The URL can be used to link to this page

06-10-1998 ARC Packet� CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION � AGENDA June 1.0, 1998 - 7 p.m. - Large Conference Room 1. Cail to Order - 7 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approvai of April 8, 1998 Minutes and May 13, 1998 Minutes. 4. Unfinished and New Business: �� ,��' a. Review Airport Plan of Action �,��„�..� �� 5. Updates a. b. c. MASAC Update MASAC Briefing - FAA Airspace Usage and Control RMT Analysis for New ANOMS Monito�s 6. Acknowledge Receipt of Various ReportslCorrespondence: . a. Airport Noise Reports for May 8, and May 22, 1998 b. MASAC Agenda for May 26, 1998 and April 28, 1998 Minutes c. MASAC Technical Advisor's Report for April 1998 " d. MASAC Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis for April 1998 e. MASAC Operations Committee Agenda/ Minutes for May 8, 1998 e. Eagan ARC Agenda for June 9, 1998 7. Other Comments or Concerns. 8. Adjourn. Auxiliary aids for disabled persons are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to �- ` provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration a# 452-1850 with requests. �,,,,, � � �� r. �. � �x:� � �' 1 � tii '� �� ,;,: ;+, , s., , C� �� t �� CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS June 8, 1998 To: From: Subject: Airport Relations Commission Kevin Batchelder, City Administrator Airport Noise Plan of Action DISCUSSION The Commission has requested revisions to the Mendota Heights Air Noise Plan of Action and that it be placed on the June agenda for further review and discussion. The Air Noise Plan of Action is intended to serve as a guide and a goals statement to direct our actions, as it relates to airport operations and air noise in the community. The Commission stated their intent would be to present an updated Aix Noise Plan of Action to the City Council in July or August. On Wednesday evening, copies of the revised version will be presented to the j Commission. At that time, the Commission should review the Topics of Interest list and the Action P1an and suggest changes to reflect completion of tasks, new issues and priorities. If the Commission so desires, they will have an opportunity to review and update the Action Plan at the June, July and August meetings before it is presented to City Council. Consider the Air Noise Plan of Action and the Topic of Interest list and provide direction to staff. Attachment: Airport Noise Mitigation Position Statement from June 26, 1996 C' m T�IE I�E'I'1ZC�POLIT.Al�t A�C�F'I' S�UND ABA'TElVIENT C�UNCII.� I�IOleTT' �' PA C GE �+'t71� THE ��,��"r��`�`� � ��-�� M�1 Y �69 1998 � l��AC 1�][EETING Il�tCI�T.T�ES: �� . �'i�'� � � 0 Agenda for the May 26, 199$ MASAC meeting ❑ Minutes of the Apri128, 1998 MASAC meeting 0 Copies of MASAC correspondence not included below ❑ Blank Information Request Form ❑ Technical Advisor's Reports cover memo ❑ NWA Fleet Mix Information Sheet and cover memo ❑ Air Traffic Control Airspace Briefing cover memo ❑ Additional Remote Monitoring Tower Locations cover memo ❑ Minutes of the May 8, 1998 MASAC Operations meeting with attachments and cover memos ❑ Monthly Part 150 Update ❑ Air Traffic Airspace Briefing Package ❑ Technical Advisor's Reports for June 1997 through April 1998 i-1�> 4.� .. . �-- .., - Na �,,, < <.�. �,..(...,: o �.� � � .�� . C�.�� v�. � f_.c�.. �, 'n \ /'� . .�, _ 1 � . _ _. ' I '��, C.,t�- i� �.{.+, �. ,... �`.� �;�i 4.��, a� �� ,. l �C `'J=t ;eY " �7� �j � �-� � t -----�-� {O�' L � �� t : : �`1 l �''d � c�,. �--r v �,�� < (} �4�� it � � LL �" r�.,�.---�_. c�,a ./�/' f 4.� �{� � �. . � ( �.� �--- ��.�....r-. �; �'Jt. tJ t. �=� Q_�- � • �-E? � w r " � � �" ., r,.,.. 7 �- ... ln �..1 n� �,<.. . t„ti,,.. �� ¢,.�,�.� i et`-��' M��-� ��'�d�-�- - �.- r � � �, .� � t,r�;Jv �., �� ,f R c� G�-t .,� W i. a. �,.r�e. L��,4 u� ,.... �• r..., .�.U�2�� cs��-�� ,��'��-`f r�� c,n- <<L t c--�j F"v n,�a �-(c c.,.. � i4�-/ V'� � o�-c_�. i� �-� �C lG� =i-t e�� 1 ( �`l.. ��., t„ �� 4.�-c,.-� [ �--�'t,, �.._ _ �- , C.E `� ��r-- S ��. //}} _,��t'.��i�'�-� i:_ t l .��_.;f:..�, S, �.,r"�@..�.e.�..�y,%._.�� " V" �.,.IJ"G (. r�'-'"r.�.:��'...-S �\��("�. � f � C;? '� .n r-i.,��'..�-t.J P'-,.�, •_. �(1, � � �^ ? ,— �'��-�._ i._, c�-r_.�..r'e':--`" !-�._�7 /7 ;,r-� �.y.,c �-'"� � � �.,��.,� �c� 5 , `� � +y � L�,..� G. � s C J V� S l�c�� (,.��/� e:`-'-.�,.'� �'C.,_v"" � �-'�'�_`. ,� .� �— . ) _._ _. __..... ....\.-.'� ' . .. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. -�� . . - -. � � �:• 1 COUNCIL General Meetinq May 26, 1998 7:30 p.m. to 9:15 p.m. 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota Caii to Order, Roll Call Approval of Minutes of Meeting April 28, 1998 introduction of Invited Guests Receipt of Communications '�- Consent Item: Letters of Appreciation to past members Technical Advisor's Runway System Utilization Reports and Complaint Summaries - May 1997 through Present NWA's Fieet Mix Information Item Air Traffic Airspace Brie�ng - Cindy Greene RMT Site Analysis Brie�ng - Roy Fuhrmann Operations Committee Report �- Committee Work Plan Calenda� - 1998 Report of the MAC Commission Meeting Persons Wishing to Address the Council Other Items Not on the Agenda Adjournment Next Meeting: June 23, 1998 C MINUTES METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL GENERAL MEETING April 28, 1998 7:30 p.m. 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 1. Call to Order Roll Call The meeting was called to order by Chairman Bob Johnson at 7:30 p.m. and the secretary was asked to call the roll. The following members were in attendance. Bob Johnson Mark Salmen Jennifer Sayre Steve Holme Dick Keinz Brian Bates St. Paul Chamber of Commerce Steve Minn Glenn Strand Dean Lindberg Neil Clark Dick Saunders Sandra Colvin Roy Mike Cramer Tom Hueg Kristal Stokes Dawn Weitzel Duane Hudson Jon Hohenstein Lance Staricha Ed Porter Dale Hanunons Kevin Batchelder Jill Smith Manny Camilon Sunfish Lake Advisors Roy Fuhrmann Chad� Leqve Cindy Greene Ron Glaub 1 MBAA NWA NWA NWA MAC Airborne Rolf Middleton Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis St. Paul Richfield Richfield Bloomington Eagan Eagan Burnsville Inver Grove Heights Mendota Heights Mendota Heights St. Louis Park Glenda Spiotta N1AC MAC FAA FAA-NWA-CMO Visitors � 2. Approval of Minutes � The minutes of the March 31, 1998 meeting were approved as distributed. Joe Lee reminded staffthat letters of appreciation need to be sent to the previous Minneapolis members. 3. Introduction of invited _u�ests Receipt of Communications There were no invited guests. A letter was received from the City of Eagan, which indicated support of the "Minneapolis Straight-out Procedure" for inclusion in the Environmental Assessment (EA) package stafiwill be forwarding to the FA.A. A facsimile was received from the Minneapolis City Council Inter Governmental Agency (IGA) committee indicating that Mr. Mike Cramer had been appointed as a representative for Minneapolis. Consent Items KEVIN BATCHEDLER, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MOVED AND JON HOHENSTEIN, EAGAN, SECONDED TO APPROVE THE INFORMATION REQUEST FORM AND THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS. THE VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS. MOTION CARRIED. 4. Technical Advisor's Runwav Svstem Utilization Report and Complaint Summarv Roy Fuhrmann, MASAC Technical Advisor, noted the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) had been signed by the FAA, allowing staff to import ARTS data into ANOMS. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, gave a brief overview of the March 1998 Technical Advisor's Report. Mr. Fuhrmann said since members had not had time to review the report thoroughly it and the rest of the back reports would be discussed in detail at the ne.�ct meeting. The following points were made: . There was a slight increase in operations and complaints over March of 1997. . The purpose of comparing current data to the same month a year earlier rather than to last month is to adjust for seasonality. . There is an increase in the number of operations between 10:30 and 11:00 largely due to the change in nighttime reporting hours. Northwest has also modified their departure banks to accommodate traffic flow during the reconstruction of the south parallel runway. Jennifer Sayre, Northwest, has indicated that the last departure bank is now beginning at around 10:20 p.m. rather than at 10:00 p.m., which will increase the number of flights normally occumng bet�veen 10:30 and 11:00 until the reconstruction is complete. 2 ➢ Dawn Weitzel, Richfield, said she had received 80 airport-related noise complaints at her office. Roy Fuhrnlann, Technical Advisor, said staff had not been able to correlate the ground noise complaints with activity on the field. He noted that run ups are prohibited between 12 a.m. and 5 a.m. and that the run-up logs from the operations departments showed there had not been any during this time frame. Mr. Fuhrmann said, though, that run ups were allowed during the 10:30 p.m. to 12 a.m, time period. Ms. Weitzel said the City of Richfield would like to request staff monitor for ground noise. Mr. Fuhrmann said it could be possible that the residents are eYperiencing a difference in noise due to the shift in where aircraft are taking off on the south parallel runway. ! Joe Lee, Minneapolis, asked staff to determine how many additional night flights occurred during the 10:30 to 11:00 timeframe due to both the reconstruction of the south parallel (spreading out of flights) and the change in nighttime reporting hours. ➢ Steve Minn, Minneapolis, asked if the reconstruction plans for the south parallel runway had included a provision to allow flights to occur later in the evening in order to limit congestion during the day. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, explained that the reconstruction plans had been completed before the designated nighttime hours were changed from 11:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. He also said airlines were not prohibited from operating after 10:30, but that the Voluntary Nighttime Agreement with most of the commercial airlines requested they not schedule passenger flights past 10:30 p.m. and, if it was necessary, that they use only Stage III airplanes. ? Ed Porter, Burnsville, asked staff to eliminate the water areas on the complaint map. �. Minneapolis Straight Out Analvsis Request for Communitv Sup�ort Chairman Johnson thanked the City of Esgan for submitting a letter to MASAC in support of the Minneapolis Straight-out Procedure and said it would be included in the EA report package to the FAA. Chairman Johnson also asked the representatives of Minneapolis if the council could expect a letter from the City of Minneapolis. Steve Minn, Minneapolis, said a letter of support would be forthcoming within the ne,ct rivo weeks. 6. Operations Committee Appointments Chairman Johnson announced his appointments to the Operations Committee. The only change in the committee was the appointing of Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, to replace Jim Serrin. 7. Noise Contour Generation and DNL Development (HNTB) Evan Futterman, HNTB, gave a presentation on DNL and Noise Contour Development. ➢ DNL is a noise metric that represents the accumulation of all the noise over the course of a single day with a given noise level. ➢ The model reflects the fact that people are more annoyed with noise at night so it gives night flights a l Odb penalty (DNL is calculated using 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. for the night hours). ➢ DNL can be e;cpressed in many ways, but airports typically eYpress them in noise contours. ➢ DNL is a national standard adopted by most federal agencies and continues ta be used and endorsed. For insta.nce the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency identified DNL as the most appropriate means of evaluating airport noise. C �. � Most differences in opinion over DNL do not involve the way it is calculated but what level is considered annoying. ➢ The noise modeling software that calculates airport noise has changed a lot over the years. The Integrated Noise Model (]NM) program is at version 5. r The FAA selected the 6� DNL threshold based on the Schultz cun�e. which is based on surveys of residents surrounding airports, to identify compatible �.nd non-compatible land use areas around an airport in regards to annoyance levels. This is not to suggest that people are not annoyed at lower levels of noise. ➢ Sound insulation is encouraged in residential areas that are presently in the 65 DNL curve. ➢ In 1992 the MAC defined the 6� DNL 1996 predicted noise contour and identified non-compatible land use around MSP. The contour was. then submitted to the FAA for approval in order to begin the Part 150 Residential Sound Insulation Program using federal monies. ➢ New noise is as much of a problem as a lot of noise. (Es: The newly built Denver International A.irport was built in an area outside any residential areas but because people who have never e:cperienced airport noise are now experiencing it they have more noise complaints than MSP.) ➢ Noise is logaritlunic. Every 10-decibel increase doubles the amount of noise a person hears. ➢ An all Stage III fleet will change noise levels and the noise contours considerably. ➢ When aircraft noise events exceed conversational levels, they become disruptive. How are DNL noise contours developed at MSP and other airports? ➢ The model tries to consider all operational data available �- Initial contours tivere generated using best guesses from FAA personnel, pilots, MAC, airlines, etc. regarding current and future operations. ➢ A lot has changed since then. There is a higher level of refinement in the model because actual information is available using ANOMS. �- The inputs to the model are.: ➢ Aircraft Operations ➢ Fleet mix (Stage II vs. Sta�e III) i Day/Night Split (10-decibel penalty after 10:00 p.m.) ➢ Runway Use (runway ends) ➢ Flight Tracks ➢ Profiles Y The fleet mix is critical to the outcome of the noise e:cposure. The number of people living under the 6� DNL contour decreased from 4�,000 people in the mid-1980's to a projected 10,000 in 200� because of the fleet mix cha.nge. ➢ The 60 DNL contour adds about 60,000 people to the contour. :- ANOMS data cannot predict the future. i When the actual 1996 contour was developed using ANOMS data, it sho�ved runway 04/22 was not being used as was predicted in 1992. :� Monthly DNL levets shoutd not be compared to yearly DNL's. ➢ The FAA requires airports to develop ne�v contours every � to 10 years. There was discussion about the possible reasons for Denver airport's high number of compiaints. It was noted that airports could not correlate complaints with actual operations. But, airport operational changes are the best indicators of changes in the number of noise complaints. Two contours have been developed for Minneapolis for 200�. One has the baseline of 2-3% growth a year (� r; � and the other is for the high forecast of 4°/a per year. Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, asked if the 2005 contour includes the number of hushkitted aircraft that will be operating out of MSP in the future. Mr. Futterman said that it did. Jon Hohenstein, Eagan, asked if the Schultz curve would be re-addressed after there is an all Stage III fleet. Mr. Futterman said that FICAN had done the most recent analysis and found that the Schultz curve was still valid. He said that it may be possible that once the Stage II aircraft are no longer being used, that people's levels of annoyance will change. Dawn Weitzel, R.ichfield, asked if the "C" weighted noise levels could be addressed within the Schultz curve. Mr. Futterman said that there were no federal criteria to measure low frequency noise. He said that aircraft manufacturers have made aircraf� quieter by moving the threshold of noise from high to low frequency levels. Mr. Futterman said low frequency noise has not been treated as a separate noise category but has been included in aircraft noise levels as a whole. Steve Minn, Minneapolis, asked if the INM was accepted as the industry standard. Mr. Futterman said that the FAA and the EPA have identified the INM as the appropriate way to model noise. He said contours can be compared with monitored noise levels, but the FAA shies away from using monitored noise data. in contour generation because there are so many variables. Glenn Strand, Minneapolis, asked how the FAA-approved 1996 DNL contour currently being used for the Part 1�0 Residential Sound Insulation Program compares with the 1996 actual contour. Mr. Futterman said the two contours were very different. He said it was mainly because runwa.y 04/22 is not being used in the maiuier in which it was believed it would be. He said in 1992 it was predicted that by 1996, 19% of the traf�ic would be using runway 04/22. Yet, it is cunently being used for only 2% of the traffic. Mr. Strand said he was concerned with the insulation program using such an outdated contour. Mr. Futterman said those residents that are in both the 1996 and the 2005 contour would be given priority over those who are in neither and that those residents in the 1996 contour will be insulated before anyone in the new contour is. Jill Smith, Mendota Heights, asked why the Metropolitan Council's noise contour was considerably larger than the MAC's for future planning. Mr. Futterman said he was aware of the Met Council's noise contour map from the 1970's that was based on the worst case scenario but thought their newest map was based on the MAC's process. Ms. Smith said their most recent was the map she was speaking of. Mr. Futterman said he had no lrnowledge of a different map but that someone could investigate it. JeffHamiel MAC Executive Director Mr. Hamiel advised MASAC to formally analyze nighttime noise levels at the airport. He said an analysis should include a comparison of ambient noise on the airfield and ambient noise.in the communities, since what is heard on the airfield can be different than what is heard in the communities. He cautioned members, as well, to perform the necessary work and make the necessary recommendations within a relatively short time period in order for MASAC to be of help to both the MA.0 and the communities. C� 2. Mr. Hamiel also discussed the summer runway construction schedule. He noted that the south parallel runway had been almost completely demolished. He said the work was going extremely well from a construction point of view and the contractor was ahead of schedule and on budget. He noted that the relatively dry weather had been instrumental in the construction process, as well as in allowing pilots to take off and land on the 6,000-ft nimvay. He said the airlines and their pilots, as well as FAA traffic control personnel, deserved a"pat on the back" for adjusting to the changes. He said community members have also been very understandable to the temporary changes in operations and deserve an equal amount of praise for their efforts. � Mr. Hamiel also discussed the April 20, 1998 Commission meeting at which there were approximately 45-50 Richfield residents in attendance. He said the residents came to the meeting in order to address the Commission regarding airport noise. He said the Chairman moved the "public comment" time up on the agenda but limited the residents' time to speak . He said Commissioner Himle suggested the residents address the P&E Committee at its May meeting in order to be able to discuss their concerns at more length and with the appropriate committee. Mr. Hamiel said because the residents felt they had not been given adequate time to speak, some left the meeting angry. He said he also left the meeiing in order to speak with some of them. Mr. Hamiel said MAC was expecting an increase in complaints from Richfield residents due to the fact that the city of R.ichfield hired a consultant to increase residents' awareness of airport-related issues. Steve Minn, Minneapolis, asked Mr. Hamiel to e:cptain how the budget appropriations process at the MAC ;'` � worked so that monies could be allocated as quickly as possible for acquiring additiona.l Remote -' Monitoring Towers (RMTs). Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said the Aviation Noise Program's 1998 budget did not include monies for additional RMTs. He said the additional RMTs would cost approximately $300,000 to $400,000. He said the Operations Committee is planning to discuss the issue at its May 8, 1998 meeting with the intention of bringing a recommendation to the full MASAC body in May. He said the plan is to begin the process of putting out a Request for Qualifications and Proposals (RFQ and RFP) in late fall with construction beginning early ne�ct spring. He said this would give staffthe time to include the necessary monies in the 1999 CIP budget. Mr. Hamiel said it would be best to take the time necessary to prepare for their installation, rather than try for installation this year. Dawn Weitzel, Richfield, thanked Mr. Hamiel for encouraging MASAC to study the nighttime noise issue at the airport. She said she also wanted to clarify that she had informed the Commission secretary and the P&E Committee secretary of the fact that a number of residents would be attending the Commission meeting and were plaiuung to speak. She said Nigel Finney had been contacted by both Richfield's consultant and herself, and that voice mail messages were left for Comrnissioner Himle well in advance of the meeting. She said the residents wanted to have their comments heard before the EIS on the north/south runway was issued. She also said the residents were planning to attend the P&E meeting in May. It was noted that the final north/south runway EIS draft was due in May and the Record of Decision would be issued in July. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, noted that the Executive Committee of the Airport Task Force had made the decision to encourage the MAC to revert back to an 11:00 start time for nighttime hours. He said he wanted to Imow what Mr. Hamiel thought of that proposal. Mr. Hamiel said that although the airport was i' a 24-hour a day, 7 day a week operation, environmental concerns should be addressed, especially when new cargo operations are being considered. He said the MAC still supported the 10:30 p.m. time. MASAC Audit - Discussion and Prioritization Chairman Johnson said if there were no questions or comments about the MASAC goals and objectives, he would fonvard them to the Operations Committee for prioritization and implementation. There was no additional discussion. 10. �erations Committee Report Mark Salmen reviewed the minutes of the Operations Committee's April 17, 1998 meeting. He reported that the committee had reviewed and discussed stafis analysis of possible locations for additionai RMT sites and said a full briefing would be given at the neYt MASAC meeting. Steve Minn, Minneapolis, asked staff to review the locations of the additional RMT sites. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, briefly described stafPs analysis for detecmining possible RMT locations and gave the general locations of the proposed sites. He reminded members that the e:cisting 24 sites already capture 100% of the noise events. He said the goal of the analysis was to increase the number of flights that intersected more than one RMT "buffer zone." 1 l. Report of the MAC Commission Meetin� Chairman Johnson reported the Commission voted at its last meeting to approve Ameritech as the long distance provider for the tenninal building. The Commission also discussed the proposed people mover that would take passengers from the terminal building to the remote rental car company area. ' �) 12. Persons Wishin� to Address the Council Mike Sullivan of Eagan asked staff if the operation of the RMT sites and the ANOMS system had changed over time. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said that how the acquisition of ARTS data from the Tower has changed. He said staff has continually tried to eliminate any possible errors that could occur in order to receive the most accurate data, including perfornun� field checks. Mr. Sullivan asked whether the FA.A required airports to submit a new Part 150 contour whenever operations at an airport change significantly. Mr. Fuhrmann noted that the ANOMS data collected from the RMT sites was not used in the INM model to generate the contour. He e:cplained that when the current contour was generated there was no ANOMS system and the airport had to rely on less accurate information. He said the FAA's ARTS data, through the use of ANOMS, now provides accurate data that can be fed into the INM model. Mr. Sullivan asked if he could obtain information on the parameters that are used to generate the contours in the INM model. Evan Futterman, HNTB, said he would be happy to work through Mr. Fuhrmann's office to provide that information. Mr. Sullivan also asked staffwhen the parallel runway headings had been changed. Mr. Fuhrmann said they were changed in September of 1997 to reflect the shift in magnetic variation. 13. Other Items Not on the Agenda Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, passed out information on chat lines that would be operating the ne:�t day due to it being "Noise Awareness Day." Chad Leqve, MAC, noted that the flight tracks for the month of March 1998 were now available on the Environment Department's Web Site at www.macavsat.org. He said the information would be updated as soan as new information becomes available. 14. Adiournment Chairman Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitterl. Melissa Scovronski, MASAC Secretary 8 C MASA C NOISE MONITORING AND INFORMA TION REO UEST FOR1V� 1998 Over Please Please indicate the 1998 MASAC objectives supported by this this request: ❑ To provide information to the �i�fAC in their efforts to communicate chan�es in operations, due to construction to the surrounding communities. � Evaluate departure compliance through the Eagan/Ntendota Heigirts Corridor and make any necessary ,' ' changes to the relevant procedures. � Review the ANOMS system and noise monitors, and evaluate the need and placement of additional remote monitoring towers. Also, evaluate remote monitoring capabilities. � RequestAir Tra�c Control personne! to make a presentation on how MSP operations are conducted. � Look at providing incentives to carriers in acquiring and operating jactory-made Stage III aircraJt. ❑ Irrvestigate how GPS and other NAVAids cou/d hefp alleviate aircraJ? noise. ❑ Review the NADPs and compliance. ❑ Continue discussion oJPart I.SO contour generation. Please send your reqarest via mail to: MASAC Secretary, 6040 28th Avenue S., Minneapolis, NIN 5�450 or fax it to :(612) 725-6310. Request #: Staff Contact: Date Received: Is this a Pl�one Or Written �� t1PProved By: _ �Approval Date: Request? Data Availability: Monitoring S[art Date: Monitoring Stop Date: Analysis SGut Date: Analysis Stop Date: Compietion Date: METROPOLITAN AIRCI.AFT SO UND ABATE.IVIENT CO UNCIL TO: MASAC Members FROM: Chad Leqve, ANOMS Coordinator ��TBJECT: Technical Advisor's Reports DATE: May 18, 1998 On Friday, Apri124, 1998 the MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs received the approved Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) from the Federal Aviation Administra.tion (FAA). As a result the March 1998 Technical Advisor's report was presented at the April, 1998 MASAC meeting. Included in your packet you will find the remaining reports spanning June, 1997 to April, 1998 (June `9'7, July `97, August `97, September `97, October `97, November `97, December `97, January `98, February `98, April `98). Accompanying each Technical advisor's report is the / �appropriate corridor analysis for that particular month. I hope these reports will prove helpful and insightful in your quantification and understanding of operations at the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport for the past eleven months. Please review the reports and if you have any question contact myself at 725-632$ or Shane VanderVoort at 725-6329. METRUPC�LITAN AIRCI:AFT SOi.IND ABATEMENT CO UNCIL TO: FROM: SI.T�JEC'T: DATE: ,�- �� ;� . Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor Northwest Airlines Fleet Mix Information May 18, 1998 During the March MASAC meeting, a discussion occurred about the composition of Northwest Airline's fleet mix. As a follow-up to this request for infarmation, Jennifer Sayer, Director of State Affairs and Airport Access for Northwest Airlines, has provided a handout listing their fleet mix composition. Northwest Airlines has met all past Federal Stage II phaseout requirements and is committed to meeting the upcoming phaseout requirements. This is an informational item only. No action is required. ��- ��,� N V � � � Q � m O cC � N � � r ` � U � T r .-� c co 0 �� c� i� v� cp l ( N�� O�' � tt) a' N cV Q G� dj � iD T 0 p d' C10 r- G. � a� � � i c� v� c� �{! a� t �t p`� •-1 a�o N � � e� c�p►� c'�' � I I a� t�- � � � N 0 tC� O `� �'°, ��N�I� ''7'1�M o d? � °��NNi� Q�� .� .� C � � � � ,J a� a� = 0000� — '� ��" �,.��,r. — ,�q�� n ¢,c*�cy �� m a': � ornCmc>rno�o�c�n �t-�.�.�mo�oot�n � v>rn � �QUt�N�rCh(.� C� ()(�1 ��'NC.�C.� V .�.� , �LfAt�Gii`►t`��2�OC�C� C�J't�P►C10�� (�(!� ^� i.�� N N v X � 00 � r � � — � = �i. (v O c� � � L ' � � m Q � � � Z '� �V � � td �- a. � o� _ � U r" •� O Q � W � � C � d .� � � � � U C' •y— w � "`- U � N `:= � � � � � � c ❑ ; � � < � � Y s C . . / � � . . I : I . '., : � �" ,, . . TO: MASAC FROM: Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor SUBJECT: Air Traffic Control Airspace Briefing DATE: Apri120, 1998 As part of the continuing effort to provide educational topics to the eacisting and recently appointed MASAC members MAC staff has coordinated a presentation by Cindy Greene, MSP ATCT Support Manager concerning the airspace at MSP. Ms. Greene has prepared the Minneapolis Air Traf£ic Control Tower Airspace and Procedures Information packet included with your packet as a reference for the upcoming discussion. If you have any questions about MSP's airspace and how traffic is handled at MSP, please present them during this presentation. This is an informational item only. No action is required. 0 . . � � � . . � I � . , , ;� � � ;1 ,. Z'0: FROM: SUBJECT: I)ATE: MASAC Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor Addirional Remote Monitoring Tower Locations May 18, 1998 At the April 17, and May 8, 1998, MASAC Operations Committee meetings, MAC staff briefed the Operations Committee on proposed locations for the placement of additional Remote Monitoring Towers (RM'I') as identified in the Noise Mitigation Pro�am report of November 1996. Of significant importance when siting these additional RMT locations is the fact that the exisring noise. monitoring coverage azea for each RMT is, on average, three to four times larger than the RMT buffer area that will be established during this analysis. The development of a buffer area is only of importance as a tool to establish a minimum boundary area criteria when considering new RMT locations. These bu,,�`'er areas are not an indication of the limi# of a noise monitoring influence area. A complete outline of the procedure will be discussed using the following basic methodology: l. Use a two mile buffer around the Year 2Q05 DNL 60 contour, to incorporate the vast majority of existing RMT sites and focus on the azeas most likely to be impacted by MSP operations. 2. Analyze the landuse within each community to locate the site to provide coverage in areas that are predominately residential use. 3. Overlay aircraft overflight data from one week out of each quarter to resolve seasonality differences and attempt to locate the RMT in an area most beneficial to monitor existing and future aircraft jet operations. 4. Deternune the number of RMT buffer areas that each flight track penetrates. This analysis is used to minimize the number of flight tracks that do not go through the defined RMT buffer areas. Assumptions for Additional RMTs 5. Coverage area for each R.NiT is equal to or b eater than the distance to the next closest RMT. 6. Locating additional RMTs closer than the current next closest RMT will not increase accuracy or noise monitoring inte�rity. 7. The existing RMT noise monitoring coverage area is significantly larger than the distance to the next closest RMT. C� Determination of RMT siting buffer area 8. Given the above assumptions, the size of the RMT buffer area was determined by using the mean distance from one RMT to the next closest RMT which is 6308.6 feet. 9. One half of the mean distance is 3104.3 feet, which is used to create a buffer area radius since each RMT would cover at least one half of the distance to the next RMT. 10. With the above RMT buffer size, 71 °lo of the existing twenty four RMT locations are within one standard deviation of the mean. 1l. Additionally, 92% of the existing twenty four RMT locations are within two standard deviations of the mean. The original siting methodology used the following criteria: 12. Must be located within 100 feet of electrical power 13. Must be located on public property 14. Located to monitor the majority of operations at MSP. This process was refined multiple times to account for both arrival and departure operations. The arrival paths as well as proposed and existing departure paths were considered during the siting of the orib nal 24 sites. Proposed Action for May 26, 1998 At the May 8, 1998, MASAC Operations Committee meeting, the committee passed, by unanunous vote, the motion to accept Staff's RMT siting analysis and to recommend to MASAC to use a systems approach (to maximize the number of flight tracks through RMT buffer areas) as the criteria for � ) locating five (5) additional RMT sites, (25-29), as outlined in the analysis. MASAC's Operations Committee recommends that the full body accept the siting analysis as outlined in the above analysis. Page 5 MINUTES MASAC OPERAT10tVS COMMITTEE MAY 8, '1998 The meeting was held at the Metropolitan Airports Commission West Terminal Building No�th Star Conference Room, and called to order at 10:05 a.m. The foliowing members were in attendance: Members: Mark Salmen, Chairman - NWA Bob Johnson - MBAA John Nelson - Bloomington Kevin Batchelder — Mendota Heights Lance Staricha — Eagan Dick Keinz - MAC Ron Johnson - ALPA Advisory: Roy Fuhrmann - MAC Chad �eqve - MAC Kay Hatlestad - MAC Ron Glaub - FAA NWA CMO Cindy Greene - FAA Visitors: Jan DelCalzo RMT SITE LOCATION ANALYSIS Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said staff narrowed down the possible areas for the proposed additional 5 RMT sites and provided maps of these areas. He noted that in Minneapolis and Richfield the RMT buffer zones were located in residential areas. The RMTs to the southeast in Mendota Heights and Eagan, on the other hand, were located in non- residential areas. After showing possible altemative residential sites for these RMTs, he said the committee would need to decide whether these sites should be located to capture the maximum number of flights (as was done for the initial analysis) or in a nearby residential area. He said moving the RMT sites to residential areas would increase the number of flights passing through only one RMT buffer zone. (� ; C�� Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, said he felt if the system was to be expanded, the locatians af the RMT sites should serve the system rather than particular neighborhoods. Lance Staricha, Eagan, asked why additional RMT sites were now being conside; ad when in the past additional sites have been considered unnecessary. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said new sites were now being considered because of the decision by the legislature not to move the airport and the MSP Noise Mitigation Committee's recommendation to expand the noise monitoring system. He said additional RMT sites will also be added to monitor operations associated wifh the north/south runway. John Nelson, Bloomington, said he had problems justifying the expenditure for an RMT that would be placed in a commercial/industrial/vacant area, rather than a residential area. He also noted that the current RMT sites already serve the system. Mr. Nelson said he wanted to be sure that the additional RMT sites for the North/South runway were not forgotten and illustrated where these RMT sites might be located. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, noted it may be possible if proposed site #25 were moved to the east in line with site #24 and proposed site #26, they could maximize both the numbers of flight tracks running through the buffer zones and serve residential areas, as well. It was noted that the�e were areas of the maps in Eagan and Mendota Heights tha� did not show newly developed residential areas and that there would most likely be a lot of residential construction within the next 5 years. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, said he felt a systems approach to siting the RMTs would be best. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, noted each city would have the final decision, within a 5 to 10 block area, as to the exact location of their additional RMT sites. John Nelson, Bloomington, asked Dick Keinz, MAC, and Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, if their budget for 1999 included the cost of the additional RMT sites. Dick and Roy said an estimated cost is included in the 1999 CIP submittal and that it would be included in the budget process this summer. Mr. Nelson said he felt that if mobile monitoring capabilities were still being considered for monitoring noise in specific neighborhoods he could support a systems approach to siting the locations of the RMTs. He said he wanted to be sure that MASAC was being sensitive and responsive to the residents of the cities. �ance Staricha, Eagan, said there could be a problem with "selling" proposed RMT site #25, but that if mobile monitoring were available, he could justify voting for the proposed sites. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said staff is able to do remote monitoring but that there is a problem with the software being able to correlate flight tracks with the remote monitoring locations as is currently done with the ANOMS system. �� JOHN NE�SON, BLOOMINGTON, MOVED AND DICK SAUNDERS, MINNEAPOUS, SECONDED, TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RMT SITING ANAL.YSIS AND TO RECOMMEND TO MASAC THAT, USING A SYSTEMS APPROACH, 5 ADDITIONAL RMT SITES (25-29) SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE ANOMS SYSTEM WITHIN THE LOCATIONS OUT�INED 1N THE ANALYSIS. THE VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS. MOTION CARRIED. NON-SIiVIULT,4NE0US CORR/DOR DEPARTURE ANALYS/S Chad Leqve, MAC, reviewed the "Scope of Analysis: Crossing in the Corridor Procedure" document. He said staff would need to know what logs the FAA could provide. Cindy Greene, FAA, said that although the ARTS Data can provide information about when the procedure is being used, it does not provide information about why the procedure isn't used. She said the controllers are the only ones who can provide this information. She noted there are many variables affecting when the procedure will or will not be used. She said some of the variables include: � How far out an incoming aircraft is during head-to-head operations. �- The weather conditions. �- The type of aircraft departing. �- If the aircraft can see each other. �- If the controller can see both aircraft. a- The destination of the departing airc�aft. �- And more. Ms. G�eene said air traffic was not willing to begin tracking departures in regards to the reasons a cantroller decides not to use the crossing procedure. She said it would be laborious and was not a standard requirement for the controllers. Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, said it was not the intent of the city to second-guess the controllers' decisions but to find out when the procedure is happening and if it is providing any relief. There was a discussion regarding when the procedure can be used. Cindy Greene, FAA, said the procedure can be used (with many variables) when there is one local controller, but it is only possible during non-simultaneous conditions (when there is one local controller, there's only one aircraft ready to depart and when there is no aircraft inbound). A lengthy discussion ensued regarding how staff could analyze the use of the procedure using ARTS data, yet eliminate the need for the controllers to keep a log of the reasons why the procedure was not used. It was decided the proposed analysis should be changed as follows: �c3 C� � 1. The hours of study wiil be between 23:00 and 06:00 weekdays to ensure there is oniy one local controller on duty during the hours of analysis, which is a prerequisite for being able to use the procedure. 2. Staff and the FAA wiil provide a list of variables describing the conditions affecting when the procedure can and cannot be used for a better understanding of how often the right conditions occur. 3. The period of study will be a 6-month period prior to the start of the present construction season and a 6-month period after construction completion because of the changes in the operations at the airpo�k during this time. 4. The analysis wiil not include information from the tower on why the procedure is not used for specific departures. JOHN NEL.SON, MOVED, AND KEVIN BATCHEDLER, SECONDED, TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSED ANALYSiS WITH THE AMENDMENTS TO BE PERFORMED FOR TWO 6- MONTH PERIODS, ONE COMMENCING SEPTEMBER 1998 AND THE OTHER OCTOBER 1997 THROUGH MARCH 1998 FOR THE HOURS OF 23:00 TO 06:00. THE VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS. MOTiON CARRIED. It was agreed to postpone the start of the analysis until September 1998. FORMALIZE THE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE'S WORK PLAN FOR 1998 After much discussion and debate, the Operations Committee approved the attached work plan outline for 1998. Cindy Greene, FAA, suggested that an orientation session be given regarding the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. This item was added to the list of Operations Committee objectives for 1998, as well. