11-22-2006 ARC Packet1
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION
AGENDA
November 22, 2006 — Large Conference Room
Call to Order — 7:00 P.M.
2. Roll Call
3.
4.
5.
0
7.
Approval of Minutes from the October 1 l, 2006 Airports Relations Commission
Meeting.
Unfinished and New Business: -�-.�� ��� � �u'� '
a. Discussion of the RUS Impact Post 17/35 opening. �16(¢Y' %"l�� ��6 �a ,
b. Updates for Introduction Book cQt��C!`�'7'►�+�s�+ �Oa�
Acknowled e Recei t of Various Re orts/Corres ondence: �� 5��� .
2 , c -F,�r�, e�.� �..
:� �� �S`� �
a.
b:
d.
f.
g•
h.
J•
Letter from MAC regarding Envlronmental Review Process �,�,� ��oa�. ��
September 2006 Technical Advisors Report �
September 2006 Eagan/Mendota Heights Depariure Corridor Analysis l�,� �"'�
October 2006 Technical Advisors Report ����"''`� -
October 2006 Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis
Airport Noise Report, Novernber 8, 2006 jylD,r�� (J�e`�i c� �'"
Airport Noise Report, Novernber 1, 2006 •"�.
Airport Noise Report, October 25, 2006 p GUl/1�
Airport Noise Report, October 12, 2006 � ��
Ai r port Noise Report, October 6, 2006 ��`�� ��'��
� ���•�a�r�r
Other Commissioner Comments or Concerns d�,e �S�'����''�
�
Uncomin� Meetin�s g (���j`r''t �� �"�'�� '
City Council Meeting December 5, 2006 — 7:30 p.in. �� . !'� �(� �(, �
MAC Meeting December 18, 2006 —1:00 ( 4d�G� (�t%Z�
Public Input Meefiing January 23, 2007 — 7:00 (MAC) CG •��C, •
8. Public Comments
9. Adiourn
� � Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 IZours in
-- adva�ice. If a izotice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Nlendota Heights wil� make
every attempt to provide the aids. This may not, however, be possible on short notice. Please
contact City Administration at 651-452-1850 witl� requests.
C
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
November 13, 2006
TO: Airport Relations Commissio r�
CC: City Council, City Administrator
FROM: Ja1ce Sedlacelc, Assistant to the City Administr�
SUBJECT: 12L Departure Data September 2005-September 2006.
Discussion
Recent data regarding takeoffs utilizing the 12L runway at Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport (MSP)
has shown that runway usage has not been reduced as proposed since operations began on the
new northlsouth runway 17/35.
Following the October ARC meeting, staff reviewed departure data for the past year from the
MSP Technical Advisors Report. Attached you will find a chart which compares departure rates
from 12L, 12R and 17/3 5 runways.
� �-� Additionally, stafFhas loolced into historical docuxnentation regarding the projections for runway
use and the impact runway 17/35 was intended to have upon 12L and 12R departures. Attached
you will find three items addressing departures: an excerpt from MSP Mitigation Committee
� Runway Use Update, dated July 17, 1996, an excerpt from Minneapolis St. Paul International
Airport — 14 CFR Part 150 Study Update, dated November 2004 and an excerpt from
presentation to the City of Eagan dated July 14, 2005. Each document forecasts departures on
12L to be signiiicantly reduced with the opening of runwayl7/35.
Action to be Taken
Chad Leqve (MAC Noise) and Carl Rydeen (FAA) have been invited to attend the Mendota
Heights Airport Relaiions Coxnmittee meeting on November 22, 2006. This provides an
opportunity for us to voice our concerns, and to discliss the projected and actual departures with
officials from MSP.
C
�\ .
' i
�
0
Q
a�
�
�
0
+ "'
v � '�'u
� � Q
.�
� o �
�
0..
� �
� � �
Q O �
0
cp �-
o �
! ro
� �
�
c �
�o
�
,� �
C° o
�
a�
Qo
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O t!� O tC� O tt'� O t�'� O
d' M M N N e� �
c�a o
�
U �
� O
0
O �
z�
U �
� �
a. �
N p
�
� �
� O
Q
U'�
O
�
�
� O
�
� �
� O
�
MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT -14 CFR PART 150 STUDY UPDATE
Table 4.7
Existing 2002 Annual Average Runway Use
Arrival
Runway
Day Night Overail Day
4 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%
22 0.1% 0.7% 0.2% 0.9%
12L 22.7% 15.9% 22.2% 20.2%
12R 22.7% 22.8% 22.7% 19.1%
30L 27.8% 35.3% 28.4% 28.7%
30R 26.5% 25.2% 26.4% 31.1%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
Note: Totals may not equal l00% due to rounding.
Source: 2002 ANOMS
Forecast Runway Use
The forecast 2007 annual average runway
use utilized in this Study was determined in
the Dual Tracic FEIS. Weather and wind
data, runway use configurations, and
cornputer simulations of airport operations
were analyzed to establish average runway
use; with the goal of maximizing airport
capacity.
As indicated in the Dual Track FEIS, the
opening of the north-south runway, Runway
17/35, will substantially change the average
runway use at MSP. Figure 4-4 shows
prilnaiy runway use configurations.l i
Figure 4-5 shows future non-standard
runway use configurations, which may occur
during non-typical weather conditions.
Non-typical weather conditions may include
strong direct winds fi•om the north or south
or very low visibility or cloud ceilings.
Runway 17/35 will be a unidirectional
runway (i.e., it is intended for use in only
one direction). Departing aircraft will take-
off to the south on Runway 17, and arriving
aircraft will land fi•om the south on Runway
35. Except during rare circumstances,
parture Total
Night Overall Day Night Overall
0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%
0.5% 0.8% 0.5% 0.6% 0.5%
17.1% 20.0% 21.5% 16.5% 21.1%
24.6% 19.6% 20.9% 23.7% 21.1%
36.1% 29.2% 28.2% 35.7% 28.8%
21.6% 30.3% 28.8% 23.3% 28.4%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
4-9
aircraft cannot depart to the north on
Runway 35 or land fro�n the north on
Runway 17. Operations to and from the
north or� Runway 17/35 would often
interfere with operations on the parallel
runways in some runway use configurations.
This would reduce airport capacity.
Additionally, agreements between MAC and
the City of Minneapolis restrict the use of
Runway 17/35 to and from the north.
The parallel runways will continue to be
used in east and west flows, and Runway
4/22 will continue to be used for crosswind
conditions and heavy aircraft operations. In
both the east and west flows, Runway ] 7/35
will be used for single mode operations to
meet traffic demands. Single-mode means
that the runway can be used for arrivals only
or departures only, but that it cannot support
concurrent arrival and departure operations.
During arrival peaks it can be used for
arrivals, and during departure peaks it can be
used for departures. High winds from the
east and west will occasionally limit the use
of Runway 17/35; this is expected to happen
less than four-percent of the time annual ly.
MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT-14 CFR PART 150 STUDY UPDATE
Whereas the parallel runways must support
mixed arrival and depai'ture operations,
Runway 17/35 can, only be used for single-
mode operations (i.e., all departures or all
arrivals for a given tune period). As a
result, Runway 17 is forecast to handle
approximately 37-percent of the total
departures at MSP. This is the highest
departure percentage of any runway at MSP.
The future runway use configurations, as
shown in Figures 4-4 and 4-5, and the
resultant runway use are necessary for safety
and to meet airport capacity requirements.
Table 4.8
Overall, Runway 17/35 will increase airport
capacity by 25-percent.
Table 4.8 shows forecast annual average
runway use for 2007, by arrival and
departure, for daytime and nighttime
periods. Operational trends derived from
the 2002 ANOMS data is used to establish
operational categories within the overall
runway use as determined by the Dual Tracic
FEIS. Runway use by operational category
is shown in Appendix C.
Forecast 2007 Annual Average Runway Use
__
Runway
Arrival Departure Total
Dny Night Overall Day Night Overall Day Night Overall
4 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 02% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2%
22 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.2% 0.0% 02% 0.3% 0.3% 03%
12L 21.8% 16.3% 21.1% 8.2% 10.3% 8.5% 15.0% 13.3% 14.8%
12R 14.8% 13.7% 14.6% 15.9% 20.6% 16.6% 15.3% 17.1% 15.6%
30L 21.0% 32.1% 22.4% 15.1% 14.5% 15.0% 18.1% 23.3% 18.7%
30R 24.5% 24.3% 24.5% 23.1% 20.5% 22.7% 23.8% 22.4% 23.6%
17 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 37.2% 33.9% 36.8% 18.7% 17.0% 18.4%
35 17.4% 13.1% 16.9% 0.]% 0.1% 0.1% 8.8% 6.6% 8.5%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% l00% 100% 100%
Note: Totals may not equai 100% due to rounding.
Source: Dual Track FEIS.
4.3.3 Flight Track Layout and Use
Modeled flight tracks depict the
approximate paths, or ground tracics, that
aircraft use for depariure or arrival at MSP.
Flight track layout and use was determined
by analyzing ARTS and ANOMS data.
Modeled flight track locations were
determined by analyzing six days of ARTS
data, including nearly 6,500 flights, from
spring 1999. MAC staff revalidated the
flight tr�ck �ayout in spring 2003 using
additional ARTS data. Flight track use for
the existing runways was determined using
the same methodology used to determine
average runway use, including 12 months of
ANOMS data for 2002.
INM uses core and sub flight tracks to
accurately model actual flight tracks. Since
aircraft fly through a moving air mass, a
given heading will result in different paths
over the ground under different wind
conditions. Weather, traffic levels, pilot
technique, and differing aircraft
performance capabilities make an infinite
number of ground tracks possible. ATC
does not currently have the ability, for
example, to direct aircraft along a highway
corridor or other specific points on the
ground. The core flight tracic is the mean, or
_ ;
c
3 -�
� "-;.
�• � r �'
' � l t�
;;(,����
�
.,..
° ;:
����;�h � � � v �� '
`�' ' �, t��` ' !�� �
� � �
.�'��'' _ ��, . ,..., ..k..r��a�'^�, �,�"�;?T"�, n.'."r'� ?�'_'s�'T";�,�-','�, .._ . �t. w,�. ..
�
;.;i ,`
�.
�
�
i�
''.} ,����`^.
_ti
� ' t� O
� O
' W ,,
p �
-� �►
.,_ �
U -�
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES
OCTOBER 11, 2006
The regular lneeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on
Wednesday, October 1 l, 2006, at 7:00 p.m., in the Large Conference Room at City Hall,
1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota.
The following Commissioners were present: Bill Dunn, Robin Ehrlich, Liz Petschel,
Dave Sloan and Ellsworth Stein. Also present were: Jim Danielson; City Adanauistrator;
Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administrator; and Mary Heintz, Recorder.
Ms. Heintz took the minutes.
Not Present: Coixalnissioners Vern Edstrom and Brian Linnihan.
Approval of Minutes
A. Review and Approval of the Sepiember 20, 2006, Airport Relations Cominission
Minutes.
A inotion was made by Colnmissioner Ehrlich, seconded by Cominissioner Dunn, to
approve the September 20, 2006, minutes as submitted. Motion carried 5-0.
Public Comments
None.
Unfmished/New Business
A. NOC Meeting Update
Chair Petschel updated the Commissioners on a memo to Cities Meinbers of NOC
suggesting an additional seat to the MAC that represents the DNL 65 air noise contour
cities. She said a fe�u key people gathered at the end of the NOC meeting for discussion,
including Eagan and Bloolnington, who both seemed excited about the concept, but the
question arose as to who would sponsor, get credit, and this seemed to polarize the group.
Chair Petschel said one positive aspect was bringing the issue forward, there was no lack
of interest, and there were different ways of coming at the issue. She said the only person
not part of the discussion was Richfield, that all others were at the table, and that a Cities
ineeting would be held this month.
Commissioner Dunn coinrnented that he hoped they group could get beyond the idea of
who gets credit.
%
r
�
Commission Meeting — October 11, 2006 �
Mendota Heights Airport Relarions Commission i
Corrunissioner Ehrlich added that he hoped it wouldn't be political, rather a win-win
where everyone signs on. � -
Chair Petschel reported that 17/35 is up and running and Mendota's issue will be
discussed at the NOC at large. She stated there was continued discussion on the 190
•degree off runway 17 for Burnsville, with MAC being the go-between to keep discussion
moving. Chair Petschel said that Carl Rydeen (FAA tower administrator) met with
Burnsville and would be willing to meet with Mendota to discuss issues. She said
Burnsville was exploring all alternatives, including legal ones.
She reported on a new builders guide from the Met Council which moves the no building
to DNL 60 (and includes Lemay), compared to the old builders guide which referred to
DNL 65 as problematic in terms of building and anything less was not an issue.
Chair Petschel stated right now there is a delay in obtaining flight track data and NOC is
supportive and will be asking MA.0 why it can't get real-time data: Chad Leqve (MAC
liaison) will investigate possible grant funding.
B. Runwav 12L Departure Numbers
Chair Petschel stated that there is an actual increase in 17/35 use over Mendota,
compared to a reduction for Eagan, for which no explanation has been given. She
reported receipt of an email from Mr. Rydeen stating that when 17/35 is in use, 12R is �/,�
shut down so planes can taxi across it, which increases operations off 12L over Mendota.
She then distributed the MSP Runway Use map comparing 1994 and 2005, which had
originally been brought to Mendota to show the percentage of departures a$er 17/35 was
running, showing actua126% off 12L in 1994, compared to projected 8% in 2005. She
said the assessment and noise footprint were based on the numbers and Mendota was told
it would receive relief from the new runway. Chair Petschel then referenced the MSP
Slight Changes in Unmitigated FEIS Runways Use Percentages Incorporating RUS sheet,
which showed a projected 9.3% departure for 12L, and drew the Commissioners'
attention to the Commission Meeting minutes of July 9, 2006, reaffirming an increased
projection from 8% to 9% and that the noise could increase to l.5pb before
environmental concerns became an issue. She stated that the Commission must now
decide what to do, that its responsibility is to advise the City Council, and a strategic plan
needs to be developed in terms of what to do.
The City Administrator informed Commissioners that rehab planned for 12R next
summer would involve closing it down, further exacerbating Mendota's problem.
Chair Petschel quoted 12L departure comparisons: 21.5% August 2005 and 24.1%
August 2006, and for nighttime 12.8% August 2005 and 38.9% August 2006, more than
triple. She noted Eagan's significant decrease in 12R departures when comparing 22.6% ("
\
Commission Meeting — October 11, 2006
Mendota Heights Airport Relations Coaunission
in 2005 to 14.7% in 2006, with FAA's explanation that the runway can't be used when
planes are crossing to reach 17/35.
The City Adininistrator said it would help to come up with a plan and suggested
involving Mr. Leqve.
Chair Petschel asked if the Coinmissioners would aiso want Mr. Rydeen to attend with
Mr. Leqve, noting that they had ofFered to zneet with the Commissioners together. She
said Mr. Rydeen made it clear no one had talked to the tower regarding projections and
had suggested that if Mendota had been promised results, it would have to be proven.
Commissioner Ehrlich said if HNTB calculated the projections, the tower would do
whatever it wanted and they would likely justify reason as concern for safety...
Chair Petschel said the question then is how to maneuver beyond that, as there are serious
legal issues. She said the whole noise footprint is wrong, with the 2007 footprint based
on receiving 9% of the air traffic, when it actually is in mid 20s. Chair Petschel said the
Coinmission should demand to know if there is an increase by 1.Spb in the noise the City
is receiving, thereby necessitating an environmental impact statement for that runway.
Coinmissioner Stein recommended asking HNTB for an explanation.
Cominissioner Ehrlich responded that it might be preinature, that the Commission needed
'`� ~�l to have enough data to support the error. He agreed with the suggestion to invite
' Mr. Leqve and Mr. Rydeen to the next ARC meeting to give a formal presentation on the
memo, with AR.0 documenting projected and actual noise figures (Excel spreadsheet),
and requesting an explanation and official statement to forward on.
Commissioner Dunn said, the fact is, that noise is up, there are serious legal iinplications,
and nothing is being done about it.
Coixunissioner Sloan said there appeared to be two avenues to consider: progress legally
regarding claims made or figure out between the parties now to make it work. He
suggested first bringing in Mr. Rydeen to review information that had originally been
presented to sell acceptance of the runway to Mendota, provide documentation showing
what actually is occumng, and then determine what can be done to make the situation
better. If that didn't result in progress, he said, then bring in Mr. Leqve and others.
Chair Petschel stated that, from past experience, they would likely colne together if one
was invited.
Comrnissioner Ehrlich stated, and others agreed, that it appears Mr. Rydeen is concerned
only about safety and optimal use of the runway and believes that any affected parties can
learn to deal with the noise.
Commission Meeting — October 11, 2006
Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission -
Chair Petschel summarized that, by group consensus, the next step would be to invite
Mr. Leqve and Mr. Rydeen to the next ARC meeting for a frank discussion of the
promised percentages of depariures off 12L.
Commissioner Ehrlich said it is important to have documents in hand and put together a
spreadsheet of what has occurred since the runway opened in 2005, to give them the
papers and show the facts.
Commissioner Sloan noted that the Commission should make sure it was not overreacting
to an anomaly.
After discussion, group consensus determined that:
1) The City Administrator will invite Mr. Leqve and Mr. Rydeen to the next ARC
ineeting and that another night will be chosen, to accommodate their availability,
should they be unable to attend that night.
2)
3)
4)
5)
City Councilmembers will be invited.
Chair Petschel will contact Scott X�X and John XXX to see if they wish to attend.
Commissioners will forward to the City Administrator any pertinent documents they
wish it to be included in the agenda packet.
The agenda packet will be distributed to all attendees for review in advance of the
meeting and will include a graph showing trends in daytime and nighttime departures
over the last year, rather than just listing numbers on an Excel sheet.
Acknowled�e Receipt of Various Reports/Correspondence:
Chair Petschel referenced the Airport Noise Report publication, which featured the
Burnsville controversy and included good quotes as to who had been involved. She said
the question is whether FAA has to do another assessment.
The Commission agreed, by consensus, to adjourn the meeting at 7:53 p.rn.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Heintz
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc
C
("
'�;
�:.
Chad,
I know you don't control what happens at the Tower, but this firend is in coinplete
contradiction to the EAS for runway 17/35. We were supposed to get relief froin
the runway not increased operations. We see this as a very disturbing
development.
Liz Petschel
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Chad Leqve" <cleqve@macnoise.corn>
�iz,
I have received the below response from FAA regarding your Runway 12L use
question. I hope you find the information helpful.
Chad
Chad,
I discussed Ms. Petschel's question with staff and the consensus
as to why Runway 12L departure numbers are higher than
predicted is related to Runway 12R and also Runway 17. As you
are aware, a majority of the Runway 17 departures originate from
the main terminal (�indbergh). Enroute to Runway 17 these
aircraft have to cross Runway 12R. I would estimate that there
were about 3200 of these runway crossings in the month of
August.
Each of these crossings takes a"bite" out of the time th at
Runway 12R is available for landings an d takeoffs. The
controllers have learned that some of these aircraft can be safely
departed on Runway 12L without effecting capacity. It appears
that this may also be reflected on the Runway 12R departure
percentages which is below the predicted amount (14.7% vs.
16.2%). Additionally, the controllers at MSP are very concerned
about the possibility of runway incursions related to these
crossings so they make conscious efforts to avoid departures on
Runway 12R when operationally feasible.
It also appears that prevailing winds were favoring a southeast
flow in the month of August which is reflected by the higher
numbers off Runways 12�, 12R and 17 (58.5% total August
departures) vs. off Runway 30� and 30R (41.3% total August
departures).
Based on the information that I learned from s taff, I would
anticipat e the Runway 12L departure percentages to continue
higher than the predicted amounts. As indicated on the attached
information, it's 19.5 % for that period.
I am not involved with any of the TSA inspection requirements so I
can't comment on that statement.
As for the question about nighttime Runway 12L departures, I
believe the higher number than predicted is related to the tower
not needing to use Runway 17 for departure. In August the tower
departed only 32 % of the nighttime departures off Runway 17. I
suspect that some of those departures that would have used
Runway 17 were departed on Runway 12L and 12R. This is
compliant with the Runway Use System that give first preference
to departures off Runway 12L and 12R.
I hope this adequately addresses Ms. Petschel's questions.
Carl Rydeen
Acting District Manager
Northern Lights Hub
From: esiriusp@comcast.net [mailto:esiriusp@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 12:45 PM
To: cleqve@macnoise.com
Subject: Liz Petschel/Mendota Hts. ARC
Chad,
I don't know if you've seen the technical advisor's report for August, but
the data for operations off of 12L are really puzzling. They show not
only that we received no relief froin 17/35 but actually saw a significant
increase in aircraft departures for the lnonth. Also, look at the increase
in nighttime departures off 12L. I know Kathleen says solne of this is
due to TSA inspection requirements, but this seems to be significant
even allowing for that. Maybe I'm missing soinething here, but any light
you can shed on the subject I would appreciate. It will be a topic of
discussion at the AR.0 ineeting tonight. We have Senator Metzen and
Representative Hansen coming to the meeting.
Liz Petschel
�.
t��
Page 1 of 2
Jim Danielson
From: esiriusp@comcast.net
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 1:59 PM
To: Jim Danielson
Subject: FW: RE: NOC representation legislation
Jim, here are the documents from Jason. Now that you have it, you can forward to whomever you think
appropriate.
Liz
-------------- Forwarded Message: --------------
From: "Jason Zieiner" <JZiemer@cityofeagan.com>
To: <Merland.Otto@ci.ininneapolis.irui.us>, "Paln Dmytrenko"
<PDmytrenko@cityofrichfield.org>, <bill@kilian.us>, <tosduggan@hotmail.com>,
<esiriusp@comcast.net>, <VFWilcox@AOL.com>, <speterson@ci.bloomington.mn.us>,
"Cyndee Fields" <CFields@cityofeagan.com>, "Dianne Miller" <DMiller@cityofeagan.com>,
<jkberginan@frontiernet.net>, <tom.hansen@ci.burnsville.mn.us>,
<bhoffinan@stlouispark.org>, <barkelea@fleishman.com>, <cweginton@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: NOC representation legislation
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 23:22:53 +0000
Greetings!
Attached is the proposed legislation that the city NOC group agreed to on Oct. 18. It outlines four new
seats on the Metropolitan Airports Commission a€" one each for Bloomington, Eagan, Mendota Heights,
and Richfield. These seats are determined by the communities affected by the 65 DNL contour.
However, argumenfs for fhe four seats should focus on economics and other airport impacts a€" positive
and negative a€" in addition to noise.
As per our discussion, the four seats is the starting point of a three-tiered approach. That will leave us
with room to negotiate. If it appears that four seats will not pass committee, or could see gubernatorial
veto, we are able to opt for the other two tiers a€" two seats or one seat. The seat arrangements under
the iwo- and one-seat option are: (two) Bloomington/Richfield and Eagan/Mendota Heights, (one) sole
representative for the entire area. Remember, those are the last resort offers and should not be offered
up initially; only that we would consider other options.
The reason we are asking for four seats is so that, in two, five, or 10 years from now, we are not back at
the legislature asking for more. The group was in concurrence that four seats was fair, and that those
four representatives would look out for the interests of all communities, and not just those afFected by the
65 DNL. These four seats would expand the size of the MAC, not reconfigure it. The four seats would be
filled by either the mayor of each city or by a person appointed by each respective city councils.
Representatives under the two- and one-tier approaches would depend on recommendations from the
city NOC group with city council concurrence.
In addition to offering support to the city NOC proposal, Minneapolis will submit its own proposal. This
would reconfigure the MAC, removing the four out-state board seats and replacing them with the four
seats proposed in the city NOC proposal a€" Bloomington, Eagan, Mendota Heights, and Richfield.
Minneapolisa€T"' proposal would also create an out-state airports advisory board.
There are two ensuing steps. Step one a€" council approval. Each respective city NOC group member
needs to take the attached proposal to their councils for approval; or at least the direction being
proposed by the group. Remember the goal is one voice, ane message, one proposal.
11 /1 /2006
Page 2 of 2
Step number two a€" legislative support. City NOC members, at the Oct. 18 meeting, reported that a
number of legislators have already expressed their support for the proposal. After the election,
community representatives from each city will speak with their respective state legislators to sell the
proposal, and encourage them to speak with their colleagues in St. Paul to do the same. Listed below are
the names of those state legislators that represent our cities; granted these names could change on Nov.
7. Please let everyone know who you intend to contact that way we do not have duplication of efforts.
The goal is to have legislation drafted and jacketed in December, and ready for legislators when they
return for the 2007 session.
That is the recap from our Oct. 18 meeting. I hope this lays out our approach going forward.
Sincerely,
Jason ziemer
District
36
37
38
39
40
41
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
11/1/2006
Senator
Pat Pariseau
Chris Gerlach
Mike McGinn
Jim Metzen
William Belanger
Geoff Michel
Linda Higgins
Larry Pogemiller
Scott Dibble
L.inda Berglin
Wesley Skoglund
Jane Ranum
Richard Cohen
Sandra Pappas
Ellen Anderson
Mee Moua
Representatives
(A) Mary �iz Holberg (B) Pat Garofalo
(A) Lloyd Cybart (B) Dennis Ozment
(A) Tim Wilkin (B) Lynn Wardlow
(A) Rick Hansen (B) Joe Atkins
(A) Duke Powell (B) Ann Lenczewski
(A} Ron Erhardt {B) Neil Peterson
(A) Joe Mullery (B) Keith Eliison
(A) Diane Loeffler (B) Phyllis Kahn
(A) Margaret Anderson Kelliher (B) Frank Hornstein
(A) Karen Clark (B) Neva Walker
(A) Jim Davnie (B) Jean Wagenius
(A) Paul Thissen (B) Dan Larson
(A) Matt Entenza (B) Michael Paymar
(A) Cy Thao (B) Carlos Mariani
(A) John Lesch (B) Alice Hausman
(A) Tim Mahoney (B) Sheldon Jahnson
Proposed Language for a Bill Pertaining to City Representation on the Metropolitan Airport
Commission (2006-2007 Legislative Session)
l.l
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.22
1.23
1.24
1.25
1.26
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.13
2.14
2.15
2.16
2.17
2.18
2.19
2.20
2.21
2.22
2.23
2.24
2.25
A bill for an act
relating to the metropolitan airports commission;
adding mayors to the commissioner membership; amending
Minnesota Statutes 2002, sections 473.604, subdivision
l; 473.605, subdivision 2; 473.622; repealing
Minnesota Statutes 2002, section 473.601, subdivisions
3, 6.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2002, section 473.604,
subdivision l, is amended to read:
Subdivision l. [COMPOSITION.] The commission consists of:
(1) the mayor of each of the cities of Minneapolis, St.
Paul, Bloomington, Eagan, Mendota Heights, and Richfield,
or a qualified voter appointed by the mayor, for the term of
office as mayor;
(2) eight members, appointed by the governor from each of
the following agency districts:
(i) district A, consisting of council districts 1 and 2;
(ii) district B, consis�ing of council districts 3 and 4;
(iii) district C, consisting of council districts 5 and 6;
(iv) district D, consisting of council districts 7 and 8;
(v) district E, consisting of council districts 9 and 10;
(vi) district F, conaisting of council districts 11 and 12;
(vii) district G, consisting of council districts 13 and
14; and
(viii) district H, consisting of council districts 15 and
16.
Each member shall be a resident of the district represented.
Before making an appointment, the governor shall consult with
each member of the legislature from the district for which the
member is to be appointed, to solicit the legislator's
recommendation on the appointment;
(3) four members appointed by the governor from outside of
the metropolitan area to reflect fairly the various regions and
interests throughout the state that are affected by the
operation of the commission�s major airport and airport system.
Two of these members must be residents of statutory or home rule
charter cities, towns, or counties containing an airport
designated by the commissioner of transportation as a key
airport. The other two must be residents of statutory or home
rule charter cities, towns, or counties containing an airport
designated by the commissioner of transportation as an
intermediate airport. The members must be appointed by the
governor as follows: one for a term of one year, one for a term
of two years, one for a term of three years, and one for a term
of four years. All of the terms start on July l, 1989. The
successors of each member must be appointed to four-year terms
commencing on the first Monday in January of each fourth year
after the expiration of the original term. Before making an.
appointment, the governor shall consult each member of the
legislature representing the municipality or county from which
2.26
2.27
2.28
2.29
2.30
2.31
2.32
2.33
2.34
2.35
2.36
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.12
3.13
3.14
3.15
3.16
3.17
3.18
3.19
3.20
3 .21
3.22
3.23
3.24
3.25
3.26
3.27
3.28
3.29
3.30
3.31
3.32
3.33
3.34
3.35
3.36
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
the member is to be appointed, to solicit the legislator's
recommendation on the appoin�ment; and
(4) a chair appointed by the governor for a term of four
years. The chair may be removed at the pleasure of the governor.
Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 2002, section 473.605,
subdivision 2, is amended to read:
Subd. 2. [PER DIEM, EXPENSES; EXCEPTION.] Each commission
member shall receive $50 per diem compensation and be reimbursed
for actual and necessary expenses. The chair shall receive a
salary as prescribed in section 15A.0815 and shall be reimbursed
for reasonable expenses to the same extent as a member. The
mayors and members of the city councils of Minneapolis a�, St.
Paul, Bloomington, Eagan, Mendota Heights, and Richfield shall
not be eligible for per diem compensation. The annual budget
of the commission shall provide as a separate account
anticipated expenditures for per diem, travel, and
associated expenses for the chair and members, and compensation
or reimbursement shall be made to the chair and members only
when budgeted.
Sec. 3. Minnesota Statutes 2002, section 473.622, is
amended to read:
473.622 [EXISTING AIRPORTS; CONTROL, JURISDICTION.]
The corporation shall exercise control and jurisdiction
over any other airport within either 35 miles of the city hall
of either the city of Minneapolis or St. Paul or within the
metropolitan area. Control and jurisdiction of the corporation
over any privately or publicly owned airport shall be limited to
control and jurisdiction of the flight and traffic patterns of
such airport in the interests of safety of the operation of any
airport owned or operated by the corporation. No airport shall
be acquired or operated within the metropolitan area without
first securing the approval of the corporation, provided,
however, such approval shall not be withheld except after notice
to all interested parties and a public hearing held thereon, as
provided in section 360.018, subdivision 7, and then only upon a
finding by the corporation that the acquisition or operation of
such airport would create a flight hazard to any airport or
airports owned or operated by it. As to any airport once
licensed with the approval of the corporation, approval of the
continued operation of such airport shall at no time be
withdrawn by the corporation except after notice to all
interested parties, a public hearing had, and a finding by the
corporation based on substantial evidence that the operation of
such airport is inconsistent with the safety of flight to and
from an airport owned or operated or presently to be or being
constructed to be operated by the corporation, and then only
after payment of just compensation to cover the loss sustained
by reason of such withdrawal, such just compensation, if not
arrived at by agreement, to be ascertained in the condemnation
of said airport by the corporatian under the power of eminent
domain, the commission to institute the condemnation proceedings
promptly and to pay in connection with the prosecution thereof
all reasonable and necessary expenses incurred not only by it
but also by the owner of such airport.
Sec. 4. [REPEALER.]
Minnesota Statutes 2002, section 473.601, subdivisions 3
4.10 and 6, are repealed.
C
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
�
November 14, 2006
TO: ARC Commissioners
FROM: Linda Shipton, Senior Secretary
SUBJECT: Updates for Introduction Packet
Please replace the following pages in your ARC Introduction Packet
Table of Contents
Operations North of the 090° Corridor Boundary.
- __
�_} The following should be replaced from your monthly ARC Meeting Agenda Packet.
# 7 Airport Noise Report — Put the latest issue of this in your Intro Packet
#13 November 2006 - Technical Advisors Report
#14 November 2006 - Eagan Mendota Heights Corridor Report
'� )
Ivletropolitan Airports Conunission
� 95 (2.0%) I2unway 12L and 12R Carrier Jet Departure Operations were
North of the 090° Corridor �oundary During Sepie�nber 2006
l )�
_ ._.
Page 2
Minneapolis—St. Paul
Penetration Gate Plot for Gaie NorEh Corridor
09/01/2006 00:00:00 — 10/0'1/2006 00:00:00
95 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 7(7.4%j, Right = 88 (92.6%)
6000
c � : :
o � • •
c4000 ..................:...................:..................:..................
� ' ' �J
d . . .
W3000 .................:...................:.............✓,....: �;,r•,...........
,� : • p �L- �Y i.��tr�
O : �?' r' ,�'�{^� ` r '` , ""�v"�`�
..�t., , �
� , t' , `� ' "i-;.�
n. . � . . . . . . . . . . ,:Z . . r .;���. ��„- �'. • . , �. ... . . . . . .
.................. • . • ....
L 2000 : i�t�,� �,;`�ti�,-r�y�?it;�� ��'
Q : �t�•�' -�i"�,``��,�� � C� :
� 1000 ..................:...................:..................:..................
o ; : :
� . . .
'Q 0
—2
(Runway End)
-�- Arrival
—1 0 1 2
Deviation From Center of Gate (Miles) �Corridor End)
t� Departure ❑ Overflight
Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis
. � ;�
l�'�������..�'��� 1r� ���� ��I�i'�S���I�T
�PP+,S 54jtiT Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport
Fr� t 9� 6040 - 28th Avenue 5outh o Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799
3 Z Phone(612)726-8100
....._, pt t �
O � N
'O F
O!r + GO
9�'a�RPOR��
October 20, 2006
Jim Danielson, Administrator
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118-4106
RE: Environmental Review Pracess
Metropolitan Airports Commission
2007-2013 MAC Capital Improvement Program
Dear Mr. Danielson:
Minnesota Statutes 1988, Chapter 664, requires the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) to
prepare an Assessment of Environmental Effects (AOEE) for projects in the Commission's seven-year
Capital improvement Program (CIP) (2007-2013) for airports included in its system.
An EAW, EA, or EIS has been previously prepared and public hearing held for each MSP and Reliever
,_ _ Airport project in the 2007-2013 CIP that requires an EAW under Chapter 664. An assessment of the
� cumulative effects of proposed CIP projects at each affected airport in the system is presented in the
`�' enclosed AOEE.
Comments concerning the Capital Improvement Program can be given at a Public Hearing to be held
on Wednesday, November 8, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 3040, Mezzanine level, Lindbergh Terminal,
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (Security Checkpoint Information is enclosed) or in writing to
Robert Vorpahl, Metropolitan Airports Commission, 6040-28th Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota,
55450. Please note that the comment period ends on Wednesday, November 22, 2006.
S
Robert J. Vorpahl, P.E.
Program Development Engineer
RJV/Irk
Enclosures
cc: Nigel Finney, MAC
Denny Probst, MAC
Gary Warren, MAC
CIP file
FD&E packet
Day file
The Metropolitan Airports Commission is an affirmative acHon employer.
www.mspairport.com
Reliever Airports: AIRLAKE , ANOKA COUNTY/BLAINE , CRYSTl�L , FLYING CLOUD , LAKE ELMO . SAINT PAUL DOWNTOWN
�
�{, ,i, '�
r
C
�
� •
�
,
;�
t! .
f�.
�'_ . . �' ` . � . .. � . � � .
�._' . . _ . , . . . . ' - ' . . , � . . � - ,
� /� . . ' . .�,. . ' ..
. . . ; . . ., . . . , ., .. . : .: .
�'. ' . . ' '. .'.: . . ' ..;. .; . 1 . 'i �. . "' .I _': .,' . .
� , � . ..: � . .
('`�['y('y ��{'� .;'p� j'� ��@@,,ny� ,. �'p'1 [y
; . ' ��MJ�AJ/..7].1 s s.��.S. �JL" �,�1���L`�1 \1. o �.��JL� .iJ�JI.".e.��./.�1J ��'. .
��'''C
E+i �1 � f
Gu � i �
1 ;i
��. i �. : .. . ��. . . . . . . � . . ' , . , . . .
� _ _
.: ....: � .,,. �,• ., ,. . ., . . .. . .: : ..
s
,, �j T
. �' t : i, �l'J g-� �
:,. � : : �POLITAN AIRPtJRTS C�DMIVl:ISSIC)N ,
_ • , ; :: ., 1 :, . .: , .
; , ,
, , : ,:
� ,' SE�N YEA►1� _C�.I'IT� �P�l2C)'�1V.i�NT I'RO�RAM
, , � ,
5, L:� : a� '. : .:t � _
� r �
( . _ t '
,
,.
; t
:
�• i ._:: ! ��'- . . .... �; : ' :..,.. .1 .
1
r,
.
S
�
4 .. ":.. i..�. . ... :.. .. ..
�� f
� ., ' � �'. �
1 r f I
1 I
1 / : f
It � 1
� � t r i cti L r � i �� � � �I � i (
.� � �� ,� .�„ i
. ..
_ .: , , .._ .� ... , . ., _;..-:.� .
.
;,
� � �. ��. ... � ��.. , .
;.:. . .. . �::
� .. ...:. , , .,.,,:;i
'a « r .
, ,.::. � ,.�._, � �..:�i _.
_,
,.,..,. ., ��r�.n,....t. ..�, . . ',.,. . ��_�.. .. , �.'.. . . . . . : .. . .
.'
-.".. ,..;....::�.�.:
�'; _
t._ . .,: .., -
, ' _
t �
.
/ i
, . ' ;� t . ;" t .
