The URL can be used to link to this page

01-11-2006 ARC Packetl. 2. 3. CITY OF MENDOTA H�IGHTS C.� M'�Z�l�=��:�M [��YK1]u I�ti(.X�1�i�[:Te�7\ January 11, 2006 — City Council Chambers Cali to Order - 7:00 p.m. Roll Call Approval of the December 14, 2005 Airport Relations Commission Minutes. 4. Unfnished and New Business: a. Planning and Visioning with Scott and Mike b. Guy Heidi Brief d. City Adininistrator Update e. Updates for Introduction Book � '� . f� Acknowledge Receipt of Various Reports/Corresnondence: a. Minutes from December 14, 2005 Commission meeting b. Approved 2006 CIP c. Environmentai Review Process for MAC 2006-2012 CIl' d. EIS Need Decision — 2015 Terminal Expansion Project e. November 2005 ANOM Technical Advisor's Report f. November 2005 ANOM Eagan/Mendota Heights Depariure Corridor Analysis g. Airport Noise Report, December 19, 2005 h. Airport Noise Report, December 26, 2005. Other Commissioner Comments or Concerns Upcomin� Meetings City Council Meeting NOC Meeting MAC Meeting 8. Public Comments 9. Adiourn 1-17-06-7:30 1-18-06 - 1:30 1-17-06 - 1:00 Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids. This may not, however, be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration at (651) 452-1850 with requests. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS � January 5, 2006 TO: Airport Relations Commission FROM: James E. Danielsan, City Administr SUBJECT: Planning and Visioning with ScotC and Mike DISCUSSION: At the Last ARC meeting the Commission asked me to schedule a planning and visioning session for this meeting to be able to involve outgoing commissioners Scott Beaty and Mike Povolny in the discussion. I have attached a copy of the 2006 Plan of Action to be used to help guide the discussion. �� /� �� 1 ��'YI�'I�Ai � � Grl <�t ?� /"u�� G " ��i� �jy'`j � /7 �/�%y� v ��/ �� • � � �.- �o a�t ��tS�r� �rr �'-�° �S�' � �o,�t ��;�'.�, -- Jur�e � C� � �� 2 ,� �f' �u��U i� � .�� K �. ___-- ��, ��,� a s - �Q.. ��s . � �� S�� 3 �er�- �,) ��e� ��'.� ,��s�.�-�� ..�- , '_ ti'` •� LJ ��l i'� '�'t' G�)� ��i� �^ti/T7 n'I �C cj0 Oh ?�� "`�t G'�'4MR►� I trL'�'`_.�s : A� o , o�se C. Plar� �f Act�on lVlendota I-�eights Airport Relations Commission - 1 - 1/5/2006 C- a � '� The Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission is charged with monitoring proposed airport rules, procedures, and programs and advising the City Council on matters pertaining to airport noise and operations. In an effort to mitigate airport noise in the Mendota Heights community and assure equity of the current runway use system, the Commission has given high priority to the following issues: Residential land use in Mendota Heights, particularly developable parcels that may be affected by airport noise. Continue input and dialog with the MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC). Monitor Adherence to the environmental impact statement for Runway 17-35. Elimination of head to head operations. ' Conversion from hush kitted to Manufactured Stage III and Stage TV aircraft. Non simultaneous departure proceduxes. Noise abatement departure profiles. Nighttime restrictions on aircraft operations Continue efforts to keep planes.,in the air corridor over Mendota Heights. Legislative oversight of the MAC. Develop a relationship with FAA representatives and legislative leaders regarding ailport issues. Define Capacity at MSP Oversight of 2020 Plan Assess Anoms Locations Monitor CDC for any collateral positive effects to Mendota Heights Other issues that will require continued monitorin�: Noise mitigation in the Rogers Lake East neighborhood. The implementation of global positioning satellite technology and magnetic ground tracking departure proceduxes. International noise mitigation efforts including a new DNL metric. Part 150 Study Heighten awareness and communication of Mendota Heights noise concerns. Mendota Heights land use planning has hinged on limitation to the MSP air corridor _ 2 _ 1/5/2006 Issue #l: Residential land use in Mendota Heights, particularly developable parcels that may be affected by airport noise. Action Stens: Who• When• 1. Monitor applications for developinent for the Acacia site and the Furlong neighborliood. 2. Provide recommendations to the City Council for development rezoning and or acquisition of these sites. ARC/Staff ARC/Staff As apps are filed As apps are filed 3. Prouide ARC with all application materials submitted -�'o,r Staff As apps are filed �e��" sites. Issue #2: Continue input ancl dialog with the MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) Aciion Steus: Who• When• l. Monitor activities and processes of MSP Noise Oversight ARC monthly Committee �� ' 2. Regular meetings with NO epresentatives and ARC ��'�PSARC/NOC as iieeded to identify issues that can b advocated Issue #3: Adherence of Runway 17-35 to the environmental impact statement. Action Stens: Who• When• l. Monitor data and information regarding the use and impact of new runway 17-35 in the technical advisors report and ats conformance to the EIS. ARC/Staff as avail 2. Ask MAC to provide ARC with data regarding runway ARGStaff 17-35 use (staying under 9.3%) on parallel ./�� ,� 1'a�J'oCo �� ds ada� 3. Revisit corridor operations after-� �__� m^�+'-� -ruse of the new Runway and impact on head to head operations, non- simultaneous departures, turning etc. ARC/Staff 4. Communicate reaction to the analysis of 17-35 completion ARC/Staff 5. Ask MA.0 to revisit/revamp the Technical Advisors report once the new runway is complete 6. Review tower operations with MA.0 staff for 17-35 effects. ARC/Staff ARGStaff 7. Monitor MAC/FAA accommodations to communities ARC/Staff affected by 17/35 operations for consistency with treatment of Mendota Heights and adherence to EIS � C monthly as avail as avail as avail as avail as appropriate � C: 1/5/2006 � Issue #4: Eliminatiou of head to head operations Action Ste s: Who� When� l. Negotiate elimination/minimization of head to head ARC/NOC when possible operations (with MAC assistance) with FAA. Issue #5: Conversion from hush kitted to Manufactured Stage III and Stage IV aircraft. Action Ste s• Who• When• l. Determine when phase out of i�ush lcitted aircraft ARC/Staff as appropriate will occur. 2. Advocate for incentives/penalties program for Stage III compliance by airlines 3. Determine what constitutes a Stage TV aircraft and when conversion to Stage N will occur Issue #6: Non simultaneous departure procedures ARC/Staff ARC/Staff as appropriate as avail ( � Action Ste s: Who• When: 1. Monitor and encourage use of non-simultaneous depariure ARC/Staff as appropriate Procedures. Issue #7: Nighttime restrictions on aircraft operations Action Ste s: Who• When• 1. Have NOC representative lobby for further restrictions on Nighttime operations (preferred nighttime headings) AR.C/NOC ongoing 2. Monitor legal precedent/litigation concerning noise ARC continuous level averaging Issue #8: Definition of the air corridor over Mendota Heights. Action Ste s: Who• When: l. Monitor flight data to ensure adherence to corridor ARC/StafF monthly _ 4 _ 1/5/2006 Issue #9: Legislative oversight of the MAC Action Stens• Who• When• 1. Establish strong relationsllip with legislators and airport Staff/ARC continuous o�cials 2. Testify as necessary on MAC/airport legislation Staff/ARC as necessary 3. Propose a bill to our Legislators to have MAC Board ARC/Staff as uecessary Members be elected to improve MAC accountability Issue #10: Develop a relationship with FAA representatives and legislative leaders regarding airport issues Action Steps• Who• When• 1. Invite Senator Metzen and Rep. Hanson to an ARC intg Staff/AR.0 Winter 2006 Encourage Senator Metzen and Rep. Hanson to have Mac Board elected. 2. Invite Tower Operator Cindy Green to an ARC intg (Update on how 17-35 is working) 3. Invite MAC Commissioner Tom Foley to an ARC mtg Issue #11: De�ne Capacity at MSP Staff/ARC Staff/AR.0 Winter 2006 Spring 2006 Action Steps• Who• When• 1. Determine parameters to define capacity at MSP A.RC/StafF Spring 2006 - Dialog with FAA./MAClNOC - Voluntary night time restrictions - 15° Separaiion - Runway use - After runway 17-35 opening Issue #12: Oversight of 2020 Plan Action Stens• Who• When• 1. Identify efFects of 2020 Plan on MH ARC/Staff ongoing 2. Work proactively with other Cities to require MAC to ARC/Staff address and minimize adverse effects of implementing 2020 Plan 3. Work to require MAC's expanded use of reliever airports ARC/Staff -5- ongoing ongoiilg � 1 /5/2006 Issue #13: Assess Anoms Locations 1. Work witl� NOC to determine if noise monitors are at the best locations, are they moveable, is technology updated Other Issues To Be Monitored: ARGStaff Issue #l: Noise mitigation in the Rogers Lake East Neighborhood ongoing Action Steus• Who: _ When: 1. Monitor correspondence between Rogers Lake East Noise ARC/Staff as avail Noise Reduction Committee and MAC 2. Provide a forum for dialogue between MAC and Rogers Lake East Noise Reduction Committee 3. Provide support/information to Rogers Lake East Noise Reduction Committee as requested if possible 4. Provide recominendations to the City Council on Rogers Lake East Neighborhood issues 5. Facilitate political solutions for the neighborhoods with MAC .�. ARC/Staff ARC/Staff ARC/Staff as needed as needed as needed as needed Issue #2: The implementation of global positioning satellite technology and magnetic ground tracking departure procedures Action Stens• Who• _ When• 1. Promote standard instrument departures and final ARC/Staff continuously approaches through the use of global positioning satellites to keep planes from flying over residential areas of the City (Tracks vs. heading) Issue #3: International noise mitigation efforts including a new DNL metric Action Stens• Who• _ When• 1. Monitor correspondence and new information on Staff/ARC continuously international noise mitigation efforts 2. Monitor legal precedent/litigation regarding noise level Staff/ARC continuously Averaging � 1/5/2006 Issue #4: Part 150 Study Q Action Sfieps• Who• When 1. Monitor/Support Mpls's efforts to require greater sound A.RC/Staff continuously abatement measures 2. Monitor the MPLS and Bloomington lawsuits continuously ARC/Staf.f Tssue #5: Heighten awareness and communication of Mendota Heights noise concerns Action Steps: Who• When 1. Develop long term sirategic approach to relationship with ARC/Staff colitinuously the legislature. 2. Convey to MA.0 representatives our concerns and issues with operations and the use of the MSP airport 3. Continue to work on finding e�cient means of communication with the residents 4. Heighten Couizcil awareness of airport issues ARC/Staff ARC/Staff ARC/Staff continuously continuously continuously Issue #6: Mendota Heights land use planning has respected limitations to the MSP air corridor Action Stens: Who• When 1. Investigate whether lack of respecdel�forcement of Arc/StafF 2006 corridor by MAC and FAA consiitutes au inverse condemnation? - � - 1/5/2006 • .� : CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGFITS �� Airport Relations Commission James E. Danielson, Guy Heidi Brief DISCUSSION: City Administr January 5, 2006 At the last ARC meeting the Commission asked me to request a copy of Guy Heidi's brief. Mr. Heidi was willing to provide a copy of his brief and it is attached for any Commission comments or discussion. C C' IN THE UNITED STA'I`ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Appeal No. 05-2184 Guy Heide, Michael A. Kosel, and Duane Taylor Petitioners, v. Marion C. Blakey and Glen Orcutt of the Federal Aviation Administration Respondents. ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRA.TION PETITIONERS' BRIEF Submitted Novem.ber 14, 2005 (Corrected brief re-printed December 1, 2005 to correct Issue 4.2 argument) Filed pro se: Guy Heide Michael A. Kosel 881 Bluebill Drive 889 Bluebill Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Mendota Heights, MN 55120 651-454-7440 651-456-9512 Duane Taylor 2338 Kressin Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55120 651-452-1172 ,i • I� ' • � � • � • . . Petitioners HEIDE, KOSEL and TAYLOR seek appellate review of the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") order finding the "2002" `existing condition' and "2007" `five year forecast' Minneapalis-St. Paul International Airport ("MSP") noise exposure maps "in compliance with applicable requirements" of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatem,ent Act and 14 C.F.R. Part 150. Petitioners reside in the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, on land parcels near MSP, a public-use airport. The FAA Administrator owed a duty to Petitioners to "protect [their] health and welfare from aircraft noise" [49 U.S.C. � 44715(a)(1)(A)]. The Administrator is argued to have breached this duty owed Petitioners in approving the "2002" `existing condition' and "2007" `five year forecast' MSP noise exposure maps �� which are alleged to conceal the `taking' of damaging aircraft-noise air easements over Petitioners' land pa.rcels: (1) By using a false, fictitious or fraudulent `annual average-day'; (2) By failing to include ambient and self-generated noise; (3) By failing to describe "noncompatible" land use on the date of map submission date and at least 5 years from the submission date. And presenting for the direction of the Court the question: (4) Whether there is a pattern of "bad faith" and "improper behavior" in the administration of the FAA's noise exposure map approval process warranting "other appropriate action." Petitioners request twenty minutes for oral argument. CORPOR.A.TE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Corporate interests are not represented. Guy Heide, Michael A. Kosel and Duane Taylor are Secretary, Chairman and Treasurer respectively of the Airport Noise Reduction Gommittee, a nonprofit association. � �,.,� ,,, �• .•�. Summary of the Case and Request for Oral Argument .............. Corporate Disclosure Statement ............................................. Tableof Contents .................................................................. Table of Authorities ............................................................... Jurisdictional Statement ........................................................ Statement of the Issues .......................................................... Statement of the Case ............................................................ Staternent of Relevant Facts ................................................... Argument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Certificate of Compliance ....................................................... Certificate of Ser-vice .............................................................. ErrataPage No. 1 .................................................................. ErrataPage No. 2 .................................................................. 1 ii iii iv 1 11 13 14 20 48 49 50 51 52 Q W TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Page(s) Agua Slide `N' Dive v. Consumer Product Safetv, 569 F.2d 831 (5� Cir. 19'78) ........................................... 20 Federal Election Com'n v. Rose, 806 F.2d 1081 (D.C. Cir. 1986) ...................................... 25,35 Friends of Richards-Gebaur Airport v. F.A.A., 251 F.3d 11'78 (8� Cir. 2001) .......................................... 1,35 Gri��s v. CountV of Alle�henv, Pennsvlvania, 369 U.S. 85 (1962) ......................................................... 2 Northwest Tissue Center v. Shalala, 1 F.3d 522 (`7� Cir. 1993) ............................................... 2 Ripley v. United States, 223 U.S. 695 (1912) ......................... 11,36,41 Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. McDivitt, 286 F.3d 1031 (8� Cir. 2002) ......................................... 3,9 Securities Comm'n v. Chenerv Corp., 332 U.S. 194 ............... 25 Sierra Club v. E.P.A., 292 F.3d 895 (D.C. Cir. 2002) ............. 2 Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 72'7 (1972 ........................... 3,4 Trans-American Van Service, Inc. v. United States, 421 F. Supp. 308 (1976) ................................................. 21 United States v. Causbv, 328 U.S. 256 (1945) ...................... 2 Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) ................................... 2 Constitutional and Statutory Provisions: U.S. CoNST., Art. I, Cl. 8.1 ................................................... 6,34 Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act § 324 ...................... 32 49 U.S.C. 3 44'715�a)�l)�A) ....................................................i,6,8,40,43,45,46 49 U.S.C. � 44'7�5�a)�l)�A)�ii) ................................................6 49 U.S.C. � 46110(a) ........................................................... 1 49 U.S.C. � 46110(c) ........................................................... 12,20,26,31,36 49 U.S.C. § 47101(a)(2) ....................................................... 7 49 U.S.C. � 47101(c) ........................................................... `7 49 U.S.C. � 4'7502(1) ........................................................... 27,28 49 U.S.C. � 47502(2) ........................................................... 2'7 49 U.S.C. � 47502(3) ........................................................... 27 49 U.S.C. § 47503(a) ........................................................... 7,32,42,46 49 U.S.C. § 4'7504�a)�1)�B) ................................................... 40,44 49 U.S.C. � 4'7504(a)(2] ....................................................... 7,8,10,37,41 49 U.S.C. � 47504�a)�2)�E) ................................................... 7,8 49 U.S.C. � 4'7504(c)(1) ....................................................... '7 49 U.S.C. � 47504(c)(2) ....................................................... `7 49 U.S.C. � 47521(1) .......................................................... 8 49 U.S.C. � 47521(7) .......................................................... 8 -iv- Other Authorities: 14 C.F.R. � 1.3(b)(1) ........................................................... 39 � 14 C.F.R:� � 150.21(a)(1) ...................................................... 38,42,45,46 � 14 C.F.R. � 150.21(b) ......................................................... 36,43 14 C.F.R. � 150.21(d) ......................................................... 30 14 C.F.R. � 150.23(d) ......................................................... 39,40 14 C.F.R. � 150.23(e)(7) ...................................................... 16 14 C.F.R. � A150.101 Table A ............................................. 2 14 C.F.R. � A150.101(e)(5) .................................................. 30 14 C.F.R. § A150.103(b)(2) .................................................. 21 14 C.F.R. § A150.3(b) ......................................................:... 27 14 C.F.R. § B150.1(b)(2) ...................................................... 38,43 40 C.F.R. � 1508.7 ..............................................................28 Federal Register .................. ............................................ 1,13,18,28,33 Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports.......... 28 (;. -v- i JURISDICTIOI�TAL ST�ITEMENT Jurisdiction is invoked under 49 U.S.C. � 46110(a), "a person disclosing a substantial interest *** may apply for review *** not later than 60 days after the order is issued." The challenged FAA. order (see Pet. Addend. Ex. 1) was entered in the March 23, 2005 Federal Register effective March 3, 2005. A timely petition was filed May 2, 2005. The challenged "2002" `existing condition' map (R. Tab 1 Fig. 6-1) identifies the HEIDE, KOSEL and TAYLOR (hereafter, "Petitioners") land parcels as "compatible" for residential use approximaiely 1 mile outside the 65 DNLl Contour and the "200'7" `five year forecast' map (R. Tab 1 Fig. 6-2) places Petitioners' land parcels approximately 1.5 miles outside2 the 65 DNL Contour. The 65 DNL Contour is a significant maxker as "FAA has determined that a11 land uses are considered to be compatible with noise levels that are less than DNL 65 dB. **� In areas where the noise level is DNL 65 dB or greater, land uses must be identified and their compatibility determined." Frie�ds of Richards-Gebaur Airport v. F.A.A., 251 F.3d 11'78, 1189 (8� Cir. 2001). 1"The sym.bol DNL (or Ldn) represents the `[d]ay-night average sound level,' which is a decibel measurement of the average sound level for a 24-hour period." Friends of Richards-Gebaur, supra 1189. 2 This placement is similar to the airport's first noise exposure maps, the "1987" `current condition' and "I992" `five year forecast' maps that placed Petitioners' land parcels approximately .'75 mile and 1 m.ile respectively outside the 65 DNL Contour. To establish standing, Petitioners will present probative material evidence that the "198`7" `current condition' and "1992" `iive year forecast' maps were noncompliant maps that understated ihe 65 DNL Contour and that Petitioners' land parcels were actually within the 65 DNL Contour. Arguendo, it is reasonable to believe FAA is again approving noncompliant noise exposure maps with understated 65 DNL Contours and that Petitioners' �.� land parcels would be placed within the 65 DNL Contour of compliant maps. -1- Under FAA guidelines, residential land use has been determined to be "noncompatible" inside the 65 DNL Contour, see 14 C.F.R. � A150.101 Table A. On residential land parcels inside the 65 DNL Contour, aircraft noise has made "an in trusion so imm.ediate and direct as to subtract from the owner's full enjoyment of the property and to limit his exploitation of it" United States v. Causbv, 328 U. S. 256, 265 (1945�, see also Gri��s v. Coun�Alleghen� Pennsylvania, 369 U.S. 85, 87 (1962) where damages were due for an a.ir easement taken by noise from low altitude airplane overflights making home "undesirable and unbearable for their residential use." To establish standing3 Petitioners offer the following concise recitation. For purposes of standing "the trial and reviewing courts must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint, and must construe the complaint in �- favorr`E of the complaining party." Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1975). "`[P]laintiff must, gen.erally speaking, demonstrate that he has suffered injury in fact, that the injury is fairly traceable to the actions of the defendant, and that the injury will likely be redressed by a favorable decision.' [quoting Benneit v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 162] ***[plaintiff must] show the grievance arguably falls within the zone of interests protected or regulated by the statutory 3 As suggested in Sierra Club v. E.P.A., 292 F.3d 895, 901 (D.C. Cir. 2002) when standing xnay not be self-evident. 4"We accept all the factual allegations in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences from these facts in favor of the plain.tiff. Mosley v. Klincar, 947 F.2d 1338, 1889 (7� Cir. 1991). A court can dismiss a complaint only if the plaintiff cann.ot establish any set of facts upon which relief can be granted. Id." Northwest Tissue Center v. Shalala, 1 F.3d 522, 527 (7� Cir. 1993) ` -2- provision invoked in the suit." Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. McDivitt, 286 F.3d 1031, 1036 (8� Cir. 2002). 1. To impeach the challenged noise exposure maps, Petitioners submit three Afiidavits (see Pet. Addend. Exs. 4, 10, 13) that make a prima facie case of distinct and palpable injuries including structural darnage to homes, speech in.terference, sleep disturbance, interference with a commercia.l enterprise (see KOSEL Afiid. Pet. Addend. Ex. 10, bullets 5, 6) and the loss of the full use an.d enjoyment of their land from continuous overflights directly over and near their homes [e.g. 118 objectionable overflights over home in six hours, approximately 1 overflight every 3 minutes (see HEIDE Affid. Pet. Addend. Ex. 4, bullet 4); unable to hold children's graduation party in yard (see TAYLOR Affid. Pet. Addend. Ex. 13, bullet 4}]. The Afiidavits provide probative evidence that aircraft noise is xnaking Petitioners' land parcels "noncompatible" for reside�tial use with resulting damage to Petitioners' "health and welfare" and their environment5 (injury in fact). FAA's approval of noncompliant noise exposure maps that understate "noncompatible" land use, arguably naakes Petitioners' land parcels ineligible for airport's noise compatibility prograxn by wrongly identifying them as "compatible" for residential use (injury traceable to FAA, the defendant). 5"The injury alleged by the Sierra Club will be incurred entirely by reason of the ch.ange in the uses to which Mineral King will be put, and the attendant change in the aesthetics and ecology of the area. *** We do not question that this type of harm may amount to an `injury in fact' sufficient to lay the basis for standing under � 10 of the APA. Aesthetic and environmental well-being, like t ) -3- Remand of the "2002" and "2007" challenged maps to be brought into � compliance will result in restated noise exposure maps that identify Petitioners' '` land parcels as "noncompatible" land, eligible for the airport's noise compatibility pragraxn (redressability). 2. To impeach the FAA's approval of this airport's noise exposure maps, Petitioners submit "1989," "1992," "1994" and "1997" FA.A maps (Pet. Addend. Exs. 16, 17, 18, 19 respectively). The 65 DNL Contours in these four `existing condition' noise exposure maps, produced by FAA. pursuant to their NEPA obligations, were a.lso produced using the DNL metric and provide probative evidence that airport noise exposure maps approved under the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act ("ASNA") have been untrue. The "1987" `current condition.' and "1992" `five year forecast' maps were � this airport's first set of noise exposure maps (R. Tab 119 in envelope), the maps were submitted in 1989 and approved October 4, 1989 (Supp. R. Tab 140) . The `current condition' map identified Petitioners' land parcels as "compatible" for residential use approximately .'75 mile outside the 65 DNL Contour and the `five year forecast' map placed Petitioners' land parcels approximately 1 mile outside the 65 DNL Contour (see Pet. Addend. Exs. 20, 21 respectively for copies of these "1987" and "1992" maps with Petitioners' land parcels identified). economic well-being, are important ingredients of the quality of life in our society ***." Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 734 (19'72). `_ -4- The "1989" Pet. Addend. Ex. 16 map has been marked to identify � Petitioners' land parcels and this map identifies Petitioners' land parcels as "noncompatible" land inside the 65 DNL Contour. This identification impeaches the "1987" `current condition' map (submitted in 1989). The "1992" Pet. Addend. Ex. 17 map and "1994" Pet. Addend. Ex. 18 map have been marked to ideniify Petitioners' land parcels and, again, these two maps also identify Petitioners' land parcels as "noncompatible" land inside the 65 DNL Contour. This identificaiion impeaches the "1992" `five year forecast' map6 (submitted in 1989). The "1991" `current condition' and "1996" `five year forecast' maps were the airport's second set of noise exposure maps (R. Tab 117 in envelope and after pp. 2-5, 3-2'7), submitted in 1993 and approved December 10, 1993 (Supp. R. Tab 144). The "1996" `five year forecast' map7 identified Petitioners' land parcels as "compatible" for residential use outside the 65 DNL Contour. The "1997" Pet. Addend. Ex. 19 map has been marked to identify Petitioners' land parcels and, again, this xnap identifies Petitioners' land parcels as "noncompatible" lan.d inside the 65 DNL Contour. This identification impeaches the "1996" `iive year forecast' map. 6 The "1992" `five year forecast' map determined noise compaiibility program eligibility from April 2, 1990 to June `7, 1994 (approx. 4 years) making Petitioners' land parcels ineligible. 7 The "1996" `five year forecast' map determined noise compaiibility program eligibility from June 8, 1994 to the present (approx. 11 years) rnaking Petitioners' land parcels ineligible. �� The "1989," "1992," "1994" and "1997" NEPA maps are evidence that �. aircraft noise made Petitianers' land parcels "noncompatible" for residential use � with resulting damage to Petitioners' "health and welfare" (injury in fact). The FA.A approval of noncompliant "1992" `iive year forecast' and "1996" `five year forecast' maps arguably denied Petitioners noise compatibility program eligibility by identifying their residential land parcels as "compatible" for residential use when Petitioners' land parcels were actually "noncompatible" for residential use (injury traceable to FAA, the defendant). Remand of the "2002" and "2007" challenged maps to be brought into compliance will result in restated noise exposure maps that identify Petitioners' land parcels as "noncompatible" land, eligible for the airport's noise compatibility program (redressability). E' : 3. To "provide for the general Welfare" (U.S. Co1vsT., Art. I, Cl. 8.1), Congress has enacted a siatutory scherne to address "noncompatible" land use precipitated by aircraft noise. In this matter, the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act ("ASNA") is the Act most often invoked, however no single Act contains the entire scheme created by Congress. In 1972 Congress enacted the Noise Control Act ("NCA") which in relevant part required the FAA Adm.inistrator "[t]o relieve and protect the public health and welfare from aircra.ft noise" [49 U. S. C. � 44715(a� (1) (A)) and prescribe "regulations to control and abate aircraft noise" [49 U. S. C. � 44715 (a) (1) (A) (ii) ]. l� In 19'79 Congress enacted the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act ("ASNA") which contained the `nuts and bolts' of a program to address "noncompatible" land use around airports. Under ASNA airports can submit a `current condition' noise exposure map showing "noncompatible" land use "on the date the map is submitted" [49 U.S.G. � 47503(a)] and five years in the future. A noise compatibility program ("NCP") based on the `current condition' map can be submitted. The NCP consists of ineasures "the operator has taken or proposes to take to reduce existing noncompatible uses and prevent introducing additional noncompatible uses in the area covered by the map [emphasis added]" [49 U.S.C. � 47504(a)(2)] which include acquiring "land *** easements *** to ensure that the property will be used in ways compatible with airport operations" [49 U.S.C. � 47504(a)(2)(E)] and "[s]oundproofing and acquisition of certain residential buildings and properiies" [49 U.S.C. � 4'7504(c)(2)]. Grants from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund [49 U.S.C. � 47504(c)(1)] are available to fund "approved" measures. In 1982 Congress enacted the Airport and Airway Improvement Act ("A.AIA") which in relevant part stated "that aviation facilities be constructed and operated to minimize current and projecied noise impact on neaxby communities" [49 U.S.C. § 47101(a)(2)] is "the policy of the United States" and "[n]oncompatible land uses around airports must be reduced and efforts to mitigate noise must be given a high priority" [49 U.S.C. � 47101(c)] in airport capacity expansion projects. -7- In 1990 Congress enacted the Airport Nozse and Capacity Expansion Act ("ANCEA") authorizing passenger facility fee ("PFC") revenues to fund "noise �. management" [49 U.S.C. § 4'7521(7)]. The importance Congress attached to addressing aircraft noise is manifest in their placing "(1) aviation noise managernent is crucial to the continued increase in a.irport capacity" [49 U. S. C. � 47521(1)] as the Act's first Congressional finding. Petitioners' residential land pa.rcels are "in the area covered by the m.ap" [49 U.S.C. � 47504(a)(2)] of the airport's noise compatibility program ("NCP"). Pursuant to the NCP's role in the statutory scheme, Petitioners reasonably expected their residential land parcels would be "compatible with aitport operations" (a �egally protected interest) if necessary by measures such as "land" acquisition or purchasing "easements" [49 U.S.C. � 47504(a)(2)(E)]. � � Congress charged the FAA Administrator with a duty to "protect" Petitioners' "health and welfare from aircraft noise" [49 U.S.C. � 44715(a)(1)(A)]. A prima facie case has been made that noncompliant FAA-approved noise exposure maps identified Petitioners' land parcels as "compatible" for residential use, when the land parcels were actually "noncompatible," with resulting damage to Petitioners' "health and welfare" (see Affidavits). The FA.A Adm.inistrator's failure to do what duty required to "protect" Peiitioners' legal interest in a compliant NCP that "reduce[d] e�sting noncompatible uses and prevent[ed] introducing additional noncompatible uses" [49 U.S.C. � 4.7504(a)(2)] as set forth in the statutory scheme enacted by Congress, arguably gives standing for Petitioners to bring suit. -8- 4. "[EJven purely economic interests may confer standing," Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. McDivitt, 286 F.3d 1031, 1038 (8� Cir. 2002). Petitioners are regular users of MSP (see Pet. Addend. Exs. 4, 10, 13). For each trip Petitioners pay into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund a domestic passenger ticket tax of 7.5% on the ticket price and a domestic flight segment fee of $3.20 per segment. Petitioners pay a$4.50 PFC before enp'lanement. The airport's first NCP was put in place April 2, 19908. NCP eligibility was determ.ined by the "1992" `iive year forecast' map, a map that forecast the population on "noncompatible" land would drop from 18,544 persons to 13,661 persons in five years (R. Tab l 19 pp. II-5, III-4). The NCP received six Airport Improvement Progra.nn ("AIP") grants from the Air�ort and Airwav Trust Fund totaling �23,442,543 (Grant 025-1989 - $1,890,079; Grant 026-1990 - $553,590; Grant 027-1991 -$'771,586; Grant 028-1992 -$3,494,066; Grant 029-1993 -$4,733,222; Grant 030-1993 -$12,000,000, see Grant Histoxy, Pet. Addend. Ex. 22). As will be described more fully in Petitioners' Brief, instead of reducin� the "noncompatible" land population to 13,661 persons in five years, the NCP increased the impacted population to 33,'750 persons (Supp. R. Tab 146 p. 2) (+20,089 persons, impacting the HEIDE, KOSEL and TAYLOR land parcels) in five years. 8 A similar prima facie case could be made concerning the current NCP effective since June 8, 1994. Believing the above argument should be - sufiicient, we will only elaborate on grants made to fund the iirst NCP. ( i � Petitioners reasonably expected their .Airpori and Airway Trust Fund payments to fund a NCP that complied with the statutory scheme, namely, a l. program that would "reduce existing noncompatible uses and prevent introducing additional noncampatible uses" [49 U.S.C. � 47504(a)(2)]. However, instead of spending $23.5 million in AIP grants on a NCP that reduced "noncornpatible" land, $23.5 million was spent on a NCP that increased "noncompatible" land use from 18,544 persons to 33,750 persons, a clear contravention of the statutory scheme. Petitioners' payments into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund give them a "substantial interest" in preventing �vaste, fraud and abuse' of grants made from the Fund. The FA.A approval of a noncompliant "1992" `five year forecast' map arguably wasted Petitioners' paym.ents into the Fund (injury in fact) by �. � . enabling the award of $23.5 million in AIP grants (injury traceable to FAA, the defendant). Remand of the "2002" and "2007" challenged maps to be brought into compliance will bring the NCP into compliance, stopping the `waste, fraud and abuse,' and repayment of any AIP grants obtained by past fraud will make the Fund whole (redressability). The same econoxnic-interest standing argument arguably applies in similar manner to Peiitioners' PFC payments. - io- STATEMENT f�F THE ISSUES ; �� Issue No. 1 DID the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration act arbitrarily, capriciously, or otherwise not in accordance with law, when she found the annual average-day used to dra.ft the "2002" `current condition' map as in compliance with 14 C.F.R. Part 150? Issue No. 2 DID the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration act arbitrarily, capriciously, or otherwise not in accordance with law, when she found the "2002" `current condition' and "2005" `five year farecast' noise exposure maps in compliance with the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act ("ASNA") and 14 C.F.R. Part 150, when both maps fa.iled to consider ambient or self- � generated noise? Issue I�To. 3 DID the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration fail to apply the statutory standard, or act arbitraxily, capriciously or otherwise not in accordance with law, when f�nding the "2002" `current condition' and "2005" `five year forecast' noise exposure maps, submitted on November 17, 2004, as in coxnpliance with the submission timeframe set forth in the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act (as amended by Section 324 of the December 2003 Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act)? Issue No. 4 IS there sufficient "good cause" in the record under review to find a pattern of "bad faith" and "improper behavior" ["gross mistake implying fraud," Ripley v. l" j United States, 223 U.S. 695, 704 (1912)] in the Federal Aviation Administration's noise exposure map approval process warranting "other appropriate action" pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 46110(c)? NOTE: The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals requests apposite cases and a discussion of suggested standards for review. Petitioners are pro se litigants and lack the education and background to make informed suggestions to the Court. We will xnake some comments on suggested standards and appasite cases under the specific issues, but lack the background to make truly informed suggestions to the Court. STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal of the FAA's order finding the "2002" `existing condition' and "2007" `five year forecast' Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport ("MSP") noise exposure maps "in compliance with applicable requirements" of the Ar�iation Safeiy and Noise Abatement Act ("ASNA") and 14 C.F.R. Part 150 (see Pet. Acidend. Ex. 1). The challenged maps place Petitioners' land parcels outside the 65 DNL Contour on la.nd "compatible" for residential use. Petitioners allege the maps are not in com.pliance and that compliant maps would identify their land parcels as "noncompatible" for residential land use. On September '7, 2004 a public hearing was held on a revised NCP based on the challenged maps. Petitioners HEIDE and KOSEL commented on the adequacy of the m.aps at the public hearing. On. Novexnber 1'7, 2004 the challen.ged maps and revised NCP were submitted to the FAA. On Maxch 23, 2005 the FAA published a FEnE�L REGISTER notice that the challenged maps had been approved. On April 5, 2005 petitioner HEIDE inspected the administrative record at the FA.A. Minneapolis Airports District Ofiice. On April 8, 2005 petitioner HEIDE wrote Glen Orcutt of the FAA. (a respondent) requesting the xnap approval be rescinded along with the reasons that prompted the request. On May 2, 2005 HEIDE, KOSEL and TAYLOR iiled a petition for review �" � when a response was not received from the FAA to the April 8, 2005 letter. -13- STATEMENT OF �.2ELEVANT �'ACTS Petitioners are residents of the City of Mendota Heights, located � immediately to the southeast of the airport off Runways 12L/ 12R. In 2000 Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport ("MSP") was the '7� busiest airport in the world. The airport's operator is the Metropolitan Airports Commission, a public corporation forme.d by the State of Minnesota. In the Jurisdiction section, Petitioners discussed the statutory scheme and the administrative procedure wherein airport operators subinit noise exposure maps and a noise compatibility program ("NCP") that reduces "noncompatible" land use. The issues in this case involve Transcripts, notices, dates and other facts. The following facts are relevant to the issues subm.itted for review. Given �.- the nature of the case, th.e facts have been presented as a numbered list in roughly chronological sequence with references to the record, without weaving the facts into a narrative. 1. On May 21, 1987 a public hearing was held on ihe first proposed noise compatibility program ("NCP") for Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport ("MSP"). (R. Tab 118 p. II-13). 2. In July 1988 FAA issued an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for a Test of Revised Runzvay Procedures ("EA/FONSI") for the airport. The EA/FONSI stated in 198'7 there were "1,093 operations on the average annual day" and Ex. 11 reported 986 "day" and 108 "night" operations per average annual-day. (Supp. R. Tab 138 pp. 2, 3). �. -14- 3. In May 1989 revised "1987" `current condition' and "1992" `iive year forecast' maps were submitted to the FAA on which the airport's first NCP was based. A"Noise Exposure Map Consultation Summary" was submitted as pp. IV-6 to IV-8. The "1987" `current condition' map was based on 921.8 operations/annual average-day (903.8 "day" and 18.0 "night" operations); 921.8 operations/day x 365 days = 336,457 operations/year. The "1992" `five year forecast' map was based on 1,010 operations/annua.l average-day (990 "day" and 20 "night" operations); 1,010 operations/days x 365 days = 368,650 operations/year. In iive years the population on "noncompatible" land was forecast to drop from 18,544 persons to 13,661 persons. {R. Tab 119 pp. II-2, II-5, III-2, III-4, IV-6 thru IV-8). 4. Concerning the NCP noise exposure m.aps, the FAA's May 1989 "Noise Exposure Map Checklist" states there were 399,690 operations in 1987 and 435,700 operations forecast for 1992. (R. Tab 119 p. A-4). 5. In June 1989 a NCP based on the "1987" `current condition' and "1992" `five year forecast' m.aps was submitted to the FAA. The submittal contained a "Surn.mary of NCP Consultations" as pp. II-S to II-13. An entry on p. II-13 states that on May 12, 1987 a"Notice of Public Hearing on FAR Part 150 Submittals, Natice of Document Availability for Public Review" was published "in the following newspapers: Minneapolis Star and Tribune (all editions), St. Paul Pioneer Press 8s Dispatch (all editions) *�*." (R. Tab 118 pp. II-8 to II-13). -15- 6. On September 25, 1989 the sponsor certified the "1987" `current condition' and "1992" `five year forecast' maps to the FA.A. (Supp. R. Tab 139). �-. 7. Effective October 4, 1989 the FAA approved the "1987" `current condition' and "1992" `iive year forecast' maps finding them "in compliance with applicable requirements of part 150." The notice further stated the NCP submitted with the maps would be "approved or disapproved on or before April 2, 1990." (Supp. R. Tab 140 p. 43645). 8. In an October 15, 1990 Memorandum, an increase of appro�.mately 17,000 1989 annual airport operations between 10:00 P.M. and 11:00 P.M. (+4.8% in aggregate) caused a 128% increase in the population on "noncompatible" land within the 65 DNL Contour (increasing the impacted population from 18,000 persons in 1986 to 41,000 persons in 1989). "[E]ach night operation (,. . has the same effect on the noise contour as 10 daytime operations." (Supp. R. Tab 141) . 9. Draft copies of the "1991" `current condition' and "1996" `five year forecast' maps �were approved by the Metropolitan Airport Sound Abatem.ent Council ("MASAC") at a January 28, 1992 meeting. The "1996" `five year forecast' map placed the HEIDE, KOSEL and TAYLOR land parcels outside the 65 DNL Contour. (R. Tab 11'7 p. 6-3). 10. The airport operator states on March 5, 1992 a public hearing vvas held on the NCP submittal. (R. Tab 117 p. 6-3). 1 l. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 150.23(e)(7j, a Transcript for the March 5, 1992 public hearing was submitted to the FAA. In three locations the Transcript � �,. -16- states the court reporter was transcribing a public heaxing that took place on "Ma.rch 6, 1992." The court reporter correctly identifies March 6, 1992 as "Friday." The meeting lasted ten minutes. No "interested persons" from the public gave any comments concerning the adequacy of the NCP. (R. Tab 117 Transcript pp. l, 12). 12. In October 1993, the forecast for 1996 airport operations was revised to 1,1'77.8 operations/annual average-day in the FAA Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement for .Proposed Extensian of Runway 4-22. This forecast was used to create an Alternative lA noise exposure map that placed 2'7,410 persons on "noncompatible" Iand in 1996 and identified the HEIDE, KOSEL and TAYLOR land parcels as "noncompatible" land parcels. Alternative lA was the sponsor's preferred alternative. (Supp. R. Tab 143 pp. 5, 6, 7, 10) 13. Revised "1991" `current condition' and "1996" `five year forecast' maps, and a revised NCP based on those maps were submitted December 3, 1993. NCP Measure NA-12 proposed a$27 million extension of Runway 4-22 by 2,750 feet to implement a new runway use system ("RUS") that would "reduce the dispar.ity in noise impacts." The "1991" `current condition' map was based on 959.2 operations/average annual-day (869.9 "day" and 89.3 "night" operations); 959.2 operations/day x 365 days = 350,108 operations/year. The "1996" `current condition' map was based on 1,090.4 operations/average annual-day (956.2 "day" and 134.2 "night" operations); ( } 1,090.4 operations/day x 365 days = 397,996 operations/year. In five years -17- the population on "noncompatible" land was forecast to drop frorn 30,3'70 �. persons to 23,100 persons. (R. Tab 117 Sponsor's Cert., pp. 2-11, 2-16, 2- � 17, 3-23, 3-24, 3-28, 4-4, 5-3). 14. Effective December 10, 1993 the FAA approved the "1991" `current condition' and "1996" `five year forecast' maps finding them "in compliance with the applicable requirements." (Supp. R. Tab 144 p. 644). 15. Effective June 8, 1994 the NCP based on the "1991" `current condition' and "1996" `five year forecast' maps was approved in �art. The Runway 4/22 Exiension was disapproved. (Supp. R. Tab 145 p. 476'70). 16. On November l, 2004 petition.er HEIDE wrote Glen Orcutt of the FAA (a respondent) concerning the requirement to include ambient noise in drawing noise exposure maps and asked ORCUT'I` to com.e into compliance. �' �. Documentation supporting this request from the Federal Register was submitted with the letter. (Supp. R. Tab 147). 