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, also added the run up and ground noise study to the work plan. Mr. Fuhrmann also said that staff had been working on a MASAC handbook and would like to have the opportunity at various MASAC meetings to brief each topic separately. Robert Johnson, MBAA, suggested MASAC review the MASAC Assessment in order to determine what has been accomplished, what is being worked on and what needs to be done. JOHN NELSON, BLOOMINGTON, MOVED AND DICK SAUNDERS, MINNEAPOLIS, SECONDED, TO APPROVE THE REVlSED OPERATIONS COMMITTEE OBJECTIVES TIMELINE FOR 1998. THE VOTE WA5 UNANIMOUS. MOT10N CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE 4 , A letter was received from the chairman of the Twin Cities Ai�ports Task Force in regards to the designafed nighttime hours at MSP (see attachment). After a brief discussion, it was decided that the Committee would send a letter in response to the chairman, and that the committee would revisit the topic in October. ROBERT JOHNSON, MBAA, MOVED AND KEVIN BATCHELDER, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, SECONDED TO DIRECT STAFF TO RESPOND IN A LETTER TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE TWIN CITIES AIRPORTS TASK FORCE INFORMING HIM THAT THE MASAC OPERATIONS COMMITTEE WAS IN RECEIPT OF HIS �ETTER AND WOULD 8E ANALYZING THE 10:30 P.M. TO 11:00 P.M. TIME FRAME AT ITS OCTOBER 1998 MEETING. THE VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS. MOTION CARRIED. Cindy Greene, FAA, handed out copies of the Minneapolis Air Traffic Control Tower Airspace and Procedures Information package, which will be briefed at the May 1998 MASAC meeting and asked for comments or suggestions. Chairman Salmen said he thought a map depicting a larger area surrounding MSP would be beneficial in showing how MSP relates to other areas of the US. Ron Glaub, FAA, briefed the committee on the concerns the air traffic controllers had with the change in the NADPs, which had been brought to the committee's attention at the ( j previous meeting. After reviewing the technical differences between the distant and close-in departure procedures, he said, basically, that the controllers had gotten used to the original departure profile and were giving headings based on an aircraft's anticipated altitude. He said the controllers felt the new profile was a safety concern because it altered the time at which aircraft reach a certain altitude. He said now that the controllers have worked with the new profile for a while, they are feeling more comfortable with it and no longer feel it is a safety concern. The meeting was adjourned at 1:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Melissa Scovronski Committee Secretary 5 � `� .. � .� . .. :� ,, �., .,� ..sq��., - ,�II I ` < "��r� I�I fi �•� V Illl.,,_.�• �'` _ IA\ �. , �� .'. ; . L" ' �� I . �: :' t'.. :... � � �, ,: I , ...� `��.� . ' �. _��.. . ' �� .. ,. ♦ � �r ' �� .'y _ ' . . . �.� ...': ::. 11 �,+''• �• ��,�, ��} 4 'i_ ,�iii'&5�%t4.3 � � 0 c a� � c h � O � T d � m?`E m— c m � mli� v_ �� m ��+- m m 1° �,ti ., � coma`—°Ey� cotS O �� p,0� � �UY zcn�rnU �a»a ��, �� N � O � O �.,^' h::. i S £ r ::i _ axt��w:_;;';�S'ie - — �"� 1 `�Yf: '`'�� , "'��'° .,:.: ■■ 11111► � . \1111111111� ��1 ��I�� 11�111��1� �IIII�111 : - �AI ��/�� !1L��11!!1 !I!!/�lIIIII 1111/�i� , ,; ' I -�..., _..., ` �� Ih�1 �Ii�lll�■ 1/II�IIi � �� II�II 111111/1/1 II��G� �,��m,eec=7!'jl : �� m��n�� 'r��i �u�/ ��1�� 1111111111 111/11l�It l�1��1!1�l�1�1 1!90i1 �� n�� u�ii �i�iaiii�ii�i� �� r�!�� , �� c,�� i�i�i��'ir �i�� .��R�� ,� � i� i11i�� - ' �'��11�� 1111111111 11!!IIIIla�Al�Pl1�1�� 1�1111/► !� " r��1111 1111111111 Il��rllil ��/��/1 ■■111►' ( � ': , 111111� IIUI�uu ��m��'�o��■�■ :�■■► _ .� ;� : � „ . �" .�-� � ►� �:.,,... �� ''��I �1111 I ,'�qq1 I �� ►, � 1�ZA.SAC OPEI,ATIONS CC�1I�IMITTEE TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MASAC Operations Committee Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor Runup and Ground Noise Study Review May l, 1998 At the April 28, 1998 MASAC meeting, MAC Executive Director, Jeff Hamiel requested MASAC to study the potential impacts of runup and ground noise issues at the MSP airport. As part of the discussion, the City of Richfield has also requested additional information in a effort to try and quantify the reason for increased complaints from their local community concerning this same issue. Staff will provide an overview of the proposed study and receive comments from the Operations Committee on the scope of the monitoring project. � ��IASAC (�PEI.ATICONS CO.�ZMITTEE T�: MASAC Operations Committee FRONI: Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor SUB,jECT: Runup and Ground Noise Study Review DATE: May 8, 1998 ��s�.c The l�letropolitan Airports Commission uses many methods to minimize the effects aircraft operations have on neiQhborin� residents surroundina the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. One of these methods is the use of an airport Field Rule that establishes procedures for aircraft engine run-ups. 'These procedures were developed in 1976 to address the increasin� frequency of maintenance run-ups and the importance of these operations, relative to the overall noise environment at MSP. ( � Occasionally, these Quidelines need to be reevaluated to modify or verify the effectiveness of the " established procedures. The scope of this work will include five basic elernents: Monitorina and Data collection; Contour generation; Data analysis; Evaluation of existing procedures; and Recommendations. The goal of this study is to determine the ground and runup noise sources and their associated monitored impacts. �lonitoring and Data collection �3- Monitor operations in the maintenance run-up area of selected aircraft at various locations in the airport operations area during both daytime and ni�httime hours. �- Monitor areas adjacent to Runway 04 when and where engine run-up activities are conducted. �-�- Monitor areas adjacent to the airport in the nearest residential area to the runup pad, while monitorin� the same aircraft activities on the airport. �-3- Identify potential ground noise impacts, such as taxiing aircraft, APU, GPU, engine start, start of takeoff roll and reverse thrust activities. --� Contour Generation �-3�- Development of individual run-up noise contours in dBA for 727-200, 727-200H, DC9-30, DC9-30H, DC 10, B7�7 and A320. Data �nalysis �- Analysis of the data to determine the efFect of conducting aircraft maintenance run- ups with varyin� headinas. '�- Produce �raphs, tables and charts that support and summarize the monitored data ! Evaluation of existing procedures �- Evaluadon of various aircraft headinas and the promulQation of noise throuQhout the monitorinQ locations. Airiine Survey of viaintenance Requirements �3- Conduct a survey with aircraft operators that routinely use the run-up pad to deter- mine maintenance run-up requirements, includin� when, why, where and how long the run-ups are required. �- Determine the impact various resu-ictions may have on overall airport operations. Recommendations �- Provide recommendations and options for revising the En�ine run-up procedures that will minimize the effect of aircraft noise in neighborina communities while meetin� the en�ine run-up requirements of rhe airlines. Evaluation of the above procedures will enable a complete analysis of the most effective and operationally efficient methods to conduct en�ine run-ups while minimizina the noise impact on the surroundinj communities. Initial monitorina activity, data collection, niahttime run-up log evaluation and coordination activities with the airline maintenance personnel and NIAC operations department can be ( ) accomplished by our office. Contour generation, data analysis, evaluation and recomrnendations may best be served by external consultants for objectivity purposes. , � � '1 '� T0: MASAC Operations Committee FROM: Chad Leqve, ANOMS Coordinator SUB,jECT: Crossing in the Comdor Analysis Dr�TE: May 1, 1998 On March 17, 1998 a letter was forwarded to Bob Johnson from the city of Mendota Heights requesting specific airspace analysis relative to the crossing in the corridor procedure. Inquiries were made regarding time available to preform the crossing procedure and execution of the procedure during the potential time periods. When assessing the feasibility of such analysis several variables must be considered. At the May 8, 1998 Operations Comnnittee Meeting a comprehensive scope will be presented outlining the j' � resources, methods and cooperation necessary to complete the analysis. There are four main premises the analysis must address. Below is a break down of the topics and associated issues: Target Time Periods !� Time period of interest includes the weekday hours of 22:00 - 06:00 and weekends. FAA Feasibilitv � Asses the existence of one local controller on duty. O�erational AvailabilitX > Evaluate existence of non-simultaneous operations. � Evaluate Head-to-Head operational impacts. Occurrence of the Crossing Procedure 9� Establish when crossing in the corridor has occurred. Addressing the above topics through the planned analysis will facilitate a thorough quantification of the existing crossing in the corridor usage as well as the possible catalysts for non-usage. • , �. � �:�• �' � ,; _. Since its conception, the crossing in the corridor procedure was anticipated to consolidate as many operations as possible in the center of the Eagan - Mendota Hei�h[s Departure �, ) Corridor. Although superficially the procedure seems logical and relatively straight forward, several variabilities must be considered when assessing the use or non-use of the procedure. A request has been forwarded from the city of Mendota Heights to analyze the usaQe of the crossing procedure. The followin� scope oudines the [opics relevant to the analysis tha[ must be addressed to thorouahly asses the use of the procedure. Each topic(s) is explained and a due course of action is then proposed to attain the information necessary to complete the analysis. 1.1 Target Time Periods The first critical step in the analysis is selecting the time periods available to conduct the analysis. In an effon [o attain some historical input data, six months prior to the start date of the analysis should be used. Nlore specifically, within tha[ data sample the foilowing periods should be assessed (which is in compliance with the feasibility factors): �- Weekday hours of ?2:00 - 06:00. '�- Twentv four lwur weekend days. Usin� the above time periods will provide a good data sampie and ensure reasonableness relative to feasibility and thoroughness. < C A Scope of �nalysis: Crossing in the Corridor Procedure 1.2 FAA Feasibility The implementation of operational procedures in the terminal area are dependent on the ability of the local FAA to perForm the procedure in a safe compliant manner wi[h respect to the existin� environment and staff requirements. Due to the nature of the crossin� procedure, it is imperative that there is only one local con[roller on duty in the tower. This ensures tha[ the same individual is monitoring the opera[ions ofF both parallel runways, thus eliminating the controller to controller communication function. When and only when this scenario exists, the crossing procedure is possible. Due to the criticalness of one local controller to the crossin� procedure, it is imperative to have record of these time periods. Coordination will be made with Cindy Greene (local FAA) in an effort to loa the one local controller time periods. This lo� will then be incorporated into the analysis to help quantify available [ime for the use of the crossin� procedure. 1.3 Opera6onal Availability The airspace environment is another factor when using the crossin; procedure. Two operational issues which effect the use of the crossina procedure are: '�- Non-simultaneous operations. '�- Head-to-head operations. It is necessary to establish when these operations exist to further analyze the possibility of usin� the crossing procedure. Non-simultaneous operations must exist in order to use the crossin� procedure. An assumption will be made that any time one local controller is on duty, non-simultaneous operations may be performed. Head-to-head operations can be an operational impediment to performing the crossing procedure, thus we will retrieve head- to-head operational time periods from the tower loas as part of the base line for establishin� study criteria. Incorporating the assessment of these two operational issues will further quantify the feasibility of using the crossin� procedure relative to operational availability. C Q C Occurrence of the Cmssing Procedure 1.� Occurrence of the Crossin� Procedure Va ANOMS it will be determined when the crossin� procedure occurs. Usin� a gate structure in ANONtS, corridor compliant operations performina the crossing procedure will be analyzed. Below is a dia�ram of the cate structures which will be used: Exclusion Gate: Ga[e: �, Gate: Using the above Qate structure will yield operations which crossed in the corridor allowin� track displays, counts and percentage of operations to be generated. 1S Summary By assessin� the time periods available to perform the crossing procedure from the FAA side and operational side it will legitimize the possibility of performing the procedure. Being able to correlate when the procedure actually occurs with respect to the time available will provide answers and possible reasons for the use and or non-use of the procedure. A report will be Qenerated analyzing when the crossin� in [he corridor procedure is performed and when the various variables allow for the procedure to be performed, thus summarizing the correlation be�ween the two. 3 C <i C� � � �,� .� 1 i� • . , �,. . v1��CCtG�`D�� m �'*'��-� :�' �.�..." ...* �. • -• y, at�:� ��Accom Iish � .�'�°'`'�� '� �"�` `�-��' ��'�` � _ , , ��..,,�..�� . ,� _� �� . . � . ¢ �.e �g-�,, : ;,� - _ : ' � � �I�e uir�ementsYr � � _ _ ` F v:-a,,� ,� - �:- � "^ _ '� � , �I :� ...� _�� _ .�:t+' January 16 Operations Committee P� 150 Contour Generation Discussion Goals & Objectives for 1998 January 27 MASAC M�nneapolis Straight-Out Departure Procedure Destination Study Update Monitoring Request Forms February 20 Operations Committee Runway Construction Briefing DNL Contour Generation March 2 MASAC Receive MSP Construction Briefing(G. Warren) Presentation of MASAC Audit (D. Kistel, PSB) March 20 Operations Committee Complete Monitoring & Info. Request form Initial Evaluation of Additional RMT Sitings Request for Community Support for Mpls March 31 MASAC Straight-out Procedure MASAC Audit Discussion/Sugaestions April 17 Operations Committee RMT Site Location Analysis Non-simultaneous Corridor Departure Analysis April 28 MASAC DNL Presentation by HNTB Jeff Hamiel Update on MAC Perspectives RMT Site Location Analysis May 8 Operations Committee Non-simultaneous Corridor Departure Analysis MASAC Work Plan May 26 MASAC �Z' Site Location Presentation ATC Airspace Presentation Construction Update June 12 Operations Committee Run-Up Monitoring Update Final MASAC RMT Analysis Update June 23 MASAC Orientation Topics C �" - - - �`� ccom lis "�' .� �Iteq,.�remen s 99� T. - �-. . . _ ,,� �� eat �. z' —ea�,,ie,._�s,i.�'Si�'_�_�'.:=-�' �� _Yr a� .-+. ^'-�,'�:� :;.�_ '�.c_;`.` ,....�,�:;.x:; ��,� � �' �" - ..:n_.�...,__sr*_'-:_:�.��.'�._:,.:_�_._ .�.- COIISt111Ct10Il U�atB July 10 Operations Committee MASAC Handbook (Draft) EIS Procedure Brief July 23 MASAC EIS Procedure Briefing Construction Update August 14 Operations Committee Review of NADP Procedures MSP Tower Tour August 25 MASAC MpSAC MTG in FAA Con�erence Room Investigate GPS Landing System Use for Noise September 11 Operations Committee Alleviation Non-simultaneous Corridor Departure Analysis September 22 MASAC Stage III Compliance Review Review of Night-time Hours October 9 Operations Committee (2200-2230, and 2230-2300) RMT Location Project ReviewfProcess Update October 27 MASAC Orientation Topics November 13 Operations Committee Focus Activities for Upcoming Year December 1 MASAC Part 150 Pro�ess Review December 11 Operations Committee Establish Calendar for 1999 C� r� ; � April 22, 1998 Mr. Robert Johnson Chairman, MASAC c/o Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airports Commission 6040 28`�' Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 Dear NU. Johnson: At the April 17, 1998 Board Meetin� of the Twin Cities Airports Tas� Force, a citizens and business �oup supporting air service development at MSP, it �vas agreed that I, as Chairman of the task force, write a letter eYpressing our concern over any further extension of the voluntary night-time curPew. Although it was recoanized that MASAC has not made a recommendation to do so, moving the beginning time of the voluntary ni�ht-time curfew from 10:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. was one of the subjects for MASAC to consider for 1998 as presented to the Planing and Environmental Committee on April 14, 1998. The Task Force respectfully urges MASAC to not support any further extension of the voluntary curfew for the following reasons: 1. Studies have shown that the economy of the region served by MSP is te a signifcant extent dependent upon adequate passenaer and car¢o air transportation at MSP 3. MAC is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to maintain and expand the ability of MSP to be one of the key tT.S. domestic hubs and international gateways to adequately meet the needs of the traveling public and businesses that depend upon frequent service to appropriate destinations at a competitive cost, in order to support the local economy. 3. By decreasing the hours in the day when aircraft can be scheduled to depart and arrive, capacity of the airport becomes artificially limited, which could interFere with its ability to handle eYisting or future tli�,�hts. �. Jobs, personal income, economic � owth and dollars contributed to state and local tax coffers will suffer if airport capacity falls below its ability to meet required needs. 5. Millions of dollars have also been spent to mitigate noise by insulating homes in noise-impacted areas, and airlines, by law, are spending millions of dollars to make their fleets 100 percent stage 3 by the turn of the century. �-� . . . _.. C� C 6. The rationale from the public's point of view to change the curfew limit to 10:00 p.m. seems weak, since most residential occupants stay up at least lon� enough to listen to the 10:00 p.m. news, which usually siQns off at 10:35 p.m. In addition, the board adopted a motion to investigate how many flights, domestic and international, were eliminated by moving the curFew from 11:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m., and whether this has had a detrimental effect on needed passenger and cargo service at MSP. The Task Force will survey its members to determine if they have experienced any detrimental effects. Perhaps the aviation members of MASAC could do the same. Thank you for siving consideration to this matter. The Task Force would welcome you or any deleaation from MASAC to attend our monthly meeting on the 3�d Friday of each month 8:30 a.m. in the General Offices of the MAC to discuss this matter. Sincer ly ,.,l,J - Irving Stern Chairm cc: MAC Commissioners Jeffrey W. Hamiel, MAC Executive Director C� Cl ` ) � ) � r�� r/ ��/ W a � H � � c�t � � � � � � ~ M O �, O � '.r� � .0 � N � � ° � a j� �' a u O � � � ~ � � "� v� a� � C � 0 � � tC � .� U o � � � o 4� � c�i C � O � ° '� °` ° � � � � � � � a`�i O� � � �o � � y�j y� O � � � � � � � .� � o � � � H � O � �.�• _~- � � � � � � _ CSi WC') �"' ,i.�'' N � � V � .� � F—"1 , r+�-, , � c�"C �� M Q � � ...., � � � � � � � � a � bn � � � [��q/°I � o . � c�, o W � � p i'' p � .,_. � w � � � O � � � N QO � � M O� � h N � � N � � � W W � O U s, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � � �--� M M '-:, V 0o d� [� C� Q� � N N �--� �--� ,–� y 6R 69 69 64 b4 6 �� r; c, �r �n r; � �rvio�roc s�s��N� � ��r�6 � rn rn v� v� � c � � � � � � x � x x x � O� M O� M l` .�' M d' �1 d' N� �-+ N �n oo � a � � �N M 'ct �n �D r rnrncTrno,o rnrnrnrno,o � � � � � .� �r; �n � � �= 1• i _ , � C � ;� :�,� y_� . � � .. � ,� � A biweekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments Volume 10, Number 9 May 22,1998 Land Use .. � � � . - � � . � � � �, �� . � Struggling to find ways to preserve a land buffer around the nation's airports, which are expected to get increasingly busy in the next few decades, the Federal Aviation Administration is asking the public to submit ideas on how to encourage compatible land use around airports. The agency issued a notice in the Federal Register on May 15 soliciting con- cepts to promote compatible land use planning by state and local governments and to discourage development of non-compatible land uses. The FAA said that it is "particularly interested in bold, innovative, and creative options that could be implemented quickly to discourage development of non- compatible land uses, as well as long-term solutions." The more specific the sugaestions, the agency said, the better. The agency said it plans to review the comments submitted by the public to deternune whether any could be of benefit in assisdng state and local governments to achieve and maintain compatible land use around airports. Further action by the FAA "would depend on the nature and scope of the methods identified," the agency explained in its notice. (Continued on p. 67) Las Vegas McCarran Int'Z � ��, ,• � ,� �� , • � � � ' 1 . ' � ' 1 ! � ' The Clark County Board of Commissioners was expected on May 20 to vote on an ordinance that would require homeowners as far out as the 60 dB DNL contour around McCarran International Airport and Nellis Air Force Base to disclose in real estate transactions that their property may be subject to aircraft noise. But in response to protests from some residents that such a requirement would decrease their property values, the board decided at its public hearing to delay action on the ordinance until Sept. 16. The homeowners objected to the disclosure requirement even though the proposed ordinance was changed to exclude current homeowners from being subject to it, and despite assurances from the Federal Aviation Administration that a similar disclosure requirement at Raleigh-Durham International Airport has not resulted in the devaluation of homes. The ordinance was developed by the county departments of aviation and planning at the request of the county Board, which wanted to look at different ways that land use compatibility might be increased in the airport environs. When the Board postponed action on the ordinance, it asked the airport to now look at existing funding mechanisms to determine if there are measures, which might (Continued on p. 66) Copyright �O 1998 by Airport Noise RepoR, Ashburn, Va. 20147 In This Issue... Land Use ... The FAA begins a new land use initiative to develop ways to encourage compatible development around airports. The agency is seeking comments from the public on how it can better promote compatible land use by state and local governments - p. 65 ... Text of FAA statement of purpose for its Land Use Initiative - p. 69 ... Text of Federal Register notice solicitng public comments - p. 71 Las Vegas ... Residents' fears of home devaluation lead county Boa.rd to postpone vote on ordinance requiring real estate disclosure out to 60 dB DNL noise contour - p. 65 Burbank ... Appeals court affirms FAA approval of EIS for replacement terminal project - p. 67 Grand Canyon .. . Air tour operators accuse Park Service of manipulating study to inflate noise impact of aircraft overflights - p. 67 LAX ... Second phase of residential soundproofing program begins with award of several contracts - p. 68 . . ,. � _ /„ C m 66 Airport Noise Report L�is Ve'gas McCarran, from p. 65 include soundproofing, that the airport can take to provide relief in the 65 dB DNL contour. ANR was unable to contact the airport for comment on the Board's action by press time. Strong FAA Support The FAA strongly encouraged the Clark County Board to impose the disclosure requirement. The agency sent Barry Brayer of its Western Pacific Regional Office to speak at an April 22 hearing on the proposal. And James Erickson, director of the FAA's Office of Environment and Energy, sent a letter to the Board May 14 addressing fears expressed by homeowners at the hearing that the disclosure require- ment would drop their home values. "We believe that property values in your communities would not be materially affected by revealing the noise, but in a hypothetical case where noise exposure did result in a reduction in property values, those values prior to disclosure would have been artificially inflated by withhoIding information from potential buyers. The tive value of real property emerges only when all of its features are known. Therefore, when a residential property is in the vicinity of an airport, any estimate or calculation of its true value must also include the noise exposure," Erickson told Yvonne Atkinson Gates, chairwoman of the Boazd. He noted that several years ago, the Raleigh-Durham .�irport Authority proposed that all jurisdictions around the �' � airport amend their ordinances to require that homeowners as far out as the 55 dB DNL contour disclose that their homes were subject to aircraft noise. While none of the jurisdictions chose to require disclosure, the FAA official said, in January 1996 the North Carolina Legislature passed a bill that amended the state real estate disciosure law to require that sellers disclose any notices they receive from "any governmental agency" affecting their real property. In April 1997, the RDU airport authority mailed notices to over 9,000 homeowners o�cially informing them that their property was within the 55 dB DNL noise contour of the airport and that, under the new state law, they were required to disclose this noise classification to subsequent purchas- ers. Prices Not Affected "Airport offcials report that local Realtors have not complained about the new disclosure requirement, and many Realtors welcome the requirement because it relieves them from buyers' complaints of not being properly warned about airport noise," Erickson wrote the Clark County Board. "Airport officials also report that development, sales activity, and prices within the disclosure area have not been adversely affected by the new disclosure requirement. Based on the experience of Raleigh-Durham and other jurisdictions ' around the country that have adopted local ordinances requiring disclosure of noise levels on existing residential communities near airports, we believe the fear that disclo- sure will result in a substantial drop in property values is largely unfounded;' Erickson said. Proposed Ordinance The ordinance the county Board is considering would amend the Clark County Zoning Code and the boundaries and requirements of the existing Airport Environs Overlay District. The proposal would accomplish the following: • Require new residential construcdon in the DNL 60 to 65 dB subdisirict to include sound attenuation materials and building techniques that will reduce interior noise by 25 decibels; • Add a new subdistrict to the existing Airport Environs Overlay District based on noise exposures between Day- Night Level (DNL) 60 to 65 dB; • Update the boundaries of the subdistricts of the Overlay Districts to reflect current estimates of noise exposure using up-to-date aircraft and flight information; � • Require avigation easements in connection with certain discretionary land use approvals granted by the county; and � Restrict the development of certain land uses in areas near Nellis Air Force Base that are subject to the risk of ordinance detonation. Increasing Number of Complaints 'The county departments of planning and aviation offered four reason for amending the zoning ordinance. First, they said, over the past few years the county and the Air Force have been receiving an increasing number of noise complaints from persons living both inside and outside the existing Airport Environs Overlay District, which was created in 1986. This increase in comptaints has occurred despite the fact that noise levels near McCarran and Nellis have remained virivally the same or gone down during this time period, they noted. The county said it believes these complaints have resulted from two primary factors: inadequate noise insulation in homes just outside the existing Overlay District boundary, and an increased number of homes being built in the vicinity of McCarran and Nellis. In addition, military operations at Nellis have created the need to establish additional land use restrictions to deal with risks posed by the loading and handling of live munitions and ordinance, the county said, noring that accidental detonation of these materials could endanger lives and property. Also, the Air Force recently provided new information to the county about areas near Nellis that face particularly high risks of military aircraft accidents.0 Airport Noise Report 22, 1998 '� Land Use, from p. 65 Solicitation of public comments is part of a new FAA Land Use Planning Initiative which involves several FAA offices: airports, air tra�c, the Office of the Chief Counsel, and the Office of Environment and Energy. This internal FAA team is trying to develop a process by which the FAA can better influence ]ong-term land use planning and zoning around airports. In the last few years, the FAA has actively encouraged local jurisdictions to use their zoning authority to address airport noise impact beyond the 65 dB DNL noise contour, which has long been accepted as the threshold of compatible residential use around airports. With noise contours shrinking at airports because of the phasing out of noisier Stage 2 aircraft, the contours will be at their smallest size around the year 2000 when all Stage 2 aircraft must cease operation. But noise contours at many airports will begin growing after that point as the number of Stage 3 aircraft operations begins to significandy increase in the next century. The FAA sees a window of opportunity to preserve the land buffer that will be created by the shrinkage of contours up to the year 2000. It wants local jurisdictions to capture this buffer zone and baz non-compatible development within it. Public comments on the notice must be received by June 21. The text of the FAA notice begins on p. 69. The text of the statement of purpose for the agency's Land Use Plan- ning Initiative begins on p. 71. � � �� - . . . � � � � . � � � . On May 19, a federal appeals court affirmed the Federal Aviation Administration's approval of a new terminal building at Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport by denying an appeal filed by the City of Los Angeles. In declining to review the case the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit a�rmed the Mazch 12 decision of a panel of three of its judges upholding the Environmental Impact Statement for the project, which concluded that a new ternunal building would not increase aviation noise. The earlier decision, written by Judge Alex Kozinski affirmed the FAA's deternunation that passenger growth would continue at the airport with or without a new terminal, and that, in effect, "if you don't build it, they will come anyway," the airport said in a press release. "We were always confident that the courts would uphold the Environmental Impact Statement for this project," said Thomas E. Greer, executive director of the Burbank- Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority. "The FAA conducted a very thorough study of this issue, looking at the experi- 67 ence at other airports nationwide before conctudin� that a new terminal building will not result in increased noise." The FAA has called for construction of a new terminal because the current 68-year-old facility is too close to the runways and does not comply with federal safety standards. Both the City of Burbank and the City of Los Angels had . challenged the federal Environmental Impact Statement for the project. After the Ninth Circuit's three jud�e panel upheld the position of the FAA and the authority in March, only Los Angeles then appealed to the full Ninth Circuit to rnle on the matter. The court denied that appeal.� Grand Canyon TOUR OPERATORS ACCUSE NPS OF MANIl'ULATING NOISE STUDY Based on an industry-funded study, the United States Air Tour Association (USATA), which represents air tour operators, has accused the National Park Service of altering a computer analysis of aircraft sound in the Grand Canyon to show more aircraft overflight noise than actually oc- curred. The "faulty conclusions" of the NPS analysis resulted in the implementation of new restrictions on air touring in the canyon, the organization asserted in a press release. � "This is disquieting new information and potentially very damaging to the credibility of the Pa;k Service," said 5teve Bassett, president of USATA. "Any study the Park Service uses to validate a requirement for further restriction on air touring either at the Grand Canyon or anywhere else in the United States must be considered suspect and unreliable," Bassett said. Release of the conclusions of the industry analysis of Park Service conduct comes at a time when the regulatory and ]egislative efforts are underway to further restrict air tours over national parks. ANR was unable to reach Park Service o�cials for comment on USATA's allegations before press time. Papillon Grand Canyon Helicopters paid for an analysis of a Park Service study of ttie effectiveness of a special flight rule put into effect by the Federal Aviation Administration to reduce noise impact in the canyon. The Papillon study was conducted by John R. Alberti of J.R. Engineering, Kirkland, WA. Alberti's study was then reviewed by Dr. K.K. Ahuja, professor of Aerospace Engineering at Georgia Tech University. Ahuja's review was funded by the Helicopter Association International. Criticism of Park Service Study According to USATA, the study done by Alberti indicates that the Park Service: • Altered an industry-standard computer program that systematically caused the computer model to show more aircraft overt7i�ht sound in the Grand Canyon than actually occurred: Airport Noise Report � c 68 Airport Noise Report •"AssiQned trained specialists to listen for the threshold of sound, which was approximately 30 dB, then the Park Service lowered that threshold by more than 10 dB (one- ' tenth of the sound energy) to plot their sound overlays. Accordina to acousticians, this is an unreasonable approach which si�nificantly biased the results"; • Took liberties when it used a 12-hour day rather than a_ 24-hour day to plot their impact area which doubled the illustrated impact; and, • Used aircraft sound levels that were excessive for the flight configurations used in the Grand Canyon which caused the impact to be overstated. "Each of these violations of fact had the same effect — to increase estimates of sound above accurate levels," USATA asserted. It said a"conect analysis" of the original data used by the Park Service "demonstrates conclusively" that the special flight rule put into effect by the Federal Aviation Administration restored natural quiet to more than 95 percent of the park exceedin� Park Service and conb es- sional mandates "by a wide margin, even during the busiest air tour month of the year." Recognizing that the results of the Alberti analysis would "cast doubt on the integrity of the Park Service," the air tour industry sought a peer review of the work. USATA said that, after a detailed analysis, Dr. Ahuja agreed with the statements contained in the Alberti study that "... the government studies were biased and misleading due to several invalid and unscientific assumptions that j � overstate the sound levels and sound detectability ... when -` the errors are corrected, the result is that 95 percent of the park will meet the Park Service's own definition of natural quiet..." Natural Quiet Attained Alberti's own Integrated Noise Mode] (INM) analysis of actual 1996 air tour overflight data —"the same data used by NPS in its study — confirmed that [the special flight rule] meets the NPS definition of `substantial restoration of natural quiet' which is the reduction of aircraft sound levels to the point that the human ear cannot detect any aircraft sound in at least 50 percent of the park at least 75 percent of the time," USATA said. The air tour organization accused the Park Service of deceiving Congress, the air tour industry, and the public "when it stated that natural quiet had not been restored at the Grand Canyon, " USATA said. "We believe there is ample evidence here for Congress to be more than a little suspi- cioas of the information they are receiving from the NPS." The USATA press release said the air tour industry "has tried to work cooperatively with the Park Service and environmental community but questioned whether either can be trusted in light of the Alberti study and Ahuja review." It added, "We continue to seek modifications to the interim recommendations of the National Park Overflights �_.� Workin= Group and the resulting FAA Draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and soon-to-be introduced legislation by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) to, among other thing, preserve �AA's airspace jurisdiction and eliminate provi- sions which confers to the Park service and park superinten- dents de facto authority to control aircraft movements over national parks." "It seems that every time we turn around our efforts are runnina into Park Service and environmental roadblocks," commented Bassett.� Los Angeles Int'l . � � � � � � . � � 1 .. � � � . � . . On May 19, the Los Angeles Board of Airport Commis- sioners awarded the fourth in a series of contracts for soundproofing work for the second phase of the Los Angeles International Airport Residential Soundproofing Program. This contract award brings the total of homes completed or in the process of soundproofing construction to 263, the airport said. The first phase was recently cornpleted with 126 units in multi-family buildings outfitted with dual- paned windows, solid-core doors, attic insulation, and other necessary improvements. To date, the airport said, the four contracts for the second phase have been awarded to Great West Contractors, Allied Engineering and Constavction (two contracts), and T&M Construction. These contracts represent 137 single and multi-family residential units, which will be involved in various stages of soundproofing during the next few months. All the contractors have headquarters in Southern Califor- nia. The LAX soundproofing prob am includes nearly 9,000 eligible residences in the Los Angeles communities of Westchester, Playa del Rey, and South Los Angeles with a recorded Community New Equivalent Level (CNEL) of 65 decibels or higher. Los Angeles World Airports Executive Director John J. Driscoll said, "We are very committed to this prob am and we are making every effort to keep pace with the sound insulation needs of the local community." Ruth Galanter, Los Angeles Sixth District councilmember, in whose district the airport is located, said, "I am very pleased that the first group of residences have been sound- proofed and I know the homeowners in Phase Two are looking forward to the noise relief that the program will provide."� Airport Noise Report May 22, 1998 Text FAA NOTICE REQUESTING PUBLIC COMMENT ON COMPATIBLE LAND USE PLANNING INITIATIVE [4910 - 13] 14 CFR Part 91, 150 [Docket No. 29231] Federal Aviation Administration, DOT Compatible Land Use Planning Initiative Agency: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. Action: Notice; Request for comments. SUMMARY: The FAA is seeking new ideas regarding how the agency can better influence land use decisions around airports. Noise contours around airports will continue to shrink with the elimination of noisier Stage 2 airplanes by the year 2000. The FAA now seeks to develop a process that will better influence lon;-term land use planning and zoning around airports. This notice solicits suggestions about methods the FAA can use to enconrage and help State and local governments achieve and maintain land use comparibility around airpoz-ts. DATE: Comments must be received on or before [30 days after date of publication in the Federal ReC isterl. ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed in triplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket (AGC-200), Docket No. 29231, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. Comments may also be sent electronically to the Rules Docket by using the following Internet address: 9-nprm- cmts@faa.dot.gov. Comments must be marked Docket No. 29231. Comments may be examined in the Rules Docket in Room 915G on weekdays between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Trickey, Policy and Regulatory Division, AEE-300, Federal Aviation Administration, S00 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone, (202) 267-3496; facsimile, (202) 267-5594; email, alan.trickey@faa.dot.gov. Background Aircraft noise is a serious problem for communities around airports. Federal, state and local governments have spent several billion dollars for the acquisition of land, soundproofing, changes in airport operations and airspace, and processing of complaints. The airline industry has expended billions more to acquire quieter aircraft that reduce noise exposure levels. Although this coliective effort has resulted in significant progress, additional measures are needed to maintain current aains and prevent the development of new noncompatible land uses around airports. The FAA has been actively enga�ed in measures to solve the problem of aircraft noise since the 1960's. Specifically, the FAA has issued regulations phasing out noisier airplanes. The noisiest Stage 1 airplanes were phased out of commercial operations in the United States by 1988. The current phaseout will eliminate large Stage 2 airplanes from operations in the contiguous United States by the year 2000. The FAA provides grants to airport operators willing to undertake noise abatement measures such as the purchase of land and soundproofing of residences. Based on several studies, the FAA expects noise contours at most airports to continue to shrink for several years into the 215t century due to the elimination of noisier aircraft. After the completion of the Stage 2 phaseout by the year 2000, the FAA anticipates that these contours could begin to expand again at some airports primarily due to increases in operations. It is essential for local jurisdictions to plan ahead to maintain the land use compatibility already achieved neaz airports and to control land uses to prevent new noise-sensitive development within an ab eed upon protection zone. The U.S. Constitution, gives individual States the authority over land use, though such authority is often delegated to local governments. Some airports are operated by the state or municipal governments that have the power to achieve appropriate land use controls through zoning and other authorities. But ev,en when governmental bodies are themselves airport operators, the noise effects of their airports often occur in areas outside their jurisdictions. Land use decisions generally reflect the needs of the community, which include but are not limited to considerations of aviation noise. The FAA is charged with the responsibility to maintain a safe and e�cient national airspace 69 C 70 system. The FAA fosters compatible land use planning both to facilitate access to airports commensurate with the demands of air commerce and to abate the aviation noise effects in the airport vicinity. Even thou�h the Federal . government ]acks the authority to zone land, the FAA may use its influence to encourage compatible land use in the vicinity of an airport. The a=ency exerts this influence through airport development grant ab eements, environmental review requirements, grants for airport noise compatibility planning, and educational instruments on compatible land use planning. The FAA has issued guidelines for land use ' compatibility azound airports to assist those responsible for determining land use. These guidelines are primarily contained in 14 CFR Part 150 and related guidance. In January 1995, an FAA-sponsored Study Group on Compatible Land Use, which was composed of community, airport, and aviation representatives, produced a report with recommendations for Federal initiatives to promote compatible land use pianning and controls around airports. The group's recommendations included the following concepts: • Provide direct Federal funding through the Airport Improvement Prob am (AIP) to non-airport sponsors who have tand use planning jurisdiction; • Encourage cooperative ab eements between airport sponsors and communities; Revise FAA regulations in Part 150 or supporting guidelines to recognize and publicize successful land use compatibility concepts, encourage more effective public participation and encourage innovative land- use control techniques; Strengthen the linkage between Part 150 noise compatibility programs and existin; Federal programs that reinforce land use planning, such as Federal Housing Administration and Department of Veterans Affairs policies not to accept properties in high-noise areas for mortgage insurance. Airnort Noise Report The FAA has implemented portions of these recommendations. These ideas aze presented here only to stimulate thought for addition ideas. Request for Comments The FAA is soliciting comments on any concepts that might serve to promote compatible land use planning by state and local authorities and to discourage development of noncompatible land uses around airports. The FAA is particulazly interested in bold, innovative, and creative options that could be implemented quickly to discourage development of noncompatible land uses, as well as lonb term solutions. Comments that provide a factual basis for the suggestions are particulazly helpful. The more specific the sugoestions for FAA action, the better. LJltimately, any process should achieve lon;-term cost avoidance for all levels of government. The FAA will review information from public comments and other sources to identify methods that might assist State and local governments in achieving and maintaining land use compatibility around airports. Further action would depend.on the nature and scope of the methods identified. Communications should identify the notice docket number and be submitted in triplicate using one of the media specified in the "ADDRESSES" paragraph above. All communications will be filed in the docket. The docket is available for public inspection both before and after the closing date for receipt of comments. The FAA will acknowledge receipt of a comment if the commenter includes a self-addressed, stamped postcard with the comment. The postcard shouid be marked "Comments to Docket No. 29231." When the comment is received by the FAA, the postcard will be dated, time stamped, and returned to the commenter. Issued in Washington, D.C., on May 15, 1998. James D. Erickson Director of Environment and Energy Airport Noise Report f� May 22, 1998 Text STATEMENT OF PURPOSE FOR FAA LAND USE INITIATIVE The FAA developed the following Statement of Purpose for its new Land Use Planing Initiative: "Effective airport planning and development requires extensive cooperation and coordination among local communities, aviation interests, and those responsible for the planning, development, and care of the surrounding environment. Appropriate measures can help to reduce potential land use non-compatibility around airports. The FAA [is initiating] a federally sponsored team approach involving community, aviation, and airport stakeholders to explore a variety of ideas and options for effectively establishing compatible land use planning and zoning around airports. The internal FAA project team includes resources from Airports, Air Traffic, O�ce of Chief Counsei, and the O�ce of Environment and Energy. Input from interest groups and the general public [is being) solicited in a Federal Register notice published on May 21, 1998, with a 30-day comment period. Seeking to Develop Process "The purpose of this initiative is to develop a process by which the FAA can better influence long-term land use planning and zoning around airports. This planning process ultimately begins with the notion that some set of "needs" and "desires" are not being met by the existing framework. Environmental impacts of aviation noise on properties in the vicinity of auports are a continuing problem. These impacts have been brought to the attention of local, regional, state, and national governments in the form of individual re- sponses, coalitions, advisory committees, and noise opposi- tion a oups. As a result, various levels of government have spent billions of dollars for the condemnation of land, soundproofing, airport operations, and airspace changes, and processing of complaints and concerns. "The compatibility of land uses in the vicinity of an airport is associated, to a large extent, with aircraft noise impacts from the operation of the airport. A commonly used method to detezmine impacts is to estimate the effects of aircraft noise on the human environment and then to make land use decisions based on perceived impacts. For ex- ample, certain activities, such as conversation and evening relaxation, are highly sensitive to aircraft noise; others, such as working with machinery, are not. There is no single set of land use compatibility criteria, although community reaction to aircraft noise is relatively consistent. "The Federal government does not control land use. In many cases, neither do the airports themselves control the surrounding land uses. Local jurisdictions are responsible for land use planning and zoning and their efforts generally reflect the perceived needs of the community and not necessarily the airport. This factor particularly applies when these jurisd'actions are not the airport proprietor. �1 Exploring Options "The FAA does set forth guidelines for land use compati- bility to assist those responsible for determininC the accept- able and permissible land uses in the vicinity of airports. This land use planning team is exploring options as to how the FAA might become more effective in communicating Federal policy, advertising the needs and operational requirements of airports, and ultimately, influencing land use decisions around airports. This effort is important because the FAA estimates that noise contours around our nation's airports will continue to shrink dramatically through the year 2000 with the phaseout of Stage 2 airplanes and beyond with the retirement of noisier hushkitted Stage 3 airplanes. "This contour shrinkage may have a short-term paradoxi- cal effect. It could allow for the introduction of land uses on properties close to airports based on benefits gained by the phaseout. Although outside significant exposure contours, these land uses might become incompatible as the contours subsequently expand because of increases in aircraft operations. Consequently, properties previously planned for or protected by the higher noise levels associated with the airport before the phaseout might better be undeveloped or developed for non-noise sensitive land uses to avoid introducing new non-compatibie uses in the future. "Coordination of aviation system development with local community planning and development is an essential component to promote not only a positive affect on a community, but to mitigate the negative effects of the proposed change. Ultimately, any process should achieve long-term cost avoidance for all levels of government. In an effort for the Federal government to support local governments in meeting their long-range planning efforts, the following are some areas that the FAA could pursue: • Increase FAA effectiveness in influencing compatible land use planning and zoning around airports; • Establish stronger FAA participation in local govern- ment's efforts to integrate airport noise considerations into local planning and zoning processes; • Establish a stronger FAA influence in assisting local governments in regulating land use development decisions around airports, encouraging non-noise sensitive land uses where there are higher levels of noise, and discouraging noise sensitive land uses within close proximity to an airport; • Establish a more effective communications tool for advertising Federal oransportation policy for noise impacted properties near airports; • Communicate more effectively the needs and operational requirements of airports; • Expand FAA participation in land use decisions adjacent to airports, • Encourage states to pursue model legislation including disclosure and avigation easements for noise sensitive areas."0 Airport Noise Report �__. � 72, � • AirportNoiseReport . • � � � . � . �. ,� �. ��,.� Mark Atwood, EsQ. � June 20-28 Semi-annual meeting of the Acoustical Soci- Galland, Kharasch, Morse & Garfinkle ety of America, Seatde, WA (contact Washington, D.c. Elaine Moran; tel: (516) 576-2360). Lee L. Biackman, Esq. McDermott, Will & Emery Los Angeles, Calif. Dr. Clifford R. Bragdon, AICP Dean, School of Aviation & Transportation Dowling Coilege Eliot Cutler, Esq. Cuder & Stanfield Washington, D.C. J. Spencer Dickerson 3enior Vice President American Association of Airport Executives Edward J. DiPolvere Administrator, National Association of Noise Control Officials Richard G. "Dick" Dyer Airport Environmental Specialist, Division of Aeronautics, Cali£ Dept. of Transportation E. Tazewell Ellett, Esq. Hogan & Hartson Washington, D.C. Julie H. Ellis, Esq. Managing Director Federal Express Corporation Angel M. Garcia co-cn�� Citizens Against Newark Noise E.H. "Moe" FIaupt Manager, Airport and Environmental Services, National Business Aircraft Associadon Robert P. Silverberg, Esq. Bagileo, Silverberg & Goldman Washington, D.C. Joanne W. Young, Esq. Baker & Hosteder LLP Washington, D.C. July 12-15 July 22-25 Aug. 20-21 Transportation Research Board's A1F04 Conference on Transportation Related Noise and Vibration, St. Petersburg, FL (contact Win Lindeman, FL DOT; tel: (S50) 488-2914). Annual meeting of the National Organization to Insure a Sound-controlled Environment (NOISE), Thomton, CO; (con- tact Dennis McGrann, Suite 900, 601 Pennsyl- vania Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20004; tel: (202) 434-8163; fax (202) 639-8238). American Association of Airport Executives' Aircraft Noise and Land Use Planning Management Workshops, Milwaukee, WI (contact AAAE; tel: (703) 824-0504 or fax-on-demand: (1-800-470-ARPT). Sept. 14-15 American Association of Airport Executives' Fa11 Legislative Issues Conference, Washington, DC (contact AAAF; tel: (703) 824-0504 or fax-on-demand: (1-800- 470- ARPT�. Oct. 4-7 Airports Council Intemational- North Amer- ica's 7th Regional Conference & Exhibition, Marriott's Orlando World Center (contact ACI, 1775 K St., NW, Washington, DC 20006; tel: (202) 293-8500; fax (202) 331-1362). - AIRPORT NOISE REPORT Anne H. Kohut, Publisher Charles F. Price, Contributing Editor; Maria T. Norton, Production Editor Published 25 times a year at 43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 20147; Phone: (703) 729-4867; FAX: (703) 729-4528. Price $495. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by Airport Noise Report, provided that the base fee of US$1.03 per page per copy is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, 27 Congress Street, Salem, MA 01970. USA. Copyright O 1998 by Airport Noise Report, Ashburn, Va. 20147 - %; � � � ;��:- . , . .... ., .. �� w � -_ . . � , ` � . . . !' ,., : ;, : . � A biweekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments Volume 10, Number 8 May 8,1998 Minneapolis-St. Paullnt'l WILDLIFE SERVICE SEEKS $27 MILLION FOR NOISE IMPACT ON ANIlVIAL REFUGE The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is engaged in a dispute with the Federal Aviation Administration and the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission over how much compensation should be given to a national wildlife refuge that will be impacted by noise from a proposed new runway at Minneapo- lis-St. Paul International Airport. The Fish and Wildlife Service is seeking almost $27 million to help the Minne- sota Valley National Wildlife Refuge in Bloomington, MN, adjust to the noise impact the proposed 8,000-foot north-south runway would have on refuge pro- grams and activities such as environmental education, bird watclung, and other activities requiring quiet surroundings. "We recognize and support the need for Twin Cities residents to have safe, convenient air transportation," said U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Director Bill Hartwig. "Flights using the new runway would fly direcdy over our refuge lands at altitudes between 500 and 2,OOQ feet. We have a r.;sponsibility as natural resource managers to assure the public receives appropriate compensation for the impacts of this project. It's our hope that the FAA and MAC will help us to (Continued on p. 58) Louisville Int'Z i I � ' )� 1 � � ''�' � ' i � 1:�' �i1 . . Last fall the Regional Airport Authority for Louisville and Jefferson County (RAA) got approval from the Federal Aviation Administration for an innovative relocation program under which it would build an entirely new housing develop- ment and relocate to it 450 homeowners en masse from the Minor Lane Heights neighborhood in the 65 dB DNL noise contour around Louisville International Airport. • But now homeowners in the area where the airport wants to build the new development — Cedaz Creek, a predominandy rural community farther from the airport — are challenging FAA's approval of the program and threatening to take the agency to court. Last September, the FAA made two decisions which made the relocation program possible: it issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on the project and awarded a$3 million grant to the airport authority to acquire the land needed for the new housing development. The RAA has requested an additional $15 million in federal funds to complete the relocation prob am. The Neighborhood Association for Cedar Creek Preservation, Inc. (NACCP) contends that the FAA's administrative record on the proa am "is replete with (Continued on p. 58) Copyright OO 1998 by Airport Noise Report, Ashburn, Va. 20147 In This Issue... Minneapolis ... U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service wants $27 million to compensate for noise impact of proposed new runway on refuge - p. 57 Louisville ... Homeowners in azea where airport wants to relocate entire neighborhood threaten lawsuit - p. 57 ... City alderman, citizens group want regional noise forum - p. 58 4akland ... Port of Oakland establishing Airport- Community Noise Manage- ment Forum - p. 60 Airspace ... FAA confirms that agency is engaged in wholesale redesign of nation's en route and terminal airspace - p. 61 BWI ... Updated Airport Noise Zone contains 41 percent fewer people - p. 61 AIP Reauthorization . . . N.O.I.S.E. urges Congress to strengthen federal noise mitigation policies - p. 62 Detroit Metro . . . Use of laptops speeds up sound insulation design - p. 62 Noise Grants ... FAA listing for last month - p. 63 Greensboro ... New FedEX hub will have strong economic impact - p. 63 �� ( � 58 Airport Noise Report !11in�ieapolis, from p. 57 do this so Twin Cities residents don't experience a net loss in wildlife habitat or in wildlife-related recreation and environmental education opportunities." Federal statutes require that "mitiaation" be offered in cases where National Wildlife Refuaes are directly or indirectly impacted by projects such as new roads or � construction. "Mitigation is the process of providing compensation for the unavoidable impacts of these types of projects on habitat and associated programs," Hartwig said. Compensation can take a variety of forms, he noted. Two common methods aze the replacement of the habitat involved and direct financial compensation. The Fish and Wildlife Service wants the FAA and MAC to make a direct financial compensation of: •$15.7 million for the loss of 4,090 of the refuge's 14,000 acres that would be affected by noise from the new runway; •$2.5 million to relocate part of a visitor contact center; •$1.8 million to replace nature trails, structures, and board walks; •$4 million to establish an operadonal trust fund; •$150,000 for in interactive exhibit in the ternunal of the airport addressing how modern development and wildlife � can coexist; and •$2 million to reimburse the Fish and Wildlife Service for the costs of planning. No Figures Stated by FAA, MAC The FAA released its analysis of the impact of the proposed runway on the wildlife refuge on May l. Section 4(fl of the Department of Transportation Act requires that such an analysis be done. In it the FAA and MAC re- sponded to the Fish and Wildlife Service's demand. They rejected outriaht any compensation for moving the visitor's center or the creation of an operational trust fund. While not stating any compensation costs, the FAA and MAC agreed to partial replacement of 1,083 acres of land; "generally" accepted the idea of compensation for replace- ment of nature trails; said they "will accommodate" an exhibit at the airport terminal; and accepted the idea of reimbursement for planning costs that will be incurred by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge is one of relatively few urban national wildlife refuges in the country It was established in 19761argely due to the �rass-roots effort of local citizens who wanted to preserve and protect the habitat along the Minnesota River bottoms and the animals making their homes there. These animals include bald eagles, white-tailed deer, ospreys, otters, and many species of song birds, waterfowl, and wading birds. An estimated 200,000 visitors visited the refuge last year. "While everyone agrees the refuge and many of its facilities and pro�rams wil] be impacted, we haven't agreed on how to replace them," Schultz said. "We're running into some technicalities involving noise levels and how they're measnred, but the bottom line is, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service doesn't want students and the public to experience a net loss in the opportunity for bird watching, for conductin� environmental education, or to experience wildlife in its � natural setting. Because it is an urban facility, replacing the wildlife habitat will be expensive, and building satellite education and visitor faciliry will also be costly." Schultz said he is confident an agreement can be reached with FAA and MAC on the amount of compensation to be made.� Louisville, from p. 57 factual mistakes and legal errors, unjustified assumptions and prejudicial presumptions, and violations of FAA Orders and Council on Environmental Quality regulations, in letter as well as spirit," according to an April 151etter sent to Susan Kurland, FAA associate administrator for airports, by Gregory S. Walden, counsel for NACCP, Inc. and a former FAA chief counsel. Walden said his analysis of FAA's action shows that it was unlawful for the agency to invoke the "last resort" housing provision of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Properties Acquisition and Policies Act (Relocation Act) as justification for the project; it was unlawful to approve the project for federal funding because the reloca- tion program is not consistent with local land use plans; and "it was error to forego a full Environmental Impact State- ment (EIS)•and issue a FONSI; in any case, the FAA should not have adopted an Environmental Assessment (EA) plagued with enors of commission and omission." Relocation Act Under the Relocation Act, federal funds may not be used to construct new housing unless the project "cannot proceed on a timely basis because comparable replacement dwell- ings are not available." The airport authority contended that there was not su�cient replacement housing in the Louis- ville area to relocate the Minor Lane homeowners in a timely manner and used this a jusdfication to invoke the "last resort" provision of the act which allows for federal funding of the replacement housing development in Cedar Creek. But Walden contended that this conclusion, "which apparently was not evaluated by the FAA at any level, is just plain wrong." "There is ample comparable replacement housing in the Louisville and Jefferson County real estate market," he asserted. For example, he said, according to the Louisville Board of Realtors, as of April l, 1998, some 408 existing homes were listed for sale in the price range affordable to displaced residents. This figure does not include homes in the price range listed for sale by owners, "of which there are undoubt- edly many, nor does it include new construction," Walden told the FAA. He said the hundreds of new homes in the affordable price range are being built in the Louisville area. Airport Noise Report C __ � ' 60 . Airport Noise Report an effort to set up a regional forum for information sharing. Louisville Aldern�an Greg Handy and a citizens' group i" called the Airport Project Analysis Committee (APAC) have pitched the idea to FAA and the Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County at two meetings this spring. "We've make the overtures," Handy told ANR, "and we hope they'll heed us and take us seriously." Recently APAC, representing 22 neiahborhoods, induced the State Legislature to pass a bill giving it a seat on the Airport Authority Board, thus somewhat improving the chances of a favorable airport response. "Th�ey can run, but they can't hide," Handy said of the Board, with community interests now entrenched in its own ranks. Handy said he and APAC want to establish a forum where airport o�cials, the long-time airport consultant, FAA, UPS, and citizens can all assess the impacts arising from operation of the two new runways, compare them with the impacts predicted in previous environmental and Part 150 airport noise compatibility studies, and devise effective noise mitigation measures. Handy, many of his constituents, and APAC contend noise problems have been much worse than studies predicted. "We also want to help identify new noise problems not previously identified," said Handy. One such is the multi- million-dollar UPS expansion, recendy announced without any previous public consultation. Walter W. Gillfillen, who also is a consultant to the San Francisco AirportlCommunity Roundtable, has been � � retained by Handy and.APAC to advise them on establish- -'" ment of a collaborative body. The California Roundtable mediates among o�cials of San Francisco International Airport, FAA, the airlines, and several Bay Area communities on issues related to aircraft noise. Roundtable leaders have long believed their forum could serve as a model for other communities with airport noise problems.0 Oakland Int'l . �� ' i � � ' � � � � With the planned $500 million expansion of Oakland International Airport spurring litigation from surrounding communities, the Port of Oakland has begun the process of establishing an Airport-Community Noise Manajement Forum to address aircraft noise issues. The airport has grown to the point where it needs to move to a formal noise roundtable, Carole Wedl, noise officer for the airport, explained. "We need to include people impacted by noise in the decisionmaking process." The forum will be used to educate local decision makers, she said, and will be patterned after the nearby San Francisco Roundtable. Like the San Francisco group, the Oakland forum will set �.___. � a policy of not taking action that will result in transferring aircraft noise from one community to another. The purpose of the Oakland Airport-Community Noise Management Forum, the Port said in a news release, "is to provide a public forum to discuss, analyze, and make recommendations to the Port of Oakland executive director about noise related issues at Oakland International Airport. The forum will provide a mechanism to facilitate coopera- tion between the airport.and local communities." The forum will meet quarterly and will be responsible for creating a work plan that may include special studies, projects, and issues to address. The Port will work with the forum to implement the work plan and make budgetary recommendations. Each city member of the forum and Alameda County must contribute $1,000 annually to participate in the forum. The Port of Oakland said it will cover the remaining operating costs and has set an annual operating budget of up to $50,000 for administrative costs (including a facilitator for the forum) and up to $50,000 for technical studies. The forum will be an advisory group to the Port of Oakland. The Port has invited one citizen and one elected official from eight cities (Alameda, Berkeley, Emeryville, Hayward, Oakland, Piedmont, San Leandro, and Union City) and from the County of Oakland to participate on the forum. In addition, two representatives of the Port (one Port commissioner and the Port's director of aviation) will be members of the forum. Each city, the county, and the Port will have one vote on the forum. The airport will request non-voting participation in the forum by�representatives from airport operators, industry associations, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the airport staff. Each city and the county must sign a Letter of Under- standing with the Port in order to participate on the forum. Last January, the cities of Alameda and San Leandro, a local anti-noise group called Citizens League for Airport Safety and Serenity (CLASS), a citizens group in Berkeley, and the Plumbers and Steamfitters union filed suit challeng- ing the approval by the Port of Oakland of the Airport Development Program for the airport and also challenging the adequacy of the state Environmental Impact Report prepared by the Port (10 ANR 9). The cities are cunently negotiating with the Port over the litigation. They are seeking seven demands: closing of the North Field runways between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. (these runways are expected to get more commercial traffic as the airport expands), eliminating turbo jet and turbo-prop use on runway 27 Right, stopping all outside engine testing between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., establishing a comprehensive noise insulation program, completing a test of flight routes for the North Field, assessing the city's and Port's emergency response systems, and making road improvements. San Leandro City Manager John Jermanis told residents attending a neighborhood aviation advisory committee meeting that two or three of the Port's responses to the city's demands were acceptable, the San Leandro Times reported April 30.� Airport Noise Report �:_:.': May 8, 199$ 61 Airspace FAA COTTFIRMS PROJECT TO REDESIGN U.S. AIRSPACE By Charles F. Price — Yes, the Federal Aviation Admini- stration is engaged in a wholesale redesign of the nation's en route and terminal airspace after all, just as FAA Admin- istrator Jane Gazvey announced Apri1 13 in New Jersey. Confusion had arisen after newspapers in the New York- New Jersey area, reporting the Garvey statement, hailed what they viewed as a bold new initiative, while the FAA public affairs o�ce at headquarters seemed reluctant to characterize the effort in those terms (10 ANR 43). Also, aviation observers had wondered how at least one airspace redesign project they knew to be already under way — the Potomac Project in the Baltimore-Washington region — could be part of a nationwide effort only now being launched with a priority emphasis elsewhere. FAA Public Affairs Officer William Shumann confirmed to ANR that the agency has "a project under way to look at a clean-sheet redesign of the national airspace." $ut,, he conceded, without venturing an explanation, "there may be an inconsistency" between FAA's announcement that the redesign will commence in the Eastern Triangle (the Chicago-Boston-Miami area, specifically the New York- New Jersey region) and the fact that it already appears to be under way in Washington. Last month during a news conference at Newark Interna- tional Airport after a day of ineetings sponsored by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) with local elected o�cials, congressmen, and community leaders, Garvey said the comprehensive airspace redesign would commence in the New York-New Jersey region because it is, as Shumann termed it, the nation's "busiest and most complex" airspace. Yet for nearly two yeazs officials in the Baltimore- Washington area have been variously told by FAA that the Potomac Project is either under way already or soon will be. Shumann told ANR the Potomac Project could even be completed before the New York-New Jersey study. Potomac Project There does appeaz to be a difference of opinion between FAA and local off'icials about what constitutes the Potomac Project. The agency has been at work — without public consultation — studying alternative sites for a new central- ized terminal area radar control center (TRACON) there, while local o�cials, believing the TRACON question is integral to the redesign of their terminal airspace, have complained about being ignored after FAA promised an aggressive public involvement program. Shumann explained that FAA does not regard the TRACON issue as a part of the redesign effort. "The Potomac Project TRACON is a project on its own," he sa'id, and "doesn't affect" the terminal airspace redesign. Shumann said the Air Tra�c Control o�ce of FAA had concluded that a national airspace redesign was necessary because of "major new developments in navigation, communications, surveillance, and aircraft performance" against a background of an aging system that "grew up in the late `50's and early `60's." He pointed out, however, that the redesign process "will take time" and that no specific redesign proposals have yet been developed. When they are, he said, they wili be subjected to the required environmental reviews and public hearings. However, he warned, "there will be no immediate noise relief." The caveat appeared to reflect an FAA concern tliat April's news reports might have encouraged those in New York and New Jersey to expect relief quite soon. Anti-noise activists there are pushing FAA to consider implementing an ocean-routing system to reduce overflight noise from Newark International and the New York airports. Shumann said because of the complexity of the New York-New Jersey portion of the Eastern Triangle, "problems tend to develop there in the east and then move west" to affect the rest of the system. He cited this as the reason for the priority emphasis on New York and New Jersey announced by Garvey.� Baltimore-Washington Int'Z , � r . • � � 1 ' 1' � � � � A newly updated Airport Noise Zone fur Baltimore- Washington International Airport (BWI) was certified recently by Ted Mathison, executive director of the Mary- land Aviation Administration (MAA). The 1998 Airport Noise Zone is the fourth update for BWI since noise zones were first established in 1976. Airport noise zones usually are updated every five years. The 1998 Airport Noise Zone contains 7,100 acres, a five percent reduction in size from the 1993 zone, and includes about 1,350 homes, 39 percent fewer than in 1993, and about 3,400 people, 41 percent fewer than in 1993, accord- ing to the airport. This decrease in size of the noise zone reflects the progress made in the noise reduction program," said Mathison. "In addition, we are seeing the benefits as the airlines have put increasing numbers of quieter 5tage 3 aircraftinto service. "Members of the BWI Neighbors Committee carefully evaluated the draft Noise Abatement Plan and they were instrumental in identifying improvements that will enhance the quality of life for residents in the noise zone," he added. Improvements include greater restrictions on nighttime engine run-ups between 11 p.m. and 4 a.m.; the addition of 11 homes to the Voluntary Acquisition Program at an estimated cost of $2.1 million (which includes relocation costs); and making local governments eligible for federal funding to purchase large parcels of vacant property in residential areas of the Airport Noise Zone for noise Airport Noise Report 1 e ... ...._ ._ .. .... . . �,. 62 Airport Noise Report cumpatible public use. Persons desiring to build new structures or change the use of existing structures within the Airport Noise Zone are ( required to obtain an airport zoning permit from the MAA or a variance from the Board of Airport Zoning Appeals (BAZA) before requesting local government approval for development within the noise zone. The MAA and BAZA are workina to improve airport _ noise variance petition procedures to clarify the applicant's responsibility for achieving adequate sound insulation in proposed structures and to ensure that noise'reduction goals in BAZA variance rulings are met in new construction. MAA also wili plans to ask that the Maryland Real Estate Commission amend its disclosure forms to note the Airport Noise Zone as a land use regulation. In addition, the MAA will disseminate large scale Airport Noise Zone maps to local libraries and real estate offices to improve public awareness about the noise zone. The Maryland Environmental Noise Act of 1974 requires the MAA to adopt an Airport Noise Zone and Noise Abatement Plan to control incompatible land development around BWI Airport and to minimize the impact of aircraft noise on people living near the airport. The Airport Noise Zone and Noise Abatement Plan fuliill federal requirements for Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility program.� AIP Reauthorization ! ) N.O.I.S.E. SEEKS DESIGNATION OF ANY PFC INCREASE TO NOISE The National Organization to Insure a Sound-Controlled Environment (NOISE) urged Congress in a May 8letter to strengthen federal noise mitigation policies in order to reduce noise impacts on communities near airports. In a letter to the John Duncan (R-TN), chairman of the House Transportation Subcommittee on Aviation, and Slade Gorton (R-WA), chairman of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Aviation, NOISE President Tom Egan, mayor of Eagan, MN, advocated reauthorizina the Airport Improvement Program, from which grants are given to airports to conduct noise mitigation planning and projects, for a longer period than the current three years to allow for greater planning and fulfillment of commitments. "Noise reduction projects take long-range planning, and noise-impacted communities need the certainty that airports will have a source of funds and requirements for noise mitigation for a more significant time span than three years," Egan said. Both committees have jurisdiction over the Airport Improvement Program, inclading noise mitiga- tion policies, which is up for reauthorization this year. Egan urged the committee chairmen to designate a portion of any Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) increase for noise � � prevention and mitigation. "Aithough there is a 31 percent ' set-aside for noise mitigation in AIP funds, only 11 percent of PFC funds were used for such projects in 1996. Some 71 percent of PFC's were used for roadside and landside projects and roads, in other words, expansion. Expansion frequently means additional noise or it turns compatible land into non-compatible land," Egan wrote. "A significant commitment," he said, "is needed to the research and development of quieter aircraft that are technologically and economically feasible." The Advanced Subsonic Transport project, currently being conducted by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Federal Aviation Administration "is showing promising results that could lead to the production of Stage 4 aircraft," Egan told the committee chairmen. Noting that NASA provided most of the direction and funding for this research, Egan urged Conb ess to include provisions in the FAA Reauthorization Act that also would commit the FAA to this reseazch and "encourage or require the use of this new technology once proven feasible." Egan applauded the FAA for establishing the Office of Noise Ombudsman, which serves as a liaison between the FAA and noise impacted communities, before an appropria- tion was provided. "The office now needs to be adequately funded and given stature and significance within the FAA decision making process," Egan said. "For example, in Washington, DC, a local branch of the FAA gave approval to an operator for numerous, daily, noisy helicopter sight- seeing flights over residential azeas of the District of Columbia, without any notice to the Off'ice of Noise Ombudsman, the local communities, the• airport authority, or any other relevant organization." NOISE is a national organization represendng local governments and civic groups working to reduce the impact of aircraft noise on communities.0 Detroit Metropolitan , � , � � � � � � � � . � � Detroit Metropolitan Airport is using laptop computers to significantly speed up the design process of its residential sound insulation program. Under the new process, a team of architectural and design professionals visits homeowners to evaluate precisely what modifications are needed to achieve the desired noise reduction in the home. The team members use laptop computers to create final design documents within a few hour — a process, the airport said, that used to take weeks or even months. "By having a laptop computer with us, we're able to analyze the specifics of each house and produce sound insulation recommendations right on the spot," Colleen Pobur, director of the Neighborhood Compadbility Program for the airport, explained in the Detroit Metro's newsletter. In most cases, homeowners are reviewing plans, clarifying any questions they might have, and signing the authorization Airport Noise Report t:�''� �_: . May 8, 1998 paperwork all in one day. So far, the feedback we've been �etting from citizens has been very positive." She said that sound insulation of homes will be the primary focus of the Neighborhood Compatibility Program in 1998. "In past years we concentrated much of our efforts acquiring homes closest to the airport and sound insulating schools in the area," she said. "But this year, we've ear- marked the majority of our time and budget on insulating homes." "We've picked up a lot of knowledge from the houses we've worked on up until now, and we keep looking at new ways to improve the program," she said. "Our goal is to make the Neighborhood Compatibility Prob am as efficient and friendly for our customers as we can."� Grants � . . . . � � . � � . � ' ' ' � � � � � � � The Federal Aviation Administration awarded the following noise-related Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants to airports recently: • Little Rock, AR, received $1,250,000 on April 8 to acquire land and soundproof residences near Adams Field; • Mena, AR, received $500,000 on April 8 to acquire land for approaches at Mena Intermountain Municipal Airport; • Burbank, CA, received $2. million on April 8 to sound- proof residences near Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport; • Ft. Lauderdale, FL, received $3,446,469 on Apri129 for several projects including one to acquire land for noise compatibility; • Ft. Myers, FI.., received $2.5 million on Apri129 to acquire land for development of Southwest Florida Interna- tional Airport; • Lakeland, FL, received $1,309,000 on April 20 to acquire land for approaches at Lakeland Linder Regiona] Airport; • Orlando, FL, received $896,000 on Apri129 to conduct a noise compatibility plan study; • Chicago, IL,, received $3 million on Apri124 to sound- proof a school near Chicago Midway Airport; • Chicago, lL, received $3 million on April 24 to sound- proof schools near Chicago O'Hare International Airport; • Peoria, IL, received $1,350,000 on April 24 to acquire land for noise compatibility near Greater Peoria Regional Airport; • Rockford, IL, received $1,260,000 on April 24 to acquire land for noise compatibility near Greater Rockford Airport; • Springfield, IL, received $1 million on Apri124 to acquire land for noise compatibility near Springfield Capital Airport; • Detroit, MI, received $5 million on April 16 to sound- proof residences, acquire and for noise compatibility, and provide relocation assistance near Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport; 63 • Escanaba, MI, received $159,190 on April 27 for several projects includin� acquisition of land for approaches and relocation assistance near Delta County Airport; • Minneapolis, MN, received $5 million on April 13 to soundproof residences near Minneapolis-St. Paul Interna- tional Airport; • Charlotte, NC, received $4,781,250 on April 6 to soundproof residences near Charlotte/Douglas International Airport; • Albany, NY, received $2 million on April 16 to acquire land for noise compatibility near Albany County Airport; • Dayton, OH, received $1,485,000 on April 16 to acquire land for noise compatibility and to provide relocation assistance near James M. Cox Dayton International Airport; • Columbus, OH, received $511,000 on April 16 to conduct an update to its Part I50 airport noise compatibility program for Port Columbus International Airport; • Toledo, OH, received $4,894,000 on April 16 to acquire land for noise compatibility and to soundproof residences near Toledo Express Airport; • Laredo, TX, received $7.3 million on April 16 for several projects, including land acquisition for noise compatibility near Laredo International Airport; • Spokane, WA, received $591,300 on April 27 to acquire land for approaches near Felts Field; • Milwaukee, WI, received $8 million on April 16 to soundproof residences near General Mitchell International Airport.� Greensboro FEDEX HUB TO BRING $2.4 BILLION, STUDY SAYS Federal Express recently decided to build a major new Mid-Atlantic hub at Greensboro Airport in North Carolina and a study released May 11 concluded that the economic impact of the hub on the surrounding 12 country region will exceed $2.4 billion in its first decade. NC Governor Jim Hunt hailed FedEX's decision to build its $300 million package sorting facility at Greensboro as an economic victory. Greensboro beat out four other airports that were in the running for the hub: Raleigh-Durham, Charlotte and Global TransPark in North Carolina and Columbia, SC. The economic report, requested by the Greensboro Area Chamber of Commerce and developed by G. Donald Jud of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, concluded that the $272 million in incentives it took to win the FedEX hub wili pay handsome economic dividends. Jud said that the annual economic impact of the hub will be over $160 million a year. Consri-uction of the hub is set to begin in early 2000 and to be completed by the fall of 2003. It will initially employ 700-800 people with a total workforce of 1,500.