �vhere new resider�tial
uses of any type are considered to be an incompatible use. Nlany other land uses would be noise
compatible. If a comprehensive plan amendment includes items not in conformiry with metropolitan
systems plans, the Council �,vould likely require a plan modification.
3) The 1996 update of the Aviation Development Guide chapter includes the latest update of the
noise policy contours for NISP International :�irport. They �,vere included in the latest metropolitan
systems statements, and are in effect. We anticipate �vorkinv �vith the Ntetropolitan Airports
4" � Commission and affected communities over the nest several years in monitoring the aircraft noise
'L'SO Gast Pifth Strc��t St.. P,iul. �tinnesota 55101-1G3-} 16121 29 1-63�9 F:i.�?9! �Fi:iSG �CDD/"t'll' 2J1-0HO-4 �lctro Inib t.inr'3'19-3750
A:: Equal Oppor,unity Empioyer
:
_ ��..����..-
CITY OF 11��01.,A,
DAKOTr� COIINTY �IGHTS
' MZ!�NESOTA
RESOLU'I'ION NO. 98-
A' � oE i11'ION .D,ESIGNATING T
i
RNATES ON THE �TROPpLITA.i�t OFFICIAI, ,1�P
AIRC�� s� �SE.NTAT'�
COIINCII, UND ABATEI
Metro ��AS, �e City o f Mendota
politan Aircraft Sound Abatement C u�g jts has two
changes; and public representatives pn �
(MASAC� due to the most recent by1
MASAC� � REAS, the City of Mend
perations Co�i�ee and °ta Heights has one
�e MASAC public representative on the
Executive Com��ee� and
MASAC�E�AS' the cz�Y of Mendota
a notice of appp��ent of our design te� re �� a
various coxnrn���ees. PPO1rit�g aUthority, sha11 f�e
p esentatives on the MASAC a�d it
of MendooW T��FOit�� BE IT
� Heights that the follow' ��BY R�SOLV�D b
Mendota. Heights at a11 �g Persons are dui y�e Ci
, or any, MASAC Y aPPointed to re � Cou��il of the ,
meetingS or corn��ees: Present the Cj�, o f
1� M— e—��olitan�a ft Sound
--_.._. Abatement Councii
J�15��, Councilmember
Keviri Batcheider� Ci
Charles Merte �' `�dministrator
Scott Bea �o�o, Mayor
tY, Chair of Advisory Co�ssion
M�—C � erations Co
`� '— — mmittee
Charles E. Merte
Jill Srnith C nSOttO, Mayor
, ouncilmember
Kevin I3atchelder, C1ty Adm�strator
Public Representative
�'ublj� Representative
Alternate
Alternate
Member
Alternate
Alternate
C
3. MASAC Executive Committee
Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor Member
Jill Smith, City Councilmember Altemate
Kevin Batchelder, City Administrator Alternate
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 6th day of January, 1998
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By
Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen Swanson, City Clerk
�
C
F : S� � � t a 'T�
-�— N s,,. . 7 .
?�' µ � } ' ;: ` t,` ?. r �T' � �� ~ �' � .., � ���", { }.
4 ,
r' �. i �' 't ' 1 4 .�
« r .. v , �.... ,_. . .
.... -,. .. .,.-�
: .. „ ..,.. . a. 'k .. . - ..�..
A biweekly update on litisation, regulations, and technoiogical der•eiopments
Volume 9, Number 23
Part I SO Program
FAA HAS PROVIDED $43 MILLION
FOR PART 150 S�'UDIES, R]EPORT SHOWS
The federal sovernment has aiven airports �rants totaling ��3.02 million to fund
the plannina of their Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibiliry Programs since
Congress authorized the program in 1979, accordin� to the latest status report on
the program issued by the Federal Aviation Administration. The report covers
fundina throu�h the end of fiscal 1997 (Sept. 30, 199�).
It also notes that airports have been aiven grants totalina �2.05 billion to
implement their Par[ 1�0 pro�rams.
A total of 23� airports are participating in the proQram; 191 airport noise
compatibility programs have been approved for the first time; 46 proarams hnve
been revised or amended; and 221 airports have submitted noise exposure maps
found to be in compiiance with federal requirements.
Followin� is the FAA status report on its noise compatibility program or�anized
alphabetically by state with fundin� levels for planning jrants only. Information
on how much airports received to implement their Part 150 pro�rams ��ill be
provided in a later issue of ANTL.
Alabama: Plannina Grant Total $905,866
• Anniston-Calhoun County, Anniston: (no fundin� level Qiven)
NEI�I in compliance i 1-17-83
• Bates Field Aiz-port, Mobile: $152,343
NE�I in compliance 7-12-90; NCP approved 1-b-91
• Birminsham Nlunicipal Airport, Birmingham: $207,900
NEi�S in compliance 6-1-89; NCP approved 11-ZZ-89
• Danneliy Field, Montaomery: $130,000
NEM in compliance 6-13-94; NCP approved 12-9-94
• Huntsville-�Sadison County Airport, Huntsville: �209,160
i�iEiv1 in compliance 9-12-86; NCP approved 3-11-87
Revised i�tENi aporoved i 1-14-91; NCP approved �-1 1-92
• Tuscaloosa ivlunicipal Airport, Tuscaloosa
�tEl�t in compliance 9-19-33
Alaska: P(annin� Grant Total �1,=�9?.9�7
• Anchorave International Airport, Anchora«e: 5787.961
NEM in complinnce 1-22-37; NCP approved 10-1 1-38
• Fairbanks International Airport, Fairbanks: S�'36,8�9
vEM in compliance 9-23-88: NCP approved 9-1-9-4 �
• Juneau International Airpor[> Juneau: � 108.1 �7
NEv1 in compliance 10-9-37
• Ketchikan International Airport, Ketchikan: Sb9,37�
• Nterrill Field, Anchorave: �290,625
NE�I in compliance I-13-92
Copyri�ht O 199� by Airpurt Noise Repott. Ashburn. �'�.'_U1-t7
�
December 26, 1997
In This Isszce...
Part X�0 Program ... FAA
has given airports $43 million
to prepare their Part 1 �0
Airport Noise Compatibility
Pro�ram studies since Con-
gress enacted the program in
1987, the FAA's latest status
report on the proaram shows.
The states that have re-
ceived the most plannin�
arant funds for their airports
are California ($5 million),
Florida ($2.7 million), Illi-
nois ($2.5 million), Tennes-
see ($1.8 million), Ohio ($1.8
million), Texas ($1.7 mil-
lion), Michigan ($1.5 mil-
lion), Kentucky, Alaska, and
Arizona ($1.4 million each),
and Hawaii ($1.2 million).
Airports receivin� the
highest fundina for Part 150
studies are Greater Cincinnati
International (� 1.37 million),
ChicaQo O'Hare International
(S776,=�97), New Austin
Internationai (�695,?02),
i�lemphis International
(S64�,1 � 1), Salt Lake City
International (�637,68�),
tiashville Nletropolitan
(5613, 878), Denver Centen-
nial (5�99,900), Burbank-
Glendale-Pasadena
(5�82,065), and Ontario
International (��00,000).
l56
Arizona: PI<innin`� Grant Total $1,-t>-1,�19S
• Chancller I�lunicipal Airport, Chandler: 51�0,000
• Glendale Municipal, Glendale: �IS8.49�1
NEi��I in campliance 7-9-9=�; NCP approved 12-�7-9�
• Lau�*hline/Bullhead Cit}�, Bullhead City: 51�0,000
I�tEi'�I in cornpliance 7-9-96; I�ICP appro�•ed 7-'_�-9i
• Phoenis Sky Harbor International Airpon: $262.�00
I�tEN( in compliance 1(-�-SS; Revised NEM in compli-
ance 2-17-92; NCP approved 4-2-90; Addendums to
NCP apprvoed 8-14-92,I1-21-94
• Ryan Field, Tucson: $77,401
NEi�i in compliance 4-5-90; NCP approved 3-=t-9?
• Scottsdale Municipal Airport, Scottsdale: �3=�4,71 1
NEM in compliance 2-14-86; Revised NEI�t in compli-
ance 6-5-96; NCP approved 12-19-36
• Tucson International Airport, Tucson: �291,392
NEl�I in compliance �-23-33; NCP approved 3-30-84
Revised NEI�4 in compliance 5-11-90; Revised NCP
approved 8-7-92
Arkansas: Piannins Grant Total ��25,712
• Drake Field, Fayetteville: $100,000
NE1�i in compliance 1-27-89; NCP approved 6-29-89
• Fort Smith Iviunicipal Airport, Fort Smith: �436,77�
NEM in compliance 6-20-89; revised NEM in compli-
ance 3-13-97; NCP approved 12-5-89; revised NCP
approved 9-9-97
• Little Rock Regional Airport - Adams Field: $159,120
NENI in compliance 7-28-39; Revised NEM in compii-
ance 8-11-94; NCP approved I-22-90; Revised NCP
approved 2-7-9�
� Texarkana ReQional - Webb Field, Texarkana: $11�,�00
NEM in compliance 1-5-90; NCP approved 6-12-90
California: Plannina Grant Total $5,066,900
Buchanan Field, Concord: $54,000
NEM in compliance 8-21-59; NCP approved i-30-91
• Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport, Burbank: ��82,06�
NE11�I in compliance 4-22-88; NCP approved 7-27-89
• Camarillo Airport, Camarillo: $130,000
• Chico ivlunicipal Airport, Chico
NEM in compliance 4-23-93; NCP approved 9-18-96
• Fresno Air Terminal, Fresno: $82,947
NEIv1 in compliance 2-7-90; NCP approved 9-1�-90
• Hawthorne Municipal Airport, Hawthorne: 538,1=?-�
NEIv1 in compliance 12-2-93; NCP approved 5-31-94
• Hayward Air Terminal, Hayward: �99,769
NEM in compliance 2-20-90: NCP appro��ed 1-23-9?
• John Wayne Airport, Oranae County: $�13,806
• Lake Tahoe Airport, South�Lake Tahoe: � 100,000
NEtV1 in compliance �-13-9�}; NCP appro�•ed 11-1�-9�1
• Lindber�� Field-San Die�,o Int'I Airport: 5-�81,�2?