; �-.� �::' � : � ,, • ' t
� � .e
�
_ /
�.
i 1 � _
i;''.
i, r
\ �
_
i
�3
i
`�'�
; ; ,
.
HN'�B CORP,O]�A.TION ��'
� , �.
�
; , .
, �
: , < <��. -
, : ;: ;
, ,.
:,
, -
� ' - ' , �
�
,;; ' �
: :� , . :
; . < . ". ,`: . . •, �.;. ., , ;: , .;..:
. ; , -; ,
.
, ;; _,:
� •
.
_
, . , ';
.•
;. .
�
_ �
,
� OCTOBER 2006
_ r � ��
�.
, ,,
, .
;t,
,. ,. . .. .,. ..
, .:. �, ..., ..
: . . . .._ :... ..,. '.. .
,.:
.
. . � �, , , -... . � , � �. � � �.. . . . .. �
� .. .:�.� .... .. .:�, .... ` :...... ..... . . ...,. . . .�".
ti
�
�
. :. ., , . .. .
... . . . - . ' �..._ ... � �:. � .. -
' .,�:.� .�..:,�, � ::.; . ��. �.. �- ��.- _ _ .,. ':^ . ;'::..� .:.�'�•: . .
, � . .. . . .. .. . .... � . - � ' . . . . , � � .. . . . - .. - . � � , . .
.I, ' .�,��� � �
i.. j ,
C
ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Seven-Year Capital Improvement P°rogram
2007 - 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Pa�e
A. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................... •---....................................................1
B. PROJECTS WITH PO'I`ENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...................................................1
C. EFFECTS DiTRING CONSTRUCTION ..............................................................................................4
D. CUMLJLATIVE ENVIR�NMENTAL EFFECTS ...............................................................................4
�PPENDIX A: DESCRIPTION OF PROTECTS� IN THE 2007 — 2013 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM
.' .`
1 2007 - 2013 Capital ]ixnprovement Program ..........................................................:............:.................. 2
2 Summary Environmental Assessment of 2007 Projects in the MA.0 2007-2013 Capital
Improvement Program that require an EAW or EIS ............................................................................. 3
FIGURES (Figures are in Appendix A)
A-1 MSP Projects with Potential Environmental Effects .........................................................................A-1
A-2 Taxiway C-D Complex Project .........................:................................................................................A-3
A-3 Airlake South Building Area Project .................................................................................................A-6
A-4 Lake Elmo East Building Azea Project .........................................................................
..................... -7
A-5 St. Paul F]ood Protection Dike Project ..............................................................................................A-9
A-6 St. Paul Runway Safety Asea Project ..............................................................................................A-10
A-7 Htunphrey Parking Expansion Project .............................................................................................A-12
A-8 Airport Lane/34�' Avenue Access Reconfiguration Project ............................................................A-13
�
C
ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EF'F'ECTS
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Seven-Year Capital Improvernent Program — 2007-2013
A. INTRODUCTION
This report is prepared in response t� the requu-ements of Minnesota Statutes 1986, Chapter 473, as
amended in 1988 and 1998. It presei�ts an assessment of the enviroiimental effe.c�s (�OE�) of projects in
the Metropolitan Airports Commission (rV1AC) Seven-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP), from 2007
to 2013 for each MAC airport. Under �Nlinnesota law, the MAC is required to "examine the cumulative
environmental effects at each airport of the projects at that airport (in the seven-y.ear CIl'), considered
collectively." Many of the projects in the CIl' entail re�air or rehabilitation of existing facilities. Sueh work
would not affect the beforelafter usage of the facilities and as such wo�ld not add to, � subfract �rom, tY�e
cumulative environrnental effec�s. The znticipated measurable effects during con�Yn�c�ic� are d�scnssed
under Paragraph C.
The amended 1986 ]aw also requires the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
for projects that meet all of the following conditions:
(1) The project is scheduled in the CIP for the succeeding calendar year (2007 in this CIP);
(2) The project is scheduled to cost $5 million or more at MSP or $2 million or more at any other MAC
airPort;
(3) The project involves the construction of: (i) a new or expanded structure for handling passengers,
cargo, velucles or aircraft; or (ii) a new runway or taxiway or the extension of an e�sting runway or
taxiway.
Table 1 lists all projects included in the Seven-Year Capital Improvement Program for the years 2007
through 2013. A description of each project per year is provided in Appendix A. .An EAW, EA or EIS has
been prepared for a11 projects scheduled for 2007 that meet the above 3 conditions for a mandatory EAW.
These projects are presented in Table 2.
B. PROJECTS WITH POTEN'I'IAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The social, economic and natural environment items included in an EAW that are potentially affected by
projects to be impleznented in 2007 are identiiied in Table 2. Those projects in the CIP that do not have a
potential substantive effect on the environment upon implementation are so noted in Table 1(e.g., the
repair, reconstruction or rehabilitation of pavement and buildings, and replacement of existing facilities).
The notes in the table explain in more detail the type of work the project entails and why this type of project
will not affect the environment. A description of each project in the years 2007 and 2008 are presented
in Appendix A. Descriptions of projects expected to be ixnplemented in 2009 through 2013 are
preliminary, and only those that have potential substantive environmental effects are included in
Appendix A. �
C
�
C. EFFECTS DURING CONSTRUCTION
Typical mitigation measures will be used during construction to minimize potential adverse environmental
effects caused by noise, dust, erosion, runoff, etc. Since the environmental effects of construction are
temporary, they are not included in the cumulative, long-term effects of projects in the CIP.
It is recognized that the planned rehabilitation of MSP Runways 12R/30L (and 12L/30R in 2008)
requires rerouting of air traffic for temporary periods. These projects do not meet the requirements of the
amended 1986 law, however MAC recognizes that the rerouting of aircraft tra�c will cause temporary
changes in over flight noise patterns for different communities. It is anticipated that during the
reconstruction of Runway 12RJ30L, aircraft operations will be redistributed to other active runways at
MSP. This will result in increased arrival and departure operations on Runways 12L/30R, 4/22 and
17135 for all runway ends. In addition, MAC has iinplemented feasible noise controUreduction measures
during the construction of these runway segments including:
1) Scheduling construi:t:a�� ����• ��nid-Augus� �o mid-October
2) Balancing the effects of night construction noise with aircraft operatiug uoise.
3) Enforcing stringent penalties on contractors for work delays.
4) Departure procedures that minimize the noise effect of aircraft operations.
Although this represents a modification to runway use at MSP, the temporary nature and short duration
� of construction activities results in no long term substantive noise effect beyond the construction period
and therefore does not require an EAW.
D. CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
It is important to note that an EAW, EA or EIS is required to include an assessment of the potential
environmental effects of all past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actianslprojects that would
have environmental effects that would be cumulative with the proposed project.
MSP Proiects
The effects of CII' projects in the MSP 2010 LTCP were addressed in the Dual Track Airport Planning
Process Final EIS. This document assessed the cumulative environmental effects of the MSP 2010 LTCP
and 2020 Concept Plan. The 2010 LTCP is the first-phase implementation of the 2020 Concept Plan; it
includes the new north-south runway and related projects, and interim improvements to the Lindbergh and
�I tenninals and parking. The Final EIS was distributed and made available to affected agencies and the
public for review and comment on its adequacy on May '1, 1998. The FAA deterniined in its September 23,
1998 Record of Decision that the Final EIS, together with supporting documents and responses to cornments
on its adequacy, met the environmental review reporting requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) for projects in the MSP 2010 LTCP. The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB)
found the Final EIS to be adequate in terms of compliance with the environmental review requirements of
the state of Minnesota on October 26, 1998.
�' � The C]P also includes projects in Phases 1 and 2 of the MSP 2020 Development Plan, which replaces the
- 2020 Concept Plan included in the Dual Track Final EIS. The potential environmental effects of these
projects are included in the 2015 Ternunal Expansion Project Draft Environmental Assessment (EA).
Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410.1300, allow a Federal environmental assessment (EA) to substitute for an
EAW. A 2015 Terminal Expansion Project Draft EA that included Phases 1 and� 2 of the 2020
Development Program was prepared by the MAC and circulated for comment in July 2005. The MAC is
the Responsible Government Agency (RGI.n for the State process and in December 2005, the MAC
determined that the potentially significant environmental effects of the 2015 Ternunal Expansion Project
had been addressed and the preparation of an EIS was therefore not needed. The 2015 Terminal
Expansion Project Draft EA assessed the cumulative environmental effects for past, present and future
pzojects at MSP, which included the 2007 - 2013 CIP projects that would have cumulative effects. .
The major environmental impacts of projects planned for implementation at MSP .are air quality; noise
and water quality. Pr.ojects that affect aircraft operatiuns can affect air q»ality and noise. Pr.ojects that
create additional impervious ssrface �runof� or increase the generation of sewage/�vastewater or the use
of glycol in deicing aircraft can affect water quality, including the groundwater and the discharge to
receiving waters.
The Taxiway C/D Complex project will result in additional impervib�is surface and theref�re additional
stozm water runoff, which will be accommodated by the exist'tng detention facilities. The Humphrey
Parking Expansion project will result in an estimate3 additional emission of ci� tons ef carbon monoxide
(CO) annually, which is minimal since it is less than'/a of 1% of the existing annual emissions of CO
(approxinaately 20,670 tons). The project, in conjunction with the proposed expansion of the Humphrey
Ternunal, will also resu�t in additional traff'xc on 34"' Avenue South and congestion at the intersection
with Airport Lane. The Airport Lane/34�' Avenue Access Reconfi ur� ation project will mitigate this
impact. The parking expansian and Airport Lane reconizguration will not have a significant effect on
surface water runoff due to the fact that these projects are being constructed on existing impervious
surfaces.
The cumulative effects of the MSP projects are as follows. The forecast of operations for the year 2015
in the 2015 Terminal Expansion Project Draft EA was the basis for determining the cumulative air
emissions and noise values contained in the Draft EA for all past, present and lrnown future projects at
MSP. The primary pollutant emission of concern from vehiculaz air and ground traffic is CO since the
Twin Cities Metropolitan Region is a designated maintenance area for CO. CO ernissions would
increase compared to existing CO emissions. However, the 2015 forecast of operations is the same with
the proposed projects as without the proposed projects (no action). Therefore, because delay levels at
tezminal gates would be greater under no action, the proposed projects would emit less CO in 2015 than
no action. Also, there would be slightly fewer persons adversely affected by aircraft noise in 2015
compared to no action (because of some changes in runway use).
The four major watersheds on MSP property cover approximately 2,700 acres, of which approximately
1,400 acres are impervious. Surface water discharges to the airport storm sewer system consist primarily
of storm water run-off. This storm water may come into contact with aircraft deicing fluids (ADF),
pavement deicing chemicals, sand, and the residual effects of any unwanted releases �(petroleum or
otherwise) that have the potential to impact the storm water. The primary pollutant of concern is the
carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBODS) that is exerted on the receiving waters by the glyco]
component found in ADFs. The airport has a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Permit that regulates the discharge of CBOD5 to the receiving waters.
Over the last 13 years the airport has invested millions of dollars in capital improvements and best
management practices to help minimize the impact of airport operations on the quality of storm water
�' j discharge. The irnprovements include plug and pump contained deicing locations, dedicated deicing
-' pads, contained snow melters, glycol recovery vetucles, state of the art deicing equipment, pavement
brooming equipment, storm water retention ponds, new glycol management facility, elimination of urea
G
usage, and other measures to reduce the impacts of airport operations on the receiving waters. These
efforts have helped to achieve over 80% reduction in CBOD5 discharge to the receiving waters.
The proposed CIP projects would have limited impact on surface water dischazges from MSP. The
various project sites are located primarily on previously developed, impervious areas. There are less than
tl�ree acres of pervious area that would be affected. This new impervious area is negligible compared to
the 1,400 acres of existing impervious area at MSP.
The proposed projects should have no impact on the groundwater or the hydrogeologic conditions at
MSP. Construction activity related to the projects is not anticipated to occur at depths that would
penetrate the Glenwood Shale confining layer. If in fact construction is required to penetrate the
confining layer, engineered controls would be used to re-establish existing confining conditions (thns �
preventing vertical migration of groundwater) and either contain or divert groundwater flow in the
immediate area. It should be noted that there are no known groundwater impacts in the area of the three
listed projects.This may have minor hydrogeologic effects on the local groundwater, but it is not
expected to significantly impact the hydrogeologic.conditions at MSP. �These construction practices have.�
b�et� employ�,d successfully during past constructivn projects at MSP.
It should be noted that the expansion of the temunals would require an expansion of the existing fuel
hydrant system. Although this would not affect the groundwater, it does create a potential source of
groundwater impacts should the hydrant system have an unwanted release. Leak detection equipment,
system maintenance procedures, and best management practices currently employed with the MSP
hydrant system would be applied to the new system to ensure that the potential for undesired releases is
minimized.
��;Vastewater discharges from MSP aze conveyed to the MCES Metro Plant on Childs Road. This plant
�x�as a design capacity of 250 million gallons per day (MGD). The proposed projects are expected to
increase passenger loads by approximately SO% between 2004 and 2015. This passenger growth will be
acrompanied by approximately an equivalent increase in wastewater discharges.
Wastewater is discharged to the Metro Plant through the MCES sewer interceptor system. Discharges
from MSP are conveyed to the interceptor system through three different sewer systems. The majority is
discharged from the airport to a tunnel near the Mississippi River that discharges into the interceptor
system. A small volume of wastewater is discharged into the City of Minneapolis sewer system prior to
reaching the interceptors. Wastewatez from the south west portion of MSP (Cargo operations, Humphrey
Tzrminal, Signature Executive, etc.) is disc�arged through the City of Richfield sewer system prior to
reaching the MCES interceptors.
The estimated 50% increase in passenger loads is predicted to increase the daily sanitary dischar;e
volume by approximately 035 MGD. This increase would be conveyed through the "tunnel" and
Richfield systems. Assuming a 2.5 peak loading factor, this would amount to a peak addition of
a�proximately 37,000 gallons per hour. Although this increase in loading is not expected to be an issue
��vith the Metro Plant's total capacity (this increase amounts to less than 0.2% of its daily treatment
capacity), there could be potential issues with the wet-weather conveyance capacity of the interceptor
system from other municipal sources. The MCES indicated through conversations with Liesch
Associates that there is sufficient dry-weather capacity in the MCES interceptor system to handle the
proposed increase in flow (see discussion below regarding wet-weather capacity). In addition, the
�ichfield system is oversized to provide options for the City of Bloomington to divert their flows to the
Metro Plant (via the Richfield system) if their conveyance to the Seneca Treatment Facility is obstructed.
Recent upgrades to the Bloomington conveyance system have made the possibility of Bloomington
utilizing the Richfield system unlikely. Therefore, the Richfield system should have adequate capacity.
C'�
Currently, the City of Minneapolis and the MCES have been working diligently to reduce the combined
sewer overflow (CSO) problems that exist within the sanitary sewer network. Due to old infrastructure
in and around the city, certain storm sewers are conveyed into the sanitary system, which can overwhelm
the system and cause spilling out into the Mississippi River during significant precipitation events. Any
additional wastewater conveyed through the system during a potential CSO condition will add to the total
volume of flow and therefore potentially increase the frequency of CSOs. Obviously this problem is one
that any amount of growth in areas served by this interceptor will exacerbate; therefore it is not an issue
. unique to airport growth, but nonetheless it is an issue and should be considered for future planning
purposes.
Note that there may be MAC-owned sanitary sewer infrastructure upgrades required to convey the higher
volume of wastewater from the Lindbergh and/or Humphrey Tenminals (upstream of the "tunnel" and
Richfield systems), regardless of whether the proposed projects are implemented. After the development
decisions have been made, the existing capacity of the MAC-owned sanitary sewer system should be
evaluated to determine where and when capacity limitations may be encountered.
Airlake Relievez Airport Projects
An EAW was prepared for the Airlake Airport South Building Area Development Project in January
1999. The pzojects in the CIP will affect water quality. There will be increased impervious surface
resulting in increased storm water runofF, which will be accommodated by the construction of a detention
pond.
Lake Elmo Reliever Airport Projects
An EAW was prepared for the Lake Elmo Airport East Building Area Development in October 2001.
' ) The CIl' projects will affect water quality, farn�land, wetlands and public infrastructure. There will be
increased impervious surface resulting in increased storm water runoff, which will be accommodated by
the existing detention facilities. Approximately 32 acres of farn�land will be removed, 0.016 acres of a
3.30-acre Type 3(small, shallow) wetland will be filled, and a new access road will be constructed to
serve the new building area tenants.
St. Paul Downtown Airport Projects
A Final EA was prepared for the Perimeter Dike and Runway Safety Area Improvements Projects in
January 2006. The projects will affect the floodway, plants along the river and historical property and
have visual impacts. There will be no addieional flooding to existing off-airport buildings in the
floodplain. No endangered, threatened or special concern plant species will be affected. The historic 3M
hangars and Terminal Building will be protected from damage due to floods of up to 100-year intensities.
Views to and from the River will be mitigated by the type of floodwall constructed and by replacing
disturbed shoreline plants with native species to the extent possible in order to provide a vegetative
buffer and a natural appearing shoreline.
M:\docs\17657�2007-2013 AOEE�2007-2013 AOEE Report.doc
Parkin� Siructure Rehabilitation $1,500,000
An ongoing program to maintain the integrity of the airport's multi level parking structures.
Projects typically include concrete repair; joint sealant replacement, expansion joirit repairs,
concrete sealing and lighting improvements. A Parking Facility Maintenance, Rehabilitation and
Management Program is currently being prepared and will define the scope of the projects to be
completed in 2007.
Terminal Modifications $2,000,000
Each year, MAC staff compiles a list of "maintenance" projects that are beyond the capability of
the MAC's maintenance staff. These projects are then prioritized and completed either as a series
of contracts or as purchase orders. A list was compiled fvr 2006 and any projects that did not fit
within the budget will be carried over into 2007. New projects will be discussed in early 2007.
Sumrnarized below are the categories of the projects that are included in the Terminal
Modifications program:
Buildin� Exterior Rehabilitation '�
This is a continuation of the program to rehabilitate the exterior of the Lindbergh Tenminal and
other MAC buildings including roof and curtain wall rehabilitation.
Terminal Electrical Modifications *
An ongoing program to address electrical issues in the terminals due to age and deterioration of
the existing systems or modifications necessary for improved reliability.
Terminal Mechanical Modifications *
_` An ongoing program to address mechanicai issues in the terrninals due to age and deterioration
of the existing systems or modifications necessary for improved reliability.
Terminal Miscellaneous Modifications *
An ongoing program to update and remodel areas within the terminals to keep abreast with
changing requirements. This may be accomplished through a series of small individual
projects to meet the requirements of the various tenants or may be consolidated into a single
project.
Humphrey Terminal & MSP Cannpus Modifications �`
An ongoing program to modify or remode] areas within the West Ternninal Complex, the
Huznphrey Terminal and other facilities around the MSP Campus to meet the needs of the
various tenants/general public/MAC departments utilizing the facilities
�Historically, pr.ojects have been defined for each of these six categories. With reduced
dollazs available to fund non-revenue generating projects, a total dollar allocation of
$2,000,000 has been allocated to fund the highest priority projects within any of these
project categories.
Carrv Over from 2006 �??
The scope of several projects that were scheduled to be completed in 2006 are currently
�; '• being reviewed. These projects and estimated project costs may be moved into 2007.
Reliever Airport Progra�n
Airlake
North Buildin� Area Alleyway Rehabilitation $400,000
; , An ongoing program to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, taxiways, aprons) through
bituminous overlays, seal coats, or in some instances, reconstruction, to restore the surfaces to a
smooth, even condition and improve overall operating conditions. This year's project will include
the second phase in the rehabilitation of the pavements in the Northeast Building Area.
South Buildin� Area I)evelopment $2,700,000 **
This project is the second phase in the program to develop a new South Bui]ding Area and partial
parallel taxiway. This year's project will provide for the installation of sanitary sewer and water
main as well as the pavements and taxiway lighting system. The paving of a section of 225th Street
to connect to Cedar Avenue is also included in this project. The project is shown on attached
Figure A-3. **Funding for this praject to be provided by others
Anoka County — Blaine
Pavement Rehabilitation $500,000
An ongoing program to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, taxiways, aprons) through
bituminous overlays, seal coats, or in some instances, reconstruction, to restore the surfaces to a
smooth, even condition and improve overall operating conditions. This year's project will include
the reconstruction of Ta�ciway C, connectors El and E2 to Runway 18/36 and crack sealing in the
west annex and west, east and south building areas.
Runwav 18/36 Li�htin� Up�rade $250,000
Tests of the runway lighting wiring have indicated that the wiring has deteriorated to the point that
, replacement is required.
Crystal
Obstruction Removals $320,000
This project provides for the removal of trees that have become obstructions to the Crystal air
space. Costs include location surveys, appraisals, negotiations and tree removal.
Pavement Rehabilitation $500,000
An ongoing program to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, taxiways, aprons) through
bituminous overlays, seal coats, or in some instances, reconstruction, to restpre the surfaces to a
smooth, even condition and improve overall operating conditions. This year's project will include
the reconstruction of pavement sections of Taxiways A and E that are close to failure.
Lake Elmo
East Buildin� Area Development $2,100,000 **
This project includes the grading and paving for alleyways, an access road and connecting taxiway
for the new East Building Area, taxiway pavement marking and reflectors and street lighting along
a section of the county road. Also included is storm water management and minor wetland
mitigation. The project is shown on attached Figure A-4.
*�Funding for this project to be provided by others.
�
f j
7
Concourse E Roof Replacement $2,000,000
This project provides for the replacement of the roof on Concourse E as the existing roof has
reached its useful life and repairs are no longer economically feasible.
New Pro_jects Allowance $10,000,000
An ailowance has been established for new projects that have been requested. Further evaluation
and prioritization of these requests is required.
2008 Capiial �rnproverrient P'rogram
Noise Mitigation Program �
Residential Sound Insulation (60-64 2007 I)NL) Pilot � $3,200,000
There will be a series of projects to provide noise mitigation for single family residential houses
within the certified MSP 200'7 DNL 60-64 noise contour. The mitigation will consist of a
mechanical package that will provide air conditioning for homes that do not have air conditioning.
Residential homeawners would be subject to a copay based on the following percentages: 64 DNL
—10%. 63 DNL — 20%, 62 DNL — 30%, 61 DNL — 40%, 60 DNL — 50%. Prior to proceeding with
this progratn, a pilot program will be rolled out. The pilot program will be used to help determine
manageable production goals for the program and to help detertnine out year project budgets
Taxiway C!D Complex Construction (Project A in Figure A-1)
Taxiwav CID Comulex $Z,000,000
This project is the fourth phase of a multi-phase program to reEonstruct and reconfigure Taxiways
C and D between Runway 12L/30R and Runway 12R/30L. This project provides for the
reconstruction of pavement bounded by new alignments of Taxiways C, D, P and Q.
( ) � �
,___ .
Air�eld Rehabilitation Program
Airside Bituminons Rehabilitation $500,000
An ongoing program to construct or reconstruct bituminous pavements within the Air Operations
Area. Inspection of ta�ciway pavements and other airfield areas will be made to determine whether
or not a bituzninous repair project is required.
Pavement Toint Sealin� $500,000
An ongoing prograzn to provide for the resealing of joints in existing concrete pavements. Tlie
project also provides for limited crack and surface repairs. This year's project is located aiong
Taxiway G and at the east end of Runway 12L/30R.
Runway Rehabilitation Program
Paveznent Rehabilitation — Runway 12L/30R Se�. 2 $23,000,000
This project provides for the reconstruction of the xniddle section of Runway 12U30R located
between Runway 4/22 and Taxiway P3 as well as the middle segment of Taxiway P and associated
taxiway connectors. Reconstruction of three separate segments has been coxnpleted in previous
years with Segment 2 being the final section of pavement requiring reconstruction.
Landside Rehabilitation & Repair Program
Landside Pavement Rehabilitation $400,000
( i An ongoing program to reconstruct the airport's roadways and parking lots. A specific project has
-' not been identified at this time. Pavements wil] be evaluated in the spring of 2006 to determine
whether a pavernent repair project is needed.
A-14
C
�
Parkin� Structure Rehabilitation $1,500,000
An ongoing program to maintain the integrity of the airport's multi level parking structures.
i Projects typically include concrete repair, joint sealant replacement, expansion joint repairs,
concrete sealing and lighting improvements.
Terminal Modifications $2,000,000
Each year, MAC staff compiles a list of "maintenance" projects that are beyond the capability of
the MAC's maintenance staff. These projects are then prioritized and completed either as a series
of contracts or as purchase orders. A list was compiled for 2007 and any projects that did fit
within the budget will be carried over into 2008. New projects will be discussed in early 2008.
Summarized below are the categories of the projects which are included in the Terminal
Modifications program:
Landber�h Terminal Interior Rehabilitation *
An ongoing program to renovate the interior of the Lindbergh Ternainal.
Buildin� Exterior Rehabilitation *
This is a continuation of the program to rehabilitate the exterior of the Lindbergh Terminal and
other MA.0 buildings including roof and curtain wall rehabilitation.
Terminal Electrical Modifications *
An ongoing program to address electrical issues in the terminals due to age and dete;rioration of
the existing systems or modifications necessary for improved reliability.
Terminal Mechanical Modifications ' *
( ) An ongoing program to address mechanical issues in the terrninals due to age and deterioration
of the existing systems or modifications necessary for improved reliability.
Terminal Mfiscellaneous Modifications *
An ongoing program to update and remodel areas within the terminals to keep abreast with
changing requirements. This may be accomplished through a series of small individual
projects to meet the requirements of the various tenants or may be consolidated into a single
project.
Humuhrev Terminal & MSP Campus Modifications *
An ongoing program to modify or remodel areas within the West Terminal Connplex, the
Humphrey Terminal and other facilities around the MSP Campus to meet the needs of the
various tenants/general public/MAC departments utilizing the facilities
*Historically, projects have been defined for each of these seven categories. With reduced
dollars available to fund non-reaenue generating projects, a total dollar allocation of
$2,000,000 has been allocated to fund the highest priority projects within any of these
project categories.
Reliever Airport Program
Anoka County — Blaine
Buildin� Area Development — West Annex $850,000 *�
This project provides for the construction of two alleyways for eight storage hangars and three
�_� corporate hangars, sanitary sewer and water rnain and accommodation of storm water drainage.
�*Funding for this project to be provided by others.
A-1S
r� ..
�
Crystal �
Allevwav Rehabilitation $320,000
, ; An ongoing program to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, taxiways, aprons) through
bituminous overlays, seal coats, or in some instances, reconstruction, to restore the surfaces to a
smooth, even condition and imprave overall operating conditions. This year's project will include
the reconstruction of taxilanes in the west and south building areas. The project will also include
any necessary airfield pavement crack repairs.
Runwav 14L/32It Reconsiruction $2,000,000
This project provides for the reconstruction of Runway 14LJ32R with new bituminous pavement
and subgrade correction.
Flying Cloud
Runwav 10L/28R Widenin�lExtension $900,000
This project is the extension of the north parallel runway from 3,600 to 3,900 feet.
South Buildin� Area Develoument $7,000,000 ��=
This project will provide for the first phase in the construction of the new South Building Area and
will include grading and sanitary sewer and water main installation.
**Funding for this project is to be provided. by others.
Lake Elmo
Pavement Rehabilitation $300,000
An ongoing program to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, taxiways, aprons) through
�__ � bituminous overlays, seal coats, or in some instances, reconstruction, to restore fihe surfaces to a
smooth, even condition and improve overall operating conditions. This year's project will include
the rehabilitation of taxiway connectors to Runway 14/32.
St. Paul
.Toint and Crack Repair $100,000
The pavement subgrade at the St. Paul Downtown Airport is extremely poor. An annual pavement
joint and crack repair program will therefore be initiated to maintain pavement sirength and
pavement life.
MAC Buildin� Maintenance $100,000
An ongoing program to provide for facility modifications to ensure continued efficient operation
of buildings or modifications necessary to meet the requirements of the tenants.
Runwav Safetv Area $8,800,000
This project is the third and final stage of safety area improvements at St. Paul. This year's project
includes the installation of an Engineered Materiai Arresting System (EMAS) at both ends of
Runway 14/32, the relocation of the Runway 32 localizer antenna and minor modifications to the
approach Iighting system.
Pavement Rehabilitation $850,000
� 1 An ongoing prograrri to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, taxiways, aprons) through
bituminous overlays, seal coats, or in some instances, reconstruction, to restore the surfaces to a
A-16
t�
l',
smooth, even condition and improve overall operating conditions. This year's project will include
the reconstruction of pavement and subbase for Taxiways D, W and a portion of N.
Reliever .Airports Utility Extension Program
Flying Cloud
Sanitarv Sewer and Water Main Extensions $3,600,000
In accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement with the City of Eden Prairie and the
requirexnent by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to close all private well and septic
systems at the airport, staff proposes to complete the installation of sanitary sewer and water along
Pioneer Trail to serve the FBOs and interested tenants in the north building areas. In addition, the
project will include construction of a restroom facility for tenants who do nat or cannot connect to
the new utilities (many are in a non-service area) and a plane wash facility.
MSP Miscellaneous Field and Runway Program
Miscellaneous Construction - $400,000
An ongoing program to consolidate variaus incidental items beyond the capabilities of the
maintenance personnel, projects too small to be accomplished i�dependently or to handle airside
problerns requiring repair which come up unexpectedly.
New Projects Program
Lindber�h Terminal Sprinkler 5vstem $3,500,000
Changes in the state building code require that the terminals be fully sprinkled. The Lindbergh
Terminal will be sprinkled as renovation work is completed.
� Chilled Water Distribution Imnrovements $2,500,000
'_� Concourses E, F and the south end of the Lindbergh Terminal experience warm conditions during
the summer months due to bottlenecks in the chilled water system that serve these areas. This
project provides £or increasing the size of existing chilled water piping and replacing four existing
chilled water coils in order to increase the capacity of chilled water distribution system.
Up�rade Mezzanine Restrooms to meet ADA Code $600,000
The restrooms located on the mezzanine level of the Lindbergh Terminal do not meet the current
ADA Code. A project to upgrade these bathrooms to meet the current code is being studied.
Lindber�h Terminal Carnet Replacement $3,300,000
The carpet in the Lindbergh Terminal was replaced in phases starting in 1998. Some areas are
showing excessive wear and a phased prograzn to replace the carpet is being proposed to start in
2008.
Fuel Farm Lease Extin�uishment $5,000,000
These costs are for payment of the unamortized portion of the existing fuel farm lease when the
facilities are demolished and the loading rack relocated adjacent to the Humphrey remote apron.
Humphrey Fuei Facility Relocation $4,900,000
This project will provide for the demolition of the Humphrey fuel farm and construction of
replacement load islands for Jet-A, diesel and unleaded fue] adjacent to the north end af the
( i Humphrey reznote apron. Completion of this project will provide for reduced operating expenses
� of the fuel hydrant system by the MSP Fue] Committee.
A-17
New Proiects Allowance $15,000,000
An allowance has been established for new projects that have been requested. Further evaluation
and prioritization of these requests is required.
MSP 2020 Development Program
2010 Projects deferred to 2020 Program
Ground Services Epuipment Buildin� Relocation $5,50U,000
This project provides for the relocation of the existing ground service equiprnent (GSE) building to
make way for the expansion of gates at the Humphrey Terminal.
Humphrey Terminal
Humnhrev Terminal Exuansion (Project C in Figure A-1) $83,OQ0,000
The Humphrey Ternunal will be expanded from 10 gates to 22 gates over a three-year period. The
expansion will include the construction of 12 new gates and a11 associated facilities including
ticketing, baggage claim, baggage make up and in-line baggage screening, road improvements,
new aircraft apron and hydrant fueling at all gates.
Auto Rental Facilities (P'roject E in Figure A-1) $16,300,000
This project provides for auto rental facilities including counters, back office and ready and return
facilities for all on-airport auto rental providers as well as a new quick-turn-around (QTA) facility
to serve vehicles at the Humphrey Terminal.
. •
2009 - 2013 Capital Improvement Program
(Does not include rehabilitation, renovation, repair and reconstruction projects and projects that
result in minor mod'rfications to existing facilities)
MSP Runway 4/22 Development Program (Project F in Figure A-1)
North Side Storm Sewer $4,300,000
The reconstruction of the northeast 2000 feet of Runway 4/22 and Taxiway C required the
construction of a new storm water drainage system from the Runway 12L/30R and Runway 4/22
intersection east to Snelling Lake. The main storm sewer line was constructed during 2001 and
discharges to Snelling Lake through an existing culvert under Highway 5. The existing culvert is
in bad structural condition and needs to be strengthened. This 2009 project includes upgrades to
the existing Minnesota River North drainage system including expansion of MSP Pond #3, an
additional hydraulic connection between Pond #3 and Pond #4, outfall improvements to Pond #4
and a land swap with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for property needed
to accommodate the pond expansion. This project also includes the installation of remote control
closure gates for both ponds.
Taxiway GD Complex Construction (Project A in Figure A-1)
Taxiwav C/D Comulex $11,300,000
This 2009 project is the fifth and final phase of the multi-phase program to reconstruct and
reconfigure Taxiways C and D between Runway 12LJ30R and Runway 12R/30L. This project
provides for the reconstruction of pavement bounded by new alignments of TaYiways C, D, P and
Q�
Noise Mitigation Program
( ) Residential Sonnd Insulation (60-64 2007 DNL) $4'7,900,000
�- There will be a series of projects in 2009, 2010 and 2011 to provide noise mitigation for single
family residential houses within the certified MSP 2007 DNL 60-64 noise contour. The rnitigation
will consist of a mechanical package that will provide air conditioning for homes that do not have
air conditioning. Residential homeowners would be subject to a copay based on the following
percentages: 64 DNL —10%. 63 DNL - 20%, 62 DNL — 30°Io, 61 DNL — 40%, 60 DNL — 50%.
Reliever Airport Program
Anoka County - Blaine
Buildin� Area Development — East Annex $2,400,000 �*
This 2010 project includes grading and construction of alleyways for up to 80 storage hangars,
installation of sanitary sewer and water and accommodation of siorm water.
*�Funding for this project is to be provided by others.
Flying Cloud
Runway 10R/28L Widenin�/Extension $11,200,000
This 2009 project is the extension of the south parallel runway from 3,900 to 5,000 feet, which
includes related navigation aids, lighting and taxiways.
South Buildin� Area Development $3,000,000 **
This 2009 project would complete the construction of the new South Building Area and would
� include sanitary sewer and waier main installation.
�� �-- � ��Funding for this project is to be provided by others. � �
A-19
' .0
C
�
MSP 2020 Development Program
Humphrey Terminal Expansion (Project C in Figure A-1) $122,5Q0,000
The Humphrey Terminal will continue to be expanded in 2009 and 2010 to 22 gates. The
�� expansion will include the construction of 12 new gates and all associated facilities including
ticketing, baggage claim, baggage make up and in-line baggage screening, road improvements,
new aircraft apron and hydrant fueling at all gates.
Auto Rental Facilities (Project E in Figure A-1) $3,500,000
This 2009 project completes the construction begun in 2008 of auto rental facilities including
counters, back of�ce and ready and return facilities for all on-airport auto rental providers as well
as a new quick-turn-around (QTA) facility to serve vehicles at the Humphrey Terminal.
Taxiwav C Extensio� (Project G in Figure A-1) $5,500,000
This 2010 project will extend Taxiway C approximately 1,200 feet to connect to the Humphrey
Terminal remote apron to accommodate additional remote overnight parking at the ternunal.
Concourse G Expansion (Project H in Figure A-1) $113,400,000
This 2013 project will include the construction of 18 additional airline gates.
I• 1
�j�� ,�� �
�
�� �
� ,' i ' � ' ' ,
�' � �; ' ' �° �' �
,�1,��
�
T���
��s t�
d t`++r : �, . � o y� '
�; ��i+� p �t' .� �� ,� r �,�•aK �I,�..,�.
_. -�.��- � �' m �- � _.' �"� �.
,
...: t ._.P� ... . ......... . _��p. � .:..,... ... . . ..
. ..::4....... .;.. .,�.. , .
, ' • ./ '��,. �' �' ./:� , , .� ; /' . '�' .�' `..� '��� '
Table of Contents for September 2006
�
Complaint Surnnlary 1
Noise Complaint Map 2
FAA. Available Time for Runway Usage 3
MSP All Operations Runway Usage 4
MSP Carrier Jet Operations Runway Usage 5
MSP Carrier Jet Fleet Composition 6
MSP All Operations Nighttime Runway Usage '7
MSP Carrier Jet Operations Nighttime Runway Usage 8
MSP Top 15 Nighttime Operator's by Type 9 �-
MSP Top 15 Nighttime Operator's Stage Mix 10
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks 11-14
MSP ANOMS Remote Monitoring Tower Site Locations'Map 15
Time Above dB Threshold for Carrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events 16
Tinie Above dB Threshold for Carrier Jet Depart�are Related Noise Events 17
Carrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events 18
Carrier Jet Departure Related Noise Events 19
MSP Top Ten Aircraft Noise Events per RMT 20-32
Analysis of Daily and Monthly Aircraft Noise Events DNL 33-35 ( ,
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
MSP Complaints by City
September 2006
Nac: Shuded Columns represcnt MSP complaints filed vio thc Intemc�.