17. On February 10, 2005 petitioner HEIDE wrote Glen Orcutt of the FAA (a respondent) concerning the requirement that noise exposure maps reflect "noncompatible" land use on the date the map is submitted and five years from the year of submission. The letter also documented that departures over Mendota Heights had experienced an asymmetrical +26% increase in departures in 2004 as compared to 2002 (the airport's overall departures increased 11%). A.lmost all of the increase in 2004 departures (over that experienced in 2002) was over land areas off Runways 12L/ 12R. (Supp. R. Tab 148) �' � -18- THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -19- ARGUMElVT Issue 11To. 1 DID the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration act arbitraxily, capriciously, or otherwise not in accordance with law, when she found the annual average-day used to draft the "2002" `current condition' map as in compliance with 14 C.F.R. Part 150? We believe the appropriate standard for review is "substantial evidence" [49 U.S.C. � 46110 (c)] as to findings of fact and "arbitrary and capricious" on the record made. Aaua Slid.e `N' Dive v. Consumer Product Safety, 569 F.2d 831, 837 (5� Cir. 1978) appears to be apposite on the record made by the agency. In that case, as here, Congress mandated "substantial evidence" [49 U.S.C. § 46110 (c)) on 1�.:� findings of fact. The sorry state of the record made "substantial evidence" a challenge for the Court to apply: As a general rule, substantial evidence review is applied in connection with a formal hearing, at which an unbiased officer presides, rules of evidence apply, and parties may both subpoena and cross-examine witnesses. *** In writing this Act, however, Congress, desiring to streamline the Commission's hearing process, rejected the formal hearing requirement ***. The result is a legislative anoma.ly. Congress h.as mandated that the couris take a harder look, but has provided for a record whose volume, technical complexity, and remote relationship to the actual decision-making process of the agency impede clear vision. ** * The record in this case is a jumble of lettezs, advertisernents, comments, drafts, reports and publications which runs for almost 2,000 pages. It has no index. *** there is little indication of the relative weight given to various documents [emphasis added] by the Commission. Id. p. 837 -20- "Substan.tial evidence" is a review of the "entire record": Nevertheless, a substantial-evidence review includes consideration of the entire record — all the evidence, both that supporting and that undermining the agency's determination. "The substantiality of the record must take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight." [quoting Universal Camera Corp. v. NL.RB, 340 U.S. 4'74, 488] firans-American Van Service Inc. v. United States, 421 F. Supp. 308, 316 n. 9 (1976) . The procedure for developing a noise exposure map in 14 C.F.R. Part 150 Appendix A is based in relevant part on "[a]irport activity levels and operational data which will indicate, on an annual average-daily-basis, the number of aircraft, *** which utilize each flight track, in both the standard daytime *�* and nighttime" periods for "both landings and takeoffs" [14 C.F.R. � A150.103(b)(2)]. The annual average-day drives the "DNL metric" formula. The � size of the 65 DNL Contour demarcating "noncompatible" and "compatible" residential land use increases or decreases with the number of operations. The DNL metric attaches a 10 DNL premium to "night" operations between 10:00 PM and '7:00 AM which makes a nighttizne operation equivalent to about 10 daytime operations (1 nighi operation = 10 day operaiions). Thus a few thousand "night" flights can have an asymmetrical effect (see Relevant Facts No. 8, where a small +4.8% increase in operations, only 1'7,000 operations per year, more than doubled the population on "noncompatible" land, increasing that population from 18,000 persons to 41,000 persons (Supp. R. Tab 141), adversely im.pacting HEIDE, KOSEL and TAYLOR. The challenged "2002" `current condition' map is based on 1,350.8 (� j operations/annual average-day (1,248.4 "day" and 102.5 "night" operations); -21- 1,350.8 operations/day x 365 = 493,042 operations/year. (R. Tab 1 p. C-1) The FAA MSP Tower officially reported 5�7,322 operations (arrivals and departures) in 2002. (R. Tab 1 App. N p. 3310). Ipso facto, 14,000 annual operations are missing in the challenged "2002" `current condition' map (whose 65 DNL Contour reports the noise from 493,042 operations). The sponsor's Part 150 Update gives an explanation: The FAA data and Airport statistics reflect higher total operations figures than do the other sources because, after analysis of 2002 ANOMS data and discussions with the fixed base operator (FBO) and air traffic controllers, it was determined that the FAA and Airport 2002 count of total aircraft operations includes over 14,000 GA [General Aviation] overflights and, thus, they over estimate the actual number of take-offs and landings at MSP in 2002. (R. Tab 1 p. 3-3) The missing 14;000 operations are characterized as "overflights" that were apparently included in error in the FAA. MSP 2002 Tower report. This is an �� implausible explanation. When drawing a noise exposure map for calendar year 2000, pursuant to its NEPA du�ty, FAA found "1,432.4" operations/annual 2000 average-day (R. Tab 1 App. N p. 3313), 1,432.4 x 365 = 522,826 annual operations. The FA.A. MSP fiower officially reported 522,253 operations in 2000. (R. Tab 1 App. N p. 3310). In drawing their 2000 NEPA noise exposure map, FAA found 5'73 additiona.l operations, over and above the official FAA MSP Tower report. Now, with only one intervening year, FAA approves a noise exposure map for 2002 based on 493,042 operations/year (R. Tab 1 p. C-1) when the FAA MSP Tower officially reported 507,322 operations (14,280 additional operations). Why were there no "overflights" in 2000, but 14,000 "overflights" mysteriously appear in 2002? � C Petitioner HEIDE submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for the FAA. 2002 operations report for the MSP Tower. After receiving the data, petitioner Heide wrote a letter to the Manager of the FA.A Air Tra.fiic Division inquiring whether "overflights" were included. In her reply, Air Traffic Division Manager Nancy B. Shelton stated that the FAA "Form '7230-1 is used to report airport arrivals and departures ondy [emphasis added]. Overflights are reported *** on a different form [emphasis added]." (R. Tab 1 App. N p. 2881). It follows that if "overflights" are not included in the ATADS report, then the "2002" `current condition' map leaves out the noise of 14,000 operations and its 65 DNL Contour is understated. Petitioner HEIDE then contacted the spansor and received in response a July 6, 2004 Memorandum from Patrick Kennon of HNTB Corporation, the sponsor's consultant, who stated: [W]e consulted with Ms. Cindy Green.e, Tower Support Manager at the MSP ATCT, rega.rding potential explanations for the.discrepancy. At that time (early 2003), she stated that those 14,102 operations very likely [emphasis added] consisted of overflights that did not land or take off at MSP. **� Ms. Greene also clariiied the definition of "overflights." Ms. Shelton *** was referring to the FA.A reporting of aircraft that transition through �** normally ��* at altitudes from 8,000 to 16,000 feet **� One such example [of an "overflight"] would be a low-flying aircraft inspecting pipelines along the river near the airport. (R. Tab 1 App. N p. 3312) This explanation is implausible, 14,000 "overflights" per year is 40 "overflights" each day. It is not reasonable to believe the Tower would permit 40 planes ta fly every day over one of the busiest airports in the world at an altitude of less than 5,000 feet. Petitioners realize a plane might occasionally -23- fly low along the river to check the pipeline, but this is not an adequate explanation for 14,000 flights per year. Patrick Kennon's Memorandum mentioned his conversaiion with Cindy Greene. Cindy Greene is the "documented [FAA] Air Traffic Control technical advisor" to provide "Air Traffic Control insight." (R. Tab 1 App. N p. 909). In a July 18, 2004 certified letter, petitioner HEIDE wrote Cindy Greene and respectfully requested confirmation from the MSP Tower (where she works) that there were indeed 14,000 "overflights" in 2002, it seems reasonable to believe 40 "overflights" each day could be easily dacumented if they really exist. (R. Tab 1 App. N pp. 3306-3313). After waiting over thirty days without a response, petition.er HEIDE telephoned Cindy Greene three times, leaving a voice/mail m.essage each time. � Non e of the three telephone calls were returned, nar was a reply received to the July 18, 2004 certified letter. (Pet. Addend. Ex. 4, bullet 19). The question of the 14,000 missing flights was raised by Petitioner HEIDE at the September 7, 2004 Public Hearing (R. Tab 1 App. N pp. 3251, 3252). The following is the reply in the record: MAC has previously responded to ihis comment wiih an HNTB memo dated July 6, 2004. This memo is included in commenter's attachment #7. For the 2002 and 2007 forecasts, MAC directed that HNTB use a more comprehensive methodology than that developed for the 2000 forecast. As a result of the more comprehensive methodology, the discrepancy in a.irport and FA.A records versus other records (e.g., OAG, ANOMS) due to overflights was discovered. Additionally, during 2000 the MSP ATCT was not adjusting their computer counting system (as they were in 2001 to 2002) and so the large upward fluctuations [emphasis added] in. the FAA general aviation couni that occurred with the 2002 data were not as significant a factor in 2000, as described in l -24- commenter's attach.ment #7. (R. Tab 1 p. 52 of 161 and p. 53 of 161 at end App. N). This explanation is also implausible. In 2001 ATADS reported 113,075 GA ("general aviation") operation.s and in 2002 the ATADS repart went down (not up} reporting 60,874 GA operations. There was no "upward fluctuation" in 2002, GA operations dropped 46% as compared to 2001. (R. Tab 1 App. N p. 3310}. The FAA has a responsibility to clearly set forth the basis for its decision and respond to questions with "such clarity" as will illuminate the subject. "If the administrative action is to be tested by the basis upon which it purports to rest, that basis must be set forth with such clarity as to be understandable." Securifies Comm'n v. ChenerV Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196. In this matter, the � FAA approved the "2002" `current condition' map as "in com.pliance," there is a question about 14,000 missing operations, the FAA should clarify the issue and make it "understandable." Instead, the FAA is mute. "[A]n agency action accompanied by an inadequate explanation constitutes arbitrary and capricious conduct. *** A determination fihat an agency made a decision without considering a relevant factor leads to condemning the decision as `arbitrary and capricious."' Federa.l Election Com'n v. Rose, 806 F.2d 1081, 1088 (D.G Cir. 1986). As to iindings of fact, there is no "supporting" m aterial evidence in the record documenting 14,000 overflights, only unsupported statements by the sponsor's consultant, HNTB Corporation. As to the record, giving an (� 1 �-- "inadequate" explanation or (as in this matter) refusing to give any explanation -25- for a decision ["clarity as to be understandable"] is arbitrary and capricious. Finding a noise exposure m.ap "in compliance" with an annual average-day that ( fails to correspond with the MSP FAA Tower's annual airport operations report has overlooked a"relevant factor" and is arbitrary and capricious. Issue No. 2 DID the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration act arbitrarily, capriciously, or otherwise not in accordance with law, when she found the "2002" `current condition' and "2005" `five year forecast' noise exposure maps in compliance with the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act ("ASNA") and 14 C.F.R. Part 150, when. both maps failed to consider ambient or self- generated noise? We believe the appropriate standard for review is "substantial eviden.ce" [49 (� U. S. C. � 46110 (c)] as to findings of fact and "arbitrary and capricious" on the record made. As noted by the sponsor infra, neither of the challenged maps include asnbient or self-generated9 noise: During the public deliberations ***, several questions were raised about the application of ambient noise to the DNL contours and determination of eligibility for the Sound Mitigation Program. Part 150 permits la.�.d that would otherwise be con sidered to be non-compatible to be shown as compatible on the NEMs (and hence ineligible for a Sound Mitigation Program) if the "self-generated noise from that use and/or the ambient noise from other non-aircraft and non-airport uses is equal to or greater than the noise from aircraft and airport sources." However, there is no 9 For our purposes, "self-generated" ilO1Se 1S "ambient" 1101Se, the distinction being "self-generated" noise would be background ("ambient") noise generated on that land parcel (such as from a factory). ;. i ' -26- requirement that ambient noise levels actually be considered in j determining eligibility, and most airport sponsors do not include ambient noise as an eligibility factor. (R. Tab 1 p. 8-15) Ipso facto, only "aircraft" noise is reported in the challenged m.aps. This is not what Congress intended, nor is it the administrative procedure in 14 C.F.R. Pa.rt 150. ASNA asked the Secretary of Transportation to establish by regulation: First, "a single system of ineasuring noise [emphasis added] that **� has a highly reliable relationship between projected noise exposure and surveyed reactions of individuals to noise and is applied uniformly in measuring noise at airports a.nd the surrounding area." [49 U.S.C. � 47502(1)]. Second, "a single system. for determining the exposure of individuals to noise resultzng from airpori operations [emphasis added], including **�." [49 U.S.C. � 4'7502(2)]. Third, "identify land uses normally compatible with various exposures of individuals to noise [emphasis added]." [49 U.S.C. 3 47502(3)]. The wording in the statute clearly shows that `ivhen Congress intended to refer to "aircraft" noise (as distinct from "noise" from all sources), Congress added the qualiiier, "resulting from airport operations." Clearly, "noise" without the qualiiier ("resulting from airport operations") is a reference to "cumulative" noise exposure. In Appendi� A at 14 C.F.R. � A150.3(b), "Airport Noise Exposure" is defined as "the cumulative [exnphasis added] exposure of individuals to noise around airports." NEPA regulations deiine "Cumulative impact" as "the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future aciions -27- regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but �� collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time." [40 G.F.R. � 1508.'7, R. Tab 132]. Noise exposure xnaps implem.enting ASNA should report the "cumulativ�" total of noise from the "action" (aircraft noise) added to the ambient noise at that location from all other sources. fihe challenged maps do nat take ambient noise into consideration. Noise Contrnl and Compatibiliiy Planning for Airports (Advisory Circular AC 150/5020-1) states: a. Fecleral Aviation Regulations (FAR) Pa.rt 150 implements portions of Title I of the Aviation Sa.fety and Noise Abatement Act. It specifically establishes a single system. for fihe measurem.ent of airport (and background [emphasis added)) noise, a single system for determining the exposure of individuals to airport noise, and a standardized airport noise compatibility planning program. (R. Tab 134 p. 1) (+ The construction in the above pa.ragraph follows the language in ASNA. The Circular characterizes "a single system of ineasuring noise that *** has a highly reliable relationship between projected noise exposure and surveyed reactions of individuals to noise and is applied uniformly in measuring noise at airports and the surrounding area" [49 U.S.C. � 47502(l�], as "a single system for the measurement of airport (and background [emphasis added]) noise." Clearly "background" noise (another word for "ambient" noise) is included in the "noise" Congress asked the Secretaxy of Transportation to measure in 49 U.S.C. � 4'7502(1). FAA. made the following comment in the Federal Register when issuing the 14 C.F.R. Regulations in December 1984: -2s- Thus the FAA agrees with the comment that noise compatibiiity programs should take into account ambient noise levels [emphasis added]. ***[an] � accepted quick handbook method of estimating ambient noise *** is the * **"Interim Noise Assessment Guidelines." This is a worksheet method that gives a close appro�.mation of probable noise due to other sources. *� * FA.A believes that small portable systems, possibly even sound level meiers, are more appropriate for the determination of nonaircraft levels in broad areas. (Supp. R. Tab 13'7 p. 49265). Clearly from the record, when the 14 C.F.R. Part 150 regulations were published as a final rule (which is the best testimony on intent), ambient noise was to be considered. Some FAA employees appear to be confused on this question. The dra.ft Noise Exposure Map Checklist has the� following handwritten comments on p. 5 at R. Tab 12: `FAA says you must provide data on level of ambient noise within study. MAC says they did in 1993 study but not in this update.' `MAC is saying they are achieving compatibility thru sound attenuation.' `MAC is not using ambient noise levels to determine eligibility. The 1993 Study assessed arnbient levels for LU [a probable reference to "Land Use"] planning.' `My thought is we accepted 1993 study as compliant so do we need them to assess aga.in?' The FAA entered "NA" (Not Applicable] to the C.3 and C.4 checklist inquiries, but this is not correct. Question C.4 asks "Where normally noncompatible land uses are not depicted as such on the NEMs, does the narrative satisfactorily explain why, with reference to the specific geographic areas?" This quesiion asks the sponsor to explain why land exposed to 65 DNL and above (i.e. "noncompatible" land) is not so identified and the question f ". ' ' should be answered. -29- The question of ambient noise was raised by Petitioner HEIDE at the , September 7, 2004 Public Hearing (R. Tab 1 App. N pp. 3249-3251). The following is the reply in the record: The comment has misinterpreted Part 150 regulations and guidelines. 14 CFR A150.3(b) refers to cumulative noise exposure from aircraft events only. 14 CFR A150.101(e)(5) permits an airport operator to identify a land use as compatible if the self-generated or ambient noise exceeds noise from aircra.ft. Thus the airport operator could exclude a home from a sound mitigation program if that home was located next to a busy highway that produced more noise exposure than a.ircrafi overflights. As discussed in Section 8.2.1.2, MAC has chosen to not use ambient noise in the determination of eligibility for homes in the Sound Mitigation Program. The source for ihe NEM Checklist on page 8-15 may be found in *** MAC will not redraw the NEMs to consider ambient noise. (R. Tab I p. 51 of 161 and p. 52 of 161 at end App. N). The 14 C.F.R. Part 150 regulations state, "No land use has to be identified as noncompatible if the self-generated noise from that use and/or the ambient � noise from other nonaircraft and nonairport uses is equal to or greater than the noise from aircraft and airport sources." [14 C.F.R. � A150.101(e)(5)]. The sponsor mentions this regulation in their ambient noise comment supra (R. Tab 1 p. 8-15). The sponsor only considers ambient noise as a reason to "subtract," i.e. a reason to identify "nancompatible" land as "compatible" land. But this is not what the regulation is saying. The corollary regulation is found at 14 C. F. R. 150.21(d) which states that when a noise exposure map is revised "[s]uch updating of the map shall include a reassessment of those areas excluded under sec. A150.101(e)(5) of append� A because of high ambient noise levels." The plain reading of these two regulations taken together is that "noncom.patible" land areas where � -30- ambient noise makes up 50% or more of the noise can be described as "compatible." But this identification must be `reassessed' when the maps are revised. The challenged maps are revised maps and the question of ambient noise should have been reassessed. The reason to `reassess' would be to see if ambient noise levels have dropped below 50% of the tota.l. In that case, if the noise exposure is siill 65 DNL or above but now ambient noise is less than 50% of the tota.l, that geographic land area should be identiiied as "noncompatible" and qualify for the Sound Insulation Program. There is no "substantial evidence" in the record that these maps have been reassessed as regards ambient noise. The finding that the challenged maps are "in compliance" is therefore arbitrary and capricious. Issu.e Ne�. 3 DID the Adm.inistrator of the Federal Aviation Administration fail to apply th�e statutory standard, ar act arbitrarily, capriciously or otherwise not in accordance with law, when findrng the "2002" `current condition' and "2005" `five year forecast' noise exposure maps, submitted on November 17, 2004, as in compliance with the subm.ission timeframe set forth in the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act (as amended by Section 324 of the December 2003 Ceniury of Aviation Reauthorization Act)? We believe the appropriate standard for review is "substantial evidence" [49 U.S.C. � 46110 (c) as to iindings of fact and "arbitrary and capricious" on the ( � record made and a de novo review on alleged violations of law. -31- The "2002" `current condition' and "2007" `five year forecast' maps were submitted by the sponsor on November 17, 2004 (R. Tab 1 Cert. under cover) � The Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act requires submission of "a noise exposure map showing the noncom.patible uses in each area of the map on the date the map is subm.itted [em.phasis added], a description of estimated aircraft operations during 1985, and how those operations will affect the map." [49 U.S.C. F 47503(a)]. Section 324 of the December 2003 Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act amended � 47503(a) by striking "1985," and inserting "a forecast period that is at least 5 years in the future." The plain. language of ASNA (as amended) clearly shows Congress intended that a map submitted on November 17, 2004 must describe "2004" noncompatible land use, and a five-year forecast map submitted on November �- , �, . 17, 2004 must describe "2009" noncompatible land use. We believe FA.A approval of a map submitted in "2004" th.at purports to describe n.oncompatible land use as it existed two yea.rs earlier ("2002") and of a five- year forecast map thai purports to describe noncompatible land use only 3 years "in the future" ("200'7") is contraxy to Congressional intent and the plain language of ASNA (as amended). At the September 7, 2004 Public Hearing (R. Tab 1 App. N pp. 3247-3249) petitioner Heide asked ihe sponsor to com.e into compliance with the above language and "revise the 2002 and 2007 maps" to respectively represent "2004" and "2009" conditions. The following is the reply in the record: � -32- As discussed in Sectian 1.1.1, FAA guidelines permit the airport operator 1 to submit NEMs for years other than the year of submission and five years therea.fter if the NEMs are cansidered representative of the year of submission (2004) and [sic] five-years into the future (2009). As documented in the NEM Checklist Part II at *** FAA guidelines under 14 CFR Part 150.21 permit the NEMs to be considered representative if "...a.irport layout, runway use percentages, flight tracks, general a.ircraft mix and operational data, and noncompatible land uses a.re equivalent; total numbers of operations do not vary over 15 percent in the aggregate." As stated in Section l.l.l, the 2002 and 2007 NEMs are considered representative of 2004 and 2009, respectively. (R. Tab 1 p. 50 of 161 at end App. N). The sponsor's citatian of this FAA interpretative rule came as a`bolt as out of the blue' as this rule was issued without informal rulemaking and without publicafion in the Federal Register. The complete text of this FAA rule states: If the maps are based on data generated for timeframes other than the current year of submission and the fifth year following the year of submission, the a.irport operator must verify that the data are representative of e�sting and of 5-year forecast conditions (i.e., a.irport layout, runway use percentages, flight tracks, generai aircraft mix and operational data, and noncompatible land uses are equivareni [emphasis added]; total numbers of operations do not vary over 15 percent in the aggregate). In these cases, airport operators must indicate that they have verified accuracy of m.ap data by stating in the documentation to the effect that the map based on year's data accurately [emphasis added] represents the year of submission and/or that the forecast map developed for year accurately [emphasis added] represents the 5-year forecast from the date of submission. ("FAR Pa.rt 150 Noise Exposure Map Checklist"; R. Tab 129 p.3}. In November 1989 the Secretary of Transportation made the following request in a report to the Congress concerning "Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Planning": On a related timeframe issue �** the ASNA Act requires current NEM's [noise exposure maps] to be current "as of the date of submission. »*** Under the present statutory language, the FAA must constantly return NEM submissions to airport operators to request them to speciiically ( � state that an NEM actually prepared in a previous year represents the - 33 - situation as of the date of submission to the F.AA. If, instead, the ASNA Act were to include terminology such as "the noise exposure map repr�senting the existing situation around the airport," the FA.A could �� administratively interpret this so as to preclude acceptance of an NEM which has become outda.ted over time, while avoiding unnecessary returns of NEM's to airport operators for additional verification. (R. Tab 12'7 p. 31) . Mindful of its prudential interest in providing "for the general Welfare" (U.S. Co1vsT., Art. I, Cl. 8.1), Congress declined to revise the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatemerit Act ("ASNA") as requested by the Secretary. Clea.rly Congress intended noise exposure maps to describe "noncompatible" land use "on the date the map is submitted." By this statutory standard, the "2002" `current condition' map submiited in November 2004 is a noncompliant map that is two years out of time and the "200"7" `five year forecast' map is also out of tim.e, forecasting only three years in the future instead of the required five years. (- The sponsor relied on the FA.A interpretative rule supra to justify its deviation from the statutory standard: Thus, the year of submission per Part 150 is 2004, with a foreca�t condition of 2009. According to FAA. guidelines, the 2002 and 2007 forecasts may be considered representative of 2004 and 2009, respectively, if the difference between aggregate operational levels for 2002 and 2004, and 2007 and 2009, is less than 15-percent. ***As shown in Table l.l, there were 493,220 annual operations in 2002. The total estimated operations in 2004 at MSP are 529,659. The difference of 36,439 operations from 2002 to 2004 is equivalent to a variance of 6.9- percent. Additionally, a comparison of the Year 2002 operatians with the 2004 Terminal Area Forecast shows a variance of 8.3-percent. (R. Tab 1 p. 1-2) After the interpretative rule was disclosed to Petition.ers, on February 10, 2005 petitioner HEIDE wrote Glen Orcutt at the FAA. (a respondent) pointing out that the FAA interpretative rule required "runway use percentages" to be / \. -34- equivalent (Supp. R. Tab 148). This letter submitted documentation that in 2004, Runways 12L/ 12R had 24,212 additional departures as compared to 2002 (+26%), while the entire a.irport had 26,042 additional departures (+11%). Arguably 93% of the additional 2004 departures (24,212 of the 26,042 additional 2004 departures) used Runway 12L/ 12R, disparately impacting the geographic area where Petitioners lived. The letter argued this increase was "asym.metrical" and therefore the "runway use percentages" from 2002 were not "equivalent" to 2004 as required by ihe interpretative rule and the maps should be "redone." Petitioners have not received an FAA. response with the agency's determination on the questions raised in Petitioners' February 10, 2005 letter. "[A]n agency action accompanied by an inadequate explanation constitutes arbitrary and capricious conduct. **�" A determination that an agency made a decision without considering a relevant factor leads to condem.ning the decision as `arbitra.ry and capricious."' Federal Election Com'n v. Rose, 806 F.2d 1081, 1088 (D.C. Cir. 1986). 4n a de novo review of the alleged violation of law, we believe the intent of Congress is clear that the `current condition' noise exposure map should report "noncompatible" use on the date of submission and the `forecast' map should forecast "noncaxnpatible" land use at least five yeaxs from the date of submission. "We xnaintain our long-standing opinion that `[a] statute is the command of the sovereign,' and an agency implementing a statute may not ign.ore, or provide its own substitute for, a standard articulated in the statute." ( �) -35- Friends of Richards-Gebaur .Airport v. F.A.A., 251 F.3d 1178, 1195 (S� Cir. 2001) with a reference to see Sokol v. Kennedv, 210 F.3d 8'76, 880 (8� Cir. �` 11� Issue No. 4 Is there sufficient "good cause" in the record under review to find a pattern of "bad faith" and "irnproper behavior" ["gross rnistake implying fraud," Riplev v. United States, 223 U.S. 695, 704 (1912)] in the Federal Aviation Administration's noise exposure map approval process warranting "other appropriate action" pursuant to 49 U.S.C. � 46110(c)? l. The FAA found the "1987" `current condition' and "1992" `iive year forecast' maps "in compliance with applicable requirements of part 150." (Relevant ,- Facts No. 7). Before submitting a map, "interested persons" are to be afforded t-_ an"adequate opportuniiy to submit their views, data, and comm.ents concerning the correctness and adequacy of the draft noise exposure map and descriptions of forecast aircraft operations." [14 C.F.R. � 150.21(b)]. There is no evidence in the record that "interested persons" were afforded an opportunity to commeni on these maps. (R. Tab 119 pp. IV-6 to IV-8). Only "insiders" (which is not used here in a pejorative sense) were privy to the map data. Both maps are arguably false maps. The FA.A knew there were 1,093 operations/annual 1987 average-day (Relevant Facis No. 2). The "198'7" map was based on 921.8 operations/average annual-day; 1'71.2 less operations/day x 365 days/year = 62,488 less annual operations (Relevant Facts No. 3). The FAA knew there were 108 "night" operations/ann.ual 1987 average-day � -36- (Relevant Facts No. 2). The "1987" rnap was based on 18 "night" operations/average annual-day; 90 less "night" operations/day x 365 days/year = 32,850 less annual "night" operatians x 10 (in the DNL metric, each "night" operation equals 10 "day" operations, see Relevant Facts No. 8) _ 328,500 less equivalent annual operations (Relevant Facts No. 3). Arguably the "1987" map understated "noncompatible" land use by 50% by using a false, fictitious or fraudulent annual average-day. This explains why the "198'7" map reported 18,544 persons on "noncompatible" land and the "1989" map (dra.fted pursuant to NEPA with a`true' annual average-day} reported 41,034 persons on "noncompatible" land (including HEIDE, KOSEL and TAYLOR). Since the `current condition' map is the basis for the ASNA noise compatibility program ("NCP"), which must consist only of "measures the operator has taken or proposes to take to reduce existing noncompatible uses an.d prevent introducing additional noncompatible uses in the area covered by the map [emphasis added]" [49 U.S.C. � 47504(a)(2)], arguably a NCP based on a map that understates "noncompatible" land use by SO% violates the statutory standard in ASNA and should not be approved or receive grants from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. The FAA stated in their Checklist comments that there were 399,690 operations in 1987 (Relevant Facts No. 4). The "198'7" map was based on 921.8 operations/annual 1987 average-day (Relevant Facts No. 3), whieh when multiplied by 365 days/year equals only 336,457 annual 198'7 operations, 16% '" less operations than what the FAA knew to be the true total. Although FAA ( � -37- knew or should have known (having imputed agency knowledge) that the (, "198T' `current condition' m.ap was fa�se and untrue, FAA approved the map anyway. The FAA approval of the understated "198'7" `current condition' map damaged Petitioners by wrongly identifying their land parcels as "compatible" for residential use. The FA.A stated in their Checklist comments that there were 435,'700 operations forecast for 1992 (Relevant Facts No. 4). The "1992" `five year forecast' m.ap was based on 1,010 operations/annual 1992 average-day (Relevant Facts No. 3), which when multiplied by 365 days/year equals only 368,650 annua.l 1992 operations, 15% less operations than what the FAA knew to be the "reasonable [1992] assumptions" forecast. [14 C.F.R. 150.21(a)(1)]. Although FAA knew or should have known (having imputed agency knowledge) (. . that the "1992" `five year forecast' map was false and untrue, FAA approved the map anyway. The FAA approval of the understated "1992" `five year forecast' map damaged Petitioners by wrongly identifying their la�d parcels as "compatible" for residential use. 2. The "purpose of a noise compatibility program is *** To bring together through public pariicipation [emphasis added] *** all interested parties with their respective authorities and obligations." [14 C.F.R. � B150.1(b)(2)]. In developing a noise compatibility program ("NCP"), the 14 C.F.R. Part 150 regulations (implementing ASNA) rec�uire at least three consultations with the "general public," specifically, (1) "[p]rior to," (2) "during the development" and (3) "prior to submission of the resulting dra.ft prograxn to the FAA." The C -38- consultations "shall" ["shall" is to be construed "in an imperative sense," see 14 C. F. R. � 1.3 (b) (1) ] afford "adequate opportunity for �*� active and direct participation." and permit the gen.eral public "to submit their views, data and comments, on the formulation and adequacy of that program." [14 C.F.R. � 150.23(d)]. The NCP based on the "198'7" `current condition' and "1992" `five year forecast' maps contains a"Summary o� NCP Consultations" (R. Tab 118 pp. 11- 8 thru 11-13) . Only two public hearings are in the recard: January 28, 198'7 Public Hearing - This hearing was really held to consider enactment of "Ordinance No. 68" by "iiling of the sasne *** with the Secretary of State of the State of Minnesota" (�. Tab 118 App. D p. 9). Since Ordinance No. 68 was not a proposed NCP measure, this hearing is not properly entered in the record as a NCP consultation; May 21, 1987 Public Hearing - This hearing was held a.fter the NCP had been developed. In the record, the "general public" was not a.fforded two of the three consultations guaxanteed by regulation, specifically, apportunities to comment (1) "[p]rior to" and (2) "during" this NCP's development. In the record, the only opportunity afforded the "general public" to comment took place after the NCP had been developed. The Ma� 12, 1987 St. Paul Pioneer Press Dispatch notice concerning the May 21, 198'7 public hearing is arguably an inadequate notice. In the record supra, the "general public" had not been notiiied that a NCP was being developed for MSP. HEIDE, KOSEL and TAYLOR could not have known a public hearing was in the offing as NCP development had begun without public �. � notification. Therefore, the public hearing notice in the May 12, 1987 St. Paul -39- Pioneer Press Dispatch eluded Petitioners' notice. [Petitioners further observe the newspaper notice was difficult to find, using very sma11 type (similax to �, �vant ads') and only taking up a space about 4" high x 1" wide (about four postage stamps) within the newspaper's 26� page.) Even if, by chance, petitioners HEIDE, KOSEL or TAYLOR had found the May 21, 198'7 public hearing notice and attended, any comments given at the hearing could noi have been informed, meaningful comments. Petitioners had not received the promised consultations "[p]rior to" and "during" the NCP's development and this failure to comply with 14 C.F.R. � 150.23(d) effectively barred Petitioners from "active and direct participation" at the public hearing. How could Petitioners make informed, meaningful comments regarding the NCP's "formulation and adequacy" when their first opportunity to inspect the � NCP was at the public hearing itself? ASNA requires "notice and an opportunity for a public heaxing" befare an airport operator can submit a NCP [49 U.S.C. � 47504(a)(l�(B)]. While a public hearing was held on May 21, 1987, Petitioners argue this was but a pretense. The FAA. had a duty to "protect the public health and welfare from aircraft noise" [49 U.S.C. � 44715(a)(1)(A)] at MSP and that duty required the F.AA to reject a NCP that failed to comply with the consultation requirements at 14 C.F.R. � 150.23(d). Although the FAA knew or should have known from the administrative record (having imputed agency knowledge) that this NCP was prepared without the required consultations with the "general public," the FAA approved the NCP anyway. This failure of duty damaged the "health and � -40- welfare" of HEIDE, KOSEL and TAYLOR (and m.any others) by wrongfully denying their land parcels NCP eligibility under ASNA. Approving the NCP a.lso enabled the FAA to wrongfully offer Airport Improvement Program ("AIP") grants that violated th� statutory scheme established by Congress (see Brief p. 9 for a grant list totaling $23,442,543). By statute a NCP must "reduce existing noncompatible uses and prevent introducing additional noncompatible uses." [49 U.S.C. � 47504(a)(2)]. This NCP promised to reduce the population on "noncompatible" land from 18,544 persons to 13,661 persons in five years (see Relevant Facts No. 3). Arguably, in five years this NCP increased the impacted population to 33,750 persons (Supp. R. Tab 146 p. 2) damaging fhe "health and welfa.re" of 20,089 persons (including HEIDE, KOSEL and TAYLOR). The FAA knew or should have known this NCP could not reduce the "noncompatible" land population to 13,661 persons in five years. The FAA approval of this NCP is arguably so grossly erroneous as to imply "bad faith" and "improper behavior." The experienced FA.A. officials who approved this NCP arguably acted in the same capacii�y as the government agent in RipleY v. United States, 223 U.S. 695 (1912)] who was "an experienced ofiicer of the Government in such work." Id. at 700. Due to "the very extent of the power and the conclusive character of his decision," the experienced government agent had a"corresponding duty that the agent's judgment should be exercised—not capriciously or � fraudulently, but reasonably:" Using the "fraud or of such gross mistake as �'" � would imply a fraud" standard [citing Martinsbur� 8v P.R. Co. v. March, 114 -41- U.S. 549; United States v. Mueller, 113 U.S. 153], the Supreme Court sustained the lower court's finding that the experienced governm.ent agent's �_ decision was so erroneous as to constitute "a gross mistake and an act of bad fai.th." Id. at 700-02. The FAA's approval of a NCP developed without the required consulta.tions with the "general public" prevented discovery of the "gross mistake," causing this noncompliance to go uncorrected and unknown at the time. The FAA's NCP approval damaged Petitioners' "health and welfare" (and many others) by wrongly identifying their land parcels as "compatible" for residential use. 3. The "1987" `current con.dition' and "1992" `five yeax forecast' maps were certiiied/submitted in 1989 (Relevant Facts No. 6). The Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act requires submission of "a noise exposure map showing the �. noncompatible uses in each area of the map on the date the map is submitted [emphasis added], a descripiion of estimated aircraft operations during 1985, and how those operation.s will affect the map." [49 U.S.C. § 47503(a)]. In 1989 airport operators understood the words "estimated aircraft operations during 1985" to apply only at the time of enactment by Congress. The phrase was reasonably interpreted by the 14 C.F.R. Part 150 regulations to refer to a map "for the fifth calendar year beginning after the date of submission" [14 C.F.R. � 150.21(a)(1)]. fihis is similar to Issue No. 3 supra, although the transactional facts differ. Petitioners contend the FAA approval of maps two years out of time violated �.. -42- ASNA. The FAA knew that the population on "noncompatible" land in 1989 was 41,034 persons (Supp. R. Tab 142 p. 3). The "1987" `current condition' map reported 18,544 persons on "noncompatible" land and did not truly report 1989 conditions in which 41,034 persons lived on "noncampatible" land. The FA.A's approva.l of the noncompliant "1987" `current condition' map damaged 22,490 persons (41,034 less 18,544 = 22,490 persons) contrary to the statutory scheme and in violation of the FAA's duty ta "protect the public health and welfare from aircraft noise." [49 U.S.C. � 44715(a)(1)(A)] 4. The FAA approved the "1991" `current condition' and "1996",`five year forecast' maps as "in compliance with the applicable requirements" (Relevant Facts No. 14). These maps replaced the "1987"/"1992" maps. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 3 150.21(b) Petitioners as "interested persons" were to have been given an"adequate opportunity to submit their views, data, and comments concerning the correctness and adequacy" of these maps "during the development" of them. However, Petitioners were not given an opportunity to comment "during the development" of these maps. The first draft copies of the "1991" and "1996" maps were mailed to the Metropolitan Airport Sound Abatement Council ("MASAC") (an organization created and funded by the airpart's proprietor) prior to a January 28, 1992 MASAC meetin.g where the xnaps were approved (Relevant Facts No. 9). In the record only MASAC was afforded an opportunity to comment on these maps, "interested persons" from the general public were not afforded a similar �, ) , _ opportunity. - 43 - ASNA requires "notice and an opportunity for a public hearing" before an � airport operator can submit a NCP [49 U. S. C. � 47504 (a) (1 j(B)] . The 14 C. F. R Part 150 regulations state "[t]he purpose of a noise compatibility program is ** * To bring together through public participation *** a.11 interested parties vvith their respective authorities and obligations." [14 C.F.R. � B150.1(b)(2)]. The airport operator states a public hearing was held on March 5, 1992 concerning the NCP submittal (Relevant Facts No. 10). According to the Transcript the public hearing only lasted ten minutes. Public hearings on aircraft noise are well attended at this airport. At the recent September '7, 2004 public hearing on the NCP based on the challenged maps, the sponsor rnade provision for a police presence which troubled some commenters (R. Tab 1 App. N p. 354'7). It is implausible a ten-minute public hearing could be held ' (: on an NCP and equally implausible that no one from the general public would comment. The Transcript states in three locations that the public hearing was held on "March 6, 1992" (Relevant Facts No. 11). The court reporter did not get a number wrong as the Transcript correctly states March 6, 1992 was a"Friday" (Relevant Facts No. 11). An inquiry was made of the firm that supplied the court reporter who said that "to his knowledge" in 41 years of business their firm had never a prepared a Transcript with a wrong date, see Affidavit at Pet. Addend. Ex. 14. � -44- In the record there is no evidence thai a public hearing was held on March 5, 1992. Submitting a NCP without "notice and an opportunity" for a public hearing violates the statutory scheme. 5. In October 1993 the FAA knew the forecast for 1996 airport operations had been revised to l,l'77.8 operations/annual average-day (Relevant Facts No. 12). The sponsor submitted "1991" `current condition' and "1996" `five year forecast' maps in December 1993 (two months later). The sponsor used 1090.4 operations/annual average-day in their "1996" `five year forecast' map (the map that the sponsor proposed to determine NCP eligibility) (Relevant Facts No. 13). The regulations require the forecast for "the fifth calendar year beginning after the date of submission" to be "based on reasonable assumptions concerning future type and frequency of a.ircra.ft operati.ons, �**." [14 C.F.R. � 150.21(a) (1)] . The " 1996" `five year forecast' map submitted by the sponsor understated forecast operations by 8%. The new forecast for 1996 placed the HEIDE, KOSEL an.d TAYLOR land parcels on "compatible" land, making them ineligible for the NCP. The FAA knew or should have known (having imputed agency knowledge) that the sponsor's "1996" `five year forecast' map was a noncompliani map that understated "noncomp�.tible" land use and would fail to "protect" HEIDE, KOSEL and TAYLOR �rom "aircraft noise" [49 U.S.C. � 44'715(a)(1)(A)], but approved the "1996" `five year forecast' map as "in coxnpliance with the applicable requirements" (Relevant Facts No. 14). - 45 - 6. The "1991" `current condition' and "1996" `five year forecast' maps were certified/submitted in 1993 (Relevant Facts No. 13). The Aviaiion Safety and Noise Abatement Act requires submission of "a noise exposure map showing the noncompatible uses in each area of the map on the date the map is submiited [emphasis added], a description of estimated aircraft operations during 1985, and how ihose operations will affect the map." [49 U.S.C. � 47503(a)]. In 1989 airport operators understood fhe words "estimated ai.rcra.ft operations during 1985" to apply only at the time of enactment by Con.gress. The phrase was reasonably interpreted by the 14 C.F.R. Part 150 regulations to refer to a map "for the fifth calendar year beginning after the date of submission" [14 C.F.R. � 150.21(a)(1)]. In 1997 the HEIDE, KOSEL and TAYLOR land parcels are identified as �_ "non.compatible" for residentia.l use (R. Tab 113 following p. 3-2; see Pet. Addend. Ex. 19 map which has been marked to identify the HEIDE, KOSEL and TAYLOR land parcels in the "1997" Figure 3-1 map). FAA's approval of a "1996" `five year forecast' map based on an outdated and unreasonable forecast damaged Petitioners by exposing them to damaging levels of aircraft noise within the 65 DNL Contour. Petitioners contend the FAA approval of maps two years out of time violated ASNA in violation of the FAA's duty to "protect the public health and welfare from aircraft noise." [49 U.S.C. � 44'715(a)(1)(A)]. This is similar to Issue No. 3 supra, although the transactional facts differ. This is because there is a pattern of approving noise exposure maps two years out of time at this airport. -46- C Petitioners bring this list of irregularities to the attention of the Court as we believe there is a pattern of "bad faith" and "improper behavior" concerning the administration of the noise compatibility program at MSP. We believe additional inquiries would be appropriate and leave Issue No. 4 in the hands of the Court if "other appropriate action" should be taken. -47- ___ ,• • For the foregoing reasons, as regards Issues No. l, No. 2 or No. 3 Peiitioners request thai the Court vacate the FAA order approving the "2002" `current condition' map and ihe "200'7" `five year forecast' map and that the maps be returned to the FAA to be brought into compliance. Concerning Issue No. 4 setting forth what we believe is a pattern of "bad fa.ith" and "improper behavior," we leave this to the judgment of the Couri as to whether these rise to the level where additional inquiry is warranted. Respectfully submitted, Guy Heide (also signing for Michael A. Kosel and Duane Taylor) - 48 - C� ��12.TIFICPi'TE O� GO1ViPLI�CE i` i The undersigned Petitioner hereby certiiies that the relevant portions of PETITIONERS' BRIEF covered by FRAP Rule 32(a)(7) contain 12,024 words. PETITIONERS' BRIE�' was prepared using Microsoft Word in Bookm.an Old Style. Guy Heide, Petitioner - 49 - I hereby certify that two copies of the foregoing correcied PETITIONERS' BRIEF were deposited with the United States Postal Service for ser�rice by First Class or Priority U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on December l, 2005 upon the following persons at the following addresses: Mr. Lane M. McFadden Appellate Section, ENRD Department of Justice L'Enfant Plaza Station P.O. Box 23795 Washington, D.C. 20026 Mr. Thomas W. Anderson, General Counsel Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 28� Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 ; �� Guy Heide, Petitioner (also signin.g for Michael A. Kosel and Duane Taylor) C I -50- r j ..: . •, �; Petitioners' November 14, 2005 brief was re-printed November 23, 2005. The re-printed brief corrects the inadvertent omission of p. v in those briefs submitted November 16, 2005 with a different binding and corrects the following typographical errors: P Added "A" so citation now reads "14 C.F.R. � A150.101" Corrected quotation marks in Rosebud Sioux Tribe citation Added "(Supp. R. Tab 146 p. 2)" Added "(1912)" to Ri le citation Added "(see Pet. Addend. Ex. 1)" Added "Tab" to citation Added "(Supp. R. Tab 139)" Changed 869.8 "day" operations to read "869.9" Added "5� Cir." to Aqua Slide citation Changed "decrease" to "decreases" to agree with "increases" Added "App. N" to three record citations Added "App. N" to two record citations Added an ellipsis inside Kennon quotation Deleted closing quotation mark in Kennon quotation Added "App. N" to three record citations Changed "supervisor" to "advisor" in Greene job description Added "App. N" to two record citations Added comma in Issue No. 2 after "14 C.�.R. Part 150" Added "App. N" to two record citations Added "App. N" to one record citation Added "App. N" to one record citation Added "R. Tab 129" Corrected quotation marks in Friends of Richards-Gebaur quote Added "(1912)" to RipleV citation Added "(1951)" to Wunderlich citation 8s corrected style Changed "Issue No. 2" to "Issue No. 3 suprd' 8v clarified transactional facts Changed "Aircraft" to "Airport" in spelling out MASAC acronym Added "App. N" to one record citation Changed "noncompatible" to "compatible" and eligible to "ineligible" in line 21 Changed "1981" to "1991" in line 5 Changed "Issue No. 2 and No. 3" to "Issue No. 3 suprd' 8v clarified transactional facts Changed "average annual-day" to "annual average-day" for style consistency on pp. i, 1l, 15, 17, 20, 26, 36, 37, 38, 42 -51- a�e 2 2 9 11 13 14 16 17 20 21 22 23 23 23 24 24 25 26 30 32 33 33 35 36 39 40 41 41 42 43 ''' ` '"' •' � Petitioners' November 14, 2005 brief was re-printed December l, 2005 to correct the Issue 4.2 argument (pp. 38 fhru 42 herein). � �� CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS � January 5, 2006 �. Airport Relations Commission FROM: James E. Danielson, City Administ � - SUBJECT: City Administrator Update DISCUSSION: I will update the Commissioners on the status of the Commission appointments C C" C \� � . • + ' •' .� � :, � . .• ; ,. � � . r � ViIEDNESDAV, Decernber '14, 2005 � 1:00 P.M.* (See Enclosure on Airport Security Checkpoint Information) IVIETROPOLITA(V AIRPORTS COMMISSION Room 3040 — Mezzanine — �indbergh Terminal Building ELECTION OF OFFICERS - Election of Secretary - Election of Treasurer (interim) CONSENT ITEMS (Consenf ltems can be brought down to Discussion) Approvai of Minutes a- Regular Scheduled November 21, 2005 Lease Actions a- Recommendation Re: Airport Leases Accounts a- Approval of Bills, Expenses, Payrolis, Transfers of Funds, etc. Finance. Development and Environment Commiitee A1 Reports a) October Budget Variance Report bj Concessions Activity Variance Report c) Statements� of Revenues and Expenses and Changes in iVet Unrestricted Cash d) Accounts Receivable Summary e) Budget Impact Report Regarding Management & Operations Committee Action Items fi� Change Management Policy and Project Status Report g) Bioomington Land Acquisition Status Report A2 Final Payments — MAC Contracts a) Lindbergh Terminai Chilled Water Improvement Phases 4 and 5 b) Lindbergh Terminal Air Handiing Unit Replacement 2004 c) Lindbergh Terminal Valet Parking Restoration d) Runway 17/35 Glycol Tank 3 Lining A3 Bids Received — MAC Contracts a) CAT 11 System installation — ALEC Modifications A4 Upcoming 2006 Continuing Consultants Selection — Request for Qualifications MSP Civil Engineer A5 Runway 17/35 Update A6 Noise Oversight Committee Update a) 2005 Accomplishments b) 2006 Work Plan A7 2006-2012 Capital improvement Program a) DISCUSSION ITEM - Environmentai Review � Commission Nieeting — December 14, 2005 : Page Two � . . � _ � .--� -_.- � b) Adjacent Community Review Process c) Program Funding � d) DISCUSSION ITEflA - Program �pproval A8 DISCUSSION ITEM - 2006 Operating Budget Manaqement and Operations �Committee B1 IViSP Liquor License Renewals B2 Request Adoption of intra-5tate Mutual Aid Agreement Resolution B3 DISCUSSION ITEM - 2006 Property Casualty Insurance Renewais B4 St. Paul Corporate Faeling Waiver Request B5 Award of Metr.o Office Park Sale B6 Highway Terminal Building Signage 11. D/SCUSS/ON ITEMS � Finance. Development and Environment Committee A7 2006-2012 Capital improvement Program a) Environmental Review d) Program Approval A8 2006 Operating Budget IlAanaqement and Operations Committee -- B3 2006 Property Casualty insurance Renewals OLD BUSINESS 1j Northwest Airiines Bankruptcy Update NEW BUSINESS 1) Executive Committee Report ANNOUPVCEtVIENTS/COMMISSIOiVER COMMENTS PUBUC APPEARANCES *A reception recognizing the retirement of Denise Kau�er, Deputy Executive Director — Administrative Services, will be held at 12:30 p.m. in the Commission Lounge prior to the meeting *Materials for this meeting are available at the following website: www.mspairport.com / MAC — Public tVieetings/Full Commission Finance, Development & Enviranment December 7, 2005 Page 4 A6. NOISE. OVERSIGHT. COMMITTEE UPDATE - CF 149 a. 20p5 Accomplishments Vern Wilcox and Kathieen Nelson, Co-Chairs of the Noise �versight Committee, reviewed the accomplishments of the NOC for 2005 and responded to questions from the Committee regarding the working relationships of the industry and community representatives on the NOC. Mr. Wilcox commended Chad Leqve and his stafF for their support to the NOC and for their public information efforts especially related to the opening of Runway 17/35. b. 2006 Work Plan Mr. Wilcox and Ms. Nelson reviewed the 2006 Work Plan that was unanimously approved by the NOC at its November 16, 2005 meeting. A copy of the work plan was contained in the Committee package. Mr. Wilcox responded to questions from the Committee regarding the departure turn for Runway 17/35 and discussed potential opportunities for NOC involvement from communities that are newly impacted by noise. IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER BOIVIN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ��__..