NEM in compliance 1-30-89; NCP approved 6-�-91;
Supplement to NCP approved 5-1 1-9�
• Lon�, Beach Dou`,herty Field .4irport: �21 1,�00
NEN1 in compliance 1-16-87; NCP tindins 3-27-37
• Los An�eles Int'I Airport; Los AnReles: S160,OQ0
Airport Noise R
NE�1 in compliance 10-1�-S-�; NCP approved 4-9-5�
• Ivteadotivs Field, Baherstieid: �90,000
NEI�f in compliance 4-1 �}-9�: NCP approved 6- ( 0-97
• Nletropolitan Oakland Int'l Airport, Oaklnnd: ,�120,8Si
NEM in compliance �-3-90; NCP approved �-21-91
• NlcClellan-Palomar Airport, Carlsbad: � 1�7,�00
NEVI in comp(iance 12-20-91; NCP approved 6-16-93
• Modesto Ciry-County .�irport, Nlodesto:
NE�t in compliance 2-26-93; NCP approved I 1-22-94
� Monterey Peninsula Airpon. I�tonterey: $213,13�
NEl�1 in compliance 3-26-86; NCP approved t0-7-S6
• Oakiand Int'1 Airpon
NEM in compliance �-30-90; NCP approved �-21-91
• Ontario Int'1 Airpon, Ontario: $500,000
NENI in compliance 4-2-91; NCP approved 9-27-91;
Supplement to NCP approved �-24-94
• Oxnard Airport, Oxnard: �4�,066 (ANCLUC)+
$ I 48,320
• Paim Springs Ivlunicipal Airport: $310,000
NEM in compliance 8-24-87; Revised NE�i in compli-
ance i 1-28-94; NCP approved �-23-88; Revised NCP
approved 7-2�-95
• Palo Alto Airport of Santa Clara, Palo Alto: $85,230
NEIv13-10-93; NCP approved 11-12-93
• Reddina Municipal Airpon, Redding: $42,3�4
NEM in compliance 7-6-90; NCP approved 1-28-92
• Rialto Municipal Airport (Ivliro Field), Rialto: �89,�28
Project withdrawn in 199�
• Riverside Municipal Airport, Riverside: $1�7,�00
NEM in compliance 9-12-95; NCP approved 1-3-97
• San Jose Int'1 Airport, San Jose: $161,180
NEM in compliance 8-29-86; NCP approved 8-7-87
• San Francisco Int'1 Airport, San Francisco: $2�,000
NEM in compliance 1-17-83; Revised NEM in compii-
ance �-17-96; NCP approved 7-22-83
• Santa Barbara Ivlunicipal Airport: �59,490
NENf in compliance 8-11-88; NCP approved 1-27-39
• San Luis Obispo County Airport: �10,000
• Santo i�Iaria Public Airport, Santa 11Qaria: $45,882
NEN1 in compliance 11-4-88; NCP approved 8-1�-90
• Stockton ivletropolitan Airport, Stockton: $129,150
NE1�1 in compliance 5-10-91; NCP approved 11 ?2-93
• Van Nuys Airport, Van Nuys: �275,000
Colorado: Planning Grant Total: �1,019,217
• Centennial Airport, Denver: ��99,900
• City of Colorado Springs Iviunicipal: �331,13�
NEi�S in compliance 7-7-89; NCP withdrawn 9-25-39:
NCP approved 7-10-90
• Pueblo Iviemorial Airport, Pueblo: � 140,26�
NEi�1 in compliance 9-10-92; NCP approved 3-9-93
• Stapieton Int'1 Airport, Denver: �72,917
Connecticut: Piannine Grant Total �528.29�
• Danbury Municipal Airport, Danbury: � 134,605
NEI�f in compliance 2-24-88; NCP approved 8-22-8�
• Groton-New London Airpon, Gro[on: � 129,390
NEy1 in compliance 7-I-86; NCP approved 12-19-86
Airport Noise Repon
December 26, 1997
� • Hartford Brainard Airport. Hartford: $132,900
NEIvi in compliance 11-I�-89; NCP approved �-1-�-90
• Inor I. Sikorsky Nlemorial Airport, Bridgeport: �131,400
NEIvI in compliance 6-29-90; NCP approved l?-26-90
Florida: Plannins Grant Totai $2,75�,403
• Boca Raton Public Airport, Boca Raron: $127.000
NEVI in �ompliance 2-20-91; NCP approved 8-(9-91
• Central Florida Re�ional Airport, Orlando: $132.840
NEIv1 in compliance 9-I6-93; Revised NEIvi in comp(i-
nnce 4-19-94; NCP approved 10-14-94
• Daytona Beach Resional Airport, Dayrona: $10�,318
• Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport: $209,476
NEM in compliance 10-28-88; Revised NEI�Is in
compliance 3-7-9�, 3-28-97; NCP approved 1-16-91;
revised NCP approved 9-23-97
• Ft. Lauderdale-Holiywood Int'1 Airport: $320,268
NEM in compliance 3-29-89; Revised NEM in compli-
ance 6-]-95;NCP approved 8-25-89; Revised NCP
approved 11-28-9� •_
• Gainesville Resional Airport, Gainesville: $32,963
NEM in compliance 4=30-87; NCP approved 10-19-37
• Key West Int'1 Airport, Key West: $181,118
NEM in compliance 11-14-89
• Kissimmee Municipal Airport, Kissimmee
NEM in compliance 1-11-94; NCP approved 7-8-94
• Ivlarathon Fli�ht Strip, Marathon: $33,457
NEM in compliance I1-14-89
• Melbourne ReQional, Melbourne
NEM in compliance 6-30-92; NCP approved 10-22-93
• Naples Municipal, Naples: $210,811
NEM in compliance 8-22-88; revised NEM in compli-
ance 4-2-97; NCP approved 2-17-89; revised NCP
approved 9-29-97
• Ocala Municipal Airport, Ocala: $45,000
NEM in compliance 9-29-89; Revised NENI 2-14-91;
NCP approved 8-13-91
• Orlando Executive Airport, Orlando: $100,000
NEM in compliance 2-13-91; NCP approved 10-21-92
� Orlando Int'1 Airport, Orlando: $2�1,913
NElbi in compliance 6-16-89; Revised NEM 10-16-91:
NCP approved 4-10-92
• Palm Beach Int'1 Airport, West Palm Beach: (���/o grantl
NEM in compliance �-16-86; Revised NEIvSs in
compiiance 2-1-93, 11-18-94; NCP apQroved 11-12-86:
Revised NCP approved 5-17-9�
• Panama City-Bay County Airport: �101,9?2
NEi�t in compliance 3-23-89; NCP approved 9-18-39
• Pensacola Re�ional Airport, Pensncola: $133,000
I�tEN1 in compliance I-2�-91; NCP approved 7-33-91
• Sarasota-Bradenron Airport, Sarasota: �169,0�0
NEM in compliance 1 I-14-86: Revised NEl�1s in
compliance 9-1 1-89, �-7-96; NCP approved �-9-90
• St. Aunustine Airport, St. Augustine: �90,Q00
NEM�in complinnce 1-13-93; NCP approved 7-12-93
• St. Lucie County Int'1 Airport, Ft. Pierce; $�8.000
NENI in compliance 6-20-58: Revised NEM in compli-
is�
ance 2-2-9-t: NCP appro��ed 1?-12-85; Revised NCP
approved 7-29-94
• StiV Florida ReQional Airport. Fort l�Iyers: $1 I 6.569
NENI in compliance 1 I-17-S9; Revised NENIs in
compliance 11-21-9=�, �-17-9�: NCP approved �-I�-90;
Revised NCP approved I 1-13-95
• Tallahassee �tunicipal Airport, Tallahassee: �96.794
NEM in compliance 6-2�-96; NCP approved 12-20-96
• Tampa Int'1 Airport, Tampa: S 109,904
NEYI in compliance 1-21-87; NCP approved 7-1�-87
• Titusville-Space Cen[er Executive Airport: $7�,700
NEl�I in compliance 11-28-90; NCP withdrawn 3-17-92
Georgia: Plannina Grant Total �3��,421
� DeKalb-Peachtree Airport. Atlanta:
NEM in compliance ] 0-29-96; NCP approved 4-2�-
97
• Fulton County-Brown Field, Atlanta: �228,146
Project dropped by aitport operator
• Glynco Jetport, Brunswick
NEM in compliance 2-�-93; NCP approved 8-2-93
• Hartsfield-Atlanta Int'I Airpon: (w/o �rant)
NEM in compliance 10-16-84; Revised NEM in
compliance 5-29-8�; NCP approved 4-10-85; Revised
NCPs approved 6-25-87, 10-24-83
• L.B. Wilson/Ivliddle Georsia Regional Airport, Macon:
$127,275 y
NEM in compliance 10-10-91; NCP approved 4-7-92
• Savannah International Airport, Savannah:
NEM in compliance 8-23-93; Revised NEM in compli-
ance 4-2-96; NCP approved 2-23-96
Hawaii: Plannina Grant Total $1,267,000
• DillinQham Ai�eld, Niokuleia: �137,000
• General Lyman Field, Hilo: �150,000
NEM in compliance ?-6-90; Revised NEM in compli-
ance 11-4-93; NCP approved 5-3-94
• Hana Airport, Hana: $100,000
• Honolulu Int'1 Airport, Honolulu: $2�0,000
NEM in compliance 2-7-91; NCP approved 8-6-91
� Kahului Airport, Huhului: �1�0,000
NEM in compliance 7-31-91; Revised i�1EM in compli-
ance 3-4-96; NCP approved 8-30-96
• Keahole Airport, Kailua-Kona: $160,000
NEi�f in compliance I 1-14-89; NCP approved �-10-90
• Lanai Airport. Lanai: (w/o �rant)
NEVi in compliance 2-1-90; NCP approved I-28-92
• Lihue Airport, Lihue: � 150,000
NE�I in compliance �-17-90; NCP approved 1-23-92
� ivfolokai Airport, Kaunakakai: �80,000
NEM in compliance 8-1-91; NCP approved 1-28-92
� Waimea-Kohala Airport, Kamuela: �100,000
Idaho: Plannind Grant To[al 5400,212
• Boise Air Terminal-Gowen Field, Boise: �293.310
N�y1 in compliance 6-30-95; NCP approved 3-17-97
• Friedman yiemorial Airpon, Hailey: � 106,902
NEivi in compliance 7-i-94
.-�.irport `oi;e Report
1SS
Illinois: Plannins Grant Total �2.�'�.776
• Bloomin�*ton-Normal Airpor�, Bloomin��ton: �l ">7.SOU
NEtiI in compliance 8-6-90: NCP approved 1-�-92:
Re��ised NCP =�-29-9?