Sum of % Toml of Complain�s moy not cqunl 100% duc to rounding.
'' �� i "As ofMay 2005, thc MSP Complaints by Ciry report includa muhiplc
comptaint ducriptors per individual complaint. Therefore, fie number of
--- � complaint descriptors may be morc thnn the numberofreponed complaints.
Report Generated: 10/10/2006 07:19 ' �-
MSP International Airport
Aviation Noise Com�laints for September 2006
Number of Complaints per Address
;�. � �;
1-6 7-20 21-43 44-84 85-129
130-216 217-330 331-496
- 2- Report Generated: 10/10l2006 07:19
i
�
�
�
Available Hours for Runway Use
September 2006
FAA Averaqe Daily Count .
-
Air Carrier 906 792
Commuter 436 371
General Aviation 87 99
� , Military 9 6
... Totai. ,. ,.:: .. 1439 ` 126f
Report Generated: 10l10/2006 07:19 ' 3'
All Operations
Runway Use Report September 2�06
Note: Sum of RUS % may not equal 100 % due to rounding.
- 4- Report Generated: 10/10/2006 07:19
�
Carrier Jet Operations
- . - '-•. -• - .- ��.
Note: Sum of RUS % may not equal 100 % due to rounding.
Report Generated: 10/10/2006 07:19 - 5-
September 2006 MSP Carrier Jet Fleet Composition
FAR' Part 36 Take � , , ,�
; : `i '
Type: „�Off No�se Level� . � , : Aircraft,Descnption � , „ Stage ; Caunt Percent;
DC10 103 McDonnell Douglas DG10 3 367 1.2°/a
8744 101.6 Boeing 747-400 3 74 0.2%
DC8Q 100.5 McDonnell Douglas DC8 Modified Stage 3 3 61 0.2%
L101 99.3 Lockheed L-1011 3 4 0%
MD11 95.8 McDonnell Dougias ftAD11 3 4 Q%
A330 95.6 Airbus Industries A33Q 3 121 0.4%
B72Q 94.5 Boeing 727 Modified Stage 3 3 290 0.9%
A300 94 Airbus Indusfries A300 3 140 0.5%
A310 92.9 Airbus Industries A310 3 33 0.1 %
MD$0 91.5 McDonneli Douglas MD80 3 917 3%
8757 91.4 Boeing 757 3 2986 9.7%
DC9Q 91 McDonnell Douglas DC9 Modified Stage 3 3 5107 16.7%
A321 89.8 Airbus Industries A321 3 4 0%
B734 88.9 Boeing 737-400 3 22 0.1 %
B739 88.4 Boeing 737-900 3 2 0%
A320 87.8 Airbus Industries A320 3 499$ 16.3%
8738 87.7 Boeing 737-800 3 900 2.9%
8735 87.7 Boeing 737-500 3 565 1.8%
A31$ 87.5 Airbus industries A318 3 57 0.2%
B733 87.5 Boeing 737-300 3 596 1.9%
6737 87.5 Boeing 737-700 3 8 0%
A319 87.5 Airbus Industries A319 3 4036 13.2%
RJ85 84.9 Avro RJ85 3 636 2.1 %
MD90 842 McDonnell Douglas MD90 3 46 0.2%
E170 83.7 Embraer ERJ-170 3 449 1.5%
E145 83.7 EmbraerERJ-145 3 632 2.1%
B717 83 Boeing 717-200 3 921 3%
CRJ 82.7 Canadair Regional Jet 3 6310 20.6%
E135 77.9 Embraer ERJ-135 3 367 1.2%
,
: ,:: . . .::�� ` „ . ,. : . .. .t. � , Totals,. ' `. ,., :;. . . . �
.', „-:. . :30653a? , ,.. :.,.._,.'� .:
rvote: sum ot ueet mix % may not equal '100 % tlue ro rounding. �
�
C�
Note: Stage III represent aircraft modified to meet all stage Iil criteria as outiined in Federal Aviation Regulation
(FAR) Part 36. This includes hushkit engines, engine retrofits or aircraft operational flight configurations. (
•The Provided Noise levels from FAR Part 36 are the loudest levels documented per aircraft type during
take-off measured in EPN� dBA (Effective Perceived Noise Level).
•EPNL is the level of the time integral of the antilogarithm of one-tenth of tone-corrected perceived noise levei
of an aircraft flyover measured in A-weighted decibels.
- 6- Report Generated: 10/10/2006 07:19
Nighttime All Operations 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 �.m.
Runway Use Report September 2006
Note: Sum of RUS % may not equal 100 % due to rountling.
Report Generated: 10/10/2006 07:19 - �-
Nighttime Carrier Jet Operations 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
� Runway Use Report September 2006
Note: Sum of RUS % may not equal 100% due to rounding.
- $ - Report Generated: 10/10/2006 07:19
�
�
f �
September 2006 Top 15 Actual Nighttime Jet Operators by Type
10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
Total Nighttime Jet
�perations bv Hour
American AAL
American AAL
America West AWE
America West AWE
Continental Exp BTA
DHL DHL
FedEx FDX
FedEx FDX
FedEx FDX
FedEx FDX
Pinnacle FLG
Kitty Hawk KHA
Kitty Hawk KHA
Midwest Airlines MEP
Midwest Airlines MEP
Northwest NWA
Northwest NWA
Narthwest NWA
Northwest NWA
Northwest NWA
Northwest NWA
Republic Airlines RPA
Sun Country SCX
Shuttle America TCF
Airtran TRS
United UAL
United UAL
United UAL
UPS UPS
UPS UPS
UPS UPS
�:�
. .
, �
�
. �
� ��
. �
. �
.
� �
�
: �
:
:
�:1
. .
. �
. �
:
� �
� • t�
�
�
:
. �
:
:
j � �
:
� : t�
Note: The top 15 nighttime operators represent 93.6% of the total nighttime carrier jet operations.
Report Generated: 10/10/2006 07:19
��
September 2006 Nighttime Fleet Stage Mix for Top 15 Airlines
10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
750
700
650
600
550
�
C 500
�
� 450
ri:
C: 400
cr—
�f'
6., 35p
�'
� 300
�
�
� 250
200
150
100
50
O
RRL -AWE BTA OHL FOX FLG KHA� MEP NWR RPA SCX TCF TRS UAL UPS
+4Y:c'[fn�
�.Manu�Factured :Stage 3' : �S£ 'ge �.3 �:�:OSta�e 2„ �
. _. ... ,..,, .
" '-_..._.._ . ._....... . ....__. ...._._..,......._ _.�.__.T_._ ......_...__.._...__.____._:..__:4
September 2006 Nighttime Fleet Stage Mix for Top 15 Airlines
Note: UPS DC8Q and 6727Q aircraft are re-engined with manufactured stage 3 engines.
- 10 - Report Generated: 10/10/2006 07:19
C
C�
I ;
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks
Carrier Jet Operations — September 2006
Sep 1 thru 8, 2006 — 4073 Carrier Jet Arrivais
Sep 1 thru 8, 2006 — 4051 Carrier Jet Departures
Sep 1 thru 8, 2006 — 278 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals
Sep 1 thru 8, 2006 —140 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures
Report Genereted: 10/10/2006 07:19
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks
Carrier Jet Operations — SEptember 2006 �
Sep 9 thru 16, 2006 — 4091 Carrier Jet Arrivals
Sep 9 thru 16, 2006 — 4059 Carrier Jet Departures
C
Sep 9 thru 16, 2006 — 283 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals
Sep 9 thru 16, 2006 —152 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures
C� ,
- 12 - Report Generated: 10l10/2006 07:19
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks
Carrier Jet Operations — September 2006
Sep 17 thru 24, 2006 — 4101 Carrier Jet Arrivals
Sep 17 thru 24, 2006 — 4107 Carrier Jet Departures
Sep 17 thru 24, 2006 — 259 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals
Sep 17 thru 24, 2006 —149 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures
Report Generated: 10/10/2006 07:19
-13-
Airport Noise and Operafiions Monitoring System Flight Tracks
Carrier Jet Operations — September 2406
�
Sep 25 thru 30, 2006 — 3095 Carrier Jet Arrivals
Sep 25 thru 30, 2006 — 3076 CarrierJet Depa�ures
Sep 25 thru 30, 2006 — 212 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals Sep 25 thru 30, 2006 —113 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures
C
- 14 - Report Generated: 10/10/2006 07:19
MSP International Airport
Remote Monitoring Tower (RMT) Site Locations
, , Remote Monitoring Tower
r4_:
Report Generated: 10l10/2006 07:19
-15-
� � •• � • i • � • • � . �' . �• • � �
• �" ��•
�' ,� ii �., �s ::.f i �. � . µ.� r ��.� i : .. ' � ��- : ��' �' , c.� , �
RMT, � a � y � ` � � � � ' ;
� � ` � , ' ' , Time�> T�me > T�me > e �
� T� O
;. �P.. ..: '.: ... � :...:: C�iY ....... ,. .. ' :: .. . . ...::: ..�. ... ;, Address .... �:. .� . ... .:' 65dB::... .:80dB. ..� .�. 90dB� . .,, `��.. dB. .
1 Minneapolis Xe�es Ave. & 41 st St. 20:56:10 00:01:31 00:00:00 00:00:00
2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 20:07:07 00:15:15 00:00;00 00:00:00
3 Minneapolis West Elmwood Sf. & Belmont Ave. 23:49:59 01:37:55 00:00:16 00:00:00
4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 4$th St. 21:32:55 00:4Q:28 �0:00:01 00:00:00
5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 25:03:03 05:35:56 00:07:03 00:00:01
6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 24:31:48 04:29:01 00:09:06 00:00:00
7 Richfield Wentworth Ava. & 64th St. 00:44:14 00:00:30 00:00:00 00:00:00
8 Minneapolis Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. 00:25:52 OO:OQ:14 00:00:00 00:00:00
9 St. Paul Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. 00:01:07 OO:Q0:00 OO:Q0:.00 00:00:00
10 St. Paui Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 00:00:44 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
11 St. Paul Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 00:00:45 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
12 St. Paul Aiton St. & Rockwood Ave. 00:00:44 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 00:09:46 00:00:06 00:00:00 00:00:00
14 Eagan 1 st St. & McKee St. 24:15:37 00:01:04 00:00:00 OO:OO:QO
15 Mendota Heights Cullon St. & �exingfon Ave. 00:43:34 00:00:08 OO:OO:QO 00:00:00
16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane 19:47:33 01:24:15 00:00:00 OO:Q0:00
17 Bloomington 84th St. & 4th Ave. 00:00:10 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
18 Richfieid 75th Sf. & 17th Ave. 00:41:54 00:00:21 00:00:00 00:00:00
19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & 84th S#. 00:22:22 00:00:05 00:00:00 00:00:00
20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 00:05:49 00:00:14 OO:Q0:00 00`.00:00
21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 00:19:11 00:00:05 00:00:00 00:00:00
22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 14:49:01 00:00:22 00:00:00 00:00:00
23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Ave. 02:56:01 00:00:09 00:00:00 00:00:00
24 Eagan Chapel Ln. & Wren �n. 25:32:08 00:01:59 00:00:00 00:00:00
25 Eagan � Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 01:17:07 00:00:02 00:00:00 00:00:00
26 Inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 03:27:09 00:00:10 00:00:00 D0:00:00
27 Minneapolis Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S. 00:19:05 00:00:03 00:00:00 00:00:00
28 Richfieid 6645 16th Ave. S. 01:38:14 00:00:50 00:00:00 00:00;00
29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. Schooi 4315 31 st Ave. S. 00:00:44 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
30 Bloomington 8715 River Ridge Rd. 04:57:51 00:00:00 . 00:00:00 00:00:00
31 Bloomington 9501 12th Ave. S. � 00:00:39 00:00:00 OO:OO:QO 00:00:00
32 Bloomington 10325 Pleasant Ave. S. 00:00:56 00:00:01 00:00:00 00:00:00
33 Burnsville North River Hilis Park 00:03:55 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
34 Burnsviile Red Oak Park 00:04:42 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
35 Eagan 2100 Garnet Ln. 07:33:55 00:00:20 00:00:00 00:00:00
36 Apple Valley Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 11:24:14 00:00:30 00:00:00 00:00:00
37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate Ln. N. 00:04:57 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Gir. 00:01:31 00:00:00 00:00:00 OO:OQ:00
39 Eagan 3477 St. Charles Pi. 00:02:03 00:00:00 00:00:00 0o:oo:aa
�'� `' ,'� ` Totaf Time for Arr�val Noise �vents ,: ', ,:, 257 54 36 14 11 34 , OQ 16 26 00 0� 01
„
C
- 16 - Report Generated: 10/10/2006 07:19
Time Above Threshold dB for Departure Related Noise Events
September 2006
:.,„ � , , � ,
, , ; � ,� �.
RMT ` � r , � e > . e �� e � � �
� T�m Tim Tim T�me
;�i; ID .., ' .. �.... ,::C!tY.._..:.�..'.... . ?' .. '...,.. . . �,.....: Address..., . '�. .'. .,�, �.... . .: 65dB...; ,.80�1B.. .. ..: 9Qd6:. � .. 100dB..,:
1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 41st St. 04:18:53 00:03:07 OQ:00:00 00:00:00
2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 05:18:20 00:05:04 00:00:00 00:00:00
3 Minneapolis West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. 12:57:00 00:22:26 OQ:00:47 00:00:00
4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48th St. 16:05:27 00:29:33 00:00:32 00:00:00
5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 41:57:54 05:01:19 00:49:30 00:00:04
6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 49:42:19 07:30:13 01:18:41 00:00:30
7 Richfield Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. 20:20:06 00:47:22 00:00:14 OQ:00:00
8 Minneapolis Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. 15:08:26 00:39:04 00:01:00 00:00:00
9 St. Paul Saratoga 5t. & Hartford Ave. 00:09:08 00:01:02 00:00:09 00:00:00
10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 00:11:03 00:02:44 00:01:12 00:00:00
11 St. Paul Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 00:11:55 00:02:06 00:00:29 00:00:00
12 St. Paul Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. 00:03:20 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 12:11:57 00:06:08 00:00:02 00:00:00
14 Eagan 1 st St. & McKee St. 14:08:28 00:3723 00:00:47 00:00:00
15 Mendota Heights Cullon St. & Lexington Ave. 14:45:27 00:13:40 00:00:14 00:00:00
16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane 12:16:01 01:04:58 00:05:11 00:00:00
17 Bloomington 84th St. & 4th Ave. 00:37:05 00:04:07 00:01:09 OO:OO:QO
18 Richfieid 75th 5t. & 17th Ave. 10:56:53 00:07:48 OQ:02:03 00:00:00
19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & 84th Sf. 07:58:12 OO:a3:23 OO:Q0:02 00:00:00
20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 01:11:11 00:0'1:19 00:00:00 00:00:00
21 inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th Sfi. 05:31:19 00:01:32 00:00:00 00:00:00
22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 03:14:33 00:01:04 OO:Q0:00 00:00:00
23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Ave. 2522:53 01:43:53 00:08:24 00:00:00
24 Eagan Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. 08:48:57 00:09:06 OO:Q0:00 OO:OO:OQ
25 Eagan Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 06:41:11 00:00:42 00:00:00 00:00:00
26 Iriver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 09:27:56 00:13:35 00:00:01 00:00:00
27 Minneapolis Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S. 12:10:55 00:19:38 00:00:09 00:00:00
28 Richfield 6645 16th Ave. S. �28:40:19 00:2123 00:00:03 00:00:00
29 Minneapalis Ericsson Elem.-Schoo1431531stAve. S. 09:23:58 00:08:15 00:00:00 00:00:00
30 Bloomington 8715 River Ridge Rd. 17:01:11 01:53:11 00:04:42 00:00:00
31 Bloomington 9501 12th Ave. S. 01:19:08 00:00:39 00:00:01 00:00:00
32 Bloomington 10325 Pleasant Ave. S. 00:32:09 00:00:26 00:00:00 00:00:00
33 Burnsvilie North River Hiils Park 04:24:35 00:01:45 00:00:00 00:00:00
34 Burnsville Red Oak Park 01:31:16 00:00:18 00:00:00 00:00:00
35 Eagan 2100 Garnet Ln. 03:40:58 00:02:38 00:00:00 00:00:00
36 Apple Valley Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 01:38:03 00:01:09 OQ:00:00 OO:OO:QO
37 Eagan 4399 Woodgafe Ln. N. 02:24:07 00:01:01 00:00:00 00:00:00
38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 03:36:55 00:02:08 00:00:00 00:00:00
39 Eagan 3477 St. Charles PI. 02:08:43 00:02:17 00:00:00 00:00:00
''` '"`'Total Time for Departure Na�se Euents 388 08 11 22 27` 26 02 35 22• QO 00 34,:;
,� :.... . ....: . .. > .., � , ...::: ,..,.. ., . ...J, _,
� .
Report Generated: 10/10/2006 07:19 _ 17 _
Arrival Related Noise Events
September 2006
,,
;� � �� � � � � � � rri al�, Arrival
Arrival A v Arr�val
, RMT r' � , � � �,,�� � �4 5 , � � Events > , Events � ; 'Events > Events >
ID � ` ' _ G�iy . r..'. . � y:,.... . .:,. ,i', ,a" � Address .. .. �.: : � ......:...: .. .. . :65dB:.f .:�# .:, 80tlB' .. 90d� "' � � 100dB
. ... ....... i, .. .�.C. .... ,. '.
.... .. . . _. ...:.. .:. . �. .. � ..1 . . .. .... . � ... .::
1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 41 st St. 4607 31 0 0
2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 4119 241 0 0
3 Minneapolis West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. 4396 1160 7 0
4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48th St. 4�69 586 1 0
5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58ih St. 4601 3331 144 1
6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 4641 3665 287 0
7 Richfieid Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. 139 6 0 0
8 Minneapolis Longfeliow Ave. & 43rd St. 75 4 0 0
9 St. Paul Saratoga St. & Hartfard Ave. 6 0 0 0
10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 4 0 0 0
11 5t. Paul Finn 5t. & Scheffer Ave. 3 0 0 0
12 St. Paui Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. 3 0 0 0
13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 44 3 0 0
14 Eagan 1st St. & McKee Sf. 5396 34 0 0
15 Mendota Heights Cullan St. & Lexington Ave. 121 2 0 0
16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane 3786 937 0 0
17 Bloomington 84kh St. & 4th Ave. 1 0 0 0
18 Richfield 75fh St. & 17th Ave. 180 8 0 0
19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & 84th St. 62 2 0 0
20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 18 5 0 0
21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 76 2 0 0
22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Traii 3332 9 0 0
23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Ave. 804 3 0 0
24 Eagan Chapel �n. & Wren Ln. 5390 54 0 0
25 Eagan Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 268 1 Q 0
26 inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 871 6 0 0
27 Minneapolis Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S. 67 2 0 0
28 Richfield 6645 16th Ave. S. 297 9 0 0
29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31 st Ave. S. 2 0� 0 0
30 Bloomington $715 River Ridge Rd. 1285 0 0 0
31 Bioomington 9501 12th Ave. S. 4 0 0 0
32 Bloomington 10325 Pleasanf Ave. S. 3 0 0 0
33 Burnsviile North River Hills Park 16 0 0 0
34 Bumsville Red C?ak Park 25 0 0 0
35 Eagan 2100 Garnet Ln. 1754 11 0 0
36 Apple Valley Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 2192 10 0 0
37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate �n. N. 20 0 0 0
38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 5 0 0 0
39 Eagan 3477 St. Charles PI. 5 0 0 0
, � , � Totai Acnval No�se Events � ; � 7,, � 'r 439 i � � � �'
�:,. ,. ......, . .... : . . ...... . . ,.. , .,. ., . . 5298 '10'122
- �$- Report Generated: 10/10/2006 07:19
�
C
(� )
Departure Related Noise Events
September 2006 .
� ' ; Departure Departure Departure DeparEuce ;
RMT „ , ,.', � , G� � � Eqents,> E�ents,� 'Events > Events,>
:. , ..:.�.. �,. ..:. . ..... Address-..... . �� �,...:r.� .. �`,6�dB....'. _.80dB, �_�, �. .90dB 100dB' .
, 1D .... . .... . .. . .C�tY. ... _�.. : ..._ '
. . . � ... ....... .........
1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 41 st St. 831 28 0 0
2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 1014 58 0 0
3 Minneapolis West Elmwoad St. & Belmont Ave. 2209 155 13 0
4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48th St. 2759 247 9 0
5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 6115 1613 516 2
6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 7304 2748 614 19
7 Richfield Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. 3168 408 6 0
8 Minneapolis Longfeliaw Ave. & 43rd St. 2440 288 14 0
9 St. Paul Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. 24 6 1 0
10 St. Paui Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 24 10 10 0
11 St. Paul Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 26 9 4 0
12 St. Paul Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. 13 0 0 0
13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 2245 76 1 0
14 Eagan 1st St. & McKee St. 2262 299 13 0
15 Mendota Heights Cuilon St. & Lexington Ave. 2573 147 4 0
16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane 1826 369 64 0
17 Bloomington 84th St. & 4th Ave. 85 21 12 0
18 Richfield 75th St. & 17th Ave. 1768 109 17 0
19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & 84th St. 1373 45 1 0
20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 219 24 0 0
21 Inver Grove Heighis Barbara Ave. & 67th Si. 1103 29 0 0
22 inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 549 14 0 0
23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Ave. 3847 662 114 0
24 Eagan Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. 1423 112 0 0
25 Eagan Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 735 8 0 0
26 inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 1626 136 1 0
27 Minneapolis Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S. 2152 214 4 0
28 Richfield 6645 16th Ave. 5. 4220 300 1 0
29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31 st Ave. S. 1601 84 0 0
30 Bloomington 8715 River Ridge Rd. 2538 645 77 0
31 Bloomington 9501 12th Ave. S. 282 7 Q 0
32 Bioomington 10325 Pleasant Ave. S. 100 4 C� 0
33 Burnsville North River Hills Park 769 22 0 0
34 Burnsville Red Oak Park 290 5 0 0
35 Eagan 2100 Garnet Ln. 648 33 0 0
36 Apple Valley Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 281 12 0 0
37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate Ln. N. 410 20 0 0
38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 618 35 0 0
39 Eagan 3477 5t. Charles PI. 404 29 0 0
, 7otal;Deperture No�se Events " 61874 903'1 1496` 21
Report Generated: 10/10/2006 07:19 - 19 -
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
September 2006
(RMT Site#1)
Xerxes Ave. & 41 st St.
(RMT Site#2)
Fremont Ave. & 43rd St.
(RMT Site#3)
West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave.
- 2� - Report Generated: 10/10/2006 07:19
C
C�
� I
Top Ten �oudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
, September 2006
(RMT Site#4)
Park Ave. & 48th St.
(RMT Site#5)
12th Ave. & 58th St.
(RMT Site#6)
25th Ave. & 57th St.
Report Generated: 10/10l2006 07:19 - 2� '
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
September 2006
(RMT Site#7)
Wentworth Ave. & 64th St.
(RMT Site#8)
Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St.
(RMT Site#9)
Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave.
�
- 22 - ReporE Generated: 10/10/2006 07:19
C
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
September 2006
(RMT Site#10)
Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St.
(RMT Site#11)
Finn St. & Scheffer Ave.
(RMT Site#12)
Alton St. & Rockwood Ave.
Report Generated: 10/10/2006 07:19 - 23 -
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
September 2006
(RMT Site#13)
Southeast end of Mohican Court
(RMT Site#44)
1 st St. & McKee St.
Q9/22/2006 21:16
09(13/2006 19:14
09I2212006 20:21
09/22/2006 16:06
09/2112006 7:57
09/22/2006 7:36
09/1412006 22:16
09/29/2006 10:21
09/07/2006 21:10
09/2912006 21:50
N WA873
NWA1406
N WA1842
N WA690
CCP1460
CCI706
NWA1469
N WA134
N WA873
NWA1843
(RMT Site#15)
Cullon St. & Lexinqton Ave.
� • t�
� • t►
N •�
� •�
: t�
: R
� • t�
� •�
� •�
� • t�
12L
12L
12L
12L
12L
12L
12L
12L
12L
12L
.,
�
�
•� :
:•
:•
::
:: �
�
:. :
- 24 - Report Generated: 10/10/2006 07:19 '
C
( 1
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
September 2006
(RMT Site#16)
Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane
(RMT Site#17)
84th St. & 4th Ave.
(RMT Site#18)
75th St. & 17th Ave.
Report Generated: 10/10/2006 07:19 - 25 -
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for IV�SP
September 2006
(RMT Site#19)
16th Ave. & 84th St.
(RMT Site#20)
75th St. & 3rd Ave.
(RMT Site#21)
Barbara Ave. & 67th St.
- 26 - Report Generated: 10/10/2006 07:19
C
C
( )
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events fior MSP
September 2006
(RMT Site#22)
Anne Marie Trail
(RMT Site#23)
End of Kenndon Ave.
(RMT Site#24)
Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln.
Report Generated: 10/1 D/2006 07:19 - 27 -
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
September 2006
09/11/2006 20:08
09/09/2006 17:19
09/18/2006 9:01
0911112006 22:38
09/07/2006 8:06
09/10/2006 7:49
09/10/2006 8:46
09/13/2006 17:10
09/10/2006 11:24
09/09/2006 14:15
(RMT Site#25)
Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdv Rd.
NWA415 DC9Q D
DUKE55 T38 D
XN9441 Y BE35 A
DHL304 B72Q D
CCP2760 B72Q D
CCP1460 B72Q D
AAL1231 MD80 D
CCP2691 B72Q D
AAL1207 MD80 D
AAL2002 MD80 D
(RMT Site#26)
6796 Arkansas Ave. W.
:�
:�
�
�
: .
:� :
:1 .
:1 �
:�
�►i
09/04/2006 8:24
09/25l2006 8:26
09/0512006 10:38
09112/2006 12:01
09/12i2006 15:42
09/04/2006 15:57
09/27/2006 7:33
09/08/2006 16:20
09/27/2006 12:11
09/28/2006 22:16
(RMT Site#27)
Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S.
CCP1464
CCP1464
NWA1426
NWA99
NWA1494
NWA1494
CC1706
AAL 1655
AAL1687
FDX1106
: E
�
� • t�
� �
� •e
� • t�
: t�
�:�
�:�
�
30L
30�
30L
30L
30L
30L
30L
30L
30L
30L
. ;
�
�
.�
::
::
: :
�
�
f:3�'e�
- 28 - Report Generated: 10/10/2006 D7:19
C
C
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
September 2006
(RMT Site#28)
6645 16th Ave. S.
(RMT Site#29)
Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31 st Ave. S.
09/10/2006 13:46
09/10/2006 11:35
09/18/2006 8:54
09/11/2006 8:23
09122/2006 11:43
09/26/20Q6 10:11
09/15/2006 8:27
09/21 /2006 10:41
09/11 /2006 16:02
09/11 /2006 11:43
NWA1529
NWA1527
CCP1464
CCP1464
NWA1527
N WA498
CCP1464
NWA1426
NWA874
N WA452
(RMT Site#30)
8715 River Ridae Rd.
. •�
� • t�
: t�
: t�
� •e
� •e
: t�
� •�
� • t�
� •R
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
94.4
94.3
94.2
93.9
93.4
93.2
93.1
92.8
92.8
92.8
Report Generated: 10/10/2006 07:19 - 29 -
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
September 2006
(RMT Site#31)
9501 12th Ave. S.
(RMT Site#32)
10325 Pleasant Ave. S.
(KM I b►te#;�:3)
North River Hiils Park
- 30 - Repo�f Generated: 10/10/2006 07:19
C
C
C
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
September 2006
(RMT Site#34)
Red Oak Park
(RMT Site#35)
2100 Garnet Ln..
(RMT Site#36)
Briar Oaks & Scout Pond
Report Generated: 10(10/2006 07:19 - 31 -
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
September 2006 ,
(RMT Site#37)
4399 Woodgate Ln. N.
09113/2006 5:45
09/15/2006 9:26
09/16/2006 12:09
09/09/2006 10:37
09/21/2006 18:13
Q9/26/2006 13:57
09/29/2006 6:56
09/29/2006 9:36
09l21 /2006 14:22
09/21 /2006 15:31
DHL1648
CCP2775
AAL1687
N WA498
AAL1605
Unknown
DAL 1729
AP,L1214
AAL2002
N WA409
(RMT Site#38)
3957 Turauoise Cir.
: �
: �
�:�
� ��
�:�
�
�:�
s:�
�:�
(RMT Site#39)
3477 St. Charles Pl.
17
17
1T
17
17
17
17
17
17
87.2
83.4
82.6
82.5
82.5
82.3
82.3
82
82
September 2006 Remote Monitoring Tower Top Ten Summarv
The top ten noise events and the event ranges at each RMT for September 2006 were comprised of 92.8%
departure operations. The predominant top ten aircraft type was the DC9Q with 31.5% of the highest Lmax
events.
Seotember 2006 Technical Advisor Reqort Notes
Unknown fields are due to unavailabi�ity of FAA flight track data. Missing FAA radar data for 0 days during the
month of September 2006.
- 32 - Report Generated: 10/10/2006 07:19
C
C
Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events DNL
September 2006
Remote Monitoring Towers
� Date ' #1t` #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8` #9 #10 #91 #12 #93 #14 #15
,.,.,:, � � , „ , .. :. , ...� .: ,:... _, .: . ..: . . , . :. ..:. . Y . ::..... . . : .: , , � . -
09101 /2006 59.2 60.7 67.4 62.8 72 69.3 41.9 39.1 49.1 54.6 45.4 NA 56.7 65.4 57.7
09/02/2006 57.8 59.6 65.3 61 70.4 71 52 60.1 41.8 51 49.8 37.7 56.9 64.1 57.9
09/03/2006 53.3 55.9 60.3 63.2 69.5 74.5 58.9 55.9 NA NA NA NA 51.3 60.6 51.1
09/04/20Q6 52.3 54.1 59.5 62.2 � 71.6 74.2 60.4 58.9 28.8 NA 32.1 NA 37.8 60.1 39.9
09/05/2006 53.4 55 57.6 61.1 69.9 73.3 61.8 62.1 28.5 NA NA 34.4 58.9 59.5 54.8
09/06/2006 53.4 54.1 59.6 59.7 68.2 71.6 59.5 58.7 NA NA NA NA 55.4 65.2 56
09/07/2006 56.4 59.4 62.5 62 67.3 68.8 51.3 62.7 NA NA 27 34.6 58.8 67.2 59.4
09/08/2006 53.4 55.7 62.5 63.6 73 75.6 64.1 62.9 NA 53.2 54.9 27.6 35.9 61.2 43.3
09/09/2006 58.8 59.7 65.9 60.9 69.4 66.6 37.8 41.3 33.3 39.8 43.8 39.9 56.9 64.4 57.5
09/10/2006 61 62.5 66.5 63.1 702 68.4 44.3 33.3 NA NA NA NA 59.2 64 59.8
09/11/2006 61.3 63.8 66.2 64.3 70 69.8 47.2 33.3 NA NA NA NA 57.3 66.7 58.6
09112/2006 54 55.8 61.1 63.1 73.2 74.7 65.8 64.7 45.7 56.5 52.3 NA 40 64.4 39.1
09/13/2006 NA 64.5 64.1 65.6 67.5 72.5 41.2 42.8 37 40.8 38.4 NA 58.4 67.7 61.2
09/14/20q6 60.8 64.4 65.9 65.9 69.7 71.8 43.6 52.2 NA NA NA 37.9 60.6 65.6 62.7
09115/2006 61.2 62.6 68.5 64.1 71.6 69.8 45.1 47.4 25.6 35.2 32 43 61.5 63.7 62.8
Q9/16/2006 61.4 61.8 67.8 63.4 72.1 68.8 34.3 44.2 26.4 32.1 33.1 26.5 57.1 62.9 59.4
09/17/2006 55.7 56.2 63.4 61.2 72.2 75.7 60.4 63 NA NA NA 37.1 38.1 59.6 35.9
09/18/2006 52.7 55.5 59.7 6Q.5 71.6 74.1 65.3 65.3 NA 24.6 NA NA 28.1 61.4 46.6
09/19/2006 54.4 56.7 59.7 61.8 71.3 73.7 65.1 65.3 52.5 NA NA 30.2 28 62.6 44.9
09/20/2006 58.4 58.8 64.4 65.1 73.1 75.7 62.5 63.5 32.8 47.1 NA 30.9 31.5 61.2 45.3
09/21/2006 62.1 64.5 68.5 65 73.9 70.5 50.7 46 41.3 52 53.5 43.9 61 66.7 64.3
09/22/2006 63 63.3 69.8 64.4 73.4 69.9 45.7 39.9 43.6 54.8 432 35.4 59.3 64.7 61.6
09/23/2006 56.1 55.8 64.2 60.4 71 72.8 59.8 60.4 53.2 56.9 41.3 NA 44.2 62.1 49.4
09/24/2006 552 55.4 60.8 62.4 70.6 74.3 62.9 60 52 NA 53.1 NA 35.4 60.2 39.7
09/25/2006 52.8 53.3 58.7 59.7 70.9 72.4 61.6 61.2 41.4 53.5 47.5 41.8 25.6 61.1 46
09/26/2006 55.8 58 62.3 62.1 70.4 72.8 60.3 64.8 26.5 33.5 29.8 NA 5$ 63.8 58.3
09/27I2006 51.8 53.8 60.2 6Q.5 71.7 75 67.4 64.6 42.3 53.1 54.4 NA 27.6 65.2 44.1
09/28/2006 56 55.5 63.3 65.6 75 74.9 65.7 64.9 37.3 40.1 48.6 NA 29.6 62.5 44.3
09129/2006 58.5 59.1 66.1 62.2 71.4 70.9 57 56.2 38.1 38.6 36.2 41.5 59.9 64.7 6Q.6
09/30/2006 50.2 52.5 59.6 64.2 71.5 69.8 60.4 58.1 39.9 35.4 42.2 NA 50.3 63.1 51.3
tVlo DNL. 57 8 59 9 64'6 63 1 7'I 5 72.8 60 9 60 8:; 441 49 3 4i 'I 35 8�6 Z 64 57 7
.,r... .x „_., : . . . ...:.. ....... .: .,... a. � . . .. ,.
Report Generated: 10l10/2006 07:19
-33-
Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events DNL
September 2006
Remote Monitoring Towers
'� Date #16 #17� #18 ' #19 #20 #21 #22 #23 #24 #25 #26 ' #27 #28 ' #29
, :,:: ,. . � .... .. . .r .,. ,... ,.,. . .�::.. ... :::
. . . . ...._ . ... . .... . . .: � . �.�� '.�:. _. ..r,.�:.:. ....... �.,.._ �. �..,,?. ,,; .�,..,., � : ,,..,...� _:
09/0112006 67.8 26.6 54.9 53.7 26.8 56.8 57.3 67 62.2 56.2 62.3 42.6 58 31.4
09/02/2006 65.5 NA 55.1 52 NA 52.5 54.5 64.5 60 51.9 58.9 NA 59 552
09/03/2006 64.6 41.8 52.1 5d.4 46.6 49.7 57.2 58.2 59.5 44.9 54.5 58.6 5fi.2 48.8
09/04/2006 65.1 39.4 55.8 53.7 42.3 33.4 56.2 45.7 59.9 46.8 52.3 � 6Q.4 59.9 52.7
09/05/2006 64.8 51.9 58.9 56.7 51.6 42.9 54.6 64.1 59.4 35.9 49.7 56.4 59.5 55.6
09/06/2006 67.5 53 59 54.6 47.4 55.9 58.7 64.9 63 50.8 59.4 67.5 58.2 53.3
09/07/2006 68.6 51,1 5$.8 53.8 37 55.8 60.1 69.4 64 54.3 61.4 48.9 54.1 50
09/08/2006 65.8 NA 47.7 45.1 40.2 45.5 57.7 54.3 61.1 49.3 52.8 59.9 62.3 52.5
09109/2006 66.2 50.3 55.3 52.5 33.3 51.3 53.4 63.7 59.3 54.8 58.1 NA 56.8 35.7
09/1012006 67.4 27.7 56.2 53.2 NA 52.2 55.1 66.5 61.2 56.8 59.6 42.7 60.4 NA
09/11I2006 68.8 30.9 56.1 54.6 NA 53.2 58.2 66.8 63;3 58.8 60:2 50.7 60.4 29.3
Q9112/2006 66.4 30 47.9 38.5 48.4 44.5 60.4 52.6 62.1 46.2 50.8 60.9 61.1 55.8
09/13/2006 67 52.5 59.7 55.6 41 54.9 60.7 68.5 64.5 55.1 60.8 30.4 57.5 44.7
09/14/2006 64.8 NA 59.1 55.6 40.3 56.7 57.2 69.5 62.2 512 64.9 44.1 59.6 36
0911512006 66.3 NA 57.3 54.3 40.4 55.3 56.7 68.7 61.5 53.1 59.7 42.1 60.5 NA
09/16/2Q06 63.7 54.9 60 52.2 41.7 52.1 53.3 64.7 59.4 b3 58.4 NA 56.3 NA
09/17/2006 63.6 49 53.7 46.8 44.3 45.1 56.1 50.5 59.9 37.8 52.5 59.4 57.6 59.8
09118/2006 66 53.5 50.7 56.1 55.6 45 59.5 51.8 61.9 50.5 54.1 58.4 62.4 60.3
09/19/2006 67.2 56.1 54.9 48.9 54.9 NA 59.6 55.8 62.9 43.9 53.5 58.9 63.3 61.4
09/20/2006 67.1 28.2 55.4 54.1 43.7 44.5 58.3 53.7 61.2 48.1 52 62.7 61.5 56.2
09/21/2006 61 39.3 59.8 57.1 34.5 56.3 57.5 69.2 63.8 56.5 60.2 45.7 64.3 37.7
09/22/2006 NA 30.1 53.8 51.4 26.3 56.1 56.4 69.3 60.4 51.1 63.3 43.3 57.3 NA
09/23/2006 65.4 45 47.8 46.9 48.4 38.8 572 64.3 60.9 39.6 54 56.3 58.4 53.7
09J24/2006 65.5 38.9 53.4 44.1 46.8 44.8 56.7 47.9 60.4 45.9 49.6 592 61.2 61.4
09/25/2006 66.3 49.8 55.9 58.2 51.3 43.8 57.7 50.9 61 42.4 53.7 58.1 59.1 57.4
09l26/2006 67.6 52.7 59 56.4 51.8 56.4 58.9 64.8 61.7 55.2 60 57.6 60.9 57.8
09/2712006 69.4 38.6 49.3 38.6 49.3 45.3 59.8 51.7 63.3 47.7 54.5 60.3 64 61.8
09/28/2006 68.3 55.2 56.3 55.9 55.5 39 60.7 54:2 62.6 48.7 51.9 64.2 63.4 57.8
09/29/2006 67.7 54 59 55.4 45.4 56 60.2 67.3 62.4 52.8 60,7 54.8 59.2 49.9
09/30/2006 67.2 56.8 58.2 50.5 50.5 53.6 58.2 60 61.9 48.3 61.5 55 57.8 54.2
.` Nlo DNl.� `66 6 5U 3 56'6 53, 7 48 5 52 6' ;58 �1 :fi4 9 61 8 52� 3 58 8 58 5;;60 4 55 6,;
,.... ::: ..._,. � ..., .,,;, ._. ,..,. ;
_.,.. .. ,
,. . .:: . . �. ..�.� � � .... , �: ..r .,,. ., ,. , , . ,:�:.