� YVILLIAMS, TO RECOMMEND TO THE FULL COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE 2006 NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMII?EE WORK PLAN. THE MOTION CARRIED BY UNAIVIIVIOUS VOTE. A7. 2006-2012 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. - CF.150 b. Adiacent Communitv Review Process Nigel Finney," Deputy Executive Director — Planning and Environment, reported that legislation concerning local review of the CIP (MS473.621 Subd 6 as amended) requires the Gommission to complete a process to provide "affected municipalities" surrounding the airport the opportunity for discussion and public participation in the Commission's CIP process. An "affected municipality" is a municipality that is either adjacent to a MAC airport, is within the noise zone of a MAC airport as defined in the Metropolitan Development Guide, or has notified the Commission that it considers itself an "affected municipality." The legislation requires that the Commission provide adequate and timely notice including a description of the projects in the CIP to each affected municipality. The notices must include agendas and meeting minutes at which the praposed CIP is to be discussed or voted on in order to provide the municipalities the opportunity to solicit public comment and pa�ticipate in the development of. the CIP on an ongoing basis. Comments received from the affected municipalities will be reviewed and a response returned. Staff therefore developed a schedule that outlined the dates/actions required for the development of the CIP and the local review by "affected municipalities." This schedule included a date for submittal of comments. Finance, Developrnent & Environment December 7, 2005 Page 5 One letter was received from the City of Eden Prairie providing comments on the CIP. A copy of the letter received and response was included in the Committee package. Letters from other communities are included in the environmental review process. THIS WAS AN INFORMATIONAL ITEiVI ONLY; NO COMMITTEE ACTION WAS REQUESTED. c. Program Fundinq Steve Busch, Director of Finance, reviewed the 2006-2008 Capital Improvement Program Funding. He indicated that the program will be funded from a variety of sources that include PFC's, Federal Grants, MnDOT Grants, internally generated funds and bond proceeds (including commercial paper). Based on information presented, sufficient funds are available to fund the 2006-2008 Capital Program. In addition, MAC will have from $125 million to $150 million available in commercial paper as a contingency. A table showing the sources of funds and a list of funding by project for 2006, 2007, and 2008 was included in the Committee package. In response to questions from the Committee, Mr. Busch indicated that bonds would not have to be issued in 2006 if the 2020 Plan is delayed an additional year. THIS WAS AN INFORMATIONAL ITEIUI ONLY; NO COMMITTEE ACTION WAS FZEi�UES�'ED. The meeting was adjourned at 12:32 p.m. C C 'G3��Z� ��3�� METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION FINANCE, DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING Wednesday, December 7, 2005, 10:00 a.m., Room 3040, Lindbergh Terminal - Wold-Chamberlain Field Minneapolis-St. Paui International Airport "DISCUSSION ITEMS" Call to Order A regular meeting of the Finance, Development and Environment Committee, having been duly called, was held Wednesday, December 7, 2005, in Room 3040, Charles Lindbergh Terminal Building, Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, Wold-Chamberlain Field. Chair McGee called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. The following were in atteridance: Commissioners: Sfiaff: McGee, McKasy, Boivin, Foley, Mars, Williams, Landy, Rehkamp, Chair Tigwell J. Hamiel, N. Finney, D. Kautzer, T. W. Anderson, T.L. Anderson, J. Nielsen, D. Probst, G. Warren, S. Wareham, S. Busch, P. Hogan, R. Fuhrmann, D. Ruch, C. �eqve, J. Nelson, S. Busch, R. Breezee, R. Biddle, B. Vorpahl, M. Kilian, B. Schauer, K. Schaefer, J. Sohns, S. Skramstad, S. Douma, H. Vowels, E. Johnson, B. Hoium, P. Anderson, J. Unruh Others: V. Wilcox, City of Bloomington; M. Otto, City of Minneapolis; K. Nelson, J. Davidman, Northwest Airlines; B. Johnson, G. Hoff, MBAA; L. Dallam, HNTB; J. Spensley, D. Saunders, SMAAC; J. Henn, �ehman Brothers; W. Franklin, Bear Stearns; L. Blanch, SAIC; R. Strege, SEH; R. Yanisch, Chandler Group A7. 2006-2012. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.- CF 150 a. Environmental Review Nigel Finney, Deputy Executive Director — Planning and Environment, reported fhat since Cornmission approval of the Preliminary 2006-2012 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) on September 19, 2005, the environmental review process has continued as scheduled. Two documents were prepared to meet the requirements of the legislation prior to final action on the CIP. These documents include an Assessment of Environmental Effects (AOEE) for Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) and an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Phases 1 and 2 of the 2020 Development P.rogram. Assessments of Environmental Effects for St. Paul Downtown, Flying Cloud, Crystal, Anoka County-Blaine, Lake Elmo, and Airlake Airports were not Finance, Development & Environment December 7, 2005 Page 2 prepared since the Capitai Improvement Program and Plan has not changed from the previous year or the changes have only trivial environmental effects On November 9, 2005, a public hearing to receive public testimony was held as part of the Finance, Development & Environment Committee meeting. The hearing was advertised in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, St. Paul Pioneer Press and EQB Monitor. One person representing the South Metro Airport Action Council (SMAAC) testified at the hearing. The public record remained open until 5:00 p.m. on November 23, 2005. Six letters were received providing comments regarding the AOEE for MSP. No camment letters were received regarding the EAW for Phases 1 and 2 of the 2020 Development Program. A proposed "Hearing Officer's Report" was included in the Committee package for adoption by the Committee as hearing o�cers. The report includes the Findings of Fact and Recommendation for the MSP AOEE and the EAW. A copy of the letters received as well as the responses for the MSP AOEE and a copy of the transcript of the Public Hearing were also included. Specific project comments will be addressed as part of the appropriate project specific environmental processes. The CIP itself is only "firm" for the first year of the program. Projects listed in the CIP for 2006 will be brought back to the Commission for award of contracts after - plans and specifications have been prepared and bids have been received. The �� ) 2007 project work scopes/costs will be developed further through additional studies and plans and specifications will be prepared for consideration in the 2007 CIP process. The 2008 project work scopes/costs will be developed further through additional studies and preparation of preliminary plans and specifications. Likewise, the projects listed in the CIP for all other years will be reviewed again when the CIP is revised. Mr. Finney described changes that will be made to the AOEE/EAW process beginning with the 2007 CIP review. James Spensley, SMAAC, appeared before the Committee expressing concern regarding staff's responses to the SMAAC comments and stating that key elements of SMAAC's concerns were omitted. IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER FOLEY, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARS, TO RECOMMEND TO THE FULL COMMISSION THE ADOPTION OF THE HEARING OFFICER'S REPORT, INCLUDING THE. FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE ASSESSMENTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED 2006-2012 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR MSP AND THE ENVIRONMENTA� ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR PHASE 1 OF THE 2020 DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. FURTHER, THAT THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGNEE BE AUTHORIZED TO NOTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD AND THOSE ON ITS DISTRIBUTION �IST OF THE COMMISSION ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED BY MAJORITY VOTE. Finance, Development & Environment December 7, 2005 Page 3 • ' •• . ' •• • . Nigel Finney, Deputy Executive Director — Planning and Environment, reported that concurrent with the public review process pertaining fio the environmental and affected municipality review of the draft 2006-2012 CIP, additional information has become available regarding the timing and estimated costs for projects listed in the CIP. Several projects that were scheduled to be implemented in 2005 are being recommended to be carried over into 2006 and three new projects have been added. Staff is also recommending that selected projects be delayed by one year as a result of the financial problems associated with the airline industry: A copy of the revised CIP spreadsheet and narratives were included in the Committee package. Committee discussion followed with Commissioner Mars expressing concern regarding the reliever airports projects, specifically at Crystal Airport and funding related to projects at St. Paul Downtown Airport. Chair Tigwell provided an update on funding for the St. Paul Downtown Airport dike project. Mr. Finney responded to questions regarding the Noise Mitigation Program indicating that MAC is still awaiting approval of the Part 150 Program that was submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration in November, 2004. Mr. Finney also reviewed funding for projects at Anoka County-Blaine and Crystal Airports. Kathleen Nelson, Northwest Airlines, appeared before the Committee stating that they are supportive of the Capital Improvement Program, however they have concerns regarding the Reliever Airports projects. Ms. Nelson discussed enhancement vs. maintenance projects and asked if the intent is to continue to charge back maintenance project costs to the Relievers. She requested clarification that funding repayments be confirmed prior to implementation of projects at the Reliever Airports. IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER REHKAMP, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS, TO RECOMMEND TO THE FULL COMMISSION ADOPTION OF THE 2006-2012 CIP AS MODIFIED; AUTHORIZE STAFF TO HAVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS PREPARED AND ADVERTISE FOR BIDS FOR THE 2006 PROJECTS; AUTHORIZE STAFF TO CONDUCT FURTHER STUDIES AS APPROPRIATE AND DEVELOP PL.ANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE 2007 PROJECTS, UTILIZING CONSULTANT SERVICES, TO REFINE THE PROJECTS FOR INCLUSION IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR'S PROJECT CATEGORY; AUTHORIZE STAFF TO CONDUCT STUDIES AND DEVELOP PRELIMINARY PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE 2008 PROJECTS UTILIZING CONSULTANTS AS NECESSARY; AUTHORIZE STAFF TO INITIATE APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION TO APPLY FOR FEDERAL, STATE AND PFC FUNDING; RECOMMEND TO THE COMMISSION APPROVA� OF THE FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (2008-2012) AS A GUIDE TO THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL FOR THEIR REVIEW, PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE METROPOLITAN INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK GUIDELINES; AND AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE THE ( ) NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. THE MOTION CARRIED BY MAJORITY VOTE. _�> C I ;'w � d�?� u�, �. F,�� M ' a�'t � 12 � C�` 4�`` �` �`�� E `^ i,i �' ..�i �M" 1 S E:,,y� '. y 4 �'Y 4 , �PP+ �s s.y�tir �� t 9G � � g z � ' -m1 "t" "r" N D 1 y O q � o r F 't' GO p� AIRPOR�y December 20, 2005 Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport 6040 - 28th Avenue South � Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799 Phone(612)726-8100 Jim Danielson, Administrator City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118-4106 RE: Metropolitan Airports Commission Approved 2006 Capital Improvement Program Dear Mr. Danielson: The Metropolitan Airports Commission, at its meeting on December 14, 2005, approved the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) to be accomplished on its airport system in 2006 along with a 2007 Capital Improvement Program. The CIP was approved with the understanding that the projects in the 2020 Development Program will be discussed in the April/May timeframe and a decision made at that time as to a schedule for implementation. The 2007 projects have been approved for further study and development of plans and specifications for implementation in the following year. Staff has also been authorized to conduct studies and develop preliminary plans and specifications for year 2008 projects. The documentation necessary to encumber Federal funding for eligible projects will be initiated in conjunction with the development of fihe prelirninary and final plans. A copy of the CIP spreadsheet that lists the projects and estimated project costs and a short narrative of each project proposed for 2006 and 2007 are included for your information. Sincer , Robert J. Vorpahl, P.E. Program Development Engineer RJV/Irk Enclosure cc: Nigel Finney Denny Probst Gary Warren CIP file FD&E packet file Day file The Metropolitan Airports Commission is an affirmative acHon employer. www.mspairport.com Reliever Airports: AII2LAKE � ANOKA COUNT'Y/BLAINE e CRYSTAL o FLYING CLOUD e LAKE ELMO � SAIN'1' PAUL DOWNTOWN C �� ' �I:v c ca n. C a> � � C O � Q. � E � .Q t0 U � w°E`��°�o c�C >� N �. t� o o, Q. E C d t0 O � C V aa � E � � O � a � C d � > O G � f/ \ _.� � o Qz t0 c0� (� cfl 0 0 N 000i O O O' 0 o O' O O O ff? ffl C� � E o � �� o ._ G c[ M o � � m .� � @ � W M � o � r � a � � m `.� � c :a h N � � .`� >, h' � cn � 3 c iI � � 0 0 0 0 0 N � � O O O 0 0 N � �{} O O O O O N r � 0 0 0 0 0 0 cYi � 0 O O O O O � 0 0 0 0 Q o � � 0 0 0 � � o v3 �n r �3 0 o c 0 o c 0 o c � �� EF, O O C t�f) � C 6 j O O O C � O � ,lf')�, ( � � E S} Ef! 00 00 ' 00 00 �� 0 0 � � � � 0 0 0 O O � O O O O O O O � 0 0 0 0 O O � � 0 N N � J d Z �� E m o �� cncn v, E � �, E zZ� � �� c`� rn <t > c� ��r, S M� o o p Q p 0- N N N t"y�il E N�� C d 0- N dS ct{ O C C y � U? C O C � d � L � `° `q y � c� c � � `° `° p- p3 '° E � a� o. � � ` ' � aXi � � iu � � � � � � cu o m � � �ia n m Rs � c c o �o p o- _ Q �� a � o a�i d�� U �n � �� •� .. o m � ' Q o o.= o � � E.�°c o=' :� � o o c-�a n. o m � y, u. m� a� 1 N C G G ro � � � � � ,� � 'G O .i6 .'0 � O �" p � 'C 3 m itf (L L rn c v o u� —� m L=_� :� '� E id ro> c� o �� c �� a o m�� n. m ro� i° aQi � o m o� S°7 : 3 rn o D o v°�i d U 3 O �� o a� o a� a� � m o m � ��= �€`° � c o tn U) UJ o. p�X E�-� `E +' [r �� E� U' c m m � ;� m C • o ny •_,. ;� a m m�' � z � t� F1°- � m c c¢ _ a�i a�i � ��. �io m '� �. rn� R i;d o m a�ci m cn m � m:° ;-p a> E�=�° m E E o c�,a �° E o m E`n � `c - o '� ,v_ ,v_ i..� a V 3 o ip ,v_ a� d� .c iu cv c� o� F-. E� ��.c :� �,n �n =•ca O •x.n .c ` > >.o � > >.Q � o.> > o � V � � v % c=n ?= �� F�- u> V H c=n ��L n. a c�n Ta a ai � cn ¢ cn � c � `�'° 'fl 3 � v � x � j c c Z ~ Q � w J � 0 a� rn m � � 0 0 N � f � �� C m a. C N � > O G. � � .Q � U �' �� C � � C j O n oa Q � C N �J � � C O � � `o. a E O O O O O O O O O � � N � `- � � � � � � � 0 � O O O O � O O � � � � � aD O V ff! b4 Ei3 r � � � � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 O O � N O O N N t��. n �� i» � � ��ci � � � O O O O O O O 0 � O O O d O � C? O � 0 � C�D C�O O O oOD- O d� d' � 69 H3 ffl' d3 N t*') fA �' ({} Vi �' O O O O O O O � � � b p O O O O O Q O O O O O � 00 � � Q � p O O��[O O? � O � � � � � K3 ffl � EH .�' � (rJ N � EA. Eh} �' di O f�T � 'D N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O` O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O�' I� T �Y �Y QJ � Oi M M I� h N N �� ~ Ef} � N EH d' m EfT ti� O�' �, e~�- EPr � N � �� ffl Ef} E9 � tA V � 'o a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� O O O O O� C O O O O p C ifl v3 oD i» � 6'- rn� � � fg 69 m � 'O � LL rn c � rn .J M O m �N fn tN�y � N O W C O 0. C � 0 tn c m �� c'� > -a�i � � c o•� �* �� 0 0� c� m p °� 2'in m > m � Y n. u�_-. m r •� � �n v 'a % m � � c _ a� .c o � � � � _ =�- ��S � a ° �� u�i� `�° c� �Q i :o :o rna+� ��mQ QU�.�Oc � .a o ��,�'i �� M a� c � m N� � w U � U c� 0 �'� �°�°o� = vTv c Qin vi ov ��,i �� m a� T T>. m m o� m m°� f0 c� �° �' m m ro I Cj �$, rn w 3 3 3� � � m c c> n �� E � � U �� m°� m m�� o� W m�� m� �� m o o�o Q� i c¢=d�a�cncn �w[r��cn o-mmc�LL��c .T J � �n LL O O O O 0 � va O O O O � N � m N Q O) C 'O E �� • m m ,� h o Z � � d � o 0 c `� � o � c o N � �fA � � � � � � � :.. ..�-. C C Q '(� C � @ � a �i c � € � 0 0� m m N o a; �'s � �C��. 0 aCi `� ro c � e- K � � � ro Q W �u a� ro '.-�'w--� @ cn in ,� v� °' � �'S 2.' o � � � � o ro V ' � 'o Y m� W m rn m o °.�vatn Yv� �� Q Q j LL f� m m .� Q-' � O C7 N � (tY � �n 0 0 N rn T T � � R n. ,� C d � 6f � 0 a E 'm � .� co U vl � u �) N C71 �I' w C � 11Y t`� � L �I � � N.....�,. oa a 8 C N d N O O O �� N O. n. � O � O 0 �r�j O � � Et} 64 G1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N o s�s i�r � � 0 0 0 0 O O O � I`� � �? � O O O O t'�7 a�O V' t� t) (D N � � � ft3 p O O � O O O � O O O � � N � � b9 O FfT 0 0 0 0 O � � � � O O O O O t^ � � O O O O O M � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N � O � � 0 0 0 0 O O N O 0o ai � � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o u� O N O 0� CO E9 � 0 0 0 0 0 ti N M H3 0 0 O O � N � � � 0 0 0 0 u� N � � � N N � � C � N N @ .0 � E c a d c � o � m � � y � l4 f0 C� O(t1 C � n. � o� o � E c m E € � o� o.a € o ax € � Lu o rn c I� �- � � o� a� r cv � I- �. � �,� � T N U 4- N G�'� y Ln C tU C.G p C 'C -�� ro'O � R T N� N�� O� d � o. m� a � m� E �� p pL., c�.� 'o �+ .°�o +.+ � ��-� E �"w >,�.°c o� � o E�� c � F" `s m � � �.nUU" c mC� � �`o� � rp '� � J C � � � C` !— � T C�.. J O7 V� cb i� ... ��L c4 a€ � m v� c° �° � o � v� c� o €� ns o�. o o� � 0 3� � c Y rn'a �rn .ci °� � c c � sa c> t- ��. o� ro.� }- o � m� m� �" n. m o c� � � `=tnC�Qt-�n mC�1=mUmtn �Q=UVu� i � .G a`� � ... 1 0 Ll. .p .Li � C 1 NG = C C � . N = _I '� F- 8 � O V 0 N O N � 0 0 N � 0 � Q Q m H � � C Q �n � 0 u� a� m n. � O N rn N T 2006 Capital Improvement Program Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport November, 2005 Runway 17/35 Program $5,000,000 Taxiwav M Extension This project provides for the extension of Taxiway M to the south approximately 2,100 feet to connect with Taxiway S to provide an alternative taxi route for Runway 17 departures for the Lindbergh Terminal during low visibility conditions. Runway 17/35 Property Acquisition $8,000,000 During 2006, there will be a continuation of the acquisition of single family residences and apartment cornplexes located in Bloomington south and east of the Mall of America. Costs for the land acquisition will be determined based on appraisals and negotiations with the impacted property owners. Noise Mitigation Program $7,000,000 Multi familv Sound Insulation (Inside 2007 65 DNL) This series of projects will complete the sound insulation of 575 multi-family units within the 200� 65 DNL contour. Trinitv School $7,000,000 MAC staff is currently working with Trinity School to. either proceed with a noise insulation project or relocate the school operations to a new site. Taxiway C/D Complex Construction $5,000,000 Taxiwav C/D Complex This project is the second phase of a multi-phase program to reconstruct and reconfigure Taxiways C and ij D between Runway 12U30R and Runway 12R/30L. This project provides for the construction of Taxiways ' B and H between Runway 4/22 and Taxiway C and the construction of Taxiway M6 between Runway 4/22 and Taxiway M. Airfiieici Refna�iilitation Program $500,000 Airside Bituminous Rehabilitation An ongoing program to construct or reconstruct bituminous pavements within the Air Operations Area. Inspection of the overlays on Runways 12R/30L, 12L/30R and the tunnel service road will be made in the spring of 2006 to determine whether or not a bituminous repair project is required. Environmental Rehabilitation Program $500,000 S�illway 040 Repairs The existing storm water retention pond (040 outfall) loceted under the Highway 494 bridge has been damaged by heavy rainfalls. The existing spillway suffered major erosion and requires reconstruction. This project will include the placement of concrete gabions, sheet piling, heavy soils and or riprap to stabilize the spillway and protect it from pond overfilows and frequent river flood flows that have underrnined the spillway integrity. Automatic Gate Eontrols for Retention Ponds $800,000 This project provides for the installation of a remote control closure gate for both MSP Ponds #3 and #4 that are included in the MACs stipulation agreement with the. MPCA.. Lindbergh Terminal Rehabilitation & Development Program $500,000 Lindberqh Terminal Baq Claim/Make-Up Area A project to provide for miscellaneous improvements to the bag claim and bag make-up area. , Landside Rehabilitation & Repair Program �400,000 1 ) Landside Pavement Rehabilitation " An ongoing program to reconstruct the airport's roadways and parking lots. A specific project has not been identified at this time. Pavements wilf be evaluated in the spring of 2006 to determine whether a pavement repair project is needed. 12/19/05 ( l' and water main occurs. The utilities will be installed adjacent to the taxilanes, but it is anticipated that construction operations may damage the existing pavements. This project will also include crack repair on the runway and north parallel taxiway as well as pavement reconstruction of the airport access roed and pavement adjacent to the maintenance building. Anoka County — Blaine Buildinq Area Development — Northwest $5,070,000* This project provides for the construction of taxiways, connectors a new Fixed Base Operator (FBO) apron infiltration basins for storm water and a water rnain loop from the new building area to the air traffic control t�wer. The construction of the access road from Radisson Road to the building area and the installation of sanitary sewer and water main for the building area will be completed by Anoka County and/or the developer. Wetland Mitiqation $330,000* This project includes the second payment to the Rehbein Company for wetland credits in the Rice Creek Watershed District. These credits cover Wetland Conservation Act and DNR regulated wetland impacts from the east-west runway extension and Xylite Street relocation. *Funding to be provided by the Anoka County parknership. Crystal Obstruction Removals $300,000 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. Lake Elmo Pavement Rehabilitation $100,000 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 first phase in the reconstruction of the northeast end of Taxiway 4/22, the compass pad and any necessary ai�eld or building area pavement crack repairs. St. Paul Flood Protection Dike $6,800,000 * This year's project provides for the construction of a flood control perimeter dike at the St. Paul Downtown Airport including sheetpile walls, earthen berms and temporary deployment walls, storm water management and subgrade improvements. Also included in this project is compensatory riverbank excavation and airfield improvements including modifications to taxiways (primarily A and E) and runways. *Funding for this project will be provided by others. Joint 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 strength and pavement life. This year's project will include joint and crack sealing of Runway 13/31 and numerous taxiways. MAC Buildinq Modifications $200,000 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. This budget also includes a$100,000 carry over from 2005 that was not committed. Runway Safety Area $1,900,000 This project con�ists of improvements to the end of all runway safety areas to meet current FAA requirements. This year's project will include shortening of Runways 13/31, 14132 and 9/27. This project must be completed in 2006 as a result of impacts from the perimeter dike compensatory excavation �' � phasing. This project includes runway re-striping, runway light replacement, relocation of runway end _- lights, replacement and relocation of approach lights (VASIs to PAPIs) and relocation of Taxiway D at the Runway 9 end. 12/19/OS MSP Fuel Consortium Modifications $325,000 The MSP Fuel Consortium operates the airline fuel system that was installed by the MAC. The Consortium has requested that upgrades to the system are required over the next several years. Projects that have been requested include upgrades to the emergency fuel shutoff system (EFSO), paving of the area surrounding the fuei pumps at the tank farm on Post Road (requested by the MPCA), the addition of two low point drain pits at Concourse F to alieviate relieve the accumulation of water in the system and the removal of abandoned fuel pits and piping on Concourse G that are still connected to active fuel mains. Several of these projects were completed in 2005 and the remaining projects scheduled for 2006. The Fuel Consortium will reimburse MAC for these costs. Lindberqh TermiMal Food Court Remodelinq $900,000 This project provides for the remodeling of the common areas of the food courts located on Concourses A, C, E, and F as well as in the North Star Crossing. Fuel Farm Lease Extinquishment $4,600,000 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. Humphrev Fuel Facilitv Relocation $4,500,000 This project will provide for the demolition of the Humphrey fuel farm and construction of replacement load islands for Jet-A, diesel and unleaded fuel adjacent to the north end of the Humphrey remate apron. Completion of this project will provide for reduced operating expenses of the fuel hydrant system by the MSP Fuel Committee. 2020 Development Program Humphrev Termina) Expansion $75,000,000 The Humphrey Terminal will be expanded from 10 gates to 22 gates over a three-year period. The expansiori will 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 $14,800,000 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. 12/19/OS 2007 Capital Improvement Prog�am Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport November, 2005 Runway 4/22 Development Program North Side Storm Sewer $3,700,000 This project inciudes 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 DNR for property needed #o accomrnodate the pond expansion. Noise Mitigation Program Residential Sound Insulation (60-64 2007 DNL) Pilot $3,000,000 There wiil be a series of projects to provide noise mitigation for single family residential houses within the certified 2007 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 homeowners would be subject to a copay based on the following percentages: 64 DNL — 10%. 63DNL — 20%, 62 DNL — 30%, 61 DNL — 40%, 60DNL — 50%. Prior to proceeding with this program, a pilot program will be rolled out. The pilot program will be used to help determine manageable producfion goals for the program and to help determine out year project budgets Taxiway C/D Complex Construction Taxiwav C/D Complex $11,000,000 This project is the third phase of a multi-phase program to reconstruct and reconfigure Taxiways C and D between Runway 12V30R and Runway 12R/30L. This project provides for the reconstruction of segments of Taxiways C and D and associated crossover taxiways. Airfield Rehabilitation Program ;- , Airside Bituminous Rehabilitation $500,000 � ) An ongoing program to construct or reconstruct bituminous pavements within the Air Operations Area. � Inspection of the overlays on Runways 12R/30L, 12L/30R and other airside pavements will be made in the spring of 2007 to determine whether or not a bituminous repair project is required. Pavement Rehabilitation — Aprons $6,800,000 An ongoing program to replace sections of concrete pavement in the ai�craft operational areas that have deteriorated to a point where maintenance is no longer a viable option. This year's project will provide for the reconstruction of apron pavement between and including gates D1 and D6 and C1. This project also includes pavement joint sealing and area repair at Gates C2 to C8. Runway Rehabilitation Program Pavement Rehabilitation — Runwav 12R/30L Seq. 2 $16,000,000 This project provides for the reconstruction of the section of Runway 12R/30L located beiween Runway 4/22 and Taxiway A4. Reconstruction of three separate segments has been completed in previous years with Segment 2 being the final section of pavement requiring reconstruction. �indbergh Terminal Rehabilitation & Development Program Commercial Roadway Baq Belt $1,000,000 There are currently discussions taking place on how to better utilize the east upper level roadway to alleviate traffic congestion on the upper level roadway adjacent to the terminal. One issue that must be resolved is the movement of baggage from the east roadway to the terminal bag make-up area. A project to provide the required bag belt and sortation facility is being considered. International Arrivals Facility $200,000 This project provides for improvements to the International Arrivals Facility as required. �'" , Lindberqh Terminal Baq Claim/Make-Up Area $1,400,000 ____ This project provides for improvements to the bag claim/make-up area including providing facilities for handling over sized bags. 12/19/OS 6 *Historicaily, projects have been defined for each of these six categories. With reduced dollars 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. Reliever Airport Program Airlake North Buildinq Area Allevwav Rehabilitation $300,000 An ongoing program to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, taxiways, aprons) th�ough bituminous overlays, seal coats, or in some instances, reconstruction, to restore the surfaces to a smooth, even condition and improve o�erall operating conditions. This year's project will include the second phase in the rehabilitation of the pavements in the Northeast Building Area after installation of the sanitary sewer and water main occurs. The utilities will be installed adjecent to the taxilanes, but it is anticipated that construction operations may damage the existing pavements. This project will also include crack repair on the runway South Buildinq Area Development $2,700,000 This project is the second phase in the program to develop a new South Building 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 225`h Street to connect to Cedar Avenue is also included in this project. Anoka County — Blaine Buildinq Area Development — Xylite. St. Relocation $9Q0,000 * Xylite Street must be relocated prior to the development of the East Annex building area. As the pavement is severely deteriorated, the City of Blaine has requested that this project be completed as soon as possible. This project includes the relocation of Xylite Street including the installation of curb and gutter and const�uction of a landscaping berm. --- , 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 Taxiway C, connectors E1 and E2 to Runway 18/36 and crack sealing in the west annex and west, east and south building areas. Runwav 18/36 Liqhtinq Upqrade $250,000 Tests of �the runway lighting wiring have indicated that the wiring has deteriorated to the point that replacement is required. Crystal AllevwaV 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 the surfaces to a smooth, even condition and improve 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. 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 pavement sections of Taxiways A and E that are close to failure. Flying Cloud A{leywaV Rehabilitation $300,000 An ongoing program to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, taxiways, aprons) through ( ) bituminous overlays, seal coats, or in some insiances, reconstruction, to restore the surfaces to a smooth, - even condition and improve overall operating conditions. This year's project will include the reconstruction 12/19/OS Taxiway D at the Runway 9 end. This work is being done to coincide with the impacts from the perimeter dike project. _. �'�� '� Pavement Rehabilitation $400,000 An ongoing program to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, taxiways, aprons) through bituminous overlays, seal coats, o� 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 rehabilitation of the apron area in front of the terminal building including any necessary subgrade work. Reliever Airports Utility Extension Program Flying Cloud Sanitarv Sewer/Water Main Extensions $3,400,000 In accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement with the City of Eden Prairie and the requirement 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 not or cannot connect to the new utilities (many are in a non-service area) and a plane wash facility. Miscellaneous Field and Runway Program Apron/GSE Liahtina Upqrade $500,000 This project will provide for the upgrading of the pole and building mounted light fixtures that serve the apron areas adjacent to the Lindbergh Terminal complex. This project is the first phase in a iwo-year program to provide the upgraded lighting system. Miscellaneous Construction $400,000 An ongoing program to consolidate various incidental items beyond the capabilities of the maintenance personnel, projects too small to be accomplished independently or to handle airside problems requiring repair which come up unexpectedly. Miscellaneous Landside Program Central Alarm/Monitorinq Svstem/Fiber Optic Cable Installation $250,OQ0 This project will provide a centralized monitoring system consolidating data and alarms from several facility systems into a higher level acquisition and alarm display system. Previous projects have already installed a fiber optic backbone and associated communication hub rooms throughout the Lindbergh Terminal and between the Lindbergh and Humphrey Terminals and have relocated the Lindbergh Terminal's main communications infrastructure room and a data transport system. This is a continuation of the program that started in 2003. Humphrev Parkinq Structure Expansion $11,000,000 This project provides for the expansion of the Humphrey Parking Structure to provide an additional 4,550 parking spaces. The existing parking structures continue to fill up on a regular basis and additional parking will be required ahead of the expansion of the Humphrey Terminal under Phase 1 of the 2020 Development Plan. MAC Carqo Buildinqs — Air Freiqht FacilitV $1,900,000 In conjunction with the construction of Runway 17/35, new building areas will be developed. The MAC will construct two cargo buildings that will be leased out to airport tenants. This project will provide for the construction of an air freight facility including all required aircraft apron and auto/truck parking areas to accommodate non-anchor carrier cargo activity as well as for cargo operators who operate to and from MSP on an infrequent basis. This is the second phase in the construction of the facility. MAC Carqo Buildinqs — Airline BeIIY Carqo Facility $3,600,OOQ Previously, a majority of MSP's airline belly-cargo was accommodated within a 36,000 SF multi-tenant facility owned by Standard Air Cargo. This facility was removed to accommodate the construction of the Humphrey Terminal. Currentty, there are no other existing facilities at MSP that can be used for the ( ) required belly cargo operations. This project provides for the construction of a new facility that can be leased to airport tenants. 12/19/05 10 VMS Hiqhwav Siqns $650,000 Landside Operations has requested that two variable message signs (VMS) be installed along the highway system that would provide travelers with information on parking at the airport. Upper Level Canopy Liqhtinq Upqrade $1,200,000 The lighting level on the upper levei under the canopy in front of the Lindbergh is in need of upgrading. A pilot project was completed in 2005 that resulted in acceptable lighting level increases. This project would expand the pilot project to the remainder of the canopy system. Runwav 30R MALSF $1,500,000 This project provides for the installation of a Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with Flashers (MALSF) in the approach to Runway 30R. The approach lighting system consists of 45 steady burning lights and 3 flashing lights spaced along the extended runway centerline from the runway threshold to a distance of 1,400 feet beyond the threshold. This installation will enhance safety for aircraft approaching Runway 30R. Airport Lane/34th Avenue Access Reconfiguration $800,000 This access from 34 Avenue and Airport �ane does not meet current traffic engineering standards. This project will realign the access to conform to standards for similar types of intersections. 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. 2020 Development Program Humphrev Terminal Expansion $100,000,000 Tlie Humphrey Terminal will be expanded from 10 gates to 22 gates over a three-year period. The expansion will 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. Skvwav $4,000,000 This project provides for the construction of a skyway beiween the expanded Humphrey Terminal and the new Humphrey Parking Structure. Graund Transportation Improvements $1,000,000 This project provides for the construction of ground transportation facilities including taxi starter and queuing, limo and van facilities and facilities for other commercial vehicles. Auto Rental Facilities $3,200,000 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) fecility to serve vehicles at the Humphrey Terminal. Lindberqh Terminal Curbside Check In Expansion $2,500,000 This project pravides for expanding the curbside check in counters and belts to the full length of the ticketing level curbside at the Lindbergh Terminal. Baq Sortation Device Removal $800,000 This project provides for the removal of the bag sortation devices in the Lindbergh Terminal vacated when the non-Sky Team airlines move to the Humphrey Terminal. 12/19/OS 12 ^'E y S�y �,Y :�� ,f f' � 3 1�. `� � � t'?,� ��i �,�€ �:�`� 6 �`` ` $,e �� 5' F"� �'', . ", ti :,� i^.'^ � � �� PP+ �s s4rtir 22 t 9G � ! � �_ � z m t. t N p � N O b � O'T �y. 'f" G� 9� 41RPOaty December 20, 2005 Minneapolis-Saint Paul Iniernational Airport 6040 - 28th Avenue South � Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799 Phone(612)726-8100 Jim Danielson, Administrator City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118-4106 RE: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION MAC CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, 2006-2012 Dear Mr. Danielson: On December 14, 2005, the Metropolitan Airports Commission concluded that, based upon the Assessment of Environmental Effects (AOEE) prepared for the Seven-Year Capital Improvement Program for Minneapolis-St. Paul Internationai Airport, and including Phases 1 and 2 of the MSP 2020 Development Program as presented in the 2015 Terminal Expansion Project EA, potential for adverse effects as a result of the projects has been adequately identified. Assessments of Environmental Effects for St. Paul Downtown, Flying Cloud, Crystal, Anoka County-Blaine, Lake Elmo, and Airlake airports were not prepared since the Capital Improvement Program and Plan has not changed from the previous year or the changes have only trivial environmental effects. The Commission also concluded that the potentially significant environmental effects of the 2015 Terminal Expansion Project have been addressed and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not needed. The Metropolitan Airports Commission held a public hearing on November 9, 2005, regarding the MSP AOEE and the 2015 Terminal Expansion Project EA. The public record remained open until 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 23, 2005. Six letters were received to the record regarding the AOEE for MSP. No comment letters were received regarding the EA. Enclosed is the "Hearing Officer's Report" along with the "Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendation" for the MSP AOEE and the EA. Copies of the comment letters and responses are included in Appendix A to the Hearing Officer's Report. The Commission recommendation was that no fu�ther enviranmental review is warranted at this time in regards to the MSP AOEE and the EA. Sincer obert J. Vorpahl, P. . Program Development Engineer Irk enclosure cc: Nigel Finney Denny Probst Gary Warren CIP File FD&E packet file Day File The Metropolitan Airports Commission is an affirmative acrion employer. www.mspairport.com Reliever Airports: ALRT.AKE ° ANOKA COUNT'Y/BLAINE ° CRYSTAL ° FL1'IIVG CLOUD ° LAKE ELMO ° SAINT PAUL DOWNTOWN C �� HEARING OFFICER'S REPORT ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE METROPOLITAN AIRl'ORTS COMIVIISSION 2006-2012 SEVEN-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGR.AM AN�7 2015 TERMINAL EXPANSION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT A public hearing was held on Wednesday, November 9, 2005 in Room 3040, Mezzanine Level, Lindbergh Terminal beginriing at 10:10 a.m. The purposes of this public hearing were to receive testimony regarding the Assessment of Environmental Effects of all projects in the Metropolitan Airports Commission's seven-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) froxn. 2006 through 2012 at the Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport (MSP), and to receive testimony on the 2015 Terminal Expansion Project Environmental Assessment (EA) that assesses Phases 1 and 2 of the MSP 2020 Development Program. This hearing was held pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 1988, Chapter 664, which requires the MA.0 to prepare an Assessment of Environmental Effects of all projects at each MAC airport in the Commission's seven-year CIP. The statute also requires MAC to prepare Environmental Assessment Worksheets (EAWs) in accordance with the Environmental Quality Board rules for projects in the CIP that meet the conditions prescribed in the siatute, and to hold a public hearing. An Assessment of the Environmental Effects for all projects in the proposed 2006-2012 CIP at MSP has been prepared and available for public review since October 24, 2005. One project, Phases 1 and 2of the 2020 Development Program, requires the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Minnesota Rules allow a Federal Environmental Assessment to substitute for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. A 2015 Terminal Expansion Project Environmental Assessment (EA) that includes Phases 1 and 2 of the 2020 Development Program has been prepared and available for public review since October 24, 2005. Assessments of ei�.vironmental effects for the St. Paul Downtown, Flying Cloud, Crystal, Anoka County-Blaine, Lake Elmo and Airlake Airports were not prepared since their Capital Improvement Programs have not changed from previous years or the changes will have minimal environmental effects. Repzesenting the Commission at the hearing were Committee Chair Tammy McGee, Commission Chair Vicki Tigwell, Committee Vice Chair Bert McKasy, Commissioners Daniel Boivin, Dick Long, Molly Sigel, Paul Rehkamp, Mike Landy and John Williams. Following introductory statements presented by Chair McGee, comments from the public were invited. One person made oral comments at the hearing and six letters were submitted providing comments regarding the AOEE by the deadline of November 23, 2005. Written comments received on the AOEE and responses are presented in Appendix A. A court stenographer prepared a transcript of the public hearing, which is attached as Appendix B. Written comments received on tlie 2015 Terminal Expansion Proj ect EA and responses are presented in Appendix C. 1 ASSESSMENT OF ENVII20N1VIENTAL EFFECTS � OF TIiE METROPOLITAN .AIRPORTS COP�IMISSION 2006-2012 SEVEN-YEAR. CAPITAL IlVIPROVEMENT PROG][2AM AND 2015 TEI2MINAL EXPANSION PROJECT ENV1�.2.ONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 1 , � , , . ;� • � � 1 � • �, I► Background In October 2005 the Metropolitan Airports Commission completed an Assessment of th.e Environmental Effects (AOEE) of all the projects at MSP that are included in the MAC seven-year capital improvement program and p1an. The AOEE was prepared in response to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes 1988, Chapter 664. Concerning the Assessment of Environmental Effects, the Statutes state the following: "The commission shall• prepare an assessment of the environmental effects of projects in the commission's seven-year capital improvement program and plan at each airport owned and operated by the commission. The assessment must exarnine the cumulative environmental efFects at each airport of the projects at that a.irport, considered collectively. The commission need not prepare an � assessrnent for an airport when the capital improvement program and plan for that airport has not changed from the one ad'opted the previous year or when the changes in the program and plan will have on.ly trivial environmental effects." The law also states that the "comrnission sha11 prepare environmental assessment worksheets...(for) those projecis in the program for the airport that rneet all of the following conditions: (1) the project is scheduled in the program for the succeeding calendar period; (2) the project is scheduled in the program for fihe expendiiure of $5,000,000 or more at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport or $2,000,000 or more at any other airport... and (3) the project involves (i) the construction of a new or expanded structure for handling passengers, cargo, vehicles, or aircraft; or (ii) the construction of a new or the extension of an existing runway or ta�ciway." One CIl' project, Phases 1 and 2 of the2020 Development Prograrn, scheduled to begin in 2006 required the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAV�. Notice of the AOEE and 2015 Terminal Expansion Project EA hearing was circulated consistent with Mii�nesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) requirements. Availability of the AOEE and 2015 Terminal Expansion Project EA was published in the October 24, 2005 EOB Monitor the Minneapolis Star Tribune and the St. Pau1 Pioneer Press and copies of the MSP AOEE and EA have been available for public review at the Metropolitan .Airports Commi.ssion offices. . One person made oral cornments and submitted written comments regarding the AOEE. The hearing record remained open until November 23, 2005. Written comments received on the AOEE and � 2 responses are presented in Appendix A. Written comments received on the 2015 Terminal Expansion Project EA and responses are presented in Appendix C. Findin�s of Fact l. AOEE. All projects in the MSP 2006-2012 CIl' except those in the 2020 Development Program are part of the MSP 2010 Long-Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP). The cumulative environmental effects of the MSP 2010 LTCP were assessed in the Final EIS of the Dual Track Airport Planning Process that was determined adequate by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) on November 18, 1998. - The 2006-2012 CIl' projects in the 2020 Development Program were assessed for their environmental effects in the 2015 Terinirlal Expansion Project EA that includes Phases 1 and 2 of the MSP 2020 Development Program. Since the completion of the Dual Track Final EIS in 1998, several CIP projects at MSP have required the preparation of an EAW or substitute EA. An assessment of the cumulative effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects was included in each of these documents, which incorporated any changes in the environmental effects disclosed in the 1998 Dual Track Final EIS that would be cumulative with the environmental effects of the project an the EAW or EA document. The EA for the 2015 Terminal Expansion Project included an update of the forecast of operations based on the 2010 LTCP in the Dual Track Final EIS, an update of parking spaces and an update of impervious surface area, storage ponds, groundwater monitori.ng and wastewater discharges. Therefore, the EA assessed the cumulative effects of noise, air quality, parking and water quality for all projects in the 2010 LTCP and those projects planned for the year 2015 at MSP. No significant environmental effects were determined. Assessments of environmental effects for the St. Paul Downtown, Flying C1oud, Crystal, Anoka County-Blaine, Lake Elmo and Airlake Airports were not prepared since their Capital Improvement Programs have not changed from previous years or the changes will have only trivial environmental effects 2. 