� Airport Noise Report C 64 Airport Noise Report ANR EDITORIA.L ON THE AGENDA... ADVISORY BOARD ' Mark Atw d E May 31-June 3 American Association of Airport Executive's 70th � ( � 00 , sq. Galland, Kharasch, Morse & G�nkle Washington, D.C. Lee L. Blackman, Esq. McDermott, Will & Emery Los Angeles, Calif. Dr. Clifford R. Bragdon, AICP • Dean, School of Aviadon'& Transportation Dowling College Eliot Cutler, Esq. Cutler & Stanfield Washington, D.C. J. Spencer Dickerson Senior Vice President American Association of Airport Executives Edward J• DiPolvere Administrator, National Associadon of Noise Control Officials Richard G. "Dick" Dyer Airport Environmental 3pecialist, Division of Aeronautics, Cali£ Dept. of Transportation E. Tazeweli Ellett, Esq. Hogan & Hartson Washington, D.C. Julie H. Ellis, Esq. Managing Director Federai Express Corporation Angel M. Garcia Co-Chairman Citizens Against Newark Noise E.H. "Moe" Haupt Manager, Airport and Environmental Services, National Business Aircraft Association Robert P. Silverberg, Esq. Bagileo, Silverberg & Goldman Washington, D.C. Joanne W. Young, Esq. Baker & Hosteder LLP Washington, D.C. June 20-28 Annual Conference & Exhibition, Nashville, TN (contact AAAE; tel: (703) 824-0504 or fax-on-demand: (1-800-470-ARPT). Semi-annual meeting of the Acoustical 5ociety of America, Seattle, WA (contact Elaine Moran; tel: (516) 576-2360). July 12-15 Transportation Research Board's A1F04 Conference on Transportation Related Noise and Vibration, St. Petersburg, FL (contact Win Lindeman, FL DOT; tel: (850) 488-2914). July 22-25 Annual meeting of the National Organization to Insure a Sound-controlled Environment (NOISE), Thornton, CO (neaz Denver); (contact Dennis McGrann, Suite 900, 601 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20004; tel: (202) 434-8163; fax (202) 639-8238). Aug. 20-21 American Association of Airport Executives' Aircraft Noise and Land Use Planning Management Workshops, � Milwaukee, WI (contact AAAE; tel: (703) 824-0504 or fa�c-on-demand: (1-800-470-ARP'1�. Oct. 4-7 Airports Council International - Nerth America's 7th Regional Conference & Exhibition, Marriott's Orlando World Center (contact ACI, 1�75 K St., NW, Washington, DC 2U006; tel: (202) 293-8500; fa�c (202) 331-1362). Nov. 16-18 INI'ER-NOISE 98, The 1998 International Congress on Noise Control Engineering, Christchurch, New Zealand (contact Conference Secretariat, INTER-NOISE 98 Secretary, MDA, PO Box 1181, Aukland 1001, Australia; tel: (+64-9-379-7822; fa�c; +64-9-302-0098). Nov. 22-27 Noise Effects '98, the 7th International Conb ess on Noise as a Public Health Problem, Sydney, Australia (contact The Congress Secretariat, Noise Effects '98, ' GPO Box 128, Sydney NSW 2001 `Australia; tel: 61-2- 9262-2277;fax 61-2-9262-2323). AIRPORT NOISE REPORT Anne FI. Kohut, Publisher Charles F. Price, Contributing Editor; Maria T. Norton, Production Editor Published 25 times a year at 43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 20147; Phone: (703) '729-4867; FAX: (703) 729-4528. Price $495. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by Airport Noise Report, provided that the base fee of US$1.03 per page per copy is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, 27 Congress Street, Salem, MA 01970. USA. Copyright OO 1998 by Airport Noise Report. Ashbum, Va. 20147 '�'� . , c:_:, � CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AIRPORT RELAT10iVS COMMISSION APRIL 8, 1998 - MINUTES The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on Wednesday, April 8, 1998 in the City Ha)I Large Conference Room, 1 101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. The following members were present: Beaty, Fitzer, Roszak, Leuman, Des Roches. Commissioners Stein and May arrived late. Also presant were City Administrator Kevin Batchelder and Senior Secretary Kim Blaeser. Mr. Darwin Pruitt resident of Mendota Heights (Swan Lane) was also present. Chair Beaty noted that Mr. Pruitt has made several inquiries as to how the MSP operations are conducted and why IVlendota Heights seems to be bombarded with aircraft noise. APPROVAL OF.MINUTES Commissioner Des Roches moved approval ofi the March 11, 1998 minutes. Commissioner Roszak seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 DISCUSSION OF MASAC ASSESSMEI�T Commissioner May arrived at 7:06 p.m. Administrator Batchelder informed the Commission that the City Council concurs with the Commission's opinion that the MASAC needs to generate specific ideas on how the MASAC can become more effective in its purpose, communicaticrn and motives. Batchelder stated that the Council agrees that the MASAC should pursue the following concepts to help make the organization a more effective organization: 1. Develop a handbook which includes a statement of purpose. AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMlSS/ON - APR/L 8, 1998 M/NUTES � S 2. Developed an organizational chart. 3. Prepare a monthly communication package which should also include � MAC meeting information. 4. Encourage MASAC membership to develop reports and have each member keep in touch with their City Officials as well as community residents. 5. Develop a quarterly newsletter - Maybe consider televising MASAC meetings on local government channels. 6. Maintain a higher profile. 7. Conduct new membership orientation meetings. Batchelder stated that the assessment results will be forward to the MASAC P&E Commission and that the MASAC will have results and begin its formal discussions in April. Batchelder informed the Commission that he is a new member of the MASAC and that he will provide the Commission with copies of orientation information as soon as they are available. As part of the "keeping everyone in touch" process, the MASAC has scheduled two informational meetings to discuss Noise Contour Modeling and FAA Airspace Usage and Control. He reminded the Commission of the April 28, 1998 and May 26, 1998 meetings. Batchelder suggested that Mr. � Pruitt, resident in attendance, attend these meetings as well. He stated that � these meetings should help provide information as to how the MSP operations are conducted. Commissioner Stein arrived at 7:15 p.m. In response to a question from Commissioner Roszak, Commissioner Fitzer explained that aircraft are assigned a specific heading but that it does not mean it is a ground tracking reading. He stated that this all depends upon winds, lift off capability and when the planes are able to turn. Batchelder briefly reviewed an aerial map which depicts runway location as well cities which surround the airport. Chair Beaty stated that this type of information is available on the Internet. He informed the Commission that maps can be order through the US Geological web site and that maps are available for 575. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSAL ON PARALLEL RUNWAY SE6'ARATION REQUIREMENTS A/RPORT RELATIONS COMMISS/ON - APR/L 8, 1998 M/NUTES 2 Administrator Batchelder explained that an initiative had been presented to l the NDCARC by the City of Inver Grove Heights to request a Variance from FAA procedures for the 15 degree parallel runway separation requirement. He explained that the FAA requires 4,300 feet of separation for parallel runways to operate independently. Batchelder reviewed a map, submitted by the City of Inver Grove Heights, which depicts the specific location in which aircraft could turn. Batchelder reviewed the map and informed the Commission that Inver Grove Heights' request would require a Standard Instrument Departure. Commissioner Roszak inquired if the process would nullify the 1972 tower order. Batchelder explained that in 1990, the City requested that the southern boundary be eliminated and that the City of Eagan opposed this request. The Commission discussed how the aircraft operafiions have changed over the years and that operations exceed the air traffic firom the 1970's. Commissioner May suggested that the City consider petitioning the FAA and request a formal hearing to discuss the equity ethicity of the 1972 tower order. Administrator Batchelder stated that the MASAC has established the Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor issue as a 1998 priority. He stated that it is an appropriate time to begin strategizing especially with the construction of the north/south runway and that a new runway use system will need to be discussed. Chair Beaty stated that the City should move in the direction of abolishing the preferential runway use system. He stated that head-to-head operations create an inequitable air noise distribution, especially at nighttime. Administrator Batchelder stated that this is why it is so important to get the MASAC to monitor the non-simultaneous departures. Batchelder stated that one of MASAC 1998 goals is to review the corridor issue. Chair Beaty stated that Inver Grove Heights' variance proposal will benefit Mendota Heights. Batchelder reminded the Commission that NDCARC had discussed the variance proposal and that the Air Commission recommended suppart of the concept. He explained that the City Council did not support the recommendation because the request was too conceptual and fhat the City needs to be careful when making a request to the MAC because the Council does not want to jeopardize Mendota Heights good standing with the MAC. The Commission discussed how this concept needs refining and that a SID would be needed. Administrator Batchelder stated that the NDCARC is trying to form a united front regarding this issue. He stated that the City of Eagan is willing to cooperate because this concept can show the compliance A/RPORT RELAT/ONS COMM/SS/ON - APR/L 8, 1998 M/NUTES 3 of the southern boundary. C� The Commission was of the consensus that the proposed Variance concept should be researched further to determine benefits as well as negative impacts on Mendota Heights. They further felt that all of the NDCARC cities need to agree on this issue before it is considered by the FAA. Commissioner Des Roches suggested that the Commission discuss the 1972 tower order at their May meeting. Adrninistrator Batchelder stated that the Commissian should consider updating its Action Plan as well. FAA TOWER TOUR The Commission was of the consensus to tour the new FAA tower on Wednesday, April 22 beginning at 4:30 p.m. It was noted that those interested would meet directly at the tower. Administrator Batchelder stated that he would be in attendance. REPORT ON TESTING ROGERS LAKE FOR AIRPLANE EMISSIONS Administrator Batchelder stated that the Commission had requested that St. Thomas Academy test Roger's Lake for passible airplane emissions (benzene �� and formaldehyde). He infarmed the Commission that the St. Thomas students can test the lake for formaldehyde only. He stated that benzene is an air pollutant and that it would be very expensive as well as difficult to test for this toxin in the water. Batchelder stated that St. Thomas had indicated that they will have information available in time for the City Council's May 21, 1998 regular meeting. DISCUSSION OF DRAFT NDCARC COLLABORATIVE ISSUES Administrator Batchelder informed the Commission that the NDCARC adopted the List of Collaborative Issues at their March 19, 1998 meeting. He informed the Commission that none of the issues were unanimous and that each City had a list af their top priority topics to discuss. Batchelder stated that this document will be considered a working document with the NDCARC and that he would inform the Council of the Committee's issues. Commissioner May moved to recommend that the City Council adopt the suggest list of NDCARC Collaborative Issues. Commissioner Leuman seconded the motion. A/RPORT RELAT/ONS COMM/SS/ON - APR/L 8, 9998 M/NUTES 4 �� - AYES: 7 '; NAYS: 0 Mr. Pruitt, Mendota Heights resident, left at $:10 p.m. LETTER TO MASAC ON MONITORING NON-SIMULTANEOUS DEPARTURES Administrator Batchelder informed the Commission that the MASAC Operations Committee would be discussing this issue at their April 17, 1998 meeting. He stated that he is unclear as to how the non-simultaneous departures will be monitored since the operations are in this mode at different times on a daily basis. He stated that it would be interesting to find out how they classify head-to-head operations. Commissioner Leuman noted that on Saturday, during the day, head-to-head operations were being flown. He stated that this is not a very busy time and that these sort of operations should not be occurring. Chair Beaty stated that he really notices the 5:00 a.m. departures. NOTICE OF CORRECTIONS - AVIATION GUIDE PLAN Administrator Batchelder informed the Commission that the Mayor, Councilmember Krebsbach and himself along with other City staff inembers met with Met Council representatives regarding the Met Council's Aviation Guide Plan. He informed the Commission that he believes the City did an excellent job in communicating to the Met Council representatives the City's displeasure with the change in the guide plan. He noted that they discussed, at length, the inequitable distribution of air noise and how Mendota Heights is severely impacted by the air noise. He informed the Commission that they also discussed how they feel the City of Eagan should not be allowed to interfere with Mendota Heights' concerns with its comprehensive plan amendment process. Batchelder stated that as a result of their meeting, Mr. Chauncey Case, Met Council Transportation Planner, sent a letter informing the City of a correction to the Aviation Development Guide. Batchelder noted that the changes involve the two land use categories: Multiplex/Apartment with Shared Entrance and Cultural, Entertainment, Recreational (Indoor). Batchelder stated that while this change clarifies the City's concerns, it does not help the Hoffmann Homes request. AlRPORT RELAT/ONS COMMISS/ON - APR/L 8, 1998 M/NUTES 5 / Batchelder stated that he believes the meeting was an eye opening � experience for the Met Council and that the City is waiting for a formal response from the Met Council. FAA - FINAL POLICY ON PAFiT 150 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY The Commission acknowledged receipt of information from the FAA regarding its Final Policy on Part 150 Approval of Noise Mitigation Measures: Effect on the Use of Federal Grants for Noise Mitigation Projects. The Commission noted that as of October 1, 1998, the FAA will not approve remedial noise mitigation measures for new non-compatible development that occurs in the vicinity of airports after the effective date of the final policy. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF VARIOUS REPORTS/CORRESPONDENCE The Commission acknowledged receipt of the Airport Noise Reports for February 27, 1998 and March 13, 1998. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC Agenda for March 31, �� 1998 and March 2, 1998 Minutes. The Commission noted that the City of Eagan has sent a letter to Representative Oberstar requesting him to lean on the FAA, (Washington), to sign the memorandum of Agreement that would allow the local FAA tower and the MAC systems to be compatible. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC Abbreviated Technical Advisor's Report for February, 1998. Batchelder informed the Commission that it has been requested that Mr. Fuhrman generate an activity log which would allow everyone to be made aware of specific requests made by other cities. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the NDCARC Agenda for March 19, 1998. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the Airport Fact Sheet 106 - MASAC. Commissioner Stein submitted Advisory Circulars which include information on new airport designs, etc. It was noted that the City can order information C A/RPORT RELAT/ONS COMMISS/ON - APR/L 8, 1998 M/NUTES 6 frorri the FAA. I�� 1L�111:i�I►T I �l:ti y There being no further business, the Airport Relations Commission moved to adjourn its meeting at 8:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kimberlee K. Blaeser Senior Secretary A/RPORT RELATIONS COMMISS/ON - APRIL 8, 1998 M/NUTES 7 � C C CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MAY 13, 1998 - MINUTES The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on Wednesday, May 1 1, 1998 in the City Hall Large Conference Room, 1 101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. The foliowing members were present Beaty, Leuman, Stein, Roszak and Fitzer. Commissioners May and Des Roches were excused. Also present were City Administrator Kevin Batchelder and Senior Secretary Kim Blaeser. DISCUSSION OF MONITORfNG NON-SIMULTANEOUS DEPARTURES Administrator Batchelder explained that the MASAC Operations Committee has discussed the City's request to monitor non-simultaneous departure procedures. He stated that at a recent MAC meeting, MAC staff presented a Scope of Analysis: Crossing in the Corridor as their proposed methodology for fulfilling the City's request. Batchelder informed the Commission that Ms. Cindy Greene, FAA, has stated that the FAA will not provide MAC the inforrnation necessary to detail controller time periods, as requested in Section 1.2 of the Scope of Analysis: Crossing in the Corridor. Batchelder stated that Ms. Greene has indicated that there are too many variable factors the contcoller has to weigh in making a decision to release a departure. He stated that Ms. Greene is concerned that the flight track data and ANOMS will show departure headings inconsistent with non-simultaneous departures without the explanation of why the controller made this decision. He stated that the FAA has indicated that they are not willing to devote a lot of time and resources to providing these explanations on every flight during non-simultaneous periods and does not want their controller's decisions to be micro managed. Batchelder stated that the MAC will move forward with the study on the basis that there is only one controller in the tower between 1 1:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on weekdays ancl during time periods on the weekends. The Commission discussed head to head operations and how often these operations occur negating the oppo�tunity to use non-simultaneous AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 13, 1998 � departures. They discussed the use of Runway 4-22 during these operations. Chair Beaty stated that during head to head operations the air � noise is not equitably distributed and that Runway 4-22 should be used to help relieve the constant air noise. Batchelder discussed the Runway Use System and stated that head-to-head operations are in place to help give the City of Minneapolis some relief. Chair Beaty stated that this is unfair. Beaty stated that air noise is significant during the day. Batchelder stated our request for information regarding non-simultaneous operations is during nighttime and weekend operations. Beaty stated that there are people home during the day and that the City should push for centerline headings not only during evening hours but also during daytime hours. Batchelder stated that during non-simultaneous periods, the FAA will follow the specific tower orders but that non-simultaneous periods only last for brief periods of time during weekdays and the FAA may not shift to one controller. He stated the FAA is claiming it is too difficult to log non-simultaneous periods during the weekday. He stated that the City's request is a practical one and that we should consider focusing our concerns during nighttime and weekend operations. Chair Beaty stated that he is home during the day and that the air traffic is bad. He stated that there is some relief when Runway 4-22 is being used. Commissioner Fitzer reminded the Commission that aircraft can drift and that � they can be given a runway heading and that it can be changed once departure control assumes responsibility of the aircraft. Regarding runway headings, Fitzer suggested that maybe the tower is giving a heading that departure control is not aware of. Commissioner Leuman suggested that City staff confirm what role departure control plays at the airport. Batchelder informed the Commission that Bruce Wagoner is no longer tower chief and that Doug Powers is the interim chief. . . ..�. . . � . �i Administrator Batchelder explained that it is time for the Commission to review its Plan of Action which was adopted last August. He stated that in past years, the Commission has reviewed this document in May, June and July and presented its report to the Council in August. The Commission briefly discussed the Comprehensive Plan amendment process and how important it is that the Aviation Chapter does not get too specialized. They discussed how specific action steps should not be included in the Comprehensive Plan because they might become obsolete in the near AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 13, 1998 2 �, future. Regarding priority issues, the Commission felt that the Equity of Current Runway Use System should be placed as their top priority and that MAC and MASAC Representation should be moved to second on the list. Chair Beaty inquired about the progress regarding the City of Inver Grove Heights suggestion to request a variance in runway separation. Batchelder stated that the Council reviewed the NDCARC Collaborative Issues and determined that the City of Mendota Heights should not play a significant role within the NDCARC. They suggested that the NDCARC consider meeting quarterly as opposed to monthly. He explained that the Council has taken a neutral position regarding Inver Grove Heights' suggestion. Batchelder stated that the Airport Commission should discuss the value of the coalition. Chair Beaty noted his displeasure with Council's position. He stated that he feels the Coalition is an important group and that it is unfortunate that the City Council has such a distrust with the Cities of Eagan and Inver Grove Heights. He stated that there is enough common interest to keep the Coalition to meet on a regular basis. He stated that there are several positive issues the Coalition has discussed and that they have stood united on several topics such as the Close In Departure procedures and MASAC restructuring. Commissioner Stein concurred with Chair Beaty. Chair Beaty stated that the Coalition should be revitalized. Batchelder stated that he will continue to attend the meetings and that the meetings do help educate Mendota Heights as to the issues other Cities face regarding the airport. Commissioner Roszak suggested that the Coalition generate a new set of ideas to pursue. Commissioner Leuman suggested that the Coalition continue pursuing the Runway Separation Issue. The Commission noted how the Coalition helped to make the MASAC run more efficiently. It was noted that the City is receiving improved agendas with cover memorandums. The Commission made the following changes to its Airpart Plan of Action: Issue: Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Proce�iures Goal: Implementation of fVon-Simultaneous Takeoffi Procedures Which Minimize Mendota Heights Air IVoise Exposure Action Steps Who When AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 13, 1998 3 1. Request Copy of Tower Order that Implement's NSDP's 2. Monitor Compliance with Tower Order 3. NSDP's - Request Compliance Staff July � Staff/ARC Continuous Staff/ARC Sept. The Commission noted that Action Steps 1-3 have been accomplished. It was noted that the City will be receiving a report regarding NSDP compliance. 4. Pursue Magnetic Shift Affect on 105 Degree Heading on 1 1 L Staff/ARC FAA is Implement. Administrator Batchelder stated that the MASAC has review of the Southeast Corridor scheduled as a goal during 1998. The Commission felt that this item should remain within the Action Plan. Issue: Goal: Action Steps Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures Adoption of "Close-In" vs. "Distant" Takeoff Procedures to Reduce Noise Generation Over Mendota Heights Who When 1. Seek Political Assistance from Staff/ARC August legislative leaders - Send Correspondence to MAC � 3 MAC Planning and Environment reports recommendation to MAC. MAC recommends to FAA procedure To be implemented. Staff/ARC August Staff/ARC Regarding No. 3, Administrator Batchelder stated that this did not go in favor of Mendota Heights. It was noted that the FAA did not implement the Close In procedure until March 1. It was noted that the review of NADP's is a part of the MASAC 1998 goals and that the MASAC Operations Committee will be discussing this item in September. The Commission felt that this item should remain a part of the Action Plan. Issue: Goal: Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures Adaption of Mandatory Nighttime Takeoff Regulations to AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 13, 1998 4 �' , � Reduce Noise Generation Over Mendota Heights Action Steps 1. Inquire with FAA Control Tower about current head-to-head operations Who Staff When August 2. Suggest using crosswind runway more ARC Fall 1997 frequentiy during head-to-head operations 3. Monitor MSP Mitigation Cornprehensive ARC/Council 1997 Plan designated Stage III only from 10:30 p.m. until 6:00 a.m. and assist MAC in implementing voluntary agreements with airlines. The Commission discussed how the MAC is working with airlines, although runway construction is affecting the operations at MSP. Commissioner Fitzer stated that the construction should be cutting down the head-to-head operations. It was noted that the City is receiving air noise complaints from residents living in northern Mendota Heights. Issue: Goal: Action Steps Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures Implementation of Narrowed Air Traffic Corridor which Minimizes Mendota Heights Air tVoise Exposure Who When 1. Advocate for maintenance of 5 mile final Staff/ARC Continuous arrivals and 3 mile corridor for departures 2. Pursue the benefit of updating tower orders Staff/ARC Fall 1997 to original intent before shift in magnetic headings. 3. Issue: Goal: Presentation for Commission on GPS by Staff Fall 1997 MAC or other expert (Mr. Harold Pierce) Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concerns Expand Distribution of Air Noise Related Information AIRPORT RELATIONS GOMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 13, 1998 5 Action Steps Who When 1. Continue to inform the community Staff/ARC Continuous on ARC projects and concerns using the City's newsletter and separate single page mailings. 2. Work with NDCARC on possible legislation Staff/ARC Continuous for MAC representation. 3. Mail letters and Heights Highlites to State Senators anci Representatives regarding ARC issues. 4. Invite guests to monthly ARC meetings (i.e., Mr. Hamiel, Mr. Wagoner, State elected officials) Staff Continuous Staff Continuous (Quarterly) Regarding No. 4, the Commission felt that a stronger effort should be placed in inviting more guests to Comrnission meetings. 5. Expand coverage of air noise issues by pursuing informational meetings with editorial staffs of major papers. Staff/ 1997 Council Regarding No. 5, the Commission felt that this is still an excellent idea and that the City should take a more proactive role in informing the media of Mendota Heights concerns. 6. Continue to send press releases to newspapers, State Senators and Representatives. 7. Update and promote air noise mitigation document. Staff Continuous Staff/ARC Annually Regarding No. 7, Administrator Batchelder stated that the Mitigation Needs Statement document needs to be updated. He suggested that the Commission consider discussing this issue at their June meeting. Issue: C�� • . Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concerns Appointment of City Resident to the MAC C a AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 13, 1998 6 �, Action Steps Who 1. Discuss concerns with State Senators ARC/ and Reps. Regarding composition of Council MAC. Pursue legislation to amend MAC Commissioner appt. process. When Dec. 97/ Jan. 98 Regarding No. 1, Chair Beaty suggested that state officials be invited to attend Airport meetings bimonthly. He stated that a stronger lobbying efforts needs to be made by the City. 2. Discuss and compare cities affected by ARC 1998 air noise to MAC representatives 3. Review MASAC representation and ARC/Staff 1997/ MAC representation with NDCARC .. 1998 Propose new structure and representation on MASAC. Regarding No. 3, the Commission noted that the City has been very successful in getting MAC's attention. It was noted that additional seats have been added for the Cities of Mendota Heights, Eagan and Minneapolis. The Commission discussed MAC representation and that it should not be statewide representation but metro wide, elected, representation. In response to a question from Chair Beaty, Administrator Batchelder stated that the AMM is the lobbyist for metropolitan communities and is currently reviewing this issue. Issue: MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Goal: Prevent Construction of Third Parallel Runway Action Steas Who When 1. Monitor MAC Compliance with Contract Staff/ARC Continuous 2. Research MAC Acquisition of Bureau of Staff Mines property and MAC interest in off airport properties in 3rd runway area. 3. Monitor EIS Process for N/S Runway AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 13, 1998. 19987 Staff/ARC 1997/ 1998 7 Regarding No. 3, Administrator Batchelder stated that this past week, the City has received the EIS document. 4. Monitor EIS for 12,000 foot Runway Staff/ARC 1997 Issue: MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Goal: Implement Noise Mitigation Requirements in MSP Mitigation Committee's Comprehensive Plan Action Steps 1. Implement MAC's MSP Mitigation Plan Who When Staff/ARC 1997/ 1998 a. MASAC Action Plan for Implementation b. Joint Efforts with NDCARC c. Dakota County Assistance d. Legislative Assistance Regarding Letter a., Administrator Batchelder stated that this items is being addressed by the MASAC. Issue: Conversion to Stage 111 Quieter Aircraft Goal: Assure Conversion by Federal Deadline of Year 2000 Action Steps Who When 1. Work with MAC to assure 1996 Staff Completed legislation to convert to all Stage III aircraft by Year 2000 is implemented. 2. Consider backsliding of Stage III Conversian AFiC Upon response of NWA 3. MASAC consideration of Stage III compliance The Commission noted that NWA is behind in converting their fleet to Stage III. Issue: Noise Reduction Through Litigation AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 13, 1998 H Goal: Action Steps Determine Feasibility of a Legal Challenge to Current Air Noise Distribution Who When 1. Continue to be kept abreast of other Staff/ARC Continuous communities' issues and possible litigation process 2. Consider Freedom of Information Request Staff/ARC 1997 for EIS or FONSI's on increased operations 3. Consider legal challenge options if north/ Staff/ARC 1997/ south runway is delayed � 998 The Commission felt that this issue should remain within the Action Plan. Issue: Expand Eligibility for Part 150 Sound Insulation Program in Areas Affected by Air Noise Exposure Goal: Air Noise Mitigation Through Sound Insulation Action Steps Who When 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 severely impacted areas Staff/ARC On-going ARC/ 1998 Council 3. Ensure ANOMs data used for Noise Contour Staff/ARC 1998 generation for 2005 Part 150 DNL 60 Regarding No. 3, the Commission acknowledged that they are currently working on this step and that they will continue to discuss how more effective the ANOMs data can be reported and used by the City. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF VARIOUS REPORTS/CORRESPOIVDENCE AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 13, 1998 9 0 The Commission acknowiedged receipt of the Airport Noise Report for April 24, 1998. � The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC agenda for April 28, 1998 and March 31, 1998 minutes. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC Technical Advisor's Report for March 1998. It was noted that MSP Stage 3 Count for 1998 is 55.2 percent. Chair Beaty noted that there are more air noise complaints in March of 1998 than March of 1997. Administrator Batchelder noted that the full ANOMs report should be available by June. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis for March 1998. It was noted that four percent of the departures are penetrating the northern boundary of Mendota Heights. The Commission felt it necessary to keep an eye on the northern excursions. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC Operations Committee Agenda/Minutes for April 17, 1998. ( The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC Appointments to Executive and Operations Committee. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC Monthly Part 150 Status Report. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC Audit Summary. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the Minnesota Military Expo and 934th Airlift Wing Fact Sheet. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the handouts presented to MASAC on DNL Contours. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the Eagan ARC Agenda for May 12, 1998. �' AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 13, 1998 � O � ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the Airports Relation Commission moved to adjourn its meeting at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kimberlee K. Blaeser Senior Secretary AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 13, 1998 � � C� CITY OF MENDOTA HEI�HTS 1 � June 8, 1998 To: Airport Relations Comm.ission From: Kevin Batchelder, City Administrator Subject: Airport Noise Plan of Action DISCUSSION The Commission has requested revisions to the Mendota Heights Air Noise Plan of Action and that it be placed on the June agenda for further review and discussion. The Air Noise Plan of Action is intended to serve as a guide and a goals statement to direct our actions, as it relates to airport operations and air noise in the community. The Commission stated their intent would be to present an updated Air Noise Plan of Action to the City Council in July or August. On Wednesday evening, copies of the revised version will be presented to the �- � Commission. At that tinne, the Commission should review the Topics of Interest list and the . Action Plan and suggest changes to reflect completion of tasks, new issues and priorities. If the Commission so desires, they will have an opportunity to review and update the Action Plan at the June, July and August meetings before it is presented to City Council. ACTION REQUIRED Consider the Air Noise Plan of Action and the Topic of Interest list and provide direction to staff. Attachment: Airport Noise Mitigation Position Statement from June 26, 1996 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AIRPORT NOISE MITIGATION POS7770N STATEMENT As a communu'y directly and severely affected by aircmft operaiions at Minneapolis- St. Paul International Airport (ttiISP), the City of Mendota Heiahts is very concerned over the future con,figuration and operatzon of the airport. Cost and convenience was the primary baszs for the recommendation that the MAC Commission and the Metropolitan Council made to the legislature thaf the present airport be expanded and that it is capable of annually serving up to 640, 000 flight operations and 48 million passengers through the yettr 2D20. 1 If the adjoining communities want to enjoy the convenience of having a major airport facility wzthin 5 to .10 minutes of travel, then all the surrounding communiiies must share in the burden of the noise generated by the faciliiy. It is totally inequita.ble for the cities of Minneapolis and Richfield on the west side of the airport, and the cilies of Eagan and Mendota Heights on the east side of the airport, to be subjected to approximately 85% of the fliaht operations. Therefore, Mendota Heights feels that the equitable distrzbution of aircraft noise is the paramount issue the MSP Mi#igation Committee must address. The million dollar plus A.N. D.�I.S. installation is providing factual noise daia which is far more accurate than the LDN contours generated through the use of the FAA "integrated noise,fornzula. " This raises the question of the valzdity of the LDN 6� as a basis for decision making when more accurate data is availrzble from A.N.O.M.S, It is impercrtive that the MSP Mitisation Committee make its decisions from the most accurate daia base available. Accordingly, A.N.O.M.S. dala should be used in formulating an equita3�le noise mitigaiion program for the continued use o,f the present airport faczliiy. The Minneapolis/St. Paul Area Community Protection Concept Package prepared by the lt�ietropolitan Council represents a number of tools and techniques by which Ntendota Heiahts and other nearby communities will be able to address airport relaied impacis. The City of Mendota Heights generally supports the Nletropolitan Council Community Frotection Package based on the following consideratio�as. 1 Dual Track Airport Planning Process, Summary and Decision, Metropolitan Airports Commission, May 1996. 1 -- As the number of MSP aircraft operations has grown, air noise impacts within Mendota I3eights have increased dramatically. Nlany of the noise impacted areas within our Ciiy are older residenl�ial areas (built in the 1940's, SO's and 60's) which clearly pre-date the surge in a.zr traffic experzenced at MSP during the 1980's and 90's. As a result of increased noise exposure, these old'er Mendota Heights residential neighborhoods have experienced disinvestment and decline. In order to stabilize these areas and maintain their viability, the use of property value guarantees, tax credits for houszng revitalizalion, aggressive sound insulalion programs, and other described community stabilization programs is necessary and warranted. The FAA. Part I50 Noise Attenuation progrurn should be extended to cover all LDN 60 areas and beyond as necessary. At a minimum, the following residential neighborhoods in Mendota Y3eights must be included in the FAA Part I50 Noise Attenuation program: Furlong Add'ition alona State Trunk Highway 55, Curley Add'ition along Lexington Avenue, Rogers Lake Addition and Rogers Lakeshore Ad'dition along State Trunk Highway 149, the older homes south of Wagonwheel Roarl from State 7'runk 8ighway 149 to Lexington Avenue, and Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Friendly I3ills Addition (1950's) south of 8ighway 110 and east of State Tiunk Xighway 149, and other scattered neighborhoods located in identi,fied noise impacted areas. All of these neighborhoods experzence noise events o,f 85 dBa or greater on a regular basis as shown by A.N.O.M.S. RevitaXzzation of industrial properiies within the City's Business Park will similarly ( ) require substanlzal' resources over time. In order to maintain the Tong term economic health of this area, the City Council would conszder the selective use of community stabilization and revitalization tools desc�ibed in the Community Proteciion Concept Package. The Community Protection Concept Package also discusses a number of airport protection meusures designed to prevent incompatible land development in a:rport impacted areas. As a community zncorporated in 1956 arzd comprehenszvely plarzned in X959, the City of Mendota Heights has a number of established Zand use patterns which limits its abiliiy to make sweeping land use modi,fications for the sake of airport expansion. For instance, the City of Mendota Fleights is already 90-95% developed. Nonetheless, the City of Mendota Heights has for many years cooperated with ihe Metropolitan Council in ad'opting and enforcing land use controls related to the airport. In X987, the City of Mendota Heights became the first and only city to adopt the Metropolitan Council's Aircraft Noise Attenuation Ordinance and has strenuously en,forced the lYfetropolitan Council's Guid'elines for Construciion Within Aircraft Nozse Exposure Zones. In addition, the City has made a concerted effort to limit the total number o,f new residential units located in areus overflown by aircraft, and has experienced substantial costs in monitoring and achieving these goals. (The Puinam Associates lawsuit to decrease the density of the proposed townhouses east of Highway 149 and south of Mendota Heights 2 Road was a very costly ordeaX for the city.) The City takes seriously its responsibiliiy to control the development of noise incompatible land uses within Mendota I3eights. As such, the Ciiy does not support the creation of another regulatory body, such as the Airport Zoning Board, to usurp the land use authority vested in our duly elected public officials. If "teeth" are to be put into the enforcement of land use paiterns, the cilies themselves should be the enforcing authority, not some distant, non-representative bocard such as the Airport Zoning Board. This is not to say that the Legislature, the Metropolitan Airports Commission, and the Metropolitan Council do not have important roles to play in regulaling air noise generution and exposure. It is essentiul that "teeth" also be put into the regulations affecting the operation of the airport. Long term community compalibility with MSP is premised on the foXlowing: 1) The preferential' runway use system needs to be revised. The inequitable reliance on the Mendota Heights/Eagan corridor should be eliminated. The capacity of the corridor is finite, arzd communities overflown by aircmft using the cor�zdor ought not be expected to endure air noise exposure beyond a fair and equitable limit. All communities surrounding MSP receive si,gnificant economic benefit from its close proximity. Similarly, all should be expected to bear a reasonable and equitable share of the associated noise burden as well. 2) Over the Mendota I3eights/Eagan area, depariing aircmft should' be directed to utilize, to the fullest extent possible, less noise sensitive areas, such as indust�ial park property and highway rights of way. These areas have been planned in conformance with existing and approved airport runway configuraiions, are in conformance with Metropolitan Council guidelines, and have been approved by the Metropolitan Council. To fully accomplish this goal, aircraft during non-busy hours should' be directed to fly a crossing pattern in the corridor, rather than being given departure headings which overfly close-in residential areas. This crossing procedure during non-busy times has been approved by the 1Vletropolitan Airports Commission and is currently awaiting implementation by the Federal Avialion Administration. 3) As soon as posszble, the aircraft departure corridor should be narrowed over Mendota Heights and Eagan to take,full advantage of the laiest air traffxc control technology. The introduction of a Global Posilioning Satellite navigation system at MSP should greatly improve the safety of acirspace management, and will also lessen the distance aircraft need to be separated frorre one another to ensure passenger safety. Other precision air traffic control advancements on the horizon will only help the MAC and FAA better utilize the airspace surrounding MSP to minimize air noise impacts over resid'ential areas. 4) The magnetzc head'ings for the parallel runways need to be adjusted to reflect current reality. Flight operations through the Eagan-Mendota hTeights corridor need to be i ad'justed to restore the original �intent of the tower orders that operate within the corridor. 5) Once modified to take ad'vantage of the laiest air traffic control technology and adjusted to correct for air noise distrzbutional inequities, the boundaries of the aircraft departure and arrzval cor�zdors should be specifically defined, and air noise exposure standards should be est�ablished along this cornidor. Aircraft operators violaling these standards should be subject to substantial' monetary fznes. 6) Nighttime aircraft restrictions should be put into place immediately to ensure that only Stage III quieter aircraft are flown between the hours of 10:30 p.m, and 6:00 a.m. Such restrictions should be mandatory and violation of the standards should result in a monetary fine to the offending air camer. �) Noise Abaiement Departure Frocedures (related to how quickly aircraft gain altitude upon departure) shouki be reviewed and adjusted to ensure that the full performance capabilities of all aircraft are being utilized. The ability of aircraft to rapidly gain allit`ude, thereby minimizing aircrnft noise ZeveTs experienced on the ground, should be quantified and made part of air traffic departure procedures at MSP. This is especiczlly hue for Stage III aircraft. Please Note: Mendota Heights reserves the right to present additional information. This position statement was prepared with the cooperation of city staff. It represents the policies and strategic goals of the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights. After this document has been reviewed and formally approved by the Mendota Heights Airpori Relations Commission, and the Mendota Heights Cily Council, an official copy will be mad'e part of the MSP Mitigation Committee's record. Mayor Mertensotto June 3, 1996 4 Visitors Approval of Minutes The minutes of the 1blarch 3 l, 199g meeting were approved as distributed. 