- 34 - Report Generated: 10/10/2006 07:19
�
,
C.
Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events DNL
September 2006
Remote Monitoring Towers
;,: Date #30 #31 #32` #33 . #34 #35 #36 #3.7 #38 #39 i
, _:, � ,..� , .
. .:::. _. ._ _ ..: ,. .:.,..,.� ...............
09l01/2006 64.4 47.8 NA 51 41.7 48.9 40.8 51.1 53.7 50.2
09/02/2006 61.2 37.8 37.4 47.3 39.4 49.7 46.3 46.3 48.7 49.2
09103/2006 60.7 44.5 44.5 46.4 43.6 47.6 46.3 462 45.5 36.9
09/04/2006 65.7 48.9 46.6 53 43.1 54.3 55.7 NA NA NA
09/05/2006 67.4 51.6 53.8 48.3 47.3 55.4 58.1 46.7 NA NA
09/06/2006 65.5 40.3 41.7 49.2 53.5 58.1 58.6 45 43 45.1
09107/2006 64.2 42 43.7 54.8 48.3 52.7 48.6 50.1 51 52.2
09/08/2006 50.2 NA 37.3 NA 30 51.6 56.2 NA NA NA
09/09/2006 61.5 40.4 33.4 48.6 39.7 47.9 43.3 49.4 50.5 48.2
09/� 0/200fi 63.5 38.1 NA 46.8 39.9 46.4 47 45.8 48.4 39.2
09/11/2006 65.3 46.1 28.5 52.9 42 53.7 45 49.5 54.6 52
09i12/2006 53.3 29.6 42.6 42.9 41.4 53.3 56.5 27.3 NA NA
09/13/2006 66.3 49.9 27.3 56.4 48.1 51.3 41.5 51.1 58.8 50.9
09/14i2006 64.4 48.7 36.7 53.7 45.8 46.6 40.8 51 52.6 52.1
09/15/2006 63.3 45.6 37.3 52.4 42.7 46.9 43.8 50.4 52.3 48.6
09/16/2006 59.6 40.9 39.7 48.7 44.6 49.4 42.2 49.5 51.2 47.9
09/17/2006 52 47.2 44.7 37 39.1 48.7 512 38.4 NA NA
09/18/2006 62.5 48.1 47.7 49.2 46.1 56.3 55.2 43.3 38.5 NA
09/19/2006 56.6 50.1 46.1 482 46.7 542 57.5 43.9 NA 29.4
09/20/2006 64.2 51.9 44.4 50.6 50.5 58.3 58.3 482 41.8 NA
09/21/2006 65.5 46.5 37.7 49.6 50 56 51.4 54.9 55.6 52.8
09/22/2006 61.2 39 31.1 48.3 44.2 44 43.3 44.6 49.1 48.3
09/23I2006 58.3 42.8 43.9 48.9 462 51.3 51.1 46.7 44.5 NA
09/24/2006 53.4 NA 25.8 46.2 35 53.2 54.6 NA 44.5 46
09/25/2006 68.3 53.7 56.7 53.3 54.1 58.5 58.8 42.8 NA NA
09/26/2006 62.7 45.7 39.1 532 48.2 54.1 50.3 50.1 52.3 51.6
09/27/2006 51.6 35.4 35.5 36.1 27.2 53.7 55.9 39.8 NA NA
09/28/2006 55.2 52.3 45.4 51.3 48.4 53.1 54.4 NA 26.1 NA
09/29/2006 64.2 49.2 51 56.5 51.8 52.9 53.9 51.8 53.9 46.7
09/30/2006 53.9 40.5 40.7 36.5 26.1 50.9 54.1 26.7 NA NA
M.o DNL 63`1 47 3; 46 2 50 9 47 1 53';4 53 8 47 9' S0 2 47 1;
. :: , , .. .;, . . .:. ... ......
. . . .. . - ....,. , „,::. �
. .:, �:
Report Generated: 10/10/2006 07:19 - 35 -
;i
C
�
C
•; � �
i�� 1 � � 1
�- ,- -, ,- - - - - . - .�- � - ,- - - . - ,. -�- • -,- , - . _ . _ ..
_ '
1' ;1 1 ` ` •
Meiropolitan Airports Commission �
4725 Carrier .Tets Departed a2unways 12L and 12R in Septea�ber 2006 '
4456 (94.3%) of those Operations �2emained in the Co�ridor
4725 Total 12L & 12R Carrier Departure
Operations
4456 (94.3%) Total 12L & 12R Carrier
Departure Operations in the Corridor
Minneapolis-St. Paul
Penetration Gate Plot for Gate In Corridor
09/01/2006 00:00:00 -10/01/2006 00:00:00
4456 7racks Crossed Gate: Left = 2281 (51.2%), Right = 2175 (48.8%)
� 6000 : ; ;
� . . .
v 5000 ..................:...................�. '
.................:..................
� � � C.� � �a :
� 4000 . .. . . . . . . . . . . .�;�. .�j . .�. . . . . .�.:. . . . .;��v . . . �. C�O . � . . . . . . . . . . . . .
,
W 3000 - . . . . . . . . . . � ' � . . . . . . . . . . . . .
r� � � � � � " "�
� < r����`�Y#�.z 4,�..6�.��c�"'�a�}�..�`���N,�t'NfK�� ��p'�x�,L���'"'t
Q' 2�0� ........... ��v� °�`�� fi�2�� ��ri��'�,���'��x��'fi.�e.���`'�'r���:-a •
.�. ..���j����,R�y.,,�,��:���� ;+�k��;r��w��, ��„��.f ....., ......
Q �
. ; . ,.
j� 0�� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:. . . . . . . . . . . . . .'� . . . . . . . . 'CJ- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
O • • •
.� . : :
Q n
-2 -1 0 1 2
Deviation From Center of Gate (Miles)
C
p J.. � , ;
� ,�,��������.�.... ' /
, `� , •- rfl� ht �
��..�,.<���. _ � �..�, �».,�»��_ .._ . ._ . . \
.
rrival De arture ❑ Ove
Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis Page 1
( j
� �
Metropolitan Airports Coinmission
95 (2.0%) Runway 12L and �2R �arrie� Je� Departure i)pexations were
North of the 090° Corridor Boundary During September 2006
Minneapolis—St. Paul � `
Penetration Gate Plot for Gate North Gorridor �'
09/01/2006 00:00:00 — 10101/2006 00:00:00
95 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 7(7.4%), Right = 88 (92.6%) r"
�.�,��, ��. � ���,�. ..,�,��,� ..�.�<�, .. �: .��x-,m:.�:� .
..: 6t100 . . .
d . . .
� . . .
v5000 ..................:...................:..................:..................
c : : :
o • • •
R4000 ..................:...................:..................:..................
d : : : ��
W3000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:. . . . . .` J . . . . J . . . . : . .����. . . . . . . . . .
o. �." �f%�s' �,f�Cx`���;��
? 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �%.�y �✓{�•r."�: )�� C=X ,-�? �� ����7-! . . . . . . . . .
U . r,�, . `�'��:' �c3: ��.�'
<( : C(�a ��� Cti : -
� 1000 ..................:...................:..................:..................
o : : :
.a . . .
Q 0
—2 —1 0 1 2
(Runway End) Deviation From Center of Gate (Miles) iCorridor End)
` �����;�,:.�,�� w>� �w� :�� ���.;��;::>�, �,�� ;�,..,� .�.�a �.�>.�:...>:� m<a� �w
-!- Arrival �� Departure ❑ Overflight�
:` . ': �,� �;: :.:.: .,- �����:.��.���*��� �.�� �.�
_ . °�
Page 2 Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Depariure Corridor Analysis
Metropolitan Airports Cormnission
174 (3.7%) a2unway 12I� and 1212 Carrie� .Tet I)eparture Operations were '
South of the Corridor (South of 30L I.ocaiizer)1)uring September 2006
Minneapolis—St. Paui
Penetration Gate Plot for Gate South Corridor
09/01/2006 00:00:00 — 10/01/2006 00:00:00
174 Tracks Crossed Gate: �eft = 110 (63.2%), Right = 64 (36.8%)
� 6000 : : :
� . . .
v 5000 ..................:..................:..................:.
.................
� . . .
o : : ;
m4000 ..................:...................:...................'..................
� : : :
a� : : :
� 3000 .C�- . . oC� . . . . . .:. Q . . . . . . . . . . . .� . .:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
o , : � : p .
Q 2000 U��'��. �. .�r.,-�.....:..� ..............:..................
�- �s-���� . ; � , � o � c �
�7 Q0� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .O . . . . . . . . . t. . , . *( %'_ . . ._ ' �.rr�� . /'y�
Q� � l. ��\..l"i�..�,{`.)�.........
Q 0 . ; � : v-
—2 —1 0 1 2
(Corridor End) Deviation From Center of Gate (Miles) �RWY Mid-Poin
C
+ Arnval �� Departure ❑ Overflight� ,:
.. .; ..,.. „ ,
_ . .. . .._. . ` � .
.. . .... � . . .. _..
Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Comdor Analysis Page 3
; �l
Metropolitan Airports Coimnission
2(0.04%) �tunway 12L and 12R Carrier Jet I)eparture i�perations were 5°
South of the Corridor (5° South of 30I. I,ocalizer) l)uring September 2006
Minneapolis—St. Paul �
Penetration Gate Plot for Gate South Corridor 5deg �
09/01/2006 00:00:00 — 10/01/2006 00:00:00 s
: 2 Tracks Crossed Gate: �eft = 2(100.0%), Right = 0(0.0°/a) «
`::������.�.,.�.x-� w �.�.� �� � ..�� ��.�.: �:.�
,.. _ _ __ _ _ _ � ;
�, 6000 . . . � `
y : : : �
� 5000 ..................:...................:..................:.................. �
c : : : � ,,,
o : : :
� 4000 ............................................................................ :
d : : : �
! � 3000 ..................:...................:..................:.................. � ..
: � : � _ ':
' Q- 2000 ..C., ..............:..................;..................�.................. �. i:
�:=
'a : o : : �.
. �:::
� 1000 ..................:...................:.....................................
0
Q p : : : �: .
—2 —1 0 1 2 � `
(Corridor End) Deviation From Center of Gate (Miles) ��WY Mid-Point)�
' : + Arr�val � Departure ❑ Overfl�ght�
� � ������,��,����:�:������:�:��..�-�-.�� . : :; . . ... . . ...:... .
Page 4 Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Top 1512ua�way 12L and 12R Departure Destinataons for Septea�ber 2006 �
(.
_ _ �
Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis ' Page 5
� )
� � � . , � .. �
_
' � '-1 1 - �'i.1
� �:� �
� �." `�;= ��
jf't' , ,,� '�' C
Gt';,�`t �,�,�—• y�
<rrs�G,'��� � 1i��+°
� � � � ' � � � � � �' �; �
: ,,��
Tab�e of Contents for October 2006
,,
t
Complaint Summary -
Noise Complaint Map
FAA Available Time for Runway Us�ge
MSP All Operations Runway Usage
MSP Carrier Jet Operations Runway Usage
MSP Carrier Jet Fleet Composition
MSP All Operations Nighttime Runway Usage
MSP Carrier Jet Operations Nighttime Runway Usage —
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
MSP Top 15 Nighttime Operator's by Type g �
MSP Top 15 Nighttime Operator's Stage Mix 10
Airport Noise and Operations Monitozing System Flight Tracks l 1-14
MSP ANOMS Remote Monitoring Tower Site Locations Map 15
Time Above dB Threshold for Cairier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events 16
Time Above dB Threshold for Carrier Jet Departure Related Noise Events 17
Carrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events 1 g
Carrier Jet Departure Related Noise Events 19
MSP Top Ten Aircraft Noise Events per RMT 20-32
Analysis of Daily and Monthly Aircraft Noise Events DNL 33-35 (
_ _ _ _ \.
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
MSP Colnplaints by City
October 2006
� Nme: Shaded Columns rcprescnt MSP mmplaims filcd via ihe Intcrnct.
Sum of % Totai of Complainu may not cqual I DD"/o due �o rounding.
�"As of May 2005, thc MSP Comptainu by Ciry rcpon includcs mulfiplc
( �� complaint descripiors per individual complainL 2hercfore, ihe numbcr of
.__. complaint descriptors may be more �hon thc number otrepotted complaints.
Report Generated: 11l09/2006 15:59 - 1-
MSP International Air�ort
Aviation Noise Com�laints for October 2006
Number of Complaints per Address
� �:. �;,.
1-4 5-16 17-37 38-73 74-109 110-152
`,
153-356 357-486
- 2" Report Gene�ated: 11/09/2006 15:59
\
C
Available Hours for Runway Use
October 2006
FAA Averaqe Dailv Count
Air Carrier 847 790
Commuter 424 384
General Aviation 90 106
Military 8 9
Report Generated: 11/09/2006 15:59 _ 3_
AII Operations
Runway Use Report October 2006
Note: Sum of RUS % may not equal 700% due to rounding.
' 4' Report Generated: 11l09l2006 15:59
�
�
�
Carrier Jet Operations
' . - '••• � ••- ii.
Note: Sum of RUS % may not equai 10D % due to rounding.
Repo�t Generated: 11/09/2006 15:59 - 5-
October 2006 MSP Carrier Jet Fleet Composition
� FAR Part 36 Take ; , ', � ,,
� , r�
5 Type, Off No�se:Level, � . , q�rcraft Descnpt�on, ,; ,Stage Count . Percent
, . . .. .. .. ..
B742 110 Boeing 747-200 3 3 0%
DC10 103 McDonnell Douglas DC10 3 369 1.2%
8744 101.6 Boeing 747-400 3 70 0.2%
8747 101.6 Boeing 747 3 1 0%
DC8Q 100.5 McDonnell Dougias DC8 Modified Stage 3 3 69 0.2%
MD11 95.8 McDonnell Douglas MD11 3 10 o%
8767 95.7 Boeing 767-300 3 6 0%
A330 95.6 Airbus Industries A330 3 128 0.4%
B72Q 94.5 Boeing 727 Modified Stage 3 3 3Q5 1%
A300 94 Airbus Industries A300 3 151 0.5%
A310 92.9 Airbus Industries A310 3 36 0.1 %
B73Q 92.1 Boeing 737 Modified Stage 3 3 2 0%
MD80 91.5 McDonnell Douglas MD$0 3 995 3.1 %
B757 91.4 Boeing 757 3 3106 9.7%
DC9Q 91 McDannell Douglas DC9 Modified Stage 3 3 5203 16.2%
8734 88.9 Boeing 737-400 3 26 0.1 °Jo
A320 87.8 Airbus Industries A320 3 5168 16.1%
B738 87.7 Boeing 737-800 3 1049 3.3%
8735 87.7 Boeing 737-500 3 572 1.8%
A318 87.5 Airbus Industries A318 3 111 0.3%
B733 87.5 Boeing 737-300 3 644 2%
A319 87.5 Airbus Industries A319 3 4074 12.7%
8737 87.5 Boeing 737-700 3 56 0.2%
RJ85 84.9 Avro RJ$5 3 558 1.7%
MD9Q 84.2 McDonnell Douglas MD90 3 57 02%
E170 83.7 Embraer ERJ-170 3 5�5 1.6%
E145 83.7 Embraer ERJ-145 3 716 2.2%
8717 83 Boeing 717-200 3 965 3%
CRJ 82.7 Canadair Regional Jet 3 6719 21%
E135 77.9 Embraer ERJ-135 3 382 1.2%
D328 76.5 Fairchild Dornier 328 3 6 0%
� , . ,
, ; ; � � 32062; ,
, . .. , . .,.,. . . . , , ..;. Totals ., . ,.:: � , .,_, .. ..:;, ,.: , ..., .. ;:' ' �.;� ,
no�e: sum or neet mix i may not equai � oo / tlue to munding.
C
C
Note: Stage III represenf aircraft modified to meet all stage I11 criteria as outlined in Federal Aviation Regulation
(FAR) Part 36. This includes hushkit engines, engine retrofits or aircraft operationai flight configurations. (
•The Provided Noise levels from FAR Pa�t 36 are the loudest leveis documented per aircraft type during \.
take-off measured in EPN� dBA (Effective Perceived Noise Level).
•EPNL is the level of the time integral of the antilogarithm of one-tenth of tone-corrected perceived noise level
of an aircraft flyover measured in A-weighted decibels.
- 6' Report Generated: 11/09/2006 15:59
( j
Nighttime All Operations 10:30 p.m. to 6:0� a.m.
� r � ��• � •�• ��•
Note: Sum of RUS % may not equal 10D% due to rounding.
Report Generated: 11/09/2006 15:59 - 7-
Nighttime Carrier Jet Operations 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
' . - '-�• • ••- 11.
Note: Sum of RUS % may not equal 100% due to rounding.
- $ - Report Generated: 11/09/2006 15:59
C
��
C
October 2006 Top 15 Actual Nighttime Jet Operators by Type
;
10:30p.m.to6:00a.m.
Total Nighttime Jet
Operations by Hour
Hour ' "` Count;
2230 507
2300 401
2400 111
100 38
200 14
3Q0 27
400 85
500 502
American AAL
American AAL
American AA�
America West AWE
America West AV1tE
Continental Exp BTA
;apital Cargo Intl. CCI
DHI, DHL
FedEx FDX
FedEx FDX
FedEx FDX
FedEx FDX
Pinnacle FLG
Kitty Hawk KHA
Midwest Airlines MEP
Midwest Airlines MEP
Northwest NWA
Northwest NWA
Northwest NWA
Northwest NWA
Northwest NWA
Northwest NWA
Northwest NWA
Republic Airlines RPA
Sun Country SCX
Shuttle America TCF
United UAL
United UAL
United UAL
United UAL
UPS UPS
UPS UPS
UPS UPS
UPS UPS
: :
:
�:�
. .
. �
�
. �
.
. �
� ��
. �
� �
�
�
:
:
�:1
. .
. �
: �
. ,
.
:
� �
� • t�
�
: :
�
. �
:
:
�:�
� ��
:
: .
� :�
Note: The top 15 nighttime operators represent 95.4% of the total nighttime carrier jet operations.
Report Generated: 11/09/2006 15:59 - 9-
$oo
750
700
650
600
� 550
O
�; 500
sW
G7:
5i 450
�C?
Q 400
�
� 350
� 300
�
250
200
150
100
50
O
October 2006 Nighttime Fleet Stage Mix for Top 15 Airlines
10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. .
AAL AWE �BTA CCI OHI.. FDX FLG KHA MEP NWA RPA SCX TCF UAL UPS
#1 i K^I I!r�t c
� �rtanufaetur�ed ;..Stage�,,,3 �� Stage 3i., ,L�Stage 2:; k .
October 2006 Nighttime Fleet Stage Mix for Top 15 Airlines
Note: UP5 DC8Q and B727Q aircraft are re-engined with manufactured stage 3 engines.
-10 - Report Generated: 11/09l2006 15:59
C
C
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks
Carrier Jet Operations — October 2006
Oct 1 thru 8, 2006 — 4067 Carrier Jet Arrivals
Oct 1 thru 8, 2006 — 4067 Carrier Jet Departures
Oct 1 thru 8, 2006 — 251 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals
Oct 1 thru 8, 2006 —166 Nighftime Cerrier Jet Departures
Report Generated: 11/09/2006 15:59
-11-
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks
Carrier Jet Operations — October 2006
�
Oct 9 thru 16, 2006 — 4165 Carrier Jet Arrivals
Oct 9 thru 16, 2006 — 4144 Carrier Jet Departures
Oct 9 ihru 16, 2006 — 267 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals
Oct 9 thru 16, 2006 —143 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures
�
ReporE Generated: 11 /09/2006 15:59
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks
Carrier Jet Operations — October 2006
Oct 17 thru 24, 2006 — 4181 Carrier Jet Arrivals
Oct 17 thru 24, 2006 — 4175 Carrier Jet Departures
Oct 17 thru 24, 2006 — 285 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals
Oct 17 thru 24, 2006 —164 Nighitime Carrier Jet Departures
Report Generated: 11/09/2006 15:59
-13-
Airpor� Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks �
Carrier Jet Operations — October 2006 �
�
Oct 25 thru 31, 2006 — 3639 Carrier Jet Arrivals
Oct 25 thru 31, 2006 — 3624 Carrier Jet Departures
Oct 25 thru 31, 2006 — 248 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals
Oct 25 thru 31, 2006 — 161 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures
' �4 - Report Generated: 11/09/2006 15:59
C�
C
i )
MSP International Airport
Remote Manitoring Tower (RMT) Site Locations
Report Generated: 11/09/2006 15:59
�. >:� :
�...
': F Remote Monitoring Tower
-15-
Time Above dB Threshold for Arrival Related Noise Events
October 2006
t � ,, �
:l � �i � ' �.� � � � t �Z ,���. � �� � i:n i
_P : I i t a .. �G i v y. (� 1+ � r �'� i � � � .� I i�+ �
RMT � � , , � T�me� T�me > T�me � Time�>
' ID � ` CI ra , ' r � . ,: i, , ' o � 5 ' i ' ' �
.,..�.... ...._ ...�:....h!.__ . ...,..�_�,.. _... : ... ..�.:..Address..�.�s:��... �65cJB � 80dBM , 90tlB .... �.�'�OOdB ''
. . . ... . . . .. . . � ,__ . :.... , . ......... . .... .. .. .. . .. . . . ... ... _.,:
1 Minneapolis Xences Ave. & 41 st St. 17:40:01 00:01:q4 00:00:00 OO:OQ:00
2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 17:07:25 00:06:21 00:00:08 00:00:00
3 Minneapolis West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. 23:04:45 04:19:01 00:00:15 00:00:00
4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48th St. 19:03:12 00:27:58 00:00:16 00:00:00
5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 5$th St. 25:12:27 05:06:43 00:03:23 00:00:00
6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 23:00:56 03:43:05 00:06:50 OO:OO:Q9
7 Richfield Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. 00:38:24 Q0:00:11 00:00:00 00:00:00
8 Minneapolis �ongfeilow Ave. & 43rd St. 00:21:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 OO:OO:QO
9 St. Paul Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. 00:00:19 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 00:01:25 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
11 St. Paui Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 00:00:20 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
12 St. Paui Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. 00:00:30 OO:OO:OQ 00:00:00 00:00:00
13 Mendota Heights Southeast snd of Mohican Court 00;25:28 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
14 Eagan 1 st St. & McKee St. 28:28:24 00:02:02 00:00:00 00:00:00
15 Mendota Heights Cullon St. & Lexington Ave. 00:47:17 00:00:13 00:00:00 00:00:00
16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane 25:04:27 01:26:20 00:00:31 00:00:00
17 Bloomington 84th St. & 4th Ave. 00:01:31 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
18 Richfield 75th St. & 17th Ave. 00:43:40 00:00:34 00:00:00 00:00:00
19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & 84th Si. 00:23:09 00:00:0$ 00:00:00 00:00:00
20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 00:05:01 00:00:17 00:00:00 00:00:00
21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 00:22:02 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
22 . Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 17:53:43 00:00:41 00:00:00 00:00:00
23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Ave. 04:53:38 00:00:38 00:00:00 00:00:00
24 Eagan Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. 31:09:12 00:04:27 00:00:00 00:00:00
25 Eagan Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 01:42:38 00:00:03 00:00:00 00:00:00
26 inver Grove Heighfs 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 05:52:39 00:00:44 00:00:00 00:00:00
27 Minneapolis Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S. 00;18:42 00:00:25 00:00:00 00:00:00
28 Richfield 6645 16th Ave. S. 01:42:26 00;02:21 00:00,00 00:00:00
29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31st Ave. S. 00:01:26 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
30 Bioomington 8715 River Ridge Rd. 04:50:18 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
31 Blaomingion 9501 12th Ave. S. 00:00:20 OO:OO:dO 00:00:00 00:00:00
32 Bloomington 10325 Pleasant Ave. S. 00:00:14 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
33 Burnsville North River Hilis Park 00:03:33 Q0:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
34 Burnsville Red Oak Park 00:04:47 00:00:00 q0:00:00 00:00:00
35 Eagan 2100 Garnet Ln. 07:40:46 00:00:33 00:00:00 00:00:00
36 Appie Valley Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 11:40:40 00:00:08 00:00:00 00:00:00
37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate Ln. N. 00:03:45 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 00:04:20 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
39 Eagan 3477 St. Charles PL 00:01:02 OO:OO:QO 00:00:00 00:00:00
�: ,�,'i ,„� .; Tata) Ttme fpr /�►rnVal No�se Even#s ,� 270 35 52 '12 23 57 00 11` 23 � 00 U0 09�
- 16 -. Report Generated: 11/09/2006 15:59
�
C
' ,. I
' � ii ' ' • • •i • �'•. ' �' r '� • ' '
� ••' ��•
�,� �:� �"�i ��i .� + � �� � �� �. � �n � �I! ' � - �'�� -' � v
RMT ;� i ' ! ' '' , '` ' ' � T�me > Time > �tT�me > Time }
, .. ' ' � c � , �� � . �' � � " � t
.�:>ID.' !.;.. ...�!. :CitY:..'.:....�.. :'. . .....:� _....�:.,.Address ,;..�. ' � , 65tlB 80dB.., .,, 90dB, 100dB.�.;
... .. �_ .� . .. ... . . ._ _. � .. .. .. . . ... ... . .
1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 41 st St. 04:27:11 00:02:46 00:00:00 00:00:00
2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 05:52:21 00:03:27 00:00:00 00:00:00
3 Minneapolis West Eimwood St. & Belmont Ave. 14:22:40 00:18:44 00:00:58 00:00:00
4 Minneapolis Park Ava. & 48th St. 16:13:47 00:26:30 00:00:28 00:00:00
5 Minneapolis 12ih Ave. & 58th 5t. 50:28:19 05:22:53 00:48:26 00:00:15
6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 59:09:19 07:32:19 01:19:03 00:00:21
7 Richfield Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. 28:19:53 01:13:47 00:01:22 OO:OO:QO
8 Minneapolis Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. 15:57:12 00:37:03 OO:Q0:14 00:00:00
9 St. Paul Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. 00:10:44 00:01:06 00:00:14 00:00:�0
10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 00:07:59 00:02:41 00:01:15 00:00:01
11 St. Paul Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 00:12:40 00:01:52 00:00:36 00:00:00
12 St. Paul Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. 00:03:35 00:00:00 OO:Q0:00 00:01�:00
13 Mendota Heights Southeasf end of Mohican Court 10:52:09 00:05:28 oa:oo:o0 00:00:00
14 Eagan 1st St. & McKee St. 13:03:51 00:33:58 00:00:35 00:00:00
15 Mendota Heighis Culion St. & Lexington Ave. 13:34:56 00:14:16 00:00:05 00:00:00
16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas �ane 13:45:20 01:08:04 00:05:18 00:00:00
17 Bloomington 84th Sf. & 4fh Ave. 00:1622 00:02:40 00:00:27 00:00:00
18 Richfield 75th St. & 17th Ave. 10:20:22 00:09:52 00:02:15 00:00:01
19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & 84th St. 07:07:05 00:03:25 00:00:11 OQ:00:00
20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 01:23:25 00:01:39 00:00:05 00:00:00
21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 04:54:03 00:01:04 00:00:00 00:00:00
22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 03:24:40 00:00:57 00:00:00 00:00:00
23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Ave. 23:07:55 01:35:27 00:07:03 00:00:00
24 Eagan Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. 08:33:04 00:08:28 00:00:00 OO:OO:OQ
25 Eagan Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 07:18:35 00:00:17 00:00:00 00:00:00
26 Inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 08:17:03 00:09:42 00:00:00 00:00:00
27 Minneapolis Anthany School 5757 Irving Ave. S. 14:0323 00:22:29 00:00:18 00:00:00
28 Richfield 6645 16th Ave. S. 34:00:37 00:27:41 00:00:01 00:00:00
29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. Schooi 4315 31st Ave. S. 10:49:17 00:10:46 00:00:10 00:00:00
30 Bloomington 8715 River Ridge Rd. 14:15:48 01:21:42 00:03:17 00:00:00
31 Bloomington 9501 12th Ave. S. 01:01:05 00:01:27 00:00:12 00:00:00.
32 Bloomington 10325 Pleasant Ave. S. 00:15:15 00:00:08 00:00:00 OO:OO:QO
33 Burnsville North River Hilis Park 03:32:07 00:00:38 00:00:00 00:00:00
34 Burnsville Red Oak Park 00:52:15 00:00:03 00:00:00 00:00:00
35 Eagan 2100 Garnet Ln. 02:24:00 00:01:57 00:00:00 00:00:00
36 Apple Valley Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 00:37:30 00:00:24 00:00:00 00:00:00
37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate Ln. N. 02:05:29 00:01:25 00:00:00 00:00:00
38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 03:05:18 00:02:28 00:00:00 00:00:00
39 Eagan 3477 St. Charles PI. 02:32:18 00:02:06 00:00:00 00:00:00
;� ��' �Total 'f"ime for'De arture Noise Events, '� ,...,;: 41y0 58 52 22 31. 39, , 02 32 33 00 00 38
� , ., : : p....,..
Report Generated: 11l09/2006 15:59 - 17 -
Arrival Related Noise Events
October 2006
� �
� �
,
j �; � , 1 � �' , ,' � , r ' � Arrivai ��, � /arnval , ��, Arrivai � �4rr�val
RMT ' ,A "' t ' �� , << � ` � Events > ' Euents y Events > Events >
� �. ] 4� . I 1 1 �. . 1 � �� 1 1 .: 1 'V I i �t' � . i� .' � �. i
�:� ..�. ..,'. � _.. , ....C�ty�.. ,.�.. . �!... `..:< . .... . . ::. .. ...../�#cic�ress... _. .. .. .� � .�. � .:.. � . . :65dB�... !. � . �.80dB �,. .: � ...' 90dB .., r.�,::.9.00dB... .,!
1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 41 st St. 4104 21 0 0
2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 3613 118 2 0
3 Minneapolis West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. 4236 1016 7 0
4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48th St. 3953 433 2 0
5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 4603 3163 72 0
6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 4192 3074 208 2
7 Richfield Weniwarth Ave. & 64th St. 126 6 0 0
8 Minneapolis Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. 58 0 Q 0
9 St. Paul Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. 2 0 0 0
10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 4 0 0 0
11 St. Paul Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 2 0 0 0
12 St. Paul Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. 2 0 0 0
13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 95 � 0 0 0
14 Eagan 1st St. & McKee St. 6137 45 0 0
15 Mendota Heights Cullon St. & Lexington Ave. 167 3 0 0
16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane 4584 972 6 0
17 Bloomington 84th St. & 4th Ave. 5 0 0 0
18 Richfield 75th St. & 17th Ave. 174 9 0 0
19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & S4th St. 50 7 0 0
20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 14 2 0 0
21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 87 0 0 0
22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 3528 14 0 0
23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Ave. 1182 6 0 0
24 Eagan Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. 6178 82 0 0
25 Eagan Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 348 1 0 0
26 Inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 1291 8 0 0
27 Minneapolis Anfhony Schooi 5757 Irving Ave. S. 65 2 0 0
28 Richfield 6645 16th Ave. S. 269 19 0 0
29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31 st Ave. S. 6 0 0 0
30 Bloomington 8715 River Ridge Rd. 1293 0 0 0
31 Bloomington 9501 12th Ave. S. 2 0 0 0
32 Bloomington 10325 Pleasant Ave. S. 1 0 0 0
33 Bumsville North River Hills Park 17 0 0 0
34 Bumsville Red Oak Park 23 0 0 0
35 Eagan 2100 Garnet Ln. 1785 13 0 0
36 Apple Vallsy Briac Oaks & Scout Pond 2261 7 0 0
37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate Ln. N. 15 0 0 0
38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 20 0 0 0
39 Eagan 3477 St. Charles PL 4 0 0 0
� ��� -� Y Total i�rc�v�l No�se Events � � 5479fi 90�1 �� � 297 ���A' 2
. . ��:,,.' � . , .:, � .... .. ... ...... .. C �.<: . . . . „� .�. .,. ,.,.. ., . , ::, ..� � . . ..:.. , , <.. .:.:. . , ::r.: : �� � � 4p�:_,.,..<:
- 18 - Report Generated: 11/09/2006 15:59
C
�, � �)
�••. - '• , -� 1� - -
• ••- ii.
t' `:, 3 � � '' , Departure Departure 'DeparEure Departure
w � ; ,x
�RMT + � � � ' Events � Events � Events > Events > ,'
�
.��.� .. .. .�. ��...�. �! � .:., __. .. Address;....,t.. . , � .., .. ., :65dB ..� .: ... . 80dB�. .. ,._. 90,dB 100dB .
tY _ _._ ... . ......
. . . ...,r. ..�. t .... -: .. , . . .
1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 41 st St. 857 34 0 0
2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 1118 43 0 0
3 Minneapolis West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. 2432 139 13 0
4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48th St. 2869 229 6 0
5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 7171 1757 513 6
6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 8647 2899 630 14
7 Richfield Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. 4187 572 19 0
8 Minneapolis Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. 2596 291 7 0
9 St. Paul Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. 30 6 2 0
1 Q St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 14 11 10 1
11 St. Paul Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 28 9 5 0
12 Sf. Paul Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. 11 0 0 0
13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 2005 85 0 0
14 Eagan 1 st St. & McKee St. 2128 272 5 0
15 Mendota Heights Cullon Sf. & Lexing#on Ave. 2405 153 2 0
16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane 2055 379 61 0
17 Bloomington 84th St. & 4th Ave. 47 11 4 0
18 Richfieid 75th St. & 17th Ave. 1710 129 19 0
19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & 84th St. 1232 40 2 0
20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 267 18 2 0
21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67fh Sf. 1016 26 0 0
22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 594 16 Q 0
23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Ave. 3526 5$2 93 0
24 Eagan Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. 1413 94 0 �
25 Eagan Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 815 2 0 0
26 Inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 1433 103 0 0
27 Minneapolis Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S. 2480 254 4 0
28 Richfield 6645 16th Ave. S. 5057 379 2 0
29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31 st Ave. S. 1902 100 2 0
30 Bloomington 8715 River Ridge Rd. 2114 434 52 0
31 Bloomingfon 9501 12th Ave. S. 226 7 3 0
32 Bloomington 10325 Pleasanf Ave. S. 55 2 0 0
33 Burnsville North River Hiils Park 641 11 0 0
34 Burnsviile Red Oak Park 166 2 0 0
35 Eagan 2100 Garnet Ln. 422 22 0 0
36 Apple Valley Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 97 5 0 0
37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate Ln. N. 333 25 0 0
38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 503 34 0 0
39 Eagan 3477 St. Charles Pi. 471 24 0 0
"; Tatai,Departure No�se Events '; 65D73 9199 '�456 `21
. .....:.. .. . . . .:�., , �: ,. � , .: .. �....' � . � '.;.
�
Report Generafed: 11/09/2006 15:59 - 19 -
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
October 2006
(RMT Site#1)
Xerxes Ave. & 41 st St.
(RMT Site#2)
Fremont Ave. & 43rd St.
(RMT Site#3)
West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave.
- 20 - Report Generated: 11/09/2006 15:59
C
C�.
C
(� )
Top Ten �oudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
October 2006
(RMT Site#4)
Park Ave. & 48th St.
(RMT Site#5)
12th Ave. & 58th St.
(RMT Site#6)
25th Ave. & 57th St.