• Capital �irport. Sprin�ztield: � 1-�3,�0U
NE�I in compliance 4-12-9 I; Revised NEVI ?- I-9 �:
NCP approved 3- I -93
• Chica�*o 1�Iid�vay Airport, Chica�o: $�23,000
NE�-I in compliance 3-??-91; Revised NEtii 12-16-92:
NCP approved 6-3-93
• Chicaao O'Hare Int'l Airport, Chicago: �776.-�97
NEi�I in compliance 8-7-89
• Decatur Airport, Decatur: $1 19,099
NEI�f in compliance =�-14-91; NCP approved 3-2-93
• Greater Peoria Airport, Peoria: $163,000
NEM in compliance 4-12-91; NCP approved 9-2�-92
• Greater Rockford, Rockford: $156,600
NEM in compliance 3-23-90; Revised NENf in compli-
ance I-31-9�; NCP approved 4-23-91; Revised NCP
approved 7-26-9�
• Palwaukee Airport, Wheeling: $229,�00
NEti1 in compliance 7-26-88; NCP approved �-29-91
• St. Louis Resional Airport, Alton/St. Louis: $64.080
NE�1 in compliance 10-7-3�; NCP approved 10-27-86
• Univ. of Illinois-Willard Airport, Champaian/IJrbana:
� 13�,000
NEi�I in compliance 9-5-89; NCP approved 1-3-92
• Wauke�an Resional Airport, Waukeaan: $1�3,000
NEM in compliance 6-5-89
Indiana: Planning Grant Total $592,578
• Hulman Resional Airport, Terre Haute: $1�0,000
NEi�1 in compliance 1-13-39
• Indinnapolis Int'1 Airport, Indianapolis: ��2,�75
NEM in compliance 6-24-3$; NCP approved 9-14-83;
Revised NEI�i 10-29-92; Revised NCP approved 4-27-
93
Io�va: Plannina Grant Total �153,000
• Des ivloines Nlunicipa] Airport, Lexinaton: � 1�3,000
NEI�S in compliance 2-1-91; NCP approved 7-30-91;
Addendum to NCP approved 11-13-9�
Iientucky: Plannina Grant Total $1.473,24�
• Blue Grass Field, Lexington: $95,477
NEivI in compliance 11-13-89; NCP approved �-10-90;
revised NCP approved 2-18-97
• Greater Cincinnati Intl Airport, CovinQton: S1,377,763
NEyi in compliance 1-8-91; Revised NE�1 in compli-
ance 4-28-93; NCP approved 8-6-91; Revised NCP
approved 10-2�-93
• Standiford Field, Louisville:
NE�1 in compliance 10-13-93; NCP approved �-8-9=�;
Supplement to NCP approved I 1: 13-9�
Louisiana: PlanninQ Grant Total �749, I�0
• Baton Rouse Municipal Airpon: (w/o aran�)
NEiv1 in compliance 3-7-86; NCP approved 6-2�-8b:
Revised NE�1 3-31-92; Revised NCP approved 9-2?-92
Airnort Noise Re
.
� i�tonroe Re��ional Airport, l��Ionroe: $13�,900
NEM in compliance 7-t3-90; NCP approved b-?9-9? �
• New Orleans Int'1 - Moisant, New Orleans: $-�63,3�0
NEI��S in compliance 2-2�-87: NCP approved 8-17-SS
• Shreveport Re�tional Airport, Shrevepon: $1�-�.000
NEM in compliance 7-29-92; NCP approved l-?�-9 �
1Ylaine: Plannins Grant Total $13�,000
• Portland Int' I Jetport, Portland: � 135,000
NEM in compliance 3-27-90; NCP approved 9-21-)Q
i�tariana Islands: PlanninQ Grant Total $261,000
• Saipan Int'I Airport. Saipan: �261,000
NEl�1 in compliance 2-14-94; NCP approved 9-?5-95
I�Iarvland: Plannne Grant Total $ I 80,771
• Baltimore WashinQton Int';1 Airport (w/o grant)
NEIvf in compliance 11-30-39; NCP approved 6-21-90:
Revised NEM in compliance 2-7-95
• Montaomery County Airpark, GathersburR: $130,771
NEiv1 in compliance 1-13-92; NCP approved 2-4-94
Nlassachusetts: Plannina Grant Totai $1,100,017
• Barnes Ivlunicipal Airport, Westfield: �121,203
NEl�1 in compliance �-4-90; NCP approved 10-26-90
• Barnstable Ivfunicipai Airport, Hyannis: $144,000
NEl�1 in compliance 1-30-89; NCP approved 7-27-39
• Westover Air Force Base (Joint Use): $16�,600
NE�ri in compliance 7-31-9�; NCP approved 1-26-96
• Iviartha's Vineyard Airport, Martha's Vinyard: $124,200
• Nantucket Memoriai Airport, Nantucket: $12�,595
NEM in compliance 8-19-88; NCP approved 2-9-89
• Norwood Ivlemorial Airport, Norwood: $127,800
NEi�1 in compliance 9-3-93; NCP approved 3-2-94
• Worcester Municipal Airport, Worcester: $147,619
NEM in compliance 3-18-92; NCP approved 9-14-92
Supplement to NCP approved 12-29-93
• Laurence G. Hanscom Field, Bedford: $144,000
Nlichigan: PlannnQ Grant Total � 1,533,200
• Ann Arbor Niunicipal Airport, Ann Arbor: $130,000
NEM in compliance 3-4-93
• Bishop Airport, Flint: �150,000
NEM in compliance 3-1-93; Revised NEI�I in compli-
ance 1-26-94; NCP approved 7-25-94
• Capital City, Lansins: � 16�,600
NEi�f in compliance 7-27-93; NCP approved 1-21-94
• Detroit City Airport, Detroir. � 150,000
• Detroit Metropolitan-Wayne Counry Airport: �2�0,000
NEM in compliance 7-24-89; Revised NENI 12- I 6-92:
NCP approved 4-30-93
• Kalamazoo ivlunicipal Airport, Kalamazoo: $ t2�,000
NEM in compliance 3-1-93; NCP approved �-17-94
• Kent County Int'1 Airport, Grand Rapids: �290,000
NEiv1 in compliance 3-4-93: NGP approved =�-26-9�
• Oakland-Pontiac Airport, Pon�iac: $12�,000
• Tri-City Int'l Airport, SaQinaw: $147,600
NE�I in compliance 12-13-89; NCP approved 12-26-91
Nlinnesota: Planning Grant Total $�40,232
• Duluth International Airport. Duluth: $162.000
Airport tioise Repott
; /.