2015 Terminal Expausion Project (the Project). In deciding wheiher the Project has the potential to result in significant environmental effects, MAC applied the following four criteria as set forth in Minnesota Rules part 4410.1700, subp. 7. a) Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects The EA identifies the environmental effects of the Proj ect. The iype and extent of the known effects are not considered significant compared to the no action alternative. b) Cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects 3 There are no known future projects by 2015 that would have potential effects that would be � cumulaiive with the effects of the Project. Phase 3 of the 2020 Developrnent Prograrn will have effects cumulative with the effects of the Project; however, Phase`3 has not been planned. Phase 3 will be subjected to environmental review when it has been prepared and proposed for implementation. c) The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority The environmental effects are subject to mitigation by a public regulatory authority. d) The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated an.d controlled as a result of other available environrnenial studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EIS's. The Dual Track Final EIS, the Environmental Assessment for the Implernentation of a Departure Procedure off of Runway 17, an.d the Part 150 Update were utilized in the assessment of environmental effects. No other applicable environrnental siudies are available. Record of ]E'indings Supporting the Decision The fndings include revisions to the Draft EA and responses to comments received, which are presented in Appendix C. � � �' Revisions to Draft EA SECTION I.A. BACKGROUND Insert the following paragraph after the second paragraph: "Implementation of the MSP 2010 LTCP is essentially complete. Aviation demand has overtaken the development process and the proposal is to expand the passenger tertninals to meet 2015 forecasted needs. Rather than amend the 2010 LTCP, a new ten-year development plan that starts in 2006 is proposed. The previously adopted 2020 Concept plan is eliminated as ari alternative in this EA." SECTION I.C.. PROPOSED PROJECT (new text is shown in italics) The proposed project consisfis of Phases 1 and 2 of the 2020 Development Plan far MSP and is shown in Figuare 3. PHASE 1 Humphrey Terminal Expansion Construction of 12 additional gates and .... � I ' Phase 1 is shown in Figure 4. (attached) PHASE 2 Humphrey Terminal Expansion — Construction of � aclditional gates and associated facilities. — Construct approximately 2,450 additional parking ramp spaces. Lindbergh Terminal Expansion — Demolition of NWA Maintenance Hangar B; elimination of 2 gates on Concourse G; the corzstruction of Concourse H with 18 airline gates, and the addition of 2 regional jet gates on Concourse C. SECTION I.D. Add the GOVERNMENTAL APPROVALS to the table on �pa�e 8. Activity Review of Modifications to Hydrant Fueling System under Aboveground Storage Tank (AST) Major Facility Pernzit SECTION II. ALTERNATNES Unit of Government �. . Action Required Approval Add the following to the first paragraph. "The no action alternative is not a"do nothing" alternative. It includes comrnitted projects that were in the 2005-2011 CIP adopted by MAC prior to the adjustment for Phase 1 of the proposed project (see discussion in Section I.A, Background) provided that they have received environmental approval frozn the FAA (e.g., all projects in the approved 2010 LTCP) or are categorically excluded from formal environmental assessment by the FA.A and the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB). The no aciion alternative also includes methods to accommodate the forecast passenger and operations demand without expansion of the number of gates at the Lindbergh and Humphrey Terminals." SECTION IV.A. AIR QUALITY Add the following paragraph after Table A-7 on page 17: "The cumulative impact of the no action altemative would be 6,257.54 tons of CO less than the existing condition (Tables A-3, A-6 and A-7) and the proposed project would be 936.05 tons of CO less than no action (Tables A-6 and A-7)." SECTION N.C. COMPATIBLE LAND USE Add the following on page 23. C "Mitigation MAC has a Sound Insulation Prograrn (SIP) that provides a 5-decibel reduction package to homeowners in the 65-75 DNL contour. Thus far, 7,690 single family homes, 752 multi-family units and 17 schools within the 1996 DNL 65 contour have been provided with the package and 410 properties acquired — at a total cosi of approxirnately $338 rnillion. The 2007 DNL 65 contot�r in the Part 150 Update iracludes 165 additional single family homes, 461 additional multi-family units and 1 school that are in the process of insulation at a cost of approximately $20 million." SECTION IV.D. CONSTRUCTION The first paragraph is not relevant to the Project and is deleted. SECTION N.J. HISTORICAL RESOUR.CES Replace the second paragraph on page 26 with the following: "The .Area of Potential Effect (APE) is the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may cause changes in �the character or use of historic properties. The APE for potential noise effects is defined as the azea within the 65+ DNL contour of the proposed project and no action alternative. The APE defined by the Programmatic Agreernent for the MSP Long-term ( Comprehensive Plan included effects other than noise (e.g., induced socioeconomic impacts, land use impacts) related to the aarport. These are more difficult to identify and assess. MAC has retained a consultant to work wiih SHPO, the FAA, representatives from comrnunities in the vicinity of the airpprt, and other parties as needed to determine if there are additional impacts that are aifecting historic resources. If additional areas must be considered, the consultant will evaluate these ilnpacts and submit a report to the State Hisioric Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the FAA with findings and recommendations." Add "Oheyawahi (Pilot Knob) Historic Site" to the properties in the APE mentioned in the third paragraph on page 26. Insert the following paragraph after the fourth paragraph on page 26: "A stipulation in the Programmatic Agreement for the MSP Long-term Comprehensive Plan called for a supplemental study of historic and architectural resources in 2005, as well as an evaluation of new resources that fall within revised noise contours. Recent reports for MAC's Pa.rt 150 Sound Insulation Program (SIP) have evaluated much of the revised noise contour. MA.0 has retained a consultant to consider the remaining revised Area of Potential Effects (.APE), as well as property types not addressed by the SIP reports. That study is currently underway, and the resulting report will be distributed to SHPO and the FAA when it is completed. � ' 0 Figure J-1 (attached) has been revised." SECTION N.P. SURFACE TRAFFIC Middle of third paragraph, revise sentence to include the underlined text as follows: The traffic projections for the no action alternative and the proposed project were used as received from the Metropolitan Council on Ma,y 13, 2005 to estim.ate projected tui�ing movements. Replace pages 35 and 36 with the following: "Impacts and Potential Mitigation Measures The proposed project would change traffic patterns on the surrounding roadway network, �which is primarily due io a redistribution of traffic from the Lindbergh Terminal to the Humphrey Terminal. There are 14 roadway segments on the surrounding roadway network that were included in the analysis. Seven roadway links operate at an unacceptable LOS under 2005 existing conditions. Two additional roadway segments change to unacceptable LOS in the 2015 no action alternative. This degradation refJects the impacts of increased traffic associated with background traffic growth. Traffic conditions for the proposed project are anticipated to be similar to the 2015 no action conditions. Under both 2015 no action and proposed project conditions, the same number of individual roadway segments are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS. There are 2 segments that are projected to experience a change in LOS when comparing 2015 no action and proposed project conditions. Both changes refleci anticipated improvements to the LOS values. In sumznary, the proposed project has insignificant impacts on the surrounding roadway network. The proposed project would also result in different i;urning movement volumes and therefore � traffic conditions along 34t�' Avenue South. The only location where an unsatisfactory LOS is anticipated for the 2015 proposed project is at the I-494/34�` Avenue South Interchange. I-494 Interchan�e Under the 2005 existing, no action alternative and proposed project, there currently are, and would continue to be, individual traffic movements that operate at an undesirable LOS at the I- 494/34th Avenue South Interchange. This assumes current lane geometry and signal operations remain in place. At the intersection approaches to the interchange, the number of individual traffic movements that operate, or are projected to operate, at an unacceptable LOS are — 4 under 2005 existing, 4 under no action and 5 under proposed project conditions. MnlDOT owns and maintains the I-494 Interchange. Multiple entities have an interest in the LRT and vehicular operations at this interchange including: Metro Transit, which operates the LRT through the interchange; Bloomington owns and maintains 34th Avenue south of I-494; and MAC owns and maintains 34th Avenue South north of I-494. The following are modifications that would improve the 2005 existing and 2015 operations of the 34th Avenue South/I-494 Interchange: 7 ( , • The signal timing modifications implemented in this analysis assume that signal preemption is still in place. A change in signal operations policy resulting in the implementation of transit priority rather than preemption would improve traffic operations at the interchange. The revised 2004 version of An Overview of Transit Priority describes preemption and priority as follows: "signal priority modifies the normal signal operation process to better accommodate transit vehicles, while preernption interrupts the norrnal process for special events." Preemption also occurs when emergency vehicles travel through a traffic signal, equipped with an emergency preemption system, while responding to an emergency call. The typical categories of signal priority treatments are passive priority, active priority, and adaptive/real-time control. • Geometric improvements to the interchange that better integrate LRT operations or remove the left-turn movements would significantly improve traffic operations at the interchange. Two potential interchange configurations that could potentially mitigate traffic operations would be a partial clover leaf or a single point urban interchange." SECTION N.T. CUMCTLATIVE EFFECTS Delete the last sentence on page 47 and insert the following paragraphs: (�, "The city of Bloomington is plasming substantial redevelopment in Bloomington's Airport South District including land along 34�' Avenue south of I-494; the cify of Richfield is planning substantial redeveloprnent along T�I 77 at 66th Sireet; and MnfDOT has prograrmned the reconshuction of the I-35W1TH 62 Crosstown Highway interchange. Effects of these developments that would be cumulative with the proposed project are — surface traffic, wastewater and water supply. The daily traffic volumes in Section N,P, Surface Traffic, on the regional highway system and 34th Avenue were prepared by the Metropolitan Council and included the socioeconomic variables agreed upon by the Council and the cities in their Cornprehensive Plans approved by the Council as of May 2005, as well as MNIDOT project development through 2015, which includes the reconstruction of the I-35W/TH 62 Crosstown Highway interchange. Planned development and redevelopment by the cities that has not been approved by the Council is not addressed. The volume of wastewater generated could be accommodated by either of two options — through the limestone tunnel interceptor or the City of Richfield sanitary line. In either case, information collected suggests there is available capacity in either system. T'he city of Minneapolis indicated they do not foresee capacity issues based on the forecasted passenger load increases (and therefore increased water supply needs)." � RECOMIVIENDATIONS 1. That the assessment of environmental effects prepared for the 2006-2012 seven-year capital improvement program (CIP), including Phases 1 and 2 of the MSP 2020 development program as presented in the 2015 Terminal Expansion Project EA, adequately assesses the cumulative environmental effects of the projects at MSP and at each reliever airport included in the CIP. 2. That the potentially significant environmental effects of the 2015 Terminal Expansion Project have been addressed and the preparation of an EIS is not needed. M:�docs\1765'7�2�06-2012 AOEE�2006-2012 Hearing Officec's Reportdoc (� � ' ;' I' ►1,1 . . � � , '�` �, � 1 ' ' ' ,�, _ . Oral Comments at the I'ublic Hearing SMAAC made the attached comments on the AOEE for the 2006-2012 CIl'. Responses to comments follow. No comments were made on the 2015 Terrninal Expansion Proj ect EA. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period The following parties submitted wzitten comments and are attached in the order listed. MA.0 responses to substantive comments follow each letter. (_ James Spensley, SMAAC City of Minneapolis City of R.ichfield City of Bloomington Minnesota Department of Transportation United States Environmental Protection Agency South N�etra .�irport �hctiari �ot�ncit � SMAAC Post Uiiice Bog 19036 1VIin�eea�a�is� l� 55419 Metropalitan Airport� Comrnissinn November g, zbv� Attention: 200� AQEE Hearing Officer(s) � 6040 — 28`� Avenue South Re: Assessment af Environrnental Eff�cts Minneapolis, MN g�4�o-2�09 0£ the Metropalitan Airports Commission 2ood� 2ox2 Capital Impravements Program Dear Cammissioner Mc�ee, Hearing (7ff'icer(s), and Mr. Vorpahl: C�n �behalf af o�r Members, ciiizens, aa�d landawners, we �sk you to finct �Ytat �everral prajects in th� aao� Cap�ttal Imprc�vemer�ts Pra►�ram ri.sk harm ta the xiatuxal e�vironment, ar adversely a:�fect �ublic health; ar nfiher�w%se contr'ibute �a nega��iv+� �wmu�,�ti�v� environmental amg�ct�s durix�g cansiruction or in ap+�ration. This Hearing is an alternati�ze, l�ut not � replacement, far tl7e usua} responsibla go�erri- menfal unit (RGU) proceeding th�t finds if ar� environmentai ass�s�ment worksheet (EAW) ar environment�al impact Statement (ErS� is, ar is not, needed for a development or chan.ge in land use. This panel is to hear te�timony and tnake determinations based on the facts in evid�nce both �ar the over�ll MS�P CIP and �ar signi�ieant ind.ividu�l p�ajeets. The MAC ought not to �inimize. our conce�s because fihat wi�i not dissuads FsAW petitions. Ernbrace the questions and order EAW's. In the 1Qng run, an �AW is simpler and more �fE'ieient than dealing wifh a petition, defending the refusal on app�al, likely accumulating negative pubIicity, and ha�ring to cvuiplete an �A.� anywa� or have another agency conduet �he EA.�. rf �n.EAW or EIS is needed, it �is �und�d by fihe project proposer. After this Hearin� and �Zased an facEs present�d to the panel by witn�sses, you state t�hE �c�sis of �ou.r. ,findin�!s. �e �ound that, because oi� pecu�iar staf�in�erpretation af the applicable laws, n� constr�uc�ion praject was proper�y d�fin�d, i.e. c�uantitatively assa.eiated with either a n�gligible o� a sigrzzf%ant environmental impact. Citizens' ri,�t�ts �fvr environmental and aih�r protec�ions v+rere unduly camplicated. 3ince self-assessments almo�t ne�ver find an 1sA�V needed, much les� an� �IS, yaur tenants are shielded fram enviranmental reviaws while th�ir bene�cial praject� are being �ncorporat�ed in t�e MA� CIP`. �n tl�is and in�ather v�a�s, yQu eanfuse mana�ert�ent and operation of this airporiY, includ%ng the praposing and funding of th�e capital prajects accaxding to the Commi�sian's yei ta �ie advpted 2oof eapz�-al huc�get, wi�h the �environmental role entruste.d to �ou as RGU (heart�� e�ami.ners). � Two of th� ac►o.6 prajects are recanstructivns of starmwater management fa�%lities that control tlooding and erosian and, i€ properl3� designec� anc� maintainad, pr. event glyco�s, aviation � iuel, c►r other chemicals from pvlluting surface �waiers off site or groundwat�r under the airport. It is urireasona�le ta find these p�ajects enviro�menfially insig�ificar�t, and it is an arti�ice to +discann�ct them from projects that reduce stormw�ter s�torage, increase runoff' r�#es, ar r�quire "c�e-vuatering;." P�ge kwo ai'two. November g, 2ao5 ( Twa ather projects involve an unspeci�ied increas� in im�ermeabl� surf�ces, apparently over �50,04o square feet, but no calculations af the effec�s on, or suit�bility of, stormwater ' management facilities is presented. Neifiher projecf is con�itioned an the applicatican for, or compliance wifih, DNR or �vatershed district permits by tk�e entity receiving the adc�itivnal run�o�f. 7'wo additional projects rnay �nvolve an increase �n imperrneable suz�'aces. .All fpur projects apparently require sxcavat�on and gossit�iy d��Fvatering; they increase fihe risk oisignificant off site environmental impact by season, by acci+dent, by elevation, and design ahd constructian details preventing ar mit�gating tk�ese risks are nofi specified in ihe project description, While the estimated cost of th�se 6 projects i� a relatively modest $�7.4 million dollars, they are physically related �o unpredicked en�vironmental dam�ge and enforcement actions. ,An �AW wotxXd quantify these risks and guide staff and contractors: Although you ar� s�fe frotn being over- turned by the full commis�ion, the courts are the �zext s�eg an�d legal it�tervention is pas�ible later, during canstruc�ion. 0 �ati-� . The AOEE Report by HI�IT'B, vve t�ink, is mr�re in keeping with the environmental review process. Ifi is more complete and less direcdve fihan fihe staff report presented last year. We thinl� 4 It.IIICOTrij?�8fi�, however, because the assessment criter�a is nQfi clearly stated, anc� gas� unplanned releases of glyco7 and avia�tion fuel(possibly associated with capital projects afi least indirect�ly) wer� agparently not assessed as a�isk of envi�ronmental harm. The HN�'B rep�rt, we b�lieve, did no� adequately address ongoing stormwater management and graund water issues. �ar ex�mple, t�e Taxiway M Extens�on may have been p�rt of pr�lim�inary plans and an�lyses during the d.ual traCk studies and LIS preparat�on. zt is doub�iui that permits ivere agplied for when thep wEre required hy watershed district or I:7�l�Fit rules, and na evidence was presented or referenced �hat'the added h'ard surfaces were taken into accvunt in pa�t or propased stormwater management d�sign �tnd engineering. In fact, the praject d�scripti_on in �.9�$ w'as so sparse that almost any engineerin� design or refinement of the project could be considered a"subs�antial" change to the projec�. � Similarly, water quality waS adversely impacted by the pasfi it�adequacy of starm sewer sgsfen-�s, and the "remote Gontral clo�u�e gafies" w� assum� are pro�osed as a r�medj� Tlii� raises the questians. CIosed againsi what �reafi to vvater qualiiy? If cicased, what volume af contarniriated storm w��eris re�ain�d and where?� �'his a�d other prp3ects. ordi��rily requiFe ra�e and va�um� control facilities and capacit� as w�Yl as water quality treatment. (� 5"� \ 1 \ ��..../�...�+ James R. Sp�nsle�, P�re�ident lrvietra�nlitau Airpozts Cammissio� Att�ntxan: AOEE, Robert J. Vorpahl 60A 0— 28�` Avenue South Soath 1VIetrQ Airpart ACtion Councii�� SMAAC � Pa�t i��Ge B6� 19036 Mina�eapc�iis, MN 55419 �Tovember 9, zaos Minx�eapolis, h�1�t 55450-2�Q9 �: Assessm�nt af ]�nviro�ment�l Effects af the Metrapoli��t Airpo,rts �ommission 2t10b-2012 Capita� Impro�vements Prngr�m D�c Ivir. \Tarpahl: Th� ai�ached clari.fi�ation of aur testimony at the Hearin,� today refer� ta prQject titl8s. in the CIP (Aug�ust �0, 2005}, ra�her than the A�-H designatc3r used. in AQ�E ((7cbober 20D5, H[NTt3) App�ndix A (prage A-1}. As noted in our staiernent taday, the si� projc�ets we reviewe�l partly overlay the eight projects HNTB reviewed. Although this might have been clarified in orar telephona convers�tian last mon,�h, or in prelimi�ary evmrb:euts to nur letter dateti 20 Qatob.er 2005, it shauld no�w be elear to th,e A4EE hearing panel. Thanlc you for i�ctuding the atta�hed testimon�y. This rover letter is not necess�ily a part of the t�s�imony. . Sinc�rely, `�/ - � �^�-_____��--�._ James R, Spensl � resideni ��utti iVietra Ai�rport Action Council � �M.AAC l��st �9�fi�e �u�c 1��36 ld�inneapolis, iV�hT 55419 Sr.11'PLEM�'NTAL TESTIMON� No�mber 9, 2a05 C� During tespntony at tlie AOEE Hearing, S,TyIAAC refe�red to six (6) p�oject descriptions in the 20(i6 �apital Inrproverraer�t Pmgram, Mirrneapolis-St, Paullnternatio�ralAirport, dated Au�ttst 30, 2005. To clarify: r�a�t T�t� Taxiwav M Ext�_sicm s�c ��t��o�n�neat supp%mental �IS. Siganificant clYanges since �irst review. maxi.�,._ wav C1D Comnlex EA'pV: Cvnslruction, not reeonsiruction, was evaluafied in a griax ETS. It is unclear how the 201 Q FEIS appliec} to this area be�t'aen exisling nuiways. 336, 7S0 square feet of imp�t^vious s�u�ace add� may be a significant change. Narth Side Strnm Sewer Spillwav 044 Rep irs �AVt�: Proje�t modiSes or replacx�'s a mt�ti-P�'P� improvement designed to mitigate environrncntal. impaets af o#her projeets and ogerations. EAW. PrQject mocli�es or replacers a mutti purpose improvement desigaed to mitigat� �nvircinm�nt�l i�np�cts of other pruj�cts �ttd apet�tions. Airside Bii�minous Glarify. A sigaificant impervious az�a is involved: damage Reh�� mg}' includ� compramises of drainage sys6ems; repairs may requirg temporary drainage or treatme�tt changes. I andside Pavement Reha�htaiion —. Inadequate Project Iyes�tiption. James R. Spet�sleY; 9 Na�ember �OE35 Clat-i�'y. A significant impervious area is involved: assesscnant is �ot possible besed on a Timcted, future, pmject plan. � ��i I.A �` � � LC � None ' Io (, . � Noue 1� Idone 1 'L.., Responses to SM'[A.AC Hearing Comments 1. An EAW has been prepared for each project that meets either the conditions specified in the AOEE statute or the threshold criteria in the EQB rules. 2. Comments noted. 3. The assessment of storm water and groundwater quality impacts presented in Section N.Q of the 2015 Termin.al Expansion Project Environmental Assessment (EA) included the existing and 2015 conditions at MSP. There are approximately 1400 acres of impervious surface at MSP. The six projects, as described in your attached "Supplemental Testimony", would constitute less than a 1% increase in impervious surface, and the ponds at MSP have been designed to accommodate their runoff. Also, MAC staff is working with MPCA staff to ensure compliance with the NPDES permit (see Item 10 Memorandum in the November 9, 2006 F, D and E Committee meeting packet). Accorcling to the AOEE statute, an EAW is not required for projects that do not involve "...construction of a new or expanded structure for handling passengers, cargo, vehicles or aircraft, or the construction of a new or the extension of an existing runway or taxiway". Therefore, 4 of the 6 attached proj ects do not meet the EAW conditions in the statute. MAC is unaware of any significant change to the Taxiway M Extension that would have a significant effect on the environment. As stated above, the additional impervious surface from the Taxiway C!D Complex has been planned for. 4. The assessment criteria are presented on page 2 of the October 2005 AOEE report. Regarding past glycol and fuel releases, MAC staff is working with MPCA staff as discussed in the Item 10 Memorandum in the November 9, 2006 F, D and E Committee meeting packet. 5. The FEIS evaluated storm water runoff volumes based on the MSP 2010 LTCP that included the construction of Runway 17/35 and associated taxiways. The full development of Taxiway M was included in both the FEIS .(Figure 8) and ROD (Figure 1). The LTCP also included enhanced storm water detention basins or ponds. The ponds were sized to treat run-off according to NURP-equivalent performance standards from both the existing and anticipated (2010 and 2020 planning horizons) pavements in the Minnesota River South watershed of the airport. Therefore, the Taxiway M extension was part of the initial plarming process and engineering design calculations considered storm water runoff from the entire 2010 LTCP in developing the detention basins. All necessary permits and approvals were obtained prior to the construction of the detention ponds to address storm water management at the airport. The completion of the remaining section of Taxiway M, as depicted in the 2010 LTCP, does not constitute a substantial change to the project. ( 6. The assumption is incorrect. The remote-operated automatic gate control for MSP Pond 4 will supplement the current manual turn value for immediate spill and release response. If a spill or release occurs, the gate can be closed immediately from a remote location, to allow response contractors time to mobilize to the site to conduct clean up activities. During storm events the detention time of storm water in the ponds will vary according to the rate of precipitation and the gate closure time will be more closely managed to prevent impact to the environment. 7. See response to 5 above. 8. The layout of the Taxiway C/D Complex that was evaluated in the 2010 FEIS contained approximately 36.83 acres of impervious area. The current configuration of the C/D Complex contains approximately 35.54 acres of impervious area or a decrease of 1.29 acres (56,192 square feet). . 9. See response to 3 and 6 above. 10. See response to 3 and 6 above. 1 l. The Airside Bituminous Pavement Rehabilitation project will replace/rehabilitate existing pavements. This project will not add additional impervious pavement (. 12. The Landside Pavement Rehabilitation project will replace/rehabilitate existing pavements. This project will not add additional impervious pavement � � : �. -'S,`3 AOEE LETTERS Metropolitan �iiYports Gotrunission Attennit,�on: A4EE, R.obert J. Vorpahl 6040 � 28�' A�venue �outh Minneapolis, Ml�T 5545U-2749 �a�uth Mctro .t�irport Ac�ion �auncil � SMI:A►�9,� �'ost C3#�'ice ]�o� 19036 iir � - � � •� OCT � 0 2005 ' i/ �' • /1 ' :Cvlinneap�►lis, N.�T �5419 4c�ber 20, 2oas Re: Assessment af Environ�nental Effects nf the Metrapolitan Air�rarts Cmrmmissiact 20Q6-ZUI� Capitai �mprovements l�rugram Uear Ccym�ni�sion�rs, H[e�ring Officer(s), and Mr. Vorpahl: Ttais letter is a notice of intent to appear at ttie AtO�E Hearixig and to comrnent �t length op the MSP Capital Improvemeirt Progr�un, ths staff�nvironmc�rtal assessment(s), related operations, and hearing proc�iit�e�. SMAAC asked tha EQB tr� strongly cautio,� MAC to admzrzrstet� the AOEE and public hearing properly, to provide evidence that the Commission has actually earcrmiK�d the currtulative environmental e,�`'eets of t�re lang-terrn capital impr. ovements progr,am, including likely nea�r-te�m changes or additions thereto, cart�iderect aumulatiuely. This is in tha �aublic zttterest an.d reqaired by 1aw. We found last cycle that t�tere is no pr�ctiral w�y for irK►pacted land-owners to �speaifically request EAWs (or appea�l deniais therea�}. Althtiugh a me�txng otz this topio was praposed by Coriuzuissianer 1wleCee in �4iay, 2005, it has yet to he held. 'The meexir�'s puxpase was t�o e�lor�e cua� ta specificaXdy identify areas ixtipaeted o� a projeet-by proaect basis, on-site or off-site, so that ei�izens' rights far �nvironmerrtal as�d other protections a,re not abridged or unduly complicafied. Specific Concerus. We trust it will be helpiul to state, in tlus preluninary testimony, wa�� in wbich the �.UEB pracess c,�n�1�e �irnprvved. . I. The� MSP {:apit�l I�nprov+�m�ut Pian appt'c►�a1, fund'u� a�d schedule, is to �e apy�roved sameiime a, fter the A�O�B has be�een filed. For any sub pro,}ect, the budget coiild be incre�sed to surpass $� million ar the scheeluie coutd be advanced to be�in wo�k in 2006. �t api�ars, in f�e� that �roje�ts �av+� been disassembled into sub-pmjects (passibty for �ase of cvntract managem�nt), dividing enviromnent�l assessments in�o multipl� yea}�s aud camplicating e�c�rni�aatio�n af tbe impacts (durita� co�ruetion a�d in. operatit�n) cumulativedy. 117ore properl� �c►d tran�parently, th� AQEE should either follot�v CIP �,pp�oval ar be amended �i� th� ev�nt of,�ban�es in 200S�fl6. prc�jects �om�aa�ed �a the ass�ss�d CIP). Alt�rna�ively; t.he +Commission could automa�ic�.11y prepare EAV4�'s for proj�cts added or modiiiec� a�r the AC)EE hearing- �. It is c�siugenuous ta ciaim that the �EZS, app�c�rred in 14�8, substiiut.�s £or any a�nr.u� assessro3eut or L�A.W. Numerous cha�a�;es in. scope arld impact may, rnost likely drd, �hange the en�ironmental iznpacC o� t� numeraus proje�ts progr�rn�ed as p�:t�i oftbe 19�8 fi� �006 ��iott.. In �y e.ven#, d��ly� apecafac��s are sub�Yani�'aal�y higher �an proje�te� in tg9g, and the cumutativ� irnpact is higher loadin�, inereased eniissia�tts, re�-�t�s�ued cantcol f�cili�i�s, aud usia�at�cipate�. prablerns, It is. aur und�rsta�.ding tha� re�ner�:i�1 projects and �changes in �eape ara approachi.n,g severaX handr�d rnil�ian dollars, not ia�iuding iztflation, f�pr �nsion proje�E,s ca�rs�id�'�ed int the. �;IS ��, c�p�ratzt�na� mEseas� exc�uded�. R�iorea��r, the �F:�LS itseJ£ requires, vr 1VI�� greerl ta as a Conditiatt of ii� approval, nunn�mus follaw�on� e�tvi�nmental stxidies �nd adapti�on of i��►�c�veut t��ak�gi�s and ettgrmeeri� p�ao�ices. � �3 /� �ctaber 20, 2�0� P�ge two of two. . 3. Certain capital projects and bperatians r�sultin,�.frnm campletians ardinarily requir� per,mits or other reviews that substitute for, or incorporate, environrnental�warkshe�ts ar impact sta.te�nents. Thes� r� reviews were. stated i� the FEi5, but nat always cornpleted �s anticipated. Capita;l projects 'fvr enviro�tal ccfmpliance (storrnwater management facilities, sauitary sewers, containmeut arid treatment � systerns, etc.) sh,�uld ux�t be sepatafiely assessed; their implementation schedule, eapa�it� and effi'iciency �houid nat b� assumec� su�cient, rather qa�ttit�tively reported and related to the entire CII'. 4. Past reports cla�m ce�#in capitat prvjects� ar� exe�pt� firorn environment�at assessme� because of regulatory r�qrti�em�nts. Please identify ail 20Q3-06 �prajects that: a� �re subject tc> perrxiit applicatian and issuanc.e an,� the ageuc� i�ualved; ir� cantinuations ar compl�tians ofpraje�ts uinder a per,mi�t, a� i�val:rre /% e�c�av�taons or de-w�terin� near, the undergraund paxts of the fueling sqstenns; cl] unproving or exten�ding th� fu�ling systems, ar e] r�sult frozn e�nfarc��nnt aetions (s6ipulation agr�em�et►ts)-or o�hexv�rise require monitaring and put�lie r�orting o£aperaxic�ns, axeeptions, or adjusimems. 5. Please pzovide, for �ch groje� assessed: the crit�ri�. appli�d and as��mp�ians und�rlying the sta� reGatnmenda#ion (ft�r or. a�ainst an. EAW 6r EI�}. iVtrorkshcets, ca�mputations, eandi�ians, aud other �videnc� of a�zopria�e. assessment of the risks of e�nvironme�nta.l dama�e should be a.t�itat�ie ia case af an appeal. If � o project start or compietian daies are gart af the �indings (f. e. a+d�icing pad assumed complete before i�cGabex f.�� uz�ecr�ased faurth quarter opera�ions), pl�ase. g'�ve the da#es and stat� the condiiions "�riggering" . an EAW or l�I� or project madification. - Sin�erely, ��``` -��...� � _',/ `�---_____-.. James k_ Spensley, Preside�nt \, h2esponses to SM.A,AC Written Comments � 13. Comments noted. A meeting was held on November 1, 2005 with Jeff Hatniel, Nigel Finney, Commissioner McGee(conference call) and Gerry D'Amour and James Spensley of SMACC to discuss ways to improve the AOEE/EAW process. 14. The AOEE statute requires the AOEE and EAWs to be prepared and the public heaxing held before CIl' adoption. The �AOEE considers the collective/cumulative effects of each project regardless of cosi or timing in the CIP The statute specifically ad4lresses changes to the CIP following approval. 15. Since the completion af the Dual Track Final EIS in 2998, several CIP projects at MSP have required the preparation of an EAW or substitute EA. An assessment of the cumulative effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable fuiure projects was included in each of these documents, which incorporated any changes in the environmental effects disclosed in the 1998 Dual Track Final EIS that would be cumulative with the environmental effects of the project in the EAW or EA document. . The EA for the 2015 Terminal Expansion Project assessed the cumulative effects of noise, air quality, parking and water quality for all projects in the 2010 LTCP and those projects planned thxough the year 2015 at�MSP. No significant environmenial effects were detertnined. �. 16. It is unclear which capital projects are being referenced with respect to projects required for environmental complian.ce purposes. Modifications to the North Side Storm Sewer proj ect are currently being evaluated in an EA and the sanitary sewer modifications for the Humphrey Terminal Expansion are covered in the 2015 EA. 17. The attached Table 1 summarizes a112006 projects that require pemuts, involve excavation or de-watering near fuel lines, improve or extend the fueling system or are subj ect io a stipulation agreernent. 18. Each project was evaluated as to the need for an EAW.in accordance with the conditions set forth in the AOEE statute and the EQB rules. 16:43 FAg 61267J2a05 BfAYOR'S OFFICE RBi Nlinneapolis City of Lakes Office of the Mayor R. T. Rybak Mayor- 350 South 5th Street • Room 331 Minneap�lis MN 55416-1�93 Oflioe 612 679•210b FaX 812 679-2905 T7Y 612 673-8197 www ci.m(nnsapol(s.rm.us A�irtnative Aciion Employer November 23, 2005 CIF File Metropotxtan Airports Co�mmission 6040 28th .A,ve. So. Minn.Eapolis, Ml�? 55450 - RE: ;Cteview ofProposed 2006-2012 C�T' Dea�r Mx. 'V or�ahl: 'I7xazxk you for the opportunity to commcnfi on MAC's Capztal Inrpraveme��t k'xogram. We undexstand that the CIP as prese�ted is morc inclttsive tham tbat currently contem�pl.ated by staff for at least 2006 due io xhe uncertain.ties associated with NWA's financxa.l sxtuation. It vsrould be h�lpful and moxe meanin�ful to have a supplement to the CIP which �, out.lines the mora pmbable pxojeets for 2006 in additio� to the morc ��c�usive CYP. As outlin�d iun Table 1 the 2006�CIP at MS�' is approximately $242 millio�i of whieh nearly $145 millian xs attributed to 2020 developmEnt �rojects. �t is our und�rstanding tha� tlie 2020 developrnent projecte and possxbly more projeets are bcing defarred until, 2007. We do take issue witli tb,e discu.ssion of cumulaiive envirox�m�ental affects regarding Phases l.and 2 o£the 2020 Plan. On pa�E 5, it states, "xb�e potential environmental ei%cts of T'hases 1 and 2 ofthe MSP �evelopment Pl�.n. are not sign��cant, as deternuned in the �77raft EA." NurrAexous comments from surrounding cv�t�aunxt�es az�d lvtnbOT disag�ee with that positian. Since tl�e �A k�as z�ot yet zeceaved FAA. approval, the pxecediur�g statement is premature and misleading. We also believe th;at it zs disingenuous to present that the 201 p��an is t�e first �hase of'the 2020 Co�cept Plan (now being rc�ilaccd with an unapproved 2020 Vision �'�az�), and that enviro.nrnental effects ha�ve been adequately covered undcr the Dual '�zack F�ZS. Furtlaer misleading is ttiat the envirot�zz�ez�tt� effects of Phases 1�nd 2 of the Visian 2020 �'�a�. bave bcen adeq�xately cove�ed under the 2015 Terminal �x�ansion EA. � In poinr of fact, the FETS wa�� pxedieated on a. baseline conditian of 520,000 operations and 33 million passengers bein,g sexved by a tez'u�ix��.al of 117 gates in 2024. '�'l.�e current aitport exceeds those acti�viiy levels as �p Z� 2.f 11/22/2005 16:4� FA% 61267a2�05 Review of �'roposed 2006-12 CIl' Pagc 2 Novcmber 23, 2005 MAYOR'S OFFICE RM well a� the pzojected uumber oigates. Zfic numbe� of automobile parking spots similarIy exceeds those which weze projected in t�te Concept PIan �'oz 2020 and an which em,issions modelang and roadway impacts were assessed_ xhe T�rmin.al Expansion EA simply evaluaxed t�ae chan�es betwee�a a"no build" altexnative and "build" alteznative assuming .the sa�te projected activity le�els. Since the aotivity scenarios werc essentiall� the sarne, no sig,�.fiicant impacts were e�vxdenced according to 11r�'AC. � What has been overloo�Ced is that no en.viroz�mental re�view has evaluated the eb�ngc betwee�. �e two 2020 developme�t activity le�els (ox of current activiiy and a 2020 �:TCP) and reasox�able alternatives oi accozaamodating those levels of actzv�ty. The di�ifexeriees are si,gnificant: 1) SS million passa�age�s vs. 33 rnillion passemgers; 2) 7�0,000 operations instead o�520,000 operatians; 3) 170+ gates rather tlxa�a l I7 gates; 4) Pzojected levels of delay X2.7 zninutes �er operation by 20'15 vs. clelay of.�-4.8 minutes per operation (past 17/35-2010 impro�rement,r at leve�s up to 640,000 apexat�ons); 5) 12,830 dwelling units itz�t the 60 DNL can.tour and greatex i� 2005 (vcrorst year scenario in �'�XS) vs. 21,986 dwelling u�.nits zn the 60 DNL contour an.d ,greate� by 20I5 (Terminal Expansiou �,A,); 6) 7,650 people in 65 or,gz�eatez� AN�. exposure pzoject�d for20U5 (FEIS) �vs. 1A�,585 ixx 20�1� (Terminal Expansion EA) _ W�at an�i.xot.�zxaental rcview has addressed�tt�ese cumulative impacts? T'hc 2006 CIP ineludes z�oise mitigation as an irer�n with �7 miiliom budgeted for rnniti- farnily residcnces in the 65+ contour, �3 million for a pilot program for air cozaditioning a��d $7 znillion for Trinity School. �1.dd.i�iona� arnounts are inel�ded in i'txtiurc years for the single. family �es�dential program. We ar� concerued tk�at z�o ar�aouz�ts are shown for noise mitigation #'or siu�gle �family homes in fuiure years beyand 20p9 despite t�.ie si�can:� increase in the number v�dwelling units projected to be irnpacted by 20X5. Far 2006 through 200�, �45.6 million �s budgeted to address noise in fih� 64-64 AN�. area. This, of.course, reflects a cost est7mate �or a mitiga�ion program unacceptable to every neighboring commutai.ty. 'Z'he MAC h�s previo�asly con�►mitted to a$ y 50 �i,llion dol�ax program. The airline operating agreement xe�ix�.foxces tbis expectation of expcnding $150 million in the 60-64 .IaNL area. Tn 2002, MAC reaf�'uned its commiiment to MC that they would expe�d the �ull � 150 million fo� noise mitigafiion in the 60-65 DI�tI; area as a condition oireceiving appxova� ozz the 2002 CIP. We believe that the noise mitigation pzog�ram sl�ouid be enhanced to iuiclude insulation. FurthEr, that it shouid be acceler,ated az�d mot subject residents to e�ccessive noise i'or inordinatel� long pe�,ods. A,ccoxdi.z�g�y, t�te C�' should b� rcvised �to reflect this conunitment for an aggressive a�td on-going noise miti�ation pro�ram. , r� � � �� t.. i7N�, C � �; 11/22/2005 16:4a FAg 61267a2a05 I�AYOR'9 OFFICE Rhi� XZevicw o�'Pro�osed 2006-12 CIP Page 3 �Tovember.23, 2005 �ooa �![AC was obligated to do a LTCP update in 2001 and did not. MA.0 is a�ain obxxgated to do a LTCF upclate in 2006. Since thc 2020 projects are being deferred, it would be z 3 oppor[vne for MA.0 to und�rtake this update. The LTCP shou�d evaluate the cumu�atxve impacts. �ssociated with� the new "2020 Vision �'�az�", explore alt�rna.�ives az�d miti�ation mcasures so that a forward looking comprehEnsi�ve development plan cou�d be approved. We support the IV.�A,C's CTI' �lans for movivag forward With further wo�k on the deicing �,4, and glycol collectxon system as well as t�pdating the fueling syste�t. These �roa ecfis ben�fit the aiz�pozt, users and all residents of Minneapolis and fl�e g�eater Metropolifiar� Area. Sincex�ly, �_ j CC: G1en Orcut, k'.A„A ,A.AO Chattncey Case, Metropolitan Council R.obert A. Scu.roeder, Chair of EQ� Responses to City of Minneapolis Comments !,, . 19. Comments noted. The 2006 CII' that is going to the Commission for action in December includes delays to many proj ects including Phase 1 of the 2020 Development Program. This information was made available at the October F,D&E Cominittee meeting and has been on the MAC website since that meeting. 20. See responses to comments received on the Draft EA in Appendix C. As stated on page 1 of the AOEE report, the EA is a substitute for an EAW which is a state requirement and the MAC is the RGU in the determination of need for a state EIS. The FAA will prepare a Final EA as part of the Federal requirement for the use of FAA funding in the implementation of the project. 21. The FEIS used high forecasts to assess impacts. Actual operations are tracking slightly below the high forecasts. The EA for the 2015 Terminal Expansion Project included an update of the forecast of operations based on the 2010 LTCP in the Dual Track Final EIS, an update of parking spaces and an update of impervious surface area, storage ponds, groundcvater monitoring and wastewater discharges. Therefore, the EA assessed ihe cumulative effects of noise, air quality, parking and water quality for all projects in the 2010 LTCP and those projects planned for the year 2015 at MSP. 22. The 2006 $3 million pilot program in the 60-64 DNL has been deferred to 2007. The � duration of the program and capital funding is based upon the updated Part 150 Noise Compatibility Plan and the 2007 Noise Exposure Map. Both the duration and funding level reflect the time and the funds anticipated to be required to complete the current project. At such time as when the maps and noise plans are updated in the future, MAC will review andlor adjust the noise mitigation project timelines and fiuiding levels. The $48.6 million budget for the 60-64 DNL contour is consistent with approved Commission policies established for noise mitigation projects within that contour as shown on the 2007 Noise Exposure Map and described within the updated Part 150 Noise Compatibilify Plan. 23. See General Response 1 in Appendix C. 24. Cornment noted. MAvoa MAR71N J. KIRSCM . CITY COUNCIL BILL KILIAN � SUSAN ROSENBERG ' SUZANNE M. SANDAHL FRED L WROGE, JR. CITY MANAGER STEVEN L. DEVICH November21, 2005 �ity �Jlanager's a�fice �GCGIV�� NOV 2 �,� 2005 Mr. Robert Vorpahl � � Metrapolitan Airports Commissian AlrpOf,�, DeVe�OpmBnt 6040 —. 28th Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55450 � � � Subject: 2006-2011 Capital Improvement Pragram Gomments Dear Mr. Vorpahl: Thank you for the opportunify to comment on the Metropolitan Airports Cammission (MAC) 2006 Capital Improveriments Project (CIP). � The City of Richfield has a number of concerns related to the MAC's 2006-2011 CIP and its potential effects on our communify and residents. � Of foremost concern is ihe noise mitigation program for homes in the 2007 60-6A� DNL. contours. Because the City of Richfield does not believe that the air conditioning-only z S package represents the sound insulation program agreed ta by the MAC in 1996 as a condition of the MSP e�cpansion, we do not agree with the funding level for this project component. Nor does the CIP address the irripact of low frequency noise (LFN). The PARTNER study of LFN is expected to be compieted we(I within the timeframe of the NIAC's 2p06-2011 CIP. Earmarking some funds to ameliorate LFN impacts shouid be a Z� component of the CIP, as weli as anticipating ways'to monitor the LFN levels, once an agreed upon metric has been determined. Tiie impacted communities should not be made ta shaulder the.burden of identifying and monitoring,aircraft LFN. Another concern in the CIP is Item I.G — the construction of new MAC carga buildings. The current cargo and charter facilities that were relocated ac�oss�TH 77 from Richfield residents create a level of naise and activity that was not anticipated. The canstancy of ground Z`7 operations adds to the noise and poliution experienced by Richfield residents. Before additional facilities are�constructed, a better sound and visual�barrier should.be constructed on �the east side of TH 77 to protect residents from �these negative' impacts. Additionally, the MAC shouid ensure that�all precaufions are taken by freight and charter carriers ta reduce air toxics emitted as part of normal ground aperations. , . Agair� v�e appreciate the opportunity to camment on the 2006-2011 CIP. E ��nL"De� City Manager SLD:cak � ( ) Copy: Richfield Gity Councii .- � Assistant to the Gity Manager The Urban Hometown 670D PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, M•INNESOTA 55423 612.861.9T00 FAX: 612.861.9749 � www.clryotrbhlie�d.org AN EQUAL OPPORTUNRY EMPLOYER • Itesponses to City of Richfieid �omments 25. Comments noted. 26. MAC will review any FAA adopted policy on LFN for applicability to the areas surrounding MSP. At present, there is no consensus on a appropriate metric, levels .of impact or mitigation. 27. The construction of the hangar and caxgo buildings was included in the MSP 2010 LTCP. MAC will continue to review ways to reduce impacts from these activities. C�_. C � CITY �F �oQ�1N�.tT�� MINNESOTA November 21, 2005 Robert Vorpa.hl Metrapolitan Airports Commission 6040 28�' Avenne South Miuneapolis, MN 55450 Re: MAC Capatal Improvements Program — 2006 to 2012 Dear Mr. Vorpahl: NOV 2 � 2005 , �� /� : �� A The Ciiy of Bloomington appreciates the oppor�tun�ty io comment �on the MAC Capital Improvements Program for the years 2006 to 2012. On November 21, 2005, the Bloomington City Council approved the followi.ng comments. � ]9[uanp��rey �'er�al Exg�a�sion — 7['raiiic Prob�ems at 3.4th Avenue The proposed Capital Improvements Program budgets nearly $1S0 million ($126,800,000 in �'"" � 2006 and $16,300;000•in 2007)� to�expand` the-Humpl�ey:Ternunal from 10:�0 22'�gates iri order _- � to relocate non-Sky Team �ai.t��nes��rom �the`Lindbergh• Teizrunal:� -V(�ith. th� �expansioz�;.vehicle traffic to: and from the Ii�arnphrey �Terrriinal will: e�paud:cit'aina�i�ally; ,'1VIA:C'�s'.�traffic �stitdies show that the vast majority°of veliicle ��raffic to'arid�from:the expanded�Humphrey �'aixninal will use the I-494 and 34th Avenue intercha.nge. �These �same�traffic studies, published recently in the form of an Envi.ronmerital �Assessment Worksheet, indicate that customers i7ryi.n.g to get to or from the Humphrey Terminal via the 34�` Avenue/I-494 interchange will encounter "unacceptable" braffic conditions. In addition, drivers using 34th Avenue south of I-494 will be subjected to similar unacceptable traffic conditions. Yet the proposed Capital Itnprovements Progratn does not include any fiuiding for transportation improvements to the intercha.nge to create acceptable access conditians to the expanded Huxnphre� Terminal. �Differemt Airlines Will Have Different Levels of Accessibility According to the MA.C's traffic study, the Humphrey expansion projeci will create a stark contrast in the ability of driving customers to access MSP's two te:rminals. On one hand, customers drivi.ng to the Lindbergh Terminal will typically encounter excellent traffic conditious with no stoplights. On fihe othear hand, customers driving to the Huxnphrey Terminal and Bloomington's Airport South District from I-494 wi11 encounter unacceptable conditians in pealc periods with numeraus stoplights a�d severe .Gongestiori. Aiirlines. using �tti� Hurriphrey Tertninal will clearly demand� r�asonatile t�.�tispo�t��ion�acce'ssz •�Businesses and re�idents: i.r�:'Bloomin:gton':s Airport� Sciutl� IDistrict�°alsa �e1�s%re re��ona�ile: access� coriditiorts. ��To� pziivide;r,easonabie:�c��ss; xb an expanded�'�ii:�phxe�'Terfiiznal��ritcl��tlie`�A�rp�ort�Siiuthpistrict;:imp�o:v'ern�nYs�ta'�he:i=4941�'?��' A.venue�in:terch�:g��_ri�usY.oecur`in>co'njiuicti�ori��wit17 �t�e terminal�?exparisicin:�� Im�riat��menfi.�.,to �'ost Road ma:y alsv .be needed� �`� � � � ' � � � � � � ' :. �� a Zg MAYdR AND CtTY MANAGER � 1H0� W.OLp SHAKOPEE RQAD,B�ooMiNCTON MN 55431-3027 AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION/EQUAL PH 952-563-$780 FAx 952-563-8754 TTY 952-563-8740 OPPORTUNITIES EMPIOYER Mr.lZobert Vorpahl Novernber 21, 2005 Page2of3 Capital Improvements Program — Bloomington Recommendations The City of Bloomington recommends that the MAC add the following elements to its Capital Improvern.ents Program: l. Add funding for needed modifications to the 34th Avenue/I-494 interchange to occur at the same time the Humphrey Terminal is expanded. Because the scope of the modifications has not yet been agreed to, it is impossible at this point to assign a cost amount to� the project. Until the costs of the needed modifications are identified and included in MAC's Capital Improvements Pragram, the Humpbrey Terminal expansian should not be included in t1�e Capital Improvements Program. 2. A.dd fu�d�:ng �for nois� insulation,;of homes izi tlie 6� to 69� ilB DNL eox�tours #o reflect previous MAC commitments. 3. Add funding to the Capital Improvements Program or other appropriate budget for: a. a 2006 joint study with MNDOT and the Ciiy of Bloomington to determ.ine reconfiguration options for the 34�' Avenue/I-494 interchange that would provide reasonable access to an expanded Humphrey Terminal; b. a 2006 Environmental Impact Statement for the 2015 MSP Terminal Expansion Project; and .,c. a 2006 Supplem�ntal Environmental Impact Statement, as required by State law, that explores the im.pacts of reductions io the noise insulation program. Conclusion The City af Bloomingion' understands that the MAC needs fo expand MSP to accorrimodate forecast air traffic growth. Bloomington will not support this expansion unless the MAC contracivally commits to mitigating the negative impacts that t�ie expansion creates. The largest negative impact created by the expansion will be to vehicle traffic using 34`h Avenue. It is viial that the MAC understand that unless the 34�' Avenue/I-494 interchange surface traffic problems are m.itigated, both airlines and MSP customers are likely to be very unhappy with the substantial difficulties and time delays they will encaun.ter to get to the Humphrey Terminal, parlicularly in contrast to #.he excellent accessibility provided for the Lindbergh Terminal. Without rnoiiificaiions, the�:�inter�h�ng�> at ,34�' Avenu�/I-494�. m�ay .well b�come �he wor�t operating - interchange in the metropolitan area. Clearly the cost of modifying this vital interchange needs to be examined in conjunction with any discussion of the full costs of expanding the Humphrey Ternunal. � 3� C �1 Mr. Robert Varpahl November 21, 2005 Page 3 of 3 Thank you in advance for consideration of Bloomington's comments. Should you have any questions regarcling this letter, please contact Larry Lee, Community Development Director, at (952) 563-8947. Gene Winstead Mayor Copy: Nigel Finney, Metropolitan Airports Comm.ission Denny Probst, Metropolitan Airports Cominission lZesponses to �ity of �loomingtou Cominents 28. The projected congestion at the interchange is the result of planning and development decisions by several entities. MAC supports a cooperative effort in the planning and analysis of options to mitigate the impacts of existing and proposed development on the interchange. MAC has agreed to partner with MnlDOT, Metropolitan Coun.cil, Cify of Bloomington, Metro Transit, and others to work toward a feasible solution. It is premature to include the cost of MAC's participation in the study in the CIP. 29. Comments noted. See response to the City's Comrnent 46 in Appendix C. 30. See Response 28 above. The costs presented in the CIP represent the Commission's mitigation proposal in the 60 to 64 DNL contours as outlined in the November 2004 MSP Part 150 Update Document. In July 2005, the Commission published a Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the 2015 MSP Terminal Expansion Project. A public comrnent period was opened from July l, 2005 to August 4, 2005. On September 26, 2005 the Commission reviewed the comments and responses and submitted the document to the FA.A for review. The FAA will review the EA to determine if an EIS is required. On October 17, 2005 the Commission considered a request by the City of Bloomington to supplement the Dual Track FEIS. The � Commission concluded that an SEIS is not required. 31. Comments noted. See also Response 28 above. �� M6nneso�a tlepar��trent of 7'ranspor4a4ion ,� � Nl�tropolBt�n Dis�rict� �"aF� Waters Edge � 1500 West County Road B-2 � Roseviile MN 55113-3174 November 21, 2005 Mr. Robert Vorpahl Metropolitan Airpbrt Commission 6040 28`�' Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 ►. 1 ?'� � d,',: �� ', � � ..^,,� �O�l�� 2005 ' 1 1 �>>;;S ; � ) . SUBJECT: Mpls/St. Paul International Airport Capitol Improvement Plan � Mn�DOT Review ID.