Report Generated: 11/09/2006 15:59 - 29 -
Top Ten Loudest Aircrafit Noise Events for MSP
October 2006
�
(RMT Site#7)
Wentworth Ave. & 64th St.
10/0412006 10:07
10/20/2006 20:57
10/11/2006 20:58
10127/2006 8:13
10/12/2006 23:48
10/31 /2006 20:53
10/02/2006 19:Q3
10/31 /2006 0:06
10/03/2006 22:44
10/19/2006 14:44
N WA742
DHL197
DHL197
NWA1212
CCI705
DHL197
NWA1088
CCI705
DHL304
NWA1714
(RMT Site#8)
Lonqfellow Ave. & 43rd St.
. ,
•�:
.�
.�
• ,
.�
.�
:• .
:•
:•
C�
- 22 - Report Generaied: 11/09/2006 15:59
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
October 2006
(RMT Site#10)
Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St.
(RNET Site#11)
Finn St. & SchefFer Ave.
(RMT Site#12)
Alton St. & Rockwood Ave.
Report Generated: 11(09/2006 15:59 - 23 -
_
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP �
October 2006
(RMT Site#13)
Southeast end of Mohican Court
(RMT Site#14)
1 st St. & McKee St.
(RMT Site#15)
Cullon St. & Lexington Ave.
- 24 - Report Generated: 11/09/2Q06 15:59
C�
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events fior MSP
October 2006
(RMT Site#16)
Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane
(RMT Site#17)
84th St. & 4th Ave.
(RMT Site#18)
75th St. & 17th Ave.
Report Generated: 11/09/2006 15:59 - 25 -
Top Ten Loudes� Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
October 20Q6
(RMT Site#19)
16th Ave. & 84th St.
(RMT Site#20)
75th St. & 3rd Ave.
(RMT Site#21)
Barbara Ave. & 67th St.
- 26 - Report Generated: 11/09I2006 15:59
�
C
C
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
October 2006
(RMT Site#22)
Anne Marie Trail
(RMT Site#23)
End of Kenndon Ave.
10/29/2006 7:48
10/1312006 7:00
10/24/2006 0:32
10/15/2006 7:53
10/08/2006 6:21
10/22/2006 14:09
10/05/2006 20:45
10/13/2006 9:22
10/11 /2006 14:06
10/06/2006 8:37
CCP1460
CC1706
CC1705
CCP1460
DHL1648
N WA749
DHL197
MES3591
NWA186
CCP1464
(RMT Site#24)
Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln.
: �
: t�
: �
: R
: �
� •�
: �
�
�
: �
88
87.7
86.7
86.2
86.1
85.7
85.7
85.5
85.5
85.1
Report Generated: 11/09/2006 15:59 - 27 -
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
October 2006
(RMT Site#25)
Moonshine Park 1329 Jurdy Rd.
10/17l2006 7:03
10/07/2006 11:19
10lQ3/2006 8:07
10I19/2006 19:10
10/10/2006 22:51
10/15I2006 15:35
10/1012006 23:29
10/01 /2006 1.1:55
10I17/2006 12:09
10/31 /2006 15:53
CCP600
COOL11
CCI706
NWA137
DHL304
NWA19
CC17Q5
N WA99
N WA99
MES3278
(RMT Site#26)
6796 Arkansas Ave. W.
12L
12R
12R
30R
12R
12R
12L
12R
12R
30R
;. .
:: •
::
: •
�
�
:. •
:.
:.
: •
- 28 - Report Generated: 11/09/2006 15:59
C
C
C
( �;
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
October 2006
(RMT Site#28)
6645 16th Ave. S.
(RMT Site#29�
Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31st Ave. S.
(RMT Site#30)
8715 River Ridge Rd.
Report Generated: 11 /09/2006 15:59 - 29 -
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
October 2006
(RMT Site#31)
9501 12th Ave. S.
(RMT Site#32)
10325 Pleasant Ave. S.
(RMT Site#33)
North River Hills Park
- 30 - Report Generated: 11/09/2006 15:59
C
C�
( �
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
October 2006
(RMT Site#34)
Red Oak Park
(RMT Site#35)
2100 Gatnet Ln.
(RMT Site#36)
Briar Oaks & Scout Pond
Report Generated: 11/09/2006 15:59 - 31 -
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
October 2006
(RMT Site#37)
4399 Woodgate �n. N.
(RMT Site#38)
3957 Turquoise Cir.
(RMT Site#39)
3477 St. Charies Pi.
�
October 2006 Remote Monitoring Tower Too Ten Summa�y
The top ten noise events and the event ranges at each RMT for October 2006 were comprised of 88.2%
departure operations. The predominant top ten aircraft type was the DC9Q with 29.2% of the highest �max
events. (
October 2006 Technical Advisor Re�ort Notes �
Unknown fields are due to unavailability of FAA flight track data. Missing FAA radar data for 0 days during the
month of October 2006.
- 32 - Report Generated: 11 /09/2006 15:59
Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events DNL
October 2006
Remote Monitoring Towers
.; j .. . ... .. . .
:�D�ate-� �#1 #2 '#3' #4 #5 #6 '#7,� , #8 #9' #10 #11 #12 #73 `#14 #13'
.. ,�, ,,,. �:
. :, � . _. . . _ . .. . ...... . . . . .. �., . . .. ,.., , .: .�.,. . �. . . .,,. ..: �:
_ ..� ... ..... ... . . ....�. , ._,.., . .._...
10/Q1/2006 58.2 58.4 65.2 61.3 69.6 68.1 37.9 34 NA NA NA NA 59.8 62.8 60.6
10i02/2006 56.5 57.5 652 61.5 72.9 70.6 60.7 56.4 NA 52.6 NA 25.6 53.3 62.4 53.2
10103/2006 60.4 61.4 68.4 64.4 72.9 73 60 61.9 54.5 58.4 43.7 44.5 56.1 64.2� 56.8
10/04/2006 56.3 59 64.1 64.4 73.1 72.6 65 59.2 59.3 63.1 53.7 25.8 53.9 65 54.4
10/05/2006 58.1 60.5 64.5 62 69.4 68.5 53.3 52.1 37.3 39.3 37.6 42.3 60.2 66 61
10/06/2006 61 61 6$.7 63.2 72.2 68.9 37.8 40.6 37.8 47.5 35 30.6 59 63.7 63.1
10/07/2006 60.4 59.2 66.8 60.7 70.3 66.$ 37.4 35.9 NA NA NA 382 58 61.3 58.9
10/08/2006 54.9 53.1 60.7 61.3 71.5 72.7 62.2 60.3 NA 30.4 NA 28.4 36.6 62.1 40.6
10/09/2Q06 51.9 55.7 61.7 62.3 72.8 73.7 65.5 61 38.3 54.6 51.8 33.8 NA 57.8 44.3
1 Q110/2006 57.2 59.3 63.7 64 71,9 70.5 59 59.1 NA 37.7 NA 37.8 5$.9 65.1 60.1
10/11/2006 53.3 54.9 59.6 60.3 71.3 75.7 65.7 64.3 53.9 28.5 49.6 NA 46.2 62.8 49.4
10/12/2006 57.7 58.3 62.2 62.5 71.6 75.7 65.4 65.8 NA 34.8 42 NA 46.6 63.2 46.4
10/13/2Q06 51.7 54.7 60.6 61.4 70.3 74.1 64.6 62.5 39.1 39.7 36.7 33.2 47.2 63.3 47.1
10/14/2006 52.5 54 572 56.2 68.7 712 63.3 58.3 NA NA 38.8 NA 39.6 60.3 37
10/15/2006 57.2 57.9 64.6 59.8 68.2 66.9 45.6 49 31.7 33.6 NA 25.3 59.4 63.7 61.7
10/16/2006 602 64.1 67.4 66.3 71.3 74.1 45.1 37 29.6 33.4 25 34.8 57.9 62.6 60.7
10/1712006 59 57.9 67.3 62.1 73.7 73.7 64 62.3 32.4 NA NA 28 56.2 63.5 56.3
10/18/2006 57.2 57.5 63.5 65 752 75.6 68.2 65 42.8 54.3 53.7 NA 29.9 62.6 36.5
10/1912006 55.8 57.6 63.2 61.9 72.2 72.2 63.4 60.5 28.9 NA 45.5 NA 56.4 67.6 59
10/20/2006 56.6 58.2 61.7 63.1 72.9 75.3 65.4 64.7 40.2 34.8 NA 36 32.7 60.7 41.1
10121/2006 50.8 52.3 57.5 58.3 69 71 62.8 58.7 44 57,7 52.7 NA 28.6 59.2 26.4
10/2212006 52.4 53.9 58.4 59.3 692 73.2 63.9 61.3 44.7 NA 47 NA 44.6 59.2 33.1
10/23/2006 53.4 53.9 59.3 60.1 71.7 74 65.9 62.9 41 53.6 54.6 NA NA 59.1 43.3
10/24/20�6 58.4 60.9 63.2 64 68.5 69 52 55 39.4 30.3 33.2 31.7 60.2 67.1 61.5
10/25/2006 57.3 60.8 64.4 62 68.9 68.8 48.3 47.1 NA 37.8 27.6 26.9 60.9 63.9 64.8
10/26/2006 58.9 61.7 65.9 63.1 70.8 69.1 50.1 45.4 52.8 55.1 42.� 33.7 6Q.7 66.2 62.1
10127/2006 52.7 53.9 60.4 61.3 72.2 74.5 63.3 63 38.4 27 41.9 28.1 43 62.3 46
10/28/2006 54.2 53.9 56.6 57.8 66.2 70.9 61.9 57.7 NA NA NA 30.2 42.4 60.4 39
10I29/2006 56.6 59 63.3 61.3 67.5 67.6 45.1 50.8 NA NA 32.3 NA 59.1 64.6 61.3
10/30/2006 58.1 58.6 63.8 61 70.6 74.5 62 60.1 NA NA NA NA 56.2 63.6 57.3
10131/2006 52.8 53.8 57.2 60.3 67.9 71.2 61.9 64.6 42 NA 42.8 28.2 37.7 61.4 44.4
N[o pNR 57 'I 58 5 64 62 2 T1'3 72 5 62 4 60 5 47 5:51 8 4'6 5 34 1' S6 63 4` 58' :
,,:;. .,..:: u � ,..::. . ..::.: . .. , .. :: , .:.
Report Generated: 11/09/2006 15:59 - 33 -
-34-
Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events DNL
October 2006
Remote Monitoring Towers
�� ` D"ate a �#16 #17 #18,� #19 � #20 #21; #22� #23 #24 ' #25 �#26� ' #27 #28 #29
.. .. �.:� .,... � ... : . ..... ..: .. . .::: , . �...;; �, ..<, .:; , . � . , . i,
„
,: . ..,.,.:. .,� _..,,:.. ,,,. .��.:- r : ,
10/01 /2006 65.2 45.8 57.3 52.2 35.8 54.1 55.2 68.5 59.2 53.2 60.8 30.3 58 NA
10/02/2006 66.9 37.3 47.3 42.8 45 53.6 55.1 63.5 59.4 56 57.4 58.9 61.2 48.9
10iQ3/2q06 68.7 47.3 55.2 52.8 50.8 53.4 55.8 63.7 60.7 57.6 56.5 52J 62.1 53
10/04/2006 67.9 NA 46.3 38.4 43.5 55.5 59.6 61.7 63.2 58.6 58 59.9 63.3 51.8
10/05/2006 67.7 47.5 59.3 55.8 47 57.7 58.3 67.8 63.5 57.9 60.9 45.5 61.2 35.4
10/06/2006 65.8 38.1 60.7 57.2 44.8 54.3 55.8 66.8 60 52.5 58.7 39.6 59.$ 43.8
10/07/2006 61.9 46.2 59.9 55.7 42.5 532 52.7 65.4 58 52.3 58.8 28.8 56.7 NA
10/0$/2006 62.7 28 55.6 43.6 50.9 37.7 56.5 53.6 59.9 41.7 54.3 57.1 59.4 58.1
10/09/2006 63.3 NA 52.3 47.2 44.9 44.3 55.4 49.9 58.3 44.1 51.7 60.7 61.4 56.2
10I10/2006 66.3 53.4 63.4 51.6 47.1 56.5 58 69.2 63.2 55.3 63.7 60.3 59.9 51.6
10/11 /2006 67.8 43.6 43.5 36 52.1 37.9 61.7 56.5 63.3 46 55.1 60.3 62.2 64.8
10/12/2006 67 47.5 53.5 44.6 56.5 48.9 60.3 56 63.9 47.6 57.7 60.9 64.1 63.9
10/13I2006 66.8 52.7 61 44.7 50.9 40.7 61 55.8 64 44.5 58.3 57.9 61.1 58.5
10/1412006 65.8 44.9 55.7 47.9 49.7 41.9 56.9 502 59.7 41 46.5 55.4 58.5 56.3
10/15/2006 67.9 NA 54.8 52.7 34.2 55.1 58 67.7 61.1 542 58.6 41.4 55.2 NA
10/16/2006 67.? 53.8 59.5 52.6 45.3 51.5 53.1 67.6 58.4 50 58.3 33.3 59.5 NA
10/17/2006 68.5 50.2 57 50.8 45.9 51.9 57 �63.4 61.8 52 60.4 54.6 61.1 54.3
10/18/2006 68.1 39.2 59.6 35.1 50.4 24.9 61 51.6 63.4 36,6 50.7 62 63.5 59.6
10/19/2006 68.9 50.5 54.4 48.8 45.4 55 61.9 65.7 64.8 55.1 60.1 61.8 60.8 58.2
10/20/2006 64.9 48.8 52.4 44.8 44.7 43.3 58.4 54 61.4 47.7 53.2 60.5 61 57.5
10/21 /2006 64.7 39.5 34.6 41 41.1 45.7 56.5 47.1 59.5 24.4 47 58.5 59.1 56.1
10/22/2006 64.5 33.2 35.4 NA 39.5 43.6 55.2 46.1 59.1 37.8 48.2 57.2 59.2 61.1
10/23/2006 64 39.6 51.8 49.3 47.9 NA 57.6 47.6 59.9 42.6 46.5 60.8 61.9 60.4
10/24/2006 67.7 49.7 59 55.1 46.1 56.1 60.5 68.1 64.1 56.3 60.5 45 58.5 44
10/25/2006 66.5 33.8 60.8 57.8 43.7 54.7 57.7 67.5 62.2 58.1 57.7 44.4 62.8 41.2
10126/2006 68.6 47.8 592 57.7 36.7 57.4 58.9 69 62.7 57.5 62.7 48 62.9 38.4
10/27I2006 6fi.9 50.1 542 42.9 49.6 44.9 57.9 53.1 62 48.4 52.4 62.3 60.5 57.6
10/28/2006 65.8 NA 38.2 41.2 41.6 45.2 55.8 47.8 59.3 43 50.9 53.5 582 55.6
10/29/2006 65 41.4 55.6 52.8 28.8 57.1 55 69.7 60.4 52.8 61.3� 37.4 57.1 42.4
10/30/2006 66.5 33.1 56.9 53.7 45.8 51.9 58.8 64.1 62.1 47.9 59.6 54.3 63.4 61.6
10/31 /2006 66.7 44.8 57.9 55.5 47.9 38.2 58.6 50.9 61.7 39.8 54.3 56.5 62.3 59.5
;,"IUIo�DNL � 66 7 47 1� �57 � 521 47�9; 52 7 58°2 64 5 61-7 531� 58 2 57�6 6'1 57 3`
�-... ,.. : _ �x . . ..;� . . . ..; . � , . :..: .
.,. ..:. .. ... .. . ... ,
._ . ,,._. � ;
, , _...... . .�..,,. � , .,., ..... :,...:
Report Generated: 11/09/2006 15:59
�
C
; l
Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events DNL
October 2006
Remote Monitoring Towers
� ' Date #30 #31 #32 #33 #34 #35 #36 �#37 #38 #39 ;
,
,;:, ,� ... ..: .. ...:.. . . ...:. �
.. ....,. . , ::. . . _. . .s..:.. .:., .......:... . ::.:.,:,:;,.. :.�: .:,. .._
,.... . _ ..:
10/01/2006 61.6 49.7 33.7 50.5 43.7 47.1 43.8 48.8 51 49.5
10/d2I2006 48.7 39.5 37.4 28.1 39.3 52.5 54.2 33.2 39.1 33.9
1 C}/03/20�6 62.6 47.8 48.5 47.9 40.2 50.3 40.7 47.9 49.5 48.9
10/04/2006 52.5 3Q.1 NA 38.1 35.2 53.4 56.2 36 43 37.7
10/05/2006 65.4 53.8 46.9 54.7 48.7 52.8 42.9 53.4 56 48.8
10/06/2006 63.6 49.3 NA 50.3 39.5 48.4 40.9 51.3 52.5 52.5
10/07/2006 58.9 49.8 31.4 49.1 47.7 51.7 44.7 46.2 48.6 47.7
10/08/2006 49.8 NA 26.9 NA 41.9 51.8 54.3 39.6 NA NA
10/09/2006 49.2 NA NA 31.4 39.2 52 54.7 41.6 35.2 NA
1 Q/10/2006 61.9 42.7 34.8 49.8 43.7 52 51.3 49 50.6 45.6
10i11 /2006 51.5 40.7 47 43.8 42.7 53.6 56.1 31.6 40.3 41.6
10/1212006 47.1 42.5 33.9 NA NA 49.9 46.2 49.4 NA NA
10J13J2006 38.5 26.9 472 42.9 NA 44.5 43.2 NA 41.7 26.3
10/14/2006 50.9 NA 42.7 37.4 34.1 51.5 53.7 35.7 29.9 NA
10/15/20�6 61.4 43 44 50.3 50.4 51.4 45.2 48.2 51.3 50.5
10/16/2006 61.2 39.8 26.4 47 35.8 45.2 37.9 44.7 48 45.9
10/17/2006 59.8 39.9 42 48 42.7 47.7 40.7 46.4 50.1 47
10/18/2006 48.3 36.9 25.4 NA 31.4 51.7 54.4 NA NA NA
. 1 Q/19/2006 51.5 31.1 40.9 48.6 41.6 52.7 542 44.4 NA 58.1
10/20/2006 51 41.1 41.3 42.9 NA 53.4 55.7 36.9 43 43.4
10/21/2006 48.6 26.8 48,8 39.4 37.2 51 54 36.2 NA NA
10/22/2006 48.5 26.9 NA 34.9 38.6 51.1 54.3 NA NA NA
10/23I2006 53.2 39.3 41.3 38.4 38.1 53.5 55.9 26.6 26.6 42.5
10/24/2006 63.9 47.4 34.3 52.2 46.2 51.8 49.3 512 54.4 53.3
10/25/2006 66.1 51.6 36.4 52.5 50.5 55.1 44.5 54.5 54.8 53.8
10/26/20Q6 66.5 49.6 26.9 50.9 47.1 522 47.9 52.2 54.1 52.1
10/27/2006 49.7 45.6 32.1 NA NA 52.5 54.9 45.4 40.3 NA
10/28/2006 48.6 NA NA 43.2 NA 51.4 54 38.9 NA 30.5
10/29/2006 61.3 42.3 262 50.1 42.8 48.7 39.3 50 51.1 49.3
10/30/2006 63.9 43.3 41.4 52.1 44 49.5 45.3 45.6 49.7 47.8
10J31/2006 65.2 47.8 43.4 50.6 46.5 61.1 58.7 45.5 42 332
.
Mo DiUL � 60 5 45 6 4'I 7 48 1 43 6 52; 6 52=5 47 4' 49 48 5.
Report Generated: 11/09/2006 15:59
-35-
��°='11`: �1
-,- � -.- = - • _ _ .�- i _ _,_ � . � _ - =1 � _�. _._ : •.
- _ - - --- -_ - ---- -
� :� i � ,
Metropolitan Airports Coimnission
4473 Carrier Jets Departed I2unways 12L and 121Z in October 2006
4201 (93.9%) of those C)pexations 12emained in the Cor�ridor
4473 Tota112L & 12R Carrier Departu�-e
Operations
4201(93.9%) Tota112L & 12R Carrier
Departure Operations in the Corridor
Minneapolis-St. Paul
Penetration Gate Plot for Gate In Corridor
10/01/2006 00:00:00 -11/01/2006 00:00:00
4201 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 2168 (51.6°/a), Right = 2033 (48.4%)
.� 6000
d
� 5000
a
c 4000
>
m
W 3000
�
0
Q 2000
�t
� 1000
O
.�
d p
. . .
� : : .
'- : �� p : '
L�
-2 -1 0 1 2
Deviation From Center of Gate (Miles)
i- Arrival C"t Departure ❑ Overflight
��..�.w.�...,..�-� , �. .,--�--h�'�" r-- � � ~��~� �.. .� ��..,,� �
,..� ...:.. . ::.... . ... .. . ... ......�,. ,:..:�- , .,.,, ,..... . �....� , ..,:.. �
Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis
�
�
Page 1
Metropolitan Airports Corrunission
114 (2.5%) Runway 12L and 12R Carrier Jet Depax�ture Operations were
North of the 090° Corridor �oundary ]During October 2006
Page 2
Minneapolis—St. Paul
Penetration Gate Plot for Gate North Corridor
10/01 /2006 00:00:00 — 11/01/2006 00:00:00
114 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 1(0.9%), Right = 113 (99.1 %)
� 6000 :
� . . .
� 5000 ..................:...................:..................:..................
c : : :
o • • •
0 4000 ..................:...................:..................:..................
� : : :
d : : :
W3000 .................:...................:....`tj....;_;.... :............. ..
O ; : l,� Ct�" z .�'��,,r.;?`� "��,��
°- 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .t;). •;r� � •� �,'-�.`xr'������'�`.'�, . . . . . . . . . .
d : : � � {!'i v �� �;�� �� � r��
; �.J Y �)
� 1000 ..................:...................:..................:..................
o � � �
� : : :
a 0
—2
(Runway End)
8
Arrival
—1 0 1 2
Deviation From Center of Gate (Miles) �Corridor End)
a>n:,,.s".az's'�"".'�""",�" ...y..�.�.w ,»> .. :�S" �'""�'Y^�:. F., F` _ S�w"' , �"'n:,tC o
;'.,:�;. �.•, . � .�.:'. �..• . r
.��:. ..�4. .:,::t� ......_ �'.:..+.. ,. ...�:-:... , ��..:� . ....�::: ......��._ ..
��? Departure ❑ Overflight�
Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis
Metropolitan Airports Coinmission
158 (3.5%) Runway 12I� and 12R Carrier Jet Departure t�perations were '
South of the Corridor (South of 30L Localizer) During October 2006
Minneapolis—St. Paul
Penetration Gate Plof for Gate South Corridor
10/01/2006 OO:Q0:00 — 11/01/2006 00:00:00
158 Tracks Crossed Gate: Lefi = 85 (53.8%), Righi = 73 (46.2%)
.� 5uuu .
d . . .
�, . . .
v 5000 ..................:...................:.....'. '
............:..................
c : • :
o • •
s4000 ..................:...................:..................:..................
� : : :
a� : : :
� 3000 .l.... ........ J .:...................:..................:.........:........
a '� ; C,� . : :
°- 2000 .� . .,� � .�4: �-�• ��C� r.; :: � . . . . . . . . .� . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
¢ . O . . . U�' ��" .� �'���
o �oao .. ......... ..........:...�� �.. ,��:-.;; - ��..� .......
� : : �:v ��
4 n
—2 —1 0 1 2
(Corridor End) Deviation From Center of Gate (Miles) �RWY Mid-Point)
,�
C
-d- Arr�val �.� Departure � Overflight�� ''`�� ''
�'�C9li....Wh:��'�Ff^v�1e�41fRNPl,E.l�A"PV"a�',.�ilV'as.4�'C�A'�°W!Ai�P�PrY�'tk^b'f�..A'^�Nnf'�.�1��'�l�itt ... � !: � ..
Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Deparlure Comdor Analysis Page 3
Metropolitan Airports Commission
14 (0.3%) Runway 12L and 12IZ Carrier Jet �epartu�e Operatioms were 5°
�outh of the Corridor (5° South of 30L I,ocalizer)1)u�-ing October 2006
Page 4
Minneapolis—St. Paul
Penetration Gate Plot for Gate South Corridor 5deg
10/Q1/2006 OO:OQ:00 — 11/01/2006 00:00:00
14 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 9(64.3°/a), Right = 5(35.7%)
� 6000 . . .
� . . .
� . .
v5000 ..................:...................:..................:..................
c : : :
o � • �
v4000 ..................:...................:..................:..................
y : : :
d : : :
� 3000 ............ .....:...................:..................:..................
� GO : : :
o � : : :
a2000 � . . . . . . . � . . . . . . .;`� . . . . . . . . . . �t� . . . �. . . . . �7 . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
._ ,� (� : ,.. :
� 1000 ......................................:.t:�.....!�........:..................
O : : :
,Q . . .
a n
—2
(Corridor End)
-�- Arrival
—1 0 1 2
Deviation From Center of Gate (Miles) �RWY Mid-Poin
�.• Departure � Overflight
Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Top 15 T�unway 12L and 12I�. Departure Destinations for October 2006
�
Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Comdor Analysis Page 5
165
ai 7 N. `�'' Y":
fiIt � '4, r�.F� '� ,� 'e, . .�` 4�i.. � P �r� �.y . ,`% ,F. . Y r,. ,,r ,q3, �k»
�k *� �� f�,kR' �',(a � ' �� t ��, r ��. rk�''�t ''t3 x1IA.. ,,�, „F�.rt �`^.�
,.r,,. X- «„�'' �,..4 5,�. i'� 's..r.� :r.• '�,�* f` 3�k f,.w.� � �.*
,�a �,:
A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments
Volume 18, Nu►nber38 Novem ber 8, 2006
Aircraft
RESEA�2CH TEAM UNVEILS DESIGN
FOR `SILENT', ECO-FRIENDLY AIR.PLANE
A team of British and U.S. researchers from academia and the aerospace industry
has unveiled the conceptual design for a flying-w3ng shaped commercial aircraft of
the future that would be virtually silent and e�ctremely fuel efficient and could be
developed hy 2030.
"Public concern about noise is a major constraint on expansion of aircraft
operations. The `silent aircraft' can help address this concem and thus aid in
meeting the increasing passenger demand for air transport," said Edward M.
Greitzer, the H.N. Slater Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics at the Massa-
chusetts Institute of Technology (NIIT), at a Nov. 6 press conference at the Royal
Aeronautical Society in London during which the new aircraft design was revealed
to the public.
Greitzer and Professor Ann P. Dowling of Cambridge University are the lead
principal investagators on the Silent Aircraft Initiative (SAI), a collaboration of 40
researchers from MIT and Cambridge, plus others from more than 40 aerospace
companies, which was launched three years ago.
The goal of the project was to develop a conceptual design for an aircraft that
(Continued on p. 166)
Supersonic Aircraft
GULFSTR�AM'S `QUIET SPIKE'
PASSES SUPERSONIC FILIGgIT TEST
Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. announced recently that its patented `Quiet Spike'
sonic boom mitigator successfully accomplished its first supersonic flight test on
Oct. 20, achieving a major milestone in the company's program to develop a
The Quiet Spike is a multi-segmented, articulating boom that, when fully ex-
tended from the nose of a supersonic low-boom shaped aircraft, is expected to
reduce the effects of sonic booms.
Mounted on the nose of a National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) F-15B aircraft and flown at Mach 1.2 (20 percent faster than the speed of
sound), the Quiet Spike operated as designed. It fully extended to its maximum
length of 24 feet and performed as expected during the one hour and five minute
test flight over the Mojave Desert, which reached an altitude of 45,000 feet.
Gulfstream has completed subsonic, transonic, and supersonic testing to verify
the structural integrity of the Quiet Spike technology, explained Robert Baugniet,
Gulfstream's director ofcorporate communications.
More testing of the spike will be done in conjunction with NASA's Dryden
Flight Research Center and then Gulfstream will spend a significant amount of tirne
analyzing the test results to determine if they meet expectations. If there is a
willingness to change U.S. and international regulations that currently ban
(Co»tinued o» p. 167)
In This Issue...
Air planes ... The conceptual
design for a vu�.ually silent and
environmenta lly-friendly commer-
cial airplane ofthe future is
unveiled in London by a team of
academic and aerospace industry
engineers broughttogetherunder
a program sponsored by MIT anc
Cambridge Universiiy.
The futuristic swept-wingplane
incorporates newtechnologies
and anewpropulsion systeinto
reduce aircraftnoise and emis-
sions butstill requixes additional
researchto addressremaining
technical challenges -p. 65
Supersonic Aircraft ...
Gulfstream's'Quiet Spike' sonic
boommitigatorpasses acrucial
flighi fiest - p. 165
Oberstar (D-l�� is expected to
assume the chairmanship ofthe
House Transportation Committee
in the new Congress - p. 167
News Briefs ... FAA ap-
proves noise maps forHonolulu
Int'lAirport... VancouverInt`I
Airport is seeking an Aircraft
Noise Specialist ... FAA, ACI-
NA, ACC sponsoring workshop
on FA.A's recent update of
envirorunentalpolicy guidelines in
Order 5050.4B - p. 168
November 8, 2006
would be dramatically quieterthan current commercial
•aircraft and whose noise would be aJmost imperceptible
outside the perimeter of an airport in an urban environment.
Instead of tweaking current technology to squeeze out more
noise reduction, the researchers sought develop an aircraft
design that would provide a step-change in noise reduction.
Because aircraft emissions is a growing concern, the new
aircraft design also had to be more fuel e�cient. The piane
proposed by the researchers is designed to carry 215
passengers and predicted to get 124 passenger-miles per
gallon, aimost 25 percent more than current aircraft.
Key Design Features
Because half of the noise from a plane on approach comes
from airFrame noise, the conceptual design addresses both
the engines and the structure ofthe'silent' plane.
Key features of the design are:
� A flat, sleek shape that integrates body and wing
into a single flying wing that provides greater lift, allowing a
slower approach and takeoff to reduce noise, and improved
fuel e�ciency;
• Elimination of flaps, or hinged rear sections, on
each wing. Flaps are a major source of airframe noise on
takeoff and landing;
• Engines embedded in the aircraft frame with air
intakes on top of the plane, rather than under the wings.
This ailows the body of the plane to act as a shield against
engine noise going in the direction of the ground;
� A variable-size j et nozzle that allows slower jet
propulsion during takeoff and landing to reduce noise but
aiso provides e�cient cruising at high speed.
166
Greitzer emphasized that the coliaboration between MIT,
Cambridge University, and their industrial partners was key
to the end result. ,
"Collaboration and teaming occuned in essentially all �,
aspects of the project. The Silent Aircraft Initiative has been
very much an enterprise in which the whole is greater than
the sum of the separate parts," he said_
Design Team
The Silent Aircraft Initiative is funded by the Cambridge-
MIT Institute (CMI), a UK government-sponsored joint
venture between the University of Cambridge and MIT that
works on projects in addition to the Silent Aircraft Initiative,
which is largely funded by the British government's Depart-
ment of Trade and Industry.
Members of the silent aircraft design team include BAA,
Boeing, Bruel & Kjaer, British Airways, the British Civil
Aviation Authority, DHL, easyJet, Lochard, Lufthansa
Cargo, Luton Airport, Marshall Aerospace, the British Air
Tra�c Services, Nottingham East Midlands Airport, Rolls-
Royce, United Parcel Service, and Wyle Labs.
In addition to the new aircraft design, the team is working
to develop and certify advances to the Continuous Descent
Approach (CDA), which can be used by current aircraft
equipped with advanced navigation systems to reduce noise
impact on approach.
Boeing Encourages Additional Research
Boeing said it was pleased to provide technical advice and �"
non-advocate reviews for the Silent Aircraft Initiative. "This
is one of numerous collaboration efforts between industry
Challenges Remain and academia that we've supported because the results are
often innovative and this work helps advance technologies
"One major technicai challenge is the integration of the that could eventually find applications on products of the
propulsion system with the aircraft," Greitzer explained. future. The SAI concept makes use of many separate
"The propulsion system, with engines embedded in the technologies being developed by the industry:'
fuselage, is different than for traditional civil aircraft, in Boeing added that it was "intrigued by the team's work to
which the engines are located in nacelles below the wing. package a number of noise mitigation ideas into a single
This presents a different set of issues to the designer." airpiane concept with highly integrated airframe and i
In todav's planes where the en ines han� below the eneines "But the compan stressed that because SAI was a
wings, air flows unimpeded into the engine, said Zoltan S. research project, "there aze still daunting technologicai
Spakovszky, C.S. Draper Associate Professor in M[T's challenges to be addressed and considerable analyses to '
Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics. perform to fully understand the costs and benefits of this
However, in the design for the new `silent aircraft', air concept."
traveling into the air intakes on top of the plane will behave In addition, Boeing said "because the majority of commer-
differently because air particles flowing close to the body of cial airplanes flying today are in the 100-150 seat market, the
the plane experience friction, he explained. SAI blended-wing-body concept would have to be scaled
As a result, particles flow at a lower velocity near the down to have the greatest impact on noise reduction. ,
surface of the plane than in the free air stream. The engines Unforiunately, many of the performance benefits of a
for the new aircraft must be designed to operate in these blended-wing-body concept disappear when scaled to that
strongly non-uniform airflows, he said. size. Boeing encourages additional research to determine �
Spakovszky said that a second important technical which SAI noise-reduction concepts could be applied in the
challenge involved the unconventional airframe for the new future"
`silent' airplane. "The structural integrity of a pressure No data were a�ailable on the noise levels that are esti- �
vessel allowing this single wing-like shape needs to be mated to be produced by the silent aircraft but data are
ensured and poses a rnajor challenge," he noted. expected to be available soon. �
,.. _
Airport Noise Report
November 8, 2006
167
SST, fi'om p. 165 ship of the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee. The 16-term congressman currently serves as
supersonic flights over land, then Gulfstream will proceed Ranking Democrat on that committee as well as an Ex O�cio
�-. ) with the development of a demonstration supersonic member ofthe Subcommittee on Aviation. He formerly
business jet. served as chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation.
"The fact that the QuSet Spike performed as designed at Oberstar will replace Rep. Don Young (R-AK), the current
supersonic speeds and was extended and retracted without chairman ofthe Transportation Committee.
any difficulties, brings us one step closer to our goal of The new chairman of the Transportafion Aviation Subcom-
seeing if it will reduce the sonic boom when mounted on a mittee is likely to be eitherPeterDeFazio (D-OR), chairman of
more appropriate platform," said Pres Henne, Gulfstream's the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit, and Pipelines, or
senior vice president for program, engineering, and testing. Jerry Costello (D-IL), the ranking Democrat on the Aviation
That platform is a new aircraft aerodynarnically designed to Subcommittee.
reduce sonic boom over land. Gulfstream has simulated what Next Wednesday, Nov. 15, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA),
it believes is the sound such a supersonic business jet who will be Speaker of the House in the new Congress, will
would produce. Called a"sonic puff," the sound is 10,000 meet with the Democratic caucus and present her choices for
times less loud than the sonic boom produced by the committee chairmen. She is expected to go by seniority,
Concorde. which would put Oberstar in line to head the Transportation
However, Gulfstream must still demonstrate that an actual Committee.
aircraft could produce a sonic boom that low. The caucus will then vote her choices up or down. The
If Gulfstream decides to proceed with the development of new chairmen must still be confirmed by the new Congress
its supersonic business jet, a demonstration model will not when it convenes in January. Once the House committee
be ready for flight for eight to 10 years. structure is set, committee members will lay out a plan for
It has been estimated that there is a market for up to 350 to legislative action and hearings.
400 supersonic business jets over the next 10 years. The new Congress also must pass legislation to reautho-
Gulfstream has two competitors who also are trying to rize the programs of the Federal Aviation Administration.
develop a quiet supersonic business jet: Aerion Corp. of The current reauthorization expires at the end of fiscal 2007.
Reno, NV, as well as Michael Paulson, the son of the late The new reauthorization legislation under development by
Allen Paulson, the former owner of Gulfstream. The market is the FAA is expected to address various noise issues.
- expected to only support one manufacturer of a supersonic Oberstar knows the aircraft noise issue very well and held
', 1 business jet. several hearings on the retirement of Stage 2 commercial jets
First Stage 4 Gulfstream While serving as chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee
around the time the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990
In related news, Gulfstream announced on Oct. 16 that the was passed.
new mid-size, high-speed Gulfstream G150 business jet has Recently, the City of Burnsville, MN, located under the
met Stage 4 noise certification requirements set by the departure path of the new north-south runway at Minneapo-
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICA) and adopted lis-St. Paul International Airport tumed to Oberstar for help
by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration. after the Federal Aviation Administration began operating
The G150 is the first Gulfstream business jet to be certifi- the runway in a way that was at odds with information
cated as Stage 4, which is the most stringent noise certifica- provided in environmental documents.
tion standard but disappointed airport operators because it The congressman promised the city that he would look
is on y a cumu a ive ec ive erceive oise •
L'evel in decibels) below the older Stage 3 standard. Another zssue that couid be examined by the new Congress
Stage 4 noise certification standards have been in effect is FAA airspace redesigns.
sinceJan. l, 2006. Outgoing Chairman of the House Aviation Subcommittee
John Mica recently held field hearings to respond to angry
local officials who claimed they were not properly informed
COng7'ess that the FAA was in the process of making a major change in
the airspace over New York, New Jersey, and Philadelphia.