�,
C,
December 26, 1997
• I�tinneapolis-S[. Paul Int'1 Airport: $11�.�82
' NEM in compliance 10-4-59; Revised NEM in compli-
ance 12-l0-93; NCP approved 4-2-90; Revised NCP
approved 6-3-94
i�lississippi: Plannin�T Grant Total ��95.77�
• Jachson Int'1 Airport, Jackson: $t25,978
NENI in compliance I 1-22-89; NCP approved �-17-90
• Golden Trian�le Re,. Airport. Columbus (tiv/o Rrantl
NEM in compliance 3-17-83; NCP approved ?-10-g�t
• Gulfport-Biloxi Resional Airport: x(69,797
NEM in compliance �-21-93; NCP approved -�-1-9d
• Pinebelt ReQional Airport, Laurel (w/o grant)
NENI in compliance 8-17-83; NCP 2-10-84
Nlissouri: Plannins Grant Total $913.160
• Kansas City Int'1 Airport. Kansas City: $�73,�36
NEM in compliance 2-9-96; NCP approved 8-�-96
• Lambert-St. Louis Int'1 Airport, St. Louis: $143.524
NEM in compiiance 4-29-87; revised NENI in compli-
ance 7-i �-96; NCP. approved 8-23-37; revised NCP
approved 1-10-97
• Spirit of St. Louis, St. Louis: $1�O,Q00
�iEM in compliance 4-28-89; NCP approved 10-23-39
• Sprinafield ReQional Airport, SprinQfield: $14�,500
NEM in compliance 1-30-92; NCP approved �-3-92
Nlontana: Plannina Grant Total $441,000
• Bi1linQs-Lo�an Int'1 Airport, Billings: $164,700
NEM in compliance 12-22-86; NCP approved 6-19-37
• Great Fal ls Int' 1 Airport, Great Falls: $141,300
NEM in compliance 6-9-87; NCP approved 11-30-37
• Missoula County Airport, Missoula: $135,000
NEM in compliance 5-2�-88; NCP approved 11-4-83
Nevada: PlanninC Grant Total $158,116
• Reno-Tahoe Int'i Airport, Reno: $60,000
NEM in compliance 2-22-91; Revised NEi�I 2-22-93;
NCP approved 9-1-93; Supplement to NCP approved
12-8-9�
• IvlcCarran Int'1 Airport, Las Vegas: $67,116
NEM in compliance 11-3-83;Revised NEIVS in compli-
ance 8-19-94; NCP approved 9-18-39; Revised NCP
approved 2-IS-95
• North Las Vesas Air Terminal, Las Vegas: �31.000
NEM in compliance Z-6-90; NCP approved 1-28-92
New Hampshire: PlanninQ Grant Total $742.80�
• Boire Field. Nashua: $112.0�0
NEM in compliance 5-4-90; NCP approved 10-31-90
• Lebanon Nlunicipa] Airport. Lebanon: �47,970
NEM in compliance 3-7-86; NCP approved 9-�-86
• ivlanchester i�lunicipal Airport, Manchester: S 1 i?.0?3
�tEM in compliance 5-13-92; NCP approved I 1-6-93
• Pease Air Force Base, Portsmouth: $�110,762
NEvi in compliance 8-14-95; NCP approved ?-9-96
New Jersey: Plannina Grant Total �200,000
(� 1 • Adantic Ciry Int'1 Airport, Atlantic City: $200.000
Netiv Nle�cico: Plannin� Grant Total �302.158
• Albuquerque Int'] Airport, Albuquerque: �30?.1�8
ls9
NENt in compliance I?-�I-91; NCP appro��ed 6-2�-92
Ne�c �'ork: Planning Granc Total `51,UO3,201
• Albany County Airport. Albany: ��'�O,OUO
i�1EIv1 in compliance �-,U-96: NCP approved I(1-27-96
• Long Island-Nlac.qnhur �irport. Islip: �303,9��
NEM in compliance 3-2-4-9;: NCP approveci S-?3-9�
• Rzpublic Airport, Farminadale: � 183,600
i�1EM in compliance 1-1-}-9l; NCP approve�i 7-t 1-91
• Svracuse-Hancock Int'1 Airport. Syracuse: $270,6=�9
NEM in compliance 13-?9-89; NCP approved 6-26-90;
Revised NCP approved 1 I-23-92
North Carolina: Plannin� Grant Total � 12,000
• Charlotte/Douglas Int'1 Airpon, Charlotte: �12.000
NEM in compliance 7-11-39; NCP approved �-13-90;
Revised NCP approved Z-16-96
North Dakota: Plannins Gran[ Total $87,273
• Bismark Nfunicipal Airport. Bismark: $37,273
NEM in compliance 9-1 1-92; NCP approved 3-9-93
Ohio: Planning Grant Total $1,372,990
• Akron-Canton Re�ional Airport, Akron: $3�6,700
NEM in compliance 4-2=�-39; NCP approved 9-21-89
• Bolton Field, Columbus:
NEM in compliance 4-6-92; NCP approved 10-2-92
• Cleveland-Hopkins Int'1 Airport, Cleveland:
NEM in compliance 7-3-84; NCP approved 8-18-87
• James M. Gox Dayton Int'1 Airport, Dayton: $150,000
NEM in compliance 6-22-88; Revised NEv1 in compli-
ance 6-6-94; NCP approved 9-4-88; revised NCP
approved 10-30-96
• Lorain County Regional Airport, Lorain: $13�,000
• Niansfield-Lahrn Municipal Airport: $120,000
NEM in compliance 1-11-94
• Ohio State University Airport, Columbus: �92,7� 1
NEM in compliance 3-2-92; NCP approved 8-24-92
• Port Columbus Int'1 Airport. Columbus: $263,�39
NEM in compliance 7-28-87; NCP approved 9-2�-87
� Rickenbacker Airport, Columbus: $32�,000
NEM in compliance 1-13-89; NCP approved 7-6-89
• Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport: $135,000
i�IEM in compliance 8-17-95; NCP approved 3-18-97
• Toledo Express Airpon, Toledo: � 100,000
N'EM in compliance 11-8-91; NCP approved 4-10-92
• Youn�sto�vn ivlunicipal Airport, Youngstown: � 1 �0,000
Oidahoma: PlanninQ Grant To[al �668,492
• Lawton Municipal Airport. Lawton: $99,9�8
NEi�t in compliance 8-1-90: NCP approved 1-2�-91
• R.L. Jones Jr. Airport. Tulsa: $90,000
i�+�til in compliance 1 I-22-89; NCP approved �-1�-90
• Tulsa Int'1 Airport. Tulsa: 5277,�3�
NEiv1 in compliance 2-28-90; NCP approved 7-?7-90
• Wiley Post Airport, Oklahoma Citv: �81,000
NEM in compliance 1 1-3-91; NCP approved =1-29-92
• tiVill Roaers World Airport, Oklahoma Cicy: $120,000
tiEi�1 in compiiance 3-26-91; NCP approved 9-27-91
Airport \oise Report
190 Airport Noise Report '
Orebon: Plannin� Grant Total �! f 0,000
• Portland Int'1 Airport, Portland: $�0,000
NEM in compliance 1-13-85; Revised NEMs in
compliance 9-I6-91, IU-22-96; NCP approved 7-10-8�;
Revised NCPs approved 3-�-92, 4-13-97
• yledFord Jackson County Airport, Medford: $60,000
NE�t in compliance 3-20-87; NCP approved 9-3-87
Pennsylvania: Planninv Grant Total �568,395
• Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton Airport: $156,164
NEl�1 in compliance 5-1�-92; NCP approved I I-l0-92
• Erie Int'1 Airport, Erie: $78.850
NEti1 in comp(iance 1-3-92; NCP approved 6-24-92
• Greater Pittsbureh Int'1 Airport, Pittsbur�h: $333,881
NEi�1 in compliance 8-30-83; Revised NEIv1s in
compfiance 3-4-37, 12-10-92, 8-13-97: NCP approved
$-23-87; Revised NCPs approved 6-8-93, 9-16-97
Rhode Island: Plannin; Grant Total $141,300
• Theodore F. Green State Airport, Providence: � 141,300
NEl�1 in compliance 3-3-86; NCP approved 8?6-86;
Revised NEi�is in compliance 7-23-91, 6-t�-9�
Tennessee: Plannine Grant Total $1,8�1,45�
• i1�IcGhee-Tyson Airport, Knoxvilie: $�26,340
NENI in comp(iance 11-9-88; Revised NEl1�f in compli-
ance 10-12-9�; NCP approved 5-�-39; Revised NCPs
approved 3-�-93,1-17-97
• Loveli Field, ChattanooQa: �149,08$
NEM in compliance 3-27-96; NCP approved 9-23-96
• Ivlemphis Int'1 Airport, Memphis: $645,151
NEI�i in compliance 9-10-37; NCP approved 2-20-88
• Nashville Nletropolitan Airport, Nashville: $613,878
NEI�I in compliance 1 1-14-38; NCP approved 3-2�-89
• Smyrna Airport, Smyrna: �6,998
NEM in compliance 7-2-8�; Revised NEl�1 in compli-
ance 11-10-93
Texas: PlanninQ Grant Total: �1,734,186
• Addison Airport, Addison: � 162,000
NEM in compliance 4-24-90; NCP approved 10-18-90
• Amarillo Int'1 Airport, Amarillo: $350,460
NE�1 in compliance 7-7-88: NCP approved 11-2�-88
• Ft. Worth Alliance Airport:
NEvi in compliance 8-1 l-9�; NCP approved 2-7-9�
• Ft. Worth Spinks �irport:
NE�I in compliance ?-13-9�; NCP approved 3-1 f-9�
• Laredo InC'1 Airport. Laredo: �1�3,767
NEI�f in compliance -t-18-94; NCP approved 10-f-�-9�
• i�Iiciland Re�7ional Airport, tvlidland (w/o grant)
NEVI in compliance 9-17-92: NCP approved �-16-9�
• New Austin Airport at B�r�strom: �69�.?02
NEI�I in compliance 2-I 1-9�; NCP approved 3-10-9�
� Robert MueUer �Iunicipal Airpott, Austin (w/o srant)
• Rio Grancle Valley int'l Airport, Harlin�Tron: ��3J33
NEvf in cc�mpliance �-1g-92; NCP approved 9-11-92
• San Antonio Int'I .�irport, San Antonio: �349,0'�
NE�I in compliance �-12-91: NCP approved (0-3-91:
re�-isecl NCP approvecl �-? �-97
Utah: Planning Grant Total 637,6g�
� Salt Lake City Airport, Salt Lake: $637,68�
NEM in compliance 6-1 g-87; NCP approved 9-13-87
Vermont: Plannin� Grant Total � 139,000
• Burlinaton Int'1
NEM�in compliance 3-27-90; NCP approved 9-21-90
Virginia: Total �234,936
• Washington National Airport, Arlinaton:
NEM in compliance 1-3-97; NCP approved 7-2-97
• Manassas IvlunicipaUDavis Field: �72,936
NEM in compliance 6-18-87; NCP approved 9-13-�7
• Roanoke Municipal/Woodrum Airport: �162,000
NENI in compliance 6-1-92; NCP approved 5-3-94;
Revised ROA to NCP issued 7-27-94
Virgin Islands: Pianning Grant Total $41,400
• Alexander Hamilton Airport, Christiansted, St. Croix:
�41,400
NEM in compliance 2-24-89; NCP approved 8-22-89
-., � . .
Washington: Plannin� Grant Total $1,014,090
• Bellingham Int'1 Airport, Bellinaham: $74,528
NEi�f in compliance 4-3-91; NCP approved 8-16-91
• BoeinQ Field-Kin� County Int'1 Airport, Seattle: $9$,343
• Seattle-Tacoma Int'1 Airport, Seattle: $281,2�0
NEM in compliance 4-11-8�; NCP approved 10-4-85;
Revised NE1�14-15-93; Revised NCP approved 5-18-94 �
• Snohomish County/Paine Field, Everett: $124,640 � �
NEM in compliance i 1-3-87; Revised NEM in compli- '
ance 4-5-96; NCP approved 4-29-88; revised NCP .
approved 10-2-96
• Spokane Int'I Airport, Spokane: $325,642
NEIYI in compliance 4-19-39
• Tri-Cities Airport, Pasco: �54,000
NEM in compliance 5-16-36; NCP approved 10-16-86
• William Fairchild Int'1 Airport, Port Anseles: �28,062
• Yakima Air Terminal, Yakima: $27,620
Wisconsin: Planning Grant Total $609,224
• Austin 5traubel International Airport, Green Bay:
NEi�f in compliance 1-20-9�; NCP approved 7-19-95
• Dane County ReQional-Truax Fieid, 11�Iadison: $294,867
NE�1 in compliance 7-29-92: NCP approved 1-25-93
• General Niitchell Inr 1:�irport, Milwaukee: �206?�0
NEi�1 in compliance 9-23-9=�; NCP approved 3-?2-9�
• Wittman Field, Oshkosh: � 108.107
NEI�I in comp(iance 8-18-93; NCP approved 2-1�-94
�Vyoming: PlanninQ Grant Total �3�3,981
• Cheyenne Airport, Cheyenne: �52,104
NEM in compliance (-?�-92; NCP approved 7-6-92
• Jackson Hole Airport, Jackson: $241,61�
NE�i in compliance �-IS-8�: NCP approved 1 1-3-��
• Natrona Counry Int'1 Airport. Casper: ��0,262 �
NEvi in compliance 10-1-8�: NCP approved 2-2�-86v )
Cop}rieht � 199i b} ,�irpun �uitie Rcpun..�shhum. V�. 201=t7
�
Customarily, only roadways and transportation facilities on the air-
port property are considered part of the landside, even though they
are actually e�ensions of, and integral with, the u�'ban and regional
transportation network.