7oe Lee reminded staff that letters of appreciation need to be sent to the previous Mi.nneapolis members. Introduction of invited euests Receipt of Communications There were no invited guests. A letter was received from the City of Eagan, tivhich indicated support of the "Minneapolis Straight-out Procedure" for inclusion in the Environmental Assessment (EA) package staff will be forwarding to the FAA. A facsimile was received from the MinneapoIis City Council Inter Governmental Agency (IGA) committee indicating that Nir. Mike Cramer had been appointed as a representative for Niinneapolis. Consent Items - KEVIN BATCHEDLER, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MOVED AND JON HOHENSTEIN, EAGAN, �. � SECONDED TO APPROVE THE INFORMATION REQUEST FORM AND THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS. THE VOTE WAS UNANINIOUS. MOTION CARRIED. Technical Advisor's Runwav Svstem Utilization Reoort and Complaint Summarv Roy Fuhrmann, MASAC Technical Advisor, noted the Nlemorandum of Agreement (MOA) had been signed by the FA.A, allowing staffto import ARTS data into Ai'VONiS. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, gave a brief overview of the March 1998 Technical Advisor's Report. N1r. Fuhrmann said since members had not had time to review the report thoroughly it and the rest of the back reports would be discussed in detail at the ne.�ct mee[ing. The follo�ving points were made: e There was a slight increase in operations and complaints over March of 1997. • The purpose of comparing current data to the same month a year earlier rather than to last month is to adjust for seasonality. . There is an increase in the number of operations bet�veen 10:30 and 11:00 13rgely due to the change in nighttime reporting hours. Northwest has also modified their departure banks to accommodate tra -�nc flow during the reconstruction of the south parallel rum�•av. lennifer Sayre, North�vest, has indicated that the last departure banlc is now begi.nning at around 10:20 p.m. rather than at 10:00 p.m., which will increase the number of fliahts normallv occurring benceen 10:30 and 11:00 until the reconstruction is complete. '' �) C�_ %� Dawn Weitzel, Richfield, said she had received 80 airport-related noise complaints at her office. Rov Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said staff had not been able to correlate the ground noise complaints with activity on the field. He noted that run ups are prohibited bet�veen 12 a.m. and � a.m. and that the run-up logs from the operations departments showed there had not be�n any during this time frame. N1r. Fuhrmann said, though, that run ups were allowed during the 10:30 p.m. to 12 a.m. time period. Ms. Weitzel said the Ciry of Richfield would like to request staff monitor for ground noise. Mr. Fuhrmann said it could be possible that the residents are experiencing a difference in noise due to the shift in where aircraft are taking off on the south parallel rum�ay. %� Joe Lee, Minneapolis, asked s�ff to determine how many additional night flights occurred during the 10:30 to 11:00 timeframe due to both the reconstruction of the south parallel (spreading out of flights) and the change in nighttime reporting hours. ➢ Steve N1inn, Minneapolis, asked if the reconstruction p(ans for the south parallel run�vay had included a provision to allo�v flights to occur later in the evening in order to limit congestion during the day. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, explained that the reconstruction plans had been completed before the desienated nighttime hours �vere changed from 11:00 p,m. to 10:30 p.m. He also said airlines were not prohibited from operating after 10:30, but that the Valuntary Nighttime A�reement with most of the commercial airlines requested they not schedule passenger flights past 10:30 p.m. and, if it was necessary, that they use only Sta�e lII airpla.nes. %� Ed Porter, Burnsville, �.sked stafi to eliminate the water areas on the complaint map. �. MinneaDolis Straieht Out Analvsis Reauest for Communitv Supoort Chairman Johnson thanked the City of EaQan for submitting a letter to NIASAC in support of the Minneapolis Straighi-out Procedure and said it would be included in the EA report package to the FA.A. Chairman Johnson also asked the representatives of Nfinneapolis if the council could espect a letter from the City of Minneapolis. Steve N1inn, Nlinneapolis, said a letter of support would be forthcoming within the ne:ct rivo weeks. Operations Committee Aonointments Chairman Johnson announced his appointments to the Operations Committee. The only change in the committee was the appointing of Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, to replace Jim Serrin. Noise Contour Generation and DNL Develooment (HNTB) Evan Fut[erman, HN'I'B, gave a presentation on DNL and Noise Contour Development. � DNL is a noise metric that represents the accumulation of all the noise over the course of a single day with a given noise level. % The model reflects the fact t�'�at people are more annoved tivith noise at night so it gives night fliehts a l Odb penalt�� (DNL is calculated usin� 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. for the night hours). %� DNL can be expressed in many �vays, but airports typically express them in noise contours. %� DNL is a national standard adopted by most federal agencies and continues to be used and endorsed. For instance the U.S. Environmental Protection Agenc}� identified DNL as the most appropriate me�ns of evaluating airport noise. C �� _ ➢ Most differences in opinion over DNL do not involve the way it is calculated but what level is considered annoying. ➢ The noise modeling sofll�are that calculates airport noise has changed a lot over the years. The Integrated Noise Model (INM) program is at version 5. i The FAA selected the 6� DNL thresho(d based on the Schultz cun�e. �i�hich is based on surveys of residents surrounding airporu, to identify compatible and non-compatible land use areas around an airport in regards to annoyance levels. This is not to su�est that people are not annoyed at lower levels of noise. ➢ Sound insulation is encouraged in residential areas that are presently in the 6� DNL curve. :- In 1992 the IvfAC defined the 6� DNL 1996 predicted noise contour and identified non-compatible land use around MSP. The contour was. then submitted to the FAA for approval in order to begin the Part 1�0 Residential Sound Insulation Program using federal monies. ➢ New noise is as much of a problem as a lot of noise. (Ex: The ne�vly built Denver International Airport was built in an area outside any residential areas but because peop(e who have never experienced airport noise are now experiencing it they have more noise complaints than MSP.) ➢ Noise is logarithmic. Every 10-decibel increase doubles the amount of noise a person hears. : An all Stage III fleet will change noise levels and the noise contours considerably. r When aireraft noise events exceed conversational levels, they become disruptive. How are DNL noise contours developed at iI�ISP and other airports? � The model tries to consider all operational data available i Initial contours �vere generated using best wesses from FAA personnel, pilots, MAC, airlines, etc. regarding current and future oQerations. ➢ A lot has changed since then. There is a higher level of refinement in the model because actual information is available using ANOMS. i The inputs to ihe model are: ➢ Aircraft Operations r Fleet mi;c (Stage II vs. Stage III) ➢ Dav/Night Split (10-decibel penaltv after 10:00 p.m.) � Rumvay Use (runway ends) : Fliaht Tracks i Profiles i The fleet mix is critical to the outcome of the noise exposure. The number of people living under the 6� DNL contour decreased from 4�,000 people in the mid-1980's to a projected 10,000 in 200� because of the fleet miY change. :- The 60 DNL contour adds about 60,000 people to the contour. > ANOMS data cannot predict the future. i When the actual 1996 contour tivas developed using ANOi�iS data, it showed runway 04/22 was not being used as was predicted in 19y"l. : Nlonthlv DNL levels should not be compared to vea.rly DNL's. i The FAA requires airports to develop ne�v contours every � to 10 years. There was discussion about the possible reasons for Denver airport's hiah number of complaints. It was noted that airports could not correlate complaints �tith actual operations. But, airport operational chan�es are the best indicators of changes in the number of noise complaints. � T�z�o contours have been developed for i�Sinneapolis for 200�. One has the baseline of 2-3% gro�vth a year � C C �� and the other is far the high forecast of �4% per year. Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, asked if the 2005 contour includes the number of hushkitted aircraft that tivill be operating out of MSP in the future. Mr. Futtecman said that it did. Jon Hohenstein, Eagan, asked if the Schultz curve would be re-addressed after there is an all Stage III fleet. Mr. Futterman said that FICAN had done the most recent analysis and found that the Schultz curve was still valid. He said that it may be possible that once the Sta�e II aircraft are no lon�er being used, that people's levels of annoyance will change. Dawn Weitzel, Richfield, asked if the "C" weighted noise levels could be addressed within the Schultz curve. Mr. Futterman said that there were no federal criteria to measure low frequency noise. He said that aircraft manufacturers have made aircraft quieter by moving the threshold of noise from high to low frequency levels. Mr. Futterman said lotiv frequency noise has not been trea.ted as a separate noise category but has been included in aircraft noise levels as a whole. Steve Minn, MinneapoIis, asked if the INM was accepted as the industry standard. Mr. Futterman said that the FAA and the EPA have identified the INM as the appropriate way to model noise. He said contours can be compared �vith monitored noise levets, but the FA.A shies ativa.y from using monitored noise data in contour generation because there are so many variables. Glenn Strand, NSinneapolis, asked how the FAA-approved 1996 DNL contour currently being used for the Part 1�0 Residential Sound Insulation Program compares with the 1996 actual contour. Mr. Futterman said the h�o contours tivere very different. He said it was mainly because run�vay 04/22 is not being used in the manner in which it was believed it �could be. He said in 1992 it was predicted that by 1996, 19% of the traffic would be using runway 04/22. Yet, it is currently being used for only 2% of the tra.ffic. Mr. Strand said he was concerned with the insulation program using such an outdated contour. Mr. Futtennan said those residents that are in both the 1996 and the 200� contour would be given priority over those �vho are in neither and that those residents in the 1996 contour will be insulated before anyone in the new contour is. Jill Smith, Mendota Heights, asked �vhy the Ivietropolitan Council's noise contour was considerably larger than the MAC's for future plannin�. Mr. Futterman said he was aware of the Met Council's noise contour map from the 1970's that was based on the ��orst case scenario but thought their newest map was based on the MAC's process. Ms. Smith said their most recent was the map she was speaking of. IVfr. Futterman said he had no lrno�vledge of a different map but that someone cauld investigate it. 1eff Hamiel, Iv1AC E�cecutive Director Nir. Hamiel advised NIASAC to formally analyze niahttime noise leveis at the airport. He said an analysis should include a comparison of ambient noise on the airfield and ambient noise in the communities, since what is heard on the airfield can be different than what is heard in the communities. He cautioned members, as well, to perform the necessary work and make the necessary recommendations �vithin a relativel�� short time period in order for Mr1SAC to be of help to both the N1AC and the communities. C C� 2. Mr. Hamiel also discussed the summer rumvay construciion schedule. He noted that the south parallel runway had been almost completely demolished. He said the work was going e:ctremely well from a construction point of view and the contractor was ahead of schedule and on budget. He noted th�t the relativelv drv weather had been instrumentll in the construction pracess, �s well as in allowin2 pilots to take off and land on the 6,000-ft rumvay. He said the airlines and their pilots, as well as FAA traffic control personnel, deserved a"pat on the back" for adjusting to the changes. He said community members have also been very understandable to the temporary changes in operations and deserve an equal amount of praise for their effor[s. Nir. Hamiel also discussed the April 20, 1993 Commission meeting at which there were appro:cimately 4�-�0 Richfield residents in attendance. He said the residents came to the meeting in order to address the Corrunission regarding airport noise. He said the Chairman moved the "public comment" time up on the agenda but limited the residents' time to speak . He said Corrunissioner Hirnle su�ested the residents address the P&E Committee at its May meeting in order to be able to discuss their concerns at more length and with the appropriate committee. Mr. Hamiel said because the residents felt they had not been given adequate time to speak, some left the meeting angry. He said he also left the meeting in order to speak with some of them. Mr. Hamiel said MAC was e:cpecting an increase in complaints from Richfield residents due to the fact that the city of R.ichfield hired a consultant to increase residents' awareness of airport-related issues. Steve Minn, Minneapolis, asked Mr. Hamiel to e:cplain ho�v the budget appropriations process at the MAC worked so that monies could be allocated as quickly as possible for acquiring additional Remote �_. � Monitoring Towers (RMTs). Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said the Aviation Noise Program's 1998 budget did not include monies for additional RI�iTs. He said the additional RMTs would cost appro�cimately $300,000 to $400,000. He said the Operations Committee is planning to discuss the issue at its May 8, 1998 meeting with the intention of bringing a recommendation to the full MASAC body in May. He said the plan is to begin the process of putting out a Request for Qualifications and Proposals (RFQ and RFP) in late fall with construction beguuung early ne�ct spring. He said this would give stafFthe time to include the necessary monies in the 1999 CIP budget. Ivlr. Hamiel said it would be best to take the time necessary to prepare for their installation, rather than try for installation this year. Dawn Weitzel, Richfield, thanked Mr. Hamiel for encouragin� MASAC to study the nighttime noise issue at the airport. She said she also tivanted to clarify that she had informed the Commission secretary and the P&E Committee secretary of the fact that a number of residents would be attending the Commission meeting and were plaiuu.ng to speak. She said Nigel Finney had been contacted by both Richfield's consultan[ and herself, and that voice mail messages were left for Commissioner Himle well in advance of the meeting. She said the residents �vanted to have their comments heard before the EIS on the north/south runwav �vas issued. She also said the residents �vere planning to attend the P&E meeting in Niay. It was noted that the final north/south rumvav EIS draft was due in ivfay and the Record of Decision would be issued in Julv. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, noted that the EYecutive Committee of the Airport Task Force had made the decision to encourage the i�1AC to reverz back to an 11:00 st�n time for nighttime hours. He said he wanted to lmow what Mr. Hamiel thought of [ha[ proposal. I�Sr. Hamiel said that although the airport was C � �. a 24-hour a day, 7 day a tiveek operation, environmental concerns should be addressed, especially when new cargo operations are being considered. He said the MAC still suppor[ed the 10:30 p.m. time. 9. MASAC Audit - Discussion and Prioritization Chairman Johnson said if there were no questions or comments about the NiASAC goals and objectives, he would forward them to the Operations Committee for prioritization and implementation. There was no additional discussion. 10. Operations Committee Re�ort Mark Salmen reviewed the minutes of the Operations Committee's April 1�, 1995 meeting. He reported that the committee had reviewed and discussed stafFs analysis of possible locations for additional RMT sites and said a full briefing would be given at the ne.�ct IVfASAC meeting. Steve Micm, Minneapolis, asked st.aff to revie�v the locations of the additional RMT sites. Roy Fuhrmann, NiAC, briefly described staffs analysis for deternuning possible RMT locations and gave the general locations of the proposed sites. He reminded members that the e:cisting 24 sites alrea.dy capture 100% of the noise events. He said tbe goal of the analysis was to increase the number of flights that intersected more than one RMT "buffer zone." 11. Report of the N1AC Commission MeetinQ Chairman Johnson reported the Commission voted at its last meeting to approve Ameritech as the long distance provider for the tenninal building. The Comrnission also discussed the proposed people mover that would talce passengers from the ternunal building to the remote rental car cornpany area. � � ' 12. Persons Wishins to Address the Council Mike Sullivan of Eagan asked staff if the operation of the RMT sites and the ANOMS system had changed over time. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said that ho�v the acquisition of ARTS data from the Tower has changed. He said staff has continually tried to eliminate any possible errors that couId occur in order to receive the most accurate data, includin� performing field checks. N1r. Sullivan asked whether the FA.A required airports to submit a new Part 1�0 contour �vhenever operations at an airport chan�e significantly. Mr. Fuhrmann noted that the ANOMS data collected from the RMT sites was not used in the INi�1 model to generate the contour. He explained that when the current contour was generated there was no AI�10iviS system and the airport had to rely on less accurate information. He said the FAA's ARTS data, through the use of ANOMS, no�v provides accurate d�.ta that can be fed into the INM model. N1r. Sullivan asked if he could obtain information on the parameters that are used to generate the contours in the IN�1 model. Evan Futterman, HNTB, said he would be happy to work through Mr. Fuhrmann's office to provide that information. Mr. Sullivan also asked staffwhen the parallel rumvay headings had been changed. Mr. Fuhrmann said they were changed in September of 1997 to reflect the shift in ma�netic variation. 13. Other Items Not on the AQenda Dick Saunders, �finneapolis, passed ou[ information on chat fines that �vould be operating the ne;tt day due to it being "Noise A�vareness Day." ! Chad Leqve, MAC, noted that the flight tracks for the month of March 1998 wece now available on the Environment Department's Web Site at www.macavsat.org. He said the information would be updated as soon as ne�v information becomes available. 1=�. Adjournment Chairman Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:3� p.m. Respectfully submitted. Melissa Scovronski, MASAC Secretary C C. .- MASA C NOISE M4NITORING AND INFORMA TION REO UEST F01�M 1998 PL EASE COMPLETE THI.S FORM AS A CCURA TEL Y AND THORO UGHL Y AS PO,SSIBLE �ND ATTACHANYLETTERS OR FOR1'�L9L RE.SOLL'TIO.NS Date: lvame: Address: Phone: Is this a one-time request: Yes or No On whose behalf are you requesting: Yourself City Council Mayor Citizen Organization Other Be�inning If no, whzt is the espected time frame for this request? to Ending Which of the following best describes the nzture of your request: (Circle all that apply) ___ Ground Noise Overflights Run-Ups Contours Part 150 Other f ) PL EA.SE WRITE 0 UT YO UR REO UEST HERE AND/OR A TTA CH ANY LETTERS OR FORMAL RE,SOL LITION,S Over Please � C C m Please indicate the 1998 IYI.AS�C objectives supported by this this request: ❑ To provide rnjormation to the 1LIAC in their efforts to communicate changes in operations, due to construction to the surrounding communities. � Evaluate departure compliance through the EaganNtendota Heights Corridor and make any necessary �"' changes to the relevant procedures. � Review the ANO�LIS system and noise monitors, and evaluate the need and placement of additional remote monitorirrg towers. Also, evaluate remote monitoring capabilities. � Request.4ir Tra�c Control personne! to make a presentation on how eLlSP operations crre conducled. � Look at providing incenlives to carriers in acquiring and operating jactory-made Stage III aircraft. ❑ Irrvestigate ho�v GPS and other N.9I�Aids could help allevrate aircraf? noise. ❑ Review the NADPs and compliance. ❑ Continue discussion oJPart I.iO contourgeneration. Please send yoicr rec�rrest via mail to: i�1ASAC Secretary, 6040 28th Avenue S., Minneapolrs, NItV 5�454 or fczr it to :(612) 72�-6310. For Request n: Staff Contact: Date Received: Is this a Phone Or Written ( ��Approved By: IApproval Date: Request? Data Availabiliry: �ioniroring Stan Da�e: i�tonirorin� Stcp Date: Analysis Start Date: Analysis Stop Date: Completion Date: 2 . . � � � . . _� � � • ,' � �' 1 TO: MASAC Members FROM: Chad Leqve, ANOMS Coordinator SUB,jECT: Technical Advisor's Reports DATE: May 18, 1998 MA.SAC On Friday, Apri124, 1998 the MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs received the approved Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA.). As a result the March 1998 Technical Advisor's report was presented at the April, 1998 MASAC meeting. Included in your packet you will find the remaining reports spanning June, 1997 to April, 1998 (June `97, July `97, August `97, September `97, October `97, November `97, December `97, January `98, February `98, April `9$). Accompanying each Technical advisor's report is the ( �appropriate corridor analysis for that particular month. I hope these reports will prove helpful and insightful in your quantification and understanding of operations at the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport for the past eleven months. Please review the reports and if you have any question contact myself at 725-6328 or Shane VanderVoort at 725-6329. i' ) METROPOLITAN AIRCI.AFT SOUND ABATEME.NT CD LINCIL MASAC Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor Northwest Airlines Fleet Mix Information May 18, 1998 During the March MASAC meeting, a discussion occurred about the composition of Northwest Airline's fleet mix. As a follow-up to this request for information, Jennifer Sayer, Director of State Affairs and Airport Access for Northwest Airlines, has provided a handout listing their fleet mix composition. Northwest Airlines has met all past Federal Stage II phaseout requirements and is committed to meeting the upcoming phaseout requirements. This is an informational item only. No action is required. C C C G! L � � d ,Q. �.n a� O ca � �y r- I.L� r m � � U ,... c m o ��t�OtatTit�7 ! 1 CDTQ0�1� CD�NNQOIaj �t04 �,^ C'� C' ct' r- CD e- C*� Q' Cp e- � O a � � c�i�v'��s 1 1 a� I�t�•-iN t � � � c�*� c�a' ,,�n � � a� � t- � � � N � ��N�IN �00 �- �` t�. c� �w�r-�o�c�; oi c� c� C7 .- N(V � 4�p c+9 m = O o O O� = o 0 o O� �s � OQ)�� Q�tn � � �0��(A 1"� 1�,. h- N r C'') i� i`� {.) U (�' ;��a�ti��000 ��oo�o � � � � � v x ct� 00 rn !-� C C — t� _ d � ve Qj O tTS � 'C� (!� � \ CLi � Ct3 � � � � Z '� U � N ca s— a� � � O " � � U r`' Q7 `'- �0 O Q � � � ` .� � � � � U �' •—y°' ` r; � .� C,) N '� � v � U � U C D = C .NIETROPOLITAN AIRCI.AFT SOU.ND ABATEMENT CO UNCIL I�EI�/IO�I�DITIl�I �sAc TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MASAC Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor Air Traffic Control Airspace Briefing Apri120, 1998 As part of the continuing effort to provide educational topics to the existing and recendy appointed MASAC members MAC staff has coordinated a presentation by Cindy Greene, MSP ATCT Support Manager concerning the airspace at MSP. Ms. Greene has prepared the Minneapolis Air Traffic Control Tower Airspace and Procedures Information packet included with your packet as a reference for the upcoming discussion. If you have any questions about MSP's airspace and how traffic is handled. at MSP, please present them during this presentation. This is an informational item only. No acrion is required. C r C� � METROPOLITAN AIIZC�:A.�T SOI.�ND ABATEMENT CC� U.NCIL •�• � TO: MASAc FRONI: Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor SLTB,JECT: Additional Remote Monitorin� Tower Locations DATE: May 18, 1998 NIASAC At the April 17, and May 8, 1998, MASAC Operations Committee meetings, MAC staff briefed the Ogerations Committee on proposeti locations for the placement of additional Remote Nlonitorin� Towers (RM'I) as identified in the Noise �fitigation Pro�am report of November 1996. Of si�nificant importance when siting these additional RMT locations is the fact that the e;cisting noise. monitoring covera?e area for each RMT is, on average, three to four times lar�er than the RMT buffer area that will be established durin� this analysis. The development of a buffer area is only of importance as a tool to establish a minimum boundary area criteria when considerin� new RMT locations. These bu�'er areas are not an indication of the limit of a noise monitoring in}iuence area. A complete outline of the procerlure will be discussed using the following basic methodology: l. Use a two mile buffer around the Year 2005 DNL 60 contour, to incorporate the vast majority of existina RMT sites and focus on the areas most likely to be impacted by MSP operations. 2. Analyze the landuse within each community to locate the site to provide coverage in areas that are predominately residential use. 3. Overlay ai.rcraft overflight data from one week out of each quarter to resolve seasonality differences and attempt to locate [he RMT in an area most beneficial to monitor existing and future aircraft jet operations. 4. Deternune the number of R'�iT buffer areas that each fliQht track penetrates. This analysis is used to minimize the number of fliaht tracks that do not go throuah the defined RMT buffer areas. Assumpaons for Additional R1�ITs 5. Coverage area for each R�iT is equal [o or areater than [he distance to the next closest R.�'�1T. 6. Locadn� additional Rti1Ts closer than the current next closest R�'vIT will not increase accuracy or noise monitoring inte;rity. 7. The existin� R�tT noise monitorinQ covera�e area is significantly laraer [han the distance �o the next closest R�1T. ' � C � Detemunation of RMT sitin� buffer area 8. Given the above assumptions, the size of the R�'�iT buffer area was determined by using the mean distance from one RNfI" to the next closest R��1T which is 6?03.6 feet. 9. One haif oi the mean dista�zce is 310�.3 feet, which is useri to create a buffer area raciius since each RMT would cover at least one half of the distance to the next R�'�ST. 10. With the above RM'I' buffer size, 71% of the e;tisting twenty four R.��ST locations are within one standard deviation of the mean. 11. Additionally, 92% of the existin� twenty four R�yIT locations are within two standard deviations of the mean. The original siting methodology used the followin� criteria: 12. Must be located within 100 feet of electrical power 13. Must be located on public property 14. Located to monitor the majority of operations at MSP. Th.is process was refined multiple times to account for both arrival and departure operations. The airival paths as well as proposed and existin� departure paths were considered durin� the sitin; of the ori�inal 24 sites. Proposed Action for May 25, 1998 At the May 8, 1998, MASAC Operations Committee meeting, the committee passed, by unanimous vote, the motion to accept Staff's RMT si[ing analysis and to recommend to MASAC to use a systems approach (to ma3cimize the number of flight tracks throuQh RMT buffer areas) as the criteria for locating five (5) additional RMT sites, (25-?9), as outlined in the analysis. MASAC's Operations Committee recommends that the full body aceept the sitin� analysis as outlined in the above analysis. Pav�e � � � C MINUTES � MASAC OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MAY 8, 1998 The meeting was held at the Metropolitan Airports Commission West Termina! Building North Star Conference Room, and cailed to order at 10:05 a.m. The following members were in attendance: Members: Mark Salmen, Chairman - NWA Bob Johnson - MBAA John Nelson - Bloomington Kevin Batchelder — Mendota Heights Lance Staricha — Eagan Dicfc Keinz - MAC Ron Johnson - ALPA Advisory: Roy Fuhrmann - MAC Chad Leqve - MAC Kay Hatlestad - MAC Ron Giaub - FAA NWA CMO Cindy Greene - FAA Visitors: Jan DelCalzo AGENDA RMT SITE LOCATION ANALYSIS Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said staff narrowed down the possible areas for the proposed additional 5 RMT sites and provided maps of these areas. He noted that in Minneapolis and Richfieid the RMT buffer zones were located in residential areas. The RMTs to the southeast in Mendota Heights and Eagan, on the other hand, were located in non- residential areas. After showing possible altemative residential sites for these RMTs, he said the committee wouid need to decide whether these sites should be located to capture the maximum number of fiights (as was done for the initial analysis) or in a nearby residential area. He said moving the RMT sites to residential areas would increase the number of flights passing through only one RMT buffer zcne. 1 C C� �. Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, said he feit if the system was to be expanded, the locations of the RMT sites should serve the system rather than particular neighborhoods. Lance Staricha, Eagan, asked why additienal RMT sites were now beino cons;de-ed �vhen in the past additionai sites have been considered unnecessary. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said new sites were now being considered because of the decision by the legislature not to move the airport and the MSP Noise Mitigation Commitkee's recommendation to expand the noise monitoring system. He said additional RMT sites wili also be added to monitor operations associated with the north/south runway. John Nelson, Bloomington, said he had problems justifying the expenditure for an RMT that would be piaced in a commerciai/industriai/vacant area, rather than a residential area. He also noted that the current RMT sites already serve the system. Mr. Nelson said he wanted to be sure that the additionai RMT sites for the North/South runway were not forgotten and illustrated where these RMT sites might be located. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, noted it may be possible if proposed site #25 were moved to the east in line with site #24 and proposed site #26, they could ma�cimize both the numbers of flight tracks running through the buffer zones and serve residential areas, as weii. It was noted that there were areas of the maps in Eagan and Mendota Heights tha� did not show newiy developed residential areas and that there would most likely be a lot of residential construction within the next 5 years. Dicic Saunders, Minneapolis, said he felt a systems approach to siting the RMTs would be best. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, noted each city wouid have the fina! decision, within a 5 to 10 block area, as to the exact location of their additional RMT sites. John Nelson, Bloomington, asked Dick Keinz, MAC, and Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, if their budget for 1999 included the cost of the additional RMT sites. Dick and Roy said an estimated cost is included in the 1999 CIP submittal and that it would be included in the budget process this summer. Mr. Nelson said he felt that if mobile manitoring capabilities were stili being considered for monitoring noise in specific neighbarhoods he could support a systems approach to siting the locations of the RMTs. He said he wanted to be sure that MASAC was being sensitive and responsive to the residents of the cities. Lance Staricha, Eagan, said there could be a problem with "selling" proposed RMT site #25, but that if mobile monitoring were available, he could justify voting for the proposed sites. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said stafr is able to do remote monitoring but that there is a problem with the software being able to correlate flight tracks with the remote monitoring locations as is currently done with the ANOMS system. �� c � JOHN NELSON, BLOOMINGTON, MOVED AND DICK SAUNDERS, MINNEAPOLIS, SECONDED, TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RMT S1T1NG ANALYSIS AND TO RECOMMEND TO MASAC THAT, USING A SYSTEMS APPROACH, 5 ADDITIONAL RMT S1TES (25-29) SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE ANOMS SYSTEM WiTHIN THE LOCATIONS OUTLINED IN THE ANALY5IS. THE VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS. MOTION CARRIED. NON-SIMULTANEOUS CORR/DOR DEPARTURE ANALYSIS Chad Leqve, MAC, reviewed the Scope of Analysis: Crossing in the Corridor Procedure" document. He said staff would need to know what logs the FAA could provide. Cindy Greene, FAA, said that although the ARTS Data can provide information about when the procedure is being used, it does not provide information about why the procedure isn't used. She said the controilers are the oniy ones who can provide this information. She noted there are many variables affecting when the procedure wili or wiil not be used. She said some of the variables incfude: a- How far out an incoming aircraft is during head-to-head operations. �- The weather conditions. �- The type of aircraft departing. �- If the aircraft can see each other. �- If the controller can see both aircraft. �- The destination of the departing aircraft. �- And mo�e. Ms. Greene said air traffic was not willing to begin tracking departures in regards to the reasons a controller decides not to use the crossing procedure. She said it would be laborious and was not a standard requirement for the controllers. Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, said it was not the intent of the city to second-guess the controllers' decisions but to find out when the procedure is happening and if it is providing any relief. There was a discussion regarding when the procedure can be used. Cindy Greene, FAA, said the procedUre can be used (with many variables) when there is one local controller, but it is only possible during non-simultaneous conditions (when there is one local controller, there's only one aircraft ready to depart and when there is no aircraft inbound). A lengthy discussion ensued regarding how staff could analyze the use of the procedure using ARTS data, yet eliminate the ne�d for the controilers to keep a log of the reasons why the procedure was not used. It was decided the proposed analysis should be changed as follows: 3 � 2 The hours of study will be between 23:00 and 06:00 weekdays to ensure there is only one local controiler on duty during the hours of analysis, which is a prerequisite for being abie to use the procedure. Staff and the FAA will provide a list of variabies describing the conditions affecting when the procedure can and cannot be used for a better understanding of how often the right conditions occur. 3. The period of study will be a 6-month period prior to the start of the present construction season and a 6-month period after construction completion because of the changes in the operations at the airport during this time. 4. The analysis wiil not include information from the tower on why the procedure is not used for specific departures. JOHN NELSON, MOVED, AND KEVIN BATCHEDLER, SECONDED, TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSED ANALYSiS W1TH THE AMENDMENTS TO BE PERFORMED FOR TWO 6- MONTH PERlODS, ONE COMMENCiNG SEPTEMBER 1998 AND THE OTHER OCT08ER 1997 THROUGH MARCH 1998 FOR THE HOUR5 OF 23:Oa TO 06:00. THE VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS. MOTION CARRIED. It was agreed to postpone the start of the analysis until September 1998. FORMALIZE THE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE'S WORK PLAN FOR �998 After much discussion and debate, the Operations Committee approved the attached work plan outline for 1998. Cindy Greene, FAA, suggested that an orientation session be given regarding the Environmentai Impact Statement (EIS) process. This item was added to the list of Operations Committee objectives for 1998, as well. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, aiso added the run up and ground noise study to the work plan. Mr. Fuhrmann also said that staff had been working on a MASAC handbook and would like to have the opportunity at various MASAC meetings to brief each topic separately. Robert Johnson, MBAA, suggested MASAC review the MASAC Assessment in order to determine what has been accomplished, what is being worked on and what needs to be done. JOHN NELSON, BLOOMINGTON, MOVED AND D1CK SAUNDERS, MINNEAPOLIS, SECONDED, TO APPROVE THE REVISED OPERATiONS COMMITTEE OBJECTiVES TIMELINE FOR 1998. TNE VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS. MOTION CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE L� A letter was received from the chairman of the Twin Cities Airports Task Force in regards to the designated nighttime hours at MSP (see attachment). After a brief discussion, it was decided that the Committee would send a letter in response to the chairman, and that the committee wouid revisit the topic in October. ROBERT JOHNSON, MBAA, MOVED AND KEVIN BATCHELDER, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, SECONDED TO DIRECT STAFF TO RESPOND IN A LETTER TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE TWIN CITIES AIRPORTS TASK FORCE INFORMING HIM THAT THE MASAC OPERATIONS COMMITTEE WAS IN RECEIPT OF HIS LETTER AND WOULD BE ANALYZING THE 10:30 P.M. TO 11:00 P.M. TIME FRAME AT ITS OCTOBER 1998 MEETING. THE VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS. MOTION CARRIED. � Cindy Greene, FAA, handed out copies of the Minneapolis Air Traffic Control Tower Airspace and Procedures Information package, which will be briefed at the May 1998 MASAC meeting and asked for comments or suggestions. Chairman Salmen said he thought a map depicting a larger area surrounding MSP would be beneficial in showing how MSP relates to other areas of the US. Ron Glaub, FAA, briefed the committee on the concems the air traffic controliers had with the change in the NADPs, which had been brought to the committee's attention at the ( � previous meeting. After reviewing the technical differences between the distant and close-in -' departure procedures, he said, basically, that the controllers had gotten used to the original departure profile and were giving headings based on an aircraft's anticipated altitude. He said the controllers felt the new profile was a safety concem because it altered the time at which aircraft reach a certain altitude. He said now that the controllers have worked with the new profile for a while, they are feeling more comfortable with it and no longer feel it is a safety concem. The meeting was adjoumed at 1:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Melissa Scovronski Committee Secretary j 5 t, ♦ .i C� (. � C C .0 C m O c � � o � d � �, a a a� c m y E N v�'1 R7 (� t`O U � RLL= �— !— m 'oLL my � C m t6 m.5 �°D GotS mma—Ey J�_ m E� i� V Y o��ao'nv�.�cc� Zcn�rnU �¢�>a �'� I LL ✓! �,' ` � r.. �Y. lil. 0 �'1/ �' �+�✓ � O 't.�^S�„� i,,,�"� \ - ui _ �- `.j_ �,�� _ _ 'i —+--�' ~'a+'r�. O 11 :.r�� _ ;;'�' C� r� t TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: ��' � �� • • MASAC Operations Committee Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor Runup and Ground Noise Study Review May 1, 1998 At the April 28, 1998 MASAC meeting, MAC Executive Director, Jeff Hamiel requested MASAC to study the potential impacts of runup and b ound noise issues at the MSP airport. As part of the discussion, the City of Richfield has aiso requested additional information in a effort to try and quantify the reason for increased complaints from their local community concerning this same issue. Staff will provide an overview of the proposed study and receive comments from the Operations Committee on the scope of the monitoring project. t. ��.SAC OPEI.ATIONS C0.��IMITTEE i1�i E�i�I O�A. N D tJ l�'1 TO: FRONI: SUBJECT: DATE : Iv1ASAC Operations Committee Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor Runup and Ground Noise Study Review May 8, 1998 I�L�S�.0 The i�letropoli�an Airports Commission uses many methods to minimize the effects aircraft operations have on neighboring residents surroundinQ the Nlinneapolis-St. Paul Internaaonal �.irport. One of these methods is the use of an airport Field Ru1e that establishes procedures for aircraft en�ine run-ups. These procedures were developed in 1976 to address the increasin� frequency of maintenance run-ups and the imponance of these operations, relative to the overall noise environment at MSP. ( ) Occasionally, these �uidelines need to be reevaluated to modify or verify the effectiveness of the established procedures. The scope of this work will include five basic elements: Monitorin' and Data collection; Contour �eneradon; Data analysis; Evaluation of existinQ procedures; and Recommendations. The Qoal of this study is to determine the �round and runup noise sources and their associated monitored impacts. l�Ionitoring and Data collection �- ivtonitor operations in the maintenance run-up area of selected aircraft at various locations in the airport opera[ions area durina bo�h daytime and nighttime hours. �i- Nlonitor areas adjacent ro Runway 04 when and where engine run-up activities are conducted. �3- Vionitor areas adjacent [o the airport in [he nearest residential area to the runup pad, while monitorinQ the same aircrait accivities on the airport. �i- Iden�ify poten�ial ground noise impaccs, such as taxiinQ aircraft, �PU, GPU, engine start, start of takeoff roll and reverse thrust activities. Contour Generation 3- Development of individual run-up noise concours in dB�, for 7?7-?00. 