# EAWOS-036 � � NW Quad of I-494 and TH S(East side of Z'H 77� � Metropolitan Airport / Hannepin County � MnlDOT Control Sec�on # 2732 Dear Mr. �orpahl: � Thank you for submitting the above'referenced CIP. The Minnesota Departrnent of Tz�ansportation (1VIn/DOT) has �reviewed the plan and has tlle following cornrnents: '. � � In August, 2005�1V�n/DOT provided comments on ihe traffic impacts resulting from the MSP � terrninal expansion (Mn/DOT review #EAWOS-023). At�ached is a copy of those comments. We (.) �. � wil� make additional commenfis on specific traific impacts as thos.e projects develop. Please -' direct any questions regarding these issues to Jolene Servatius (651=634-2373} of MnDOT's . � � . Mefro Traffic Section. � . � � The projects identified in the MAC CIP for 2006 - 2012 that will impact State transportation infrasfxucture include the North Side Storm SewEr (T.C), 2020 Development Program = Phase 1- .Hurnphrey Ternlinal and Parking R.amp Expansion (I.H; II.C, and IZI.B), and Airport Lane / 34th Avenue A�ccess Reconfiguration. The Metro District is currently part�,ering with MA.0 and Bloornirigton in a traffic study for the 34th Avenue / I494 area. The Auport�Lane / 34th Avenue project furiding and coordi.nation is ongoing. Additionally, the project coordination for the storm sev�er under TH 5 is ongoing. For questions concerni.ng these efforts, please contact West Area Engineer Wayne Norris at 651-582-1295. � � If any of the Capiial Itnprovement Projects affect 1VIn/DOT drainage or discharges stormwater to Mn/DOT right-of-way, a Mr�/DOT drainage pernvt will be required. A 1VIn/DOT drainage pern�it will be required for CIP Project 1C, to ensure that current drainage rates to Mn/DOT righ%of-way will not be increased and to ensure that any proposed ponds will not affect Mt�/DOT drainage. When a drainage perinit is applied for, please provide construction platis and grading plans � showing existing and proposed contours. Also provide.drainage area inaps for the proposed project sliowing existing and proposed drainage areas with flow directions indicated by arrows. The maps should be aceompanied by drainage computa.tions for pre and post construction conditions during 10- and 100=year events. Also include an electrouic copy of any computer modeling used for the dzaina.ge computaiions. Please.contact R.usty. Nereng at Mn/DOT Watez Resouxces Eng-ineering (651-634-2111) or �iusiy.nereng(a�dot.state.mn.usl with any questions. 3 :� �� direct any questions regarding permit requ.irements to Buck Craig (65L-582�1447) af Mn/L)OT � ��' Metro's Permit Section. � ' � � � � �, As a rerninder, please address all initial future corresponclence for development activity s�tch as � plats and site plans to: � . � � Development Review Coordinatar � � � � � Mn/DOT - Metro Division � � Waters Eclge . � 1500 West County Road B-2 . Roseville, Minnesofa 55113 Mn/DOT documeni submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2). � copies of other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3) copies of a 3�„ plai and/or two (2) copies of other review documents will make a submitta� incomplete arid delay Mn/DOT's 30-day review and response process to development propo'sals. We appreciate your anticipated cooperafion in providing ihe necessary number af copies, as this will prevent us from � having to delay and/or rehun incomplete submittals. , � � � Please feel free to contact me if you ha.ve an.y questions regarding this review at 651-582-1548. Sincerely, Tod Shermau Platuling Supervisor Copy to: Bob Byers / Hennepin County'Transportation Plaiuiing Section Steven Devich / City of Richfield �OT Division File CS 2'758 � . Mn�DOT LGL File — MA.0 Copy via Groupwise to : Wayn.e Norris — West Area Engineer � Rusty Nereng — WRE Jolene Servatius Buck Craig — Permits Ann Braden — Met Council Blind Copy to: Bob Byers Transportation Planning Section 1600 Prairie Drive � Medina., MN 56340-5421 C- Mr. Steven Devich . � . ( Administrator � � City of Richfield 6700 Portlan.d A�enue Richfield, MN 55423-2560 � ,� IVlin�eso4a t3epargrnen4� of Tr��rspart�4imn �Metropotitan District ' � . Waters Edge � 150Q West County Road B-2 � � Roseville MN 55113-317� August 2, 2005 Jen Unnih � Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 — 28�` Avenue South Mi�neapolis, MN 55450 - • ,, � ` • �; � I1 �� ' ' /1 ' ; S��CT: MSP 2015 Term.inal Expansion Projeci EAW, Review #EAWOS-U23 - Minueapolis/St. Pa�tl International Airport � � Minneapolis��Hennepin.�Co. �' � ` . . Control Section 278�� . � ' . . . . �Dear Ms. Unnth: .�'The T1�finnesata_. Department of� Transportation (l�in/L�pT� has re.�,iewed the� �above referenced .•. �Enviro�mental � Assessment Workslieet (EA�. Please address .the following issues before any further developrnent: . ' � - . Traffi'� . . . . . . . . . . �•� The EAV�r�uses �10=year. prcijected btaf�c volunies. • Mn/L10T's stanclard � • � � convention is to use 20-year projections.. �' . __ ` ��This propo�al will likely have signifieant imp,acts.on the Post Road inrerchange. - . �Tlus is complicated by the faci that tbe it�terchange spacing between Glumak ' � � . Drive and Post Road is less than MrJ,pOT�guideli.nes. T1iis� needs. to be analyzed � ' in the E,AW. � . � . � . e The EAW should: use the Highway Capacity 1Vlanual procedwce te -estimate da3:1.y. LOS instead of the FDOT procedure ident�fi.�d on page 32. �' �� The EAW should include peakperiod �analysis for 3 pe�k periods: A.M. Peak (7:00 to 8:00); P.M, peak (4:00 to 5:00) and; 2:15 to 3:15 PM Peak. �� Page 36,.paragraph 2 states that `21�1n/DpT has the ultimate authority over the I- �� 494 In.terchan.ge." Mn/DOT believes that tlie �'HWA, not M�i/DOT; has ihe � � ult�mate au:�hority over t1u.s interehange. �. - •'The first bu�llet on Page 36 states.that "A change in. signal op�erations polioy resulting in. the implementation of transit prioriiy rather than preemption would � � a � ( ,. . : . . . ' � . .. : . , . � further improve traffic operations at the interch�ge." This may�not be feasible. Further analysis should anticipate that the pre�mption will remain in place. �• , The third mitigation need described on pa�e 36 involves extending the length of the westbound off.-ramp to northbound 34 A�edue. `This improvement has been completed and should be reflected in the EAW. � •.It is unclear as to how the trai�`ic volumes on Table P-1 l, Page 42 were generated. Any generated trai�c volumes require source documentation and rnethod'ology. • The turning movement counts in Figures P-6 and P=7 in the appendix indicate fihat geometric changes are needed. Please describe ;the needed geometric irnprovements. . . . : . � , •�The mitigation measures described on Page 36 are�a minima� approach, Additional information is necessary. � For example, MnIDQT has not seen a layout � for the proposed interchange reconfiguration. Discussion and coordination must occurr beiween Mn/DOT and MAC regarding interchange design. � I'lease subrnit the electronic files of the Synchro analysis for this EAW �0 7olene • � Servafius in Mn/DOT's�Traffic Section. For questions regarding these points; please ��. ( } • conta.ct Jolene Servatius at 651-G34-2373. . � , R.eg-ional Analysis/Stud,y . � � o'The increased traffic volumes an 34�` Street are quite significant and there will be , significant impacts to the �I-494/34�' Street interchange. But, the increased volume - an 34'� Street did not appear tc� be represented by increases on the regional and local system: Are diversians to American Boulevard and Ainwrt Laue not represent�d? � • If the 2015 traf�'ic forecast daes not include the Bloomington AUAR. � , developments, tlus nee�ls ta b� included. Also, the LOS analysis needs�ta include improvements at I-35W / TH 62 Crosstown, TH 7� / 66th Street,. and the right turn lane extension at the I-494 westbound ramp.to 34th Avenue South. � • The increase in traffc volumes on TH 55 from 73,000 to 116,000 seems high Is this increase supported by for.ecasts and analysis of redistribution of �affic caused by 2015 project? � Page 35, paragraph 3 states "In surnmary, the proposed project has insignificant impacts on the�surrounding raadwaynetwork:" More info.rmation is required to determine if the praposed project indeed has insignifican.t impacfs. But, the recommended folded diamand I-494/34�` Street interchange improvement on the southwest quadrant is not insignificant. Discussipri and coordination must occur betw�en Mn/DOT, MAC, and Bloomington r.egarding interchange design. � � To adequately addr.ess the impacts� of this development �as well as .other proposed laxge scale developments in Blaomington, Inver Grove Heights,�Eagan a�xegional joint traffic � `. study is needed. Mn/DOT would like to be a partner in this study. Additionally, � Mn/DOT would like to pariner with MA.0 and Bloomington in analyzing the redesign af the I-494/34th Avenue interchange. Ple�se contact Area�Engineer, Wayne Norris at 651- 582-1295. ' �� If you have any questions cancerning this review please feel free to coatact me at (651) 582-1548. � � � . Sincere •�, - G� -n�--- Tod Sherman . I'lanning Supervisor � Copy: James Grube�/Hennepin Coun.ty Bob Byers / Hennepin County Barbara Sporlein/Mir�eapolis Lanry LeelBloomingtoa _ Heather Bienieklln.ver Grove Heights Getry Lazson / Mn/DOT Thomas O'Keefel:Mn/��4T WayneNorris/Mn/DOT 7olene ServatiousJMn/DOT James Cmibe . Henn.epin County � 16U0 Prairie Center Drive �Medina, MN 55340-5421 Robert Byers Herinepin Coun.ty . 1500 Prairie Center Drive Medina, Nllv 55340-5421 Ms. Barbara Sporlein . City of Minneapolis � � City Hall 350 Sauth S�` St�eet Minneapolis, MN 55415-1316 Larry Lee City of Bloomington 1800 West (?ld Shakopee Road Bloomington, MN 55431 � � J��.o sr,�,� UiViTED STATES ENVIRONII�ENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ��' � � REGIONS 5 � '° � 77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD ��F.�.�L �� CHIGAGO, IL 60604-3590 NOV�r e) G�O� AEPLY TO THE ATTENTION OF: . B-19J Mr. Robert J. Vorpahl, P.E. Program Development Engineer Metropolitan Ai.rports Commission IVi'inneapolis-Saint Faul Internatianal Airport 6040 — 28th Avenue South T/Iuu�eapolis, MN 55450-2799 �` : � � .. 'r.: NOV 2 � ?Q05 A�rport Developmen� Re: Assessment of Environmental Effects for MinneapolislSt. Paul International Airport Seven-Year Capital Improvement Program, October 2005 Dear Mr. Vorpahl: Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the �ouncil on Environinental Quality regu.lations, and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act; U.S. EPA reviews and comments on major federal actions. Typically, these reviews focus on Environmental � � Impact Statements, but we also have the discretion to review and comment on other environmental docuznents prepared under NEPA if interest and resources perrnit. We did not undertalce a detailed review of the document listed above because it was not prepared under NEPA. We previously provided comments on the Federal Environmental Assessment (EA) for the 2015 Ternunal Expansion Project in a letter dated, Angust 8, 2005. In addition, we have previously provided cona�nents on a11 other projects in the Capital Improvement Program via our comments on the Dua1 Track Airport Environmental�Tmpact Statement prepared under NEPA. � Please consider our comments on the above NEPA docu,ments as appropriate. We continue to be interested in reviewing environmental evaluations, both Environmental Assessments and En,viro�mental Impact Statements, �or auy projects evaluated�und.er NEPA: Thank yc�u for �forwarding us the state required Assessmeni of Environmental Effects. Kenneth A. W NEPA �Imnle�'i RecyciediRecyciable • Prirrted with Vegetabie Oil 8ased inks on 100% Recycled Paper (50°k Pbstconsumer) 3� �.t.esponses to Mn/DOT Comments 32. The August 2, 2005 letter is included in Appendix C along with responses to your comments numbered 5 through 20. 33. Comments noted. 34. Comrnents noted. 35. Comxnents noted. `5, ''f' . ��e F,l ��k F,� � „ F 14, 'S,i �5 �'n,, ��7 n,! 2�a � ',� .y.t �',�, � e .,j � u ',4$ .�. � � a �PP+ is sq�,yr .�'� t 9G F � ( 1 � � � � -ml t' �' N A � N O q F o r �. 't' GO 9� 41RPOaty December 22, 2005 Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport 6040 - 28th Avenue South � Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799 Phone(612)726-8100 City Administrator City of Mendota Heights City Hali 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 RE: EIS Need Decision 2015 Terminal Expansion Project Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport Dear City Administrator: ' The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) has determined that the potentially significant �� --� environmental effects of the 2015 Terminal Expansion Project have been addressed and the preparation of an EIS is therefore not needed. Enclosed please find a summary of the comrnents on and responses to the 2015 Terminal Expansion Project Draft EA. Sincer , �� Robert J. Vorpahl, P.E. Program Development Engineer RJV/Irk Enclosure cc: Nigel Finney Denny Probst Gary Warren CIP file FD&E packet file Day file T11e Metropolitan Airports Commission is an afHrmative acHon employer. www.mspairport.com Reliever Airports: AIILLAKE � ANOKA COUNTY/BLAINE ^ CRYSTAL ^ FLYING CLOUD � LAKE ELMO ^ SAINT PAUL DOWNTOWN C� C EIS NEED DECISION !; ? 2015 TEP,IVIINAL EXPANSION PROJECT � . Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) has determined, that the potentially significant environmental effects of the 2015 Terminal �Expansion Project have been addressed and the preparation of an EIS is therefore not needed. In deciding whether the Project has the potential to result in significant environmental effects, MA.0 applied the following four criteria as set forth in Minnesota Rules part 441 Q.1700, subp. 7. . a) Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects The EA identifies the environmental effects of the Project. The type and extent of the lrnown effects are not considered significant compared to the no action alternative. b) Cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects � • There are no lcnown future projects by 2015 that would have potential effects that would be cumulative with the effects of the Project. Phase 3 of the 2020 Development Program (� will have effects cumulative with the effects of the Project; however, Phase'3 has not ' been planned. Phase 3 will be subjected to environmental review when it has been prepared and proposed for implementation. c) The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority � The environmental effects are subject to mitigation by a public regulatory authority. d) The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EIS's. � The Dual Track Final EIS, the Environmental Assessment far the Implementation of a Depariure Procedure off of Runway 17, and the Part 150 Update were utilized in the assessment of environmental effects. No other applicable environrnental studies are available. Record of Findings Supporting the Decision The findings include the following revisions to the Drafi EA and responses to comments received, which are presented in Appendix A of this document. 1 Revisions to Draft EA SECTION I.A. BACKGROUND Insert the following paragraph after the second paragraph: "Implementation of the MSP 2010 LTCP is essentially complete. Aviation dernand has overtaken the development process and the proposal is to expand the passenger terminals to meet 2015 forecasted needs. Rather than atnend the 2010 LTCP, a� new ten-year development plan that starts in 2005 is proposed. The previously adopted 2020 Concept plan is elimiriated as an alternative in this EA." ' ' SECTION I.C.. PROPOSED PROJECT (new text is shown in italics) The proposed project consists of Phases 1 and 2 of the 2020 Development Plan for MSP and is shown in Figure 3. PHASE 1 Humphrey Terminal Expansion Construction of 12 additional gates and .... Phase 1 is shown zn Figure 4. (attached) PHASE 2 � Humphrey Terminal Expansion • — Construction of 7 additional gates and associated facilities. Construct approximately 2, 450 additional parking ramp spaces. Lrndbergh Terminal Expansion � �— Demolition of NWA Maintenance Hangar B; elimznatzon of 2 gates on Concourse G; the construction of Concourse H with 18 airline gates, and the addition of 2 regianal jet gates on Concourse C. SECTION I.D. GOVERNMENTAL ,AppROVALS Add the following to the table on Activity Review of Modiiications to Hydrant Fueling System under Aboveground Storage Tank (AST) Major Facility Permit SECTION II. ALTERNATIVES : Unit of Government 1' �_ Action Required Approval Add the following to the first paragraph. "The no action alternative is not a"do nothing" alternative. It includes committed projects that were in the 2005-2011 CII' adopted by 2 MAC prior to the adjustment for' Phase 1 of the proposed project (see discussion in ( i Section I.A, Background) provided that they have received environrn:ental approval from the FAA (e.g., all projects in the approved 2010 LTCP) or are categorically excluded • from formal environmental assessment by the FAA and the Minnesota Environmental Qnality Board (EQB). The no action alternative also includes methods to accommodate the forecast passenger�and operations demand without expansion of the num.ber of gates at the Lindbergh and Humphrey Terminals." SECTION N.A. AIl2 QUALITY Add the following paragraph after Table A-7 on page 17: "The cumulative impact of the no action alternative would be 6,257.54 tons of CO less than the existing condition (Tables A-3, A-6 and A-7) and the proposed project would be 936.05 tons of CO less than no action (Tables A-6 and A-7)." SECTION N.C. COMPATIBLE LAND USE Add the following on page 23. "li'Yiiigation MAC has a Sound Insulation Program (SIP) that provides a 5-decibel reduction package ( ) to homeowners in the 65-75 DNL contour. Thus far, 7,690 single family homes, 752 multi-family units and 17 schools within the 1996 DNL 65 contoux have been provided with the� package and 410 properties acquired = at a total cost of approximately $338 million. The 2007 DNL 65 contour in the Part 150 Update includes 165 additional single family homes, 461 additional multi-farr�ily units and 1 school that are in the pxocess of insulation at a cost of approximately $20 million." 'SECTION N.D. CONSTRUCTION The first paragraph is not relevant to the Project and is deleted. SECTION N.J. HISTOR.ICAL RESOURCES Replace the second paragraph on page 26 with the following: "The Area of Potential Effect (APE) is the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may cause changes in the character or use of historic properties. The APE for potential noise effects is defined as the area within the 65+ DNL contour of the proposed project and no action alternative. The APE defined by the Programmatic Agreement for the MSP Long-term Comprehensive Plan included effects other than noise (e.g., induced socioeconomic impacts, land use impacts) related to the airport. These are more difficult to identify and assess. MAC has retained a consultant to work with SHPO, the FAA, representatives from communities in the vicinity of the airport, and other 3 parties as needed to determine if there are additional impacts that are affecting historic resouxces. If. additional areas must be considered, the consultant will evaluate these ( impacts and submit a report to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the �� FA.A with findings and recommendations." Add "Oheyawahi (Pilot Knob) Historic Site" to the properties in the APE mentioned in the third paragraph on page 26. Insert the following paragraph after the fourth paragraph on page 26: "A stipulation in the Programmatic Agxeement for the MSP Long-term Camprehensive Plan called for a supplemental study of historic and architectural resouxces in 2005, as well as an evaluation of new resources that� fall within revised noise contours. Recent reports for MAC's Part 150 Sound Insulation Program (SIP) have evaluated much of the revised noise contour. MAC has retained a consultant to consider the remaining revised Area of Potential Effects (APE), as well as property types not adclressed by the SIP reports. That study is currently underway, an.d the resultiug report will be distributed to SHPO and the FAA when it is completed. Figure J-1 (attached) has been revised."� ' SECTION N.P. SUR.�'ACE TRAFFIC � Middle of third paragraph, revise sentence to include the underlined text as follows: The ( traffic projections for the no action alternative and the proposed project were used as � received from the Metropolitan Council on May 13, 2005 to estimate projected turn.ing movements. . � Replace pages 35 and 36 with the following: "Impacts and Potential Mitigation Measnres � The proposed project would change traffic patterns on the surrouncling roadway network, which is primarily due to a redistribution of traffic from the Lindbergh Tenminal to the Humphrey Tenninal. � There are 14 roadway segments on the surrounding roadway network that were included in the analysis. Seven roadway links operate at an unacceptable LOS under 2005 existing conditions. Two additional roadway segments change to unacceptable LOS in the 2015 no action alternative. This degradation reflects the impacts of increased traffic associated with background traffic growth. Traffic conditions for the proposed project, are anticipated to be similar to the 2015 no action conditions. Under both 201 S no action and proposed project conditions, the same number of individual roadway segrnents are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS. There are 2 segments that are projected to experience a change in LOS when comparing 2015 no action and proposed project conditions. Both changes reflect anticipated improvements to the LOS values. In 0 suinmary, the proposed project has insignificant impacts on the surrouncling roadway network. The proposed project would also' result in different turning movement volumes and therefore traffic conditions along 34th Avenue South. The only location� where an unsatisfactory LOS is anticipated for the 2015 proposed project, is at the I-494/34�' Avenue South Interchange. I-494 Interchan�e Under the 2005 existing, no action alternative and proposed project, there currently are, and would continue to be, individual traffic movements that operate at an undesirable LOS at the I-494/34�` Avenue South Interchange. This assumes current lane geometry and signal operations remaan in place. At the intersection approaches to the interchange, the number of individual traffic movements that operate, or are projected to operate, at an unacceptable LOS are — 4 under 2005 existing, 4 under no action and 5 under proposed project conditions.• Mn/DOT owns and maintains the I-494 Interchange. Multiple entities have an interest in the LRT and vehicular operations at this interchange including: Metro Transit, which operates the LRT through the interchange; Bloomington owns and maintains 34th Avenue south of I-494; and MAC owns and maintains 34th A�eriue South north of I-494. The following are modifications that would improve the 2005 existing and 2015 operations of the 34th Avenue South/I-494 Interchange: • The signal timing modifications implemented in this analysis assume that signal preemption is still in place. A change in signal operations policy resulting in the implementation of transit priority rather than preemption would improve traffic operations at the interchange. The revised 2004 version of An Overview of Transit Priority describes preemption and priority as follows: "signal priority modifies the normal signal operation process to better accommodate transit vehicles, while preemption interrupts the normal process for special events." Preemption also occurs when' emergency vehicles travel through a traffic signal, equipped with an emergency preemptiort system, while responding to an emergency call. The typical categories of signal priority treatments are passive priority, active priority, and adaptive/real-time control. • Geometric improvements to the interchange that better integrate LRT operations or remove the left-turn movements would significantly impro've traffic operations at the interchange. Two potential interchange configurations that could potentially mitigate traffic operations would be a partial clover leaf or a single point uxban interchange." SECTION N.T. CUM[7LATNE EFFECTS Delete the last sentence on page 47 and insert the following paragraphs: "The city of Bloomington is planning substantial redevelopment in Bloomington's Airport South District including land along 34th Avenue south of I-494; the city of 5 Richfield is planning substantial redevelopment along TH 77 at 66th Street; and Mn�DOT � has progranuned the reconstnaction of the I-35W/TH 62 Crosstown Highway interchange. Effects of these developments that .would be cumulative with the proposed �`' project are — surface tra:ffic, wastewater and water supply. The daily traffic volumes in Section N.P, Surface Traffic, on the regional highway system and 34th Avenue were prepared by the Metropolitan Couticil • and included the socioeconomic variables agreed upon by the Council and the cities in their Comprehensive Plans approved by the Council as of May 2005, as well as MN/DOT project development through 2015, which includes the reconstruction of the I-35W/TH 62 Crosstown Highway interchauge. Planned development and redevelopment by the cities that has not been approved by the Council is not addressed. The volume of wastewater generated could be accommodated by either of iwo options — through the limestone.tunnel interceptor or the City of Richfield sanitary line. In either case, information collected suggests there is available capaciiy in either system. The city of Minneapolis indicated they do not foresee capacity issues based on the forecasted passenger load increases (and therefore increased water supply needs)." � C: r� C. ' • ;i i ' liii 1 , ; , ', i l i l,, ' 1', i 1' il 1'l �; I I 1. . i. 1 1 II' � �,. � . I' . I+1 �' 1 1 I ,• General Comments on the EA and Responses � ,' The following are comments received on the EA from several persons or agencies and the responses. General Comment General Response 1. Purpose and Need 1. The planriing horizon for this EA was selected as 2015 in The planning horizon should be the year concert with FA.A guidelines (a prospective 10-year period). 2020 instead of 2015 and the entire 202(} This timeframe coincides with development proposed as Vision Plan and its consequences should Phase� 1, which has been approved by 1VIAC, and with Phase be addressed. 2 if MAC decides to proceed with this phase in the future. � MAC has only approved Phase 1 for implementation. � Decisions regarding future development will be based upon growth in demand and may vary widely in both scope and timiizg. The MA.0 has not adopted the 2020 Vision Plan as presented by Northwest Airlines in Septernber 2004. The - development projects in Phase 1 are significantly different from those ro osed by Northwest. • 2. Alternatives � 2. This is not correct. The no action alternative is not'a "do The no action alternative that is nothing" alternative. It includes committed pxojects that � campared with the proposed 2015 were in the 2005-2011 CIP adopted by MA.0 prior to the improvements includes improvements adjustment for Phase 1 of tlie proposed project (see anticipated to be made as part of the discussion in Section I.A, Background) provided that they 2010 plan that are not currently in place have received environmental approval frorn the FAA (e.g., and therefore is inconsistent with the all projects in the approved 2010 LTCP) or are categorically Council on Environmental Quality excluded from formal environmental assessment by the (CE� regulations. The no action . FA.A and the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board alternative customarily means the (EQB). The no action alternative also inclndes methods to existing situation without further accommodate the forecast passenger and operations demand development. Adding anticipated without expansion of the number of gates at the Lindbergh development for the next 5 years to the and Humphrey Ternvnals. The environmental impacts of no action baseline significantly the no action alternative are deterin.ined by comparing the underreports the environmental impacts conditions that would occur from this alternative in the of this proposal. future analysis year to the existing baseline conditions. CEQ Regulation 1502.14 requires the inclusion of ... "the alternative of no action". The "action" in this EA is the expansion of facilities at the Lindbergh and Humphrey Terminals to accommodate the 2015 forecast and the accommodation of non-SkyTeam airlines at the Humphrey Terminal. This expansion is nat included in the no action - altemative and therefore is consistent with 1502.14. ) 3. Cumulative Effects 3. The daily traffic volumes on the regional highway The Draft Ex ansion EA does not system and 34`h Avenue were re ared by the Metro olitan General Comment General Response discuss the cumulative effects on traffic, Council and included the socioeco�omic variables agreed wastewater and water supply from the upon by the Council and the cities in their Comprehensive substantial redeveloprnent plar�ned in Plans approved by the Council as of May 2005, as well as Bloomington's Airport South District MN/DOT project development through 2015. Planned including land along 34th Avenue, the development and redevelopment by the cities that has not substantial redevelopment Richfield is been approved by the Council is not addressed. planning along TH 77 at 66�' Street, the I-494 improvements and the The volume of wastewater � generated could be reconstruction of the TH 62 Crosstown accommodated by either of two options — through the ��t'�'�Y• limestone tunnel interceptor or the City of Richfield sanitary line. In either case, information collected suggests there is available capacity in either system. The City of 11�inneapolis indYcated they do not foresee capacity issues based on the forecasted passenger load increases (and therefore increased water supply needs). , 4. I-494 Interchange with 34t Avenue 4. The projected congestion at the interchange is the result South of planning and development decisions by several entities. The proposed project exacerbates MA.0 supports a cooperative effort in the planning and congestion at this interchange. A study analysis of options to mitigate the impacts of existing and of solutions should be performed as part proposed deyelopment on the interchange. MAC agrees to of the EA. partner with Mn�DOT, Metropolitan Council, City of Bloomington, Metro Transit, and others to work toward a feasible solution. 5. EIS is Required � 5. A significant envirbnmental impact is when the threshold There will be significant environmental of significant impact established by the EQB � or FAA in impacts on surface traffic on ' 34�' F.AA Order 1O50.1E for environmental impact categories is Avenue, a true no action alternative has exceeded. If the proposed project in an EA would have a not been prepared and the cumulative significant environmental impact, then the F.A.A. will impacts of future MSP phased actions determine if there is an alternative which could provide a and other development are not included. good solution to the problem and could have no significant Therefore, the MAC should prepare an impacts, which would require the preparation of an EIS. EIS An EIS is not required because the irnpacts of the proposed project do not exceed the thresholds of sigxaificant impact stated in the EQB Rules or in FA.A Order 1050.1E. Summa.ry of Substantive Commenis on the ]EA and I2esponses C The following table includes a suminary of substantive comments received on the EA and responses. The actual written comments are available for inspection at the MAC General Offices and can be -' provided on request by contacting Robert Vorpahl at (612) 726-8127. �, A-2 Comment � No. ( Subject � Summary of Comment on EA er EPA EPA ' �1 1 0 3 Airport Please provide an ALP containing this Layout . project in the Final EA. If an ALP can Plan (ALP) not be provided in the EA, please explain FAA's requirement concerning an ALP as part of the NEPA process. In addition, include the proj�cted year of the .ALP and number of operations forecasted for that year. Furthermore, please include any other future plans on the ALP. ___. _ Long Term U.S. EPA requests the following Plans information, in order for the Final EA to provide a more robust discussion about future actions. * Are more runways planned for the future? Will the current na.nways meet capacify needs? * Are any other fizture actions planned at MSP? * Are there connected actions that should be discussed in this EA (i.e., new airports or ex anding other a' ort in the region ? Energy This proj ect presents a great opportunity ' for the airport to embrace environmentally beneficial practices. We encourage the city to incorporate sustainable development principles into the design of the proposed terminal improvements at MSP. We encourage the use of recycled materials and renewable resources, high-efficiency energy systems, energy conservation, and passive solar heating in the new design because of theix energy-saving, waste- minimizing, and emission-reducing effects on the environment. Beyond these initiatives, we strongly urge you to consider the use of retrofitted diesel construction equiprnent with conirols. Commitments to retrofit heavy-duty A-3 Response ALPs are not usually included in EAs and EISs � because of the. sheer bullc. The ALP that contains the proposed project is under review by the FAA and . must be approved prior to issuance of a FONSI. The ALP does not have a projected year; it has projects currently foreseen as the ultimate development of MSP. There are no other projects beyond the 2015 projects included in the ALP that would have cumulative impacts with the proposed project. See General Response l. There are no additional runways planned at this time. There are no new airports planned. Expansion of reliever airports are planned to accommodate general aviation a.ircraft that could oiherwise operate at MSP. The current runway system can accommodate the capacity needs for the projects proposed in this EA. , The MA.0 has a program that implements high efficiency energy systems, considers energy conservation measures and is investigati.ng passive solar heating opportunities. The MAC encourages coniractors to use the most energy efficient construction equipment within their company's fleet of vehicles. Coanment I No. I Subject I Summary of Comment on EA er Minnesota Deparhne nt of Natural Resources 0 Minnesota 5 Deparhne nt of Transporta tion OT Mn/DOT 6 Mn/DOT 7 Mn/DOT 8 Floodplains Surface Traffic construction equipment in large-scale projects has been docurnented with the "Big Dig" Clean Air Construction Initiative in Boston, as well as a major airport expansion project, such as Atlanta's Hartsfield Inteznational Airport, where the city of Atlanta has included contract language requiring retrofit technologies for construction equipment. In Section N, En�ironmental Consequences, Part H. rega'rding Floodplains, the Draft EA refers to the Area of Potential Effect (APE) and the Minnesota River floodplain being shown on Figure H-l. The Draft EA also states that the proposed project would not encroach upon the floodplain and therefore there would be no impact on the floodplain. However, a Figure H-1 was not included in the document. The DNR would appreciate receiving a copy of Figure H-1 referred to in the document. Please send this •copy to Area Hydrologist Julie Ekman or Area Hydrologist Molly Shodeen or the DNR Central Regional Office, 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106. The EAW uses 10-year projected traffic volumes. MnlDOT's staudard convention is to use 20-year projections. Surface This proposal will likely have significant Traffic impacts on the Post Road interchange. This is complicated by the fact that the interchange spacing between Glumack Drive and Post Road is less than MnlDOT guidelines. This needs to be analyzed in the EAW. Swrface The EAW should use the Highway Traffic Capacity Manual procedure to estimate daily LOS instead of the FDOT procedure identified on page 32. Surface The EAW should include peak period ltesponse Figure H-1 will be included in the FA.A Final EA; it was inadvertently onaitted in the Draft EA. The planning horizon for the project and its impacts is 2015; any proposed design modifications to 1VTnlDOT roadways will use 20-year forecasts. Post Road is not intended to be the prirnary access � to the Humphrey Terminal. Highway signage will direct the traveling public to the I-494/34�` Avenue South Interchange. The procedure used is based on the definitions and methodology of the Highway Capacity Manual. The EA addresses the peak � Comment I No. I Subject I Summary of Comment on EA er . Traffic analysis for 3 peak periods: A.M. Peak (7:00 to 8:00); P.M. Peak (4:00 to 5:00) and; 2:15 to 3:15 PM Peak. ' M��lDpT ( 9 I Surface Traffic MnlDOT I 10 I Surface Traffic r j Page 36, paragraph 2 states that "Mri/DOT has the ultimate authority over the I-494 Interchange." Mn/DOT � believes that the FHWA, not Mn/DOT, has the ultimate authority over this The first bullet on Page 36 states that "A change in signal operations policy resulting in the implementation of transit priority rather than preemption would further improve traffic operations at the interchange." This may not be feasible. Further analysis should anticipate that the preemption will remain in place. . ,. Response for 34"` Avenue South. Hourly directianal traffic volume data was collected on 34`h Avenue South between Airport Lane and the Westbound I-494 Ramps. This data clearly identifies the highest daily peak hour as being between 2:15 and 3:15 PM. The average value of the hourly traffic volumes collected on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday on this segment of 34th Avenue South are: 7:00-8:00 AM 1434 vph 4:00-5:00 PM 1289 vph 2:15-3:15 PM 2689 vph• This data reveals that the traffic volumes during both the traditional street peak hours are much lower than the� peak hour of 2:15 PM to 3:1 S PM studied in the EA. The text has been revised to state that Mn/DOT owns and maintains the I-494 �right of way. See revised EA Section N.P. All analysis presenied in the EA assumes that signal preemption will remain in place. It is noted, however, that the current preemption strategy is not widely used by transit agencies across the Uniied States due to the levels of congestion that can be created on the street network. The EA does not assume that the pre- emption policy will be changed, but does note that such a restrictive policy may merit reconsideration as a means of mitigating congestion and Comment I No. I Subject ( Summary of Comment on EA er Mn/DOT I 12 M►Tir7i� • � � �• � � �• � Mn/DOT I 17 Surface The third mitigation need described on Traffic page 36 involves extending the length of the westbound off-ramp to northbound 34th Avenue. This improvement has been completed and should be reflected in the EAW. Surface It is unclear as to how the traffic volumes Traffic on Table P-11, Paga 42 were generated. .Any generated traffic volumes require source documentation and methodology. Surface The ti.uning movement counts in Figures Traffic P-6 and P-7 in the appendix indicate that geomet'ric changes are needed. Please describe the needed geometric Surface The mitigation measures described on Traffic Page 36 are a minimal approach. Additional information is necessary. For example, Mn/DOT has not seen a layout for the proposed interchange reconfiguration. Discussion and coordination must occur between Mi�/DOT and MAC regarding Surface Please submit the electronic files of the Traffic Synchro analysis for this EAW to Jolene Servatius in Mn/DOT's Traffic Section. For questions regarding these points, please contact Jolene Servatius at 651- 634-2373. Surface The i.ncreased traffic volumes on 34th Traffic Street are quite significant and there will be significant impacts to the 1-494/34th Street interchange. But, the increased volume on 34th Street did not appear to be represented by increases on the regional and local system. Are diversions , to American Boulevard and A irport Lane not re resented? Surface If the 2015 traffic forecast does not Traffic include the Bloornington AUAR developments, this needs to be included. Also, the LOS analysis needs to include improvements at I-35W / TH 62 Response So noted. The text has been revised accordingly. See revised EA Section N.P. The Surface Traffic Technical Report presents the source documentation and methodology. See General Response 4. See General Response 4. These files have been 'sent to Jolene Servatius at MnlDOT. See General Response 3. See General Response 3. �, : Comment No. Subject er Mn/U4T 18 Surface . Traffic Mxi/DOT 19 Surface Traffic � __.,! I Mn/DOT Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (PCA) � 21 Summary of Comment on EA Crosstown, TH 77 / 66th Street, and the right turn lane extension at the 1-494 westbound ramp to 34th Avenue South. The increase in traffic volumes on TH 55 from 73,000 to 116,000 seems high. Is this increase supported by forecasts and analysis of redistribution of traffic �caused by 2015 proj ect? Page 3S, paragraph 3 states "In sununary, the proposed project has insignificant impacts on the surrounding roadway network." More information is required to detennine if the propcised project indeed has insignificant impacts. But, the recommended folded diamond I-494/34th Street interchange improvement on the southwest quadrant is not insignificant. Discussion and coordination must occur • between Mn/DOT, MAC, and Bloomington regarding interchange _ .__ Surface To adequately address the impacts of this Traffic development as well as other proposed large scale developments in Bloomington, Inver Grove Heights, Eagan a regional joint traffic study is needed. MnlDOT would like to be a pari.ner in tliis study. Additionally, , Mn/DOT would like to partner with MAC and Bloomington in analyzing the redesign of the I-494/34th A�enue interchange. Please contact Area Engineer, Wayne Norris at 651-582- 1548. Fuel Farm. The EA states, "the southerly expansion requires the removal of the Humphrey Fuel Farm and the ground service equipment (GSE) maintenance building." What is the plan for screening and disposing of materials from the Fuel Farm? Specifically, how will the MAC handle material containment if petroleum-related impacts are found? A-7 Response See General Response 3. See General Response 4. See General Response 4 MAC has been and will continue to be. in contact with Wayne Norris. . Any materials requiring disposal will be screened for hazaxdous material content (including petroleum impacts) and disposed of appropriately. Temporary staging locations will be available with suitable containment during the process of screening and ultimate disposal detenmination. The method of containment utilized for the staging area will Comment ( No. I Subject ( Summary of Comment on EA er PCA PCA PCA 22 23 24 Governmen The list of government approvals should t Approval be updated. Review and approval is required by the Aboveground Storage Tank permit for the new elements of the hydrant fueling system for both the Lindbergh Concouxse H and Humphrey Terrrii.nal portions of the project. Suggested wording of the chart for Section D. Govemment Approval is: ' Review of Modifications to Hydrant Fueling System under Aboveground Storage Tank (AST) Major Facility Permit, MPCA A roval. Constructio •The document states "Localized n Impacts dewatering is anticipated to be needed for installation of the three pump � stations...construction...would occur below the ordinary high water level of the Mississippi River." We note that dewatered ground water may contain contaminants from previous spills or act'ivities at the MAC. Is the dewatered ground water going to be screened for contamination? If impacts are observed, what actions will be taken? Similarly, what is the MAC's plan for screening procedures for contamination in excavated soils? Where will excavated soils be d.is osed? Surface The foux major watersheds identified in � Water � the last paragraph are not watersheds, but rather storrn water retention ponds, or in the case of Snelling Lake, a natural surface water body. PCA 25 Surface Please elaborate on the plan for de-icing Water at the airport during the expansion of the Lindbergh Terminal over the current 30L De-icing Pad. .• Response be detern�ined based on the ty., � and arnounts of materials anticipated to require special The EA has been revised accordingly. • See revised EA Section I.D. The referenced text does not apply to the proposed project and has tieen deleted. However, if any groundwater dewatering occurs, it will be screenecl�' `�'r contamination consistent with ��te construction dewatering NPDES Pernut, which provides lilnitations on what can and cannot be discharged to storm sewers. � Excavated soils will be managed consistent with the current MPCA approved Soils Management Plan. The MAC identifies their four watersheds � (drainage areas) by a name associated with the location of the respective outfall. Therefore, the four watersheds that exisi at MSP are named correctly in the EA. The MSP Deicing Field Rule states that all deicing will occur within a contained area. This field rule will remain in �r" �t during the 2015 proj ect. It i�, __ie Comment I No. I Subject I Summary of Comment on EA er ( � PCA I 26 I Groundwat er PCA I 27 I Groundwat er 'The first full paragraph on page 45 states that there is evidence of "significant petroleum related impacts to the perched water table in the Platteville Limestone, resulting from unintentional fuel released from underground fixel lines and storage tanks." The next paragraph asserts that � "the proposed project should not have impact on ground water (because) construction activity is not anticipated to occur at depths that would penetrate the Glenwood Sha1e confining layer." This paragraph does not mention whether or not that construction will disturb the perched (impac'ted) aquafer reference in the first paragraph. Pease clarify whether the perched ground water maybe disturbed during consiruction. The next �paragraph ends with the sentence, "It is anticipated that lead detection equipment, system maintenance Response intention of the MAC to provide alternate deicing locations during the construction activities that will provide containment of the deicing fluid. Temporary options for deicing may include shifting deicing to the 12R deicing pad or constructing ternporary deicing locations during the construction project near the 30L runway end. The final expansion of the Lindbergh Terminal will include a new deicing pad at Runway 30L. The statement regarding the Glenwood Shale was made to address concerns with creating vertical pathways for groundwater to migrate into the St. Peter Sandstone. This project is not anticipated to creaie vertical pathways by either avoiding construction through the Glenwood Shale and/or re- establishing the confining attributes of the shale around any structures that are required to penetrate the shale. With regard to the perched water table, it is anticipated that the perched water table in the limestone Wlll be encountered during construction, but the Lindbergh Terminal Expansion project is not occurring in an area knawn to have had past petroleum releases and therefore this project is not expected to encounter petroleum impacted The MAC has recently completed a four party stipulation agreement with the MPCA, Minneapolis Comment ( No. er Minnesota 28 Historical Society Minnesota 29 Historical Society Subject Historic Historic Summary of Comment on EA procedures, and best management practices currently employed with the MSP hydrant system would be applied to the new systern to ensure that the potential for undesired release is minimized." Given past impacts identified in this section to the perched water table, as well as other past impacts kaow on the airport site, we encourage MAC to be diligent in taking all necessary measures to thoroughly address leak detection, maintenance and Best Management Practices (BMPs). The discussion of the Section 106 review and historic properties includes � delineation of the area of potential effect, but it does not explain the basis for the delineation. The discussion includes a listing of properties listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places within the APE. Oheyawahi (Pilot Knob) which has been determined eligible to the Register is missing from this list. The boundaries af the Ft. Snelling Historic District on figure J-1 are not accurate. Figure J-1 includes some, but not all, of the listed/eligible properties in the areas of the map outside of the APE. It is not clear why this is so. Inasmuch as this section only includes previously determined listedleligible properties, there should be some discussion/justification as to how past survey efforts have been adequate to locate and evaluate properties in the APE for this current project. A-10 Response Fuel Committee, and ASIG �. � operators of the hydrant system) which addresses a multitude af issues regarding leak detection, hydrant system maintenance procedures, and best management practices. This a�eement and the practices that have been employed as a result of this agreement by the various parties will be the foundation for the operation and maintenance of any new hydrant lines installed for the 2015 Project. The EA has been revised to define the APE delineation. See revised EA Section N.J. �� ,.. Oheyawahi has been added to the list. See revised EA Section IV.J. The boundaries have been revised in Figure J-1. The figure has been revised to just show the listecUeligible properties in the APE. A stipulation in the Programmatic Agreement for the MSP Long- term Comprehensive Plan called for a supplemental study of historic and architectural resources in 2005, as well as an evaluation of new resources that fall within revised noise contours. Recent reports for MAC's p"rt 150 Sound Insulation Pro�� a Comment I No. I Subject I a Summary of Comment on EA er ' The statement that not building the proj ect ("no action") could have an adverse noise effect on the Spruce Shadows Farm is confusing. The cliscussion of effects focuses on direct effects and noise effects. Are there other aspects of effect that need to be considered? Also, the discussion of noise refers to figure M-2, but it would appeax that the proposed project noise contours are missing from this figure. A-11 Response (SIP) have evaluated much of the revised noise contour. MAC has retained a consultant to consider the remaining revised Area of Potential Effects (APE), as well as property types not addressed by the SIP reports. That study is currently underway, and the resulting report will be distributed to SHPO and the FAA when it is completed. Opening of the new Runway 17/35 is part of the no action alternative, which will place the Farm within the DNL ES contour and therefore could have an . adverse noise effect. The APE defined by the Programmatic Agreement for the MSP Long-term Comprehensive Plan included impacts other than noise (e.g., induced socioeconomic impacts, land use impacts) related to the airp.ort. These are more difficult to identify and assess. MAC has retained a consultant to work with the SHPO, the FA.A, representatives from communities in the vicinity of the airport, and other parties as needed to determine . if there are additional impacts that are affecting historic resouxces. If additional areas must be considered, the consultant will evaluate these impacts and submit a report to SHPO and the FAA with findings and recommendations. The proposed project noise contours are included in the figure; they are essentially the same as no action and therefore Comment I No. er Metro Council Metro Council Metro Council 30 31 32 Subject � Summary of Comment on EA Purpose The purpose and need section should be and Need expanded to include the following considerations. Iinplementation of the MSP 2010 long-terni comprehensive plan . is essentially implemented; aviation demand has overtalcen the development • process and the proposal is to expand the passenger terminals to meet 2015 forecasted needs. Rather than amend the � 2010 LTCP, a new ten-year development plan that starts in 2005 and potentially provides capacity to 2020 is proposed. The previously adopted 2020 Concept plan. is eliminated as an altemative in this EA. Purpose Given the financial conditions of the and Need airline industry it is necessary to phase � nevv airport development. The �roposed project appears designed to manage the various risks and also take advantage of opportunities.afforded by the new runway 17/35 capacity. The forecasted growth in passengers and total operations indicates substantial , increases over the forecasts in the previous 2010 plan. By 2015 serious aircraft delay at MSP will have required evaluation of future regional capacity needs within a system altematives context. Proposed The text relating to the Humphrey and Project Lindberg Terminals makes reference to � all the proj ect elements that constitute the proposed $682M expenditures, as shown in Figure 3. A number of elements included in the text, however are not included in the diagram. For example, the proposed end-around [bypass] Taatiway for Runway 12L/30R, Taxiway C Extension, and Taxiway M extension should be incorporated since they are described as critical to addressing significant delay issues prior to 2015. A-12 Response , almost indistinguishable. \ , The EA .