� The discussion which follows will focus in on the airside facili-
ties and land use plan. Landside facilities will be taken up in the
next chapter. ,
Airside Facilities
Prominent airside facilities include runways including their clas-
sifications, marking and lighting, instrument, runway landing sys-
tem, taxiwaYs, holding areas and bays, ground control and parking•
Runways. There are many airport runway configurations. The
FAA includes 22 different layouts in their advisory circular
150/5060-3A, Airport Capacity Criteria Used in Long-Range Plan-
ning. The basic runway configurations are:. (1) single nuiways, (2)
parallel runways, (3) open-V runways, and (4) intersecting runways
(Fig. 5-3).
l. Single runway: The single runway is the simplest of the con-
figurations. Under VFR conditions it can accommodate up to
99 predominantly light twin-engine and single-engine piston
aircraft (type D&E) operations per hour. The capacity under
IFR conditions is reduced to 42 to 53 operations per hour de-
pending on the aircraft mix and navigational aids available at
the particular field.
2. Parallel runways: There aze basically four types of parallel run-
Runway Configuration
Aircraft
FAA Layoui Description Mix (1)
Singie runway
� (arrivals = de-
Singie A ��" partures)
—�+ Close parallels
B Lessthan 3500'
�� �
-�_�' � Intermediate
C 3500' to 4999' Paralleis
Fig. 5-3. Airport runway configurations. Source: FAA
114
PHOCAP(3)
PANCAP (2) IFR VFR
1 215,000 53 99
2 195,000 52 76
3 180,000 44 54
4 170,000 42 45
1 385,000
2 330,000
3 295,000
4 280,000
1 425,000
2 390,000
3 355,000
64
63
55
54
79
79
79
198
152
108
90
198
152
108
Paraliel
Open-V
Interse�
Key:
TypE
Typ�
pistc
Typ+
twin
TYF
sinc
(2)
(3)
ways: (1) Close [less than 3500 feet between runways), (2) In-
' ter•mediate [3,500 to 4,500 feet between runways], (3) Far [more
than 5,000 feet between runways], and (4) Dual-lane [two close
parallel runways separated by 5,000 feet or morej. The capac-
' ities of parallel runway configurations vary considerably de-
`� pending upon the number of runways and the spacing. With
�e D and E, operations per
� an aircraft mi.Y of predominantly typ
;: .
,, � hour vary under IFR conditions between 64 for close paralle s
°� to 128 for a dual-lane configuration.
.
3. Open-V runways: Runways which diverge from different direc-
'�; ; tions and do not intersect are classified as open-V runways.
When there is little or no wind, both ninways can be used simul-
; taneously. Open-V runways revert to a single runway when
r;�:" winds are strong from one direction. Operations increase sig-
%.� ..
nificantly when takeoffs and landings are made away from the
>� V. When the operations are toward the V, the hourly capacity
7'���'
�'' is reduced by almost 50 percent for Type D and E aircraft dur-
z; -
�,�� ing VFR conditions.
i`. 4. Intersecting.• Two or more runways which cross each other are
�%�� referred to as intersecting ninways. An intersecting runway
,'�' . configuration is utilized when there are relatively strong winds
�;�,� . during the year from more tban one direcfiion. Like open-V run-
hx>; ' ways, intersecting runways revert to a single runway when the
4:.
;,, winds are strong from one direction. If winds are relative y
�;� light; both nuiways can be used simultaneously. The capacity
;�',; of intersecting nuiways greatly depends upon the location of
't;; `� the intersection and the way the runways are operated. The
�r' highest capacity is achieved when the intersection is close to
;r...
rrx� the takeoff end and landing ttu'eshotd as shown in layout Ll.
=z��.
„`;': From a planning standpoint, a single-direction runway config-
::�.
;�,�; uration can achieve greater capacity and ease air traffic control.
`;;� Routing aircraft in a single direction is less comples than routing
;;,
Y, ;� in multiple directions. In general, an open-V configuration will yield
��� tions.
=y�• higher capaciiies than intersecting configura
��'` An analysis of the prevailing wind is essential in planning run-
f:;:_
�''�� ways. The primary runway should be oriented as closely as possi-
�" ` ble to the direction of the prevaiiing winds. Aircraft which are ;,.
4. _
�� landing and taking off can maneuver on a runway as long as the -
�:�:
�F; wind direction at right angles to the direction of travel (crosswind) _
y. ..
'°' a is not excessive. The ma.�imum allowable crosswind depends on `,:�
�`;', vement surface. Large '
_ the size of aircraft and the condition of the pa
.�. �..: .
;_.�,�.,:
`. jet aircraft can maneuver in,crosswinds as. high,as 40.knots, but �:'' .^..,
`. ; -.. . . . • .. . _.:.
. it 'is difficult to do so and consequently lower values are used fo'r.�. �
planning purposes.
For all runways other than utility (constructed and intended
116
�
�'i
'r:
L; .
:N� _ _
_/
r� � �
r. l � �T
�, . �
; �
for propeller-driven aircraft weighing 12,500 pounds or less), the
FAA requires that "runways should be oriented so planes may be
landed at least 95 percent of the time with crosswind components
not exceeding 15 mph (13 knots)." For,utility airports, the cross-
wind component is reduced to 11.5 mph (10 knots). The "95 per-
cent" criteria required by the FAA is applicable to all conditions
of weather.
Runway Classifications and Markings. The FAA classifies
runways as visual, nonprecision instntment, and precision instru-
ment. A visual runway is intended solely for the operation of air-
craft using visual approach procedures, with no straight-in instru-
ment procedure and no instrument designation indicated on an FAA
approved layout plan. A nonp�-ecision instrument runway is one hav-
ing an instnunent approach procedure using air navigation facili-
ties with only horizontal guidance for which straight-in nonprecision
instrurnent approach procedure has been approved. Aprecision in-
strument runway is one having an instrument approach procedure
using an Instrument Landing System (ILS), or a Precision Approach
Radar (PAR). Figure 5-4 shows the standard markings required by
the FAA for all visual and nonprecision instrument runways. Mark-
ings common to all runways include: (1) centerlines, (2) designa-
tor, and (3) holding indications. Additional markings for a
nonprecision insinunent runway include: (4) threshold marking and
(5) fixed distance marker.
Figure 5-5 shows the detailed markings of a precision instru-
ment runway. Additional markings for this runway include: (6)
touchdown zone markers and (7) side stripes.
Figure 5-6 shows the markings for a displaced threshold (avail-
able for takeoff or rollout but not for touchdown) and a relocated
Visuai runway
Runway number sign
Nonprecision instrument runway
Fiunway number
sign
5-4. Visual and nonprecision instrument runways. Source: FAA
117
�
:•,
;r
i'
:;t
,,t
:.p
,�'
;{;
' ;t�,
��;
' `;ti
.,
:�,,
;;�
��`;
r,;,
;�1
:5}i
: �;
Detail of precision instrument runway
Designator—runway is within Fixed distance marking—
OS° ot 200° magnetic; "L" indi• O 1000 feet trom approach end; OSide stripes—solid line shows
�' lateral usable runwa
cates left runway o( a parallei set aiming point marker for jets Y
� . , � _ _ , , � pavement.
��u
_..,��._
����.���.�. N
'._' r
0
� Threshold marking—beginning
of usable portion of runway 1. Runway centeriine is dashed
Holding indicator
Fig. 5-5. Detail of precision instrument runway. Source: FAA
threshold (area preceding arrows unusable for takeoff or landing).
Figure 5-7 shows the markings for intersecting runways. Figures
5-8 and 5-9 show the markings for closed runways and heliports.
'� Runway Lighting. Runway lighting is extremely important for
a pilot who may have flown for long hours in darkness. Sophisti-
�' " cated li htin s stems are also essential for a ra id ali
g g y p gnment check
'' during daytime approaches if visibility is poor. For a pilot break-
�;
'�� ing out of low clouds, high-intensity approach lights are the only
r,.
� visual clue that the ground is near. In fog, even approach lights
�, � ma hardl be visible the bri ht runwa li hts will
y y , g y g guide the pilot
after touchdown.
'�< Fog-plagued airports may have individual lights that peak at
``�'�� an intensity of 30,000 candelas (twice the illumination of a set of
��
!�-}�':� car headlights). To prevent disorientation, they can be dimmed—
�t"' � from 100 percent for sunlight or fog, to one percent for a clear night.
'�1� ` Failure of the electricity supply could be catastrophic to a land-
-��`� ing jet, so most civil airports have emergency systems that switch
'�� � in automatically within 15 seconds of a failure, and those with all-
weather facilities have a standby system that switches in within
Threshold indicators
I ( I Displaced threshold—area
� with arrows available for takeoff or
�' I I roliout but not for touchdown
Touchdown zone markings
occur every 500 feet
�-i
Relocated threshold—area preceding arrows unusabie for take-
off or landing
Fig. 5-&. Displaced and relocated thresholds. Source: FAA
118
Intersecting runways
An instrument runway has priority over a
visual one. Priority runway centerline
markings will interrupt visual runway
markings at intersection.
w•
Two nonprecision instrument runways.
Neither has priority at intersection.
g. 5-7. Intersecting runway markings. Source: FAA
5-8. Closed runways. Source: FAA
Runway 20L is a precision
instrument runway whose
markings have priority over
both visual and non-preci-
sion instrument runways.