7?7-200H, DC9-30. DC9-30H, DC10, B7�7 and ,�,:;?0. Data :�nalvsis ( ) '3- Analysis of the data to determine the eFiect of conduct;ng aircraft main�enance run- ups with varyina headinQs. �3- Produce araphs, tables and charts tha� support and summarize the moni[ored data t a ; ) Evaluation of e�dsting procedures �i- Evaluadon of various aircraft headinss and the promulQation or noise throuQ�ou� the monitorins locacions. Airline Survey of Maintenance Requirements �- Conduct a survey with aircraft operacors that routinely use the run-uo pad to deter- mine maintenance run-up requirements, includinQ when, why, where and how lon� the run-ups are required. -�- Determine the impact various resuictions may have on overall airporc operations. Recommendations �- Provide recommendations and options for revisina the Enaine run-up procedurzs that will minimize the effect oF aircraft noise in neiQhborinQ communi[ies while meetinQ the enaine run-up requirements of the airlines. Evaluation of the above procedures will enable a complete analysis of [he most effective and operationally efncient methods to conduct enQine run-ups while minimizinQ the noise impact on the surroundinQ communities. Initial monitorinQ activiry, data collection, niQhttime run-up loa evaluation and coordination activities with the airline maintenance personnel and Iv1AC operations department can be �' ' accomplished by our office. Contour Qeneration, data analysis, evaluation and recommendations ' may best be served by external consultants for objectivity purposes. � MASAC OPEI�ATIONS COMMITTEE M � I � � : �: � 1 �/: To: MASAC Operations Committee FROM: Chad Leqve, ANOMS Coordinator SUB,jECT: Crossing in the Corridor Analysis DATE: May 1, 1998 On March 17, 1998 a letter was forwarded to Bob Johnson from the city of Mendota Heights requesting specific airspace analysis relative to the crossing in the corridor procedure. Inquiries were made regarding time available to preform the crossing procedure and execution of the procedure during the potential time periods. When assessing the feasibility of such analysis several variables must be considered. At the May 8, 1998 Operations Committee Meetina a comprehensive scope will be presented outlining the (� j resources, methods and cooperation necessary to complete the analysis. There are four main premises the analysis must address. Below is a break down of the topics and associated issues: Target Time Periods � Time period of interest includes the weekday hours of 22:00 - 06:00 and weekends. FAA Feasibilitv � Asses the existence of one local controller on duty. Operational AvailabilitX � Evaluate existence of non-simultaneous operations. � Evaluate Head-to-Head operational impacts. Occurrence of the Crossing Procedure � Establish when crossing in the comdor has occurred. Addressing the above topics through the planned analysis will facilitate a thorough quantification of the existing crossing in the comdor usa�e as well as the possible catalysts for non-usa�e. (� j . � � �: � �� f � � , � 1 ' 1 ; 1 ); -► Since its conception, the crossing in the corridor procedure was anticipated to consolidate _ as many operations as possible in the center of the Ea�an - i�fendota Heights Departure ( ) Corridor. Althouoh superficially the procedure seems lojical and relauvely straiQht forward, several variabili[ies must be considered when assessing the use or non-use of the procedure. (' 1 A request has been forwarded from the city of vlendota Heights to analyze the usaQe of the crossin� procedure. The followin� scope oudines the topics relevant to the analysis that must be addressed to thorouahly asses [he use of the procedure. Each topic(s) is explained and a due course of action is then proposed to attain the information necessary to complete the analysis. 1.1 Target Time Periods The first critical step in [he analysis is selectina the time periods available to conduct the analysis. In an effort to attain some historical input data, six months prior to the start date of the analysis should be used. i�Iore specifically, wi[hin tha[ data sample the followin� periods should be assessed (which is in compliance with the feasibiIity factors): �i- Weekda�; hours of ??:00 - 06:00. �i- Twenry four hour weekend davs. Usina the above [ime pe:iods will provide a aood data sample and ensure reasonab(eness relative to Feasibility and thorouQhness. y 1 :i, Scope of :�nalysis: Crossing in the Corridor F'rocedure 1.3 F�A Feasibility The implementation of operational procedures in the terminal are� are dependent on the ability of the Iocal FAA to perform the procedure in a safe compliant manner with respect to the existing environment and staff requirements. Due to the nature of the crossina procedure, it is imperative that there is only one local controller on duty in the tower. This ensures that the same individual is monitorinQ the operations off both parallel runways, thus eliminatin� the controller to controller communication function. When and only when this scenario e.cists, [he crossina procedure is possible. Due to the criticalness of one local controller to the crossinQ procedure, it is imperative to have record of these time periods. Coordination will be made with Cindy Greene (local FA�) in an effort to lo� the one local controller time periods. This loQ will then be incorporated into the analysis to help quantify available time for the use of the crossing procedure. 1.3 Operational Avai]ability The airspace environment is another factor when using the crossin� procedure. Two operational issues which effect the use of the crossin� procedure are: �} Non-simultaneous operations. '3- Head-to-head operations. It is necessary to estabiish when these operations exist to further analyze the possibility of usin� che crossina procedure. Non-simultaneous operations must exist in order [o use the crossinQ procedure. An assumption will be made that any time one local controller is on duty, non-simultaneous opera[ions may be performed. Head-[o-head operations can be an operational impediment to performing the crossin� procedure, thus we will retrieve head- �o-head operational time periods from the tower IoQs as parC of [he base line for establishin� study criteria. IncorporatinQ che assessmen[ of these two operational issues will further quantiFy [he feasibilitv of usinQ the crossinQ procedure rela[ive to opera�ional availability. Occurrence of the Cmssing Procedure 1.-� Occurrence oi the Crossing Procedure V'ia A.��IOIVIS it will be determined when the crossinQ procedure occurs. lisin� a gate structure in Ai'�10ytS, corridor compliant operations performina the crossina procedure will be analyzed. Below is a dia�ram of the �ate structures which will be used: Exclusion Gate: Gate: � Gate: Usin� the above Qate structure will yield operations which crossed in [he corridor allowin� track displays, counts and percen�age of operations to be Qenerated. 1.� Summary By assessin� the time periods available to perForm the crossinQ procedure from [he FAA side and operational side it will le�itimize the possibility of performina [he procedure. Bein� able to correla�e when the procedure acn.ially occurs with respecc to the time available will provide answers and possible reasons for the use and or non-use of [he procedure. A report will be ;enerated analvzinQ when the crossinQ in [he corridor procedure is performed and when the various variables allow for the procedure to be perrormed, thus summarizin� the corre!ation between the [wo. 3 1'roposed 1998 M�4S�iC Objectives ..,+.q�ra'71.:� 4?Er.✓d a� M+au: y�'�sG++:++�G�•`a�•.�,,,t'�'.rc-x.ti.1. ' ^"" .�.I�iTGw.7�e:i�.+:I'c ��T� �'�"'t��s`'„�S�-�+�y'�•�T„sy"�;..�� .-.. ��;:��ected.Dat�.�+ �,�Accomplishuig� �.� �.� _ �:�_-�-� r .X• : � � . .�., �� I��uiremen� ��.�� }�. >�'a.�`�t�.""�s�-.n:w -K ..,�rnm*�. ':.`��;wn.�-� . t� � -.. :.�^".,� ��-�y��p � `d.. '....:w��:.::�.•. _ FVs.. :! . ..SSi'7o`..: �!.'c�—..'t�.r'i i. 't �:'v ~:'[S!5.......�.___ ..i'+;t � .Lt.. � w.r�x+�� January 16 Operations Committee P� 150 Contour Generation Discussion Goals & Objectives for 1998 January 27 MASAC �nneapolis Strai�ht-Out Departure Procedure Destination Study Upciate Monitoring Request Forms February 20 Operations Committee Runway Construction Briefin� DNL Contour Generation March 2 MASAC Receive MSP Consuuction Briefing(G. Warren) Presentation of MASAC Audit (D. Kistel, PSB) March 20 Operations Committee Complete Monitoring & Info. Request form Initial Evaluation of Additional RMT Sitings Request for Community Support for Mpls March 31 MASAC Straight-out Procedure MASAC Audit Discussion/Sugoestions April 17 Operations Committee �r Site Location Analysis Non-simultaneous Corridor Departure Analysis Apri128 MASAC DNL Presentation by HNTB Jeff Hamiel Update on MAC Perspectives Rl�IT Site Location Analysis May 8 Operations Committee Non-simultaneous Corridor Departure Analysis MASAC Work Plan May 26 MASAC R-MT Site Location Presentation ATC Airspace Presentation Construction Update lune 12 Operations Committee Run-Up Monitorin� Update Final i�1ASAC RMT Analysis Update June ?3 i�1ASAC Orientation Topics I j - ;�: �o� ;D"a�� ccoiri lis �' •.ge�wremen �' �99��':��- �� : . � ;� . �.,-�. � � _�;.::,:� -��a��.a "'��.=".� x- -��. �' J�E'�.'�/"'r� '.F,`'i.�l�A« �.�L. ti:,^^ ^""�:'Z�L��1'•,:i�v�L.�L'!Y"—Gta'�.t��t�:� :�.. -r. . .. .� e — 'l. • .: i�eF_ : `.�,q'�!:.:f' i-�v.n.: •�i,...: M1�ti�.'—�.�-''t^_.ry, �•j:.:r•v.c._ �iC'�..r..ie.'�.Y`Y' lP ' «.i �-v. .. .. ...._ . . ..�n�.s� A._:t """... . . ... ..� . ..t.:.. ' :•. � ..: '.��....�...— . Construccion Update July 10 Operadons Committee MASAC Handbook (Draft) EIS Procedure Brief July 23 MASAC EIS Procedure Brie6ng Construction Updace Au�ust 14 Operations Committee Review of NADP Procedures MSP Tower Tour August 25 MASAC MpSAC MTG in FAA Conference Room Investi;ate GPS Landing System Use for Noise September 11 Ogerations Committee Alleviation Non-simultaneous Corridor Departure Analysis September 22 MASAC Stage III Compliance Review Review of Night-time Hours October 9 Operations Committ� (2200-2230, and 2230-2300) RI�IT Location Project Review/Process Update October 2� MASAC Orientation Topics November 13 Operations Committ� Focus Activiaes for Upcoming Year De�ember 1 MASAC Parc 1�0 Pro�ess Review De�ember 11 OFerations Committ� Establish Calendar for 1999 April 2?, 1998 Mr. Robert Johnson Chairman, MASAC c!o Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airports Commission 60�0 28�' Avenue South ivlinneapolis, MN 5�450 Dear NIr. Johnson: At the April 17, 1998 Board iVieetinv of the T�vin Cities Airports Task Force, a citizens and business �-roup supportin� air service development at N1SP, it was ao-reed that I, as Chairman of the task force, write a letter e:cpressina our concern over any further e�tension of the voluntary niaht-time curf�ew. Althouah it was recognized that MASAC has not made a recommendation to do so, movina the bevinning time of the voluntary ni�,�ht-time curfew from 10:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. was one of the subjects for MASAC to consider for 1998 as presented to the Planin� and Environrnental Committee on April 14, 1998. The Task Force respectfuily uraes MASAC to not support any further eYtension of the voluntary curfew for the following reasons: 1. Studies have showm that the economy of the reg-ion served by MSP is te a si�nificant extent dependent upon adequate passenaer and carQo air transportation at MSP ?. �tAC is spendinQ hundreds of millions of dollars to maintain and expand the ability of MSP to be one of the key U.S. domestic hubs and international aateways to adequately meet the needs of the travelin� public and businesses that depend upon frequent service to appropriate destinations at a competitive cost, in order to support the local economy. 3 Bv decreasin� the hours in the day when aircraft can be scheduled to depart and arrive, capacity of the airport becomes artificiallv limited, �vhich could interfere with its abilitv to handle e�istin� or future t1i�7hts. -�. Jobs, personal income, economic �-ro��th and dollars contributed to state and local tax coffers will suffer if airport capacity falis below its abilitv to meet rzquired needs. � Nlillions of dollars have also been spent to mitivate noise bv insulatinV homes in noise-impacted areas, and airlines, by law, are spendin� millions of dollars to make their tleets 100 percent sta¢e .; b�� the turn of the centurv. (�}� �/I� �^],J�,/�,��5,f/ h,/ .=i }..,, � �' k �r�;xC �'1'//QR�..`Q/M6�1�7�!"!'!'!'!'_��£�� k��& } y � 6. The rationale from the public's point of view to chan�e the curfew limit to 10:00 p.m. seems weak, since most residential occupants stay up at least lon� enouah to listen to the 10:00 p.m. news, which usuallv sians off at 10:3� p.m. In addition, the board adopted a motion to investi�7ate how many flights, domestic and international, were eliminated by moving the curfew from 11:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m., and �vhether this has had a detrimental effect on needed passenger and cargo servrce at ivtSP. The Task Force will survey its members to determine if they have experienced any detrimental effects. Perhaps the aviation members of MA.SAC could do the same. Thank you for �-ivin� consideration to this matter. The Task Force ��ould welcome vou or anv deleaation from MASAC to attend our monthly meeting on the 3`d Friday of each month 8:30 a.m. in the General Offices of the MAC to discuss this matter. Sincer Iv �.c.� ��-'— Irving Stern Chairman cc: MAC Commissioners Jeffrev W. Hamiel, MAC Executive Director � � � � � � � H � �. � � p� � �� o �. o M � � '� o � � � � � � � � � .Q y O �'-1 � � L N �'d '� � N � � � � `� o � � ° � U o � � � � o � !�9 � _ C ,�CT � O � (� b�..y '� V c�V � � � -� � � � O � � � � O • � � O �.% � � i�l �j Q% Q� � � � C•,�„� �., � � � �� O � � T � � � V � � � � � �� '' ; -' Q) M�1 � QC � a� . N �"� C •� � � �� F�1 � -c� � � ~ � � � M .� � N � � "' � � �'� •� � � � � � � � �I je� c`_' � U • O 0 � � � � '� ° � Q w. c�s 4-+ � � � � � � � N tn � N � � x A E� W � O U �•, 0 0 0 0 0 � o a o 0 0 � V1 M M U 00 �' h I"� .ni � �� V p� �t' i11 C'� u �rvico�oc s��t�t�s��- 6 Qi Q� Q� Q� '� � a� E 0 0 0 0 < .� `S. .� .-�", � ] O� M O� M N t' M d' O� �i' � � � --� N �n oo � O N M d' �n �O C G1 � G1 4T G'� C G1 � Q� � O� C .; ; ;: C< � .� ( ) � �� .;� :� }�` � � � ; ;. A biweekly update on litigation, rewlations, and technological developments Volume 10, Number 8 Minneapolis-St. Paul Int'1 WILDLIFE SERVICE SEEKS $27 MILLION FOR NOISE IMPACT ON ANI]VIAL REFUGE The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is engaged in a dispute with the Federal Aviation Administration and the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission over how much compensation should be given to a national wildlife refuge that will be impacted by noise from a proposed new runway at Minneapo- lis-St. Paul International Airport. The Fish and Wildlife Service 3s seekin' almost $27 million to help the Minne- sota Valley National Wildlife Refuge in Bloomington, MN, adjust to the noise impact the proposed 8,000-foot north-south runway would have on refuge pro- b ams and activities such as environmental education, bird watching, and other activities requiring quiet surroundings. "We recoanize and support the need for Twin Cities residents to have safe, convenient air transportation," said U.S. Fsh and Wildlife 5ervice Regional Director Bill Hartwig. "Flights using ihe new runway would fly directly over our refuge lands at altitudes between 500 and 2,000 feet. We hava a r�sponsibility as natural resource managers to assure the public receives appropriate compensation for the impacts of this project. It's our hope that the FAA and MAC will help us to (Continued on p. 58) Louisville Int'Z HOMEOWNERS DO NOT WANT AIRPORT TO RELOCATE 1VEIGHBORHOOD NEAR THEM Last fall the Regional Airport Authority for Louisville and Jefferson County (RAA) got approval from the Federa] Aviation Administration for an innovative relocation program under which it would build an entirely new housin� develop- ment and relocate to it 450 homeowners en masse from the Minor Lane Heights neighborhood in the 65 dB DNL noise contour around Louisville International Airport. � But now homeowners in the area where the airport wants to build the new development — Cedar Creek, a predominantly rural community farther from the airport — are challengin� FAA's approval of the proQram and threatening [o take the agency to court. Last September, the FAA made two decisions which made the relocation program possible: it issued a Finding of No Si�nificant Impact (FONSI) on the project and awarded a$3 million grant to the airport authority to acquire the land needed for the new housinQ development. The RAA has requested an additional $15 million in federal funds to complete the relocadon program. The Neiohborhood Association for Cedar Creek Preservation, Inc. (NACCP) contends that the FAA's administrative record on the proaram "is replete with (Continued on p. 58) Copyright r0 1998 by Airpoa Noise Report, Ashburn, Va. ZOI47 � Nlay 8,1998 In This Issue... It�inneapolis ... U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service wants $27 million to compensate for noise impact of proposed new runway on refuge - p. 57 Louisville ... Homeowners in area where airport wants to relocate entire neighborhood threaten lawsuit - p. 57 ... City alderman, citizens group want regional noise forum - p. 58 Oakland ... Port of Oakiand establishing Airport- Community Noise Manage- ment Forum - p. 60 Airspace ... FA.A con%�zms that aaency is engaged in wholesale redesign of nation's en route and ternunal airspace - p. 61 BWI ... Updated Airport Noise Zone contains 41 percent fewer people - p. 61 AIP Reauthorization . .. N.O.I.S.E. urges Con�ress to stren�then federal noise mitigation policies - p. 62 Detroit Al'etro . . . Use of laptops speeds up sound insulation design - p. 62 Noise Grants ... FAA listing for last month - p. 63 Greensboro ... New FedEX hub will have stron� economic impact - p. 63 SS Airport Noise Report �Yli�z�zeapolis, from p. 57 do this so Twin Cities residents don't experience a net loss � in wildlife habitat or in wildlife-related recreation and � environmental education opportunities." Federal statutes require that "mitiaation" be offered in cases where National Wildlife Refuees are directly or indirec[ly impacted by projects such as new roads or •• construction. "Mitigation is the process of providin� compensation for the unavoidable impacts of these types of projects on habitat and associated programs," Hartwis said. Compensation can take a variety of forms, he noted. Two common methods are the replacement of the habitat involved and direct financial compensation. The Fish and Wildlife Service wants the FAA and MAC to make a direct financial compensation of: •� 15.7 million for the loss of 4,090 of the refuge's 14,000 acres that would be affected by noise from the new runway; •$2.5 million to relocate part of a visitor contact center; •$1.8 million to replace nature trails, structures, and board walks; •$4 million to establish an operational trust fund; •$150,000 for in interactive exhibit in che terminal of the airport addressing how modern development and wildlife � can coexist; and •$2 million to reimburse [he Fish and Wildlife Service for the costs of plannina. �� l ) No Figures Stated by FAA, MAC The FAA released its analysis of the impact of the proposed runway on the wildlife refu�e on May i. Section 4( fl of the Department of Transportation Act requires that such an analysis be done. In it the FAA and MAC re- sponded to the Fish and Wildlife Service's demand. They rejected outright any compensation for movins the visitor's center or the creation of an operational trust fund. While not statina any compensation costs, the FAA and MAC agreed to partial replacement of 1,083 acres of land; "generally" accepted the idea of compensation for replace- ment of nature trails; said they "will accomrnodate" an exhibit at the airport terminal; and accepted the idea of reimbursemen[ for planning costs that wiil be incurred by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuoe is one of relatively few urban national wildlife refuges in the country It was established in 19761arsely due to the arass-roots effort of local citizens who wanted [o preserve and protect the habitat alona the Minnesota River bottoms and the animals makins their homes there. These animals include bald eagles, white-tailed deer, ospreys, otters, and many species of sons birds, waterfowl, and wadinQ birds. An estimated 200,000 visitors visited the refuQe last year. "While everyone agrees the refuge and many of its facilities and pro�rams will be impacted, we haven't asreed on how to replace them," Schultz said. "We're nanninQ into some technicalities involvina noise levels and how they're measured, but the bottom line is, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service doesn't want students and the public to experience a net loss in the opportunity for bird watchinQ, for conducting environmental education, or to experience wildlife in its natural setting. Because it is an urban facility, replacing the wildlife habitat will be expensive, and buildin� sateliite education and visitor facility will also be costly." Schultz said he is confident an agreement can be reached with FAA and NIr�,C on the amount of compensation to be made.0 Louisville, from p. 57 factual mistakes and legal errors, unjustified assumptions and prejudicial presumptions, and violations of FAA Orders and Council on Environmental Quality regulations, in letter as weil as spirit," according to an April 15 letter sent to Susan Kurland, FAA associate administrator for airports, by Gregory S. Walden, counsei for NACCP, Inc. and a former FAA chief counsel. Walden said his analysis of FAA's action shows that it was unlawful for the agency to invoke the "last resort" housin� provision of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Properties Acquisition and Policies Act (Relocation Act) as justification for the project; it was unlawful to approve the project for federal funding because the reloca- tion program is not consistent with ]ocal land use plans; and "it was error to fore?o a full Environmental Impact State- ment (EIS)•and issue a FONSI; in any case, the FAA should not have adopted an Environmental Assessment (EA) plagued with errors of commission and omission." Relocation Act Under the Relocation Act, federal funds may not be used to construct new housin; unless the project "cannot proceed on a timely basis because comparable replacement dwell- ings are not available." The airport authority contended that there was not sufficient replacement housing in the Louis- ville area to relocate the Minor Lane homeowners in a timely manner and used this a justification to invoke the "last resort" provision of the act which allows for federal fundin� of the replacement housinQ development in Cedar Creek. y But Walden contended that this conclusion, "which apparently was not evaluated by the FAA at any level, is just plain wrong." "There is ample comparable replacement housins in the Louisville and Jefferson County real estate market," he asserted. For example, he said, according to the Louisville Board of 12ealtors, as of Apri] l, 1998, some 408 existing homes were listed for sale in the price ran�e affordable to displaced residents. This figure does not include homes in the price range listed for sale by owners, "of which there are undoubt- edly many, nor does it include new construction," Walden told the FAA. He said the hundreds of new homes in the affordabie price ranQe are bein� built in the Louisville area. Airpoct Noise Report €� -�•- :; . _ ;� � May S, 1998 The airport authority, Walden said, "appears to acknowl- edse the present and near-term availability of affordable housinQ. First, the EA envisions the possibility that not enoush displaced persons will opt for the hoasing built under the relocation program, leavin� some houses to be sold at fair market value to the general public. T'his very real possibility reveals the true nature of the ho�sin= market in the Louisville area. Even if the market were to indicate that some last resort housing should be built, there is no support for any number near the 450 units the RAA wants to build with federal funds." Second, he said, the EA acknowied�es that the relocation of displaced residents has "positively stimulated the Louisville housin� market" but complains that this increased demand has driven up the price of available housing and has ]enathened the avera�e time it takes to find a replacement house from a matter of days to several weeks. But Walden contended that this len�th of time "is not at all excessive, considering that buying a home is considered a very siQnificant decision by the average adult or couple." Grant Approval Walden reminded the FAA that, under the Airport and Airway Improvement Act, the FAA may approve an application for a noise mitigation project only if it finds that the projects is consistent with local land use plans and the interests of the community in or near which the project may be located have been given fair consideration. The EA states that the proposed nse of parts of the Cedar Creek site is consistent with local land use plans. But Walden said that displacing Minor Lane resident to the Cedar Creek area "will conflict with a pendin� comprehen- sive land use plan for Louisville and Jefferson County, entitle Cornerstone 2020, and with the Jefferson County Fiscal Court's Resolution to protect Floyd Fork tributaries, some of which run throu�h the Cedar Creek property to be acquired for the relocation housing." "The inconsistency of the relocation housin� development with local land use plans not only acts to prohibit the FAA from approving fundinC for such a development, it also requires the preparation of a full EIS," Walden said. He also contended that it was clear from readin� the EA that the interests of Cedar Creek residents were not Qiven any consideration in the evaluation of alternatives, the consideration of social impacts, or in considering whether to fund last resort housing. Althou�h the EA recoQnized that the Cedar Creek area was largely farmland, it concluded there was no need to consider the environmental affects on Cedar Creek home- owners because the area is zoned in a way that allows a density of 4.84 dwellin�s per acre and because the only land acquired would be from willin� sellers. But the EA failed to acknowledge that the minimum lot size in Cedar Creek is five acres due largely to the lack of a sewer system, Walden said. "To our knowledge," he told FAA's Kurland, "we know m of not a sinsle communication from the RAA or its consult- ant to a Cedar Creek resident until after the environmental process was completed and the decision made. Indeed it was not until we11 after the RAA obtained the necessary approv- ais from the FAA last September that Cedar Creek residents were apprised of the block relocation plan. Only after Cedar Creek residents protested and enlisted the aid of several Kentucky State legislators did ihe RAA begin mar=inally to consider the interests of Cedar Creek." Environmental Assessment The draftin� and consideration of the EA on the project were performed so humedly that the careful deliberation required by the National Environmental Policy Act could not have been performed, Walden asserted. From the time the airport authority initially notified the FAA that it would prepare an EA on the project until the FAA issued its FONSI took only 26 business days, Walden said, adding that it took the FAA only two workdays to approve the EA. 'I'he airport �ave potentially concerned federal and local agencies only 10 days to review the scopina document and submit comments, he said, adding that no public hearing or notice was provided. When the U.S. Fash and Wildlife Service and the Kentucky State Heritage Council raised issues requiring additional study, the airport authority . avoided resolving these issues in the EA by agreeing to consider them later under certain circumstances. Walden said that "even the FAA's Airports District O�ce, commenting on the unusually fast pace of tt;e NEPA process, expressed the `hope that we do not have another [project] that is this rushed'." Walden asked FAA's Kurland to "conduct a thorough reconsideration of the legality and reasonableness of the RAA's invocation of the last resort provision of the Reloca- tion Act, the FAA's Finding of No Si�nificant Impact, and the FAA's initial $3 million b ant. He reminded her that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a neighborhood affected by a relocation housin� proo am can maintain a cause of action in federal district court to challenge its lawfullness under the Relocation Act and the Administrative Procedures Act. He also asked that the FAA stop the airport authority from proceedin� with the Cedar Creek relocation housing development pending the outcome of the FAA review. Kurland has not yet responded to Walden's letter.0 Louisville Int'1 ALD]ERMAN, CITIZ�NS GROUP PUSHING FOR NOISE �'ORUM Concerned about noise impacts from two new runways and a planned major expansion of a United Parcel Service facility at Louisville International Airport, a city alderman and a loca] community or�anization are conferring with airport ofFcials and the Federal Aviation Administration in Airport Noise RepoR _) �� 60 • Airport Noise Report an effort to set up a regional forum for information sharing. Louisville Alderman Gres Handy and a citizens' �roup called the Aitport Project Analysis Committee (APAC) have pitched the idea to FAA and the Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County at two meetings this sprino. "We've make the overtures," Handy told ANR, "and we hope they'll heed us and take us seriously." .. Recently APAC, representing 22 nei�hbochoods, induced the State Le�islature to pass a bill givin� it a seat on the Airport Au[hority Board, thus somewhat improving the chances of a favorable airport response. "They can run, but they can't hide," Handy said of the Board, with community interests now entrenched in its own ranks. Handy said he and APAC want to establish a forurri where airport officials, the long-time airport consultant, FAA, UPS, and citizens can all assess the impacts arising from operation of the two new runways, compare them with the impacts predicted in previous environmental and Part 150 airport noise compatibility studies, and devise effective noise miti�ation measures. Handy, many of his constituents, and APAC contend noise problems have been much worse than studies predicted. "We also want to help identify new noise problems not previously identified," said Handy. One such is the multi- million-dollar UPS expansion, recendy announced withou[ any previous public consultation. Walter W. Gillfillen, who also is a consultant to the�San Francisco AirportlCommunity Roundtable, has been retained by Handy and APAC to advise them on establish- ment of a collaborative body. The California Roundtable mediates among officials of San Francisco International Airport, FAA, the airlines, and several Bay Area communities on issues related to aircraft noise. Roundtable leaders have long believed their forum could serve as a modet for other communities with airport noise problems.� Oakland Int'l AII2PORT COMMUNITY FORITIVI BEING SET UP TO ADDRES� NOISE With the planned $500 million expansion of Oakland International Airport spurring litigation from surrounding communities, the Port of Oakland has begun the process of establishin� an Airport-Communiry Noise ManaQement Forum to address aircraft noise issues. The airport has grown to the point where it needs to move to a formal noise roundtable, Carole Wedl, noise officer for the airport, expfained. "We need to include people impacted by noise in the decisionmaking process." The forum will be used to educate local decision makers, she said, and will be patterned after the nearby San Francisco Roundtable. (�� Like the San Francisco group, the Oakiand forum will set -- a policy of not taking action that will result in transferrina aircraft noise from one community to another. T'he purpose of the Oakland Airport-Community Noise Manasement Forum, the Port said in a news release, "is to provide a public forum to discuss, analyze, and make recommendations to the Port of Oakland executive director about noise related issues at Oakland International Aicport. The forum will provide a mechanism to facilitate coopera- tion between the airport and loca] communities." The forum will meet quarterly and will be responsible for creacing a work plan that may include special studies, projects, and issues to address. T'he Port will work with the forum to implement the work plan and make bud�etary recommendations. Each city member of the forum and Alameda County must contribute $1,000 annuatly to participate in the forum. The Port of Oakland said it will cover the remaining operating costs and has set an annual operating budget of up to $50,000 for administrative costs (including a facilitator for the forum) and up to $50,000 for technical studies. The forum will be an advisory group to the Port of Oakland. 'The Port has invited one citizen and one elected official from eigh[ cities (Alameda, Berkeley, Emeryville, Hayward, Oakland, Piedmont, San Leandro, and Union City) and from the County of Oakland to participate on the forum. In addition, two representatives of the Port (one Port commissioner and the Port's director of aviation) wiil be members of the forum. Each city, the county, and the Port will have one vote on the forum. The airport will request non-voting participation in the forum by representatives from airport operators, industry associations, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the airport staff. Each city and the county must sign a Letter of Under- standina with the Port in order to participate on the forum. Last January, the cities of Alameda and 5an Leandro, a local anti-noise b oup called Citizens Lea;ue for Airport Safety and Serenity (CLASS), a citizens b oup in Berkeley, and the Plumbers and Steamiitters union filed suit challena ing the approval by the Port of Oakland of the Airport Development Procram for the airport and also challenging the adequacy of the state Environmental Impact Report prepared by the Port (10 ANR 9). The cities are currendy negotiating with the Port over the liti�ation. They are seeking seven demands: closin� of the North Field runways between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. (these runways are expected to get more commercia] traffic as the airport expands), eliminatin� turbo jet and turbo-prop use on runway 27 Right, stoppin� all outside engine testin� between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., establishing a comprehensive noise insulation pro�ram, completin� a test of flight routes for the North Field, assessing the city's and Port's emergency response systems, and making road improvements. San Leandro City Manager John Jermanis told residents attending a neighborhood aviation advisory committee meetin� that two or three of the Port's responses to the city's demands were acceptable, the San Leandro Times reported April 30.� Airport Noise Report F �, t ,. . .� 8, 1998 Airspace FAA CONFIRMS PROJECT TO REDESIGN U.S. AIRSPACE Bv Charles F. Price — Yes, the Federal Aviation Admini- stration is engaged in a wholesale redesign of the nation's en route and terminal airspace after ail, just as FAA Admin- istrator Jane Garvey announced Aprii 13 in New lersey. Confusion had arisen after newspapers in the New York- New Jersey area, reporting the Garvey statement, hailed what they viewed as a bold new initiative, while the FAA public affairs o�ce at headquarters seemed reluctant to characterize the effort in those terms (10 ANR 43). Also, aviation observers had wondered how at least one airspace redesign project they knew to be already under way — the Potomac Project in the Baitimore-Washin�ton region — couid be part of a nationwide effort only now beinQ launched with a priority emphasis elsewhere. FAA Public Affairs O�cer William Shumann confirmed to ANR that the agency has "a project under way to look at a clean-sheet redesign of the national airspace:' But, he conceded, without venturing an explanation, "there may be an inconsistency" between FAA's announcement that the redesi�n will commence in the Eastern Triangle (the Chicaao-Boston-Miami azea, specifically the New York- New Jersey region) and the fact that it already appears to be under way in Washington. Last month during a news conference at Newark Interna- donal Airport after a day of ineetings sponsored by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) with local elected officials, contr essmen, and community leaders, Garvey said the comprehensive airspace redesign would commence in the New York-New Jersey re?ion because it is, as Shumann termed it, the nation's "busiest and most compiex" airspace. Yet for neazly two years o�cials in the Baltimore- Washina on azea have been variously told by FAA that the Potomac Project is either under way already or soon will be. Shumann told ANR the Potomac Project could even be completed before the New York-New Jersey study. Potomac Project There does appear to be a difference of opinion between FAA and local o�cials about what constitutes the Potomac Project. The a�ency has been at work — without public consultation — studying alternative sites for a new central- ized ternunal area radar control center (TRACON) there, while local officials, believing the TRACON question is inte;ral to the redesi?n of their termina] airspace, have complained about being i�nored after FAA promised an as�ressive public involvement program. Shumann explained that FAA does not regard the TRACON issue as a part of the redesign effort. "The Potomac Project TRACON is a project on its own," he said, and "doesn't affect" the terminal airspace redesion. Shumann said the Air Traffic Control office of Fr1A had 61 concluded that a national airspace redesijn was necessary because of "major new developments in navigation, communications, surveillance, and aircraft performance" asainst a backQround of an agin� system that "�rew up in the late `50's and early `60's." He pointed out, however, that the redesi�n process "will take time" and that no specific redesian proposals have yet been developed. When they are, he said, they will be subjected to the required environmental reviews and public hearinss. However, he warned, "there will be no immediate noise relief." The caveat appeared to reflect an FAA concern that April's news reports might have encoura�ed those in New York and New Jersey to expect relief quite soon. Anti-noise activists there are pushing FAA to consider implementing an ocean-routing system to reduce overflight noise from Newark International and the New York airports. Shumann said because of the complexity of the New York-New Jersey portion of the Eastern Triangle, "problems tend to develop there in the easi and then move west" to affect the rest of the system. He cited this as the reason for the priority emphasis on New York and New Jersey announced by Garvey.0 Baltimore-Washington Int'Z , • • � � � � � � � . � ; � � A newly updated �irport Noise Zone fur Baltimore- Washinb on International Airport (BWI) was certified recently by Ted Mathison, executive director of the Mary- land Aviation Administration (MAA). The 1998 Airport Noise Zone is the fourth update for BWI since noise zones were first established in 1976. Airport noise zones usually are updated every fve years. The 1998 Airport Noise Zone contains 7,100 acres, a five percent reduction in size from the 1993 zone, and includes about 1,350 homes, 39 percent fewer than in 1993, and about 3,400 people, 41 percent fewer than in 1993, accord- ing to the airport. This decrease in size of the noise zone reflects the prob ess made in the noise reduction program," said Mathison. "In addition, we are seeing the benefits as the airlines have put increasin� numbers of quieter Stage 3 aircraftinto service. "Members of the BWI Neighbors Committee carefully evaluated the draft Noise Abatement Plan and they were instrumental in identifying improvements that will enhance the quality of life for residents in the noise zone," he added. Improvements include greater restrictions on ni�httime engine run-ups between 11 p.m. and 4 a.m.; the addition of 11 homes to the Voluntary Acquisition ProQram at an estimated cost of $2.1 million (which includes relocation costs); and makina local �overnments eligible for federal fundin� to purchase large parcels of vacant property in residential areas of the Airport Noise Zone for noise Airport Noise Report 62 compatible public use. Persons desirina to build new structures or change the use of existins structures within the Airport Noise Zone are i I required ro obtain an airport zoning permit from the MAA or a variance from the Board of Airport Zoning Appeals (BAZA) before requesting local government approval for development within the noise zone. The MAA and BAZA are workinb to improve airpor[ `. noise variance petition procedures to clarify the applican['s responsibility for achieving adequate sound insulation in proposed structures and to ensure that noise�reduction goals in BAZA variance rulings are met in new construction. IvIAA also wi11 plans to ask that the Maryland Real Estate Commission amend its disclosure forms to note the Airport Noise Zone as a land use reaulation. In addition, the MAA will disseminate lar�e scale Airport Noise Zone maps to local libraries and real estate offices to improve public awareness about the noise zone. The Maryland Environmental Noise Act of 1974 requires the MAA to adopt an Airport Noise Zone and Noise Abatement Plan to control incompatible land development around BWI Airport and to minimize the impact of aircraft noise on people livin� near the airport. The Airport Noise Zone and Noise Abatement Plan fulfill federal requirements for Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility proa am-� AIP Reauthorization ��__,� N.O.I.S.E. SEEKS DESIGNATION OF ANY PFC INCREASE TO NOISE The National OrQanization to Insure a Sound-Controlled Environment (NOISE) ur�ed Congress in a May 8 letter to strengthen federal noise mitigation policies in order to reduce noise impacts on communities near airports. In a letter to the John Duncan (R-TI�, chairman of the House Transportation Subcommittee on Aviation, and Slade Gorton (R-WA), chairman of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Aviation, NOISE President Tom Egan, mayor of Eagan, MN, advocated reauthorizina the Airpor[ Improvement Pro�ram, from which grants are given to airports to conduct noise mitigation planning and projects, for a lonoer period than the current three years to allow for greater pianninQ and fulfillment of commitments. "Noise reduction projects take ]on�-ran�e planning, and noise-impacted communities need the certainty that airports will have a source of funds and requirements for noise miti�ation for a more signiticant time span than three years," Egan said. Both committees have jurisdiction over the Airpon Improvement Program, includino noise mitiaa- tion policies, which is up for reauthorization this year. Egan urged the committee chairmen to desijnate a portion of any Passenger Facility Char�e (PFC) increase for noise ,) prevention and mitigation. "Althouch there is a 31 percent J set-aside for noise mitiQation in AIP funds, only i l percent Noise Report of PFC funds were used for such projects in 1996. Some 71 percent of PFC's were used for roadside and landside projects and roads, in other words, expansion. Expansion frequently means additiona] noise or it turns compatible land into non-compatible land," E�an wrote. "A sisnificant commitment," he said, "is needed to the research and development of quieter aircraft that are technolo�ically and economically feasible." The Advanced Subsonic Transport project, currendy being conducted by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Federal Aviation Administration "is showing promising results that could lead to the production of Staae 4 aircraft," Egan told the committee chairmen. Noting that NASA provided most of the direction and funding for this research, Egan uraed Con�ress to include provisions in the FAA Reauthorization Act that also would commit the FAA to this research and "encourage or require the use of this new technology once proven feasible." Egan applauded the FAA for establishin� the O�ce of Noise Ombudsman, which serves as a liaison between the FAA and noise impacted communities, before an appropria- tion was provided. "The office now needs to be adequately funded and given stature and significance within the FAA decision making process," Egan said. "For example, in Washin�ton, DC, a local branch of the FAA gave approval to an opera[or for numerous, daily, noisy helicopter sight- . seeing flights over residential areas of the District of Columbia, without any notice to the Office of Noise Ombndsman, the local communities, the• airport authority, or any other relevant organization: ' NOISE is a national organization representing local governments and civic b oups working to reduce the impact of aircraft noise on communities.