OBERSTAR EXPECTED It is not yet clear whether the Democrats will win control of
TO CHAIR TRA.NSPORTATION the Senate because the outcome of the Virginia Senate race
has not yet been determined.
Winning control of the U.S. House of Representatives in As of this date, the Democrats control 50 seats in the
yesterday's mid-term elections means that the Democrats Senate and the Republicans 49. If Jim Webb wins the Senate
will take over chairmanships of all House committees and seat in Virginia, the Democrats will contro151 seats to the
subcommittees. Republicans 49, which would give the Democrats control of
( � James Oberstar (D-MN) is expected to assume chairman- all Senatecommittees.
Airport Noise Report
November 8, 2006
II�I � II , IIIIII , �� �
.j �• ;�..�
John J. Corbett, Esq.
Spiegel & McDiarmid
Washington, DC
Carl E. Burleson
Director, O�ce of Environment and Energy
Federal Aviation Administration
John C. Freytag, P.E.
Director, Chaz(es M. Saiter Associates
San Francisco
Michael Scott Gatzke, Esq.
Gatzke, Dillon & Ballance
Carlsbad, CA
Peter J. Kirsch, Esq.
Kaplan, Kirsch & Rockwell LLP
Denver
Vincent E. Mestre, P.E.
President, Mestre Greve Associates
Laguna Niguel, CA
Steven F. Pflaum, Esq.
McDermott, Will & Emery
Chicago
Mary L. Vigilante
President, Synergy Consultants
Seattle
168
In Brief ... �
Honolulu Int'1 Noise Maps Approved
The Federal Aviation Administration announced Oct. 26 that noise exposure
maps for Honolulu International Airport submitted by the Hawaii Deparhnent
of Transportation Airports Division are in compliance with federal require-
ments.
For further information, contact Steven Wong in FAA's Honolulu Airports
DistrictOffice;tel: (808) 541-1225.
Vancouver Int'1 Seeking Aircraft Noise Specialist
The Vancouver (Canada) International Airport Authority is looking for an
enthusiastic professional to join its Environment Department as an Aircraft
Noise Specialist. Using outstanding project management and leadership
abilities, the Aircraft Noise Specialist will oversee the Airport Authority's
aircraft noise management program, promoting noise management initiatives,
assisting in policy development, working on compatible land use planning
issues, and managing internal and external stakeholder relations.
The Aircraft Noise Specialist will lead the interaction between the Airport
Authority, airline and community representatives on aircraft noise abatement,
prepare technical reports, resolve community inquiries and complaints about
aircraft noise, represent the Airport Authority on various committees, and act
as a liaison with industry representatives, government o�cials, and the public
to build consensus on noise management issues.
Qualifications include a university degree in Engineering, Aviation Pian-
ning, Environmental Studies, or a related field with a minimum three years
experience in noise measurement and analysis, airport noise modeling and
assessment, and airport/aircraft operations. /;
In addition to the Aircraft Noise Specialist, three other positions in the �
Environment Department are open. One of those is noise-related. The
positions aze described on the Airport Authority web site at http://
www.yvr.ca/authority/employmentlindex.asp.
Please forward a resume and cover letter, quoting refe.rence No. 06-35-ANR,
toHumanResources,POBox23750,APO,Richmond,B.C.,V7B lY7;fax(604)
232-6008; e-mail: careers@vyr.ca
Workshop on FAA's New Order 5050.4B
The FAA, the Airports Council International - North America, and the
-- —` -� a wor s op on s recen up a e o
its national environmental policy guidance (Order 5050.4B) on Dec. 4-6 near
Dallas-Ft. Worth Int'1 Airport. �
For further information, go to www.aci-na.org.
AIRPORT NDISE REPORT
AnneH. Kohut,Publisher
Published 44 times ayear at 43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 20147; Phone: (703) 729-4867; FAX: (703) 729-4528.
e-mail: editor@airportnoisereport.com; Price $750.
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, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. USA.
� �,�
, .�> �at �,
4y(J� „,.: ,y �srt ,,.* kl�i. � {�' -C�� M Y A�.�R* pi+^��' �5f�! �y y; + C.�th .d:e
` �' �
�+ +{., �'� ,; .Sa� a � iYt t:�.i 1 ,,,, �SI ,`u`t {' f {�,'? �1:.
�,t.� r,,, S �.�r' L:� ,z;.,. 4.t t vvr, ..%„ h,. �,.,.st ti�.,.,,+:
w� ..k�.:
A weekly updaie on litigation, regulations, and technological developments
Volume 18, Number 36, 37
_f�i�C
., � � �, ; � , , , , � � , ;�, �
� � � � � . �, ,.�
As of Sept. 30, 2006, some $2.77 billion ofthe total $52.8 billion in Passenger
Facility Charges (PFCs) that the Federal Aviation Administration has approved for
collection and use since 1992 is being designated for airport noise mitigation
projects, according to data provided by the agency.
The total PFC revenue being earmarked for airport noise mitigation projects
increased by $14.2 million between Oct. 3 l, 2005, when ANR last reported PFC
data (17 ANR 145), and Sept. 30, 2006.
The FAA subdivides noise mitigation projects into six categories. Following is
the total amount airports plan to collect for each category, as of Sept. 30, 2006, as
well as the percentage that category represents of the total PFCs for noise
mitigation being collected:
• $1.26billion(45.7percent)formulti-phaseprojects;
• $981.5 rnillion (35.4percent) forsoundproofing;
• $473.6million(17.lpercent)topurchaseland;
• $19.7million(0.7percent)formiscellaneousprojects;
• $15.4 million (0.6 percent) for noise monitoring systems; and
• $14.7million(O.Spercent)forplanning.
90 Airports Using PFCs for Noise Mitigation
A total of 90 airports were using PFCs for noise mitigation projects as of Sept.
30, 2006; three more airports than a year earli.er.
Airport proprietors that decided for the first time to devote PFCs for noise
mitigation in fisca12006 are the Port ofPortland, OR, Little Rock, AR, and Traverse
City, M[.
The top 15 airports targeting PFC revenue for noise mitigation projects are Los
International ($411.09 million), Minneapolis-St. Paul International ($219.6 mi llion),
Phoenix Sky HarborInternational ($154.3 million), Chicago Midway ($128.9
million), San Jose International ($121.2 million), Seattle-Tacoma International
($115.6 million), Bob Hope Airport in Burbank, CA ($94.8 million), Ontario Interna-
tional ($84.7 million), Cleveland Hopkins International ($78.4 million), Lambert-St.
Louis International ($633 million), Cincinnati/Northern Keniucky International
($61.1 million), Louisville Intemational ($58.9 million), Charlotte-Douglas Interna-
tional ($58.7 million), and Las V egas McCarran International ($51.7 m illion).
In addition, Detroit Metropolitan is very close to the $50 million mark ($49.4
million), as isMilwaukee Gen. Mitchell International ($48.3 million}.
PFCs are only one source of revenue that airports use to fund noise mitigation
projects. The other funding stream is the FAA's Airport Improvement Program.
Data on AIP grants for noise mitigation were reported earlier (18 ANR 125).
Those data showed that, in fiscal 2006, some 65 airports received a total of $303.1
million in federal AII' grants to conduct noise compatibility studies and to
implement noise mitigation proj ects.
142
November 1, 2006
In This Issue...
PFCs ... This special issue
of ANR provides data ob-
tained from the Federal
Aviation Administration on
airports that are collecting
Passeilger Facility Charges
(PFCs) to support various
noise mitigation pro j ects.
The data show that 90
airports, three more than last
year, are now imposing PFCs
to reduce noise impacts.
A total of $2.77 billion in
PFCs is now being imposed by
airports fornoise mitigation
proj ects, up $14.2 million from
a year ago when ANR last
reported PFC data.
Los Angeles Int'1 remains at
the head of the pack with
$703.4 million inPFCs targeted
fornoisemitigation, followedby
million), andMinneapolis-Si.
Paul Int'1($219.6 million).
Table 1, showzng a break-
down of all airportprojects
being supported by PFCs,
begins on p.143.
Table 2, showing PFCs
being collected by category of
noise proj ect, begins on p. 144.
Table 3, showing PFCs being
collectedby individual airports,
begins on p.154.
November 1, 2006
CATEGORY
Table X. APPROVED PFCs BY CATEGORIES
(as of September 30, 2006)
PROJECT TYPE AMOIJNT PERCENT
AIRSLDE (18%w/o DIA)(17°/a wDIA)
Runways
Taxiways
Aprons
Land
Equipment
Planning
Lighting
Other
Total
LANDSIDE (37%w/oDIA)(35%wDIA)
'Z'erminal
Land
Security
Total
$ 3,479,949,209
$1,770,757,045
$1,259,416,096
$ 454,574,340
$ 949,550,441
$ 304,744,667
$ 257,775,860
$1,035,487,458
$9,512,255,116
$17,606,789,221
$ 963,808,194
$1,089,339,479
$19,659,936,894
36.6
18.6
13.2
4.8
10.0
3.2
2.7
10.9
100
89.6
4.9
5.5
100
,_
143
C
NOISE (5%w/oDIA)(5%wDIA.)
Land $ 473,642,163 171
Multi-phase $1,269,061,573 45.7
Soundproofing $ 981,597,411 35.4
Monitoring $ 15,414,739 0.6
Planning $ 14,707,832 0.5
Other $ 19,765,112 0.7 �
Total $2,774,188,830 100
ACCESS (7%w/o DIA)(7%w DIA)
Roads $1,833,266,253 47.2
Rail $1,978,613,678 509
Land $ 11,697,302 0.3
Planning $ 63,185,162 1.6
Total $3,886,762,395 100
IN7'EREST(33%)(31%w/DIA.) $17,836,563,672 100
StTBTOTA.L $53,669,706,907
DENVER(DIA) (6°/a) $ 3,137,099,200
PFCTOTAL $56,8o6,so6,1o7
SOURCE: FAA(PFCBRANCI-�
Airport Noise Report
- Novem�er 1r2006 144
Table 2. PFC-Funded Projects (by Work Code)
(as of September 30, 2006)
i
City State Project Amount Level Impose Use Project Tota[
Huntsville AL Land $6,796,960 $3.00 3/6/92 6/28/94 $473,642,163 ',
Huntsville AL Land $920,000 $3.00 3/6/92 11/22/95 i
Huntsville AL Land $240,000 $3.00 3/6/92 5/28/97 I
Huntsville AI, Land $68,835 $3.00 10/19/98 10/19/98 II
I
Huntsville AL Land $154,239 $4.50 10/30/02 10/30/02 �
I
Mobile AL Land $443,34b $3.00 2/22/02 2/22/02 �
(
Juneau AK Land $21,931 $4.50 5/30/Ol 5/30/Ol �
Phoenix AZ Land $22,000,000 $3.00 6/5/02 6/5/02
I
Tucson AZ Land $3,288,473 $4.50 11/19/97 11/19/97 �
Tucson AZ Land $396,888 $4.50 11/19/97 11/19/97
Fort Smith AR Land $90,756 $3.00 5/8/94 7/24/97
LittleRock AR Land $3,314,737 $4.50 1/31/06 1/31/06
- Burbank CA Land $27,829,178 $3.00 6/17/94 2/5/97
,� .,�
,
FortLauderdale FL Land $3,500,000 $3.00 4/30/98 4/23/O1 '`
Gainesvilie FL Land $144,869 $4.50 8129/02 8/29/02
Pensacola k.L Land $1,000,000 $3.00 11/23/92 11/23/92
�
Pensacola PI. Land $365,000 $3.00 11/23/92 8/10/95
Sarasota FL Land $5,400,000 $3.00 6/29/92 12/15/95
al a assee an 5,397,981 3.00 3 3 98 3 3 98
W. Palm Beach �., Land $1,000,000 $3.00 1/26/94 8/29/96 '
W. Palm Beach FL Land $2,302,300 $3.00 1/26/94 8/29/96 ,
W.PalmBeach FL Land $374,616 $3.00 1/26/94 6/11/97
W.PalmBeach FI, Land $1,387,548 $3.00 1/26/94 6/11/97
W.PalmBeach PL, Land $5,000,000 $3.00 1/26/94 6/11/97 I
W. Palm Beach kI, Land $2,000,000 $3.00 8/22/00 12/13/02 j
� [
Bloomington IL Land $35,000 $3.00 12/5/97 12/5/97
i � � �
-- Moline IC.. Land $335,915 $4.50 9/29/94 9/29/94
i
Airport Noise Report j
N�vember 1, 2006 145
City State Project Amount Level Impose Use Project Total
Moline IL Land $365,084 $4.50 3/1?J98 3/12/98 (
�
Peoria IC, Land $382,426 $3.00 9/8/94 9/8/94
Peoria IL Land $145,441 $4.50 2/3/00 2J3/00
Springfield ]L, Land $24,740 $3.00 3/27/92 4/28/93
Springfield IL Land $12,275 $3.00 3/27/92 4/28/93
Springfield IL, Land $24,897 $3.00 3/27/92 4/28/93 �
Sprin�eld IL Land $14,721 $3.00 3/27/92 4/28/93
Springfield IL Land $551 $3.00 3/27/92 4/28/93
Springfield IL Land $88,167 $3.00 11/24/93 3/11/97
Indianapolis IN Land $42,532,859 $3.00 6/28/93 6/28/93
Louisville KI' Land $58,800,000 $3.00 1/29/97 1/29/97
Minneapolis NII� Land $21,500,000 $3.00 5/13/94 5/13/94
Minneapolis MN Land $20,500,000 $4.50 5/5/OS 5/5/05
Kansas Ciiy MO Land $11,180,610 $3.00 12/21/95 12/21/95 �
�,,
St. Louis MO Land $32,861,850 $3.00 9/30/92 9/30/92
St. Louis MO Land $30,533,095 $3.00 1/31/96 1/8/98
Las Vegas NV Land $10,654,182 $4.50 2/24/92 3/15/95
Las Vegas NV Land $7,991,645 $4.50 2/24/92 2/24/92
Las Vegas NV Land $5,250,000 $3.00 2J24/92 6/7/93
as egas an , . -
Las Vegas NV Land $1,440,492 $4.50 2/24/92 6/7/93
Charlotte NC Land $52,270,000 $3.00 8/23/04 8/23/04
Akron OH Land $19,210 $3.00 10/21/96 10/21/96
Akron OH Land $14,635 $3.00 10/21/96 10/21/96
Akron OH Land $5,293 $3.00 10/21/96 10/21/96
Akron OH Land $21,334 $3.00 10/21/96 10/21/96
Akron OH Land $12,911 $4.50 4/4/02 4/4/02
�
Cleveland OH Land $7,137,600 $3.00 9/1/92 2l2/94
Airport Noise ReporE
November 1 r20(16 146
City State Project Arnount Level Impose Use Project Total '
i Cleveland OH Land $29,685,000 $3.00 4/25/97 4/25/97
Columbus OH Land $119,600 $3.00 7/14/92 3/27/96 '
Columbus OH Land $379,070 $3.00 7I14192 3/27/96 ;
i
Columbus OH Land $519,723 $3.00 7/14/92 3/27/96 �i
Dayton OH Land $309,206 $4.50 7/25/94 7/25/94 '
Allentown PA Land $244,387 $4.50 3/26/O1 3/26/Ol
Allentown PA Land $220,475 $4.50 3/26/O1 3/26/01
�
Allentown PA Land $91,944 $4.50 6/6/03 6/6/03 �
i
Erie PA Land $260,167 $4.50 5/13/03 5/13/03
I
Providence RI Land $10,382,213 $4.50 11/27/00 11/27/00 ;
Chattanooga TN Land $100,000 $3.00 4/25/97 4/25/97 (
Chattanooga TN Land $15,000 $4.50 11/22/00 11/22/00
Harlingen TX Land $96,630 $3.00 7/9/98 7/9/98
��' l� SaltLakeCity ITT Land $4b5,488 $3.00 10/1/94 10/1/94
�
SaltLakeCity UT Land $331,072 $4.50 4/30/Ol 4/30/O1
SaltLakeCity ITT Land $524,408 $4.50 2/28/02 2/28/02
Lynchburg VA Land $17,762 $3.00 4/14/95 4/14/95
Roanoke VA Land $65,000 $4.50 11/24/04 11/24/04
Bellingham WA Land $166,000 $3.00 4/29/93 4/29/93
Beliingham WA Land $732,000 $3.00 10/5/94 10/5/94 �
Bellingham WA Land $454,350 $3.00 12/11/96 12/11/96
Appleton WI Land $14,502 $3.00 4/25/94 4/25/94 ,
i
Milwaukee WI Land $3,099,197 $3.00 2/24/95 2/24/95
Milwaukee WI Land $1,425,187 $3.00 2/24/95 2/24/95 -
�
Cheyenne WY Land $81,192 $4.50 3/28/Ol 3/28/Ol ,I
Oakland CA Misc $4,500,000 $3.00 3/17/00 $19,765,112 i
Pensacola FL Misc $200,000 $3.00 11/23/92 8/10/95
f )
,
� Tampa FL Misc $1,305,300 $4.50 5/16/03 5/16/03
Airport Noise Report
November 1, 2006 147 _
City State Project Amount Level Impose Use Project Total
Chicago Midway IL Misc $11,493 $3.00 6/28/93 6/28/93 `
Chicago IL Misc $297,707 $3.00 6/28/93 6/28/93
Chicago IC, Misc $1,950,000 $3.00 2/22/00 2/22/00
Chicago IL Misc $2,500,000 $3.00 4/18/02 4/18/02
Chicago O'Hare IL Misc $42,389 $3.00 6/28/93 6/28/93
�
Chicago IL Misc $2,993,028 $4.50 6/28/96 6128/96
Indianapolis IN Misc $498,684 $4.50 1?J20/96 12/20/96
Detroit MI Misc $225,000 $3.00 9/21/92 9/21/92
Columbus OH Misc $61,752 $3.00 7/19/93 3/27/96
; Milwaukee WI Misc $50,000 $3.00 3/8/O1 3/8/Ol
Milwaukee WI Misc $5,000,000 $3.00 7/9/02 7/9/02
Cheyenne WY Misc $129,759 $4.50 3/28/O1 3/28/Ol
FortSmith AR Monitoring $20,555 $3.00 5/8/94 7/24/97 $15,414,739
Burbank CA Monitoring $64,836 $3.00 4/2/Ol 4/2/Ol �� .
Los Angeles CA Monitoring $3,450,000 $3.00 9/23/QS 9/23/OS
Oakland CA Monitoring $345,000 $3.00 6/26/92 6/26/92
Sacramento CA Monitoring $662,000 $3.00 4/26/96 4/26/96
San Diego CA Monitoring $1,224,000 $3.00 5/20/03 5/20/03
San Jose CA Monitoring $184,000 $3.00 6/11/92 6/11/92
San Jose CA Monitoring $100,000 $3.00 11/24/99 11/24/99
San Jose CA Monitoring $221,000 $3.00 12/15/00 12/15/00
Ft. Lauderdale �I., Monitoring $658,000 $3.00 11/1/94 4/30/98
Chicago Midway lL Monitoring $325,000 $3.00 6/28/93 6/28/93
Chicago O'Hare TL Monitoring $3,900,000 $3.00 6/28/93 9/16/94
Chicago0'Hare IL Monitoring $1,000,000 $3.00 8-17-06 , 8-17-06
Covington KY Monitoring $140,000 $3.00 3/30/94 3/30/94
Covington KY Monitoring $387,000 $3.00 7/26/02 7/26/02 (�
Airport Noise Report
Novemher 1 �2�k06 �4� '
City State Project Antount Level Inzpose Use Project Total '
Louisville KY Monitoring $125,000 $3.00 3/27/Ol 3/27/Ol '
�
Minneapolis NIN Monitoring $230,273 $3.00 5/13/94 5/13/94
Columbus OH Monitoring $16,509 $3.00 7/14/92 10/27/93
Portland OR Monitoring $715,750 $3.00 12/7/OS 1?J7/05 ;
Allentown PA Monitoring $30,556 $4.50 3/26/Ol 3/26/Ol �
Dallas TX Monitoring $1,266,151 $3.00 11/7/96 11/7/96 �
San Antonio TX Monitoring $245,153 $3.00 2/22/OS 2/22/OS
Milwaukee WI Monitoring $40,956 $3.00 2/24/95 2/24/95
Jackson WY Monitoring $63,000 $4.50 2/9/04 2/9/04 ;
Phoenix AZ Multi-phase $60,000,000 $4.50 12/6/04 12/6/04 $1,269,061,573
i
Los Angeles CA Muiti-phase $700,000,000 $4.50 11/28/97 11/28/97 �
Ontario CA Multi-phase $84,774,000 $3.00 4/28/98 4/28/98
Fortl,auderdale FL Multi-phase $33,000,000 $4.50 7/S/OS
Orlando FL Multi-phase $688,000 $3.00 7/12/OS 7/12/OS
�������r
- Sarasota FI, Multi-phase $1,474,904 $3.00 6/29/92 1/31/95
Chicago O'Hare IL Multi-phase $586,857 $4.50 6/28/93 6/28/93
i
Des Moines IA Multi-phase $945,178 $4.50 8/16/OS 8/16/OS �
Covington KY Multi-phase $27,607,000 $3.00 3/30/94 3/30/94
Covington KY Multi-phase $13,471,000 $3.00 11/29/95 11/29I95
^ ' �li�=�t�a�---�--1�1�000--�:00 3i�8-i8i��2$�fli ;
i
Lexington KY Multi-phase $159,783 $4.50 8/31/93 4/21/95 ',
Lexington KY Multi-phase $184,�22 $4.50 8/31/93 9/27/96
Baton Rouge LA Multi-phase $1,718,761 $3.00 9/28/92 4/23/93
New Orleans LA Multi-phase $3,750,000 $4.50 8/26/04 8/26/04
Detroit NII Multi-phase $48,871,000 $3.00 9/21/92 9/21/92
Minneapolis MN Multi-phase $103,237,546 $3.00 5/13/94 5/13/94
Manchester NH Multi-phase $1,400,000 $3.00 10/13/92 3/4/96 i
�� � Islip NY Multi-phase $1,150,000 $3.00 9/23/94 9/23/94
_ I
Airport Noise Report i
N�vem her 1 �2006 149 _
City State Project Amount Level Lnpose Use Project Total
Charlotte NC Multi-phase $1,264,209 $3.00 8/23/04 8/23/04 ��
Charlotte NC Multi-phase $3,941,093 $3.00 8/23/04 8/23/04
Toledo OH Multi-phase $1,676,083 $4.50 1/16/98 1/16/98
Tulsa OK Multi-phase $8,400,000 $3.00 4/27/00 4/27/00
F.rie PA Multi-phase $118,518 $3.00 7/21/92 7/21/92
Knoxville TN Multi-phase $528,431 $3.00 10/6/93 10/6/93 i
Nashville TN Multi-phase $24,065,949 $3.00 2126/04 2/26/04
Seattle WA Multi-phase $14,939,111 $3.00 8/13/92 8/13/92
Seattle WA Multi-phase $34,400,000 $3.00 12/29/95 12/29/95
Seattle WA Multi-phase $50,000,000 $3.00 6/24/98 10/16/Ol
Milwaukee WI Multi-phase $34,994,828 $3.00 12/21/95 12/21/95
Mobile AL Planning $23,083 $3.00 2/22/02 2/22102 $14,707,832
Burbank CA Planning $282,440 $3.00 4/2/Oi 4/2/Ol
Burbank CA Planning $116,450 $3.00 6/16/06 6/16/06
� (, �
Monterey CA Planning $50,130 $3.00 7/14/98 7/14/98
Pueblo OD Planning $21,500 $3.00 4/11/96 4/11/96 '
Fort Myers FL Planning $132,000 $3.00 8/31/92 8/31/92
Key West � Planning $15,000 $4.50 1/10/03 1/10/03
Key West FL Planning $2,000 $4.50 4/14/04 4/14/04
Key West FL Planning $1,250 $4.50 11/5/04 11/5/04
Orlando FL Planning $21,919 $3.00 8/28/95 8/28/95
Sanford FL Planning $23,048 $1.00 12/27/00 12/27/00
Tallahassee FL Planning $135,000 $3.00 3/3/98 3/3/98
W.PalmBeach FL, Planning $168,628 $3.00 1/26/94 6/11/97
Chicago Midway IG Planning $1,425,000 $3.00 7/5/95 7/5/95
Chicago O'Haze IL Planning $5,700,000 $3.00 6/28/96 6/28/96
Rockford IL Planning $16,088 $3.00 7/24/92 9/2/93
\�
Indianapolis TN Planning $75,000 $3.00 12/20/96 12/20/96
Airport Noise Report
LY�nitt�.�l., ��( 150
City State Project A»zourzt Level Impose Use Project Total ,
i
Covington KY Planning $336,000 $3.00 3/30/94 3/30/94
Covington KY Planning $345,000 $3.00 3/31/98 3/31/98 '
Covington KY Planning $1,501,000 $3.00 11/8/O1 11/8/Ol
Detroit MI Planning $386,156 $3.00 9/28/04 9/28/04 I
Traverse City TII Planning $7,2i8 $4S0 3/2/06 3/2/06
Duluth MN Planning $17,255 $3.00 7/1/94 7/1/94 '
I
Missoula MT Planning $20,670 $4.50 7/2?JOS 7/22/OS
Las Vegas NV Planning $167,495 $3.00 2J24/92 2/24/92 !
Reno NV Planning $560,000 $3.00 5/31/Ol 5/31/Ol I
I
Albany NY Planning $45,000 $3.00 9/27/96 9/27/96 i
�
Charlotte NC Planning $1,250,000 $3.00 8/23/04 8/23/04 j
Ala�on OH Planning $4,146 $3.00 10/21/96 10/21/96
Akron OH Planning $27,001 $3.00 10/21/96 10/21/96
-
-� Akron OH Planning $2,722 $3.00 10/18/99 10/18/99
Cleveland OH Planning $584,570 $3.00 4/25/97 4/25/97
Columbus OH Planning $13,822 $3.00 5/29/98 5/29/98
Dayton OH Planning $700,000 $4.50 S/9/02 5/9/02
Allentown PA Planning $33,334 $4.50 3/26/O1 3/26/Ol
StateCollege PA Planning $10,000 $3.00 5/26/99 S/26/99
Nashville TN Planning $115,000 $3.00 2/23/O1 2/23/Ol I
Brownsville TX Planning $108,702 $4.50 2/7/03 2/7/03 �
Laredo TX Planning $15,786 $3.00 7/23/93 12/31/96
i
R.ichmond VA Planning $15,931 $3.00 7/3/97 7l3/97 '
Roanoke VA Planning $2,458 $4.50 11/24/04 11/24/04
Milwaukee WI Planning $230,000 $3.00 7/9IO2 7/9/02
Phoenix AZ Soundproofing $4,000,000 $3.00 1/26/96 1/26/96 $981,597,411
Phoenix AZ Soundproofing $68,300,000 $4.50 6/5/02 6/5/02
�-- ) Burbank CA Soundproofing $43,525,109 $4.50 4/2/Ol 4/2/O1
Airport Noise Report
November 1, 2006 151 .,
City State Project Aniount Level 1"mpose Use Project Total
Burbank CA Soundproofing $730,774 $4.50 4/2/O1 4/2/Ol
�,
Burbank CA Soundproofing $437,200 $4.50 4/2/O1 4/2/O1
Burbank CA Soundproofing $770,931 $4.50 4/2/Ol 4/2/O1
Burbank CA Soundproofing $429,490 $4.50 4/2/Ol 4/2/O1
Burbank CA Soundproofing $16,000,000 $4.50 4/2/Ol 4/2/O1
Burbank CA Soundproofmg $4,570,000 $4.50 4/2/Ol 4/2/Ol �
Burbank CA Soundproofing $113,000 $4.50 5/27/04 5/27/04
Fresno CA Soundproofmg $444,400 $3.00 9/18/96 9/l8/96
Monterey CA Soundproofing $824,321 $3.00 10/8/93 10/31/94
Monterey CA Soundproofing $333,333 $3.00 7/27/O1 7/27/Ol
Monterey CA Soundproofing $222,222 $3.00 5/30702 5/30/02
i
Monterey CA Soundproofmg $222,222 $4.50 3/16/06 3/16/06
Monterey CA Soundproofing $222,222 $4.50 3/16/06 3/16/06 I
Oakland CA Soundproofing $240,000 $3.00 4/30/97 4/30/97 f' ,
,
Oakland CA Soundproofing $5,511,000 $3.00 6/18/99 6/18/99
San Diego CA Soundproofing $2,418,000 $3.00 7/26/95 7/26/95
San Diego CA Soundproofing $1,122,000 $3.00 7/24/98 7/24/98
San Diego CA Soundproofing $4,626,000 $4.50 5/20/03 5/20/03
SanDiego CA Soundproofng $5,132,960 $4.50 11/22/OS 11/22/OS
an ose oun proo zng , , .
San Jose CA Soundproofing $7,500,000 $4.50 11/24/99 11/24/99
San Jose CA Soundproofing $4,500,000 $4.50 4/20/Ol 4/20/Ol
San Jose CA Soundproofing $61,589,000 $4.50 3/1/02 3/1/02
Key West FL Soundproofing $350,000 $3.00 8/31/99 8/31/99
Key West �L Soundproofing $75,000 $4.50 1/10/03 1/10/03
Key West FL Soundproofing $47,500 $4.50 1/10/03 1/10/03
Key West FI, Soundproofing $400,000 $4.50 4/14/04 4/14/04
Key West FL Soundproofing $100,000 $4.50 11/5/04 11/5/04 l
Airport Noise Report
N�v �mlLr 1 �2006 152
Ciry State Project Amou�zt Level In:pose Use Project Tota[
� � Key West FL Soundproofing $100,000 $4.50 4/5/OS 4/5/OS
Chicago Midway IL Soundproofing $4,900,000 $3.00 6/28/93 6/28/93
i
Chicago IL Soundproofing $1,140,000 $3.00 7/5/95 7/5/95
Chicago IL Soundproofing $8,000,000 $3.00 11/15/96 11/15/96
Chicago IL Soundproofing $28,400,000 $3.00 11/15/96 11/15/96
Chicago JL Soundproofing $10,000,000 $3.00 ?J22/00 2/22/00
Chicago IL Soundproofing $20,000,000 $3.00 7/7/00 7/7/00 �
i
Chicago lI, Soundproofing $50,000,000 $3.00 4/18l02 4/18/02 ;
Chicago0'Hare II., Soundproofing $35,300,000 $4.50 6/28/93 6128/93 i
Chicago IC., Soundproofing $113,271,731 $4.50 6/28/96 6/28/96 �
i
Chicago TC. Soundproofing $52,000,000 $4.50 6/28/96 6/28/96
Chicago 1I, Soundproofing $20,000,000 $4.50 3/16/98 3/lb/98
Chicago II., Soundproofing $61,000,000 $4.50 4/16/O1 4/16/O1
� Chicago IL Soundproofing $30,000,000 $4.50 4/16/O1 4/16/O1
_ �
Chicago lt. Soundproofing $27,200,000 $4.50 4/16/O1 4/16/O1
Chicago IL Soundproofing $4,000,000 $4.50 12J28/OS 12/28/a5
Chicago Ii, Soundproofing $16,060,000 $4.50 6/17/04 6/17/04
Chicago II., Soundproofing $2,440,000 $4.50 6/17/04 6/17/04
Chicago IL Soundproofiing $24,327,000 $4.50 8/17/06 8/17/06
Chicago lI., Soundproofing $11,272,000 $4.50 8/17/06 8/17/06 I
I
Peoria IG Soundproofing $289,013 $3.00 9/8/94 9/8/94 j
Covington KY Soundproofing $5,691,000 $3.00 8/3/OS 8/3/OS
�
Boston MA Soundproofing $15,323,217 $4.50 8/24/93 1/27/97
Boston MA Soundproofing $8,590,000 $4.50 4/20/06 4/20/06
Bos�on MA Soundproofing $5,200,000 $4.Sfl 4/20/06 4/20/06
Saipan MP Soundproofing $80,648 $4.50 10/15/04 10/15/04
� ') Rota MP Soundproofing $4,480 $4.50 10/15/04 10/15/04
Airport Noise Report
November 1, 2006 153 .
City State Project Arrzount Level Impose Use Project Total
Tinian MP Soundproofing $4,480 $4.50 10/15/04 10/15/04 (
Minneapolis MN Soundproofmg $2,617,279 $3.00 5/13/94 5/13/94
Minneapolis Mt�i Soundproofing $450,537 $3.00 5/13/94 5/13/94
Minneapolis MN Soundproofing $27,300,000 $4.50 12/11/98 12/11/98
Minneapolis MN Soundproofing $38,809,230 $4.50 1/24/03 1/24/03
Minneapolis MN Soundproofmg $5,000,000 $4.50 5/5/OS 5/5/OS '
Reno NV Soundproafing $157,500 $3.00 10/29/93 10/29/93
Manchester NEI Soundproofing $1,669,847 $3.00 4/1/03 4/1/03
Syracuse NY Soundproofing $1,354,899 $4.50 8/22/OS 8/22/OS
Cleveland OH . Soundproofing $22,362,400 $3.00 9/1/92 9/l/92
Cleveland OH Soundproofing $8,675,000 $3.00 4/25/97 4/25/97
�
Cleveland OH Soundproofing $10,000,000 $3.00 5/28/99 5/28/99
Columbus OH Soundproofing $20,323 $3.00 7/14/92 10/27/93 �
.,
Columbus OH Soundproofing. $71,974 $3.00 7/14/92 10/27/93 �, �
Columbus O�I Soundproofing $60,547 $3.00 7/14/92 10/27/93
Columbus OH Soundproofing $269,810 $3.00 7/19/93 3/27/96
Columbus OH Soundproofing $906,369 $4.50 5/29/98 5/29/98
Allentown PA Soundproofing $100,000 $4.50 6/6/03 6/6/03
Allentown PA Soundproofing $500,000 $4.50 6/6/03 6/6/03
Pittsburgh PA Soundproofing $700,541 $4.50 7/27/Ol �/27/O1
Pittsburgh PA Soundproofing $1,050,207 $4.50 1/7/OS 1/7/OS
San Antonio TX Soundproofing $3,171,626 $3.00 8/29/O1 12/1/04
Seattle WA Soundproofing $16,134,627 $3.00 10/25/93 10/25/93
Seattle WA Soundproofing $153,212 $3.00 10/25/93 10/25/93
Milwaukee WI Soundproofing $2,290,230 $3.00 12/21/95 12/21/95
Milwaukee WI Soundproofing $1,250,000 $3.00 4/15/04 4/15/04 ',
��
TotalforAllNoiseProjects $2,774,188,830 �,
Airport Noise Report
NnvPmhPr 1�1.nllf� 154
Table 3. PFC-FUNDED NOISE PROJECTS SY LOCATION
(as of September 30, 2006)
i
City State Project Amouiit PFC Impose Use Ai�po�•t Tota�l '',
Huntsville AL Land $6,796,960 $3.00 3/6/92 6/28/94 $8,180,034 I
Huntsville AL Land $920,000 $3.00 3/6/92 11/22/95 �
Huntsville AL Land $240,000 $3.00 3/6/92 5/28/97 ,
i
Huntsville AL Land $68,835 $3.00 10/19/98 10/19/98 �
Huntsville AL Land $154,239 $4.50 10/30/02 10/30/02 �
�
Mobile AL Land $443,346 $3.00 2/22J02 2/22/02 $466,429 �
i
i
Mobile AL Planning $23,083 $3.00 2/22/02 2/22/02 ;
i
Juneau AK Land $21,931 $4.50 5/30/Ol 5/30/Ol $21,931
Phoenix AZ Land $22,000,000 $3.00 6/5/02 6I5/02 $154,300,000 j
i
Phoenix AZ Multi-phase $60,000,000 $4.50 12/6104 12/6/04
Phoenix AZ Soundproofing $4,000,000 $3.00 1/26/96 1/26/96 I
, � �.�
Phoenix AZ Soundproofing $68,300,000 $4.50 6/5/02 6/5/02
-' Tucson AZ Land $3,288,473 $4.50 11/19/97 11/19/97 $3,685,361 ,
�.
Tucson AZ Land $396,888 $3.00 11/19/97 11/19/97 C
LittleRock AR Land $3,314,737 $4.50 1/31/06 1/31/06 $3,314,737
I
FortSmith AR Land $90,756 $3.00 5/8/94 7/24197 $111,311
FortSmith AR. Monitoring $20,555 $3.00 5/8/94 7/24/97
B��ba��-r�-" �-a�c� . �?st?s���-��99=�/-�?/���f�� �Qe A��F1� �
�
Burbank CA Monitoring $64,836 $3.00 4/2/Ol 4/2/O1 �
Burbank CA Planning $282,440 $3.00 4/2/O1 4/2/O1
I
Burbank CA Planning $116,460 $3.00 6/16/06 6/16/06
Burbank CA Soundproofing $43,525,109 $4.50 4/2/Ol 4/2/O1 _
Burbank CA Soundproofing $730,774 $4.50 412/O1 4/2/O1 '
Burbank CA Soundproofing $437,200 $4.50 4/2/O1 4/2/O1
Burbank CA Soundproofing $770,931 $4.50 4/2/O1 4/2/Ol
�)
Burbank CA Soundproofing $429,490 $4.50 4/2/O1 4/2/Oi
Airport Noise iZeport �
Novemher 1, 2006 155
City State P�•oject A�nount PFC Impose Use Ai� port Total
/..