Closed
ru nways
Temporarily ciosed runway sign is a sim-
ple cross at both ends. A permanentiy
closed runway will have the "x's" at inter-
' vals along its length. Ciosed taxiways
have the same symbols but smaller and in
. yeilow.
> . _ _ __ _ _ __ . _ . __
119
�
i '' . _
� "'^�
! ' ���
AGENDA �r:,,4
REGULAR MEETING ' � � '`� � '�i�-'°- -
EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION '� :�
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
EAGAN CITY COUNCIL C�[AMBERS
January 13,1998
7:00 P.1VI.
L ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA
� , ��.� . �, iJ
11 t • : r1 •
N. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. MAC Community Stabilization Program
B. Comprehensive Guide Plan Issues — Communities Proposing New
Residential Development in Metropolitan Council Noise Zones
V. NEW BUSINESS
� �. ;�� . ��.
VQ. 5TAFF REPORT
A. MA.0 Capital Improvements Comments
B. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor
C. Part 150 Program
D. MASAC Update
E. Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Coalition
1�1! 1 � '
IX. FUTURE AGENDA
X. NEXT COMIVIISSION MEETING - 7:00 p.m. Tuesday, February 10
NEXT CONIlVIISSION WORKSHOP - 7:00 p.m. Thursday, January 22
NEXT MASAC MEETING - 7:3Q p.m. Tuesday, January 27
XI. ADJOURNIVIENT
Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities will be provided upon a�h�ance notice of at least 96 hours. If a notice of less
than 96 hours is received, the City ofEagan will attempt to provide such aid.
�
C, °=
�src=�;�
u �`.•
.r,".�^_i,.. a:1;�=t Zs
�` N�.
�:1
't'y#�+i
l'A'y'C��S..
>sT.j� i
��?{t;=
:��
yiyi.
i
,� a�.. t at re. 9,
r- (�
,`'�. �`;.-•, -� F' ry„ -
I �' � r,.
.... ,. . . ..t -.,r ., �... .',� .� •, { ' ► . . � � . , ,,.. ' �.'
i
'�. �. .1��� �. � !: , ...
�;. � L ",: ',t ,J ,., •h � i
,�' ... ' ..,�; r �S ` : � ,., � �
The MAC has proposed that the
1,000-foot e.ctension of Runway
4/22 be placed at the northeast end
of the runway near Veterans
Hospital, according to the
Environmental Assessment issued
in November.
Most airport followers had
assumed the e�ctension would be
- built at the southeast end of the
', ? 1,000-foot runway toward
Richfield and north Bloomington.
Other options would have "split the
d.ifference," with 500 or 1,000 feet
bein� added to each end. The study
says that e�ctending the Runway
Protection Zone ta the southeast
would require properiy acquisition
in Richfield.
In any case, the MAC plans to
use the added len�th on 4/22 for
takeoffs by fully loaded Northwest
Airlines 747-400s serving Hong
Kong three-five times a week. The
one-year construction project
would begin in either April 1999 or
April 2000, depenci�ng on when a
temporary e�ctension of the south
para.11el runway (12R-30L) is
completed.
The present proposal for 12R-
30L calis for a 1,000-foot
e,ctension to be built between April
and August 1998, at the same tinne
resurfacing of the northwest end of
12R-30L is undertaken. The 12R-
30L rumvay would be used for one
year, at which time 747-400
operations would be switched to the
4/22, and the 12R-30L e�`tension
discontinued. The City of
Minneapolis has been urging that
the 12R-30L e:�ctension be removed
then to insure against prolonQed
encroachment on affected
neighborhoods.
�" v�� � ,, �� % �� '
Diagram {abo�re) shows location of two 1,000-foot
runway e�tensions at MSP planned in 1998-20�0.
The northeast e.etension of 4/22
would require the acquisition of �6
acres of military property and 14
acres of U. S. Burea.0 of Mines
land for the new Runway
Protection Zone (RPZ), but would
take no residential or commercial
tracts.
Takeoffs would pass within
1;200 feet of the VA Hospital and
hearl over the Lexington Park
section of St. Paul. VA Hospital
officials have expressed their
concerns over potentially adverse
noise, air quality and light impacts
on patients and sta.ff. Si�iAAC
believes recreational activities at
Fort Snelling and Minnehaha Park
and on the Mississippi River would
be adversely affected.
The i�tAC assessment claims
the three weekly flights would only
fractionally afFect noise levels,
���ater quality and air quality and
�r•ould not harm e:cisting lakes,
wetlands or wildlife.
S�AC has opposed the 12R-
30L extension on grounds that no
assurance has been given by the
MAC to deactivate the eYtension
once the 4/22 extension is
completed.
SMAAC HELPS FORM
NATIONAL GROUP
S�IAAC has helped to create a
new national citizen's action group
calleci Citizens Aviation Watch
(CA� to focus on a11
environmental issues raised by the
threat of a doubling of air travel
worldwide in the next 20 years.
Estimating it represents local
U.S. groups with upwards of a
million affected persons, the U.S.
CAW plans to identify and
advoca.te appropriate national
regulation of any life-threatening
air, water, ground, health, property
and safety conditions.
Initially, CAW has sougiit wider
House and Senate sponsorship_of a
bill transferring responsibility for
regulation of environmental
S�.z�.�.0 N�'4�SL�TT�E�
cancerns from air travel to the EPA
from the FAA.
CAW officials also have written
President Clinton and testifieci
before the FAA in Washington and
Chicaga
CAW JOINS
INTERNATIONAZ DAY
CAW members in at least four
U.S. cities — Minnea.polis-St. Paul;
Columbus, Ohio; Seattle-Tacoma,
Wash., and Boulder, Colo. --
joined fellow activists in 17
nations to mark an international
"Action Day on Aviation"
Dec. 5-6.
The protest, sponsoreti by "The
Ri?ht Price for Air Tra.vel"
Campai� and Friends of the Earth
NetherIands, coinciderl with the
U.N. Climate Conference in Kyoto,
Japan Dec. 1-12.
�I�ITI�E�ZZ IYISP C�IVI�IUNY'I'3.' STA.B�L�ZAT'I0�1 ?
The MAC working group
�dY�g �ommunity desta.bilization
problems caused by this airport is
ha.ving difficulty discovering any.
That finding should come as
little surprise, say some SMAAC
members, because the task force
chair is a vice president of one of
the MAC's bi�est consulting
firms, HNTB of Alexandria, VA.
In its final stage, the working
group is expected to propose a set
of community stabiliza.tion "tools,"
to be applied by an affected
municipality with coordination by
the l�fetropolitan Council to assurz
regional consistencv.
The working group sta$'said it
could find no conclusive evidence
that airpiane noise affects home
property values in a consistent
fashion. A recent ana.lysis by the
Niinneapolis city assessor,
however, indicates that home prices
in affected neighborhoods in the
city have risen at a slower rate than
those in unaffected neighborhoods
(See next story.)
Among concepts under
discussion, with preliminary cost
estimates, are:
(1) Homeowner ta�c credits
(� 12 million a year);
(2) Home sales guarantees ($3
million for initial capita.l, $1.�
million annual subsidy);
(3) Property value guarantees
(about same cost as 2);
(4) Housing renovation tax
credits (no cost estimates);
(�) Reimbursement to lacal
governments for lost property ta..Y
revenues (no estimates);
(6) A community development
bank for low-interest loans for
housing renovation or financing of
city-sponsored redevelopment
projects (� 100 miIlion for star�-up
capital, � � million annual operating
costs);
"Aviation pollution not onlv
poses serious environmental risks
to communities adjacent to some �
airports, but also contributes
si�ificantly to global wanning as
well," notes Jack Saporito,
Chicago, president of U.S. CAW.
"Aircraft emissions are
responsible for one-half of the man-
made nitrogen oxides found in the
atmosphere," he said. "According
to the European Coznmission,
carbon dioxide emissions from
aircraft are growing more than
twice as fast as the global average
by 3-4 percent per year."
SMAAC members and
supporters wishing to circulate a
petition demanding EPA control of
airborne emissions may ca11 Dick
Saunders at 869-1�01 or 861-1061
(FaY}.
(7) MAC planning assistance to-'
jurisdictions affected by airport t,
development or changes in airport
activity (costs absorbed by MAC);
(8) MAC involvement in
relocating to adjacent cities those
businesses displaced from the
airport or on land to be acquired
for airport e,cpansion (no costs
identifieti);
(9) Construction of public
recreational or social facilities to
compensatz affected communities
for a perceived loss of amenitv
(� 10-�26 million for one e:cample
in Minneapolis);
(10) TaY increment financinQ
for redevelopment of specified V
areas (no costs determined).
�
� SMA.AC DISPUTES
MAC ANALYSIS
SMAAC has published a four
page brochure "Living With The
Airport" contending that residential
property exposed to aircra$ noise
does not increase in value as much
as property not e:cposeri to the
noise. This is shown by the graph
Property Values and accompanying
bar chart of Increase In Property
Values.
To stabilize the communities so
affected and prevent deterioration
from lack of maintenance or
residents lea.ving, the brochure
proposes a community sta.bilization
plan tnat predates the l�iAC -
working group studying this. It
would:
(1) guarantee property values;
(2) compensate the community
for ta� loss;
(;} compensate residents who
( ;uffer the noise burden;
SMA.AC proposes that the cost
of this plan be borne by those
desiring the convenience of the
airport.
The I�iAC working group's first
draft report says that all of its
studies "conclude, but do not
prove, depreciation (of property)
because of the noise." This report
also states sales of homes in
impacted areas are not statisticaIly
valid.
The language of the report
strongly suggests "impact" from
the noise, yet the Minnesota Court
Appeals in 1990 concluded,
"diminution of one's enjo�ment and
use of propert;,� is not the same as
diminution of market value." Yet
is this same report annoyance
would be reduced if property taxes
«,�ere reduced bv income taY
subtr�.ction 36%-49%, according to
(. � Met Council survey of eff'ected
- residents.