�incorporates this cornment. See revised Section I.A. � � C;omments noted. �" See General Response 1. See revised Figure 3, which has been revised accordingly, except for the potential delay mitigation rneasure — the end-around [bypass] taxiway for Runway 12L/30R, which is not included in the proposed project. This taxiway will be evaluated along with other delay reduction strategies prior to implementation of Phase 2. C_ Comment I No. er Metro Council Metro Council Metro Council 33 34 Subject ( Summary of Commeut on EA Proposed Proj ect Proposed Proj ect 35 I Alternative Phase I and Phase II elements should�be distinguished from each other in Figure 3 or reconsidered within the context of comments made in section II below. The 2020 Vision P1an, as presented at information meetings and on the MA.0 web site, depicts 17 aircraft positions on the HEIH Remote Apron. These positions should also be shown on Figure 3. Text should also be included discussing how ihis apron may relate to charter operations; and how it is to be used in � conjunction with the gate operations over time as the Hf-IH Terminal is expanded. It would help the reader to understand the project, and follow the EA discussions, if the other future proj ects were also depicted in Figure 3(e.g. HHH Terminal parlcing expansion). Some labeling of the ta�ciway system would help clarify where� � certain segments being discussed are located on the airport. A copy of the 2005-2011 CIP, including the adjustments made by the Commission in Apri12005, should be considered for inclusion as an appendix to the EA. The only alternative to the 2020 Vision Plan considered in this EA was the adopted MSP 2020 Concept Plan; it was eliminated as an alternative. One of the significant changes in assumptions from the Dual-track FEIS is that the Building B airline maintenance complex can now be considered for other airport uses. This new trend for less airline MRO facilities is likely to continue through the plalining period and beyond. Therefore, as a practical matter the continued focus of terniinal investments in areas of the airport [east� of runway 4/22 is likely to continue, especially with availability of more parking, ground access, and LRT service. In such a situation the long-term airoort develonment plan would appear A-13 Response Phase 1 has b�een added as Figure 4. The MAC did not adopt the 2020 Vision Plan as proposed by NWA. See discussion on page 2. Aircraft parking positions on the remote apron area are for overnight parking of aircraft tk�at cannot be accommodated at the gates. ' Figure 3 has been revised accordingly. The 2005-2011 CIP is available at the MAC. Comments noted. Comment I No. I Subject I Summary of Comment on EA er Metro Council Meiro Council to be proceeding along the general lines of the proposed 2015 Plan. It is not clear however what the.plan concept for post 2020 is or could be; it apparently is no longer concept 5; 6, or 6A evaluated in the dual-track planning 36 Alternative The MSP 2020 Concept, Plan. is included � s in the 2004 adopted regional transportation policy plan (TPP). Elimination of the concept plan, and other indications in the EA that the MSP Dual-track FEIS no longer applies in certain categories, indicates that a system evaluation for 2015 and beyond is needed. The EA has indicated that, � assuming federal approval and funding, construction of the proposed project would comrnence in 2005 and could be cornpleted by 201 l. The Council has in.dicated that a regional update of aviation forecasts, with system alternatives and forecast scenarios, should be prepared after there has been a.t . least a full year of operation on the new � , runway 17/35. Unconstrained aviation ' demand forecasts shown in the EA have . changed substantially from the FEIS, and proj ected aircraft delays are up significantly. This has implications for air service and facility needs, it would be critical to review system alternatives, including MSP de�elopment and operational options, prior to implementing any Phase III 37 Natural This category in the current EA indicates Resources no measurable effect, by stationary and Energy facilities or aircraft and ground vehicle Supply movements, on local supply of energy or natural resources. However, no post 2010 airport plan information or other documentation concerning energy usage is provided in the EA. The EA does A-14 Response See General Response l. Comments noted. See General Response 1. Comments noted. 'The no action alternative would consu.me more fuel than the proposed project because of airfield congestion; however, neither would adversely affect local supplies of energy or natural resources. ( . , ' Comment I No. I Subject ( Summary of Comment on EA er Metro Council Metro Council : 39 include evaluation of a.ircraft and ground traffic emissions for air quality analysis . purposes; no stationary sources are mentioned. The EA indicates that in Phase I of the 2015 terminal expansion that the Humphrey Terminal Fuel Farm will be removed and the lease extingu.ished. At the same time that this fueling. facility is removed, the EA forecasts indicate a substantial increase in aircraft operations and increased delay levels, indicating more fuel consumption. Increased ground traffic is also driving the need for more parking facilities. This ground traffic increase also indicates increased energy consumption caused by imnlementin� the 2020 Vision Plan. Energy The 1997 Dual Track FEIS [V Supply and Environmental Consequences, item J.] Natural discusses fuel consumption for several Resources mobile sources operating at the airport. ' Basic background information for the FEIS was developed in preparation of the MSP LTCP in 1990 [Vol. 4 Facility Requirements]. The fuel consumption projected for 2015 should be reviewed against the assumptions in the 2010 LTCP Vol. 4. An adequacy assessment of the fueling infrasiructure • (refinery/pipeline/airport) should be prepared and any facility reguirements . identified. Due to long lead times and complexity of fueling issues the � assessment should cover a future time period to at least 2015. The assessment should also identify any potential environmental effects and mitigation ' measures. Energy 'The FEIS indicated the area of potential Supply and effect (APE) for energy consumption "is Natuxal national and international in scope Resouxces depending upon the specific energy sources used". The EA general forecast assumptions (page B 3-5) includes item 4.6 Fuel Assumptions that focuses A-15 Response Aviation fuel needs will be provided by the existing fueling system and pipeline providers. Comments noted. The no action alternative would consuxne more fuel than the proposed project because of a.irfield congestion; however, neither would adversely affect local supplies of energy or natural resources. An assessment of the fueling infrastructure (refinery/pipeline/airport) will be prepared prior to implementation of Phase 2 and any facility requirements identified. As stated in Section 4.6 of Appendix B, "the real cost of fuel is assumed to decline to 2000- 2002 levels and then increase gradually." This is consistent with projections used by the FAA, the Office of Management Comment ( No. er Metro Council Me1ro Council City of Bloomingt on 41 42 Subject Planning Process Plaasning Process FEIS Summary of Comment on EA primarily on fuel costs, assuming that if fuel prices continue to increase the costs would be passed on to the flying public [and] higher air fares would reduce demand.. That assumption does not � reinforce the current investments in or future support for a healthy hub-airport operation. The EA should also clarifying the overall limits of the fuel supply chain, where the air service provaiders system and the MSP hub city location, may be more of a factor in dete ini„g fiature growtla capabilities tlian just cost. In January, a MAC staff proj ect review of the airline proposal indicated, under "2020 Plan Review and Approvals", the following process: 1) Prepare a revised ALP and submit it for F.AA approval, 2) Prepare an EA for Phase I and II as indicated by FAA. Order 1050.1E, 3) Prepare an EAW as the proposal meets state EQB criteria, 4) Approval of the 2020 plan by the Council required since it is a change from the 2010 LTCP adopted in 1996, and 5) Establish applicability of thresholds used in capital review criteria for passenger handling facilities needs as it relates to the 2020 proposal. In May, 2005 the Commission approved adjustment of the CIP for Phase I projects that were already in the 2005/2006/2007 CIP, and authorized staff to proceed with all required and appropriate notifications to the Metropolitan Council, affected communities, and other entities. At this time the Council has not received the proposed MSP 2020 Vision plan or the adjusted CIl'. Expansion at MSP Airport beyond that currently approved by the FAA's September 1998 Record of Decision for A-16 Response and Budget, and Global In';.�, ��t (the firm that provides econoznic inputs to the ' FAA). This assumption does support the current investment in an.d future support of a healthy hub-airport operation. Section 4.6 .did note that if the assumption did not hold, fuel prices would remain high and demand would be reduced. Comments noted. See General Ttesponse 1 regarding the 2020 Vision Plan. The adjusted CIP will be sent to the Council. See General Responses 1 and 4. Comment ( No. er City of 43 Bloomingt on Subject � Summary of Comment on EA No Action Alternative City of 44 2020 Plan Bloomingt on City of 45 Bloomingt on Surface Traffic the Dual Track Airport Planning should occur only if the impacts of additional expansion are fully analyzed in an Environmental Impact Statement and MAC contractually commits to full mitigation measures. Several of the comments in the following letter relate to assumptions in the EA that cause the analysis to understate the true environmental impact. The faulty methodology includes two interrelated issues: � No Build Alternative - The "no build" alternative, that is compared with the proposed 2015 improvements, includes improvements anticipated to be made as � part of the 2010 plan that are not c�rrently in place. The no build alternative customarily means the existing situation withaut further development. Adding anticipated development for the next 5 years to the "no build" baseline significantly � underreports the environmental impacts of this proposal. • 2015. Improvements vs. 2020 Improvements - We understand that MAC's use of the 2015 timeframe is at the FAA's direction. However, the result is to underreport impacts of the planned phased action. While the EA does not elucidate all the major impacts that may result from this proposed $820 million dollar airport '� unprovement, it is clear that there will be major surface transportation impacts at the 34th and 494 Interchange. The City of Bloomington's issues with this are as follows: • Impact Measurement - The EA indicates that the no build alternative will operate at level of service F, and therefore implies that the level of service F condition in the proposed alternative is reallv of no significant impact. This A-17 Response See General Response 2. The major elements of the 2010 Plan are essentially complete. Therefore, evaluation of the no build alternative that includes the 2010 isnprovements is appropriate. � See General Response l. Although there are several individual tra,ffic movements that operate under LOS E or F under all scenarios analyzed, the overall intersection level of service is not F at either of the I-494/34th Avenue South In.terchange Intersections. The average intersection delay under the no action and proposed project scenario will be D(50 sec/veh) and E(75 sec/veh) at the Eastbound I-494 Ramps at 34tn Avenue South resbectivelv. At Comment ( No. er City of Bloomingt on Subject Surface Traffic Summary of Comment on EA results from several mistaken assumptions: 1. Consider other development. The EA does not model the impact of other anticipated developments in Bloornington that also rely on this interchange for access. Taken together, the proposed developments will require that capacity of the 1-494/34th Avenue interchange be increased before the proposed Humphrey Terininal improvements are opened. 2. Degree of impact. The EA does not indicate that ihe increase in �ehicle traffic as a result of the preferred alternative and the practical result for a customer attempting to c�.tch a flight at the Humphrey Terminal. 3. Peak periods chosen for analysis. The only peak period reported is the 2-3 PM peak which coincides with the change of shifts at NWA's facilities. The EA does not look at the impacts during the morning aud evening peaks on 1-494 and 34th Avenue. • Different Access Quality for Different Airlines - The proposed MSP expansion will have a severe negative impact on surface iraffic a�ong 34th Avenue. Motorists trying to reach the Humphrey Terminal via 1-494 and 34th Avenue will encounter service levels that the Expansion EA calls "unacceptable." As proposed, there will be a stark contrast in the ability of motorists to access MSP's two ternunals. On one hand, motorists going to the Lindbergh Terminal will encounter excellent conditions with no stoplights; conditions that are in fact . • Response the Westbound I-494 Ramp�,, ,ic 34th Avenue � South the average intersection delay under the no action and proposed project scenarios will be C(28 sec/veh) an:d C (34 sec/veh) respectively. See General Response 3. See Response 46. See Response 8. Delays are currently experienced at the Lindbergh Terminal. The delay that is experienced during conditions when there is a 50% reduction in travel speed for vehicles traveling to the Lindbergh Terminal results in a delay of 120 seconds per vehicle. The average control delay under proposed project conditions for the peak hour analyzed is anticipated to be approxima*Aly 125 seconds ner vehicle trav� a Comment I No. er City of Bloomingt on City of � _ � Bloomin� 47 ,; Subject ( Snmmary of Comment on EA Suxface Traffic Surface Traffic improved compared to the current situation by the proposed project. On the other hand, motorists attempting to reach the Humphrey Terminal (and Bloomington's .Airport South District) will encounter unacceptable conditions with numerous stoplights and severe congestion. Airlines moving to the Humphrey Terminal vyill require MAC to upgrade this access as part of phasa one of the improvement, therefore I-494/34th Avenue improvements should be included as aproject cost and a mitigation measure in the EA. • No Mitigation of Access Impacts - The EA only states that access is an issue; it does not propose mitigating the impact. Fartunately, the unacceptable service levels can be avoided. By rebuilding the 34th Avenue/I-494 interchange and separating LRT from vehicle traffic, an acceptable level of service can be provided to both Humphrey Terminal customers and to adj acent areas in Bloomington. Surface traffic impacts need to be further quantified in an Environmental Impact Staternent and appropriate mitigation measures identified in consultation with MnDOT, Metro Transit and impacted cities so that such improvements can be funded and constructed concurrently with the proposed MSP expansion. The City of Bloomington understands that the MAC needs to expand MSP to A-19 Response from the I-494/34`° Avenue South Interchange to the Humphrey Terminal. This is the weighted average delay for tihe three movements that travel to the Humphrey Terminal from the I- 494/34�' Avenue Interchange (westbound to northbound right- turn, eastbound to northbound left-turn, northbound from American on 34�' Avenue South). The airlines no, longer view delays as a significant issue, based on information provided at meetings of the Airline Technical Committee. . MAC does not agree that it is solely responsible for the design and reconstruction of the I- 494/34th Avenue South Interchange: See General Response 4. See General Response 4. The EA lists potential mitigation measures in Section N.P, Surface Traffic, that could ease congestion. Separating the LRT from vehicular traffic � and rebuild.ing the 34th Avenue/I-494 i.nterchange are beyond the jurisdiction of the MAC. Any proposed improvements would be appropriately considered with the reconstruction of the I-494/34th Avenue South Interchange. See Response 46 above. Comment I No. I Subject I Summary of Comment on EA er on accommodate forecast air traffic growth. � Bloomington will not support this expansion unless the MAC contractu.ally commits to mitigating the negative impacts that the expansion creates. The largest negative impact created by the expansion will be to vehicle iraffic using 34th Avenue. It is vital that the MAC understand that unless the 34th Avenue/I- 494 interchange suxface traffic problems are mitigated, both airlines and MSP customers are likely to be very unhappy with the substantial difficulties and time - delays they will encounter to get to the Humphrey Terminal, particularly in contrast to the excellent accessibility provided for the Lindbergh Terminal. The interchange at 34th Avenue/I-494 may well become the worst operating interchange in the metropolitan area and as a result, the cost of rebuilding the . , interchange should be included as a proiect cost. City of 49 Bloomingt on FEIS The City of Bloomington requests that the Metropolitan Airports Cornmission order an Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the proposed MSP expansion project given that: • The proposed project would create a significant environxnental impact on surface traffic along 34th Avenue and at the 34th Avenue and I-494 interchange. Surface traffic impacts need to be further quantified in an Environmental Impact Statement and mitigation measures identified in consultation with MnDOT, Metro Transit and impacted cities so that mitigation can be funded and constructed concurrently with the proposed MSP expansion. • The Draft Expansion EA does not present a true "no action alternative" as required by CEQ regulations. In addition to not meeting Federal standards, cam aring the proposed project to an Response Cornments noted. See General Response 2. Comment I No. er City of Bloomingt on 50 Subject � Summary of Comment on EA Backgroun d alternative build project mislabeled as a "no action alternative" makes it impossible to assess many impacts, including whether the project creates �"significant noise impacts" as'defined by the FAA. • The Draft�Expansion EA provides insufficient information to support a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSl). Additional analyses are ' necessary to determine whether there are significant environmental impacts in numerous areas, inclucling air quality, noise, socioeconomic impacts, wastewater and water supply. The Draft Expansion EA leaves many important questions unanswered. • The Environmental Impact Siateinent must include measuxes sufficient fo mitigate negative impacts. MAC's � commitment to mitigation needs to be guaranteed by a binding agreernent with adjacent cities. The most important of these mitigation measures is the rebuild of the 34th Avenue and I-494 interchange, which must be funded and constructed concurrently wiih the proposed MSP expansion. � 1) This sectian discusses the 2020 MSP Concept Plan, NWA's 2020 Vision Plan and MAC's 2020 Development Plan. .All of these plans extend to the year 2020 while the Draft Expansion EA only extends to 2015. Bloomington understands that the 2015 date selected was based upon FAA instruction. Because the proposed improvements out ' to 2015 are part of a larger phased plan that will increase overall impacts, Bloomington requests that MAC prepare an Environmental Impact Statement that evaluates improvernents planned through the vear 2020. Response See General Response 5. See Response 46 above. See General Response. l. City of 51 Purpose 2) On page 4, the Draft Expansion EA See General Response 2. ( ) Bloomin�t and Need states "there is insufficient terminal space A-21 -- omment No. Subject Summary of Comment on EA er on � at the Lindbergh Ternunal to accommodate the forecast growth". This statement implies that forecast growth , cannot occur without terminal expansion. ' Table 1 and the Draft Expansion EA text should be expanded to include information on the level of operations and passengers that is forecast in the event that growth is constrained by no expansion in terminal space (a true "no action aliernative"). Such forecasts are necessary first to determine 2015 MSP ' no action conditions (noise, surface traffic, etc.) and then to evaluate through comparison the true extent of the proposed project's environmental impacts. • 3) Table 2 should be expanded to include a true "no action alternative" (see Comtnent 4 belowl. City of 52 Compariso �4) The Draft Expansion EA does not Bloomingt n of ineet Council for Environmental Quality on Alternative (CEQ) regulations for implementing the s National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). CEQ regulations require that a � "no action alternative" be provided as a baseline against which to compare the environmental impacts of the proposed action. The "no action alternative" set forward in the Draft Expansion EA does not meet CEQ regulations given that it would constitute a major expansion of MSP in its own right. The "no action alternative" outlined on Page 8 includes major construction projects that would add capacity at the Lindbergh terminal for an additional 23 aircraft at new gates and remote aircraft parking areas accessed via buses. As drafted, the Draft , Expansion EA compares the environmental impacts of the proposed project not with a true "no action alternative" as is required, but xather with a significant build alternative to the ______ __ _ proposed proiect. This apnroach A-22 Response See General Response 2. These are not new gates. description of no action Section II. � See in Comment I No. er City of Bloomingt on City. of Bloomingt on City of Bloomingt on City of 53 54 Subject ( Summary of Comment on EA Air Quality Air Qualiiy 55 Air Quality 56 Noise significantly understates or hides the impacts of the proposed project and leads the Draft Expansion EA to several nbn- logical conclusions. To understand the true impacts of the proposed project and cornply with Federal standards, it is necessary to compare the project to a tnie "no action/no build alternative". Inciude a true "no action/no build alternative" in the Environmental Impact Statement. 5) Table 3 should be expanded to include a true "no action alternative". 6) The Draft Expansion EA assumes an average travel speed of 40 mph for its air quality modeling. Actual travel speeds are significantly lower on 34th Avenue (the posted speed is 35 miles per hour). Since 40 mph is close to the optimal speed for inilumizing emissions, more accurately reflecting actual speeds would increase forecast emissions. Revise the model speed assumptions in the Environmental Impact Statement. 7) In assessing air quality impacts, the Draft Expansion EA compares the proposed project with another build project rnislabeled as a"no action alternative". This comparison leads the Draft Expansion EA to draw the non- logical conclusion that aircraft related air quality would improve if the project were constructed (versus "no action") despite dramatic increases in the number of arriving and departing aircraft. Expand the air quality analysis to include a true "no action alternative". 8) Analyze the cusnulative air quality impacts of aircraft/runway related emissions in conjunction with surface traffic emissions. 9) As stated on Page 27 of the Draft Fxnansion EA. FA.A 1050. lE stipulates A-23 Response See General Response 2. It is agreed that 40mph is high. Vehicular CO emission . data developed by the MPCA for use in emission and microscale studies shows that 30 mph is the speed .with the lowest emission rate in grams per mile. The emission rate for 40 mph is approximately the same as 20 mph. Therefore, assumulg a speed of 40 mph along 34th Avenue and Post Road did not underestimate emissions along these segments of roadway. See General Response 2. The cumulative emissions have been added. See revised EA Section N.A. See General Response 2. Comment � No.� I Subject � Summary of Comment on EA ori that a"significant noise impact would occur if the analysis shows that the proposed project would cause population in the noise sensitive areas to experience . an increase in noise of DNL 1.5 dB or more at or above DNL 65 dB noise exposure when compaxed to the "no action alternative" for the same ' timeframe,"�However, as pointed out . above, the�Draft Expansion EA does not provide a true "no action alternative" from which to compare the proposed alternative, The "'no action alternative" included is actually a major expansion of MSP in its own right. The Draft Expansion EA does not include forecasts, assumptions or noise modeling for a true "no action alternative". It merely compares one build alternative to another (the noise impacts of those two build alternatives are almost identical to one another - see Figure M-2). Therefore, the. FAA and other reviewers have no basis ' upon which to judge whether a significant noise impact would occur under FAA 1O50.1E. Given the absence of this information, an Environmental Txnpact Statement should be prepared to � provide. noise modeling of a true "no action alternative" to quantify the extent of significant noise unpact and the City of 57 Bloomingt on Noise 10) A visual comparison of the 2007 Mitigated DNL contour in the Part 150 Update with the 2015 DNL contours in the Draft Expansion EA reveals that they are virtually identical in Bloomington. The noise contours differ very little in spite of assumed MSP aircraft operations increasing by 141,212 or 24.2% (from 582,366 in 2007 to 723,578 in 2015). Bloomington understands that the primary reason for the static noise levels in spite of substantial growth in overflights is the elimination of louder Response Comments noted. Typical Part 150 mitigation measures include prevent� � and corrective land use measa.� cs Camment I No. I Subject er City of Bloomingt on City of Bloomingt on 58 Noise 59 Socio- economic Summary of Camment on EA aircraft, Given that elimination of louder aircraft is a key base assumption for the noise contours presented, MA.0 should guarantee that this noise mitigation actually occurs by adding a mitigation measure on this issue to an EIS and making a binding mitigation agreement with cities adjacent to the airport. 11) Table M-2 should be expanded to include a true "no action alternative". 12) Include a 2015 noise rnap for a true "no action alternative". 13) The Draft Expansion EA estimates the cost of the proposed project at $682 million. It also states that costly replacement of MSP water and sanitary sewer lines may need to occur as a result of the expansion project. Although not discussed in the Draft Expansion EA, Bloomington understands that the project debt payments are proposed to be paid t.�rougli user fees, which in turn are likely to be made by the flying public. Given the instability of the airline industry, there appears to be a risk that user fees at MSP could decline substantially through a general reduction in airline txavel, loss of hub status, airline bai�uptcy or a similar event. Such an occurrence could have a significant socioeconomic unpact on the government agencies and t�payers that would be asked to step in and make the necessary debt payments. The environmental analysis should include a risk analysis for the project's financing and discuss who would pay project debts �n the event they cannot be funded through user fees. Discuss tlle socioeconomic impacts that would be created bv such an event. Response as well as . operational noise abatement measures that can be implemented by an ai�port operator. The MAC cannot regulate airline aircraft retirement or replacement schedules. See General Response 2. Comments noted. A risk analysis of financing is not required in a NEPA document; however, the mix of funds to be used for the proposed project has been reviewed by MAC and found to be financially sound. _ City of 60 Surface 14) Visitors to the Husnphrey Terminal The average delay values reported Blooxningt Traffic will encounter significant delays when in the iables as greater than 120 on approaching and leaving by car via 1-494 seconds only occur at the 34th and 34th Avenue. The Draft Expansion Avenue South/I-494 Eastbound EA characterizes the level of service Ramps. The in.dividual values are A-25 .Comment I No. er City of Bloorningt on Ciiy of Bloomingt on 61 62 Subject � Summary of Comment on EA provided as "unacceptable". For example, Table P-1 lists the average vehicle delay for vehicles from eastbound 1-494 turning northbound on 34th Avenue from 2:15 to 3:15 p.m. on a weekday as greater than 120 seconds. Note that greater than i20 seconds is not the maximum delay, but rather the average delay in the mid afternoon. Rather tlian stating that the average delay will be greater than 120 seconds, please be rnore specific and indicate the actual average delay pro� ected. Surface 15) The peak analysis period chosen Traffic under represents the peak congestion levels that will be present at the 34th Avenue and I-494 interchange as a result of the proj ect. The surface traffic analysis includes only the hour from 2:1 S p.m. to 3:15 p.m. The analysis should include AM and PM peak hours of the adjacent streets and highway as.well. Both the morning and evening peak hours include directional traffic and will likely show different interchange movements that are over capacity. Additionally, movements in the AM and PM peaks are impacted significantly more by LRT than the mid- afternoon movements analyzed in the Draft EA. � Surface 16) The Draft Expansion EA argues that Traffic the proposed expansion project has no significant impact on several turniug movements because the level of service remains at F before and after the project. It is true that the level of service classification remains the same, but only because F is the lowest possible classificat�on. However, from a motorist's perspective, level of service will clearly be degraded. If a customer trying to reach the Humphrey Terminal from I-494 must sit through four stoplight cycles rather than two stoplight cycles, both scenarios may be classified A-26 Response listed below: No Action Eastbound Left —145 sec/veh Northbound Through — 124 sec/veh Proposed Project Eastbou.nd Left —.185 sec/veh Northbound Through — 165 sec/veh See Response 8. See General Response 4. The average delay per vehicle for the I-494/34th Avenue South Interchange during the EA peak hour was determined to be 78 seconds/vehicle under the No Action scenario and 109 seconds/vehicle under the Proposed Project scenario. The average intersection delay values and the conditions presented in response to Bloomiiigton Comrnent 60 do not in� `P multiple cycle failures wi . a Comment ( No. ( Subject I Summary of Comment on EA er City of 63 Bloomingt on City of Bloomingt on City of Bloomingt on 65 Suxface Traffic as Level of Service F or unacceptable. However, the Humphrey Terminal � cu'stomer (and Bloomington visitor) will clearly perceive a significant degradation of service. � � 17) Expand the level of service lists on Pages 33 and 34 and Tables P-1 through P-10 to include both an AM peak and a PM peak period of the adjacent highway. The list of ttuning movements that have unacceptable levels of service will likely expand considerably. During the AM and P1VI peaks the frequency of LRT preemption does not allow any particular cycle length to be run. Rather the signals run independently with no consistent Surface 18) In drawing its conclusions, the Draft Traffic Expansion EA makes the assumption that signal cycle length and split optimization aloug 34th Avenue will occux prior to the ' year 2015. Without the signalization improvements, traffic conditions will be much worse than presented. What is ihe cost of the assumed signalization improvements? Who will fund and complete the proposed mitigation? Include the signalization irnprovements as a mitigation measure for the ternlinal expansion. Surface 19) From a regional perspective, the Traffic primary concern for regional traffic flow is backup from a congested 34th Avenue/I-494 interchange extending into the mainline of 1-494. The Draft Expansion EA is silent on the issue of mainline backups. It is very likely that increased congestion at the 34th Avenue and 1-494 interchange will cause mainline backups. Address the issue of mainline backups in the analysis and include mitigation measures to avoid such impacts. of I 66 ( Surface A-27 Response magnitude of 3 or 4 cycles before entry of, a vehicle into the intersection. See Response 8. The traffic signals along 34"' Avenue South have not been accepted by the City of Bloornington or MA.0 from the Hiawatha LRT design-build team. MAC will cooperate with the City of Bloomington, Metropolitan Council, Metro Transit and Mn/DOT to xevise and implement signal timing improvements. The mitigation measures discussed in the EA are minor signal timing changes and not major moclifications or preemption. See General Response 4. Comments noted. Comment I No. er Bloomingt on City of Bloomingt on City of Bloonaingt on .: Subject Traffic Surface Traffic Surface Traffic City of 69 Wastewater Bloomingt on ' Summary of Comment on EA at an intersection is undesirable. When one is on the way to an airport and perhaps mm�ing late, it becomes particularly undesirable. Combining an unacceptable level of service with the time-specific concems of an airline passenger may well increase rnn„ing yellow and red lights along 34th Avenue. With the presence of LRT on ungated lxack, n�nning yellow and red lights will be particularly clangerous: Effective measures must be proposed to xnitigate this dangerous condition. It is logically inconsistent that traffic levels on 34�' Avenue south of I-494 in Bloomington wi11 decrease (as the Draft Expansion EA forecasts) while the project adds significant traffic to the Humphrey Terminal. Explain the reasoning for this forecast or correct it in the Environmental Impact Statement in consultation with the City of Bloomington. When inclividual turning movements go from Level of Service F to a significantly diminished Level of Service F due to the proposed project, rather than stating that there� is no deterioration in level of service, provide alternative methods of quantifying and measuring service degradation and set forward mitigation measures that will eliminate the impacts. The wastewater information provided in the Draft Expansion EA is incomplete and insufficient for assessing impacts. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared that fully projects wastewater flows into all off- airport systems and analyzes the capacity of those off-airport systems to handle the additional flow. � : Response ( See Responses 46 and 62. See General Response 3. Traffic volumes reported for the No Action and Proposed Project scenarios are essentially the same and both represent an increase from existing conditions. See Response 45. The EA does provide appropriate information to evaluate the available systems to convey wastewater from the no action alternative or the 2015 Project. In either case, the volume of wastewater is predicted to have similar increases based on predicted increases in airport activity. The primary differ��ce beiween the two option��, �s Comment ( No. er City of Bloomingt on City of �- �� Bloomingt _ on 70 71 Subject � Summary of Comment on EA Water The water supply inf'ormation provided Supply in the Draft Expansion EA is incomplete and insufficieni for assessing inipacts. � Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared that fully discusses whether water is available to serve the expansion. Cumulative In spite of CEQ requirements to discuss Effects and analyze cumulative effects, the Draft Expansion EA ignores the issue. To meet Federal requirements, the Draft Expansion. EA must consider other projects planned in the area, regardless of ' what entity is underta.king the proj ects, and thoroughly analyze the cu.mulative effects of those projects in combination with the proposed MSP expansion project. The Draft Expansion EA does not discuss the substantial redevelopment planned in Bloomington's Airport South District includang land along 34�' Avenue (for wYaich an AUAR. and Cornprehensive Plan amendments have been prepared), nor the substantial redevelopment Richfield is planning along TH 77 at 66tn Street, nor the I-494 improvements (for which an EIS has been prepared). There are likely additional projects for which cumulative effects must be also analyzed. Due to this failure to comply with CEQ requirements, an Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared to analyze A-29 Response whether the flow is conveyed through the limestone tunnel interceptor or th.e City of Richfield sanitary line. In either case, information collected suggests there is available capacity in either system. The EA does provide appropriate information to evaluate the impacts on the water supply system. The City of Minneapolis had indicated they do not foresee issues with capacity issues based on the forecasted passenger load increases (and therefore increased water supply needs). The water supply needs are predicted to have �similar increases with both the no action alternative and the proposed project. See General Response 3. Comment ( No. I Subject I Summary of Comment on EA er . City of Eagan City of Eagan City of Eagan the cumulative effects of these adjacent ' roj ects. 72 2020 Plan Thank you • for the opportunity to comment on the draft Environmental • Assessment (EA) for the 2015 Terminal Expansion Project. Before outlining the City's comments on the projects included. in the EA, it should be noted that over the past year, the City has been , presented with and has reviewed the entire Vision 2020 plan, which is why we now question why the EA only pertains to a handful of projects included in the � overall Vision 2020. Given the magnitude and the costs associated with • Vision 2020 improvements, as well as the projected � growth in operations at MSP, the public would be better served if the EA had addressed Vision 2020 in its entirety rather than focusing solely on the projects associated with the terminal ex ansion through 2015. 73 2020 Plan Using the gro.wth projections provided by the MAC in the draft EA, MSP is expecting operations to increase from 533,700 to 723,5�8 in 2015. It is, clear • that even with the addition of Runway 17/35, a plan is going to be� needed to accommodate this projected growth. As a � general policy question to be answered, at what point wi11 MSP reach a saturation point in regard to number of operations? Secondly, based on the growth estimates, is the MAC anticipating the need for a third arallel runway? 74 2020 Plan If a third parallel runway is being considered by the MA.0 to accommodate growth,, this fiu-ther emphasizes why the draft EA should be focused on plans out ' to 2020 in order to allow for a more ' complete discussion of how the airport can and should accommodate growth over the next 15 years. In short, if the MAC is considering reopening discussions regarding a third barallel A-30 Response �� Comments noted. See General Response 1. See General Response 1 See General Response 1 and Response 2. This EA does not anticipate additional runway construction at MSP. Comment No. er City of 75 Eagan City of Eagan City of Eagan 76 77 Subject ( Summary of Comment on EA Noise Noise Surface Traffic runway, the issue should be brought forward immediately and not be delayed until the MAC has invested another $682 znillion in the 2015 terminal expansion projects. While the proposed projects being reviewed in the EA may not have a direct impact on the cumulative noise environment around MSP, the growth that will result from the improvements clearly wi11 impact noise in the City of Eagan and surrounding communities. Based on an approximate 35%0 anticipated increase in operations by 2015, the City of Eagan respectfully disagrees with the assumption that the noise environment will not be significantly impacted as a result of expansion plans' through 2015. According to the EA, the City of Eagan will see an increase of 33 homes in the 60-64 DNL contours, which is in addition to the thousands of homes in Eagan that will be impacted by Runway 17/35, yet will not be eligible for noise mitigation due to the faxming of the It is clear that noise will be less concentrated as a result of the addition of Runway 17/35 later this year; however, the conservatively estimated increase of 189,878 operations by 2015 will result in more aircraft noise in commtuuties surrounding MSP. As an aside, this finding should further exemplify to the FA.A the importance of focusing on single events as opposed to DNL when determining noise impact. As MSP continues to grow, and as plans are being considered by the MA.0 to promote .that growth, the MAC must thoughtfully consider the impact of expansion plans on surface traffic in the region. Currently, as a result of the new runway, redevelopment is underway in A-31 Response Comments noted. Comments noted. While FA.A discusses supplemental noise analyses (e.g., single event metrics, etc.) iu Order 1O50.1E, no thresholds for significant impacts with supplemental metrics have been established. See also Response 78. See General Responses 3 and 4. Comment ( No. er City.of Eagan City of Eagan : m Subject � Summary of Comment an EA east Richfield, which . will result in additional traffic along Cedar Avenue. Furthertnore, the Airport South District in Bloomington (Bloornington Central Station) will add significant traffic to 34th Avenue, thus competing with additional iraffic that will result from the expansion at the Humphrey Terminal. _ Lastly, as Phase II of the Mall of America is approaching, I-494 wi11 continue to grow in congestion. These traffic concerns, and hovv� they can be remedied, should be taken into consideration by the MAC prior to approving the 2015 terminal expansion Noise The Metropolitan .Airports Cornmission has defined the presence of noise compatible land use in the Eagan- Mendota Heights Corridor as one of the key aspects of its Noise Abatement Plan for the Minneapolis St. Pau1 International Airport. As the City of Eagan develops and redevelops in the Corridor area, the potential impact of aircraft noise remains one of the primary factors in its land use decisions. The adoption of the 2007 , Noise Policy Contours has resulted in comments by property owners regarding the perceived reduced impact of the airport in that area. It is the City's perception that the current size of the Policy Contours is partially a�function of quieter aircraft, but also a function of the effect of the redistribution of traffic that will result from the opening of the North- South Runway in late 2005. Noise Given the fact that the new runway was approved primarily to increase capacity (redistribution of noise impact being one result) and given NWA's projections of operational growth expected to take advantage of that capacity, it is reasonable to assume that traffic volusnes in the Eagan-Mendoia Hei�hts Corridor A-32 Response Comments noted. All other factors being equal, noise exposure levels in 2015 are projected to increase as compared to the 2007 NEM due to the forecast changes in fleet mix and the increased number of aircraft operations. Comment I No. er City of Eagan Subject ( Summary of Comment on EA Noise City of I 81 I Long Term Eagan Planning area will grow over time to levels similar to those experienced prior to the new runway opening. Given the fact that NWA has made progress in converting a larger propor.tion of its fleet to factory Stage III aircraft, it is unclear how the incremental replacement of all retrofitted Stage III planes with factory Stage III planes will result in further reductions in overall noise impact. In addation to the MA.C's periodic updates af the Part 150 progratn, the City believes that it is important for t11e MAC to address the issue of future DNL noise. contours that serve as the basis of the Noise Policy Contours in order to penmit cities southeast of the airport to properly assess the consequences of proposed improvements and to effectively make land use decisions in the context of noise impact projections. The City recognizes the attempts of the MAC to ease passengers' travel by reducing delay at MSP through terminal expansion plans. However, the City respectfixlly requests that the MAC proactively think beyond the 2015 terminal proj ects by providing responses to the following public policy questions: 1) How much growth does the MAC want to plan to drive? 2) What is the operational capacity of MSP? These are difficult policy questions that need to be answered before moving ahead with projects costing in excess of A-33 Response Over time, operational levels in the Eagan-Mendota Heights Corridor will increase to levels that are similar to levels prior to the opening of Runway 17/35. As manufactured Stage 3 aircrafi are typically quieter than hushkitted Stage 3 aircraft (more so on deparhlre), the incremental replacement of hushkitted Stage 3 aircraft • will result in a quieter noise envixonment. However, even with the increased use of quieter, rnanufactured Stage 3 aircraf�, overall noise exposure levels are projected to increase due to the overall higher number of flight operations. - Future DNL noise contours are typically developed as part of a Part 150 update process and include a 5-year forecast contour. MAC anticipates developing additional contours during the next Part 150 update. See General Response 1. Comment ( No. I Subject ( Summary of Comment on EA Response er City of 82 Minneapol is City of Minneapol is $600 nnillion. Prior to the expansion plans moving forward, the Eagan City Council will await responses from the MAC to these questions regarding growth at MSP. General Our comments can be broadly categorized as general relating to the purpose and need of the actiQn, the time . frame, project elements, and procedural - concerns. Then we have more specific comments on selected items. Our initial comment is that the proposed action is comprised of a cornbination of projects presented in Phases l, 2, and 3 of the 2020 Vision Plan as presented by the Commission. The Vision 2020 Plan is presented as an alternative to the ' previously approved 2020 concept plan, and therefore, should be addxessed in its entirety, both in tertns of proj ect elements and time frame. The EA, however, addresses only selected projects drawn from the t;hree phases of the Vision 2020 P1an that are projected to be completed within the next six years and �presents a distorted view between "no action' and the nronosed nroiect. 83 We are concerned about the process used � to get this project where it is today. In September, 2004 the Governor and the MA.0 Chair rolled out the Vision 2020 plan. NWA "endorsed" the plan even thought they financed and developed it with their consultant. The "2020 plan", however, has not received any formal approval either from MAC, MC or FA.A as a replacement of the currently approved 2020 Concept Plan. The proposed project elements have not been incorporated into and approved Airport Layout Plan. The actions that MA.0 has taken authorized design development on Phase 1 elernents, preparation of necessary environmental review and adiustment of the CIP for A-34 See General Response 1. Comments noted. The MSP ALP has been updated and currently under review by FAA. See also General Response l. Although the MAC Chair was present at the September 2004 news conference at which the 2020 Vision was discussed, she did not participate in any of the presentation. Comment I No. I Subject er City of Minneapol 15 City of Minneapol is ;,i : Summary of Comment on EA Phase 1 of the 2020P1an. This EA selects project elements from all three phases of the 2020 plan yet doesn't address the plan in its entirety. No formal public hearings have been held• on the proposed development plan. Even this EA had very limited public distribution and only a minor effort was made to make the document available to the public. Unlike most MAC documents that are available on MAC's website, the EA was not made available nor was there any . announcement of its availability through the website. The very limited availability to�the public assures that public input and controversy also are limited. A broader concern is that fundamental policy issues are not addressed through this environmental review process. Issues such as how. laxge this facility should grow, whether there is an optimum or saturation level of activity, how does MAC offset the impact and increase risk associated with the higher activity levels, to what extent are Minnesotans obligated to pay for capital projects largely for the benefit of a single, ' business, a broader range of alternatives an.d necessary mitigation ineasures are beyond the scope of this EA process. Nevertheless, those issues should be more thoroughly°discussed through an EIS prior to moving the 2020 plan forward. In Section IIT.B of the EA, the document states that, " A separate environmental review would be performed if and when these projects are included in the CIP." Their inference is that this EA is being prepared to only address items in t.