\
Burbank CA Soundproofing $16,000,000 $4.50 4/2/Ol 4/2/Ol
Burbank CA Soundproofing $4,570,000 $4.50 4/2/Ol 4/2/O1
Burbank CA Soundproofing $113,000 $4.50 5/27/04 5/27/04
Fresno CA Soundproofing $444,400 $3.00 9/18/96 9/18/96 $444,400
Los Angeles CA Monitoring $3,450,000 $3.00 9/23/OS 9/23/OS $703,450,000
Los Angeles CA Multi-phase $700,000,000 $4.50 11/28/97 11/28/97
Monterey CA Planning $50,130 $3.00 7/14/98 7/14/98 $1,874,450
Monterey CA Soundproofing $824,321 $3.00 10/8/93 10/31/94
Monterey CA Soundproofing $333,333 $3.00 7/27/O1 7/27/O1
Monterey CA Soundproofing $222,222 $3.00 5/30/02 5/30/02
Monterey CA Soundproofing $222,222 $4.50 3/16/06 3/16/06
Monterey CA Soundproofing $222,222 $4.50 3/16/06 3/16/06
Oakland CA Misc $4,500,000 $3.00 3/1�/00 $10,596,000
�
Oakland CA Monitoring $345,000 $3.00 6/26/92 6/26/92
Oakland CA Soundproofing $240,000 $3.00 4/30/97 4/30/97
Oakland CA Soundproofing $5,511,000 $3.00 6I18/99 6/18199
Ontario CA Multi-phase $84,774,000 $3.00 4/28/98 4/28/98 $84,774,000
Sacramento CA Monitoring $662,000 $3.00 4/26/96 4/26/96 $662,000 .
c^^T;ego r� �.��9t�itA-F-i�ib ����A;999--$�;(;1D=�/��l/Da �341/�1= $�1,��6� —
San Diego CA Soundproofing $2,418,000 $3.00 7/26/95 7/26/95
SanDiego CA Soundproofing $1,122,400 $3.00 7/24/98 7/24/98
San Diego CA Soundproofing $4,626,000 $4.50 5/20/03 5/20/03
SanDiego CA Soundproofing $5,132,960 $4.50 11/22/OS 11/22/OS
San 7ose CA Monitoring $184,000 $3.00 6/11/92 6/11/92 $121,265,000
San Jose CA Monitoring $100,000 $3.00 11/24/99 11/24/99
San 7ose CA Monitoring $221,000 $3.00 12/15/00 12/15/00
San Jose CA Soundproofing $47,171,000 $3.00 6/11/92 6/11/92 �/.
Airport Noise Report
November 1�2(lOF 156
City Sfate Project Amount P'FC Impnse Use Airport Total
San Jose CA Soundproofing $7,500,000 $4.50 11/24/99 11/24/99
San Jose CA Soundproofing $4,500,000 $4.50 4/20/Ol 4/20/O1 ',
San Jose CA Soundproofing $61,589,000 $4.50 3/1/02 3/1/02
Pueblo QO Planning $21,500 $3.00 4/11/96 4/11/96 $21,500 ;
FortLauderdale �I, Land $3,500,000 $3.00 4/30/98 4/23/Ol $37,158,000 j
�
FortLauderdale FL Monitoring $658,000 $3.00 11/1/94 4/30/98 I
FortLauderdale FL Multi-phase $33,000,000 $4S0 7/5/OS
Fort Myers FL Planning $132,000 $3.00 8/31/92 8/31/92 $132,000 I
Gainesville FL Land $144,869 $4.50 8/29/02 8/29/02 $144,869 ;
Key West FL Planning $15,000 $4.50 1/10/03 1/10/03 $1,090,750 '
Key West FL Planning $2,OOU $4S0 4/14/04 4/14/04
Key West PI, Planning $1,250 $4S0 11/5/04 11/5/04
Key West FL Soundproofing $350,000 $3.00 8/31/99 8/31/99
_. �
\� Key West FL Soundproofing $75,000 $4.50 1/10/03 1/10/03
Key West FL Soundproofing $47,500 $4.50 1/10/03 1/10/03
Key West FL Soundproofing $400,000 $4.50 4/14/04 4/14/04 .
Key West FL Soundproofing $100,000 $4.50 11/5/04 11/5/04
Key West FL Soundproofing $100,000 $4.So- 4/5/OS 4/5/OS �
Orlando NI. Multi-phase $688,000 $3.00 7/12/OS 7/12/OS $709,919
Orlando FL Planning $21,919 $3.00 8/28/95 8/28/95
i
Pensacola FL Land $1,000,000 $3.00 11/23/92 11/23/92 $1,565,000
Pensacola FL Land $365,000 $3.00 11/23/92 8/10/95 ,
Pensacola FL Misc $200,000 $3.00 11/23/92 8/10/95 !
i
Sanford 1Z Planning $23,048 $1.00 12/27/00 12/27/00 $23,048 I
Sarasota kI, Land $5,400,000 $3.00 6/29/92 12/15/95 $6,874,904 '
Sarasota FL Multi-phase $1,474,904 $3.00 6/29/92 1/31/95
�' ,� Tallahassee FI, Land $5,397,981 $3.00 3/3/98 3/3/98 $5,532,981 i
Airport Noise Report
Novemher 1, 2006 ' 1S7
City State Project Amount PFC Impose Use Airpos•t Total
Tallahassee FL Planning $135,000 $3.00 3/3/98 3/3/98 �
�
Tampa FL Misc $1,�05,300 $4.50 5/16/03 5/16/03 $1,305,�00
W.PalmBeach FL Land $1,000,000 $3.00 1/26/94 8/29/96 $12,233,092
W. Palm Beach � Land $2,302,300 $3.00 1/26/94 8/29/96
W.PalmBeach FL Land $374,616 $3.00 1/26/94 6/11/97
W. PalmBeach �l Land $1,387,548 $3.00 1/26/94 6/11/97
W. PalmBeach FL Land $5,000,000 $3.00 1/26/94 6/11/97
W. Palm Beach FL Land $2,000,000 $3.00 8/22100 12/13/02
W.PalmBeach FL Planning $168,628 $3.00 1/26/94 6/11/97
Bloomington IL Land $35,000 $3.00 12/5/97 12/5/97 $35,000
ChicagoMidway It, Misc $11,493 $3.00 6/28/93 6/28/93 $128,949,200
Chicago IL Misc $297,707 $3.00 6/28/93 6/28/93
Chicago IL Misc. $1,950,000 $3.00 2/22/00 2/22/00
Chicago TL Misc. $2,500,000 $3.00 4/18/02 4/18/02
��� �
Chicago IL Monitoring $325,000 $3.00 6/28/93 6/28/93
Chicago IL Planning $1,425,000 $3.00 7/5/95 7/5/95
Chicago IL Soundproofing $4,900,000 $3.00 6/28/93 6/28/93
Chicago IL Soundproofing $1,140,000 $3.00 7/5/95 7/5/95
Chicago IL Soundproofing $8,000,000 $3.00 11/15/96 11/15/96
Yri��--- — �8; t06�i86—�3:88 l It1�lH6—Yl�i�-�7
Chicago IL, Soundproofing $10,000,000 $3.00 2/22/00 2/22/00
Chicago IL Soundproofing $20,000,000 $3.00 7/7/00 7/7/00
Chicago lL, Soundproofing $50,000,000 $3.00 4/18/02 4/18/02
Chicago O'Hare IL Misc $42,389 $3.00 6/28/93 6/28/93 $411,093,005
Chicago IL Misc. $2,993,028 $4.50 6128/96 6/28/96
Chicago ]L Monitoring $3,900,000 $3.00 6/28/93 9/16/94
Chicago IL Monitoring $1,000,000 $3.00 8/17/06 8/17/06
�
Airport Noise Report
Novemhe�1,�2006 158
City Siate Project A�nount P.FC I�npose Use Ai�po��t Total
� Chicago ]L Multi-phase $586,857 $4.50 6/28/93 6/28/93
Chicago ]L Planning $5,700,000 $3.00 6/28/96 6/28/96
Chicago ]L Soundproofing $35,300,000 $4.50 6/28/93 6/28/93
�
Chicago IL Soundproofing $113,271,731 $4.50 6/28/96 6/28/96 ;
(
Chicago ]L Soundproofing $52,000,000 $4.50 6/28/96 6/28/96 '
Chicago IL Soundproofing $20,000,000 $4.50 3/16/98 3/16/98
Chicago IL Soundproofing $61,000,000 $4.50 4/16/Ol 4/16/Ol �
Chicago IL Soundproofing $30,000,000 ' $4.50 4/16/Ol 4/16/01 i
i
Chicago II., Soundproofing $27,200,000 $4.50 4/16/O1 4/16/Ol
�
Chicago IL Soundproofing $4,000,000 $4.50 12J28/OS 12/28/OS 'I
�
Chicago IL Soundproofing $16,060,000 $4.50 6/1'7/04 6/17/04
i
Chicago TC, Soundproofing $2,440,000 $4.50 6/17/04 6/17/04
Chicago IL Soundproofing $24,327,000 $4.50 8/17/06 8/17/06
.., �
Chicago IC., Soundproofing $11,272,000 $4.50 8/17/06 8/17/06 �
Moline IL Land $335,915 $4.50 9/29/94 9/29/94 $700,999
Moline IL Land $365,084 $4.50 3/12198 3/12/98
Peoria IL Land $382,426 $3.00 9/8/94 9/8/94 $816,880
Peoria ]L, Land $145,441 $4.50 2/3/00 2/3/00
Peoria lL Soundproofing $289,013 $3.00 9/8/94 9/8/94
Rockford IL Planning $16,088 $3.00 7/24/92 9/2/93 $16,088
Springfield II., Land $24,740 $3.00 3/27/92 4/28/93 $165,351 �'
�
Springfield IL Land $12,275 $3.00 3/27/92 4/28/93
I
Springfield IL, Land $24,897 $3.00 3/27/92 4/28/93 �
Springfield lL Land $14,721 $3.00 3/27/92 4/28/93
Springfield ]I. Land $551 $3.00 3/27/92 4/28/93 I
Springfield lL, Land $88,167 $3.00 11/24/93 3/11/97 !
I
Indianapolis IN Land $42,532,859 $3.00 6/28/93 6/28/93 $43,106,543 I
{--- � Indianapolis IN Misc $498,684 $4.50 12/20/96 12/20/96
�
Airport Noise Report
Novem Y►er 1, 2006 159
City State Project Amount PFC I�npose Use Airport Total
Indianapolis ]N Planning $75,000 $3.00 12/20/96 12/20/96 ��
Des Moines IA Multi-phase $945,178 $4.50 8/16/OS 8/16/OS $945,178
Covington KY Monitoring $140,000 $3.00 3/30/94 3/30/94 $61,193,000
Covington KY Monitoring $387,000 $3.00 7/26/02 7/26/02
Covington KY Multi-phase $27,607,000 $3.00 3/30/94 3/30/94
Covington KY Multi-phase $13,471,000 $3.00 11/29/95 11/29/95
Covington KY Multi-phase $11,715,000 $3.00 3/28/Ol 3/28/Ol
' Covingkon KY Planning $336,000 $3.00 3/30/94 3/30/94
Covington KY Planning $345,000 $3.00 3/31/98 �/31/98
Covington KY Planning $1,501,000 $3.00 11/8/Ol 11/8/Ol
Covington KY Soundproofing $5,691,000 $3.00 8/3/OS 8/3/OS
Lexington KY Multi-phase $159,783 $4.50 8/31/93 4/21/95 $344,105
Lexington , KY Multi-phase $184,322 $4.50 8/31/93 9/27/96
Louisville KY Land $58,800,000 $3.00 U29/97 1/29/97 $58,925,000 ��
Louisville KY Monitoring $125,000 $3.00 3/27/Ol 3/27/O1
Baton Rouge LA Multi-phase $1,718,761 $3.00 9/28/92 4/23/93 $1,718,761
New Orleans LA Multi-phase $3,750,000 $4.50 8/26/04 8/26/04 $3,750,000
Boston MA Soundproofing $8,590,000 $4.50 4/20/06 4/20/06 $29,113,217
Bczston Mg_S9sindprQQfin� �5,200 Q00 �4 �Q_ 4�Lpfi 4/20/Oh
Boston MA Soundproofing $15,323,217 $4.50 8/24/93 8/24/93
Detroit MI Misc $225,000 $3.00 9/21/92 9/21/92 $49,482,156
Detroit MI Multi-phase $48,871,000 $3.00 9/21/92 9/21/92
Detroit MI Planning $386,156 $3.00 9/28/04 9/28/04
Traverse City NII Planning $7,238 $4.50 3/2/06 3/2/06 $7,238
Duluth MN Planning $17,255 $3.00 7/1/94 7/1/94 $1�,255
Minneapolis MN Land $21,500,000 $3.00 5/13/94 5/13/94 $219,644,865
Minneapolis MN Land $20,500,000 $4.50 5/5/OS 5/5/OS (
Airport Noise Report
N�yemb�.r 1, ��06 160
City State Project Amount PFC Impose Ilse Ai�port Total
Minneapolis MN Monitoring $2i0,273 $3.00 5/13/94 5/13/94 '
Minneapolis MN Multi-phase $103,237,546 $3.00 5/13/94 5/13/94
Ivlinneapolis MN Soundproofing $2,617,279 $3.00 5/13/94 5/13/94
Minneapolis MN Soundproofmg $450,537 $3.00 5/13/94 5/13/94 i
��
Minneapolis MN Soundproofing $27,300,000 $4.50 12/11/98 12/Il/98
Minneapolis MN Soundproofing $38,809,230 $4.50 1/24/03 1/24/03
I
Minneapolis MN Soundproofing $5,000,000 $4.50 5/5/OS 5/5/OS �
i
Kansas City MO Land $11,180,610 $3.00 12121/95 12/21/95 $11,180,610 �
St. Louis MO Land $32,861,850 $3.00 9/30/92 9/30/92 $63,394,945 j
I
St. Louis MO Land $30,533,095 $3.00 1/31/96 1/8/98 �
I
Rota MP 5oundproofing $4,480 $4.50 10/15/04 10/15/04 $4,480
Saipan MP Soundproofing $80,648 $4.50 10/15/04 10/15/04 $80,648
Tinian MP Soundproofing $4,480 $4.50 10/15/04 10/15/04 $4,480
� � Missoula MT Planning $20,670 $4.50 7/22/OS 7/22/OS $20,670
Las Vegas NV Land $7,991,645 $4.50 2/24/92 3/24/92 $51,753,814
Las Vegas NV La�d $5,250,000 $3.00 2J24/92 6/7/93
Las Vegas NV Land $26,250,000 $4.50 2/24/92 6/7/93
Las Vegas NV Land $1,440,492 $4.50 2/24/92 6/7/93
L.as_tie�as NV Land $�Q 6�4182 $4 ��2L24L22 3115195
Las Vegas NV Planning $167,495 $3.00 2/24/92 2/24/92
Reno NV Soundproofing $157,500 $3.00 10/29/93 10/29/93 $717,500 I;
Reno NV Planning $560,000 $3.00 5/31/O1 5/31/O1 i
Manchester NEi Multi-phase $1,400,000 $3.00 10/13/92 3/4/96 $3,069,847
Manchester NH Soundproofing $1,669,847 $3.00 4/1/103 4/1/103
Albany NY Planning $45,000 $3.00 9/27/96 9/27/96 $45,000
Islip NY Multi-phase $1,150,000 $3.00 9123/94 9/23/94 $1,150,000 �
( j Syracuse NY Soundproofing $1,354,$99 $4.50 8/22/OS 8/22/OS $1,354,899
Airport Noise Report
Novemher 1, 2006 161
City State Project Amount PFC Impose Use Airport Total
�
Charlotte NC Land $52,270,000 $3.00 8/23/04 8/23/04 $58,725,302
Charlotte NC Multi-phase $1,264,209 $3.00 8/23/04 8/23/04
Charlotte NC Multi-phase $3,941,093 $3.00 8/23/04 8/23/04
Charlotte NC Planning $1,250,000 $3.00 8/23/04 8/23/04
Akron OH Land $19,210 $3.00 10/21/96 10/21/96 $107,252
Akron OH Land $14,635 $3.00 10/21/96 10/21/9b
Akron OH Land $5,293 $3.00 10/21/96 10/21/96
Akron OH Land $21,334 $3.00 10/21/96 10/21/96
Akron OH Land $12,911 $4.50 4/4/02 4/4/02
Akron OH Planning $4,146 $3.00 10/21/96 10/21/96
Akron OH Planning $27,001 $3.00 10/21/96 10/21/96
Akron OH Planning $2,722 $3.00 10/18/99 10/18/99
Cleveland OH Land $7,137,600 $3.00 9/1/92 2/2/94 $78,444,570
�
Cleveland OH Land $29,685,000 $3.00 4/25/97 4/25/97
Cleveland OH Planning $584,570 $3.00 4/25/97 4/25/97
Cleveland OH Soundproofing $22,362,400 $3.00 9/1/92 9/1/92
Cleveland OH Soundproofing $8,675,000 $3.00 4/25/97 4/25/97
Cleveland OH Soundproofing $10,000,000 $3.00 5/28/99 5/28/99
Columbus OH Land $119,600 $3.00 7/14/92 3/27/96 $2,439,499
Columbus OH Land $379,070 $3.00 7/14/92 3/27/96
Cotumbus OH Land $519,723 $3.00 7/14/92 3/27/96 i
Columbus OH Misc $61,752 $3.00 7/19/93 3/27/96
Columbus OH Monitoring $16,509 $3.00 7/14/92 10/27/93
Columbus OH P(anning $13,822 $3.00 5/29/98 5/29/98
Columbus OH Soundproofing $20,323 $3.00 7/14/92 10/27/93 ,
Columbus OH Soundproofing $71,974 $3.00 7/14/92 10/27/93
�, ;_:
Airport Noise Report
162
City State Project Amount PFC Impose Use Aiipof•t Total
`
Columbus OH Soundproofing $60,547 $3.00 7/14/92 10/27/93
Columbus OH Soundproofing $269,810 $3.00 7/19/93 3/27/96 ,
Columbus OH Soundproofing $906,369 $4.50 5/29/98 5/29/98 i
Dayton OH Land $309,206 $4.50 7/25/94 �/25/94 $1,009,206 �
Dayton OH Planning $700,000 $4.50 5/9/02 5/9/02 �
Toledo OH Multi-phase $1,676,083 $4.50 1/16/98 1/16/98 $1,676,083
Tulsa OK Multi-phase $8,400,000 $3.00 4/27/00 4/27/00 $8,400,000
Portland OR Monitoring $715,750 $3.0� 12/7/OS 12/7/OS $715,750 j
i
i
Allentown PA Land $244,387 $4.50 3/26/Ol 3/26/Ol $1,220,696 �
�
�
Allentown PA Land $220,475 $4.50 3/26/O1 3/26/Ol i
Allentown PA Land $91,944 $4.50 6/6/03 6/6/03
Allentown PA Monitoring $30,556 $4.50 3/26/O1 3/26/Ol
Allentown PA Planning $33,334 $4.50 3/26/O1 3/26/O1 i
i
�� �
Allentown PA Soundproofing $100,000 $4.50 6/6/03 6/6/03 �
- Allentown PA Soundproofing $500,000 $4.50 6/6/03 6l6/03
Erie PA Land $260,167 $4.50 5/13/03 5/13/03 $378,685
i
Erie PA Multi-phase $1I8,518 $3.00 7/21/92 7/21/92
Pittsburgh PA Soundproofrng $700,541 $4.50 7/27/01 7/27/Ol $1,750,748 �
Pittsburgh PA Soundproofng $1,050,207 $4.50 1/7/OS 1/7/OS
- - �ge—I���lanning---�1�06 �. 2�i99—�2�"y9 , i
Providence RI Land $10,382,213 $4.50 11/27/00 il/27/00 $10,382,213 �
Chattanooga TN Land $100,000 $3.00 4/25197 4/25/97 $115,000 ',
Chattanooga TN Land $15,000 $4.50 11/22/00 1/22/00 II
Knoxville TN Multi-phase $528,431 $3.00 10/6/93 10/6/93 $528,431
Nashville TN Multi-phase $24,065,949 $3.00 2/26/04 2/26/04 $24,180,949 �
Nashville TN Planning $115,000 $3.00 2/23/Ol 2/23/O1 I
Brownsville TX Planning $108,702 $4.50 2/7/03 2/7/03 $108,702
,,1
Airport Noise Report
m
_ l�vemher l, 2006 163
City State Project Amount PFC Impose Use Azrport Total
Dallas TX Monitoring $1,266,151 $3.00 11/7/96 il/7/96 $1,266,151 �
Harl3ngen TX Land $96,630 $3.00 7/9/98 7/9/98 $96,630
Laredo TX Planning $15,786 $3.00 7/23/93 12/31/96 $15,786
San Antonio TX Monitoring $245,153 $3.00 2/22/OS 2/22/OS $3,416,779
San Antonio TX Soundproofing $3,171,626 $3.00 8/29/O1 12/1/04
SaltLakeCity UT Land $465,488 $3.00 10/1/94 10/1/94 $1,320,968
SaltLakeCity UT Land $331,072 $4.50 4/30/O1 4/30/Ol
SaltLakeCity UT Land $524,408 $4.50 2/28/02 2/28/02
Lynchburg VA Land $17,762 $3.00 4/14/95 4/14/95 $17,762
Richmond VA Planning $15,931 $3.00 7/3/97 7/3/97 $15,931
Roanoke VA Land $65,000 $4.50 11/24/04 11/24/04 $67,458
Roanoke VA Planning $2,458 $4S0 11/24/04 11/24/04
Bellingham WA Land $166,000 $3.00 4/29/93 4/29/93 $1,352,350
Bellingham WA Land $732,000 $3.00 10/5/94 10/5/94 ��
Bellingham WA Land $454,350 $3.00 12/11/96 12/11/96
Seattle WA Multi-phase $14,939,111 $3.00 8/13/92 8/13/92 $115,626,950
Seattle WA Multi-phase $34,400,000 $3.00 1?J29/95 12/29/95 �
Seattle WA Multi-phase $50,000,000 $3.00 6/24/98 10/16/Ol
Seattle WA Soundproofing $16,134,627 $3.00 10/25/93 10/25/93
Seattle WA Soundproofing $153,212 $3.00 10/25/93 10/25/93
Appleton WI Land $14,502 $3.00 4/25/94 4/25/94 $14,502
Milwaukee WI Land $3,099,197 $3.00 2/24/95 2/24/95 $48,380,398
Milwaukee WI Land $1,425,187 $3.00 2/24/95 2/24/95
Milwaukee WI Misc $50,000 $3.00 3/8/Ol 3/8/Ol
Milwaukee WI Misc $5,000,000 $3.00 7/9/02 7/9/02
Milwaukee WI Monitoring $40,956 $3.00 2/24/95 2/24/95
Milwaukee WI Multi-phase $34,994,828 $3.00 12/21/95 12/21/95
�
Airport Noise Report
,
City
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Cheyenne
Cheyenne
Jackson
State Project Anzount
WI Planning $230,000
WI Soundproofing $2,290,230
WI Soundproofing $1,250,000
WY Land $81,192
WY Misc $129,759
WY Monitoring $63,000
PFC Impose
$3.00 7/9/02
$3.00 12/21/95
$3.00 4/15/04
$4.50 3/28/Ol
$4.50 3/28/O1
$4.50 2/9/04
Totai for All Noise Projects
Airport Noise Report
Use Ai�port Total
7/9/02
12/21/95
4/15/04
3/28/Oi $210,951
3/28/Ol
2/9/04 $63,000
$2,774,188,830
164
138
�� ..F: r+.,:'¢ t��;_ s�Y pr�F� s r � � � �•ri -.. '�� �r .�r� �;..
,��i_ 'Fz.. ,z f �. �� � ��:•' �.. {t.: �' � � "`�„�' "�5r, rjJ µ�.,,�- �,1 , .',, 1:- ih..�
�':e.
A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments
Volume 18, Number35 October 25 , 2006
Research
PARTNEaZ, EUROPEAN AGEN�IES IIZ ThIS ISSI�e... �
COOPERATING ON NOISE, EMISSIONS
PARTNER–the three-year-old consortium of universities and aerospace
industry firms established to conduct research that will be used as the basis for
future government policy on aircraft noise and emissions — announced that it has
signed an agreement with Europe's Environmentally Compatible Air Transport
System (ECATS) that will enhance its coilaboration with key European research
establishments.
ECATS is sponsored by the European Commission and deals with aviation
emissions. Comprised of leading European research establishments and universi-
ties, ECATS' research focuses on engine technology, alternative fuels, air quality,
green flighbscenarios, communications, and education.
PART'NER called the agreement "a major step in aligning global aviation
environmental research." The landmark "statement of common understanding"
between PARTNER and ECATS is expected to "provide policymakers in the
United States and Europe with research-substantiated tools to formulate znajor
policies related to aviation and the environment"
"We will all benefit from this important collaboration, which has been building
(Continued on p. 139)
Airspace Redesign
TWO CONGRESSMEN IN TIGHT RACES
FOCUSING ON ISSUE OF AIRCRAFT NOISE
Two 10-term Republican congressmen, both fighting for their political lives and
one under criminal investigation, have recently become pro-active an an issue that
they know concerns their constituents and allows the embattled lawmakers to get
some good press in the weeks before the mid-term congressional elections.
That issue is aircraft noise.
Or, to be specific, the noise impact predicted to occur if the Federal Aviation
Administration proceeds with the vast redesign of the airspace over the New
YorWNew 7ersey/Philadelphia metropolitan area that the agency says is needed to
reduce congestion and delay on the East Coast and to improve safety and
efficiency of the airspace.
With just weeks to go before the mid-term eiections, Rep. Christopher Shays (R-
CT) and Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA), who is under investigation to determine if he
improperly steered federal contracts to his daughter's lobbying firm, asked the
chairman of the House Aviation Subcommittee, Rep. 7ohn Mica (R-FL) to hold
hearings in their districts on the FAA's proposed airspace redesign project.
Mica, who wil l lose his chairmanship if the Democrats win control of the House
of Representatives, quickly accommodated their requests and held hearings on the
proposed airspace redesign in Fairfield County, CT, (Shays district) on Oct. 17 and
Researclz ... The consortium of
universities and aerospacefirms
known as PARTNERannounces
that it has signed a statement of
commonunderstandingwith
Europe's Environmentally Com-
patible Air Transport System
(ECATS) thatwill enhance
co llaboration on research that will
be used as the basis of future
publicpolicy on aircraftemissions.
PARTNER also is developing a
working relationship with the
Netherlands National Aerospace
Laboratory, one ofthe leading
aircraftnoiseresearch facilities in
the world - p. 138
Airspace Redesign ... Two
Republican congressmen appear
to be turning to aircraftnoise issue
to drum up support in tight mid-
congxess
Part I50 Pt•ogram ... FAA
approves most ofprogram for St.
Lucie, modification ofprogram for
Orlando Sanford - p. 140
News Briefs ... Roger Johnson
returns to LAWA in his previous
position as deputy executive
directorforEnvironmental Ser-
vices forLAWA airports ...
David Carbone is firstrecipient of
NOISE "Presidents Award" given
inrecognition ofhis contributions
(Continued on p. 139) � to the association - p. 140
October 25, 2006 139
informally for more than ayear," said PARTNER Director
Prof. Ian Waitz of the Massachusetts Institute of Technol-
ogy Aeronautics and Astronautics Department.
Dr. Lourdes Maurice, FAA's chief scientist for the
environment and PAR.TNER program manager, called the
agreement with ECATS "a significant accomplishment "It
means, she explained, "that the scientific community in
Europe and the U.S. have a common base from which to
inform our policy makers. There will, of course, continue to
be different views, but the bases for action will be greatly
harmonized."
PART'NER is an acronym forPartnership for AiR Trans-
portation Noise and Emissions Reduction. It was the
brainchiid ofthe U.S. Federal Aviation Administration's
Office of Environment and Energy and has grown to inciude
Transport Canada and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA). It now seeks to make the research
consortium a global enterprise.
PART'NER said it also is exploring relationships with
EUROCONTROL, the 37-state civil and mi litary pan-
European air traffic management system, and with the
Netherlands National Aerospace Laboratory (Nationaal
Luchten Ruimtevaartlaboratorium orNLR), one ofthe
leading aircraft noise research facilities in the world.
PARTNER said it and NLR are "pursuing similar interests
in noise measurements and continuous descent approach
flight procedures, and each entity can leverage its invest-
ment by pursuing collaborative activities."
The two organizations plan to exchange research strate-
gies and to start developing an outline for connecting their
research.
PART'NER said is also plans to extend its relationships to
the Asia Pacific region.
iTpdated Website
string and that, if enough political pressure is put on
Congress, it will not fund the FAA airspace redesign.
Also coming to Weldon's aid was Deputy Secretary of
Transportation Maria Cino, who toured Swathmore, PA, near
Philadelphia lnternational Airport, the day before Mica's
hearing and assured local residents fearful of a noise
increase, "I totally understand what you are going through.
You have gotten our attention," the Philadelphia lnquirer
reported.
Prior to joining the Bush administration, Cino served as
deputy chairman of the Republican National Committee and
was the RNC's top political strategist. With that background,
she must have seen political opporiunity the noise issue,
which is of genuine concem to Weldon's constituents.
Officials Caught Off Guard
O�cials of both Delaware County, PA, and Fai�eld
County, CT, accused the FAA of failing to adequately notify
them of public hearings that were held on the draft environ-
mental impact statement on the project and of providing
misleading noise information.
The FAA held 30 public information sessions on the project
in all five states that will be affected by the project, including
Fairfield and Delaware counties.
But o�cials of both counties said they were unaware of
those meetings until after the fact and that they were unable
to meet the deadline for filing public comments on the
project. "The meetings you heid were literally invisible,"
Fairfield County Selectman William Brennan, told Steven (
Kelley, manager of the FAA airspace redesign project. `.
"Where is the communication? Where is the transparency?"
Judy Neville, Selectwoman ofNew Canaan, CT, asked.
Mica told officials of both counties that they could submit
comments to his o�ce and he would forward them to FAA
Administrator Marion Blakely for consideration by the
The announcement on the agreement between PARTNER agency.
and ECATS appears on the new website €or the research An FAA spokesman told ANR that the agency used several
consortium (http://mit.edu/aeroastrolpartner). means to notify people of the public scoping sessions on the
New features on the website include individual pages for draft EIS on the project. It took out public notices in local
e�ch__n_roiect bein� un.dez�ken in the a eas o�oise and newspapers worked with the local uress and sent letters to
eznissions; listing of all project investigators and program public officials. In addition, the agency met with congres-
managers (with e-maii addresses and telephone numbers); sional delegations of the five states that would be affected
new reports on projects being undertaken; a news page with by the airspace redesign, and sent flyers to various civic
articles and events, and a new Resources section with organizations.
meeting information and other information. But the 30 public sessions on the project were not heavily
Further improvements and additions to the site also are attended by the public and Kelley acknowledged at the
planned. Fairfield County hearing that "somehow the b�ll got
Airspace, frorn p. X38 dropped."
belaware County towns are located very near Philadelphia
in Delaware County; PA, outside Philadelphia (Weldon's Intemational Airport and county o�cials object to the FAA
airspace redesign because it would impose six flight paths
district) on Oct.18. over county towns and drop a long-standing airport noise
Both counties wouid get substantial noise increases from abatement path over the Delaware River.
aircraft rerouting that FAA wants to make under the Keiley told county officials that the FAA could reduce the
redesign. number of new flight paths over the county from six to three
Mica sought to assuage angry local officials at both _ but County Gouncil Chairman Andrew Reilly retorted, "Minor �/ ,
hearings telling them that Congress controls the purse mitigation won't do it for us. The preferred procedure is to
Airport Noise Report
October 25, 2006 140
_ __
stay over the river until [planes] get to 3,000 feet." training schools in the Florida Treasure Coast Region with
Kelley said the FAA could not push pianes further south over 81,000 training operations per year.
on departure before turning to reduce noise impact over the However, FAA disapproved a proposal to install lights
county without redoing the entire airspace redesign project. along a highway to act as a landmark for student pilots and
"If we could find places to put airports where people don't to keep them away from residential areas east of the airport.
]ive, believe me, we would," Kelley said. "Our challenge now FAA said "there is insufficient analysis of the placement of
is to find a way to mitigate the impact." lighting or the expected noise benefits. There are no FAA-
Mica noted that Philadelphia lntemational is the only approved st�ndards for traffic pattern notification lights."
airport in the Northeast than can be expanded. FAA also disapproved, pending submission of additional
The future of the FAA's airspace redesign project appears information, maintenance of a voluntary ban on touch-and-
uncertain at this point. If the FAA moves forward with it, the go training procedures because the airport did not evaluate
. agency will most likely be sued by Westchester County, NY, the benefit of this measure.
Delaware County, PA, and perhaps others, including the FAA also disapproved for purposes of the Part 150
Port Authority of New York and New 7ersey, which strangly program with respect to Airport Improvement Program
opposed the project because noise mitigation was not funding, a proposal to allow the County to use federal AiP
considered up front. grants to relocate residents in the airport's 60 DNL contour
And, as Mica said, if enough pressure is put on Congress, or, alternately, to sound insulation homes in that contour or
it will be forced to step into the matter. FAA has been purchase avigation easements.
successful in redesigning the airspace in other parts of the Legislation passed in 1993 to reauthorize the programs of
counfiry but has never tried anything as sweeping as the NY/ the FAA specifically prohibits FAA approval of Part 150
NJ/PHL project. It remains to be seen if pubic opposition will program measures that require AIP funding to mitigate
kill it. aircraft noise outside DNL 65 dB (through fiscal year 2007).
At this point, FAA plans to release a final EIS on the However, the FAA said the County is not barred by that law
project in January 2007 and to hold public hearings in the from using airport revenue outside 65 DNL for noise
five states that will be affected: New York, New 7ersey, mitigation purposes.
Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Delaware. Those hearing Approved as voluntary measures were efforts to discour-
will focus only on strategies that can be put in p]ace to age operations by old Stage 1 aircraft, use of a preferential
mitigate the noise impact of the airspace redesign. runways for calm wind operation and for flight training to the
;''� extent possible, and use of the "close-in" noise abatement
�� Pal�t 1 SO Pf'ogl'am departureprofile.
ST. LUCIE PROGRAIYI CHANGE Also approved were a study of the feasibility of a 1,500-
� foot wsstward shift of a runway to reduce noise impact on
7C0 ORLANDO PROGRAM OK'D the community, an update of county airport zoning regula-
tions, approval of remedial land use recommendatians so the
On Oct. 20, the Federal Aviation Administration an- County can acquire land to relocate existing residences
nounced its approval of a Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibil- �,ithin the cunent (2005) DNL 60 contour or to provide
ity Program for St. Lucie County International Airport in Fort sound insulation to those homes, and implementation of a
Pierce, FL, and a modification to the Part 150 program for . pilot education program.
Orlando Sanford International Airport in Sanford, PL. The FAA approved in concept a proposal to develop a
FAA approved a modification to a Land Use measure in tower order to document and formalize touch-and-go
�airF�-d 1'ar�l� -pr a 15�t=�i`i�ws�C ' procedures.
acquire for noise abatement purposes additional non-
compatible land in the airport's 65 DNL noise contour as j)Z .81"le. f�
defined in an updated 2004 noise exposure map.
The non-compatible land will be acquired from 2004 to
2009. Johnson Retu rns to LAWA
Further information on the Sanford Part 150 program
modifioation and on the St. Lucie Part 150 program described Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) announced Oct. 16
below can be obtained from Lindy McDowell in FAA's that it has appointed Roger A. 7ohnson as deputy executive
Orlando AirportsDistrict Office; tel: (407) 812-6331; ext.130. director for Environmental Services, a post he held from July
St. LucieProgram
The FAA granted outright approval to 11 of the 14
proposed noise abatement measures in the Part 150 program
for St. Lucie County International. Three measures were
i ) disapproved.
- St. Lucie International is home to one ofthe largest flight
2000 to May 2003 before returnmg to the private sector.
He is responsible for all environmental planning, mitiga-
tion, and compliance services at all four LAWA airports: Los
Angeles Internationai, Ontario International, Palmdale
Regional, and Van Nuys.
Johnson earlier served as project manager for the LAX
MasterPlan Environmental Impact Study/Environmental
Airport Noise Report
October 25, 2006
. 141
ANR EDITORIA,L �pactReport and has expertise in state and federal environmental planning
AI)VISORY BOARI) processes.
In related news, LAWA announced that it will hold two outreach meetings )` �
on Oct. 25 and Oct. 28 as part of a community-based planning process for the �
John J. Corbett, Esy.
Spiegel & McDiarmid
Washington, DC
Carl E. $urleson
Director, Office of Environment and Energy
Federal Aviation Administration
John C. Freytag, P.E.
Director, Charles M. Salter Associates
San Francisco
Michae! Scott Gatzke, Esq.
Gatzke, Diilon & Ballance
Carlsbad, CA
Peter J. Kirsch, Esq.
Kaplan, Kirsch & Rockwell LLP
Denver
Suzanne C. MeLean
Chief Devetopment Of£ce�
Tucson Airport Authority
Vincent E. Mestre, P.E.
President, Mestre Greve Associates
Laguna Niguel, CA
Steven F. Pflaum, Esq.