Sh���C 1��'�SL�TT��R
This NiAC report seems
ambivalent about any compensation
to residents who suffer the noise,
leaving it up to individual
communities with a long page of
concerns to sort it all out. The
position taken is defensible in the
business community which says,
"prove loss, then take it to court."
Proving loss of health, peace of
mind, value, or use of property in
terms of dollars seems like waiting
for a dead neighborhood as Exhibit
1 in a trial that could be avoided
tivith proactive support from
government.
Even thoush most of the noise
damage is in the cityo uf
Minneapolis, most of the City
Council and the i�layor continue to�
passive,Sti1A?,C «zll continue to
press for equitable treatment.
THREE Si�LALL STEPS FOR
NOISE RELIEF
Improvements in noise control
come slo«�lv. The first results from
the 1996 Noise Nlitiaation Plan
recommendations--a haif-hour
estension of the voluntary night
flight rules--is scheduled to begin in
the first quarter of 1998. About
2.6 Stage 2 flights occurring
beri�een 10:30 and 11:00 p.m.
nightly �vili be invited to reschedule
landings earlier.
In a separate recommendation
from the Metropolitan Aircraft
Sound Abatement Council
(11�iASAC), some flights leaving the
two parallel runways may be
fanned over a wider area of south
Minneapolis to spread the noise
load, at the FAA's discretion.
A second MASAC
recommendation calls for an
aircrafi's flap adjusiment to be
made somewhat later on takeoff
than previously over Niinneapolis,
reducing noise incidents slightly.
ON T'HE OTHE32 HAND...
What the MAC giveth with one
hand can be talcen away �vith the
other.
EXAMPLE 1: Reriistribution
of some flights from the two
parallels to the 4/11 crosswind
run�vay -- a core concept of the
1996 Noise Mitiaation Plan -- mav
never happen. The MAC latest
capital improvement plan calls for
queuing ta..�ciways to be delayed
another two years, unti12001. By
then, the opening of the new north-
south run�vay should be only rivo
years away, reducing the need for
the 4/22 traffic uptake. Not a word
of protest yet from our mayor.
EXAi'�IPLE 2: No commitment
yet from the MAC to conduct
studies of potential ground noise
emanating from southbound
takeoffs before the north-south
run�vay is built.
EX.AI�iPLE 3: No firm
commitrnent yet (made public) to
destroy the northernmost 1,000-
foot e:ctension of the south parallel
runway after it is phased out in
2000, as Minneapolis has
demanded.
S���C N��YSL�ETT��
EXANIPLE 4: The Part 1�0
home insulation work scheduled to
be completerl in late 2000 may be
e:ctended two-three years for homes
in the 66-6� DNL zones (all in
Minneapolis) because of budgetarv
problems.
EXAMpLE �: No contract
bet���een l�iAC and Niinneapolis ha�
yet been signed to prevent
construction of a third parallel
runwa_y; such an agreement was
decreed by the legislature to have
been completed by Jan, 1, 1997.
( • � � �, � ,� ,; � f
�
Growth Projections at MSP
BOO T
Thcrororical capaciry limit 3% compound gowtL o
700 � \ _...___..
� r
'�-
o r
o� r ----- --------._._. _.. ----�'---------.._._..-----
1997 bWC estimaee �� f'
� � _-•..-_i
----- — — -----------.----
o .. -
'� P _ �.
� oo' ._.._.._..._ �
� � -- ----,=------- —�-------
� — _� – 1993' 1(r�C
growth cs[itnate
� ---- ------ _ _
zao -;—
�s7o
�sao
-�-- Historicai
iS90 Year z000 zoio zozo
MAC has raised dramatically its
air traffic forecasts for 2001 and
2005, to 5��,000 and �75,000
takeoffs and landings respectively,
according to the Environmental
Assessment worksheet on the
Runway 4/22 e:�tension.
If achieved, this would restore
the historical3 percent growth
rates of the 1990s, rather than the
1 percent rate forecast in 1993 for
the 1996 dual-track studv
recommendations to keep MSP at
its present site rather than to
relocate it.
The netiv forecasts tivould far
e:�ceed the �20,000 operations
projected for 2020 in the dual-track
study, widely criticized by south
Niinneapolis noise activists and
legislators at the time as "unduly
conservative." Such groups as
S�iAAC believe a "high-forecast
scenario" of 6�0,000 operations by
--- Growth at compound 3 %
2020 belatedly adopted by the
NiAC after the dual-track
legislation died is more realistic.
One factor boosting the hig.her
estimates is the growth of
international flights at NiSP.
Under the "high forecast" scenario,
overseas flights would gro�v from
1,128 in 1996 to 2,700 in 2000, to
3;700 in 200� and to 7,�00 by
2020.
1997 TRA.FFIC GROWTH
R�,TE SLO�S
Operations at MSP gre«� less
than 1 percent during the first i 0
months of 1997 compared «7th the
first 10 months of 1996; according
to �iAC figures.
This compares �ti�ith annual
aro�t�th rates of nearlv 6 percent in
the prec�din� three years. While
large commercial jet traffic ti��as
flat, rebional fliohts fell 4 percent,
charter flights declined 28 percent
and cargo flights dropped 2�
percent. General aviation was up
34 percent.
Passenger traffic for the first 10
months this year rose � percent to
2�.� million from 24.� million in
the same 1996 period.
lYISP iYIAY BECOi1�IE A
"STAGE 2 1/2" AIl2PORT
IN 2000
According to federalla�v, 7�
percent of all Stage 2 aircra$ must
be converted to quieter Stage 3
engines or phased out by Dec. 3 i;
1998 and 100 percent by Dec. 31, �•
1999. (See chart neYt page.)
As of August, 1997
appro�imately 4� percent of the
fliahts serving MSP had been
converted, one of the lowest
compliance rates in the U.S.. due
largelv to Northwest Airlines' las
in converting DC 9's. V
However, even if the 100
percent compliance deadline is met
in a letral sense, MSP �vill emerge
as onlv a"Stage 2 1/2" airport in
2000 in a practical sense, thinks
Jim Serrin, a i�iA,SAC delegate
from �finneapolis. That's because
at least �0 percent of the dailv
flights projected by the MAC for
2000-2001 will be made bv
hushkitted aircraft, primaril�•
North«•est DC9s and 727's.
And, according to NL�SAC
findings, huskitted en�ines are
noticeably louder than pure Stage 3
engines such as those po�verin� ��
ne�ti�er Boeing 737-300'sAirbus
320's and � 19's. and Fokker
F 100's.
� ,
The table belo�v shows the
�� differences:
Takeoff Landing Gross
Noise Noise Takeoff
Aircraft I.avel Izvel Wei t
DC9-30 95DB 102DB 105,000 tbs.
(Stage 2)
DC9-30 90.1 DB 96DB 105,000 lbs.
(Huskitted)
B�27-200 92.2DB 98.6DH 160,OOOIbs.
(Huskitted)
B'73'7-300 81.6DB 97.4DB 124,000 Ibs.
(Stage 3)
A320 86.6DB 96.6DB 162,000 Ibs.
F100 81.3DB 93DB 93,OOOlbs.
Note: The change in decibei levels is computed
on a logarit}unic scale, not an arithmetic scale.
The good new•s is that the usage
of hushkitted aircra$ is eYpected to
decline from about 40 percent in
2000 to 29 percent in 200�, based
on current NiAC estimates as
newer aircraft are phased in.
"I believe stron�ly that airlines
should pay an additional penalt�
for the privilege of using on.ly
partially quieted DC4s and 727s in
)their MSP operations," Serrin said.
` � North�vest, for example, will save
nearly �1.� billion by converting
DC9s and 727s to'Stage 2 UZ'
instead of going directly to Stage 3
planes."
�3�AL'Y'� E�'�'��C'�'S
.
OF NC�IS� CIT��
Bv �Vei1 Clark
Our sensitive ears �vere made
for hearing. The evolution of
humans has dealt us the abilitv to
hear small sounds ... the approach
of danaer or the trickle of tivater.
The snap of a ri�ig could mean a
threat. We become unmediately
alert. The adrenaline be�ins to
flo�v; our heart beat increases,
stress builds until �ve have
identified the threat. If it is a friend,
�,�,�e tr�• to relaY. If it means danger;
«�e immediatelv ao into an escape
or fiaht mode. It's all part of our
� ;�inherited response to noise.
It is an automatic brain
response that affects our life even
S�I.��C N�EI�ISL�TT�g
though ��,�e are reading in our ow�n
living room and an airplane
interrupts �vith a sudden loud noise.
Our brain gces on automatic until
we can calm ourselves do�tin. Even
then, anger prevails from the rude
interruption and affects our heart
beat and increases stress. Even if it
is identified as only an airplane, �ve
are disturbed by �vonderin� ho�v
loud �3ri11 it jet? We lrnow that
sometimes airplanes crash. Danger
lurks until the sound disappears
and the airplane is gone.
Continued reactions of this kind
can af"rect our health. Naises that
are sudden and loud are especially
bad. Aircraft noise is like that. In
five seconds, an aircraft o��erflight
can increase 40 decibels or 10;000
times above normal neiahborhood
noise po«�er densitv! It is really
quite alarnzing.
ProlonQed exposure to such
environmental noise has been
shoti�-n to impair scholastic
perFormance, decrease the
likelihaed of helping beha�-ior,
increas:, use of inedicines; increase
blood pr�ssure. decrease immune
svstem functioninQ. And then there
are the subjective reactions �chich
include personalin� chanaes in the
victim because of the perceived
notion of a threat and the inabili��
to escape or control the
5
environment. Anger and
dissatisfaction linger and seethe
affecting our stomach and outlook
on life.
Contributions of aircraft noise
to our environment have been
growing gradually and many
become used to it. They fa11 into a
state of "learned helplessness."
Some persons become more
sensitized and develop chronic
health, and/or stress related
problems such as astluna attacks,
insomnia, hypertension,
cardiovascular disease, depression,
inability to concentrate, and the
impairment of learning and
performance.
The Federal Aviation Agency
(F:�), the Metropolitan Airports
Commission (MAC) and the
airlines have been a�vare of this for
t��enty vears, but have found little
thev can do in response to the
economic pressure for air travel.