�e CIl', a regional requirement of environmental review. The EA should be prepared to meet both state and federal requirements, yet it fails to meet both standards. Under Minnesota's A-35 Response Public hearings are not required for this type of action. Announcements were included in •the EQB Monitor and the local newspapers. See General Response l. The EA addresses Phase 2 planned expansian through 2015, which is not in the 2006-2012 CIP. The EQB defines a phased action as two or more proj ects to be Comment I No. I Subject er City of Minneapol is City of Minneapol is :. Summary of Comment on EA requirements the Environmental Review must address phased and connected actions. In this case, we believe both phased and connected actions are relevant. Phase 3 of the terminal � expansion plan includes adding additional gates which would be the responsibility of the proposer. Design and sizing of facilities in the earlier .phases such as the hydrant fueling system and the APM necessarily will be designed to accommodate the future requirements associated with later project elements, thus, these are phased actions: The proposed hotel; since it is proposed to be privately funded, is somewhat of a hybrid and � is considered to be a connected action. In the 2020 plan, the hotel development is proposed for Phase 2. The size of the termi.nal expansion and hotel facility appears to trigger a mandatory EIS under state environmental review rules (4410.4400 subpart 11 b). It could be perceived that the hotel was dropped from these phases of the proposed action simply in order to defer that review a.nd expedite approvals on this action. No indication of the terminal expansion square footage is given in the EA, but if it's more than 250,000 square feet a mandatory EIS would be required regardless of the exemption for passenger handling facilities. Additionally, proximate redevelopment , and development activities in Richfield and Bloomington must be considered connected actions for purposes of , . . . . 87 It is apparent at the forecast level of activity that significant delays and attendant costs will occur in the not too distant future. By presenting this as a 2015 terminal expansion plan only, the MA.0 largely sidesteps addressing capacity and delay issues. The EA points A-36 Response undertaken by the same propZ...,r ' that are substantially certain to be undertaken sequentially over a limited period of time. While no commitments have been made to Phase 2, it is a: phased action in the 2015 timeframe and therefore included in the analysis. Projects beyond 2015 have not been determined by the MA.C. See General Response 1. The hotel proposed by NWA has not been evaluated by MAC and is not included in the MA.0 2015 planniiag. Airport projects in�olving construction or expansion of airport passenger hanc�'� ; facilities, which ipcluaes terzninals, are specifically exempt from 4410.4400, Subpart 11b, as stated in 4410.4600, Subpart 13, unless their impacts would exceed thresholcis stated in 4410.4300 or 4410.4400 (e.g, wetlands, natural areas, historical places). The proposed project does not exceed these thresholds. . The EA does not state that the calculated delays are acceptable. It presents a worst-case scenario for the purpose of assessing environmental consequences. It also discusses strategies by� ; � airlines that would reduce � �xa Comment No. Subject Summary of Comment on EA Response er � out that significant delays will occur ai the lower activity levels unless operational adjusfiments are made. During the capacity enhancement study for the dual track process similar delay �levels as are now projected were deemed unacceptable. What makes the level of delay more acceptable now with increased costs associated with delay? The EA is projecting between 725,000 to 750,000 �annual operations, significantly higher annual operations and with more peaking conditions. Excerpting from the ' 1998 ROD, the dual track capacity analysis indicated that the airfield could operate at 640,000 annual operations with an acceptable level of delay: "Total annual airport passenger traffic is expected to grow to about 30.1 million by 2010 (33+ million in 2003) and annual aircraft operatzons are expected to increase to about 500, 000 uszng the MAC Baseline Forecast (512, 000 operations in 2003) and to about 41.7 mrllion passengers wzth 604, 000 operations using the MAC High Forecast. Under the No Action Alternative, it was found that the airport could only handle about . 473,500 annual operations without excessive delays, and avzation activity demands would outstrip available capacity. Using a baseline activity level of 420,390 aircraft operations, based on annual traffic Zevels for 1992, the Airport Capacity Design Team in its Capacity Enhancement Plan estimated annual delays at MSP to be 3.1 minutes per operation at that time. With future activity levels ranging from 530, 000 to 600, 000 annual aircraft operations, the Team determined that if no improvements were made in airfield capacity the average delay per operation would increase to 7.1 minutes per operation at the lower activity level and 13.8 minutes A-37 calculated delays. Comment I No. er Czty of Minneapol is City of Minneapol is Subject � Summary of Comment on EA 88 I Forecasts 89 I Alternative s per operatzon at the higher operations Zevel. With a new noYth-south runway, these average delays were estimated to decreas'e to Zevels just over 3.0 minutes per operation at the 530, 000 aircraft ' operations level and to 4.8 minutes at the 600, 000 level. The MAC Baseline 2020 Forecast of 520, 000 operations and High Forecast of 640, 000 fall within similar ranges of activity and delay r.eduction as those of the Capacity Enhancement Plan, with and without the new runway. " What is today's benchmark for an "unacceptable level" of delay, if the underlying argument for a north south runway in 1996 uras predicated on reducing delay from, unacceptable levels of 7.1-13.8 rninutes? What physical facilities are requised which are not included in this EA to reduce delay to "acceptable" levels? An �EIS should examine the delay costs associated with the proposed action and evaluate alternatives necessary to meet a balance imposed by both airfield and tertnin.al constraints through 2020. We have fiirther concerns with the 10 year planning period covered by this EA. The activity forecasts indicate a range of between 723,000 and 750,000 operations in 2015. Extension of the MAC forecast using the same average annual growth rates to the 2020 time period results in approximately 830,000 operations and 67,000,000 passengers. Yet even these projections are based on more conservative a.nnual growth estimates for both passengers and operations than have been experienced over the last decade. Is there a plan to accommodate this growth and if so, what is it? Since ihe proposed action includes the extension of Taxiways C and M, it would be helpful to indicate those projects on one of the diagrams. Additionallv, since a A-38 Respon'se See General Response 1. Taxiways C and M have been added; see revised Figure 3. T�iway M is needed for Rtu�' 7 17/35 use re�ardless of ' �ne Comment ( No. I Subject ( Summary of Comment on EA ,er Response possible end around taxiway for Runway proposed project, and is a part of 12L/30L is put forth as a means to the 2010 LTCP. The possible decrease delay, a conceptual illustration end-around taxiway will be of this taxiway on a diagrarn would be considered by MAC in the future. Ciiy of 90 Alternative We agree that the MSP 2020 Concept Minneapol s Plan should be eliminated as a is development plan. We do not, however, agree that the proposed action is the only altemative capable of ineeting the purpose and need of the proposer. On page 15, the EA states, "as the proposed . project will not lead to an increase in aircraft operations, the same aircraft fleet � mix and number of operations were used . to model both the 2015 No Action . Alternative� and the 2015 proposed project." The inference is that gates are ' only being added to respond to "natural" . growth. That would be the case if additional gates were only required to accommodate O& D passenger growth. � NWA's hubbing operation and scheduling is largely driving the need for additional gates to accommodate connecting passengers at peak periods. A true "no action" alternative, thus, would be unlikely io have the same number of � ' operations since many connecting passengers would forego schlepping across the tarmac to make connections as is presented in the "no action" scenario. In Appendix B(P. B.3-3) one of the key factors in passenger activity cited is the '"rapid increase in connecting traffic as Northwest and Republic built up their hubs at MSP." Yet, somehow providing for greater connecting traffic under this build proposal has no effect compared to the "no build" alternative? By assuming the same levels of activity for hoth "no action" and the proposed project, the actual impacts of the proposed project are rnasked and provide no meaningful basis of comparison. A-39 Cornments noted. See General Response 2. Comment No. Subject er City of 91 Alternative Minneapol . s is Summary of Comment on ]EA Compaxing gate utilization at MSP to other airports, it's evident that MSP gate utilization could be optimized thus requiring a lesser expansion than the proposed project. Despite NWA's protestations that their operations cannot be compared to other hubs, a comparison shows that NWA hubs at both MSP and DTW have a significantly �higher number of gates to move fewer passengers than ma.ny other large hub terminals do: Thus, a valid alternative would be a less aggressive expansion program optimizing use of the terminal facilities. The average• number of passengers/gate at ATL, ORID, LAX, DFW, DIA, and PHX combined is approximately 391,500 while MSP is 298,000. In 2020 under the previous concept plan MSP would be at 323,000 passengers/gate. If we were to develop to near the 2003 passenger handling average of these other airport facilities, a total of 140 gates would be required — only 15 more than the current nurnber. Response It can be misleading to com _a airport • passengers per gate because every airport is different. 1V.tuch depends upon physical terminal and concourse layout, location of arnenities, location of airline operations/ready room locations, . market dynamics of spoke airports served, and individual gate fleet rriix capability. For example = At ATL, commuter flights are parked two or three per gate. —� ATL and DFW have rolling hubs. This is only possible when a.irlines have reached a criticai mass of activity that ensures sufficient connecting opportunities even without ' a formal connecting bank stnzc�' "'�. There are many cost savit��s associaied with rolling hubs — both .for groundside and airs�de operations. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that if a rolling hub were at all feasible for MSP, NWA would adopt it. Since they have not and have not proposed it in their plans; it was assumed they don't believe it is feasible. — Many of the comparison airports (LAX, ATL and ORD) have a higher percentage of widebody aircra$ than MSP. This skews the numbers. — To serve the same number of passengers per gate as in the comparable airports, NWA tivould need to use larger aircraft than in the schedule used in the EA. This would mean more gate front� �e per �ate and probablv a sir�� _r Comment I No. � Subject I Summary of Comment on EA er City of 92 Minneapol is If activity growth will be the same under both the "no build" and "proposed action" scenarios, what benefit is gained for the additional cosis? Why should Minnesota passengers pay for additional terminal expansion when .MSP is not close to the average passengers per gate of other hubs? Why should PFC's be used for �terminal expansion largely for the benefit of a single tenant when the revenue could be used to pay down debt, fund previous cominitments or not be imposed at a11. As indicated from MAC's monthly and annual operations reports, NWA's mainline operations have been on a downward trend for the last four years. Mainline passenger traffic in 2004 is still less than 20001evels. As can be seen, the major growth sector has been in the RJ fleet which has been accommodated with 41 new gates since 2000. �Comparing operations activity, the most significant growth is occu.rriiig with regional aircraft, yet the Phase 1 gate re- configuration on "E" concourse is for mainline aircraft. At the same time, A-41 Response amount of terminal building construction when all is said and done. However, MSP is a hub that serves many small markets. The nuxnber of gates required for ihis airport was determined by a forecast that looke�i at the size of aircraft that could be supported by each market, and the frequency required in that market to make service feasible. Consequently the only financially viable aircraft for those markets are the smaller regional j ets and commuter aircraft. The number of gates is required for this market, based upon the EA forecasts. 'To not provide the gates results in increased delay and inconvenience, especially for those passengers from smaller communities which are flying commuter aircraft and regional jets. All of the flying public will benefit by reduced delays. A large number of the flying public will benefit from not haviug to be bused to their aircraft. Comments noted. See Response 91 above. Comment ( No. I Subject I Summary of Comment on EA er City of Minneapol is m A.ir Quality/ Parking NWA is holding capacity flat. Thus, the proposed action appears to be more a drive to �t a business model rather than response to growth demand. Alternative operational strategies should be evaluated which would result in more efficient use of gates such as flattening peaks with a rolling hub concept. Delta and American both decreased the number of gates at their hub facilities through this strategy and also benefited with more flights while reducing equipment needs. If one accepts the underlying assumptions that are presented, then it is difficult to argue with the result of the emissions analysis. What appears to be faulty, however, is the underlying assumption that a 10% increase in total on site parking stalls will accoxnmodate originating passenger growth of 46% or 3.7 million more originating passengers. It is assumed that approximately 80% of these (2.9 million) will be going to the Lindbergh Terminal where no parking expansion is planned. As indicated by staff's report, growth in parking demand has historically � exceeded passenger growth. Thus, even with shifting non- Sky,Team customer parking to •the Humphrey ramps, demand will fill the Lindbergh rainps within the 2015 period. Additionally, the Vision 2020 Plan. projects 40,000 new jobs resulting from the increased MSP activity. If only 25% of those are on airport, the majority of an additional 10,000 ernployees are likely to need parking. At least on a conceptual basis, the EA should address how this future demand will be met, the approximate location of future facilities, and whether additional vehicular trips would result. It's also likely that tr�c on the Lindbergh Terminal road will increase with multiple circuit trips being made by vehicles looking for �parkin� or A-42 Response According to MA.0 analysis, the proposed parking should be sufficient to accommodate the forecast increase' in originating passengers. See also General Response 1 regarding the 2020 plan. Comment I No. I Subjeci ( Summary of Comment on EA er City of Minneapol is City of Minneapol is 94 ( Land Use 95 I Land Use curb space for pick up/drop off activity. For these reasons, it appears that the roadway and parking requirements on which emissions analysis was done are sigraificantly understated. The. EA uses the 2002 NEM as a basis for the existing condition illustrating noisa exposure. However, that NEM uses only the parallel runways and 4/22. Within a month or so of approval of this docuxnent, the new north/south runway will be operational. A1so the 533,057 operations in 2004 are witlun 10% of those projected for 2007. The mare realistic "existing condition" would be 2007 rather than 2002. By using 2002, the noise impacts skew iremendously off course. The conclusion of the EA is that there is a significant decrease in the number of homes affected by noise with or without the proposed action. Table C- 1(from Table 5.5 Part 150 study) indicates 33,466 dwelling units are within the 60+ DNL contour as the existing condition. Table C-3 indicates that even with the significant growth of operations, the number of dwelling units affected by the 60+ DNL noise level will decrease ta 21,986 wiih the proposed project. This is remarkable but distorted. Excerpting from the dual track EIS sensitivity analysis, "The noise impacts of the MSP 2020 concept plan and 2010 plan are identical since the worst case year is 2005." That assumed the last year before the north/south runway opened. This is not the case, however, since this proposed action is based on significantly higher proj ections than envisioned in the FEIS. On the other hand, if 2007 is used as the base condition with the north/south being operational; 14,671 dwelling units are exposed to 60+DNL levels (Table 6.3 Part 150 Studvl. Then, when an A-43 Response The 2004 timeframe is identified in this EA as the base year because it is representative of existing conditions at the start of the EA process. As a result, the 2002 NEM is used in the EA as it is representative of 2004 conditions. Moreover, since Runway 17/35 will open in October 2005, neither the 2002 nor 2007 NEM can be considered representative of 2005 average annual conditions, which will include operations with and without the use of Runway 17/35. The purpose of the existing condition discussion is to disclose current conditions. Regardless of the specific base year identified, the difference between the base year existing conditions and the future year conditions do not constitute a significant impact under NEPA. For a discussion of the future trends in noise exposure levels, see Response 79. For the purpose of this EA, the Comment I No. er City of 96 Minneapol is Subject Noise Summary of Comment on EA additional 141,000 annual operations and 60 additional night time operations are added by 2015, the affected nuanber of dwelling units exposed to 60+DNL levels would increase nearly 50% to 21,986. This makes sense and is underscored comparing the 2007 NEM and the 2015 noise inap in the EA. For example, on Figure 8-2 from the Part 150 study (2007 Mitigated Contour), the outermost part of the 60 DNL contour in Minneapolis stops well east of Lake Harriet. In Figure M-2 of the EA, the 60 DNL contour is shown extending west of Lake Harriet. A similar comparison can be seen with the 60 DNL contour at Grass Lake near the Richfield border: At the 65+ DNL level, a comparison of the contours again shows increased area exposed to 65+ levels at 2015 levels. Comparing the area to the west of Diamond Lake from the 2007 to 2015 projections indicates that an increase of over 3dB DNL is projected. This also is supported by the revised assumptions related to runway utilization. The EA projects a lesser use of Runway 17 for deparhares decreasing from 37% to 30%. Those depaxhares will need to be disiributed to the parallels and will conlribute to the noise environment affected by those runways. This increase greater than. 3dB is double the FAA's threshold of a significant change in noise exposure in the 65 area and a greater than 3dB change is most likely in the 60 DNL area. On this basis along, alternatives and specific mitigation measures should be addressed through an EIS process. Please refer to our comments on compatible land use. We would point out that the "no action" and proposed project noise contours are virtually identical since this EA assumes that operational activity is the same under either scenario. This simply isn't logical and masks the Response analysis of significa.nt. im�;�.,t under .N° EPA is done by comparison of the no action and proposed project alternatives for the same future year (i.e., 2015). The no action and proposed project noise contours are similar and thus there is no significant change in noise exposure and no significant impact. While there are substantial differences in noise exposure between the existing and proposed project conditions, these differences are not significant impacts under NEPA. See also Response 94. Note also that the projected runway use in 2015 is heavily influenced by the estimated flight schedule as discussed in Appendices B.2 and B.4. � `' airlines were to adjust their fligut schedules to reduce delays, the average annual runway use would likely trend.closer to the estimates from the Dual Track FEIS and 2004 Part 150 Study Update. , See General Response 2. C Comment I No. ( Subject ( Summary of Comment ou EA er City of Minneapol is 97 I Socio- economic impact of the proposed project versus a true "no build" scenario. This EA indicates that the runway utilization will be necessarily different than that assumed in the Part 150 Study. If in fact that is the case, the noise exposure map should be revised to reflect the change. In the interim, if MAC's current NCP mitigation measures are approved, homeowners will be offered air conditioning on a cost share basis only to be followed by significant noise increases a short time later. The EA essentially puts forth the argument that many of the roadway seQments of the "rin� road" and several Response As operational levels are driven substantially by regional demand and the health of the national economy, the projected aircraft operations in 2015 are expected .. to occur with or without .the proposed project. The gate utilization and SIMMOD analyses indicate that MSP could support the projected level of aircraft operations in 2015. However, the proposed project would provide for reduced delays and impraved level of service. The projected runway use in 2015 is heavily influenced by the estimated flight schedule as discussed in Appendices B.2 and B.4. As operational levels increase, airlines may likely adjust their flight schedules to reduce delays. This would affect the runway use projections in this EA. Other factors in the flight schedule, such as fleet mix and destinations served, also influence runway use. In the Part 150 Study Update, MAC proposed to npdate the NEMs in 2007 in order to validate runway use and operational use assumptions with the opening of Runway 17/35. The Part 150 Study Update states that this may result in the expansion or reduction of the mitigation boundaries wiih changes to the 60 DNL contour. Given these variables in estimating future runway use and noise exposure levels, it is not yet appropriate to update the NEMs. See General Response 3. Comment ( No. I Subject I Summary of Comment an ]EA er City of Minneapol is 98 I Water Quality of the ramps operate at unacceptable levels of service today and by increasing traffic they simply will operate at lower levels of service. Since the alternatives a,nalysis relies on the same level of activity under either scenaria, and simply re-distributes traffic on the ring road, the EA concludes there axe no impacts. This is illogical and again reflects a rnasking of truly comparing the impacts of the proposed project. A major reconstruction of the Crosstown highway will occur duxing the early years of this proposed action and should be considered as a cuxnulative action. The EA, however, makes no mention t�at such a proj ect will occur or what the �effect would be on the existing or interim conditions. We find it interesting that the analysis of impacts on surface transportation uses 2005 as a base year while noise relies on a hybrid 2002/2004 base year. We find it absolutely astounding that the EA concludes, "In summary, the proposed project has insignifieant impacts on the surrounding roadway network." When has goin.g from unacceptable to even more unacceptable levels of service become accepted? In particular, with the proposed development along 34�' Avenue in Bloomington and the current level of serviee at the 34th Avenue/494 Intersection, a more thorough analysis must be undertaken of this interchange, specific remedies shoul'd be considered along with development of cost estimates considering all related actions. It would be appropriate for the EA to more thoroughly describe the recent fiiel leak problerns and actions under way to minimize risks for the existing conditions. Obviously, expansion of the hydrant fueling system at both terminal facilities would expand the opporiunity for increased risks of similar accidents. . ,� Response See General Response 4. See Response 27. In addition, although the hydrant system will be expanded, it will be expanded with new piping and other safeguards. If the same volume of .fuel is to be dispensed in the "no action" alternative as( ' . 2015 proj ect (since air1; __ � Comment I No. I Subject ( Summary of Comment on EA er City of Minneapol is , - City of � _ � Minneapol is City of Minneapol is 99 Wastewater and Water Supply 100 I Cumulative Effects Response These should be discussed in the context operations are assumed to be of a true "no action" versus proposed equal), one could argue that the project condition. new valves, piping, etc. will not increase the probability of a fuel � hydrant release. � Since the EA uses the same level of passenger activity under the "no build" and proposed action scenario, no di£ferentiation � of i.tnpacts can be discerned. Agai.n, this is illogical and masks any comparison of true unpacts. With both of these systems, the EA indicates that after development decisions have been macle the capacity of the systems shou.ld be evaluated and where limitations might occur. We suggest that this should be part of the envirorunental review to evaluate, make recommendations even if in a preliminary manner, and analyze as part of the entire proj ect. We strongly take issue with the EA's conclusion that, "There are no known projects or actions off the Airport that would affect the impacts of the proposed project and the no action alternative." In earlier comments we have identified three projects in the immediate vicinity which will have varying degrees and duration of impacts combined with the proposed project. These are, at the least: reconstruction of Crosstown Highway, redevelopment along Cedar Avenue in Richfield, and redevelopment in the Bloomington Airport South development area. 101 While we recognize the desire of the MAC to move this proj ect forward expeditiously, a �more thorough analysis of impacts, a broader evaluation of alternatives and identification of specific mitigation measures are clearly warranted for the proposed action. In • January of this year, the City Council adonted Resolution 2005-010 A-47 Comment noted. Although the EA focused on the ability of the shared cornmunity systems to handle the increased wastewater and water supply issues, should any MA.0 owned system proves inadequate to convey the anticipated increase in localized wastewater or water supply, that system will be upgraded as a part of the 2015 proposed project and this activity should not � impact parties external to the MAC's property. See General Response 3. See General Response 5. Comment I No. I Subject er City of 102 Backgroun Richfield d City of 103 Richfield City of Richfield Purpose and Need Summary of Comment ou EA encouraging MA.0 to prepare an EIS on the 2020 plan. After review of the current EA, we believe that significant issues a�e raised but need a more thorough eualuation. We encourage the MAC to determine that an EIS is needed and that a scoping process be ordered. � The Vision 2020 plan, embraced by the MAC in January 2005 as a more viable alternative that the previously approved 2020 concept plan, comprises three distinct phases. However, it is very troubling that the Draft EA only addresses selected projects within two of the Vision 2020 phases, with an expected completion date of six years. (page 8, Section II.E). With the forecast level of activity and attendant, anticipated delays, it appears th�.t the 2015 Terminal expansion project avoids the bigger issues of whether an additional north parallel runway will be necessary. Such a significant commitment to the infrastructure at MSP, as proposed in the 2015 expansion project, preo'rdains that no option will exist but to continue to respond to market demands and increase capacity (i.e. . and additional parallel runway) at the current airport location. This type of decision should have the benefit of wider public participation and discussion. Richfield questions whether the 6.7 minutes saved in flight delays is � worth the inveshnent of $682 million. This question should have opportunity for 104 A.ir Quality The City is not convinced that air quality will not be affected with a projected increase in annual operations between 725,000 — 750,000. The City would like to see an analysis of the cumulative air quality impacts of aircraft/runway emissions in conjunction W1tY1 surface iraffic emissions. . .; Response See General Response 1. Comments noted. The cumulative been added; s Section N.A. � emissions have e revised EA Comment � No. � Subjeci � Summary of Comment on EA er City of Richfield City of Richfield City of Richfield City of Richfield City of Richfield 105 Land Use The City takes issue with the comment, "the proposed project would not have a significant adverse irnpact on homes..." (page 22). Please refer to our comments in the next section, entitled NOISE. 106 Noise By using the 2002 NEM, the Draft EA understates and distorts the noise irnpacts on the communities surrounding MSP. The City strongly believes that the 2007 NEM is better representative of existing noise conditions. In October of this year, the new Runway 17/35 will be operatiorial — ignoring the impact of the new runway skews the conclusions. 107 Noise Furtherm.ore, the Draft EA minimized the noise impa�ts by only looking at the . difference between the no action alternative versus the proposed expansion plan (Table C-3). What is more revealing and reflective of the noise ixnpacts is a comparison tYie impacted dwelling units irom 2007 to 2015. A comparison of the Part 150 2007 NEM to the 2015 noise map shows a nearly 50% increase in the number of dwelling units exposed to greater than 60 DNL levels of noise (14, 671 vs. 21,986). In Richfield specifically, 1,790 dwelling units fall within the 60 plus DNL contours in the 2007 NEM. By 2015, • the number of dwelling units increases to 3,928! That more than doubles the numbers of homes in Richfield im acted by significant noise! 108 Noise The Draft EA also presupposes that noise impacts will� be minirnal because of the elimination of louder aircraft. However, the airlines have provided no guarantee or timeframe for that occurrence. Because this action is being used as a base assumption of the noise contours � presented, MAC should guarantee the elimination of louder aircraft as a mitigation measure with adj acent cities. 109 Noise Also of significant concern to Richfield is the omission of anv mention of the . ,. Response See Responses 106-110. See Responses 94 and 95. � See Responses 94 and 95. See Response 57. FAA does not have an approved metric, other than DNL, to assess Comment I No. I�ubject I Summary of Comment on EA er City of Richfield City of Richfield 110 111 Noise Secondary Irnpacts existence of low frequency noise and that added sensitivity to residents. The omission of low frequency noise does not provide a true reflection of all noise impacts for either the no action or 2015 expansion plan. Finally, the Draft EA also fails to address the nurnber of nighttime flights expected as part of overall operations. Night flights have a more serious detrimental effect on the population. The number of night flights has steadily increased since 2001. According to numbers provided by tha MAC's web site, night time carrier ops are up 52% over June of 2002 and four of the past six months (January through July 2005) exceed, the historic high for night carrier ops in 2000. This trend indicates that night operations will continue to increase and negatively impact the noise environment. The City of Richfield strongly disagrees with the statement that our community will not experience any change in shifts of population movement, growth or demand for public services because of the 2015 expansion plan. (Our community is constantly being forced ta make changes to respond to expansion at MSP and its related effects. The population of Richfield has begun to shift west. Further movement, west, and to what extent, is still not entirely known. The City is in the midst of initiating redevelopment on the east side of Richfield to more airport compatible uses including noise-attenuated housing, if possible. However, the availability of financial resources and market demand will ultimately dictate how and when the community can redevelop. Additionally, the Richfield School District is hying to anticipate the extent of potential siudent population loss once Runway 17/35 becomes operational. Since the noise A-50 Response the impacts associated with frequency noise. Runway 17-35 will become operational in October of 2005. The increased capacity associated with the new runway will potentially reduce the nighttime flights due to increased runway capacity and a reduction in delays. The trend referenced in the comment is based on increased operations on existing runways. MAC believes that much of:*�e impetus for shifts of popul�, .� movement and the growth or demand for public services is essentially the result of the implementation of elements of the 2010 Long-Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP). Comment � No. � Subject ( Summary of Comment on EA City of 112 Surface Richfield Traf� c City of 113 Wastewater Richfield impacts are not yet definitive, the exodus of families from Richfield's east side is conjectuxe. When or• if population movement would occur and, if so, how significant it would be, is not known. The effects of the 2015 expansion plan on R.ichfield cannot be discounted. The City of Richfield shares Bloomington's concerns about the 34th Avenue intersection and its ability with "minor geornetric changes" (page 10) to accommodate the increased level of traffic due to the number of visitors to the Humphrey Terminal. Proposed solutions should show substantial improvement to that intersection ' prior to the commencement of the 2015 terminal expansion project, as opposed to the minor changes the Draft EA proposes. The MAC should also work with Richfield to explore the possibility of building the 77th Street underpass as a means to lessen the traffic impact at the 34t1� Avenue intersection. As discussed in the Draft EA, wastewater ,from the Humphrey Terminal and surrounding airport properiy � flows into the Richfield sanitary sewer system. With the proposed expansion to the Humphrey Terminal, wastewater flows from the airport to Richfield will increase dramatically. Yet, the Draft EA does not iuclude information on the proposed future amount of wastewater flow that will be routed to Richfield's sanitary sewer system or a scientific analysis of whether Richfield's sanitary sewer system has the capacity to accommodate the additional flow. In fact, Richfield's' infrastructure is old and infiltration is already a concern. It is grossly insufficient to simply presume "the Richfield system should have adequate capacity." (page 46). The wastewater information provided in the Draft EA is A-51 Response See General Response 4. Recent MAC construction projects have provisions to accommodate a future connection to East 77`i' Street. MAC will continue to cooperate with the City of Richfield and Mn/DOT on the future extensions of East 77�' Street. • It is the MAC's understanding that the � R.ichfield system is oversized to provide the City of Bloomington with options to divert wastewater discharges typically intended for Seneca to the Metro Plant via Richfield's system. Due to recent upgrades to the conveyance system from Bloomington to Seneca, the probability of Bloomington requiring this excess capacity is remote. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume this excess capacity will provide the Humphrey expansion with the wastewater conveyance capacity required for the proposed project. Noneiheless, should the en�i.neerin� desi�n for the nroiect Comment I No. er City of Richfield City of Richfield 114 115 City of 116 Richfield Subject Waier Supply Cumulative Ef£ects Parking SummaY-y of Comment on EA incomplete and insufficient for assessing impact. Therefore, an EIS must be prepared that fully projects wastewater flows and analyzes the capacity of off-. ai�port sys�ems to handle the additional flow. The water supply information provided in. the Draft EA is incomplete and insufficient for assessing impacts. Therefore, an EIS should be prepared that fu11y assesses whether water is available to serve the expansion. Richfield disagrees with the statement that there are "no known projects or actions off the Airport that would affect the impacts of the proposed project and the no action alternative." (page 47). In fact, there are at least three proj ects that could potential impact the 2015 expansion plan: Richfield's Cedar Point Development Project; Bloomington's Airport South District redevelopment area and the reconstruction of Crosstown Despite the mention of additional parking at the Humphrey T�rzninal, it appears that no additional parking is planned at Lindbergh Terminal; although the 2015 expansion plan calls for additional gates as well as cites the creation of some 40,000 jobs. Richfield is concerned that no parkin� studv has been conducted to A-52 Response ', indicate the City of Rich(\r l ' does not have adequate . capacrty (or if the City of Richfield does not allow additional discharges into the short section of their sanitary sewer), there is a possibility of re-routing portions of the Humphrey sanitary discharge flows via a force main to the other MSP sarritary systems (i.e. the Limestone tunnel which has excess ca acity . The EA does provide appropriate . information to evaluate the impacts on the water supply system. The City of Minneapolis had indicated they do not foresee issues with capacity issues based on the forecasted passenger load increases (and therefore increased water supply needs). The water supply needs are predicted. +o increase with both the no a�, .i alternative and the proposed See General Response 3. See Response 93. Comment I No. I Subject I Summary of Comment on EA er City of 117 Conclusion Richfield South Metro Airport A�tion Council (SMAAC) analyze the parking adequacy of the 2015 expansion plan, to address the potenfiial need for offsite parking and identify possible impacts on surrounding communities. Richfield believes due diligence requires� that a parking study be conducted ad potential solutions outlined. The City of Richfield is concerned that the limited scope of the ZO15 Terminal Expansion Plan masks the future needs of MSP beyond 2015 and, therefore, avoids addressing major issues such as an additional north parallel runway. � It is Richfield's position that potential, significant environmental impacts related to the 2015 Terminal Expansion Project exist. A thorough review of the Draft EA indicates that an Environmental Impact Statement .(EIS) should be prepared to address deficiencies in the plan and to more thoroughly exa�nine, analyze and assess project impacts and identify measure for those 118 In our view, promulgating an Environmental Assessment that parses on-site aspects of a larger and potentially more darn.aging capital program from air- � side capital expansion and from the increased operations to follow is manipulative and inappropriate, possibly unlawful. Assessing on-site Lindbergh Terminal re-modeling and Humphrey Terminal Expansion proj ects �in the 2010 to 2015 time farm raises questions about unforeseen (not assessed) impacts. The larger policy and economic issues — expanding MSP beyond the levels of economic need projected in 1996 for 2020, with funding for the capital program in doubt if a major tenant, Northwest Airlines, might be forced into bankruptcy or substantially change its operations in the near future — is unwarranted. Asserting no need for an Environmental Impact Statement when it A-53 Response See General Response l. See General Response 5. Comments noted. � See General Responses 1 and 2. Comment ( No. er Subject Summary of Comment on EA is apparent that rnost capital projects are likely to be modified, delayed, or abandoned; while operational changes are likely to be frequent; is difficult to understand. Uncertainties, delays, and changing dernand are likely to stress environmental programs, exceed permit condition, and make mitigation projects inadequate. It appears this assessment is a round-about way of presenting one unlikely scenario among many possibilities, and it is a waste of time and resources. SMA.A.0 119 Terininal expansion, Phase II of the proposed 2020 plan, is presented in the Environmental Assessment without the ramifications of ongoing operational expansion and changes in flight use through 2010, as well as misrepresenting closely related future parojects. The 2020 Project cannot be reasonably approved or assessed in phases, and this supposed assessment of an intermediate phase � obscures environmental impacts off-site, during Phases I and II and after Phases ° III. Moreover, Phases II and III are not only tentative and unfunded, but Phase II Terminal Expansion changes existing several environmental programs, obviating the Final Environmental Irnpact Study for MSP Expansion and the Capital Improvement Plans for projects undertaken since 1999 and throu�h 2010. SMAAC 120 Terminal expansion and the contemplated chianges in terminal use before and after consiruction differ significantly from prior operational and capital plans by augmenting hub use at peak hours. Hub expansion is different in kind, as well as extent, compared to the limited expansion authorized in the 1996 Minnesota law and the Federal Record of Decision (1998). The proposed expansion projects in effect void the 1998 FEIS, and a lesser review now is A-54 Response See General Response l. C Comments noted. The action of the 1996 Legislature and the FAA Record of Decision, which approved implementation of the 2010 LTCP, is not compromised by the proposed project. The FA. includes the proj ects in the �, � Comment I No. I Subject ( Summary of Comment on EA er SM�1AC ( 121 SMAAC I 122. SMA.AC I 123 not adequate. .An FAA Finding of No Significant Impact, as presumed, is ridiculous. The expansion may not be economically wise and may decrease sa£ety and security; these unresolved policy issues make the draft assessment partial and inconclusive. On-siie expansion facilitates more, and more concentrated, use of MSP for flights, and increases exposure off-site. Noise and air pollution impacts are linked to gross operations, and every past operational prediction has been less than actual use of the facility. Even operational levels once reported as beyond safe capacity are exceeded. This in itself ineans that an impact study should be ordered. • The draft does not report past problems (fuel leaks, delayed or damaged pollution control systems, or accidents) as environmental risks, and does not propose specific preventative measures. An EIS is needed to quantify environmental risks due to expanded SMA.AC 124 The assessment and the conclusion are based exclusively on findings and opinions of interested parties. Inadequate effort was spent consulting with the ublic or disinterested experts. SMAAC 125 The assessment does not specify that pollution controls and other preventative or containment projects will be built before facilities ihat are likely to increase pollution or the risk of pollution through the handling of increased quantities of � regulated materials. An example would be drainage increases and storm water storage capacity, or protecting the fuel distribution system during excavation. The increased quantities and risks are unspecified and reliance on systems and nrocesses that failed durin� the current A-55 Response LTCP in the assessments of environmental impacts. Safety and security will not be compromised by the proposed proj ect. The forecast operations for 2015 are not beyond the� safe capacity of MSP. The FAA does not compromise safety. The increase in opexations would result in increased delays, as discussed in Section I.B, Project Purpose and Need. The �intent of the EA was not to provide a report on past issues at MSP. Regardless, the systems that will be directly impacted or altered during the 2015 project were discussed within the EA (i.e., fuel hydrant system, storm water drainage, deicing activity). The EA was prepared with the input and analysis from technical experts. As discussed in the EA, virtually all construction within the scope of the proposed proj ect is occurring on existing impervious pavement, and therefore the increase in drainage area is negligible. In regards to the fuel hydrant system expansion that will accompany the Lindbergh and Humphrey Expansions, see Responses 27 and 98. Furthermore, the MAC is unaware of any system that failed Comment I No. er [+'�r��y _ ► �, SMAAC ( 127 SMAAC I 128 Northwest I 129 Airlines Subject Summary of Comment on EA expansion does not support a finding of no significant im act. Planning The apparent purpose of phasing the � overall plan for 2020 into srnaller proj ects is to 'avoid proj ect scope considerations in State regulation that re uire an EIS. Water Metropolitan and local agency rules, such Quality as a watershed district receiving additional run-off or polluted run-off, apply. It is certain, but unmentioned, that the terminal expansion will increase � ground water appropriation, and may require de-watering in excavations; local agencies, cities that depend on the sarne aquifers for water, conservators of neighboring lakes and wetlands, and the Minnesota Deparbment of Natural ' Resources have a stake and rules limiting these activities or requiring a local permit were not motioned. It is also unlrnown if the expansion will cause increased use of roadways, such as I494 or MN 62, or if the increase was addressed in environmental reviews of highway construction roj ects. Guarantees of coordination and compliance with the local agencies, and with updated State and Federal environmental protection regulations as made by MA.0 in the FEIS to attain approval in the ROD, have not been realized in MSP capital projects or operation so date. More detailed compliance provisions would be inco orated, ho efully, in an EIS. NEPA We believe that this EA meets the � requ.irements of the National Envirorunental Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. § §4321 et seq. ("NEPA") by demonstrating that the public benefits flowing from the actions outweigh their en�ironmental costs, and in this case the environmental impact differential between the No Action and Pronosed A-56 Response during the 2010 expansion. See General Response l. State (EQB) rules do not require an EIS for airport terminal expansions. See Response 86. As discussed in the EA, virivally all construction within the scope of the proposed project is occurring on existing impervious pavement. In addition, any potential increase in • pollutant load due to increased airport operations is anticipated to be the same for both the no action alternative and proposed proj ect. The MA.0 does not expect any groundwater appropriations to be required. Some de-watezing during excavation is possible, although the perched water t�'-'e near the Lindbergh Terminal� J the shallow water table near the Humphrey Terminal are not resource aquifers. MA.0 has complied with the conditions included in the ROD for the 2010 Development Plan. Comments noted. Comment � No. � Subject Summary of Comment on EA er �� Project alternatives is negligible and wi11 continue to be'addressed with NInDOT during the planning and construction � � . phases of the Proposed Proj ect.l NWA I 130 I No Action 1 Undesirable level of service (LOS) at 34th Avenue S and E. 70th Street intersection; the LOS would be improved with minor geomefic changes to this intersection. EA, page 11. While the No Action alternative presented in the EA is applicable for EA evaluation purposes, it is necessary to point out that it is not a viable operational or customer service alternative for meeting forecasted demand requirements. This alternative falls far short of the level of customer services that airline passengers expect today from major U.S. airports, especially in cold-weather climates like MSP. In addition, operating in this maiuier results in unnecessary additional costs and potential irregularities for the airline. This position is based on actual experience of operating in similar situations at other airports. We believe that both MAC and passengers would agree tl�at it is not acceptable to plan to bus passengers to and from remotely parked aircraft hardstand parking areas. For these reasons, we are supportive of the MAC's plan to develop Concourse H at the Lindbergh Terminal and the addition of gates and parking ramp at the Humphrev Terminal. A-57 Response Comments noted. C �, �, � �'X �, � � �,} �, `;: � ' °� � • , ' , z � i'� ' 1 � � �� , � ;. r . y��'�f s, .. � r �.r�Yk;�Y��;a � ,�;\�.s�i �r� y :.� a ....ta i+, ( �..� �-�S. � � i �� i ^-:ar.�r. ay-'�'�- ,� ' "" F+-,� �u�'r'^'''�. '_ /' "`-r'� _ . ' . . M11111��.�JOl1S�St. Pau1 Internaiional ..�i�ort rI'able of Contents for November 2005 � Complaint Summary 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 Ca.rrier Jet.Fleet Composition 6 MSP All Operations Nighttirtae Runway Usage '7 MSP Carrier Jet Operations Nighttime Runway Usage g MSP Top 15 Nighttime Operator's by Type 9 � MSP Top 15 Nighttitme Operator's Stage M� 10 Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks 11-14 MSP ANOMS Remote Monitoring Tower Site Locations Map 15 Carrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events 16 Carrier Jet Departure Related Noise Events 1'7 MSP Top Ten Aircraft Noise Events per RMT 18-30 Analysis of Daily and Monthly Aircraft Noise Events Aircraft Ldn dBA 31-33 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program MSP Complaints by City November 2005 €( � ` t Number of � Numbcr of 9c of Tota1 City � P ArnSa1. � Departure � Qther �Coi��.ptamts� Complaaianfs Con�plaints �,....,,.:_�..