� Detroit Metropolztan USE OF LAPTOPS SPEEDS UP SOUND INSULA'TION DESIGN Detroit Metropolitan Airport is using laptop c�mputers to significantly speed up the desi�n process of its residential sound insulation pro�am. Under the new process, a team of architectural and design professionals visits homeowners to evaluate precisely what modifications are needed to achieve the desired noise reduction in the home. The team members use laptop computers to create final desi�n documents within a few hour — a process, the airport said, that used to take weeks or even months. "By having a laptop computer with us, we're able to analyze the specifcs of each house and produce sound insulation recommendations ri�ht on the spot," Colleen Pobur, director of the Neighborhood Compatibiliry Projram for the airport, explained in the Detroit Metro's newsletter. In most cases, homeowners are reviewing plans, clarifying any questions they might have, and signing [he authorization Airport Noise Report e'`^ � �-:- i. ., ,: � � 7 May 8, 1998 paperwork all in one day. So far, the feedback we've been gettin� from citizens has been very positive." She said that sound insulation of homes will be the primary focus of the Neighborhood Compatibility Program in 1998. "In past years we concentrated much of our efforts acquirin� homes closest to the airport and sound insulating schools in the area," she said. "But this year, we've ear- marked the majority of our time and bud�et on insulatin� homes." "We've picked up a lot of knowledge from the houses we've worked on up until now, and we keep lookinQ at new ways to improve the program," she said. "Our goal is to make the Neighborhood Compatibility Program as e�cient and friendly for our customers as we can."d Grants FAA AWARDS AIP GRA.NTS FOR AIRPORT NOISE PROJECTS The Federal Aviation Administration awarded the followina noise-related Airport Improvement Proaram (AII') b ants to airports recendy: • Little Rock, AR, received $1,250,000 on April 8 to acquire land and soundproof residences near Adams Field; • Mena, AR, received $500,000 on April 8 to acquire land for approaches at Mena Intermountain Municipal Airport; • Burbank, CA, received $2 million on Apri18 to sound- proof residences near Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport; • Ft. Lauderdale, FL, received $3,446,469 on April 29 for several projects including one to acquire land for noise compatibility; • Ft. Myers, FL, received $2.5 million on Apri129 to acquire land for development of Southwest Florida Interna- tional Airport; • Lakeland, FL, received $1,309,000 on April 20 to acquire land for approaches at Lakeland Linder Regional Airport; • Orlando, FL, received $896,000 on Apri129 to conduct a noise compatibility plan study; • Chicago, IL, received $3 million on Apri124 to sound- proof a school near Chicago Midway Airport; • Chicago, IL, received $3 million on Apri124 to sound- proof schools near Chicaao O'Hare International Airport; • Peoria, IL, received $1,350,000 on Apri124 to acquire land for noise compatibility near Greater Peoria Regiona] Airport; • Rockford, IL, received $1,260,000 on Apri124 to acquire land for noise compatibility near Greater Rockford Airport; • Sprin�field, IL, received $1 million on April 24 to acquire land for noise compatibility near Springfield Capital Airport; • Detroit, MI, received $� million on April 16 to sound- proof residences, acquire and for noise compatibility, and provide relocation assistance near Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport; 63 - Escanaba, NII, received $159,190 on April 27 for several projects includins acquisition of land for approaches and relocation assistance near Delta County Airport; • Minneapolis. MN, received �5 million on April 13 to soundproof residences near Minneapolis-St. Paul Interna- tional Airport; • Charlotte, NC, received �4,781,250 on April 6 to soundproof residences near Charlotte/Douglas International Airporc; • Albany, N7', received $2 million on April 16 to acquire land for noise compacibility near Albany County Airport; • Dayton, OH, received $1,485,000 on April 16 to acquire land for noise compatibiliry and to provide relocation assistance near James M. Cox Dayton International Airport; • Columbus, OH, received $511,000 on April 16 to conduct an update to its Part l�0 airport noise compatibility program for Port Columbus International Airport; • Toledo, OH, received $4,894,000 on April 16 to acquire land for noise compatibility and to soundproof residences neaz Toledo Express Airport; • Laredo, TX, received $7.3 million on April 16 for several projects, including land acquisition for noise comparibility near Laredo International Airport; • Spokane, WA, received $591,300 on April 27 to acquire Iand for approaches near Felts Field; • Milwaukee, WI, received $8 million on April 16 to soundproof residences near General Mitchell International Airport.0 Greensboro F�DEX HUB TO BRING $2.4 BLLLION, STUDY SAYS Federal Express recently decided to build a major new Mid-Atlantic hub at Greensboro Airport in North Carolina and a study released May 11 concluded that the economic impact of the hub on the surrounding 12 country reaion will exceed $2.4 billion in its first decade. NC Governor Jim Hunt hailed FedEX's decision to build iu $300 million package sortin� facility at Greensboro as an economic victory. Greensboro beat out four other airports that were in the running for the hub: Raleish-Durham, Charlotte and Globai TransPark in North Carolina and Columbia, SC. The economic report, requested by the Greensboro Area Chamber of Commerce and developed by G. Donald Jud of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, conci�ded that the $272 million in incentives it took to win the FedEX hub will pay handsome economic dividends. Jud said that the annual economic impact of the hub will be over $160 million a year. Construction of the hub is set to begin in early 2000 and to be completed by the fall of 2003. It will initially employ 700-800 people with a total workforce of 1,500.� Airport Noise Report C 64 Airport Noise Report � ANR EDITORIAL I ADVISORY BOARD � Mark Atwood, Esq. Galland, Kharasch, Morse & Garfinkle Washington. D.C. , � `. _ 1 Lee L. Blackman, Esq. McDermott, Wiil & Emery Los Angeles, Calif. Dr. Clifford R. Bragdon, AICP Dean, School of Aviation'& TranspoRadon Dowiing College Etiot Cutier, Esq. Cutler & Stanfield Washington, D.C. J. Spencer Dickerson Senior Vice President American Associadon of Airport Executives Edward J. DiPolvere Administracor, Nazionai Associadon of Noise Control Officials Richard G. "Dick" Dyer AirpoR Environmental Specialist. Division of Aeronaudcs, Calif. Dept. of Transportation E. Tazewell Ellett, Esq. Hogan & Hartson Washington, D.C. Julie H. Ellis, Fsq. Managing Director Federai Express Corporadon Angel NI. Garcia Co-Chairman Citizens Against Newark Noise E.H. "Mce" Haupt Manager, Aiiport and Environmental Services, National Business Aircraft Association Robert P. Silverberg, Esq. Bagileo, Silverberg & Goldman Washington, D.C. Joanne W. Young, Esq. Baker & Hosteder LLP Washington, D.C. ON THE AGENDA... Iviay 31-June 3 American Association of Airport Executive's 70th Annual Conference & Exhibition, Nashville, TN (contact AAAE; tel: (703) 824-0504 or fax-on-demand: (1-800-470-ARPT). lune 20-28 Semi-annual meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, Seattie, WA (contact Elaine Moran; tel: (516) 576-2360). July 12-15 Transportation Research Board's A1F04 Conference on Transportation Related Noise and Vibration, St. Petersburg, FL (contact Win Lindeman, FL DOT; tel: (850) 488-2914). July 22-25 Annual meeting of the National Organization to Insure a Sound-controlled Environment (NOISE), Thornton, CO (near Denvec); (contact Dennis McGrann, Suite 900, 601 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20004; tei: (202) 434-8163; fax (202) 639-8238). Auj. 20-21 American Association of Auport Executives' Aircraft Noise and Land Use Planning Management Workshops, Milwaukee, WI (contact AAAE; tel: (703) 824-0504 or . fa�c-on-demand: (1-800-470-ARPT). Oct. 4-"7 Airports Council International - Nerth America's 7th Regiona] Conference & Exhibition, Marriott's Orlando World Center (contact ACI, 1775 K St., NW, Washington, DC 20006; tel: (202) 293-8500; fax (202) 331-1362). Nov. 16-18 INTER-NOISE 98, The 1998 International Con�ess o❑ Noise Control Enaineering, Christchurch, New Zealand (contact Conference Secretariat, INT'ER-NOISE 98 Secretary, MDA, PO Box 1181, Aukland 1001, Australia; tel: (+64-9-379-7822; fax; +b4-9-302-0098). Nov. 22-27 Noise Effects '98, the 7th International Con�ess on Noise as a Public Health Problem, Sydney, Australia (contact The Conb ess Secretariat, Noise Effects '98, GPO Box 128, Sydney NSW 2001 Australia; tel: 61-2- 9262-2277;fax 61-2-9262-2323). AIRPORT NOISE REPORT Anne H. Kohut, Publisher Charles F. Price, Contributina Editor; Maria T. Norton, Production Editor Published 2� times a year at 43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 20147; Phone: (703) 729-�867; FAX: (703) 729-4�28. Price $495. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is Qranted by Airport Noise Report, provided that the base fee of US�1.03 per page per copy is paid directly to Copyri�ht Clearance Center, 27 Cona ess Street, Salem; MA 01970. USA. Copyri�ht �O 1998 by Airport Noise Report, Ashburn, Va. 20147 � ..� ; _ �� , _.: L :r ; ,. . , *: : .. .:°� �:� � . w �� ' � �� , A biweekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments . Volume 10, Number 9 Lrznd Use FAA SEEKS COMMENT ON CONCEPTS TO PROMOTE COMPATIBLE LAND USE Stru?glin� to find ways to preserve a land buffer around the nation's airports, which aze expected to get increasingly busy in the next few decades, ihe Federal Aviation Administration is askinp the public to submit ideas on how to encourage compadble land use around airports. The asency issued a notice in the Federal Register on May IS soliciting con- cepts to promote compatible land use planning by state and local governments and to discourage development of non-compatible land uses. The FA.A said that it is "particularly interested in bold, innovative, and creative options that could be implemented quickly to discourage development of non- compatible land uses, as well as long term solutions." The more specific the suggestions, the agency said, the better. The agency said it plans to review the comments submitted by the public to determine whether any couid be of benefit in assisting state and local aovernments to achieve and maintain compatible land use around airports. Further action by the FAA "would depend on the nature and scope of the methods identified," the aaency explained in its notice. (Continued on p. 67) Las Vegas McCarran Int'1 COUNTY BOA�.tD POSTPONES ACTION ON ORDINANCE REQUIRING DISCLOSURE The Clark County Board of Commissioners was expected on May 20 to vote on an ordinance that would require homeowners as far out as the 60 dB DNL contour around McCarran International Airport and Nellis Air Force Base to disc]ose in real estate transactions that their property may be subject to aircraft noise. But in response to protests from some residents that such a requirement would decrease their property values, the board decided at its public hearing to delay action on the ordinance until Sept. 16. The homeowners objected to the disclosure requirement even thouQh the proposed ordinance was chan�ed to exclude current homeowners from being subject to it, and despite assurances from the Federal Aviation Administration that a similar disclosure requirement at Raleigh-Durham International Airport has not resulted in the devaluation of homes. The ordinance was developed by the county departments of aviation and planning at the request of the county Board, which wanted to look at different ways that land use compatibility mi�ht be increased in the airport environs. When the Board postponed action on the ordinance, it asked the airpor[ to now look at existin� fundin� mechanisms to determine if there are measures, which might (Continued on p. 66) Copyright �O 1998 by Airport Noise Report. Ashburn, Va. 20147 '�- Nlay 22, 1998 In �'his Issue... Land Use ... The FAA begins a new land use initiative to develop ways to encourage compatible development around airports. The agency is seeking comments from the public on how it can better promote compatible land use by state and local govemments - p.. 65 ... Text of FAA statement of purpose for its Land Use Initiative - p. 69 ... Text of Federal Register notice solicitng public comments - p. 71 Las Vegas ... Residents' fears of home devaluation lead county Board to postpone vote on ordinance requiring real estate disclosure out to 60 dB DNL noise contour - p. 65 Burbank ... Appeals court affirms FAA approval of EIS for replacement terminal project - p. 67 Grand Canyon ... Air tour operators accuse Park Service of manipulating study to inflate noise impact of aircraft overflights - p. 67 LAX ... Second phase of residential soundprooiins program begins with award of several contracts - p. 68 C (' 66 Airport Noise Report Las Vegas McCarran, from p. 65 include soundproofinC, that the airport can take to provide relief in the 65 dB DNL contour. ; � ANR was unable to contact the airport for comment on the Board's ac[ion by press time. Strong FAA Support The FAA s[ron�ly encouraaed the Clark County Board ro impose the disclosure requirement. The a�ency sent Barry Brayer of its Western Pacific Re�ionai Office to speak at an April 22 hearino on the proposal�And James Erickson, director of the FAA's Office of Environment and Enersy, sent a letter to the Board May 14 addressin� fears expressed by homeowners at the hearing that the disclosure require- ment would drop their home values. "We believe that property values in your communities would not be materially affected by revealin� the noise, but in a hypothetical case where noise exposure did result in a reduction in property values, those values prior to disclosure would have been artificially inflated by withholdin� in%rmation from potential buyers. The true value of real property emerges only when all of its features are known. Therefore, when a residential property is in the vicinity of an airport, any estimate or calculation of its true value must also include the noise exposure," Erickson toid Yvonne Atkinson Gates, chairwoman of the Boazd. He noted that several years ago, the Raleiah-Durham Airport Authority proposed that ail jurisdictions around the -, airport amend their ordinances to require that homeowners l � as far out as the 5� dB DNL contour disclose that their �J homes were subject to aircraft noise. While none of the jurisdictions chose to require disclosure, the FAA o�cial said, in January 1996 the North Carolina LeQislature passed a bill that amended the state real estate disciosure law to require that sellers disclose any notices they receive from "any governmental a�ency" affectin� their real propeRy. In Apri] 1997, the RDU airport authority mailed notices [o over 9,000 homeowners officially informin� them that their property was within the 55 dB DNL noise contour of the airport and tha[, under the new state law, they were required to disclose this noise classification to subsequent purchas- ers. Prices Not Affected "Airport officials report that local Realtors have not complained about the new disclosure requirement, and many Realtors welcome the requirement because it relieves them from buyers' complaints of not beine properly warned about airport noise," Erickson wrote the Clark County Board. "Airport officials also report that development, sales activity, and prices within the disclosure area have not been adversely affected by the new disclosure requirement. Based on the experience of Raleigh-Durham and other jurisdictions I )around the country tha[ have adopted local ordinances requirinC disclosure of noise levels on existing residential communities near airports, we believe the fear that disclo- sure will result in a substantial drop in property values is larQely unfounded," Erickson said. Proposed Ordinance The ordinance the county Board is considerin� would amend the Clark County Zonin� Code and the boundaries and requirements of the existin� Airport Environs Overlay District. The proposal would accomplish the followin�: • Require new residential cons�vction in the DNL 60 to 65 dB subdistrict to include sound attenuation materials and building techniques that will reduce interior noise by 25 decibels; • Add a new subdistrict to the existing Airpor[ Environs Overiay District based on noise exposures between Day- Night Level (DNL) 60 to 65 dB; • Update the boundaries of the subdishicts of the Overlay Districts to reflect current estimates of noise exposure usin� up-to-date aircraft and fliQht information; • Require avigation easements in connection with certain discretionary land use approvals granted by the county; and • Restrict the development of certain land uses in areas near Nellis Air Force Base that are subject to the risk of ordinance detonation. Increasing Number of Complaints The county departments of planning and aviation offered four reason for amending the zonin; ordinance. First, they said, over the past few years the county and the Air Force have been receiving an increasing number of noise complaints from persons livin� both inside and outside the existing Airport Environs Overlay District, which was created in 1986. This increase in complaints has occurred despite the fact that noise levels near MeCarran and Nellis have remained virtually the same or gone down during this time period, they noted. The county said it believes these complaints have resulted from two primary factors: inadequate noise insulation in hnmes just outside the existing Overlay District boundary, and an increased number of homes being built in the vicinity of McCarran and Nellis. In addition, military operations at Nellis have created the need to establish additional land use restrictions to deal with risks posed by the loadin� and handlin� of live munitions and ordinance, the county said, notinQ that accidental detonation of these materials could endanger lives and property. Also, the Air Force recently provided new information to the county about areas near Nellis that face particularly high risks of military aircraft accidents.� Airport Noise Report C �;, �� ) Nlay 22, 1998 Land Use, from p. 65 Solicitation of public comments is part of a new FAA Land Use P(anninQ Initiative which involves several FAA offices: airports, air traffic, the Office of the Chief Counsel. and the Office of Environment and Eneroy. This internal FAA team is tryin� to develop a process by which the FAA can better influence ]ona-term land use planning and zonins around airpoRs. y In the last few years, the FAA has actively encouraged local jurisdictions to use their zoning authority to address airport noise impact beyond the 65 dB DNL noise contour, which has long been accepted as the threshold oFcompatible residential use around airports. With noise contours shrinking at airports because of the phasin� out of noisier Staje 2 aircraft, the contours will be at their smallest size around the year 2000 when all Stage 2 aircraft must cease operation. But noise contours at many airports will begin growing after that point as the number of Stase 3 aircraft operations begins to si�nificandy increase in the nex[ century. The FAA sees a window of opportunity to preserve the land buffer that will be created by the shrinkage of contours up to the year 2000. It wants local jurisdictions to capture this buffer zone and bar non-compatible development within it. Public comments on the notice must be received by June 21. The text of the FAA notice bejins on p. 69. The text of the statemen[ of purpose for the a�ency's Land Use Plan- ning Initia[ive begins on p. 71. Burbank NINTH CIRCUIT AFFIRNIS FAA APPROVAL OF TERMIlVAL On May 19, a federa] appeals court affirmed the Federal Aviation .4dministration's approval of a new terminal buildinC at Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport by denyina an appeal filed by the City of Los An�eles. In declining to review the case the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit a�rmed the March IZ decision of a panel of three of its judges upho]ding the Environmental Impact Statement for the project, which concluded that a new terminal buildinQ would not increase aviation noise. The earlier decision, written by JudQe Alex Kozinski affirmed the FAA's determination that passenger arowth would con[inue at the airpor[ with or without a new terminal, and that, in effect, "if you don't build it, they will come anyway," the airport said in a press release. "We were always confident that the courts would uphold the Environmental Impact Statement for this project," said Thomas E. Greer, executive director of the Burbank- Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority. "The FAA conducted a very thorouah study of this issue, lookino at the experi- 67 ence at other airports na[ionwide beEore concluding that a new termina] buildin� will not result in increased noise." The FAA has called for construction of a new tecminal because the current 68-year-old facility is too close to the runways and does not comply with federal safety standards. Both the City of Burbank and the City of Los AnQels had challenged the federal Environmental Impact Statement for the project_ After the Ninth Circuit's three judge panel upheld the position of the FAA and the authority in March, only Los Anoeles then appealed to the full Ninth Circuit to rule on the matter. The court denied that appeal.� Grand Canyon TOUR OPER.ATORS ACCUSE NPS OF MANIPULATING NOISE STUDY Based on an industry-funded study, the United States Air Tour Association (USATA), which represents air tour operators, has accused the National Park Service of alterin� a computer analysis of aircraft sound in the Grand Canyon to show more aircraft overflight noise than actually oc- curred. The "faulty conclusions" of the NPS analysis resulted in the implementation of new restrictions on air touring in the canyon, the oraanizadon asserted in a press release. "'I'his is disquieting new information and potentially very damajing to the credibility of the Pa;k Service," said Steve Bassett, president of USATA. "Any study the Park Service uses to validate a requirement for further restriction on air touring either at the Grand Canyon or anywhere else in the United States must be considered suspect and unreliable," Bassett said. Release of the conclusions of the industry analysis of Park Service conduct comes at a time when the regulatory and legislative efforts are underway to further restrict air tours over national parks. ANR was unable to reach Pazk Service o�cials for comment on USATA's allegations before press time. Papillon Grand Canyon Helicopters paid for an analysis of a Park Service study of the effectiveness of a special fli�ht rule put into effect by the Federal Aviation Administration to reduce noise impact in the canyon. The Papillon study was conducted by John R. Alberti of J.R. Engineerina, Kirkland, WA. Alberti's study was [hen reviewed by Dr. K.K. Ahuja, professor of Aerospace Engineering at Gzor�ia Tech University. Ahuja's review was funded by [he Helicopter Association Internationa(. Criticism of Park Service Study According [o USATA, the study done by Alberti indicates that the Park Service: • Altered an industry-standard computer pro�ram that systematically caused the computer model to show more aircraft overflisht sound in the Grand Canyon than actually occuned: � Airport Noise Report C t � � � 68 �"Assianed trained specialists to listen for the threshold of sound. which was approximately 30 dB, then the Park Service lowered that threshold by more than 10 dB (one- tenth of the sound ener�y) to plot their sound overlays. Accordin� to acousticians, this is an unreasonable approach which sianificantiv biased the results"; • Tooh�liberties when it used a 12-hour day rather than a. 24-hour day to plot their impact area which doubled the illustrated impact; and, • Used aircraft sound leveis that were excessive for the flisht confisurations used in the Grand Canyon which caused the impact to be overstated. "Each of these violations of fact had the same effect — to increase estimates of sound above accurate levels," USATA asserted. It said a"correct analysis" of the oriQinal data used by the Park Service "demonstrates conclusively" that the special fliaht rule put into effect by the Federal Aviation Administration restored natural quiet ta more than 95 percent of the park exceeding Park Service and congres- sional mandates "by a wide marain, even durin� the busiest air tour month of the year." Recoenizin� that the results of the Alberti analysis would "cast doubt on the inteQrity of the Park Service," the air tour industry sou?ht a peer review of the work. USATA said that, after a detailed analysis, Dr. Ahuja a�reed with the statements contained in the Alberti study that "... the government studies were biased and misleadin� due to several invalid and unscientific assumptions that overstate the sound levels and sound detectability ... when the errors are corrected, the result is that 95 percent of the park will meet the Park Service's own definition of natural quiet..." Natural Quiet Attained Alberti's own InteQrated Noise Iviodel (INNi) analysis of actual 1996 air tour overfli�ht data —"the same data used by NPS in its study — confirmed that [the special fli�ht rule] meets the NPS definition of `substantial restoration of natural quiet' which is the reduction of aircraft sound levels to the poin[ that the human ear cannot detect any aircraft sound in at least �0 percent of the park at least 75 percent of the time," USATA said. The air tour organization accused the Park Service of deceivin� Con�ress, the air tour industry, and the public "when it stated that natural quiet had not been restored at the Grand Canyon, " USATA said. "We believe there is ample evidence here for Consress to be more than a little suspi- cious of the information they are receivin�? from the NPS." The USATA press release said the air tour industry "has tried to work cooperatively with the Park Service and em�ironmental community but questioned whether either can be [rusted in lisht of the Alberti study and Ahuja review." I[ added, "We continue to seek modifica[ions [o [he interim recommendations of the National Park Overfliahts ( ) Working Group and the resultin� FAA Draft Notice of Proposed Rulemakina and soon-to-be introduced legislation Airport Noise Report by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) to, among other thing, preserve �'AA's airspace jurisdiction and eliminate provi- sions which confers to [he Park service and park superinten- dents de facto authority to control aircraft movements over national parks." "It seems that every time we turn around our efforts are runnins into Park Service and environmental roadblochs," commented Bassett.� Los Angeles Int'l AIRPORT BEGINS NEXT PHA.SE OF SOUNDPROOFING PROGRAM On May 19, the Los Anseles Board of Airport Commis- sioners awarded the fourth in a series of contracts for soundproofin� work for the second phase of the Los Anbeles International Airport Residential SoundproofinQ Pro�ram. This contract award brings the total of homes completed or in the process of soundproofina construction to 263, the airport said. The first phase was recently completed with 126 units in multi-family buildinas ou�tted with dual- paned windows, solid-core doors, attic insulation, and other necessary improvements. To date, the airport said, the four contracts for the second phase have been awarded to Great West Contractors, Allied Engineerin� and Construction (two contracts), and T&M Construction. These contracts represent 137 single and multi-family residential units, which will be involved in various staaes of soundproofin� durin� the next few months. All the contractors have headquarters in Southern Califor- nia. The LAX soundproofin� proQram includes nearly 9,000 eli�ible residences in the Los Aneeles communities of Westchester, Playa del Rey, and South Los An�eles with a recorded Community New Equivalent Level (CNEL) of 6� decibels or higher. Los An�eles World Airports Executive Director John J. Driscoll said, "We are very committed to this program and we are making every effort to keep pace with the sound insulation needs of the loca] community." Ruth Galanter, Los Anseles Sixth District councilmember, in whose district the airport is located, said, "I am very pleased that the first aroup of residences have been sound- proofed and I know the homeowners in Phase Two are looking forward to the noise relief that the proUram will provide."c1 �irport Voise Report May 22, 1998 Text FAA NOTICE REQUESTING PUBLIC COIVIIVIENT ON COMPATIBLE LAND USE PLANNING INITIATIVE [4910 - 13] 14 CFR Part 91, 1�0 [Docket No. 29231] Federal Aviation Administration, DOT Compatible Land Use Planning Initiative Agency: Federal Aviation Adminisuation (FAA), DOT. Action: Notice; Request for comments. SU1bIMARY: The FAA is seekina new ideas reaardinQ how the agency can better influence land use decisions around airports. Noise contours around airports will continue to shrink with the elimination of noisier Staoe 2 airplanes by the year 2000. 1fie FAA now seeks to develop a process that will better influence lon�-term land use plannin� and zoning around airports. This notice solicits suggestions about methods the FAA can use to encourage and help State and local governments achieve and maintain land use comparibility azound airports. DATE: Comments must be received on or before [30 days after date of publicadon in the Federal Re�isterl. ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed in triplicate to: Federal Aviation Adminisffation, O�ce of the Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket (AGC-200), Docket No. 29231, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washin�ton, DC 20591. Comments may also be sent electronically to the Rules Docket by using the following Internet address: 9-nprm- cmts@faa.dot.aov. Comments must be marked Docket No. 29231. Comments may be examined in the Rules Docket in Room 915G on weekdays between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORNIATION CONTACT: Alan Trickey, Policy and Resulatory Division, AEE-300, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.. Washington, DC 20591; telephone, (202) 267-3�196; facsimile, (202) 267-5�94; email, alan.trickey@faa.dot.gov. ( � Background Aireraft noise is a serious problem for communities around airports. Federal, state and local governments have spent several billion dollars for the acquisition of land, soundproofing. changes in airport operations and airspace, and processinQ of complaints. The airline industry has expended billions more to acquire quieter aircraft that reduce noise exposure levels. AlthouQh this collective effort has resulted in sijnificant proaress, additional measures are needed to maintain current Gains and prevent the development of new noncompatible land uses around airports. The FAA has been actively enQaged in measures to solve the problem of aircraft noise since the 1960's. Specifically, the FAA has issued re�ulations phasin� out noisier airplanes. The noisiest Staae 1 airplanes were phased out of commercial operations in the United States by 1988. The current phaseout will eliminate larje Stage 2 airplanes from operations in the contiguous United States by the year 2000. The FAA provides Qrants to airport operators willin� to undertake noise abatement measures such as the purchase of land and soundproofin� of residences. Based on several studies, the FAA expects noise contours at most airports to continue to shrink for several years into the 21S` century due to the elimination of noisier aircraft. After the completion of the Sta?e 2 phaseout by the year 2000, the FAA anticipates that these contours could begin to expand a;ain at some airports primarily due to increases in operations. It is essential for local jurisdictions to plan ahead to maintain the land use compatibility a]ready achieved near airports and to control land uses to prevent new noise-sensitive development within an a�eed upon protection zone. The U.S. Constitution, oives individual States the authority over land use, thouQh such authority is often dele;ated to local aovernments. Some airpons are operated by the state or municipal governments that have the power to achieve appropriate land use controls throuQh zonins and other authorities. $ut ev,en when governmental bodies are [hemselves airport operators, the noise effects of their airports often occur in areas outside their jurisdictions. Land use decisions generally reflect the needs of the community, which include but are not limited to considerations of aviat�on noise. The FAA is charged with [he responsibility to maintain a safe and efficient nationa] airspace 69 C� %ZI; system. The FAA fosters compatible land use planning both to facilitate access to airports commensurate with the demands of air commerce and to abate the aviation noise effecLs in the airport vicinity. Even though the Federai . Qovernment lacks the authority to zone land, the FA.A may use its influence to encourase compatible land use in the viciniry of an airport. The aaency exerts this influence through airport development Qrant a�reements, environmental review requirements, Grants for airport noise compatibility plannin�, and educational instruments on compatible land use planning. The FAA has issued guidelines for land use ' compatibility around airports to assist those responsible for determinin� land use. These �uidelines are primarily contained in 14 CFR Part 1�0 and related �uidance. In January 1995, an FAA-sponsored Study Group on Compatible Land Use, which was composed of community, airport, and aviation representatives, produced a report with recommendations for Federal initiatives to promote compatible land use planning and controls around airports. The o oup's recommendations included the following concepts: • Provide direct Federal funding throu�h the Airport Improvement Pro�ram (Ail') to non-airport sponsors who have land use planning jurisdiction; • Encourage cooperative a?reements between airport sponsors and communities; Airport Noise Report The FAA has implemented portions of these recommendations. These ideas are presented here only to stimulate thouaht for addition ideas. Request for Comments The FAA is solicitinQ commenu on any concepts that mi?ht serve to promote compatible land use plannin� by state and local authorities and to discouraje development of noncompatible land uses around airports. The FAA is particularly interested in bold, innovative, and creative options that could be implemented quickly to discourage development of noncompatible land uses, as well as lon� term solutions. Comments that provide a factual basis for the sug�estions are particulazly helpful. The more spec'ific the susgestions for FAA action, the better. Ultimately, any process should achieve lon;-term cost avoidance for all levels of government. The Fr'1A will review information from public comments and other sources to identify methods that mi�ht assist State and local governments in achieving and maintainin� land use compatibility around airpor[s. Further action would depend on the nature and scope of the methods identified. Communications should identify the notice docket number and be submitted in triplicate usin� one of the media specified in the "ADDRESSES" para�raph above. All communications will be filed in the docket. The docket is available for public inspection both before and after the closinQ date for receipt of comments. Revise FAA reaulations in Part 150 or The FAA will acknowledse receipt of a comment supporting guidelines to recoanize and if the commenter includes a self-addressed, publicize successful land use compatibility stamped postcard with the comment. The concepts, encourage more effective public postcard should be marked "Commenu to participation and encouraQe innovative land- Docket No. 29231." When the comment is use control techniques; received by the FAA, the postcard will be dated, time stamped, and returned to the commenter. Strenathen the linkage between Part 1�0 noise compatibility programs and existing Federal programs that reinforce land use plannin;, such as Federal HousinQ Administration and Department of Veterans Affairs policies not to accept properties in hieh-noise areas for mortaa�e insurance. Issued in Washinston, D.C., on Nfay 15, 1998. James D. Erickson Director of Environment and Enersy Airport Noise Report ( ) May 22, 1998 �Text STATEMENT OF PURPOSE FOR FAA LAND USE INITIATIVE The FA.A developed the following 5tatement of Purpose for its new Land Use Planing Initiative: "Effective airport plannin� and development requires extensive cooperation and coordination amon� local communities, aviation interests, and those responsible for the planning, development, and care of the surroundin� environment. Appropriate measures can help to reduce potential land use non-compatibility around airports. The FAA [is initiating] a federally sponsored team approach involving community, aviation, and airport stakeholders to explore a variety of ideas and options for effectively establishin� compatible land use planning and zonin� around airports. The internal FAA project team includes resources from Airports, Air TrafFic, O�ce of Chief Counsel, and the O�ce of Environment and Energy. Input from interest o oups and the aeneral public [is bein�] solicited in a Federal Register nodce published on May 21, 1998, with a 30-day comment period. Seeking to Develop Process "The purpose of this initiative is to develop a process by which the FAA can better influence lon� term land use planning and zonina azound airports. This plannin� process ultimateiy begins with the notion that some set of "neecis" and "desires" are not being met by the existing framework. Environmental impacts of avia[ion noise on properties in the vicinity of airports are a c�ntinuing problem. These impacts have been brought to the attention of local, regional, state, and national governments in the form of individual re- sponses, coalitions, advisory committees, and noise opposi- tion �roups. As a result, various levels of aovernment have spent billions of dollars for the condemnation of land, soundproofing, airport operations, and airspace chanQes, and processing of complaints and concerns. "The compatibility of land uses in the vicinity of an airport is associated, to a larse extent, with aircraft noise impacts from the operation of the airport. A commonly used method to determine impacts is to estimate the effects of aircraft noise on the human environment and then to make land use decisions based on perceived impacts. For ex- ample, certain activities, such as conversation and evening relaxation, are highly sensitive to aircraft noise; others, such as workin� with machinery, are not. There is no sinale set of land use compatibility criteria, although community reaction to aireraft noise is relacively consistent. "The Federal government does not control land use. In many cases, neither do the airports themselves control the surroundinb land uses. Local jurisdictions are responsible for land use planning and zoning and their efforts �enerally reflect the perceived needs of the communiry and not necessarily the airpon. This factor particularly applies when these jurisdictions are not the airport proprietor. 71 Exploring Options "The FAA does set forth guidelines for land use compati- bility to assist [hose responsible for determining the accept- able and permissible land uses in the vicinity of airports. This land use plannin� team is explorinQ options as to how the FAA mi�ht become more effective in communicatin� Federal policy, advertisin� the needs and operational y requirements of airports, and ultimately, influencinC land use decisions around airports. This effort is important because the FAA estimates that noise contours around our nation's airports will continue to shrink dramatically throu;h the year 2000 with the phaseout of Staae 2 airplanes and beyond with the retirement of noisier hushkitted Stage 3 airplanes. "This contour shrinkaQe may have a short-term paradoxi- cal effect. It could allow for ihe introduction of land uses on properties close to airports based on benefits �ained by the phaseout. Although outside significant exposure contours, these land uses might become incompatible as the contours subsequently expand because of inereases in aircraft operations. Consequently, properties previously planned for or protected by the higher noise leveis associated with the airport before the phaseout miaht better be undeveloped or developed for non-noise sensitive land uses to avoid introducing new non-compatible uses in the future. "Coordination of aviation system development with local community planning and development is an essential component to promote not only a positive affect on a community, but to mitigate the ne�ative effects of the proposed chan�e. LTltimately, any process should actueve lon�-term cost avoidance for all levels of government. In an effort for the Federal govemment to support local aovernments in meeting their lonD-ranpe plannin' efforts, the followin� are some areas that the FAA could pursue: • Increase FAA effectiveness in influencin� compatible land use planning and zoning around airports; • Establish stronger FAA participation in local govern- ment's efforts to integrate airport noise considerations into local planning and zoning processes; • Establish a stronger FAA influence in assistin� local governments in regulating land use development decisions around airports, encourasing non-noise sensitive land uses where there are higher levels of noise, and discouragin� noise sensitive land uses within close proximity to an airport; • Establish a more effective communications tool for advertising Federal transportation policy for noise impacted properties near airports; • Communicate more effectively the needs and operational requirements of airports; • Expand FAA participation in land use decisions adjacent to airports, • Encourase states to pursue model leaislation includin� disclosure and avigation easements for noise sensitive areas."d Airport Noise Report �� ) ( � 72 Airport Noise Report ANR EDITORIA.L ON THE AGENDA... ADVISORY BOARD Ntark Atwood, Esy. � June 20-28 Semi-annual meeting of the Acoustical Soci- Galland, Kharasch, Morse & Garfinkle ety of America, Seatde, WA (contact Washington, n.c. Elaine Moran; tel: (516) 576-2360). Lee L. Blackman, Esq. McDermott, Wiil & Emery Los An;eles, Calif. Dr. Clifford R. Bragdon, AICP Dean, School of Aviation & Transportation Dowling College Eliot Cutler, Esq. Cuder & Stanfield Washington, D.C. J- Spencer Dickerson Senior Vice President American Associadon of Airport Executives Edward J. DiPolvere Administrator, National Association of Noise Conuol Officials Richard G. "Dick" Dyer Airport Environmental Specialist, Division of Aeronautics, Cali£ Dept. of Transportation E. Tazewell Ellett, Esq. Hogan & Hartson Washington, D.C. Julie H. Ellis, Esq. Managing Director Federai Express Corporation Angel NI. Garcia co-ch�,�� Citizens Against Newark Noise E.H. "Moe" Haupt Manager, Airport and Environmental Services. National Business Aircraft Association Robert P. Silverberg, Esq. Bagileo, Silverberg & Goldman Washington, D.C. Joanne W. Young, Esq. Baker & Hosteder LLP Washington, D.C. July 12-15 July 22-25 Au�. 