Our life styles coupled tivith high
energy consumption results in a lot
of environmental noise. Aircraft
consume monumental amounts of
ener�v and release a like amount of
noise Unfortunatelv, no relief is in
siaht as air traffic continues to
e�pand, airports get bi�er,
rumvays get longer; and airplanes
Qet bi�er and more potiverful.
At least the iViAC provides
palliative coping with a "hot-line"
anyone can c311 any time they are
annoved. This provides a release of
some anger, but has no effect on
NiAC polic�•. American psychology
has yet to bring its methods and
sophistication to bear on the
understanding of noise effects.
Some of the problems limiting
usefulness of the empirical base of
knowledge on noise effects aze: *
"1. The piecemeal investigation
of disparate variables and lack of
theory-based research strategy
broad enough to encompass and
make differentiations among the
�vide range of variables that have
been related to noise
dissatisfaction. -
`�2. An emphasis on e:ctreme
affective reactions to high level
noise and on persanality
deternuna.nts to neglect of other
factors involved in the evaluation of
noise as an environmental attribute.
"3. Ambiguity of findings,
makin$ it difficult to deternzine
when dissatisfaction with noise is
an indeY of general complaint and
when it is a reflection of a more
discriminating a�vareness of
environmental attributes.
Key Phone Numbers
MSP Noise Hot Line .726-9411
Part 1�0 Program Office 72�-62� I
MAC Headquarters 726-$100
MAC Commissioner
Steve Cramer 82�-66�2
MAC Commissioner
Joe Gasper 823-4198
hlinneapolis Mayor
Sayles Belton 67�-2100
l lth Ward Council Member
Dore' Mead 673-2211
12th Ward Council Member
Sandra Colvin Roy 673-2212
13th Ward Council i�fember
Steve Minn 673-2213
"4. A failure to relate level of
noise ezposure to the associaiion
bet�veen noise sensitivity and
psychological distress or to the
association bet�reen annoyance and
somatic complaints."
S.�i��C N�l�'SL�TT�g
Since the FAA has a conflicting
responsibility problem of regulating
the airlines and also promoting air
travel, we can't expect them to be
very sensitive to compleY,
unevaluated psychological effects
of noise. It may be true that the
level of a civilization is measured in
how well it takes care of its
members.
*Susan Staples, Human Response to
Environmenta! Noise, American
P.rvchologist, .Jan. 1996.
PR ..Il�i 1A.RY FORUNI HELD
Five primary candidates for
mayor of Minneapolis and all
candidates for four city council
seats participated in an airport
issues forum sponsored by
Si1�ACC Sept. 4 at Mayflower
Congregational Church.
The fonun gave the candidates
in ea.ch race a chance to eYpress
their vietivs in front of a live
audience -- an infrequent event in
these da.ys of TV and newspaper
advertising strategies.
Of those elected or re-elected to
council seats from the south side,
t�vo can be considered pro-SMAAC
or open-minded about a future
airport land-banking or relocation
plan -- Dore Nfea.d (llth Ward)
and Sandra Colvin Roy (12th
Ward). Two are believed to favor
further espansion at the present site
-- Steve �1inn (l;th Ward) and
Lisa I�icDonald (8th Ward).
Ma��or Sharon Sayles Belton,
«ho is reported to have accepted
campai� donations from several
Northti��est Airlines executives,
remains committed to espansion at
the present location.
The September forum served as
Si�iA.AC's regular fall membership
meetina. The next membership
meetina �rzil be held Thursdav,
May 1�; 1998.
—i�
ARDUND AND ABDUT
SMAAC volunteers collected
more than 200 signatures for a
petition objecting to the proposed
extension of the south parallel
runway during sunlrner
neighborhood festivals. The
petitions were turned into Mayor
Sayles Belton and the MAC.
The summer fairs were held bv
Hale-Page Diamond Lake, J
Lyruihurst, Bancroft, Kenny and
Windom neighborhood
associations. SMAAC also �
circulated copies of it proposed
properiy ta.x relief ineasure to
residents for comment. (See story
page 3.)
SMAAC officers also spoke at
fall community meetings in
Corcoran and Bancroft, and
organized three meetings with city
and sta.te legislators on SMA.AC's
property tax relief idea. In
addition, Si1�AAC officers
continued to attend regular
meetings of the MetropoIitan
Airports Commission Board, siY
MAC-related committees or task
forces and one state legislative
advisory council.
SMAAC board members also
participated in a foundin� meeting
of Citizens Aviation Watch (CAW)
in August, prepared letters to
Senators Wellstone and Grams on
the need to reassign environmental
control issues from FA.A to the �
Environmental Protection Agencv ` �
(EPA), and issued a statement to
Twin Cities media in support of
International Action Day on
Aviation Dec. 5-6.
Three current or former
SMAAC boazd members toured the
new � 17-million FAA control tower
in late November. We were
assured the FAA has no plans to
shorten the interval between
landings because MSP has no
rapid-turnoff taxiways like 0'Hase
and Da11as-Fort Worth. FA.A has
installed equipment that will allow
simultaneous landings on the two
para11e1 runways during bad
weather.
BUSINESS CONCERNS
GROW OVER �
TICKET PRICES
The rising outcry over airline
ticket prices by businesses
continues to grow na.tionwide.
Both the Wall Street Journal and
Business Week have run articles
focusing on the issue recently.
In a four-part series called
(� � � j `Skyway Robbery?" detailing the
effects of deregulation on Iowa
travelers, the Des Moir�es Register
in November quoted Wilbur Maki,
a retired professor of economics at
the University of Minnesota, as
sayin� Northwest Airlines "will do
anything they can to milk this
place," referring to NWA's fortress
hub at 11�iSP. "We have allowed
Northwest to become a preemptive
monopoly."
The Register quoted a MAC
official as saying NWA is asking
for nine of the next 1� gates to be
added at MSP by 2020, He added
that airlines have requested 19
more gates than the 69 that
presently exist at MSP.
STATE TASK FOR��E
DELLBE�2ATES
A state advisorv council has
held t��o meetings to review the
need for a strategic plan for
Minnesota's future economic
development.
i )
S,��s.�C I��'�SL�TT��
So far, the panel has reviewed
past and current state economic
development strategies and
department resources and eYamples
of long-range plans from Michigan,
Indiana and Oregon.
The importance of air service to
the state's future is yet to be
quantified in the discussions held to
date. The body has until Feb. 1�,
1998 to submit a recommendation
to the legislature.
MASAC MEMBERSHIP
FORI-iITLA CHANGED
The Metropolitan Aircraft
Sound Abatement Council
(MASAC) voted 23-3 to expand its
membership from 34 to 3 8 at a
meeting Dec. 2, and to review its
membership composition every four
years.
MASAC, crea.ted 30 years ago
to deal with early noise issues at
MSP, has suffered in recent years
from criticism that it has lost its
direction and voice. The matter
came to a head tcvo rnonths ago
when the City of Minneapolis
passed a resolution urging the
MAC to re-esamine MASAC's
effectiveness.
Under the new plan,
Minneapolis' representation grows
from 4 to 6, and Mendota Heights
and Eagan each grow from 1 to 2.
St. Paul drops from 3 to 1 member.
Airline industry membership also
grows bv t�vo, equaling the
community component at 19
members each.
MAS�.0 collects actual aircrafi
sound incidents over a 24-station
microphone recording system
monthlv, operates the noise hot
line, helped create an airline "noise
budget," �vas instrumental in the
formation ofthe Part 1�0 home
insulation program, and
periodicallv recommends changes
in flight rules to alleviate excessive
noise.
The new lineup of community
members is as follows:
Minneapolis 6, Mendota Heights 2,
Eagan 2, Bloomington 2, Richfield
2, St. Paul 1, Burnsville 1, St.
Louis Park 1, Sunfish Lake 1, and
Inver Grove Heights l.
The new NiASAC membership
composition was determined as a
function of th.ree weighted
variables: DNL 65 parcel counts,
aircraft overflights and community
DNL levels. In an effort to each
community, the following
weightin� scheme will be used:
DNL 6� parcel counts = 70%,
aircraft overflights = 1 � %, and
community DNL levels = 15 %.
SivfAAC COMMENT: The
representation of Minneapolis
would be much improved; however,
the Public vs User group balance
was a true representation of the
public interest.
Citizens interested in applying
for one of the Minneapolis
openings may contact the City
Clerk's office (673-2215).
��. Q�,
� � ;.::
=SirlVi%�t�C r� -
Pubiished internuttently by the South
Metro Airport Action Council.
Board of Dire�tors:
Dick Saunders: President
Meg Parsons: Secretary
Eileen Scuily: Treasurer
Frank Ario: First V.P.
Neil Clarf<: Second V.P.
Chuck Mamer
Greg Bastien
Sr1'If�AC
5116 Columbus Ave. S.
Minneapolis, MN 5�417
(612)822-8118
8 G LS5 NW `s�y6iaH �}opuaW
anan� �iao��in GO G G
ao��a�siuivapy �(�!�
6 6 aap�ay���8 uina}{
-- s.ro»a.rrQ fo p.rnog
��yy,� .�no,� uio.��
.• •,
2���i 'IIl �����
�2�Oi�I � �i�
$6b i. ,��
l.lJ������'
•e .
.
„!��'���'
�
8II8-ZZ8 iZi9)
�s,� xzng Lii�SS AIIAI `sziod�auuiy�
u�,nos anuan� snqcunt�� 9IIS
��L1IS
'II��I110� I�IOIZ�� .I,2iOd2iI'E� 02i.L�I�t H.L110S
SIYIAA.0 ENROLLMENT-R.ENEWAL FORM
Send to : SIyIAAC
511G Columbus Ave. S. -
3�Sinneapolis, l��i 155417
_General ($15) _ Supportin� ($25) v Contributing ($50)
Name:
Address:
City:
State
Zip:
Phone:
_Please check if you are willina to serve on a S��.tAAC committee.
The number on the mailing label indicates the last year of paid up membership. Piease renew if not cunent.
SMAAC is a volunteer citizens' group and your participation is vital.-Your dues provides the funds to inform
elected leaders in government, the SNIA- AC membership, and the general public on airport matters.
C.