McDermott, Will & Emery
Chicago
Mary L. Vigilante
President, Synergy Consultants
Seattle
modernization of LAX. The meetings will focus on ai�eld safety and runway
incursions.
The meetings were part of a settlement agreement of challenges to the
original LAX modernization plan.
LAWA also announced that the Los Angeles Board of Airport Commission-
ers on Oct. 23 awarded two contracts to AMD Construction Group, Inc., of
City of Orange, CA, for a portion of the LAX Residential Sound Insulation
Program. The two contracts total $1,828,200 for sound insulation modifica-
tions on six single-family dwellings, 76 condominium units, and one four-unit
apartment located in the City of Los Angeles and within the 65 DNL contour
ofLAX.
These units bring the total number of housing units to be sound insulated
under the LAX program to 5,234. The program includes more than 8,200 units.
Carbone Receives NOISE Award
David Carbone, a transportation planner for San Mateo County, CA, and
coordinator of the San Francisco International Airport Community
Roundtable, received the Nationai Organization to Ensure a Sound-controlled
Environment's inaugural "President's Award" during the NOISE annual
conference held recently in the San Francisco Bay area.
Mr. Carbone has a long history of leadership in NOISE, which represents
political jurisdictions with airport noise problems, and in efforts to address
aviation noise issues in the San Francisco metropolitan area.
"We are lucky to have David as part of the organization," said NOISE
President Skip Lowry, Council Member from Saint John, MO, in ant�ouncing (
the award. "His skill, knowledge, and dedication have played a significant role �,
in reaching out to communities across the United States and helping to
advance our public policy agenda in Washington, DC.
Mr. Carbone is the first recipient of the NOISE "President's Award," which
is presented by approval of the organization's executive committee in
recognition for outstanding contributions to the organization and "advance-
ment of collaborative implementation of noise mitigation policies."
Correction
ANR incorrectly reported in a headline on p. 122 of the Sept. 27 issue (Vol.
, o rro—.�--l��t��-�oaqz�i�,�A�a�n���r�ise�s=�ad���d�=i�+s=�1•��,.�
buffer around Stockton Metropolitan Airport in which no residential or
commercial development could occ�r. The story correctly noted that the
supervisors are only considering and studying such action but the headline is
misleading.
AIRPORT NOISE .REPORT
Anne H. Kohut, Publisher
Published 44times ayearat 43975 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 20147; Phone: (703) 729-4867; FAX: (703) 729-4528.
e-mail: editor@airportnoisereport.com; Price $750.
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, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. USA.
_
� ,f �� ,,,
f�� " sh � "t;j:'z 53.,... cY 4 y.�.w,.N ,r�, x J%� },��t. �•S ,�zc1i� r> j 4'ts„ �.s::: `{'
ky.: fi,,3�. fi� v`_ 4. i� a`��� �, � S t �, C_�� ��,
p. -...E C' ...¢ :.y4 `S. .;C«. "hn• 44
�M
A weekly updaie on litigation, regulations, and technological developments
Volume 18, Number34
7'eterboro
� . � � ,� � � � ,�, ' .
� � ' • � � � � ' �
Following months of negotiations led by Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey Chairman Anthony R. Coscia and New Jersey Rep. Steve Rothman (D) —
who were adamant that Teterboro Airport be made quieter and safer for the
communities around it—major airport users, fixed-base operators, and four
aviation trade groups agreed on Oct. 4 to voluntary noise restrictions.
They pledged to voluntarily ban operations of Stage 2 business jets, to comply
with a voluntary nighttime curfew on operations from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m., to voluntar-
ily comply with an existing ban on operations of aircraft over 100,000 lb., to make
the airport a model for the safest general aviation airport in the nation, and to
enhance security procedures.
Those pledging to support the voluntary noise restrictions include all five
airport FBOs, major airport users such as Net7ets and Signature Flight Service, as
well as the National Air Transport Association (NATA), the National Business
Aviation Association (NBAA), the General Aviation Manufacturers Association
(GAMA), and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA).
There are no penalties for violating the voluntary noise restrictions, which cover
(Continued on p. 135)
Emissions
BRANSON WANTS AI�2CRAFT TOWED,
CDA USED TC) REIDUCE CC)2 EMISSIONS
The Chairman of Virgin Atlantic Airways, Sir Richard Branson, recently called on
the global aviation industry to develop a shared solution to the growing issue of
climate change. The move follows Virgin Group's plans to invest $3 billion in
renewable energy initiatives over the next decade.
Branson wants all aircraft to be towed from push-back to the end of the runway
to reduce emissions on departure and wants aircraft to use the new Continuous
Descent Approach (CDA) to reduce emissions on landing.
Such procedures would significantly reduce aircraft CO2 emissions and noise
impact, he said.
Aviation insiders say there is not enaugh detail in Branson's plan to be able to
judge his proposals as being serious. Keeping engines off until just before takeoff
could be problematic, they say, and it is not entirely clear whether Branson's $3
billion contribution to reduce greenhouse gasses is a donation or an investment
on which he expects a return.
Branson's proposals may be feasible but the devil is in the details, said Lourdes
Maurice, chief scientific and technical advisor in the Federal Aviation
Administration's Office of Environment and Energy.
Some of the measures Branson is advocating, such as the CDA, are steps that
PARTNER, a research consortium of universities and aerospace firms established
(Continued on p. 135)
134
October 12 , 2006
In Tlais issue...
Teterboro ... In a deal
brokered by PANY/NJ chief
Anthony Coscia andNJ Rep.
Steve Rothman, major users of
Teterboro Airport, one of the key
business aviation airports inthe
country,pledgeto comply with
voluntaiy noise restrictions,
includinganighttime curfew, aban
on Stage 2 business jets, and a
ban on operations of aircraft over
100,000 pounds - p. 134
Emissions ... Sir Richard
Branson, chairmanof Virgin
Atlantic, seeks to convene an
aviationindustryforumto find
ways to reduce CO2 emissions.
He wants all aircraft to be towed
from the gate to the runway and
to use the new Continuous
DescentApproachto reduce
emissions and noise - p.134
DeKalb-Peachtree ... Airport
watch group questioi�s validity of
airport fleet mix data used inEA
on noise reduction routes out of
concern that itwill be used in
master plan update - p. 13 6
News Briefs ... NOISE
presents Port of Oakland with
Airport Operator afthe Year
Award; also honors Oakland
Airport-CommunityNoise
Management Forum - p.137
�,
October 12, 2006 135 ,
about 50 percent of the operators that use Teterboro. Coscia
and Rothman said they expect 90 percent of airport opera-
tors to comply with the voluntary restrictions by the end of
next year.
Residents near the airports are not expected to natice an
immediate noise reduction. Rafiher, over the course of the
next year as operators become aware of the voluntary noise
restrictions, improvements in the noise environment are
expected to be noticed.
If full compliance with the voluntary nighttime curfew is
achieved, it would eliminate 12,000 night flights annually.
The airport handled just over 193,000 flights last year.
Rep. Rothman expressed enthusiasm for the deal but said
he would move to enact legislation if airports users do not
comply with the voluntary restrictions. He said that it could
become easier to enact such legislation if the Democrats win
control of the House of Representarives in the mid-term
elections in November.
The Stage 2 business jets kept out of Teterboro under the
voluntary agreement are expected to go to Newark Liberty
International Airport, La Guardia Airport, or Westchester
County Airport in White Plains, NY.
The issue of long-standing noise complaints and safety
concerns from residents near Teterboro came to a head last
year following the crash of a business jet on takeoff which
sent it across a busy highway during the morning rush
hour.
That accident stiffened the resolve of Coscia to make
changes at Teterboro.
Working Group Formed
Jim Christiansen, a senior executive at NetJets, told the
Newark Star-Ledger, that he and a group of other airport
operators met with Coscia at the Port Authority's offices at
Newark Liberty International Airport last winter. "He was
very candid. He was very direct. He told us what needed to
be done. We knew we needed to get proactive,"
Christiansen said.
Following that meeting, the airport users formed the
Teterboro Indushy Working Group, which also included the
FBOs, trade groups, and airport representatives.
"The Working Group is a major step in our goal of
bringing together airport stakeholders to focus on
Teterboro's operations," Coscia said. "We now have a team
of aviation professionals who are working directly with us
on a voluntary basis and who are willing to bring forth new
ideas to create a safer airport for users and our neighbors."
Former congressman James K. Coyne, co-chair of the
Working Group and president of NATA, said "the best way
to work through issues of safety, security, and noise is to
broaden the dialogue to include those directly connected to
airport operations — the pilots, operators, and trade profes-
sionals. Members of the Working Group have incredible
experience and background and understand how the
industry can best deliver solutions that respond to this
community's concerns."
The Working Group has four subcommittees on Noise &
Emissions, Operations, Safety & Security, and Regionai
Advocacy. The group will meet quarterly to monitor its
progress.
The deal relieves the PANY/NJ from moving to impose
mandatory noise restrictions at Teterboro, which wou]d
require extensive cost/beneft analysis under the Federal
Aviation Administration's Part 161 regulations and almost
certainly end up putting the PANY/NJ in a long and costly
legal battle with the agency.
FAA's Part 161 regulations on Notice and Approval of
Airport Noise and Access Restrictions allow for vo]untary
noise and access restrictions to be put in place without first
conducting a Part 161 cost/benefit study.
The fact that aviation users of Teterboro and trade groups
representing general aviation are so ernestly pledging to
support the voluntary noise restrictions indicates that they
are nervously eyeing efforts to impose mandatory restric-
tions on Stage 2 business jets at general aviation Van Nuys
Airport in Southern California. A coalition of airports also is
seeking a legislative mandate from Congress to ban the older,
noisier Stage 2 business jets which account for most of the
noise complaints around general aviation airports.
It is estimated that there are 1,300 Stage 2 business jets
operating in the United States.
Teterboro is one of the major general aviation airports in the
country because of its proximity to New York City and its
financial centers.
Branson, from p. X34
by FAA, also has been exploring, she noted. "It is great to
have his leadership," Maurice said, adding that she hopes
his plan is something that PARTNER can engage in and that
already-estabLished forums, such as PAR'1'NER, will be used
by Branson.
Maurice said that a representative of Virgin has been
invited to attend an aviation industry Alternative Fuels
Workshop to be held on Oct. 23-24 in Atlanta and invitations
to other aviation environmental forums are expected.
PARTNER is an acronym for Partnership for AiR Transpor-
tation Noise and Emissions Reduction.
Cross-IndustryForum Sought
Branson has written to other airlines, including British
Airways, American Airlines, and Easyjet; to engine and
aircraft manufacturers, such as Rolls Royce and Boeing; and
to airport operators urging them to support a new cross-
industry forum he hopes to establish to develop practical
ways of tackling climate change.
"We need to accelerate the pace at which we reduce
aviation's impact on the environment," Branson wrote. "We
cannot ignore that aviation does create environmental
problems (around 2 percent of global CO2 emissions).
Although equaily it produces significant economic and sociai
benefits (8 percent of the word's Gross Domestic Product or
GDP).
Airport Noise Report
October 12, 2006
At the heart of Branson's vision is the creation of "starting
grids" for all aircraft departures. A starting grid is a holding
area, close to the runway, consisting of several parking bays
for aircraft. It means that aircraft can be towed closer to a
runway before take-off, substantially reducing the time that
engines need to be running.
After being towed by a small tug from its stand, an aircraft
would only start its engines once on the "starting grid,"
around 10 minutes before actual take-off. This would
substantially reduce the amount of time aircraft need to taxi
with their engines running and the time spent queuing
before takeoff. A"starting grid" also reduces congestion
around stands, meaning aircraft that have recently landed
wouldn't have to wait, with their engines running, to get into
the stand. Aircraft arriving also could turn off their engines
after five minutes and be towed to their stand, saving
considerable extra CO2.
Branson said that the "starting grid" system would make
airport movements much more efficient and would reduce
fuel consumption and on-the-ground cazbon emissions by
over 50 percent ahead of take-off at London's Heathrow
Airport for Virgin Atlantic aircraft, and by neazly 90 percent
for Virgin Atlantic flights at JFK International Airport in New
York. It also would mean that an aircraft flying from JFK to
Heathrow could cany around two tons less weight in the air,
which would mean that the amount of fuel burnt would be
considerably less, reducing CO2 emissions even further.
Towing aircraft closer to the runway has substantial
implications for local comznunities too, Branson said. They
would benefit from much lower noise levels because of
aircraft taxiing without their engines running, and from
dramatically cleaner air on the ground.
Continuous DescentApproach
Virgin Atlantic pilots are trained to conduct a CDA on
approach, which involves aircraft beginning their descent
from high altitude much earlier, leading to a slower and
smoother approach before landing. This earlier descent
means that aircraft descend at a more fuel efficient speed and
thus reduce fuel burn.
The CDA also has noise reduction benefits but it may be
much more complicated to employ on a broad basis than
Branson appears to believe. The CDA, at least at its current
state of development, does not readily allow multiple planes
to use it at the same time. So, air traffic controllers may be
unwilling to use it during periods of high density traffic at
airports. However, the CDA appears to be an ideal procedure
to use at night when arriving tra�c is less frequent and
sleep disturbance is an issue.
Virgin Atlantic also is reducing the weight of each of its
aircraft by using lighter exterior paint, creating lighter fittings
on board, changing oxygen bottles from metal to carbon-
fiber, and using cargo bins made from lighter but stronger
carbon-fiber materials rather than metal. The airline is even
removing empty champagne and beer bottles to reduce
weight.
136
Branson also supports plans for a single European air
tra�c control system, which would optimize routings by
aircraft and improve environmental performance. The
Intemational Air Transport Association (IATA) predicts
that 12 percent of global CO2 emissions by aircraft would be
cut if ATC systems were more efficient, he said.
"What we're suggesting would save over 150 million tons
of carbon emissions a year," Branson said. "With global
warming, the world is heading for a catastrophe. The
aviation industry must play its part in averting that. Airlines,
airports, air traffic controllers, and governments should seize
these initiatives and ensure they're all implemented within
two years. If they do so, up to 2S percent of the world's
aviation emissions can be cut. The savings in fuel costs can
then be ploughed back in to further initiatives to reduce fuel
burn and carbon emission, and into savings for passengers."
Branson's initiatives, which were developed over the last
year, follow a recent climate seminar in California chaired by
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger during which senior business
leaders, including Sir Richard Branson, promised to help cut
global emissions.
Schwarzenegger applauded Branson's plan to tow aircraft
to the runway as "a perfect example of the kind of practical
solution we need to be pursuing globally."
DeSalb-Peaclztree
� . ,-'. . . i. � .', _r,i,. ,',� �
� ► � ,� 1
An effort to reduce noise for neighbors of Dekalb-
Peachtree Airport, a primary business aviation airport
located in the suburbs of Atlanta, GA, remains ensnarled in
red tape nearly a year after airport officials submitted an
environmental assessment (EA) to the Federal Aviation
Administration, the National Business Aviation Association
(NBAA) reported.
"The idea was to formalize noise-reducing routes for all
turbojet aircraft departing the airport to the south, toward
the city center and the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta Interna-
tional Airport," NBAA explained. That would shift at least
some of the noise from departing aircraft over a major
transportation corridor rather than over homes.
But soon after the EA was submitted, a community group
called PDX Watch questioned the fleet mix specified in the
EA. That objection resulted in an investigation by the FAA
into the methodology used by the airport to generate its fleet
mixfigures.
The airport combined three types of data to determine its
fleet mix: statistics from its airport Noise and Operations
Monitoring System (NOMS), air traffic control fl9ght strips
that correspond to the NOMS reports, and one-month period
of actual aircraft observations.
PDX Watch, wl�ich opposes expansion of the airport,
contends that the airport is regularly aliowing in planes that
exceed what they contend is a 66,000 Ib. runway weight limit
at the airport. The airport says that pavement studies done
Airport Noise Report
October 12, 2006
137 � �
�1NR EDITORIA� after an extension of the runway indicate it can occasionally handle aircraft up
to 100,0001b.
ADVISORY BOAR.D PDX Watch won a lawsuit against the airport last year forcing it to hand r"
overNOMS data, including aircraft identification numbers (17 ANR90). `.
John J. Corbett, Esq.
Spiegel & McDiarrnid
Washington, DC
Carl E. Burleson
Director, O�ce of Environment and Energy
Federal Aviation Administration
John C. Freytag, P.E.
Director, Chazles M. Salter Associates
San Francisco
Michaei Scott Gatzke, Esq.
Gatzke, Dillon & Ballance
Carlsbad, CA
Peter J. Kirsch, Esq.
Kaplan, Kirsch & Rockweil LLP
Denver
Suzanne C. McLean
Chief Development Officer
Tucson Airport Authotity
Vincent E. Mestre, P.E.
President, Mestre Greve Associates
Laguna Niguel, CA
Steven F. Pflaum, Esq.
McDermott, Will & Emery
Chicago
MaryL. Vigilante
President, Synergy Consultants
Seattle
� In Brief ...
Port of Oakland Honored by NOISE
The National Organization to Insure a Sound-controlled Environment
(NOISE) honored the Port of Oakland, CA, and the Oakland Airport-Commu-
nity Noise Management Forum at the association's recent annual meeting,
held on Sept. 20-22 in the San Francisco Bay area.
The Port of Oakland was presented with the Mary E. Griffin Airport Operator
of the Year Award for its Community Outreach Program through which
community groups have input to the Port's Noise Management Program.
The award is presented annually by the NOISE Executive Board to recognize
airports "that advocate and practice cooperation with their local communities
in efforts to minimize the impact of airport operations," the association
explained.
The Oakland Airport-Community Noise Management Forum received the
Betty Ann Krahnke Community Organization Award "in recognition of its
efforts on behaif of over one million people in the Oakland area by providing
an open channel for communication between the Airport �nd noise-irr►pacted
communities regarding concems about noise and overflight issues," the
association said.
The award is presented anrivally to a local government or community
partnership that has made exlxaordinary efforts on behalf of their citizens in
combating airport noise and educating citizens on the effects of aircraft noise.
NOISE largely represents political jurisdictions located near major metropoli- �,
tan airports and impacted by noise from them. It is an affiliate of the National '
League of Cities.
Correction
Louisville International Airport informed ANR that a$9 million grant it
received for noise mitigation in fisca12006 was placed under.the wrong
heading in tables provided by the FAA and reported in last week's issue of
ANR(Vo1.18, Nos. 32-33).
The $9 million Louisville grant was incorrectly listed in Table 1: AIP Grants
for Residential Sound Insulation in Fisca12006. The FAA should have
included that grant in Table 4: AIP Grants for Easements, Land Acquisition in
Fisca12006.
ANR will wait a few weeks to see if any other airports find that their grants
have been misreported by FAA. Then a corrected version of the issue will be
sent out.
AIRPORT NOISE REPORT
Anne H. Kohut, Publisher
Published 44 times ayearat43978 UrbancrestCt., Ashburn, Va. 20147; Phone: (703) 729-4867; FAX: (703) 729-4528.
e-mail:editor@airportnoisereport.com; Price$750.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use o£ 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, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. USA.
125
�t � , � �
u� �,�` � ti �1� � n r �,.,,
�`fi ti°°" ,�r-;'�s: t�'' x y'• ���, � F' q a�,s e�-;� `/�:� , .�.,1 i.-� �,�,
,�- � ��'��. m.�l. �f� S� •y,4 t: r �'� ��, '�`F- A� �, r S �� �
,ex. � j '�` � '` �' �'�wf+ r.�s �'a,.�..k �«- ,,.a , 3 °
n4x,x�.. ::.
A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments
Volume 18, Number32, 33 October 6, 2006
AIP Noise Granfs
NOISE GRANTS TOTALING $303.1 MILLION
AWARDED TO 65 AIR.PORTS IN �+'ISCAL 2006
In fisca12006, some 65 airports (seven more than in fisca12005) received a total of
$303.1 million in federal Airport Improvement Program (AIl') grants to conduct
noise compatibility studies and to implement noise mitigation projects, according
to data provided by the Federal Aviation Administration.
That funding level is $34.1 million less than the $337.3million the FAA awarded
in noise mitigation grants in fiscal �005 (17 ANR 128). AIP funding for noise
mitigation projects totaled $315.08 million in fisca12004, $273. S million in fiscal
2003, and $277.01 million in fisca12002.
The $303.1 million in noise grants awarded in fisca12006 includes:
. $220.2 million for sound insulation of homes and public buildings ($157.4
million forhomes and $62.7 million for public buildings, mostly schools);
• $82 million to conduct noise compatibility planning studies;
• $68.1 million to acquire land and easements for noise compatibility;
• $3.4 million to install airport noise monitoring systems; and
• $1.07millionforothernoisemitigationprojects.
The AIl' grants represent only one of two federal funding sources available to
airport proprietors to fund noise mitigation projects. The other funding source is
revenue from PassengerFacility Charges (PFCs). ANR will report noise mitigation
projects funded by PFCs in fisca12006, which ended on Sept. 30, later this fall.
FAA has now awarded airports roughly $4.5 billion in noise-related grants under
its ALP program since that program began in 1982.
In fisca12006, the highest level of AIP grant funding for noise mitigation projects
to any one airport proprietor went to the Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey ($35.5 million for insulation of public buildings (most, if not all, for schools)
around the four airports it operates; $28.1 million was for insulation of schools
around LaGuardia).
Los Angeles International Airport got the next highest level of grant awards for
noise mitigation projects ($30.9 million) in fisca12006 and most ofthat ($20.9
million) went to support its residential sound insulation program. The rest ($10
million) was for acquisition of land and/or easements.
Chicago O'Hare Intemational Airport got the third highest level of AIP noise
grants ($18.3 million) in fscal 2006 to support both its residential and school
sound insulation program, although most ($11.6 million) went to school insulation.
O'Hare is followed by San Diego International ($12.9 million; most for residential
insulation), T.F. Green State Airport in Providence, RI ($15 million for land/
easements), and Seattle-Tacoma International ($11.9 mil lion for insulation).
In fiscal 2006, airports received:
*$10.5 million more for insulation than in fisca12005;
*$5.3 million more for noise compatibility planning studies than in fisca12005;
*$53.6 million less for acquisition of land/easements than in fisca12005;
*$1.3 million more for noise monitoring systems than in fiscal 2005.
In This Issue...
AIP Grant Data ... This
special issue ofANRprovides
inforcnation on grants thatwere
awardedto airports fornoise
cornpatibility planning and for
airport noise miiigation pro j ects
underthe federal AirportIm-
provementProgram (AIP) in
fiscal year 2006.
The FAA data shaw that 65
airports received atotal of
$303.1 million inAIP noise
grants in fisca12006, down
$34.1 mill•ion from the $337.3
millionprovided fornoise mitiga-
tion grants an fisca12005.
Table 1. Grants forresidential
sound insulation -p.126
Table 2. Grants for insulation
ofpublic buildings (mostly
schools) - p. 128
Table 3. Grants for noise
compatibility planning studies - p.
129
Table 4. Grants for acquisition
of land and easements fornoise
compatibility -p.130
Table 5. Grants for noise
monitoring systems - p.131
Table 6. Grants for other
projects - p. 131
Table 7. Discretionary and
entitlementgrants by airportfor
all categories ofnoisemitigation
(compiled by ANRfrom data
provided by PAA) - p. 132
October 6, 2006
126 �
Table l: AIP Grants forResidential Sound insulation in FiscaI2006 (by contour)
State City Airport Sponsor Amounf Contonr �
AR. LittleRock AdamsField CityofLittleRock $3,000,000 6S-69DNL
AZ Tucson Tucson Int'1 Airport Authoriry $1,000,000 65-69DNL
CA Burbank Bob Hope Airport Authority $10,000,000 65-69DNL
CA Burbank Bob Hope Airport Authority $2,000,000 65-69DNL
CA Burbank Bob Hope Airport Authority $790,154 65-69DNL
CA Fresno FresnoYosemiteInt'1 CityofFresno $1,000,000 65-69DNL
CA Los Angeles Los Angeles Tnt'1 City ofInglewood $10,950,000 65-69DNL
CA Los Angeles Los Angeles Int'1 City of El Segundo $3,000,000 65-69DNL
CA Monterey Monterey Peninsula AirportDistrict $2,000,000 65-69DNL
CA SanDiego SanDiegoInt'i AirportAuthority $12,749,346 65-69DNL
CA San 7ose San Jose Int'1 City of San Jose $6,000,000 65-69DNL �, _
GT Windsor Locks BradleyIint'1 State of Connecticut $800,000 65-69DNL
PL Boca Raton Boca Raton Airport Authority $2,903,000 65-69DNL
�., Key West Key West Int'1 Monroe County $3,234,614 65-69DNL
GU Agana GuamInt'1 Airport Authority $5,000,000 65-69DNL
IL Chicago O'HareInt'1 CityofChicago $5,963,551 65-69DNL
KY Louisville LouisvilleInt'I Airport Authority $9,000,000 65-69DNL
MI Detroit DetroitMetropolitan Airport Authority $9,750,000 65-69DNL
MI Detroit DetroitMetropolitan Airport Authority $120,968 65-69DNL
MN Minneapolis Minneapolis-St.PaulInt'1 AirportsCommission $3,627,395 65-69DNL
MS Guifport Gulfport-Biloxiint'I Airport Authority $2,750,000 65-69DNL
NH Manchester Manchester City ofManchester $2,500,000 65-69DNL ��
Airport Noise Report
October 6, 2006
State City Airport Sponsor .Amount
I�IEi
NEI
I�]V
OH
OK
PA
'I�C
�
Manchester Manchester City of Manchester $4,873,350
Portsmouth Pease Int'1 Tradeport Pease Dev. Authoriry $791,160
Reno Reno/Tahoe Int'1 Airport Authority $5,000,000
Cleveland Cleveland-HopkinsInt'1 CityofCleveland $2,660,000
Tulsa Tulsa Int'1 Tulsa Airports Trust $7,000,000
Allentown LehighValleyInt`1 Airport Authority $6,200,000
Houston Bush Intercontinental City of Houston $3,879,577
Laredo LaredoInt'1 CityofLaredo $2,000,000
TX San Antonio San Antonio Int'I City of San Antonio $5,000,000
CA Los Angeles Los Angeles Int'1 L.A. County Dev. Comm. $5,000,000
CA Los Angeles Los Angeles Int'1 City ofEl Segundo $2,000,000
TX Houston Bush Intercontintal City of Houston $4,820,423
W A Seattle Seattle-TacomaInt'i Port of Seattle $8,927>085
NY Buffalo BuffaloNiagaraInt'1 Transportation Auth. $1,194,565
Grand Total: Residential Sound Insulation (all contours)
Airport Noise Report
$I57,485,188
Contour
65-69DNL
65-69DNL
65-69DNL
65-69DNL
65-69DNL
65-59DNL
65-69DNL
65-69DNL
65-69DNL
70-74DNL
70-74DNL
70-74DNL
70-74DNL
75 DNL
127
(lc�tnhvr (�r?.nn(�
128
Table 2: A.IP Grants for Sound Insnlation ofPublic Buildings in Fisca12006 (contour not indicated)
State City Airport Sponsor Amount Contour (
I[.. Chicago Midway Int'1 City of Chicago $250,000 -
IL Chicago O'Hare Int'1 City of Chicago $ I,900,000 -
II.. Chicago O'HareInt'I CityofChicago $5,000,000 -
IL Chicago O'Hare Int'I City of Chicago $4,500,000 -
II, Chicago O'HareInt'1 City of Chicago $250,000 -
KY Covington CincinnatiInt'I Kenton County, Airport Board $5,644,650 -
N7 Newark Newarkint'1 PortAuthorityofNY/NJ $2,604,604 -
N7 Teterboro Teterboro Port Authority ofNY/NJ $301,966 -
NJ Teterboro Teterboro PortAuthorityofNY/NJ $1,667,558 -
NY NewYork JFKInt'i PortAuthorityofNY/N7 $472,608 -
NY NewYork JFKint'1 PortAuthorityofNY/NJ $440,310 -
NY NewYork JFKInt'1 PortAuthorityofNY/NJ $1,958,962 -
NY NewYork LaGuardia PortAuthorityofNY/NJ $885,716 - �
NY NewYork LaGuardia Port Authority ofNY/NJ $907,906 -
NY NewYork LaGuardia PortAuthorityofNY/NJ $4,525,524 -
NY NewYork LaGuardia PortAuthorityofNY/NJ $21,819,237 -
NY Syracuse Hancock InPI City of Syracuse $6,341,250 -
TX Fort Worth Fort Worth Alliance City of Fort Worth $245,860 -
W A Seattle Seattle-Tacomaint'1 Port of Seattle $3,054,000 -
Grand Total: Sound Insulation of Public Buildings (all contours) $62, 770,1 SI
�
Airport Noise Report
(lrtnhPr � 2no� 129
;
Table 3: AIP Grants for Noise Compataibility Planning Studies in Fisca12006
;
State City Airport Sponsor Amount
� j
AZ
CA
CA
CA
CA
C�O
I:II
IA
IL,
MA
MA
MI
�
TX
VI'
Chandier ChandlerMunicipal
Modesto Modesto City County
Monterey Monterey Peninsula
San Diego San Diego Int'1
San Francisco San Francisco Int'1
Denver Centennial
KailualKona Kona Int'1 at Keahole
Des Moines Des Moines Int'1
Des Plaines Chicago O'Hare Int'I
Boston LoganInt'1
Westfield BarnesMunicipal
Detroit Wi1lowRun
Brownsville South Padre Island Int'1
Fort Worth Fort Worth Alliance
Burlington Burlingtonlnt'1
Grand Tofal: Grants for Noise Contpatibility Plan Studies
City of Chandler $272,650
City of Modesto $285,000
AirportDistrict $300,000
Airport Authority $240,000
San Mateo County Assn. of Govs. $300,000
Airport Authority $55,000
State ofHawaii $450,000
City ofDes Moines $147,500
City of Des Plaines $750,000
Massachusetts Port Authority $4,263,335
City of Westfield $185,250
Airport Authority $500,000
City ofBrownsville $320,602
City of Fort Worth $25,098
City of Burlington $148,200
Airport Noise Report
$8,242, 635
(lt•tnhPr (�,��(� 130
'�able 4: AIP Grants for Easements, Land Acquisition in Fisca12006 (by contour)
State City Airport Sponsor Use/Contour Amount `•.
AL Birmingham BuminghamInt'1 Airport Authority Landwithin65-69DNL $9,500,000
AL Mobile MobileRegional Airport Authority Landwithin65-69DNL $1,350,000
AL Mobile MobileRegional Airport Authority Landwithin65-69DNL $272,400
CA Los Angeles Los Angeles Int'I City ofInglewood Landwithin65-69DNL $10,000,000
FL Orlando SanfordInt`I Airport Authority Easementfor65-69DNL $2,705,182
FL Stuart WithamField County ofMartin Landwithin65-69DNL $5,000,000
MO Kansas City Kansas City Int'i City ofKansas City Landwithin65-69DNL $141,047
MS Gulfport Gulfport-BiloxiInt'1 Airport Authority Easementfor 65-69DNL $2,000,000
NC Greensboro PiedmontTriadint'1 Airport Authority Landwithin65-69DNL 3,402,154
NV Reno Reno/Tahoe Int'1 Airport Authority Landwithin65-69DNL $2,000,000
TX Austin Austin-BergstromInt'1 Ciry of Austin Landwithin65-69DNL $3,500,000
VT Burlington BurlingtonInt'1 CityofBurlington Landwithin65-69DNL $1,500,240
CA Ontario OntarioInt'1 CityofOntario Landwithin70-74DNL $5,000,000 `
CA Ontario OntarioInt'1 CityofOntario Landwithin70-74DNL $2,000,000
MA Springfield Westover ARB Westover Dev. Corp. Landwithin70-74DNL $2,500,000
MO St. Louis Lambert-St.LouisInt'l City of St. Louis Landwithin70-'74DNL $1,811,620
OH Dayton DaytonInt'1 CityofDayton Landwithin70-74DNL $498,750
RI Providence T.F.GreenState RhodeIs.AirportComm. Landwithin70-74DNL $15,000,000
Grand Total: Grants for Easements, Land Acquisition
Airport Noise Report
$68,18I,393
netnhPr 6r200G 131
Tabte 5: Installation of Noise Monitoring Systems in Fiscal 2006
State City Airport
CA San Francisco San Francisco Int'1
CA . San Jose Reid-Hillview
CA So. Lake Tahoe Lake Tahoe
ME Portland Portland Int'1 Jetport
OH Columbus Port Columbus Int'1
OR Portland Portland Int'1
Sponsor Amount
City, County of S.F. $869,600
Santa Clara County $1,200,000
Ciiy of South Lake Tahoe $150,000
CityofPortland $133,726
Airport Authority $59,680
Port of Portland $992,915
Grarzd Total: Grants to Insta[[ Noise Monitori�2g Systen�s
$3,405,921
�' �'� Table 6: AIP Grants for Other Noise Mitigation Projects in Fiscal 2006
State City A'rrport Sponsor Amount
ME Portland Portland Int'1 Jetport City of Portland $170,000 (Rannoch flighttracking system)
NY Albany Albany Int'1 Airport Authority $900,000 (engine run-up enclosure)
Grand Total: Grants for Otl:er Measures
Airport Noise Report
$z,o�o,000
Qctoher 6, 2006 132
Table 7: AIP Grants (Disc. and Entitlement) by Airport for All Noise Projects in Fiscal 2006
State City Insulation Studies
AL
AL
AR
AZ
AZ
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
(JO
CT
FL,
FL.
Fl
�
Guam
HI
IA
TL
I[.,
KY
ICY
MA
MA
MA
ME
MI
Birrr►ingham
Mobile
LittleRock $3,000,000
Chandler $272,650
Tuscon $1,000,000
Burbank $12,790,154
Fresno $1,000,000
Los Angeles Int'1 $20,950,000
Modesto $285,000
Monterey $2,000,000 $300,000
Ontario
San Diego $12,749,346 $240,000
San Francisco $300,000
San Jose Int'I $6,000,000
San Jose (Reid-Hillview)
S. Lake Tahoe
Denver Centennial $55,000
Windsor Locks $800,000
BocaRaton $2,903,000
Key West $3,234,614
Orlando Sanford
Stuart
Agana $5,000,000
Land/Easements Monitoring Misc. Total
$9,500,000
$1,622,400
$10,000,000
$7,000,000
$2,705,182
$5,000,000
Kailua/Kona $450,000
Des Moines $147,500
Chicago O'Hare $17,613,551 $750,000(DesPlaines)
Chicago Midway $250,000
Covington $5,644,650(CincinnatiInt'1)
Louisville $9,000,000
B oston $4,263,335
Westfield Barnes Municipal $185,250
Springfield Westover $2,500,000
Portland
Detroit Metro $9,870,968
Airport Noise Report
$869,600
$1,200,000
$150,000
$133,726
$9,500,000
$1,622,400
$3,000,000
$272,650
$1,000,000
$12,790,154
$1,000,000
$30,950,000
$285,000
$2,300,000
$7,000,000
$12,989,346
$1,169,600
$6,000,000
$1,200,000
$150,000
$55,000
$800,000
$2,903,000
$3,234,614
$2,705,182
$5,000,000
$5,000,000
$450,000
$147,500
$18,363,551
$250,000
$5,644,650
$9,000,000
$4,263,335
$185,250
$2,500,000
$170,000 $303,726
$9,870,968
C�
Qetoher 6 �006 133
State City Insulation Studies Land/Easements Monitorrng Misc. Total
MI DetroitWillowRun $500,000
MN Minneapolis $3,627,395
MO Kansas City
MO St. Louis
MS Gulfport $2,750,000
NC Greensboro
$141,047
$1,811,620
$2,000,000
$3,402,154
NH Manchester $7,373,350
NH Portsmouth $791,160
NV Reno $5,000,000 $2,000,000
NY/N7 PANY/NJ $2,604,604(NewarkInt'I)
NY/N7 PANY/NJ $1,969,524(Teterboro)
NY/N7 PANY/NJ $2,871,880(JFKInt'I)
NY/NJ PANY/NJ $28,138,383(LaGuardia)
PANY/NJ $35,584,391(totalforinsulationatfourairports)
NY Albany
NY Buffalo $1,194,565
NY Syracuse $6;341,250
OH Cleveland $2,660,000
OH Columbus
OH Dayton
OK Tulsa $7,000,000
OR Portland
PA Allentown $6,200,000
RI Providence
TX Austin
TX Brownsville(S.PadreIsland)
TX Fort Worth $245,860
TX Houston $8,700,000
TX Laredo $2,000,000
TX San Antonio $5,000,000
VT Burlington
WA Seattle $11,981,085
Total
$900,000
$59,680
$498,750
$992,915
$15,000,000
$3,500,000
$320,602
$25,098
$148,200
$220,255,339 $8,242,635
$1,500,240
$500,000
$3,627,395
$141,047
$1,811,620
$4,750,000
$3,402,154
$7,373,350
�791,160
$7,000,000
$2,604,604
$1,969,524
$2,871,880
$28,138,3 &3
$900,000
$1,194,565
$6,341,250
$2,660,000
$59,680
$498,750
$7,000,000
�992,915
$6,200,000
$15,000,000
$3,500,000
$320,602
$270,958
$8,700,000
$2,000,000
$5,000,000
$1,648,440
$11,981,085
$68,18I,393 $3,405,92X $I,070,000 $303,155,288
Airport Noise Report