20-21 Sept. 14-15 Transportation Research Board's A1F04 Conference on Transportation Related Noise and Vibration, St. Petersburg, FL (contact Win Lindeman, FL DOT; tel: (850) 488-2914). Annual meeting of the National Organization to Insure a Sound-controlled Environment (NOISE), Thomton, CO; (con- tact Dennis McGrann, Suite 900, 601 Pennsyl- vania Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20004; tel: (202) 434-8163; fax (202) 639-8238). American Association of Airport Executives' Aircraft Noise and Land Use Planning Management Workshops, Milwaukee, WI (contact AAAE; tel: (703) 824-0504 or fax-on-demand: (1-800-470-ARPT). American Association of Airport Executives' Fall Legislative Issues Conference, Washington, DC (contact AAAE; tel: (703) 824-0504 or fax-on-demand: (1-800- 470- ��'�. Oct. 4-7 A.irports Council International - North Amer- ica's 7th Regional Conference & Exhibition, Marriott's Orlando World Center (contact ACI, 1775 K St., NW, Washington, DC 20006; tel: (202) 293-8500; fax (202) 331-1362). - AIRPORT NOISE REPORT Anne H. Kohut, Publisher Charles F. Price, Contributine Editor; Maria T. Norton, Production Editor Published 25 times a year at 43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 20147; Phone: (703) 729-4867; FAX: (703) 729-4528. Price $495. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or persona] use of specific clients, is granted by Airport Noise Report, provided that the base fee of US$1.03 per paae per copy is paid directly to Copyri�ht Clearance Center, 27 Conb ess Street, Salem, MA 01970. USA. Copyri�ht OO 1998 by Airport Noise Report. Ashburn, Va. 20147 1 C �� ,r Minneapolis / St. Paul International Airport � ;�,; ` MONTHLY MEETING - Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council _� c,�,,.,,,�: Rabert �P. Johnsno Vice G7wirnian: T6omas Hueg TechtimlAdvisor: Rm Fuhrmsnn Secrcranc Nc(tse Smvrooskl Ai�borne Expirss: Brtan Batrs Air Tmnrpon Associorinn: Psul McGraw ALP.4: Rnn Johnson Cin• of B(oomin,qron: Pctrnna L,et vern w3lcox Cin• of Bums•il1e: &i Pnrter Ciro of F�gms ,1on Hn6ensic[n �o« s��ng Cin• ojlm�er Grm�e Heighn: na� �� Ciry ojMendota Heighrs: Jtp Smltd ICevin 8atchelder C;ty ojMinneapolis: Dean L1nd6erg S4ve Minn Joe Lce Glenn Sltand send�e cn�,� x� Stike Crsmer Cirv oJRichfrdd: �s�k� Dawn Weltzei . Cin• nf St lnuis Park: Robert Adrews Cirr ojSr. Paul: 'Chomas H. Hueg c;�• ,�s�„h�n r.,x�: Cicuda Spbtta Otlm Air L'nts lnt.; (.arry Coe6ring DHL Ainvtn•s: a�isu Simoawn FeJerul Ecprcss: Dan DeBord Fe�ltru! At•iatinn ridminirr'rt�it,n: Bruce WaRvner C(mlv Grocnc MaC smg: Dfrk Kcfnz MB.Lt. Robert P. Johrt�n Mestilw N��rthMrst Airlink: Phll Burke Mrtmpditan Airpnns Cammissinn: (:ommt�bncr Alton Gasper MN Ai� Narran! Guuni: Nqjor Rny J. Shetka NorthH•esr Airliner. �1ark Saitnen Jennlfcr Sayrc 5teve Holme Nuncy titoudl St. Puu1 Chumhrr o(Cummrrrt: [u,�r.rttddi��,o Sim Cnumn• Air(in�s: <:oRion Crevca Unurd .�1 irlinr.�� ln<�.; Kevin 61ack Unnrd Purcr/ S�n•i��r.� �tike ('eyer L'.S..avForcrRrsen•e.• �� Captaln Dovid J, Gcrkcn Metmpolitan Airports Commission Declaration of Purposes 1:) Promote public welfare and national security; serve public interest, convenience, and necessity; promote air navigation and transportation, intemational, national, state, and local, in and through this state; promote the efficient, safe, and economical handling of air commerce; assure the inclusion of this state in national and international programs of air transportation; and to those ends to develop the full potentialities of the metropolitan azea in this state as an aviation center, and to correlate that area with all aviation facilities in the entire state so as to provide for the most economical and effective use of aeronautic facilities and services in that area; 2.) Assure the residents of the metropolitan area of the minimum envimnmental impact from air navigation and transportation, and to that end provide for noise abatement, control of airport area land use, and other protective measures; and 3.) Promote the overall goals of the state's environmental policies and minimize the public's exposure to noise and safety hazazds around airports. Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council Statement of Purpose This corporation was formed in furtherance of the general welfare of the communities adjoining Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport - Wold-Chamberlain Field, a pubiic airport in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, through the alleviadon of the pmblems created by the sound of aircraft using the airport; through study and evaluation on a continuing basis of the problem and of suggestion for the alleviation of the same; through initiation, coordination and promotion of reasonable and effective procedures, control and regulations, consistent with the safe operation of the airport and of aircraft using the same; and through dissemination of information to the affected communities, their affected residents, and the users of the airport respecting the problem of aircraft noise nuisance and in respect to suggestions made and actions initiated and taken to alleviate the problern. Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council Representation T'he membership shall include representatives appointed by agencies, corporations, associations and governmental bodies which by reason of their statutory authority and responsibility or control over the airport, or by reason of their status as airport users, have a direct interest in the operation of the airport. Such members will be called User Representatives and Pubiic Representatives, provided that the User Representatives and Public Representatives shall at ali times be equal in number. The Airport 24hour Noise Hotline is 726-9411. Complaints to the hotline do not resu[t in changes in Airport activity, but provide a public sounding board and airport information outlet. The hotline is staffed during business hours. Monday - Frida�: This report is prepared and printed in house by Chad Leqve, ANOMS Coorciinator Shane VanderVoort, ANOMS Technician Questions or comments may be directed [o: MAC - Aviation Noise Programs Minneapolis / St. Paul Interna[ional Airport 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 Tel:{612}725-6331;-Fax: (612) 725-6310 ANSP Home Page: http://www.macavsat.org Metropolitan Airports Commission Aviation Noise Programs � � d�perations and Complaint Summary .� Operations Summary - All Aircraft ..................................................................................... l MSP April F1eet Mix Percentage .........................................................................................1 Airport April Complaint Summary ......................................................................................1 April Operations Summary - Airport Directors Office ........................................................1 Minneapolis - S't. .�'aul International �i.irport Complaint Summary 2 ComplaintSummary by City ...............................................................................................2 A.vaidable 7'ime for l�unway �Jse 3 Tower Log Reports - All Hours ...........................................................................................3 Tower Log Reports - Nighttime Hours ................................................................................3 AllOperations 4 Runway Use Report April 1998 C'arrier Jet C)�erations S Runway Use Report April 1998... Nighttz'me - �411 Ciperations 6 Runway Use Report April 1998....... ................................................................................4 .................................................................. s .......................................................................... 6 Nightt�'me C'arrier Jet Operations 7 RunwayUse Report April 1998 ...........................................................................................7 C'arrier ,Jet ()perations by T'ype 8 �4ircraft Identi�er and �escriptaon T'able 9 l�unway �Ise - l�ay/1Vight �'eraods - �411 Operaiions 10 DaytimeHours ...................................................................................................................10 C'om�nunity E�ver,�'light Analysis I1 (� � Carrier Jet Operations - All Hours ..................................................................................... l 1 Carrier Jet Operations - Nighttime (10:30 pm - 6 am) ......................................................11 Aviation Noise & Satellite ProQrams Remote 16�onitoring Site Locations l2 Carrier Jet Ar�zval Related 1Yoise Eve�ts 13 � Count of Arrival Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT .....................................................1 � Carrier Jet Departure Idelated 1Voase Events 14 Count of Departure Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT ................................................14 Ten Loudest Ai�craft Noise Events Identi zed Ten Loudest Aarcraft Noise Events ddent� ied Ten Z,oudes� A.ircraft 1lTo�se Eve�ts Ialetatified Ten Loudest Aircraft 1Voase Events �dent%f ied 7'en Loudest Aircraft 1iToase Events Identi, fied Te� Loudest Airc�-aft Noise �vents Identi,�ed �'light Track �ase 1Vlap 21 Airport Noise and Operations 111onitorzng System �light Tracks r,� 22 Carrier Jet Operations - April 1998 ...................................................................................22 A.irport Nozse and Operations 1V�onitoring System �'light Tracks 23 Carrier Jet Operations - April 1998 ...................................................................................23 Airport Noise and Opercztions t�onatoring System Flight �"racks 24 Carrier Jet Operations - April 1998 ............................................................................ Airport Noise ancl Opera�ions 1Vlonitorang System Flaght T�°acks Carrier Jet Operations - April 1998 .................................................... Analysis of Aarcracft 1l�oise Events -�.ircra, f't Ldn dB(A) Analysis of Aircraft 1Voise Events - A.l]"CrLI, ft Ldn CZ�(A� Aviation Noise & Satellite Prosrams . 24 25 . 25 ,; Metropolitan Airports Commission � � � . : 1 . 1` i; 1 . . . � � �: Operations Summary - All Aircraft Runway Arrival % Use � I)eparture °10 Use 04 432 2.3% 215 1.1% 22 265 1.4% 5018 26.7% 12 8601 44.8% 6866 36.6% 30 9881 51.5% 6692 35.6% MSP April Fleet 1V�ix Percentage Stage Scheduled Scheduled`� ANOMS � ANOI�IS � � - _ Count 1997: _ Count 1998 199'7 ._ . 1998 , _ , _ .. _ . . . _ .,�. Stage 2 42.1% 31.6% 44.8% 41.5% Stage 3 57.9% � 68.4% 55.2% 58.5% Airport April Complaint Summary Airport '1997 ''-�` 3 y - � 1998 MSP 977 1019 Airlake 0 0 Anoka 1 6 Crystal 1 0 Flying Cloud 1 6 Lake Elmo 0 0 St. Paul 2 4 Misc. 2 0 TOTAL 984 1035 April Operations Summary - FAA Airport Traffic Record Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 1 Me[ropolitan Airports Commission T,� �,� ��, .. , 1 . ' 1i i ,1 . . . y � � � Complaint Summary by City Citp Arrival Departure .. .: _�'otai Percenta�Q Apple Valley 1 0 1 0.1 % Arden Hills 0 2 2 0.2% Bioomington 9 70 79 8.1 °Io Burnsville 15 51 66 6.8% Eagan 31 66 97 9.9% Eden Prairie 2 7 9 0.9% Edina 1 4 5 0.5% Inver Grove Heights 12 24 36 3.7% Maple Grove 13 15 28 2.9% Mendota 0 1 1 0.1 % Mendota Heights 18 79 97 9.9% Minneapolis 130 189 319 32.7% Plymouth 1 1 2 0.2% Richfield 21 91 112 11.5% South St. Paul 3 1 4 0.4% St. Louis Park 5 0 5 0.5% St Paul 69 25 94 9.6% Sunfish Lake 1 19 20 2.0% Total 332 645 .: 9�7 ' 100% Time of Day Nature of Complaint Time Total Nature of Complaint Total 00:00 - 05:59 73 Excessive Noise 837 06:00 - 06:59 39 Early/Late 128 07:00 - 11:59 208 Low Flying 6 12:00 - 15:59 184 Structural Disturbance 5 16:00 - 19:59 160 Helicopter 0 20:00 - 21:59 126 Ground Noise 41 22:00 - 22:59 140 Engine Run-up 1 23:00 - 23:59 89 Frequency 1 Total 1019 Totai 1419 Page 2 Aviation Noise & Sateliite Programs i" � 0 Availab�e �.'irne for 12unway L7se Tower Lo� I2eports - April 1998 All Hours 0% . _ � 1% JO %O \ 35% Nighttime Hours 0% 1% 20 �� ... Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Metropolitan Airports Commission 56% 45% 70% 73% Page 3 Metropolitan Airports Commission . {, � � , � � • �''.1 1 • � i:1 i . r ', Runway A�� Count Percentage `�p� 1997 Aprii 1997 Departure Count Percentage 04 A 432 2.3% 250 1.5% 12L A 4912 25.6% 2905 17.5% 12R A 3689 19.2% 3041 18.3% 22 A 265 1.4% 261 1.6% 30L A 4664 24.3% 5524 33.2% 30R A 5217 27.2% 4633 27.9% Total Arr. 191i9 1QQ% 16614 100% 04 D 215 1.1 % 97 0.6% 12L D 4500 24.0% 2794 17.8% 12R D 2366 12.6°Io 3241� 20.7% 22 D 5018 26.7% 810 5.2% 30L D 1827 9.7% 48�15 30.7% 30R D 4865 25.9% 3910 25.0% Total Dep. 18'791 100% ' 15667. 100% . ; � Note: ARTS data missing for 0.2 days. .' Page 4 Aviation Noise & Sateilite Proa ams ' Carrier Jet Oper�.tions Runway Use Ilepori April 1998 1.2% 34.2% 1.6% , . , Cl� 2.1 %F=� Metropolitan Airports Commission 50.7% 36.5% Runway :`�A�v� Count Percentage Aprii 1997 Apri11997 �p�{� _ Count Percentage 04 A 270 2.1% 125 1.2% 12L A 3838 24.5% 1855 18.0% 12R A 2088 16.1% 1797 17.4% 22 A 213 1.6% 125 1.2% 30L A 2554 19.6% 3342 32.4% 30R A 4038 31.1% 3076 29.8% Total Arr. 13001 100% 10320 100% 04 D 147 1.2% 17 0.2% 12L D 3356 26.1% 1732 17.6% 12R D 1335 10.4% 2064 21.0% 22 D 3613 28.1% 516 5.2% 30L D 1023 8.0°Io 3001 30.5% 30R D 3364 26:2% � 2506 25.5°Io Total Dep. 12838 100% 9$36 1(�% Note: ARTS data missing for 0.2 days. Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 5 Metropolitan Airports Commission Page 6 25.7% 1�Tighttime - All Operations Runway Use Izeport Aprgl 1998 3.7 °% $.5% 27.5 15.2 �° 25.3 0 % 45.3% Runway A�o� Count Percentage Ap� 1997 Apri11997 ;�P�� Count Percentage 04 A 167 15.2% 94 12.2% 12L A 250 22.8% 20 2.6% 12R A 52 4.7% 64 8.3% 22 A 93 8.5% 92 11.9% 30L A 165 15.1 % 398 51.6% 30R A 370 33.7% 103 13.4% Total Arr. 1097 1(}0% 771 100% 04 D 56 3.7% 12 3.6% 12L D 467 31.1 °Io 59 17.5% 12R D 212 14.2% 128 37.9% 22 D 380 25.3% 67 19.9% 30L D 97 6.5% 62 18.4% 30R D 288 19.2% 9 2.7% Total Dep. 1500 100% 337 100% Note: ARTS data missing for 0.2 days. Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs � Metropolitan Airports Commission IVightt�me Carrier Jet Operations Runway Use �2ep�rt �,pril 1998 3.3 % Runway �� A�v� Count Percentage April 1997 April 1997 Departure Count Percentage 04 A 149 16.1 % 49 9.6% 12L A 227 24.6% 9 1.8% 12R A 34 3.7% 34 6.7% 22 A 85 9.2% 59 11.6% 30L A 104 11.3% 284 55.8% 30R A 324 35.1 % 74 14.5% Total Arr. 923 100% 509 1Q0% 04 D 34 3.3% 1 0.7% 12L D 370 35.6% 30 19.7% 12R D 86 8.3% 61 40.1 % 22 D 257 24.7°Io 43 28.3% 30L D 57 5.4% 12 7.9% 30R D 236 22.7% 5 3.3% To�al Dep. 1'040 1t}0% 152 100% Note: ARTS data missing for 0.2 days. Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 7 Metropolitan Airports Commission � . . ' � i " . f 1, 1, • ., � i � 1 � Aircraft Type =- Count =-� P-e�cenfage B777 0 O.Q°1`o B727H 270 1.�% B73B 755 2.9% B74A 131 QS% B74B 58 0.2% B757 2747 10.f% B767 86 0.3% BA46 1024 4.0% CARJ 233 0.3% FA 10 0 0.0°l0 DC 10 989 3.�% DC8 0 O.a% DC9H 3566 13.8% A300 80 0.3�% A310 34 0.1 °I'o A320 2498 9.T% F 100 1195 4.fx% L 101 47 0.2% MD 11 4 O.t�% MD80 1290 S.Q% H25B 99 0.4% H251. 1 O �.l /0 B A 11 1 0.(�% B727 2433 9.4% B73A 1562 6.1% DC8 183 0.7% DC9 6536 25.3% F28 0 0.�% Total 25839 100% Noie: ARTS data missing for 0.2 days. pa°e g Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs � ' . 1 • ' /' �� etJ / �4.�9� � Metropolitan Airports Commission � � ' � • , �' � �`• �; � ;;'� . Identifier Aircraft IDescription g�� BOEWG 727 B727H BOEING 727 - HUSH KIT B73B BOEING 737 - 300/400/500 B73A BOEING 737 - 100/200 B74A BOEING 747 - 100/200/300 B74B BOEING 747 - 400 B757 BOEING 757 B767 BOEING 767 B�'7� BOEING 777 HZSC BRITISH AEROSPACE 125 - 1000 H25B BRITISH AEROSPACE 125 - 700/800 BA11 BRITISH AEROSPACE 111 BA46 . BRTITSH AEROSPACE 146 CART CANADAIIt 650 FA 10 FALCON 10 DC 10 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC 10 DC8 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC8, DC8 70 - SERIES RE (ALL SERIES) DC9 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC9 DC9H MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC9 HUSH KIT A300 AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A300 A310 AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A310 A320 AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A320 F 100 FOKKER 100 F27 FOKKER F27 (PROP) F28 FOKKER F28 L 101 LOCKHEED TRISTAR L1011 MD 1 I MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC 11 MD80 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC9 80-SERIES SW3 SWEARINGEi�t METROLINER 3 S W4 S WEARINGEN METROLINER 4 SF34 SAAB 340 Aviation Noise & Satellite Prob ams Page 9 Metropolitan Airports Commission �2unway �..7se - I)ay/Ivight Periods - All i7perations Minneapolis - St. l'aui International Airport April 1998 Daytime Hours Runway Departures Pereentage Arrivals Percentage Total Day Name Day Use Day Use 04 159 0.9% 265 1.5% 424 12L 4033 23.3% 4662 25.8% 8695 12R 2154 12.5% 3637 20.1% 5791 22 4638 26.8% 172 0.9% �� 4810 30L 1730 10.0% 4499 24.9% � 6229 30R 4577 26.5% 4847 26.8% ;;-.9424 Total 17291.:' � ;: ;��100% � : .; ''18082 -` : : 100°yo :__. 35373 Nighttime Hours Runway Departures Percentage Arrivals Percentage ' Name Night Use Night Use Totai Night 04 56 3.7% 161 15.2% 223 12L 467 31.1%a 250 22.8% 717 12R 212 14.2% 52 4.7% 264 22 380 25.3% 93 8.5% 473 30L 97 6.5% 165 15.1% 262 30R 288 19.2% 370 33.7% 65$ Total 1500 1Q0% 1097 100% 2597 Note: ARTS data missing for 0.2 days. Page 10 Aviation Noise & Satellite Proa ams Metropolitan Airports Commission Corrim.unity d�verflight Analysis 1V.�inneapolis - St. Paul International Airport April 1998 Carrier Jet Operations - All Hours Number Number Total Percent Numbe� of Overflight Area Arrivals Departures C�er Jet Carrier Jet Operations Operations Operations per 24 Hours Over So. Minneapolis/ 5926 4387 10313 39.9% 346.1 No. Richfield Over So. Richfieldl 270 3613 3883 15.0°Io 130.3 Bloomington Over St. Paul - 213 147 360 1.4% 12.1 Highland Park Over Eagan/ 6592 4691 11283 43.7°Io 378.6 Mendota Heights Total 25�39 100% 867.1 Carrier Jet Operations - Nighttime (10:30pm - 6 am) ' - - =° ' _ Total Percent Number of � � Over�ight Area � b� �� 'ier Jet Carrier Jet Operations O perations O perations per 24 Hours Over So. Minneapolis/ 261 293 554 28.2% 18.6 No. Richfield Over So. Richfield/ 149 257 406 20.7% 13.6 Bloomington Over St. Paul - 85 34 119 6.1% 4.0 Highland Park Over Eagan/ 42$ 456 884 45.0°I'o 29.7 Mendota Heights Toial 1963 100% 65.9 Note: ARTS data missing for 02 days. Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 1 1 Metropoiitan Airports Commission I2ernote 1Vlonitoring Site I.ocatior�s A�rport Noise and Uperations Monitoring System Page (2 Aviation Noise & Satellite Proa ams Metropolitan Airports Commission � . .� c, � ��,.�.;`•�; �� . ; . ". ,1 �' �' i Count of Arrival Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT �T Events Events Events Events ID City Approximate Street LL�cation �� y�� >100dB 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Avenue & 41st Street 3117 72 2 0 2 Minneapolis Fremont Avenue & 43rd Street 3314 610 13 0 3 Minneapolis W Elmwood Street & Belmont Avenue 1785 632 30 0 4 Minneapolis Oakland Avenue & 49th Street 3470 1123 16 0 5 Minneapolis 12th Avenue & 58th Street 2187 1056 70 0 6 Minneapolis 25th Avenue & 57th Street 3670 2855 752 1 7 Richfield Wentworth Avenue & 64th Street 13 1 0 0 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Avenue & 43rd Street IS 0 0 0 9 St. Paul Saratoga Street & Hartford Avenue 197 126 9 0 10 St. Paul Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street 201 184 59 1 11 St. Paul Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue 51 3 0 0 12 St. Paul Alton Street & Rockwood Avenue 12 4 0 0 `! � 13 Mendora Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 52 1 0 0 14 Eagan First Street & McKee Street 4862 68 1 0 15 Mendota Heights Cullen Street & Lexington Avenue 196 28 3 0 16 Eagan Avalon Avenue &�las Lane 2309 1097 27 0 17 Bloomington 84th Street & 4th Avenue 233 128 4 0 18 Richfield 75th Street & 17th Avenue 244 94 0 0 19 Bloomington 16th Avenue & 84th Street 66 1 0 0 20 Richfield 75th Street & 3rd Avenue 16 0 0 0 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Avenue & 67th Street 196 1 0 0 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail -1646 5 0 0 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Avenue 1320 10 1 0 24 Eagan Chapel Lane & Wren Lane 4318 80 0 0 Note: ARTS data missing for 0.2 days. Aviation Noise & Satellite Prog�-ams Page 13 Metropolitan Airporrs Commission . . . ',. � � . � , � .;� � . . . � �: { � Count of Departure Aireraft Noise Events for Each RMT � �T City Appmximate 5treet Location Events E��j;� Events Events � - >65dB >80dB >90dB >100d.B 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Avenue & 41st Street 757 269 11 0 2 Minneapolis Fremont Avenue & 43rd Street 886 415 34 0 3 Minneapolis W Elmwood Street & Belmont Avenue 1036 535 79 0 4 Minneapolis Oakland Avenue & 49th Street 1712 831 120 3 5 Minneapolis 12th Avenue & 58th Street 3210 1363 306 25 6 Minneapolis 25th Avenue & 57th Street 3670 2995 1606 300 7 Richfield Wentworth Avenue & 64th Street 1414 648 68 1 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Avenue & 43rd Street 1529 589 50 0 9 St. Paui Saratoga Street & Hartford Avenue SO 31 8 0 10 St. Paul Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street 127 102 56 7 11 St. Paul Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue 116 61 20 2 12 St. Paul Alton Street & Rockwood Avenue 43 19 1 0 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 2208 574 21 0 14 Eagan First Street & McKee Street 2151 853 103 3 15 Mendota Heights Cullen Street & Lexington Avenue 1638 346 25 0 16 Eagan Avalon Avenue & Vlas Lane 1262 604 123 5 17 Bloomington 84th Sh-eet & 4th Avenue 2394 984 206 9 18 Richfield 75th Street & 17th Avenue 3540 3154 1$34 233 19 Bloomington 16th Avenue & 84th Sueet 3422 2030 '717 46 20 Richfieid 75th Street & 3rd Avenue 477 122 25 1 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Avenue & 67th Street 1046 285 1 0 22 lnver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 990 156 3 0 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Avenue 3297 1723 530 52 24 Eagan Chapel Lane & Wren Lane 1875 51 I 13 0 Note: ARTS data missing for 0.2 days. (, Page 14 Aviation Noise & Satellite Pro�-rams Metropolitan Airports Commission 'Ten I,oudest A�rcraft No�se Evenis Iclentified RMT #1: Xe�es Ave. & 41st St. Minneapolis A/C Max �� 1j�pe I,evel � 98/04/12 20:18:53 DC9 92.1 A 98/04/16 09:29:36 B727 92.0 D 9S/04/02 20:38:01 B727 92.0 D 98/04/0211:18:14 DC9 91.8 D 98/04/1511:49:29 B727 91.5 D 98/04/1815:48:09 B727 91.2 D 98/04/0219:46:47 B727 91.1 D 98/04/1411:28:32 B727 90.7 D 98/04/0214:37:29 B727 90.5 D 98/04/07 20:56:58 B727 90.5 D RMT #3: W. Elmwood St �& Belmont Ave. Minneapolis �: • � 98/04/15 15:05:38 98/04/07 10:54:39 98/04/08 22:14:51 98/04/02 10:45:14 98/04/07 07:54:47 98/04/09 09:43:51 98/04/14 21:53:34 98/04/ 15 I 1:48:49 98/04/02 14: ( 3:07 98/04/09 15:18:15 � �. � • � : : � � : : : : : Maat Level .., •: : �: : .; .; . ; . ; � .� r• . � � RMT #2: Fremont Ave. & 43rd S� I�Iinneapolis Date Zime _ �c Max � Level 98/04/1011:52:41 B727 97.7 D 98/04/02 20:3"7:47 B727 96.9 D 98/04/14 22:22:50 B727 96.9 D 98/04/1812:46:17 B727 96.8 D 98/04/1815:47:48 B727 96.8 D 98/04/07 20:56:40 B727 95.3 D 98/04/02 09:47:18 B727 94.9 D 98/04/2012:03:56 B727 94.6 D 98/04/1712:09:04 A320 94.4 A 98/04/16 09:29:15 B727 94.0 D RMT #4: Oakland Ave. & 49th St. Minneapolis AJC Max �� e Type Level � 98/04/19 21:52:54 B727 100.7 D 98/04/1812:45:55 B727 100.5 D 98/04/13 21:49:24 B727 100.2 D 98/04/2012:03:27 B727 99.1 D 98/04/2016:12:47 B727 99.0 D 98/04/2011:29:07 B727 98.9 D 98/04/2313:24:22 B727 98.7 D 98/04/2315:07:27 DC9 98.6 D 98I04/0109:28:07 B727 98.5 D 98/04/ 16 15:07:17 B 727 98.0 D Note: ARTS data missing for 0.2 days. Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs � , Page 15 I�Sevopolitan Airpor[s Commission 'Ten I.oudest A�rcraft I�oise Events Identified RMT #5: 12th Ave. & 58th St. Minneapolis Date T'u�ne � � A/D Level 98/04/09 08:21:32 B727 105.4 D 98/04/O112:23:33 B727 104.8 D 98/04/1811:57:48 B727 104.6 D 98/04/1519:25:25 B72� 104.3 D 98/04/08 16:19:37 B727 103.9 D 98/04/1410:05:35 B727 103.7 D 98/04/1510:16:34 B727 102.8 D 98/04/02 08:10:56 DC9 102.4 D 98/04/02 09:02:52 B72'7 102.2 D 98/04I0120:59:54 B727 101.9 D RMT #7: Wentworth Ave. & 64th S� Richfield Date Time �� M� A/D Level 98/04/02 20:54:15 B727 100.2 D 98/04/02 07:41:33 B727 98.9 D 98/04/02 20:40:18 B727 98.6 D 98/04/ 16 11:37:38 B727 98.6 D 9$/04/0116:22:05 B727 98.1 D 98/04IO2 21:59:14 LR25 97.6 D 98/04/02 06:11:43 B727 97.5 D 98/04/0910:07:33 B727 96.9 D 98/04/0218:38:59 B727 �96.7 D 98/04/2310:07:47 B727 96.5 D RMT #6: 25th Ave. & 57th S� Minneapolis Date Time A/C Max AJD Type Level 98/04/19 21:50:25 B727 109.9 D 98/04/0107:44:09 B727 109.8 D 98/04/0115:49:06 B727 109.2 D 98/04/1811:36:39 B727 109.2 D 98/04/1718:53:06 B727 109.1 D 98/04/1812:45:25 B72� 108.8 D 98/04/10 22:55:52 DC9 108.8 D 98/04/091�:36:59 DC9 108.6 D 98/04/1514:32:19 B727 108.5 D 98/04/0110:01:5'7 B727 108.3 D RMT #8: Longfellow Ave. & 43rd S� Minneapolis A/C Mag �� e Type Level � 98/04/1516:24:42 B727 98.9 D 98/04/1615:48:00 B'727 973 D 98/04/1015:35:16 B727 95.9 D 98/04/1519:23:52 B'727 95.9 D 98/04/0819:02:19 B727 95.8 D 98/04/ 15 10:12:21 DC9 95.8 D 98/04/30 07:48:30 B727 95.5 D 98/04/Ol 15:49:43 B727 95.2 D 98/04/0107:56:52 B727 94.8 D 98/04/1418:58:01 B727 94.4 D Note: ARTS data missing for 0.2 days. Page 16 Aviation Noise & Satellite Prob ams Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten I.oudest Aircraft I�oise Eve�ts Ident�fied RMT #9: Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. � St� Paul Date Time � Max � Level 98/04/0715:08:41 B74A 97.2 D 98/04/O112:12:24 B74A 96.3 D 98/04/1515:20:04 B74A 96.3 D 98/04/2013:51:50 B74A 95.2 D 98/04/1217:15:04 B727 94.6 A 98/04/0812:17:54 B74A 94.0 D 98/04/2515:17:22 B74A 93.2 D 98/04/1214:31:44 B727 92.6 A 98/04/18 01:48:59 B727 92.5 A 98/04/15 20:26:55 DC10 92.1 D RMT #11: Finn S� & Scheffer Ave. S� Paul Date Time 98/04/08 19:33:30 98/04/02 13:23:14 98/04/09 19:27:40 98/04/ 15 13:14:41 98/04/25 17:35:06 98/04/20 I 5:20:07 98/04/ 16 I 5:16:53 98/04/17 05:05:17 98/04/09 15:15:14 98/04/ 14 1 �:19:44 T3'Pe B727 B74A B 727 B74A B74A B74A B74A B727 B 74A B74A .G� RMT #10: Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. St. Paul A/C Max Date ZSme �e Level � 98/04/0115:21:14 B74A 105.1 D 98/04/2512:00:51 B727 104.1 D 98/04/1217:17:18 B727 103.9 A 98/04/0112:11:59 B74A 102.8 D 98/04/2615:18:03 B74A 101.8 D 98/04/0313:14:01 B74A 100.9 D 98/04/1415:19:28 B74A 100.9 D 98/04/0715:08:13 B74A 100.7 D 98/04/1515:19:37 B74A 99.7 D 98/04/2515:16:54 B74A 98.8 D RMT #12: Alton S� & Rockwood Ave. St. Paul AlC Max Date 'Iime _ - �e Level � 98/04/08 09:37:56 B727 94.7 D 98/04/24 21:08:30 B727 88.9 A 98/04/20 06:14:18 B727 88.1 D 98/04/20 04:42:29 B727 87.6 D 98/04/2615:27:26 DC9 87.0 D 98/04/1512:47:36 MD88 86.9 D 98/04/26 21:06:01 B73A 86.7 A 98/04/17 00:16:40 B727 86.4 D 98/04/08 08:11:40 MD80 85.9 A 98/04/15 07:08:05 B727 84.6 D Note: ARTS data missing for 0.2 days. Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 17 Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten I.oudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified RMT #13: Southeast End of Mohican Court Mendota Heights A/C Mag �� 'l�pe Level � 98/04/1919:28:14 B727 97.6 D 98/04/0612:07:00 B727 97.3 D 98/04/04 20:27:03 B727 95.6 D 98/04/12 22:12:22 B727 95.5 D 98/04/0619:38:37 B727 95.4 D 98/04/04 09:42:10 B'727 94.8 D 98/04/1913:23:35 B727 94.8 D 98/04/03 0'7:42:48 B727 94.5 D 98/04/1109:52:32 B727 94.2 D 98/04/15 08:23:21 B727 93.6 D RMT #15: Cullon S� & Lexington Ave. Mendota Heights Date Time �� Max � Level 98/04/2514:37:03 B72� 96.6 D 98/04/1919:19:58 B727 96.4 D 98/04/0100:04:42 B727 96.3 A 98/04/19 09:41:09 B�27 95.9 D 98/04/0106:12:25 B727 95.5 A 98/04/0107:08:38 DC9 95.2 A 98/04/04 20:16:38 B727 94.4 D 98/04/2511:58:27 B727 94.4 D 98/04/1217:27:37 B757 94.1 D 98/04/1919:27:57 B727 94.1 D RMT #14: lst St. & McKee St. Eagan �� ,�e A/C Mas � Type Level 98/04/0311:05:46 B727 101.7 D 98/04/1212:36:59 B727 100.9 D 98/04/2415:12:13 B727 100.6 D 98/04/24 05:03:16 B72'7 98.6 D 98/04/0715:44:16 B727 98.3 D 98/04/1107:05:22 B727 983 D 98/04/0311:42:48 B727 97.3 D 98/04/0'710:11:37 B727 97.2 D 98/04/08 07:10:34 B727 97.0 D 98/04/03 06:45:11 B727 96.8 D RMT #16: Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane Eagan Date Time A/C Maa� � - Type Level 98/04/0616:13:06 B727 105.1 D 98/04/08 07:36:17 B727 102.8 D 98/04/2411:29:45 B727 101.5 D 98/04/0619:17:18 B727 101.4 D 98/04/2615:17:35 B727 100.2 D 98/04/15 07:29:45 B727 99.9 D 98/04/26 06:13:10 B72� 99.8 D 98/04/06 20:06:29 B727 99.8 D 98/04/20 23:00:11 B727 99.7 D 98/04/20 07:06:25 B727 99.6 D Note: ARTS data missing for 0.2 days. Page 18 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs �' � Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten I,ouclest t�ircrafi l�Toise Events Identified ,' 1 RMT #17: 84th S� � 4th Ave. Bloomington Date Ti� � Mas � Level 98/04/06 22:57:44 B727 102.3 D 98/04/2419:32:06 B727 102.2 D 98/04/0615:05:42 B727 102.1 D 98/04/ 11 11:57:18 B727 101.9 D 98/04/19 08:59:22 B727 101.9 D 98/04/1415:Q0:02 B�27 100.5 D 98/04/1919:22:44 B727 100.3 D 98/04/2210:06:55 B727 100.3 D 98/04/19 20:08:41 B727 100.2 D 98/04/24 21:25:16 B727 99.9 D RMT #19: 16th Ave. t�Z 84th St Bloomington Date Time 98/04/29 11:18:4 I 98/04/ l 3 19:01:58 98/04/ I 1 13:46:35 98/04/28 10:54:04 98/04/22 12:25:55 98/04/ 13 07:31:47 98/04/19 13:49:03 98/04/20 19:11:14 98/04/ 17 11:35:03 98/04/19 22:53:39 TYP� B727 B727 B727 B 727 B727 B727 B727 B727 B727 DC9 Max Level 106.1 103.0 102.9 102.9 102.7 102.3 102.2 102.0 101.8 101.8 0 RMT #18: 75th S� & 17th Ave. Richfield A/C Max Date 'Iime �e Level � 98/04/1019:20:25 B727 107.3 D 98/04/24 22:10:29 B727 107.2 D 98/04/12 0$:34:05 B727 106.8 D 98/04/1911:46:55 B727 106.4 D 98/04/1219:20:37 B727 106.2 D 98/04/2513:40:20 B727 105.9 D 98/04/12 20:09:38 B727 105.8 D 98/04/25 21:25:25 B727 105.6 D 98104/1813:30:02 B727 105.6 D 98/04/1019:34:26 B727 105.5 D RMT #20: 75th St. & 3rd Ave. Richfield Date Time A/C Max A/D Type Level 98/04I1419:29:10 B727 101.7 D 98/04/1019:34:48 B727 100.0 D 98/04/18 09:56:00 B727 98.0 D 98/04/3018:48:31 B727 97.6 D 98/04/2312:13:16 B727 97.2 D 98/04/1012:26:33 B727 97.1 D 98/04/ 18 18:52:15 B 727 96.8 D 98/04/1019:37:21 $727 96.4 D 98/04/2312:11:38 DC9 95.9 D 98/04/3012:23:00 DC9 95.8 D Note: ARTS data missing for 0.2 days. Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 19 Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten I�oudest r�ircraft Noise Events Identified RMT #21: Barbara Ave. & 67th S� Inver Grove Heights A/C Max �� Z`ype Level � 98/04/15 08:59:30 B727 92.6 D 98/04/1212:05:40 B727 90.0 D 98/04/15 08:24:03 B727 90.0 D 98/04/1210:11:01 B727 89.9 D 98/04/0811:52:00 B727 89.6 D 98/04/0313:11:56 DC9 89.4 D 98/04/1219:29:43 B727 893 D 98/04/16 05:15:37 B727 89.3 D 98/04/0113:18:52 DC9 89.1 D 98/04/1919:28:54 B727 89.0 D RMT #23: End of Kenndon Ave. Mendota Heights Date Time �� Max � Level 98/04/0612:06:28 B727 106.6 D 98/04/06 09:46:21 B727 105.9 D 98/04/0619:38:08 B727 105.6 D 98/04/1919:27:46 B727 105.0 D 98/04/ l 9 19:19:44 B 727 104.6 D 98/04/2617:48:25 B727 104.2 D 98/04/0711:45:51 B727 104.1 D 98/04/15 08:22:52 B727 103.8 D 98/04/04 20:16: ;� B727 103J D 98/04/ 13 08:59:19 B 727 103.6 D RMT #22: Anne Marie Trail Inver Grove Heights Date 'ISme �C Mag � T�pe Level 98/04/1910:01:15 B727 90.7 D 98/04/0314:07:58 B727 90.6 D 98/04/0313:16:07 B727 903 D 98/04/15 07:30:55 B727 89.9 D 98/04/18 08:37:42 B727 89.2 ' D 98/04/17 05:07:59 B727 88.0 D 98/04/0319:04:27 B727 87.9 D 98/04/04 21:59:55 B727 87.4 D 98/04/2612:52:38 B737 87.3 D 98/04/18 07:15:51 B727 87.2 D RMT #24: Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. Eagan A/C Mas Date lime �,pe Level � � 98/04/2415:12:32 B727 96.1 D 98/04/ 19 19:58:23 DC9 93.6 D 98/04/03 06:45:3I B727 92.0 D 98/04/0314:07:28 B727 91.8 D 98/04/07 09:15:31 B727 91.8 D 98/04/0417:44:09 B727 91.5 D 98/04/18 08:37:11 B727 913 D 98/04/08 07:10:55 B727 91.3 D 98I04/1005:18:25 B727 91.1 D 98/04/0415:17:44 B727 91.0 D Note: ARTS data missing for 0.2 days. Page ZO Aviation Noise & Sate((ite Programs Metropolitan Airports Commission Flight Track �ase Ii�ap Airport l�oise and Operations IV�onitoring System Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 21 Metropoiitan :':��orts Commission -'�� '�- � Analysis of Aircraft l�Toise Events - Aircrafh I,dn d�(A) Apri101 to April 31,1998 Noise Monitor Locations Date #1 #2 #3 #4 #5. . . #6 .. #7 #r8 #9 #1� #11 #12 1 61.9 63.6 65.6 69.6 76.5 71.7 70.9 69.2 563 63.8 55.5 55.2 2 633 653 �0.7 72.0 79.1 71.4 73.7 69.4 50.5 63.4 59.7 55.5 3 50.2 56.5 63.1 58.1 69.6 69.5 60.7 53.8 48.9 59.1 56.8 51.2 4 49.7 59.4 62.0 59.2 68.5 * 55.1 56.4 4b.3 55.4 49.6 49.3 5 63.2 58.7 66.3 62.4 67.3 68.6 62.3 61.8 54.6 62.1 58.3 52.0 6 61.5 66.9 65.2 67.6 70.2 75.9 57.3 57.4 41.1 58.8 52.9 53.0 '7 64.7 69.7 68.1 70.8 72.9 77.� 66.9 65.8 58.9 63.9 57.0 53.3 $ 64.2 653 * 68.7 74.3 70.7 69.0 67.5 60.3 68.0 63.7 59.1 g 60.6 62.0 68.9 70.5 76.0 72.1 70A 67.4 62.8 65.6 61.5 53.4 10 �•5 65.5 66.6 70.7 69.7 72.4 64.9 67.9 51.5 63.6 56.0 64.3 11 59.7 65.4 58.9 67.7 63.1 74.1 56.4 * 61.6 66.6 57.9 55.9 12 61.8 68.0 62.4 70.0 66.9 * 50.1 56.2 68.1 63.6 58.4 58.8 13 62.1 64.6 63.2 67.4 68.6 * 61.2 65.8 64.1 68.1 523 56.2 14 62.1 67.0 64.0 70.0 71.3 80.6 65.6 67.2 53.2 61.0 61.0 SS.9 15 62.4 65.1 67.0 68.8 73.2 79.7 67.1 66.4 61.0 65.2 61.6 59.2 16 61.0 62.0 65.6 68.0 75.5 80.7 '72.0 67.8 60.1 65.3 58.5 55.0 1 � 59.4 62.6 * 69.2 66.2 .79.4 58.5 64.6 53.7 69.� 64.6 62.4 ($ 59.5 64.2 58.4 66.9 67.0 77.4 61.5 61.2 64.3 66.3 55.`7 59.5 19 �•4 65.8 58.2 67J 67.6 74.8 51.7 60.8 5'7.1 62.8 56.1 55.0 20 60.6 65.3 63.0 68.3 70.1 78.5 64.8 62.1 57.3 67.9 60.6 61.7 2] 60.7 62.1 63.3 66.5 66.5 77.5 61.2 65.0 55.3 62.6 52.4 .57.9 2? 62.7 65.2 * 69.0 70.6 81.0 70.6 66.2 45.4 60.9 55.2 54.0 23 58.6 61.6 58.4 65.4 63.8 76.3 60.3 63.8 64.4 69.2 56.5 57.4 24 59.7 64.2 61.7 66.7 66.8 75.5 57.7 62.3 59.2 64.7 53.1 56.6 25 62.1 68.1 61.6 68.6 67.0 74.6 55.5 60.0 57.6 65.8 59.5 52.1 2( 62.5 66.6 62.0 66.8 67.1 73.9 56.1 59.0 52.6 62.7 54.0 56.4 27 55.9 61.7 61.6 63.3 66.8 70.6 59.6 60.4 49.1 55.6 51.9 50.5 2$ 56.4 62.4 60.2 64.4 63.9 71.3 * 43.0 49.2 55.2 55.1 53.6 29 58.2 63.5 60.4 64.4 65.1 71.7 49.2 57.0 52.7 59.5 * 53.9 30 b0•9 63.2 62.3 67.9 63.8 79.9 * 67.4 47.6 52.3 * 60.0 Mo. Ldn ��9 64.4 64.7 68.1 71.3 76.9 65.7 64.6 59.5 65.5 58.2 57.4 Note: ARTS data missing for 0.2 days. 'age 26 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs * Le.rs thun nrenn•-fnur krnvs n(dat�� crvctilcrhle �< Metropolitan Airports Commission Analysis of �lircrafi �1o�se Events -1�ircraft Ldn d�3(A) April Ol to Apri131,1998 ivoise Monitor Locations I)ate #13 #14 #15 #16 #17 #18 #19 #20 #21 #22 #23 #� 1 55.6 66.0 65.9 65.9 63.9 70.7 66.7 57.6 54.8 61.7 67.4 65.3 2 55.2 62.0 * * 54.0 62.5 * 54.4 422 60.7 67.8 61.4 3 65.1 73.0 67.5 70.0 42.8 62.3 51.4 53.3 63.5 64.8 74.4 69.0 4 65.0 72.0 * 68.2 50.5 57.4 48.0 42.8 62.8 62.9 75.1 68.5 5 65.3 62.1 582 65.8 64.1 65.8 58.9 63.2 62.1 57.6 70.1 62.4 ( 68.1 66.9 * * 66.8 78.3 73.9 59.4 64.1 61.5 76.5 64.8 '7 65.7 713 66.0 71.3 59.8 69.2 62.8 59.2 63.9 62.9 73.7 67.5 $ 58.7 69.4 61.8 69.4 67.4 67.6 55.5 59.1 58.1 59.8 68.7 65.4 9 58.1 63.1 51.8 64.7 55.5 62.3 52.2 56.0 50.6 53.1 61.5 61.5 10 55.0 67.3 56.5 66.1 � 1.7 78.7 70.9 66.2 59.0 57.8 66.4 65.4 11 63.8 69.2 59.4 66.6 66.9 76.0 71.3 57.6 * 64.5 72.5 65.7 12 67.9 68.0 61.6 67.3 66.3 77.9 71.3 60.7 63.5 61.4 76.9 64.5 13 61.$ 64.7 * 67.4 69.1 79.1 7'7.3 64.9 58.9 57.4 72.5 63.1 14 51.0 67.0 54.1 67.5 69.5 78.3 74.3 64.0 53.1 59.3 59.6 63.3 15 63.3 70.3 * * 66.5 65.6 55.8 49.8 62.2 62.5 72.4 67.6 16 49.3 64.2 53.1 * 63.7 69.8 59.2 59.4 60.4 57.2 61.4 62.9 1% 56.9 67.5 57.6 70.6 72.3 793 74.6 61.7 57.2 61.1 60.9 64.8 18 60•7 65.1 65.3 653 722 81.4 77.2 66.2 56.9 59.9 70.5 63.2 19 662 70.2 69.6 69.6 71.0 80.2 75.7 60.9 63.5 61.8 76.8 66.3 2Q 64.3 71.1 65.6 71.5 68.0 76.9 73.7 59.5 63.3 60.8 73.1 67.0 21 53.0 60.8 60.2 65.8 68.9 77.1 73.0 61.8 54.1 53.1 58.1 59.6 22 45.8 603 56.5 65.7 70.0 76.8 72.2 60.8 47.5 52.2 56.5 59.7 23 42.2 61.5 55.9 65.9 69.3 78.6 75.0 62.1 44.4 54.3 63.0 60.7 24 64.0 70.1 64.2 69.6 72.7 81.0 73.7 * 62.0 59.8 72.8 65.0 25 65.0 68.5 67.3 68.9 65.6 74.7 68.0 56.5 61.6 60.4 75.2 64.9 2( 62.2 69.7 64.4 72.0 6�.5 76.0 71.0 56.4 59.8 61.4 72.7 66.4 27 60.5 68.5 62.5 68.0 67.7 77.1 71.6 65.9 58.4 59.2 7l2 65.4 2$ 62.1 66.9 64.5 65.5 67.9 77.8 72.3 62.8 60.6 60.2 72.4 64.5 29 65.3 67.9 65.1 66.9 66.6 77.8 74.8 * 63.2 613 74.2 65.0 30 47.3 66.0 52.5 64.7 73.5 80.1 75.5 63.4 49.6 57.7 57.6 62.5 Mo. Ldn 62.6 68.2 64.7 68.3 68.4 76.9 72.2 61.2 60.3 60.5 72.0 65.0 Note: ARTS data missing for 0.2 days. Aviation Noise & Satel(ite Pro�rams Pa�e 27 " l �•cc Ihru� i�rrnn -Inn r lvru �c �,! �liu�i in nilr�hh. C. C Metropolitan Airports Commission Proposed North �oundary Corridor Gate I'enetration Analysis Minneapolis - St. Paul Iniernationai A.irport � ��, � ,: • . �•�, • � � '" �:�� .� ��.. 1 ti' ;'� � � � .:; ' Paae ? Aviation Noise & Satellite Proa ams Metropolitan Airports Commission �, /1 �. ' . �' . • i�' • 1 ' 1 1 i 4691 ... Total 12L and 121a C��rier Jet I)epartures 21 D... Carrier Jet Departures 4.5 % Nort�i of Proposed 095° (IVI) Corridor 1'olicy Boundary 210 TRACKS CRQSSED P—GATE c, LEFT COUNT=203 (96.7�) RIGHT COUNT=7 (3.3�� u' C c c � W � o C � � � � � � � O O O cv O O O _ � °s , . , ------------------;-----------o ----,-----------------,----------------- �-----------------: ----------------- s • i s � e�e '�' s ° a a' •e j : s a • a • • � � � � e � • � � � � � � � � � � � � �t � � � , ' ---------------- ; �r--•-----�------',--------.--------' • . • . ------------------ '------------------�----------------- �'i�•v • � ' �i� +� s . p � ; • � �1 �s •�•e p' • e; a • �e 9! : �$ o • • . ��N ° � • r • � • � � � • • � ' ' ' �w � � � � ------------- e , � � ---a-�-s------ -------- -------� -----------------�----------------- .----�--------- • ,---------- w �p e� • • o 0 s �� i � � � � � � � � . ""'"'_"""""'_""'"""""""^'_"""""""'„""""'_"'_""�"""'_""""""_'_"""""" � I � �� , ; �."""""""""""""' _"""""' _ _"_"' _"""'"_"""""""' _' "�"' _' _ _"""'""""' _ _'"""_' "" I ' DEVIAriON ;��'�� CEN � �R u� GA i E (ff; Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 3 C . + � Metropolitan Airports Commission ', 1i �• ,, • ,, i , • 11,; . � � �; 4691 ... %tal 12� and 12� Car�-ier Jet Departures 1� ... Carrier Jet Departure - Early Turnout (0.4% (I�lorth Side �efore Thre� li�Iiles) 18 � LEFT COUNT=4 0 TRACKS CROSSED P-GATt (22.2�) RIGHT COUNT=14 (77.8�) O cD C7 � � � , � ""'""'""_""""""_"''""""__"""'"""""�""'"'""""""'_"'"""`_' �""'"___""""__"' b �.1") • O � � � i --------------------------1'--------'-------'--------=---------------------------�--------� ----------------- O e � � • • � i ' ' f o, ------------------------a---------�----------------- -------- -------------------------*-------------------- d � h � � o • �e . • e • • � � I ' O � � � O � � ' O �."""'""'"""""""""„""""'"""'_"""""..'_""""""""'""""'�""""""""'"""""' c'� I i , , � ' � � , � � C� � ' � � I, . , O ! . � , r------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ o ; �I � � � , . , -�OOuD - 5�� 1��00 D�'� �ATIOti E RO�U �ENTER OE GATE (fl) Page 4 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Metropolitan Airports Commission � • j � � a � � , � , , . ` � . . � , . . , ' . 1 1 � . ' . � . � 1 � ' 1.0% (47) Carrier Jet Departua�es South of Corridor (South of 30L Localizer) Aviation Noise & Sate(lite Praarams Page 5 Metropolitan Airports Commission IVlinneapolis - St.1'aul Internat�onal Airport A.pril 1998 (� 4691 ... Total 12L aa�d 12�2 Carrier Jei I)epartu�es 46 ... Carrier Jet Departures (1.0%) Soasth of �Corrido� (South of 30L Localize�) 46 TRACKS CROSSED P-GRIE a LF� T CO�NT=4 (8.7�) RIGH I COUNT=42 (91.3�) 0 o� �; � i � � . � �, � . � , , , , ---------------------------------------------------------------------- �, , , ----- - -------------- �. ,: .,. . � � . • �• � ��• � • • ;q o e �e� � e � • i� , � � � � � � � � o I , , � , a ,� O i ; � � ; ' "r • . ----------------*-----------------�----------------- -+------------------�---------------- �-----.----------- o , � � 1 d '. p i � � � � ""' . , � � """"""""""_'_""" ""'-----'-----""'-"----'--r'--"""""----"-"'--"""-"-----'-- ' , O N � C_.� , � � � O� � �__��_______��_��1��_______ �� __�� _�___��______� ��_________� C�7 . ___ ��_� _��_ �� -0:��0 -40Q0 -2000 0 200� 4000 6000 ��VlqilON FRC'� CE�U��,3 OF G�t-� (fO Page 6 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs � � �— �� -L Metropolitan Airports Commission 1Vlinneapolis - �t. Paul In�ernational Airport , Aprii �998 � , 4691 .e. Total 12I, and 12R Carrier Jet Departures I... Carrier Jet IDepartures - Early �urnout (0.0% (South Side �efore Three I�iles) 1 TRaCKS CR4SSED P-GA1E LEFT COUNT=O (0.0�} RIGHT CO�NT=1 (100.0�) DEv aj�ON ��,�; CENTER 0� GaTE (fk; 'i i Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs �, Page 7 Metropolitan Airports Commission Southerm �oundary Corridor Gate Penetration Analys�s 1Vlinneapolis - �t. I'aul International .A,irport Apri11998 0.1 %(7) Carrier Jet Departures 5° South of Corridor (5° �outh of 30L Loeal�zer) Page 8 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs �_ � Metropolitan Airports Commission IVlinneapolis - St. Paui Inie�naiional A,irport , April 1998 4691 ... Total 12L and 12R Carrier ,�et I)epartures 6... Carrier Jet Departures 0.1 % 5° South of Corridor (5° South of 30I, I.,oc�lizer) 6 IRRCKS CROSSED P—GATc �EFT COUNT=S (83.3%� RIGNT COUNT=1 (10.7�) �.� -d DtVIAT10N ��iL`;' �EN:cR 0� GAiE (fl; � Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs ' Page 9 Metropolitan Airports Commission l�Iinr�eapolis - St. Paul International .�irport t�pri11998 � � 469.1 ... Total 12I., and 12�2 Carrier Jet Departures I... Carrier Jet ]Departures - Early �urnout 0.0% (South Side �efore �'hree lO�Iiles) i TRRCKS CROSSED P-GATE �E� i COUN i=0 (0.0�) RIGHT COUNT=1 (100.0�) D=V�A�iON r��1 C�NI�R 0� �nrt (�►; Page 10 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs r� AGENDA ; � REGULAR MEETING EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION EAGAN, MINNESOTA EAGAN CITI' COUNCIL CHA.MBERS J[TNE 9, 1998 7:00 P.M. I. ROLL CAI,L AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA � .,,.� � � � 11 ��' i : :1 •'1 IV. CON5ENT AGENDA V. UNFl�1ISHED BUSINESS A. South Parallel Runway Construction — Flight Pattern Changes VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Final Environmental Impact Statement Comments — Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport Expansion VII. STAFF REPORT A. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor B. MASAC Update C. Northern Dakota County A.irport Relations Coalition Update 11 1 • ' IX. FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS • Next Commission Meeting — 7:00 p.m. Tuesday, 7uly 14 • Next MASAC Meeting — 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, June 23 X. ADJOURNMENT Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities will be provided upon advance notice of at least 96 hours. If a notice of less than 96 hours is received, the City ofEagan will attempt to provide such aid.