„�,,..�........�»�..�.�,,.,. ... _ L.�, � . : c AI'PLE VALLEY 105 3» 61 135 1 17 674 92 13.4% � .�.. � �� .�.��_� � BLOOIfIiVGTON IO � 9'. ,.� 327 3U7 2 15 .€ 664 � SG I3.2% - � BllRNSV1LLE ! 3 3S �.'�� 41 353 0 �t.�3 ��. �� 438 50 S.7% "c CASTLE ROCKTLVP 1 Ot '; � 0 0 '' E 0 0,�� 1 0.0% 7_ __ �— _ ...� .� .,-e-- ' - � DOUGLAS T�VP T D � 0 ..� U �:-.0 ^�� 0 ;��j I ,� 1 � 1 0.09'0 EAG?N � 54 131 ' g ZG9 �GB� ' I i24� 1382 157 27.4% ,, � � EDLD; PRAIRIE 0 p ; p 17 „� � ' 0' I I 0.0% � ? 0.0 % EDINA � 0 I' � = I .�4� p . �- 0 � � �,� 2 �p �FARMINGTON {u 2 3j � 0 ,U 0 0 5 3 0.]% i a � � ; � � I :`o '��s � z o.�i GOLDENVALLEY � 0 0.' ,�.5 INVER GROVE � 5� .',`.� g "g 0 '� 2� G 0.4°1 I-ILIGIiTS , .,.v .,. _ LAKGV7LLB 4 -08 : � 0 , .s3 � ^ 0 ',' 0 ' Sa � 6 l.l% D4ENDOT.4 €�i p' ,'� 17 254 0 0=,� 272 � 9 5.4°/ HEIGHTS ' .._....;:......c ., _. ..:. _ E , iYJ1J�NEAPOl]S 79 18 ,� 173 , 116 : r€ 1 17 � 4P1 ; G9 8.0;'0 a ��r:.mnTONr:� » o' '::s 3 `° ° ; p ;:� ,o � o.ai g RICHFiELD Y 9 S '� Gll `6a ` 1 ';�� 714 � 27 I42% ""'_` _ .�""""".� �ROSEAIOUNT € Q U '� 0 4 0 0,;.� 4 I 0.1 % E , ' L SNN'C LOUlS PARK 1 299 �� ;�0 „� 0 �:,;. 0 € 300 Z S.9% ��' 3 7 7 l;� ! �: 4 i�'� 26 � s o.5 / S.4INT PAUL 2 d y € S.aVAGfi 0 6 ... ' � 4 `.] . �. . , 6 , 0 � 5 ��.. 0.1 % e SI-IOREViE\d� 0 �':0 `�,� 0 .��I 0 '�� 0 ��'�� 1 1 0.090 SUUTH SAIN7' � � ��. � i p i�? .��,( 0 �. 0 2 � 1 �.�% PAUL ; � � E SUNFISHLAKE 0 0 � 0 r,47 ,: sj 0 `.: 0�. 47 � 1 0.986 W HST SAIN-I' PAUL Q 0 � I �� 0 0 1 � I 0 U°/ .......,.,�,,:,.,Tnt�al_:...��............�12U5`,,.:..� .351Q E,,:e,...,... 329.,:��.'�5044..W.�.W:,.,...',:.��502 " �' 1000�'0'.. Nnfe: SLadcd Columns repmscm MSP wmplainl5 filcd via Ux intcmeL Sum of % Tolai oCComplain6 may nm equal 100% due �o munding. ... +qs of May 20�5, tl�e MSP Compiainu by Ciry' mpon indudcs mulliple �� \ complaint ducriplors per individuni wmplaint. Thcmfotc, Ihe numbcr oC � wmplaint descriplors may bc moic tLan Om numbcrof ,'��-._.. �� mportcdcompiainis. A Product of the Meixopolitan Airports Cominission ANOMS Program :y, c o� � �. GG' � r:t �. us Gs' c:: di �� ; ts'' �s �' , � �'+' . ��• . .yuf u?:;::��. �' �; , ��. �� , , � + , _a_ . ,, r , : �, ..--� �€ ,r ' �t � , � . � r �� i i j�:. �� }pk,. � � i Wv "+;�' �` ,. �.vt . '. . .. ._ i ; �., �, ,,� ,�. � ' � .�' ,� , i i _ , �, �—;� i � `,, � �� , ', �> `— ' ; : ( ' . z �a`f,'.: � + rc� � f , �, . � � ��,�rz �� ( ��}A [ ; ` � ' fi h �'`r��y '�+ � ' „�.�..,��,� � . _t IE� , ivf�1 � �'I�� 4't��i. i� � 5�� `� � . � .-� . yy � (� E '+��4t � � �"3 i� t i �' `�i �t a..� � . Cs .z, 'T i i. =- �� , 1 r '.�,, a � ..� --�r�, ,� i , , . i� �\�C4�GY� �.�'til{u,t ,i i .i.�Y}?�y�rFsi,�'S� � �.ti��/ L�. <<' - t7 ,� �� _.q.. �. �e .� . �S ri��y ' 1{ v \, � � � h � y�, r ti .,�a,m,.�t. G nh 1 � { }I J a Q ��) `� � ''Li.;?�wr�' � ! �R- i } � ;� `� i�..�^ .��si,� �1 �� hr � i -'�X�' s �k., _.r.9t�,�� ` r .. y� { '��A�� f.�.r.:t.i�_.:. ��r.�..,�y'��y.i ' .Y''s.�'+'� .r.s� I'..].rv�` .,..GF r..: � �.'d%..�.._�a(,3 } �'"�i�.' ie, � : . a xk1Cd� �i ii5�,.?,'nt��' y��c�"S�'' � �S',,�4,..`�;. �• R... ...� .��,7f-:.�.,�`.w'�`i.a� lh`i7"..,c'i�.'.�i }ili �4, .��..1� z �i,s r , � 1 1 j,,a �t �� '• �X n� ��S'� """_�. t'^' .�.�..,+��we T ii �y � � o �t ; � � Sy. { . ! �i ....i � �� .t t � �'.�.� � ,c {.�' , 6�G3 � C�t ' ` � � �� ` .::d i {(j�..:r � � '�'` y-, P . � '�. � .� .� � ..� .t � f y;y '1� ' � „� ..�� _. � �. � tj� �:�' �k��..�.S � ,L7,..,. �. \. � _� «�. 4' S �? � �i c �� : tU' . � � a t� 'ti,y{ .,�� . �, ;.y;..... i r1 � �� e�' • Y\ ii�...�.+� f I '1 � i : � a��-- �'� t �r F � 1 ..... �.i i �.� ' _._.'...... i... .i ., � i.. I C�f � .�,t �r ,r, rS � a,'"' � � : � CS i i- E� ``7' J�� ' - � 9C x � ;�! { i"O i. _;... , i � �: ttCJ J F L� � � �� trJ , �3� .' 0 � p � � , j , __ 3_ � < t� � � u i �% � r t�� (n. I p' �... i , � v�- -t,5 "' 1 z'-. r't.�' O� � ' � I I �c� � SS ��e.:�� , �'�.Yi ... ,....J..r{�<.rd!' t i ,i �„"'C„ � i � S .'.+� �J tiL . .. ;, (} �� ,..'� � sf �. . �. . _ �..'J�,, -� �: " • t 1 �.,.,: ..i;, s f �c�5v✓'f�Y� t�4 T � �n vi�� ,�. � o�` �"� o � ' �°'�cts�' r� e' 1 _... 4 �,�j; �i ..v. , f 4 � O �� - � . �f�' + 4t�"r �.`�'t,'..___ :� t � �I., � I�� ` �{�p: �rv ��,`y � fi r I � a � : -r�� }`� �� t�..° t +§ " �. .l� � � �'p � �� a �r',i 4 � �{S � y , .� � '�.. ��. ��@ tL: �.;t. q st, i� O r� � Y�� ,. i `� � � �i� � 4t.�.. �, � � i� , �, �.. ,...� 2po1 � a .�`" �`T' , .� ._ r ,. �. . � i ��' � � ,� �.y u 7 . .. �`t� . � ' ' - , �.i q�'��fiJ�ii .A �,,�� ' , 4 0��+�:."...:' _``-- i`.—' i�' � µ�A �; . � }f tt �t Q . � �� r ,�UL�t . t y .�y . � � y! i � ; ik; �? r �, Y � {�s a;._ �'} "° � , , � �, � �x �, . �n q . � - '�'•a �}„} � � , r c ,�, � .�' # , ,,�' I`.".. � . I' .�, . ;!": i � � .� � 1 !; 1 I �, q> I � ` _.. � � f,.;c , ...,,�, „�, c r r . � ^ . .. � i �':��'t '� ° 5 < *�S d} � � at �' \ � � '. . . �i� p �.. � r � � t� � 7 �^}'� Y �t f,�3' 9� t . i .. � r ��.: �' � f ..�, . .... t: i�'.,c :; � � i J '}� . I i. S . ��,;, r�' v"x •° ! '�E, t�` f� � ''�. __?'` _. a i a. : t t � y , t "' � �' �;,,, � ` j ":° j , ° tJ ,_ . � r..�4 t y. �.i� if� .2�"t� � r ! '�, . � S? � � I f �-�� ;�Y it,}1 ; -�., ' j�. , R ., , .,. �"'.l"�^,f r .�.kd , i�i . k� � �.i � . '�,,, i ';, I ..5�'. . . �tA� � . 4 � �'Y � ' t Qi .o� . � _. .. � j i 1riwt��''� �t ' ,wi {�� { � i � I � � � � � ��•k'.^,��t �+;rt� '�w�'a .....-r. .. '�� > t�„� �� ' I ' � t, 1 . � , r � �� i 7. �},l }r� � � _.. � . i � i � L'i'i` 'F ; �7 ��„��"�ftsi s� �'' �� ' lG � � y.�.— � !' t ,�.�,� ,�ys5 ^� .. . - - � i ' U'a x �� }i . S1 �� t � � '� ... ' iL� y� � �. n' t ��i a , .t�4 �� ' � � i�!' � . � �' +�,,��v Y � � � � � c.. � +',)'�� U'" � ��.» � � >^.i �a'�SS . -.. i ,. .. ,{ ,� ...(t1 j :',p i tsF`""' � r -'-C.Y t : .c'�'�''�' -�, ' �""''"`:S.C'.':. _ i . t'�.�. ....... ,.:;� *� ��' . � � i . .�y�t:�l , i i. ; II ` � ,'; i � R ""� :i.... �'�ryr � , i,^ � i + I � . . : t . � � i , , � , � �:: "�I .� ' � 1 : ..-j� '. I � Q�' � _;...�.i . . j ` \ �,"' � { � ; � � .., ��: ,... � .':' . '. .i :..._ � �7 ti�� ..' : � „� . .. ` �) ' .,. �(�j . ... � I 1 �? ��s; +� � ' ' . . � ; ��.. ii I 7 . , ,. . � . �� .. ...i , . Y(. , 3 : ' { 4 y(� ; ..... Z.-�. d � ; � rRl\I 1t'..' . ., � ... .... i y � {' I .. j Q ._, � . .r �, . �' : t �y. . ;.. . �. , ... �- �r4. i i i . . �... i � _ � . ; _ . . .. ..... . , i . . � � I � . . . �I � . �� Avai�able '�'irrie for Runway �.Tse November 2005 (Source: FAA Runway Use Logs) �r"!.r'�. �t�'4'.4':Et,;C ��Pi'4r �;f3CFEfl� I .�� .�November 20Q4 T.. �ovenzber 2005.`� � _____ Air Carrier 939 8U Comniutcr 416 403 General Aviat.io�i 84 34 , .,.� _____ —. / � � R�iilitary ......�.._.. ..._.�,_W..._.8 .�.. 8 _....�.._.�._..�_,....._._.. .4 �...��...w..„ , Total - { � 1447 ' �W�� 7.303 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 3 All C�iperations Note: Sum of RUS % may not equal 100% due to rounding. A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program Carrier Jet i�perations I2unway �.T.Tse R.eport .l�ovember 2005 Note: Sum of RUS °h may not equal 100°h due to rounding. A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program I�Tovember 20051lZSP Carrier .Tet �+'leet Cornposition � Note: Sum of Ileet miz h may not equal 100%tlue lo rounding. Currenf' L�st Ycars _ , � ... ,. . . st��e z[ ) o Stage IlI 6141 e IIltvfanufactured ��394 Total Sta�e III 31535 Note: Stage III represent aircraft modified to meet all stage III eriteria as outlined in Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 36. This Inctudes hushkit engines, engine cetrofits or aircraft operational flight configurations. •Tlie Provided Noise levels from FAR Part 36 are the loudest levefs documented per aircraft type during take-off ineasured in EPNL dBA � (Effective Perceived Noise Levei). •EPNL is the level of tUe time antegral of die antilogarithm of one-tenth of tone-corrected perceived noise level of an aireraft flyover measured in A-weiahted decibels. 6 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program Nighttim� All C)perat�ons 10:30 p.in. to 6:00 a.m. R.unway TJse �2eport l�Tove�nber 2005 Note: Sum of RUS % may not equal 100% due to rounding. A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program ,(, I�Tighttime Carrier Jet Operations 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.�n. � , , ' �� 1I Note: Sum of RUS % may not equai 100 % due to rounding. A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program November 2005 Top 15 Actual l�Tighttime Jet Operators by Type 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Total Nighttime Jet 2230 2300 2400 100 200 300 400 500 454 449 120 38 15 20 109 349 r't��rIine ; American Americau ATA America West America West _ America West US Air Ex r�ess Contin� ental. Ex� � Del.ta m mm Delta DHL FedEx FedEx _ _ __ � FedEx ` FedEx Pi.m�acle m� Kitty �-Iawk ICitry Hawk Mesaba Mesaba � Northwest Northtii�est __ Norkhwest Nort.hti�est � No�th.west Nortliwest Northwest Sun Countrv �, Sun Country � United UPS UPS UPS UPS UPS AAL 3� AAL 3 AMT 3 AWE 3 AWE � � AWE 3 AWI 3 BTA�3 DAL 3 DAL� 3 DHL � 3 PDX 3 . FDX� _ __ � __ FDX , 3 FDX � 3 I'LG � 3 ICT�_ K1�A 3 MES � 3 MES � -'---- NWA�,__ 3 NWA �. NWA' 3 NVWA 3 NWA i 3 NWA�3 NWA � 2 SCX 3 SCX��3� UAL � 3 UPS 3 UPS 3 UPS 3 UPS 3 UPS 3 �':'�r _ _ B738 MD80 B738 A320 B733 B757� CRJ B1�4� $738 IvID80 B72Q A300 A310 B�iQ DC10 CRJ B733 CRJ RJ85 A319 A320 A333 B7�7 B757 DC 10 8737 B738 B735 A.300 B72Q B7�7 B7G7 DCBG 30 36 44 �9 19 29 27 43 40 2 74 1.] 20 z 42 l69 ]9 16 4 36 3 8� 58 i� 113 .� 20 133 2 219 50 2$ 5 3 1 ?2 Note: The top 15 nighttime operators represent 89.3% of the total nighttime carrier jet operations. A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 9 C November 2005 Nighttime �+'leet Stage Mig for Top 15 Airlines 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. :�� 300 0 :� c� � � a � 200 0 �, d � � z 100 0 k�'v ��.� � � � 14�� ,y �,�.v �5,�'�- �,�,C� �� '.�,�� 5G"� ��,,v �4� Airline � Stage 2 ❑ Stage 3 � Manufactured Stage 3 November 2005 l�tighttime Fleet Stage IViix for 'I'op 15 Airlines �u:.su p.m. co b:uu a.m. [ � ' � 1VIanufaciured s , � Airl�e � Stage 2 ; � �Sta�ge 3 '` � � Stage 3 Total, ; �,;, AAL 0 0 # , 66 � 66 _.._..�.._.�..�.L._......_.._�.�..�... _ -- �T _�.�...�._.Y. � .�,..��..�..�.w.� 4`� .��._,..W.�.., _�,__44 W_.�. AWE 0 0 77 77� AWI 0 0 27 27 BTA 0 � 0 43 43 DAL , 0 0 42 42 DHL 0 74 0 74 FD�'_ 0 � 2 7;�� 75 FLG 0 p ].69 1.69 KI�t� 0 l9 ~p�� 16 � 35 MES 0 �� 0 40 40 NVJI� 0 � 133 232 ! 36� SCX 0 � 0 221. 221. UAL 0 0 �� 50 ,�� 50 1TPS� �� 0 � �27� 32 �� 59 �'I'otaT- ° 0 ` � `-255 _..�, �.�.._��w 1132 �1387 �W µ,� 10 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program e Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks Carrier Jet Operations — November 2005 Nov 1 thru 8, 2005 — 4267 Carrier Jet Arrivals Nov 1 thru 8, 2005 — 4228 Can-ier Jet Depariures Nov 1 tlu-u 8, 2005 — 266 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals Nov 1 tluu 8, 2005 — 123 Nighttime Carrier Jet Depariures A Product of the Metropolitan Airpozts Commission ANOMS Program 11 Airport Noise and Uperations Monitoring System Flight Tracl�s Carrier Jet Operations — November 2005 Nov 9 thru 16, 2005 — 4262 Carrier Jet Arrivals Nov 9 thru 16, 2005 — 4234 Carrier Jet Depariures Nov 9 thru 16, 2005 — 266 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals C Nov 9 thru 16, 2005 — 171 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departiues 12 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program Airport Noise and Operations Moni�toring Sysiem Flight Tracks Carrier Jet Operations — November 2005 Nov 17 thru 24, 2005 — 4230 Carrier Jet Arrivals Nov 17 thru 24, 2005 — 4181 Carrier Jet Departures Nov 17 thru 24, 2005 — 257 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals Nov 17 thru 24, 2005 — 159 Nighttime Canier Jei Deparhires A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program �3 / Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks �-. Carrier Jet Operations — November 2005 Nov 25 thru 30, 2005 — 3069 Carrier Jet Arrivals Nov 25 thru 30, 2005 — 3064 Carrier Jet Departures Nov 25 thru 30, 2005 — 186 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals Nov 25 thru 30, 2005 — 126 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures 14 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program ��',� ��;�. �� . i; � �•� �• _ �, ..s 1��: Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System �� . Le erzd � ��'�� Remote Monitoring Tower A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 15 Carrier Jet Arrivai �2elated Noise Events � • '� • ;i I, � Arri�al 'Arrival ArrnaI `. 'Arrival > � R1YIT , � :'; � , Eveiits .> . E�renfs > Events >;, : Events > . �. ID � Cit�_ � ; Address GSdB ` '' 80dB.,: 90c]B � ` .. 100dB . 1 Minneapolis �'.erxes Ave. & 41 st St. 5201 24 0 0 2 Miuneapa].is Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 4�23 164 2 Q 3 Minneapolis � Wast �lm«�ood St. Rc Belmont Ave. �002 1120 7 Q � Ivlinneapolis Park Ave. �. 48th. St. � 4929 � 478 4 �� 0 5 NTinneapolis 12Yh r�.ve. & 58th St. � 5414 3745 114 ��I 0 6 Minneapolis 25th flve. �2 57ih St. 5249 3935� 209 5 7 Richfield �entc��ortli Ave. & 64th St. � 18� 6 U 0 3 Nlinneapotis Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. 107 1 U 0 9 St. Paul Saratoga St & Hartford Ave. 5 0 0 0 10 St. Paui Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. S 0 0 0 11 St. Paul Pinn St. & Scl�effer A.ve. 3 ; 0 0 � 0 l2 St. Paul Alton St. & Rock�mood A��e. 7 0 0 0 13 Mendota 33e3ghts � Soutl�east end of Mohican Court 106 0 0 0 14 Eagan 1 st St. & Mekee St. �744 53 1 0 15 Mendota Heights Cu11on St. �. Lexingion Ave. 227 � 0 0 16 Eagan .Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane � 4695 1199 16 0 17 Bloomington 84th St. & 4th A��e. 12 � 0 � 0 0 18 Richfield 7�th St. & 17th Ave 81 2 0 0 19 Bloomington 16t1.i Ave. & 84th St. 19 0 0 0 20 Riehfield 7�tli St. & 3rd A��e. i l 0 Q 0 2] Inver Grove I-Ieights BacbaraA��e. & 67ti� St. 70 g 0 0 0 22 ]:m�er Grove Heights �� Anne A4arie Traii � 3423 23 � I 0 0 r 23 A�endoia Heights � Gnd of Kenndon. Ave. 1'�12��19 0 0 24 Eagan Chapel Ln. & �'��ren Ln. 5671 61 1 0 2� Ea;an � Moonshine 1'ark 1321. ]urdy Rd. � 422 � 2 0 0 26 Imrer Grove He.iQhts 6796 Arkansas A�te. ��T. 769 � 0 0 27 �finneapolisy Anthony School �7�7 Irring Ave. S. � 84 2 0 0 28 � Richfield 6645 16th Avenue S. � 4S 1 26 0 0 29 �Iiruaeapolis Ericsson �lem. Scl�ool �131 � 31 st Ave. S. 15 l 0 0 30 l3)oominton 8715 River Ridge Rd. 6S1 l 0 0 31 Bioominton 9�01 12t1� �1r•e. S. 8 0 d U 32 Bloominton 10325 Pleasant Ave. S. � � 0 0 0 33 BurnsL�ille Nortl� Rir�er Hiils Park �Y� �� 7 � 0 0 0 � 34 W 13urnsville Red Oak Park �� 19 0 0 0 35 T� Eagan 2100 Ciarnel In�� 934 6 0 0 36� Apple Valley � Bri1r Oaks & Seoirt Pond 1192 7 0 w 0 37 Eagan 4399 ��`oodgate Ln. N. 156 1 0 0 38 �agan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 20 2 � 0 39 �a�an 3477 St Charles Pl. 3 1 0 0 � .�� ,�Total �i:rrival Noise E�ents m.�� 56900 � 10889, M ^ 35�1 � �T� 5� ,.��. .. _ :.m.,,.�,�.:..��...M..:..�.�,�..,...._. `_ ,. ' : 16 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program Carrier Jet Departure Related Noise Events IVovember 2005 ..�..� ..�.,�... .�_..,�.,..�.�..�.._.....�.,�. �..__..�....�.,, w, ` �: De arEure De artwre De�� ,�N p w�� parture' Departure ItMT , %' , , '<. ' Events > E� ents, > E� ents > . Events : � . ID � ��City." Address � 65dB SOdB'�;'; 90dB ,. ` 100�18 :' 1 Ivlinneapolis Xerxes Ave. c�. 41st St. �63 28 0 0 2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 737 35 0 0 3 Ivluu�eapolis 4��est Elm�rrood St. & Belmont Ave. l 678 � 108 15 0 4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48th St. 215? 206 8 0 5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. &�3th St. 5�11 1093 237 9 6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & �7th St. 710� 2351 624 17 7 Ri.chfield ��Jenh��orth Ave. �: 64th St. 3165 334 1) 0 S Minneapolis Longfello�v A��e. & 43rd St. 21 ] 3 � 247 8 0 9 Si. Paul Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. 30 � I 0 0 , _ ______ ...._......._..�.. 10 St. Pau] ( Itasca t�ve. bc Bo�vdoin St. 2l [ 0 0 0 11 St. Paul Finn St. & 5cheffer Ave. 21 2 0 0 12 St. Paul Alton St. & Rocl��ood Ave. 28 0 0 0 l.3 Mendota Heigl�ts Southeast end of i��ol�ican Court 22�5 � 127 0 0 14 Eagan l.st St. �. n�ckee St. 2607 327 21 0 1� T4endota Heigt�ts Cullon St. & Lexington Ave. 2793 236 4 0 1.6 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane 2603 473 62 0 17 Iiloomington R4th St. & 4tli Ave. 93� 3 0 0 l.S Richfield 75t1� St. & 17th1ave 2�03 21S 1. 0 19 Bloomingion � �i6t1� A��e. & 841h St. 1863 74 0 0 20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 311 11 I Q 0 21 � Imrer Grove Heights Barbara Ave. �, 67th St. 8�6 33 0 0 22 Inver Grove Heig(its Aruie Iviarie Trail 723 27 0 0 23 I�Iendota Heiglits End of Kenndon Ave. 4028 742 131 0 24 �a�3n Cl�apel Ln. &��ren L��. 1801 138 1 0 25 �agan R�loonshine Park 1321 lurdy Rd. 11.0.9 9 0 0 26 Inver Grove I Ieights 6796 r'lrkansa.s /1ve. W. ] 261 78 0 0 27 Minneapolis Antl�on5' SCI7001 J%S% INIIIa Ave. S. �722 ll5 4 0 28 Richfield 66'15 16t1i Avenue S. 4434 419 � 0 29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. Sclx�ol 4315 31st Ave. S. 1508 88 1 0 ._- _ ....�.._...W..w.._..,. �_..._...N...._._......._,._,. _.... .,W._.. 3U Bloominton 8715 Ri��er Rid�e Rd 3657 Sil 74 0 31 Bloominton 9�01 12th Ave. S. 484 11 0 (1 32 Bloominton 1032� Pleas�nt Ave. S. 133 1 0 0 33 Burns��ille North River Hills P�uk S27 20 0 0 34 Burnsville Red Oak Park =t41 S 0 0 3� �agan 2100 Garnet ].n. �99 26 0 0 36 Apple Valley Briar O<ilcs R Scout Pond 28] 21 0 � 0 37 I;agan 4399 Woodgate Ln. N. �03 17 0 0 3S Lagan 3957'TuryuoiseCirw��Y ^ 7i4 36 0 m 0 39 �agan 3�77 St Charles PI. 794 33 0 0 Total,De�iarture Noise Events . '� ' 62882 ' '5244 '1215 � 26 ;. `.: A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Prograin 17 '�'�� '�'�� s� �.�� I�Ia�is� :�v�� '�� 1�� ro�-os (RMT Site#1) Xerxes Ave. & 41St St., Minneapolis Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) De arture 11/23/2005 07:30 SCX503 B738 D 30L 89.3 11/04/200513:15 NWA19 B744 D 30L 87.0 11/15/200513:26 NWA747 B757 A 12R 86.5 11/05/2005 20:02 NWA164 B757 A 12R 86.3 11/04/2005 07:39 I�-iA382 B72Q D 30L 85.9 11/03/200513:20 NWA1951 DC9Q A 12R 85.6 11/02/200513:00 I.TNIQ�tOWN B190 A 12R 85.4 11/22/200513:12 NWA19 B744 D 30L 85.2 11/20/200515:51 NWA19 B744 D 30L 84.5 11/07/200513:17 NWA19 B744 D 30L 84.4 (RMT Site#2) Fremont Ave. & 43rd St., Minne Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ 11/05/2005 20:26 11/10/2005 20:13 11 /20 /200515:50 11 / 17/200516:17 11 /08/200513:17 11/06/200513:51 11/30/2005 22:03 11/28/2005 21:48 11/30/200519:43 11 /27/200518:09 NWA755 NWA859 NWA19 NWA745 NWA747 NWA19 NWA56 NWA1802 B757 ; „ � : ; „ : :� � � : :1 (RMT Site#3) West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave., : Date/Tizne Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway 12L 12L 30L 12L 12L 30L 12L 30L 12L 12L Runway Lmax (dB) Lmax (dB) 11/05/2005 20:03 NWA164 B757 A 12R 96.5 11/15/200513:27 NWA74� B757 A 12R 94.9 11/09/200513:10 NWA19 B744 D 30L 94.3 11/22/200517:19 NWA552 B757 A 12R 94.1 11/06/200513:50 NWA19 8744 D 30L 94.0 11/20/200515:50 N4VA19 B744 D 30L 93.4 11/17/200519:12 NWA1970 B757 A 12R 93.4 11/13/200513:12 NWA19 B744 D 30L 93.3 11/04/200513:15 NWA19 B744 D 30L 93.3 11/07/200513:16 NWA19 B744 D 30L 92.6 18 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program �� m , � �'ap '�er� �€��d�� l��r�a~�f� l�ioese Ev��ts f��-1�SI� Nov-as (RMT Site#4) Park Ave. & 48th St., Minneapolis Date/Time Flight Nurnber Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway De arture 11/18/200513:13 NWAl9 B744 D 30L 11/08/200513:18 NWA747 B757 A 12L 11/01/200514:08 NWA19 B744 D 30L 11/05/2005 20:27 NWA755 B757 A 12L 11/04/200517:01 NWA846 B757 A 12L 11/03/200510:15 NWA843 B757 A 12L 11/01/2005 23:27 CCI705 B72Q D 30R 11/28/2005 22:13 RCH777 DC10 D 30L 11/20/200510:57 NWA1426 DC9Q D 30R 11/15/200518:24 NWA46 DC10 D 30L (RMT Site#5) 12th Ave. & 58�' St., Minnea� Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ De artur� 11/20/200516:36 CCP462 B72Q D 11/07/2005 08:31 CCP1402 B72Q D 11/13/2005 08:11 CCP460 B72Q D 11/03/2005 08:09 CCP460 B72Q D 11/18/2005 09:40 CCP1422 B72Q D 11/18/2005 08:34 CCP1402 B72Q D 11/04/2005 08:33 CCP1402 B72Q D 11/20/2005 08:24 CCP460 B72Q D 11/19/2005 09:15 CCP470 S72Q D 11/06/2005 08:10 CCP460 B72Q D. (RMT Site#6) 25�` Ave. & 57�' St., Minnea� Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ De artur� 11/05/2005 20:28 NWA755 B757 A 11/04/200517:02 NWA846 B757 A 11/18/200515:37 NWA1756 DC9Q D 11/18/200512:15 NWA1079 DC9Q D 11/17/200516:18 NWA745 B75� A 11/03/200510:16 NWA843 B757 A 11/23/200518:22 NWA1086 DC9Q D 11/O8/200513:19 NWA747 B757 A 11/07/200510:41 NWA748 DC9Q D 11/20/200514:49 NWA1083 DC9Q D A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program Runway 30L 30L 30L 30L 30L 30L 30L 30L 30L 30L Runway 12L 12L 30R 30R 12L 12L 30R 12L 30R 30R Lmax (dB) 94.0 93.4 93.2 92.8 91.8 91.7 91.4 90.9 90.8 90.7 Lmax (dB) 102.2 102.2 102.1 101.7 100.9 100.9 100.9 100.5 100.3 99.5 Lmax (dB) 105.1 104.2 102.6 102.3 102.3 102.2 102.0 101.5 101.4 101.0 19 '�'�� 'I'�� I.��des� A.��c��f� 1�t�� T��.�s f��° :11�� vQv-os (RMT Site#7) ZXTc�nl-c=rnrtl� Di�a Rr F'.d_� C+ 1?�n1��<>l� ,..�,.. ,... < ... ..,, . ...� � ., Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) De arture 11/19/2005 08:45 CCP670 B72Q D 30L 99.9 11/21/2005 21:12 DHI�24 B72Q D 30L 95.5 11/29/2005 08:48 DHL1648 B72Q D 30R 93.8 11/20/200516:36 CCP462 B72Q D 30L 93.1 11/13/2005 06:54 DHL1648 B72Q D 30L 93.0 11/29/2005 23:48 CT"C123 B72Q D 30L 92.9 11/28/2005 23:25 CTT123 ' B72Q D 30L 92.8 11/21/2005 22:38 DHL197 B72Q D 30L 92.8 11/22/2005 07:15 DHL1648 B72Q D 30L 92.7 11/15/2005 22:02 DHL424 B72Q D 30L 92.6 (RMT Site#8) Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St., Min� Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ De arEur� 11/03/2005 07:48 CCP600 B72Q D 11/18/200515:59 NWA1084 DC9Q D 11/04/200513:06 NWA447 DC9Q D 11/18/200513:35 NWA1050 DC9Q D 11/22/2005 07:40 NWA1090 DC9Q D 11/07/200517:15 NWA746 DC9Q D 11/06/200512:46 AAL12�8 MD80 D 11/20/2005 07:12 NWA736 DC9Q D 11/18/2005 08:00 AAL1148 MD80 D 11/21/2005 07:22 NWA736 DC9Q D (RMT Site#9) Runway 30R 30R 30R 30R 30R 30R 30R 30R 30R 30R . .: __��.,.. . � . � � .� .� •11 •11 ::• ::• �aratoga Jt. c� ria.rtiora Ave., �t. raul Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) De arture 11/16/2005 00:12 CCI705 B72Q D 30L 822 11/30/2005 00:15 CCI705 B72Q D 30L 78.6 11/13/2005 22:23 NWA770 DC9Q D 30L 75.1 11/25/2005 07:04 BMJ72 BE80 D 12R 74.9 11/04/200511:31 UAL581 B733 A 30R 74.3 11/25/2005 07:06 BMJ68 BE99 D 12R 73.0 11/06/200519:10 NWA1957 A320 A 12L 72.5 11/25/2005 07:01 BMJ54 BE80 D 12R 72.0 11/08/2005 07:00 BMJ70 BE80 D 12L- 71.9 11/12/2005 07:40 BMJ68 BE99 D 12R 71.7 20 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program C' 'To� '�"�� .�c��s� t�.��e��ft .1�� Ev�nts %�- l�SP Nov-o5 (RMT Site#10) Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St., St. Paul Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) De arture 11/11/2005 07:21 BMJ54 BE80 D 12L 75.6 11/25/2005 07:03 BMJ66 BE80 D 12R 74.2 11/12/2005 07:39 BMJ68 BE99 D 12R 73.4 11/23/2005 08:24 BMJ48 BE80 D 30R 73.1 11/26/2005 08:07 BMJ70 BE80 D 12R 72.9 11/04/200511:31 UAL581 B733 A 30R 72-7 11 / 11 /2005 09:22 MES2757 SF34 D 12L 71.6 11/26/200517:26 NWA1030 A320 A 12L 70.3 11/30/2005 00:33 KHA772 B733 D 30L 70.1 11/30/2005 00:15 CCI705 B72Q D 30L 69.6 (RMT Site# 11) Finn St. & Scheffer Ave., St. Paul Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) De arhxre 11/30/2005 00:15 CCI705 B72Q D 30L 81.7 11/16/2005 00:11 CCI705 B72Q D 30L 80.8 11/23/2005 08:25 BMJ48 BE80 D 30R 76.8 11/19/2005 06:14 UAL604 B733 D 30R 76.3 11/28/2005 09:21 BMJ13 BESO D 12L 75.4 11/25/2005 07:03 BMJ66 BE$0 D 12R 73.3 11/06/2005 06:11 UAL604 B733 D 30R 72.4 11/11/2005 07:22 BMJ54 BE80 D 12L 71.3 11/26/2005 08:07 BMJ70 BE80 D 12R 70.5 11/21/2005 22:30 NWA354 B757 D 30R 70.4 (RMT Site#12) Alton St. & Rockwood Ave., St. Paul Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) De arture 11/25/2005 07:04 BMJ72 BE80 D 12R 77.6 11/30/200516:53 NWA1046 DC9Q A 12L 76.5 11/30/200519:24 NWA1495 DC9Q A 12L 75.8 11/22/2005 04:09 TCA1 UNKNOWN D 30L 74.7 11 / 11 /2005 21:12 MES3103 SF34 D 12L �4.3 11/25/2005 07:01 BMJ54 BE80 D 12R 74.1 11/12/2005 07:39 BMJ68 BE99 D 12R 72.8 11/06/200519:10 NWA1957 A320 A 12L 72.7 11/12/2005 07:31 BMj58 BE99 D 12R 71.0 11/28/2005 09:20 BMJ13 BE80 D 12L 70.3 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Corrunission ANOMS Program 21 '�'�� 'I'�� L��d�sf t�.a��t l�o�s� ��T�nts �'c�� ]��P lV ov-E}s (RMT Site#13) Southeast End Of Mohican Court, Mendota Date/Tune Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ De ariure 11/17/2005 23:21 DHL304 B72Q D 11/01/2005 07:06 AAL386 MD80 D 11/14/200513:20 NWA19 B744 D 11/28/2005 09:51 AAL730 MD80 D 11/OS/200514:36 AAL1686 MD80 D 11/28/200513:43 AAL1278 MD80 D 11/12/200512:13 NWA1047 DC9Q D 11/27/2005 07:58 AAL386 MD80 D 11/02/200511:09 AAL1435 MD80 D 11/11/200511:09 AAL1435 MD80 D (RMT Siie# 14) 1 st St. & Mckee St., Ea�an Runway 12R 12L 12R 12L 12L 12L 12L 12L 12L 12L .. .: ::, � : 1 :. :.� :.� : : � : . : Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) De arture 11/10/2005 08:20 CCP460 B724 D 12R 95.2 11/14/2005 08:4$ CCP1402 B72Q D 12R 94.3 11/10%200513:37 NWA19 B744 D 12R 94.0 11/22/2005 23:51 CCI705 B72Q D 12R 93.6 11/03/200513:16 NWA19 B744 D 12R 93.4 11/22/2005 22:32 D].II�24 B72Q D 12R 93.0 11 / 11 /2005 22:42 DHL2801 B72Q D 12R 93.0 11/15/200513:17 NWA19 B744 D 12R 92.9 11/28/2005 09:39 CCP1422 B72Q D 12R 92.9 11/07/2005 23:19 CCI705 B72Q D 12R 92.6 (RMT Site#15) Cullon St. & Lexington Ave., Mendota Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ De arture 11/02/200514:48 NWA1809 DC9Q D 11/06/2005 21:42 NWA1263 DC9Q D 11/27/200517:28 NWA1532 DC9Q D 11/12/200512:12 NWA1047 DC9Q D 11/12/2005 07:09 DAL1747 B73Q D 11/28/200517:30 NWA1809 DC9Q D 11/01/2005 07:42 NWA736 DC9Q D 11/12/2005 07:19 NWA736 DC9Q D 11/07/2005 21:25 NWA709 DC9Q D 11/27/200512:25 NWA1047 DC9Q D Runway 12L 12L 12L 12L 12L 12L 12L 12L 12L 12L � . .: . � .� , .� .� :• : :• . :: ::� � : . 22 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 'I,t�� `�'�� Lo��d�st ��cr��t 1�Tc��s� EtT�nts �� I�SP� 1� ov-os (RMT Site#16) Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane, Ea�an Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) De arture 11/06/200516:40 CCP462 B72Q D 12R 98.7 11/25/200511:05 CCP1422 S72Q D 12R 97.9 11/28/2005 08:40 CCP1402 B72Q D 12R 97.6 11/12/2005 09:04 CCP470 B72Q D 12R 97.3 11/27/200517:20 CCP462 B72Q D 12R 97.3 11/03/200516:42 CCP462 B72Q D 12R 97.2 11/19/2005 09:21 NWA580 B757 A 30L 97.0 11/05/200514:52 NWA3 B744 D 12R 96.7 11/21/2005 06:00 NWA300 B757 A 30L 96.7 11/27/2005 08:12 CCP460 B72Q D 12R 96.6 Date /Time 11/18/2005 09:00 11/18/2005 07:28 11/09/2005 06:06 11/23/2005 22:44 11/23/2005 08:20 11/18/200518:09 11 / 14 /200515:17 11/12/2005 21:44 11/07/2005 07:32 11/01/2005 13:47 (RMT Site#17) 84th St. & 4th Ave., Blooming Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ De arture DAL1425 MD80 D DAL1747 B73Q D AAL390 MD80 D BMJ78 BE80 D BMj56 BE80 D DAL630 MD80 D COA1017 B735 D NWA859 DC9Q D DAL1747 B73Q D NWA438 A320 D (RMT Site#18) 7_Sth St_ & 17th Ave. Richfield Runway 30L 30L 30R 30L 30L 30L 17 30L 30L 30L Lmax (dB) 81.3 81.2 80.5 79.4 79.3 78.4 77.5 77.2 77.2 76.6 Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) De arture 11/18/2005 07:38 BMJ04 BE65 D 17 93.2 11/06/200517:49 NWA926 DC9Q D 17 87.8 11/03/2005 09:37 AJI871 LJ24 D 17 87.6 11/07/200514:42 NWA315 A319 D 30L $6.0 11/14/200515:28 NWA502 DC9Q D 17 85.8 11/08/200510:14 DAL1822 B73Q D 17 85.5 11/08/200518:03 NWA10$6 DC9Q D 17 85.0 11/28/200514:53 NWA790 DC9Q D 17 85.0 11/15/2005 09:23 NWA720W DC9Q D 17 84.8 11/15/200510:18 NWA768 DC9Q D 17 84.7 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 23 '��'a� '�'�� L��es� �e��r�ft I�T+��s� E��ts fo� 1V3�.��` I�ov-o5 (RMT Site#19) 16th Ave. & 84th St., Bloomington Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ De arture 11/17/200514:41 NWA1531 DC9Q D 11/05/200519:01 NWA1496 DC9Q D 11/03/2005 09:38 AjI871 LJ24 D 11/15/200510:23 NWA748 DC9Q D 11/16/2005 07:38 BMJ64 BE80 D 11/26/200518:54 NWA1802 DC9Q D 11/03/200510:19 NWA858 DC9Q D 11/14/200515:47 LTNKNOWN C525 D 11/28/200517:31 NWA1533 DC9Q D 11/07/200511:55 MES34Q8 RT85 D (RMT Site#20) 75th St. & 3rd Ave., Richfield Runway 17 17 17 17 30L 17 17 17 17 17 • . .: :. . :. � : • � ;, , ., . : • : : : . � Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) De arture 11/18/2005 09:00 DAL1425 MD80 D 30L 84.0 11/22/200513:13 NWA1157 A319 D 30L 83.0 11/23/200513:58 DAL1188 MD80 D 30L 82.2 11/01/200513:56 NWA1847 A319 D 17 82.0 11/07/2005 07:32 DAL1747 B73Q D 30L 81.1 11/07/200514:20 FLG5624 CRJ D 30R 81.0 11/08/2005 09:31 NWA561 A320 D 17 80.6 11/09/2005 06:06 AAL390 MD80 D 30R 80.6 11/18/200516:35 AAL1107 MD80 D 30L 80.4 11/1$/2005 07:23 U�TI<NOWN B190 D 17 80.2 Date/Time 11 /02/200513:15 11/15/200513:18 11/22/2005 21:42 11/30/200513:19 11/01/2005 08:03 11/05/2005 13:24 11/27/200515:13 11/17/2005 20:11 11/04/2005 18:12 11 /28 /200516:00 (RMT Site#21) Barbara Ave. & 67th St., Inver Grove Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ De arture NWA19 B�44 D NWA19 B744 D NWA709 DC9Q D NWA19 B744 D CCI706 B72Q D NWA19 B744 D N`WA19 B744 D NWA732 DC9Q D NWA46 DC10 D NWA42 DC10 D Runway 12R 12R 12L 12R 12L 12R 12R 12L 12R 12R . .: ;, . :� . : • : • : • : : : . � � : 24 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program ', ) `�'�� `I'�� Lo��st .Afl��-�ft I�o�s� ��T�a�ts �'�� P Nov-o5 (RMT Site#22) Anne Marie Trail, Inver Grove Hei Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ De arture 11/29/2005 06:43 NWA362 A320 A 11/14/200514:45 AAL1686 MD80 D 11/28/2005 21:02 DHL424 B72Q D 11/09/2005 04:05 DHL704 B72Q A 11/22/200514:33 NWA112 B757 A 11/17/2005 22:05 DHL197 B72Q D 11/10/2005 22:06 DHL197 B72Q D 11/11/200513:21 NWA19 B744 D 11/09/2005 00:58 CCP2016 B72Q A 11/15/2005 22:25 CCI705 B72Q A (RMT Site#23) End of Kenndon Avenue, Mendota Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ De arture 11/12/200512:12 NWA1047 DC9Q D 11/01/2005 07:12 NWA1720 DC9Q D 11/10/200516:57 NWA1532 DC9Q D 11/14/200514:39 NWA1809 DC9Q D 11/04/200514:46 NWA1809 DC9Q D 11/28/200519:17 NWA1046 DC9Q D 11/10/2005 07:24 NWA1720 DC9Q D 11/02/200514:40 NWA766 DC9Q D 11 / 11 /2005 22:36 NWA789 DC9Q D 11/22/2005 21:41 NWA709 DC9Q D (RMT Site#24) Chapel Lane & Wren Lane, Eag Date/Time F]ight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ De arture 11/29/2005 06:12 CCI706 B72Q A 11/10/2005 08:21 CCP460 B72Q D 11/22/2005 22:30 DHL197 B72Q D 11/09/200513:38 AAL�67 MD80 A 11 / 11 /2005 22:43 DHL2801 B72Q D 11/25/200511:06 CCP1422 B72Q D 11/07/2005 23:19 CCI705 B72Q D 11/01/2005 07:06 DHL1648 B72Q D 11/10/2005 22:06 DHL197 B72Q D 11/26/2005 08:28 FLG2833 CRJ D A Product of the I�Ietropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program Runway 30R 12R 12R 30L 30R 12R 12R 12R 30L 30L Runway 12L 12L 12L 12L 12L 12L 12L 12L 12L 12L Runway 30IZ 12R 12R 30L 12R 12R 12R 12R 12R 12L . . .: ; . :. :. 1 � ;, , :� � : 1 : . : . Lmax (dB) 96.2 95.9 95.3 95.1 95.0 94.9 94.9 94.8 94.8 94.7 . .: . : .� ;.. :: . :. :: i � : . : : 25 Date/Time 11/16/2005 08:51 11/05/2005 09:21 11/07/2005 22:00 11/05/200514:52 11/30/2005 22:01 11/05/2005 09:25 11/05/200516:21 11/14/2005 22:10 11/12/2005 09:04 11/07/2005 22:18 �'�� `�'�n :�o�c��g �i�� l�t�aas� ��T��ats f�r l��P" 1`�ov-05 (RMT Site#25) Moonshine Park, 1321 Jurdy Rd., Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ De arture NWA512 A320 A CCP470 B72Q D DHL197 B72Q D NWA3 B744 D DHL424 B72Q D AAL1466 MD80 D AAL1686 MD80 D DHL197 B�2Q D CCP470 B72Q D FDX1106 B720 D Runway 30L 12R 12R 12R 12R 12R 12R 12R 12R 12R (RMT Site#26) 6796 Arkansas Ave. W., Inver Grove Heights .. .: . .. : : � � : � : 1 : 1 : 1 :1 :i � Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) De arture 11/17/2005 23:52 CTT123 B72Q D 12R 8$.6 11/10/2005 20:58 DHL424 B72Q D 12R 88.1 11/17/200518:34 CCP462 B72Q D 12R 86.8 11/02/2005 07:29 CCI706 B72Q D 12L 85.9 11/10/2005 07:01 CCI706 B72Q D 12R 85.8 11/01/2005 23:15 CTT123 B72Q D 12L 85.8 11/19/2005 00:05 CTT211 S72Q D 12R 85.7 11/23/2005 OS:07 SCX284 B738 A 30L 85.5 11/15/2005 07:32 CCI706 B72Q D 12L 85.5 11/06/200511:42 DAL904 MD80 A 30R 85.3 (RMT Site#27) Anthony Middle Schooi, 5757 Irving Ave. S., Minneapoli Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway 11/03/2005 06:54 11/20/2005 08:25 11/19/2005 09:15 11/21/2005 08:40 11/03/2005 08:10 11/23/2005 08:21 11/17/2005 02:32 11/18/200511:59 11 /22/200511:59 11/30/2005 07:42 CCI706 CCP460 CCP470 CCP1402 CCP460 CCI706 CCP2041 NWA99 NWA99 CCI706 30L 30L 30L 30L 30L 30L 30L 30L 30L 30L . . .: �� . , .� •11 :• ::• :: : : � � 26 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program � ,. `�'�� '�'�� o�c��st t�g��.�� I�€��s� ��T�n�s �o� 1�� ivov-o5 (RMT Site#28) 6645 16th Avenue S., Richfield Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) De arture 11/19/2005 08:20 CTT124 B72Q D 30L 93.3 11/23/200518:52 NWA446 DC9Q D 30L 91.8 11/23/200517:21 NWA1533 DC9Q D 30L 91.5 11/18/200515:45 NWA1434 DC9Q D 30L 91.4 11/09/2005 07:21 DHL1648 B72Q D 30L 90.7 11/11/200515:43 SCX105 B738 D 17 88.9 11/09/200513:38 NWA856 DC9Q D 30L 88.3 11/28/200510:14 NWA1231 A320 A 12R 88.2 11/21/200510:23 NWA126 DC9Q D 30L 88.1 11/13/2005 09:22 A.AL1472 MD80 D 30L 88.0 (RMT Site#29) Ericsson Elementary School, 4315 31 st Ave. S., Date/Time Flight NumUer Aircraft Type Arrival/ De arhue 11/08/2005 23:17 CCI1705 B72Q D 11/02/2005 23:26 CCI705 B72Q D 11 / 16/2005 13:49 TAG399 GLF3 D 11/22/2005 09:25 AAL730 MD80 D 11/20/200511:37 NWA748 DC9Q D 11/23/200517:24 AAI�51 MD80 D 11/22/2005 08:10 AAL1148 MD80 D 11/22/200513:23 NWA1258 DC9Q D 11/13/200510:28 NWA1831 DC9Q D 11/20/200516:57 AAL451 MD$0 D (RMT Site#30) 8715 River Ridge Rd., Bloomi Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ 11/17/2005 07:15 CCI706 B72Q D 11/25/2005 09:06 CCP1402 B72Q D 11/28/200514:53 NWA790 DC9Q D 11/06/200517:19 NWA407 DC9Q D 11/05/200518:50 NWA1674 DC9Q D 11/03/200511:45 NWA1721 DC9Q D 11/14/200517:01 NWA455 DC9Q D 11/14/200517:12 NWA407 DC9Q D 11/03/200517:02 NWA455 DC9Q D 11/14/200515:25 NWA1494 DC9Q D Runway 30L 30R 30R 30R 30R 30R 30R 30R 30R Runway 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 . . .: •� . :• :: . : . � � : :. :. :. Lmax (dB) 95.0 94.9 94.4 93.7 93.7 93.3 93.1 92.9 92.8 92.5 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 27 '�'�� '�� .,�� .��c�-�� I��s� :��s �� 1�� r,To�-os (RMT Site#31) 9501 12th Ave. S., Bloomington Date/Time Flight Nwnper Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) De arture 11/30/200513:24 NWA1157 A319 D 17 $4.2 11/14/20051�:01 NWA455 DC9Q D 17 83.9 11/05/200513:48 NWA1847 A319 D 17 82.5 11/05/200512:25 AAL1689 MD80 D 17 82.3 11/08/200512:02 AAL1689 MD80 D 17 81.6 11/07/200511:05 AWE756 B733 D 17 81.5 11/22/200516:55 AAL1107 MD80 D 17 81.4 11/01/200512:11 AAL1689 MD80 D 17 81.2 11/03/2005 09:38 AJI871 LJ24 D 17 80.5 11/07/200511:03 COA1617 B735 D 17 80.4 (RMT Site#32) 10325 Pleasant Ave. S., Bloomi Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ De arture 11/16/2005 00:31 CTT123 B72Q D 11/17/200517:38 LTNKNOWN PA31 D 11/01/200513:38 DAL1186 MD80 D 11/23/2005 08:21 BMJ56 BE80 D 11/19/2005 23:26 CCP2033 B72Q D 11/07/200511:05 AWE756 B733 D 11/06/2005 06:51 DHL1648 B72Q D 11/20/2005 21:30 NWA1463 DC9Q D 11/07/2005 09:31 AWI3707 CRJ D 11/18/200514:53 AAL621 B738 D (RMT Site#33) North River Hills Park, Burnsville Runway 30L 17 30L 30L 30L 17 30L 30L 17 17 Lmax (dB) 81.3 79.9 79.2 79.2 78.3 �7.8 77.6 76.7 76.4 76.1 DaEe/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lnnax (dB) De arture 11/25/2005 09:07 CCP1402 B72Q D 17 84.3 11/04/200517:06 AA.L1107 MD80 D 17 84.2 11/04/200516:48 AAY5043 MD80 D 17 83.9 11/17/2005 07:16 CCI706 B72Q D 17 83.1 11/11/2005 09:39 CCP1422 B�2Q D 17 82.9 11/01/2005 08:44 KI3n316 B72Q D 17 82.1 11/12/200511:56 AAL1689 MD80 D 17 82.0 11/05/200515:37 NWA1529 DC9Q D 1� 81.2 11/14/200513:43 NWA409 DC9Q D 17 81.2 11/14/200511:33 NWA1721 DC9Q D 17 . 81.1 28 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program i '�'€��S 7i�� I,m��s� ��°�£� 1°�� s f��- ��P` ivoa�-OS (RMT Site#34) Red Oak Park, Burnsville Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) De ariure 11/01/200511:46 NWA1491 DC9Q D 17 81.4 11�04/200515:42 NWA1529 DC9Q D 17 80.9 11/04/200516:48 AAY5043 MD80 D 17 80.6 11/10/200512:05 NWA1721 DC9Q D 17 80.6 11/01/2005 09:50 NWA617 DC9Q D 17 80.0 11/10/2005 09:48 NWA617 DC9Q D 17 79.9 11/06/2005 22:19 NWA871 DC9Q D 17 79.3 11/22/200519:06 EJA887 H25B D 17 79.2 11/08/2005 09:46 NWA1483 A319 D 17 7$.8 11/17/200518:03 NWA407 DC9Q D 17 78.8 (RMT Site#35) 2100 Garnet Ln., Eagan Date/Tisne Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ De artur� 11/23/200510:11 NWA1171 DC9Q A 11/18/200510:46 NWA1174 DC9Q D 11/27/200519:34 NWA1461 DC9Q D 11/20/200517:49 DAL630 MD80 D 11/15/200510:48 NWA1174 DC9Q D 11/14/200515:22 NWA1288 DC9Q D 11/28/200518:02 AAI1�51 MD80 D 11/14/200517:59 AAL451 MD80 D 11/18/200510:49 NWA858 DC9Q D 11 /01 /2005 15:37 NWA502 DC9Q D Runway 35 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 (RMT Site#36) Briar Oaks & Scott Pond, Apple Valley Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway 11/29/200519:56 BMJ69 11/18/200510:48 NWA454 11/01/200513:55 NWA856 11/18/200510:46 NWA1174 11/27/200517:22 CCP462 11/20/200519:04 NWA446 11/29/200516:38 DHL1748 11/18/2005 20:19 NWA1955 11/20/200517:49 DAL630 11/20/200519:10 NWA1291 : :i IT-� :1 35 17 17 17 12R 17 35 17 1� 17 . . .: . ., � :� 1 :� � •� 1 � . . . �. : � : i : : � . .: � : � : : � : 1 : 1 : � : • � � A Product of the Meiropolitan Aarports Commission ANOMS Program 29 11/05 11/12 11/14 11/01 11/06 11/22 11/15 11/04 11/01 11/22 11/17 11/29 11/05 1i/os 11/15 11/06 11/01 11/06 11/30 11/26 'I'o� 'T��► L�aa�.�st .�irc�� I�nis� L��ts ��r I�ZSI' ��-os (RMT Site#37) 4399 Woodgate Ln. N., Eag ne Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ De artur� 18:59 NtNA440 A320 D 19:36 NWA1496 DC9Q D 15:21 NWA1170 DC9Q D 07:20 NWA122 DC9Q D 16:00 NWA1434 DC9Q D 19:01 NWA1496 DC9Q D 10:37 NWA498 DC9Q D 15:56 NWA444 A320 D 10:20 NWA498 DC9Q D 19:38 NWA1955 DC9Q D (RMT S ite#3 8} 3957 Turquoise Cir., Eaga ae Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ De arfizr� 08:20 DHL1648 B72Q D 13:03 NWA1169 DC9Q A 13:30 DAL1186 MD80 D 15:24 NWA1494 DC9Q D 13:42 NWA1050 DC9Q D 15:41 NWA1756 DC9Q D 07:19 NWA122 DC9Q D 16:00 NWA1434 DC9Q D 13:32 DAL1188 MD80 D 13:14 NWA1280 DC9Q D Runway 17 17 17 i� 17 17 17 17 17 17 Runway 17 35 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 Lmax (dB) 87.5 84.6 84.5 83.2 83.1 83.0 82.9 822 82.1 82.0 Lmax (dB) 85.2 84.8 83.2 83.0 82.7 82.3 82.3 82.0 82.0 81.9 (RMT Site#39) 3477 St. Charles Pl., Eagan Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Anival/ Runway Lmax (dB) De arture 11/10/200512:11 CCP2016 B72Q D 17 87.8 11/OS/2005 06:52 CCI706 B72Q D 17 86.5 11/28/200514:49 AAL1686 MD80 D 17 84.0 11/28/200514:37 MEP415 MD80 D 17 83.5 11/04/200519:03 AAL1605 MD80 D 17 82.7 11/10/200510:26 NWA748 DC9Q D 17 829 11/02/200515:26 NWA1170 DC9Q D 17 82.7 il/17/2005 08:16 AAL1148 MD80 D 17 82.3 11/06/200515:18 NWA502 DC9Q D 17 82.2 11/14/200513:34 NWA1258 DC9Q D 17 82.2 November 2005 Remote Monitorinp Tower Top Ten Summary The top ten noise events and the event ranges at each RMT for November 2005 were comprised of 87.7°/a departure operations. The predominant top ten aircraft type was the DC9 Hushed with 29.2°/a of the highest Lmax events. November 2005 Technical Advisor Report Notes Unknown fields are due to unavailability of FAA flight track dafa. Missing FAA radar data for 0.0 days during the month of November 2005. 30 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program � c � � t , ' • • � ' ' � !� c l�ToVen�ber 200� Rer�ote Monitaring Towers , � -----� � Date #1. � #2 #3 #4 ! #5 #6 � #7 #8 ; .#9 � #10 #11 #12 � #13 #14. � #15 ' 1 �6.5 a6.7 61.0 64.2 68.1 73.7 � 6?.1 59.7 n/a L n/a n/a n/a 57.5 64.3 �8.3 2 �8.3 60.� 63.5 62.2 70.2 73.8 � 60.5 56.8 2�.� 41.3 38.7 31.1 �9.1 � 64.4 61.2 3 �8.=� 60.2 � 64.0 61.9 71.2 70.6 � 63.3 61.5 38.7 n/a n/a n/a 57.9 65.5 60.1 4 57.6 58 � 63.8 61.1 71.8 72.7 i 50.9 60.6 38.5 38.2 40.8 n/a 59.5 65.3 60.9 5 �$.0 60.8 63.3 62.7 � 66.9 69.3 41.3 ' 48.7 30.1 n/a n/a 33.6 55.6 65.7 �6.6 6 �6.6 �8.4 63.4 61.5 71.4 71.1 59.0 55.6 42.0 33.7 41.7 � 35.0 52.7 59.4 �6.� 7 �3.5 56.4 � 59.4 � 60.6 67.9 73.5 58.�L . 60.6 30.5 32.7 n/a � 28.6 �7.1 66.7 �7.6 8 60.6 61.7 66.5 63.5 71.7 70.9 ( 6U.7 55.7 33.3 n/a 29.6 36.4 � 58.7 66.4 61.2 ..�.. __. �.......,.,...., .�..._......._____._ .W...._., ....w 9 �6.2 56.2 � 61.4 [ 60.0 72.4 73.� 67.8 61.$ n/a n/a nla n/a 3 45.0 64.0 47.0 _.W.., _ _ .._.._„ .�..�...._..._........� ...�..... _, �.,......�. .....,. 10 58.6 �9.8 65.5 60.9 69.3 58.4 ( 33.� 37.6 ! 46.7 35.8 n/a 39.9 60.0 67.6 60.9 11 58.7 �9.6 65.8 61.6 � 69.9 65.3 � 42.3 47.0 z�/a 39.0 38.4 31.7 59.9 673 61.5 12 59.1 60.6 65.3 61.6 69.7 70.2 � 49.0 50.7 3=�.1 � 33.� n/a 3�.5 57.5 63.9 59.4 13 53.5 54.8 59.1 61.] 71.4 74.0 � 67.1 59.7 ��.6 n/a n/a n/a �42.3 61_3 48.9 1� 60.2 62.9 65.2 64.1 � 69.7 70.5 � 40.6 42.2 34.3 n/a nla n/a � 61.4 � 66.9 62.9 l� LL 60.6 63.4 66.5 65.6 73.8 77.1. � 67.7 58.& Z�.S n/a 35.9 n/a 55.9 64.1 �9.0 � 16 54.2 53.4 58.9 62.4 70.2 72.6 b5.8 61.2 �0.9 n(a �1.8 42.2 43.0 62.7 42.8 i.7 5G.8 59.0 63.9 61.1 69.Q G9.7 ��03 48.3� 39.5 38.9 31.4 � 40.5 62.5 G6J. 62.0 �----------� 1� 53.5 54.7 60.6 63.4 72.3 76.8 64.8 62.5 nla n/a n/a 27.4 54.8 64.6 �6.4 l.9 51.9 51.2 57.9 �9.7 71.1 73.3 g 65.0 59.4 41.4 n1a �7.3 � n/a 47.1 . 63.5 43.0 � 20 52.2 � 53.5 56.$ �9.8 68.6 7�.3 60.� 60.$ n/a n/a n/a nla 39.4 61.2 �0.5 21 _55.8 SSJ �8.6 60.6 70.7 74.� 67.9 61.7 nla n/a 35.7 3Q.9 23.1 61.1 � 42.9 22 57.8 57.6 64.2 60.8 71.3 72.4 a 64.3 �9.9 41.9 40.2 39.4 42.4 6U.5 69.4 ' 61.8 23 5�.8 54.9 6U.9 60.0 � 70.6 ?3.3 64.8 62.3 41.6 34.1 36.4 n/a 39.5 63.5 � 47.4 2� ��73 44.1 �1.9 �2.1 64.0 fi7.7 57.9 5�.7 n/a n/a n/a n/a 31.5 �5.6 31.Q �.�.......... _..._ 2� 56.2 542 619 �9.3 65.7 66.3 i 34.4 3�.9 43.6 40.7 34.1 � 39.8 56.7 62.6 �3.7 26 �6.5 59.3 64.6 61.1 68.7 67.2 j 44.� 45.3 nIa 35.6 35.� � 38.2 57.0 60.1 �8.4 27* �9.3 61.1 66.9 62�5 � 71.4 G9.6 49.1 47.6 n/a i�/a n/a 34.1 �57.7 63.6 60.3 28 61.8 62.5 682 65.9 � 74.2 7�.4 E 64.4 �7.5 n!a 26.7 3�.2 V31.9 57.5 64.3 59.3 29 �3.8 54.7 60.� 63.6 � 70.9 73.9 E 66.3 60.1 37.4 30.6 42.7 26.� 3�.2 62.3 42.0 3U 57.4 59.3 62.7 60.8 69.3 70.�4 � 59.1 �9.'� 46.3 � 42.4 a2.9 40.0 53.3 6�.� 60.3 � � ^ � � . -�_-..--.-�.,--�-..�-.� ; _ �T lVlo. Lcln 57.4 � 59.0 63,5 6�.1.��70.6 72 5�.62:8 58.6. .40.9 34.9 '42.2 35A � 57 0: 65 OT 58.61 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 31 32 � '1, i„ ' ` ,i 1 ' 'i', ' .; 1`1 1,;i' �� 1' . I i,' � � Remote Monitoring Towers � I�ate #16 #17 #1$ #19 #20 � #21'�: #22 � #23 ; `#24 � #25 #26 :.#27 #28 '#29:� l 54.� 52.2 52.9 58.4 66.1 62.8 53.3 59.7 54.8 63.1 56.3 54.8 63.1 563 2 53.6 41.3 53.7 5'7.4 67.6 6�1.7 52.� 58.2 69.2 60.3 59.3 69.2 60.3 593 M""�-�-.�' 3 57.0 45.0 563 � 60.4 66W5 64.6 55.4 � 613 61.9 64.2 53.7 61..9 64.2 53.7 � 4 54.0 47.3 56.5 62.1 68.5 � 65.4 � �7.0 59.0 58.� �5.9 57.4 58.5 58.9 57.4 � � 55.9 27.0 52.4 57.4 64.7 62.5 � Sg 5.9 56.7 49.9 54:8 36.8 49.9 59.8 36.8 � •--�---�--�- � 6 57.9 34.5 � 46.5 , 53.8 62.0 57.G � 49.9 � 51.G 5G.4 63.6 � 50.9 56.4 63.6 50.9 £ 7 52.1 50.9 55.0 58.1 66.5 � 63.6 � �8.7 � 59.3 55.6 562 � 55.1 55.6 56.2 55.1 S 56.5 513 ��32 59.7 66.3 63.2 56.9 56.8 49.5 63.1 �9.1 49.5 G3.1 59.1 � 9 44.6 54.0 32.5 62.1 53.6 64.2 �1.9 � 553 61.7 64.5 6Q.0 61.7 64.5 60.0 � 10 53.3 31.4 57.3 58.8 70A � 6�.1 ` 57.1 63.0 � 4�.9 53.1 25.8 43.9 531 25.8 11 54.1 32.4 �S..i 59.0 69.5 63.9 ��55.�0 � 59.5 38.9 58�7 28.2 38.9 58.7 � 28.2 ��N ].2 53.9 3'7.3 49.9 � 55.9 65.5 60.7 � 50.8 � 57.4 48.2 5&.5 � 43.4 48.2 58.5 ��3.4� � � 13 n/a 49.3 �9 59.3 € 53.7 � 61..7 � 44.7 � 51.8 57.9 62.9 � 5�.7 57.9 62.9 55.7 � �� 14 57.2 35.5 57.4 6 57.2 692 63.4 57.4 a 60.��)� 619 29.4 35.3 G1.9 29.� � � ..........._..3 �. .....�._. ..... � 15 54.� 53.5 50.1 60.0 66.3 62.7 � �2.0 i 57.2 58.4 6�.7 � 55.0 58.� 65.7 55.0 16 44.0 52.7 nJa 6 60.7 �4,0 63.6 � 47.5 53.3 56.4 63.3 �7.5 56.4 633 57.5 � 17 53.9 3�.2 : 58.4 59.1 64.5 63.4 � 54.0 � 61.5 60.3 � 54.4 40.0 60.3 54.4 40.0 � �18 55.7 SS.O 51.9 � 61.0 59.2 63.7 � 57.9 � 59.3 59.3 60.6 58.� 59.3 60.6 58.5 � � -- � ._...., � 19 �� 38.2 42.0 39.0 � 58.9 533 62.6 € 40.7 � 57.8 58.7 61.1 � �9.0 58.7 Gl.l 59.0 3 20 50.8 44.8 30.8 � 57.9 55.3 61.1 �49 9 46.9 � 56.0 � 59.3 58.0 56.0 59.3 5$.0 � 21 � 39.3 51.6 41.9 � 56.7 51.5 � 602 � 49.4 � 43.5 58.8 � 63.6 SS.� 58.8 63.6 5&3 � 22 52.2 44.6 59.1 � 62.0 70.� 65.9 � 57�6 �� 58.4 58.5 59.6 57.8 58.5 59.6 57.8 � 23 35.9 �2.1 ��32.5~� 58.9 56.8 � 62.5 � 49.6 53.8 61.0 63.5 59.9 61.0 63.5 59.9 � 24 n/a 48.6 31.� 48.2 41.0 55.0 29.5 42.0 50.8 a4.0 523 �0.8 54.0 � 52.3 � 25 � 52.1 . 34.6 � 49.8 55.8 64.'7 60.1 �5.2 ¢ 53.3 � 27.� 57.0 n./a 27.5 57.0 � n/a s � 26 52.7 32.1 55.1 � 52.0 63.6 � 57.7 � 53.9� 55.7 44.2 58.6 25.4 44.2 58.6 25.4 � 27* 49.4 29.2 52.4 � 54.� 66A �9.7 � �2.8 �6.7 41.4 62.0 38.0 41.4 62.0 38.0 3 g � 28 53.9 37.8 52.9 573 65.4 61.3mm� 52.7 55.9 60.2 G2.7 46.5 60.2 62.7 46.5 8.�..w.-.....�....��. F ; 29 36.7 45.2 43.5 61.9 53.1 .65u8 # 3�9.9� 46.3 58�5 63.2 �b.l 58.5 G3.2 56.1 ; .�....,�.,.. �..,�... ��.._.W. �� 30 49.1 41.4 53.5 57.5 67.7 � 62.3 �8.0' S7.6 SS 2� 56.9 S7.? 58.2 56.9 �72 ; Mo�Ldn � 67 9 41�6� 53:µ1 �,48�2� 53 3� 58.9 � 65.7.� 62.8 54.4 57:7 59.0 61S 55.7 . �, __�:.�.,�...,..,:�M...� . A Product of the Meiropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Prograzn Analysis �f .A�ircraft l�Toise Eve��s - A�rcraf� Ldn d�A ,� � r•; Ii Kemote ivionitonng i owers Date . ` #30 `::#31 #32.� #33 #34 #35; #3fi #3�. #38.:� #39 : 1 ; 61.7 49.3 �3 -� 51.4 48.8 �3.9 � 54.0 5].5 � 1.8 � 50.1 � 2 �9.� 46.7 i�/a ry�� 4$.S 45.9 52.2 � 52.6 � 49.0 51.2 _51.� 3 � 65.2 49.0 35.6 � 50.7 45.0 48.2 48.4 48.3 5)..7 � 51.1. 4 61.7 42.4 29.2 51.7 48.2 4$.3 �45.9 Sl.i. 52.6 � 51.0 5 � 63.6 46.6 33.1 51.1 43.0 49.7 j 45.9 50.1 51.7� 49.2 � 6 64.8 4�.0 49.9 �6.6 54.7 48.1 51.4 53.3 �5.0 j 50.3 7 � 61..5 48.9 47.0 45.5 44.6 �2.1 53.4 39.4 � 43.4 26.5 $ G3.5 48.7 4GA � 51.8 48.� 50.4 � 47.6 49.5 5].2 � 58.1 9 46.3 45.8 42.7 n/a n/a 48.9 52.0 40.4 i�/a 37.3 ]0 � 6i..4 4i.1 n/a �50.8 49.1 �7.8 43.6 46.9 49.8 53.3 � 1] �62.3 42.0 n/a 51.4 47.3 47.8 46.0 47.1 � 50.6 � 51.3 l2 60.T 43.9 ��.0 � SU.I � 44v6��7.3 42.5 48.8 49.9 � SU.4 ._._.�....� W..._..., 13 45.7 25.8 n/a � 37.Q n/a 51.3 54? 45.4 36.7 � n/a 14 � 63.$ �9.0 31.9 52.1 48.� S1..3 4�.3 �2.2 � 54.2 ��.5 � l5 62.7 44.p 42.8 � 49.9 44.4 �8.6 44.0 49.0 51.7 SQ.4 16 47.6 38.8 52.3 � 46.9 47.2 47.6 50.8 40.6 n/a n/a 17 € 61.6 46.0 40.8 50.7 46.4 46.5 37.7 47.1 50.9 47.8 18 63.1 51..1 �8.� 49.2 44.6 �5.6 54.7 �t9.5 45.7 � n/a � 19 43�6 38.3 49.4 32�3 2&.6 47.0 49.8 422 30.7� nla � 20 �9.0 49.1 4�.9 ~�1�.9 W 41.8 53.1 �2.2 44.8 41.1 � n/a 21 SO.G 29.1 37.1 43.2 �6.4 �3.4 56.9 47.$ 38.8 n/a. 22 60.7 � 4�.1 38.0 48.6 46.1 50.7 52.9 49.2 47.9 �9.6 � 23 ,��2.7 36.3 37.2 � 27�:i 3].0 54.5 57.9 47.4 �:i6�9 � n/a� 24 � 4l.$ 28.9 37.6 n/a n/a 44.5 49.9 I 36.4 n/a n/a 25 � 58.7 40.=� n/a � 50.0 41.2 46.7 41.0 49.� 50.4 51.0 26 �9.1 43.2 nfa 49.2 43.5 40.5 36.4 47.7 48.� � 44.4 27* �9.3 39.3 n/a �D.6 41.7 44.3 =33.6 44.8 48.2 46.3 28 62.2 47.3 41.7 49.8 43.3 45.8 43.1 43.G 44.1 � I.6 29 49.6 33.2 33.3 34.1 42.4 52.3 55.2 47.0 42.2 � 31.4 � 30 57.3 4•6.0 46.9 ; 45.8 42.9 46.9 50.2 � 46.7 48.0 4�.4 1�-fo. Ldn ^60,7 r4S.7 44:0 :49.5 46.1 50.4 51.4 48:2 49.4 �:�,49.6 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Cominission ANOMS Program 33 � � � � 1=1 _ ,,, _ _. �,-, __. ,_ _ _�_.,, _ .. _ _ � �� • Metropolitan Airports Coirunission 5270 Carrier Jets Departed Runways 12L and 121Z in Novernber 2005 � 496� (94.3%) of those ()perations �2emained in ihe Corridor 5270 Total 12L & 12R Carrier Departure Operations 4968 (94.3%) Total 12L & 12R Carrier Departure Operations in the Corridor IVlinneapolis-St. Paul Penetration Gate Plot for Gate In Corridor 11/01/2005 00:00:00 -12/01/2005 00:00:00 4968 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 2385 (48.0%), Right = 2583 (52.0%) .� 6000 a� d �" 5000 c 0 s 4000 > m W 3000 � 0 °- 2000 Q � 1000 0 � 'Q 0 .................:...................�..................;.................. : O '_ : � ............. —2 —1 0 1 2 Deviation From Center of Gate (Miles) �-� Arrival �a Departure � Overtlight ..�,�..�,;� :.,�-��_� �::. � w�..,...�.....,.�.. � _ , ... : .- � � � � , Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Deparlure Corridor Analysis Page 1 Metropolitan Airports Commission 81 (1.5%) Runway 12L and 12I� Carrier Jet Departure Operations were North of the 090° Corridor Boundary During November 2005 Minneapolis—St. Paui Penetration Gate Plot for Gate fVorth_Corridor '11/01/2005 00:00:00 — 12/01/2005 00:00:00 81 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 2(2.5%), Right = 79 (97.5%) .� 6000 . � . . . v5000 ..................:...................:..................:.................. c : : : o • • • m4000 ..................:...................:..................:.................. � � � Ct W3000 .....................................:...............:'�� .......... � . . ��y iC'a.i� �::�.0 O ; ' � �'��,�L'��`` 5'i, Q' 2��0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �*t'� fi.�� .r�' ��G �'�.�. . . . . . . . . 'a : ;��; `'' o`` ;��. ; �000 ..................:...................:.....;.............................. o : : : � . . . a o —2 —1 0 1 2 (Runway End) peviation From Center of Gate (Miles) iCorridor End) �.�.�.s�r.��ar,�,.�-.�'��,�� ^^Y �W��:�,� a^�,.. �` �..�.�,."""" �:>w�w,� ; � <;.. .,.. : . �, .,::�.. .. ... :. ,....� . . ...:.:...... . ... ,._..: �... , .,:._ , .. .._, , ,. � -I- Arrival �-' Departure ❑ Overflight� ; ;� Page 2 Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Deparhire Comdor Analysis Metropolitan Airports Commission 219 (4.2%)12unway 12I, and 12IZ Carrier Jet Lieparture Operations were ' South of the Corridor (South of 30L I�ocalizer) I�uring November 2005 Minneapolis—St. Paul Penetration Gate Plot for Gate South Corridor 11/01/2005 00:00:00 — 12/01/2005 00:00:00 219 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left =124 (56.6°/a), Right = 95 (43.4%) � auuu : : �, . . � 5000 ..................:...................:..................:.................. c : : : o • • � a4000 ..................:...................:..................:.................. } : : : � � : . . � 3000 ..:J ...............:........:.;.........:..................:................. � C; � : O � : o ;��%�; �� ;�.� O ' : °- 2000 ��; ::�'.�-c .� '�,.. � ,-� .v� .C} �{� �> . .r.J . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q CO ��.'�t,�',-zL�'.'��. �� ., . . a� . . . . . . . . . . . . .'r._�} '''�. . �. `�'' `" '"" �``J:~,ik� . ; . �- , , • �.. } 1000 . r.. . �� Lr'�'_X � '..;'""�'�r��. .. . .� . . . 0 � : ' : a o —2 —1 0 1 2 (Corridor End) Deviation From Center of Gate (Miles) �RWY Mid-Point) -�- Arrival �� De arture ❑ Overfli ht� ��'' � p 5 �, 4Mk!!»�'�?k'-`tr?+.v�t' `et..v� 1°..'^�„k{s.,es�u' +�e1H'^.'.`k'`?'k2Hv�'.fh". � �.ehy v?f�"x�..C:%�'v f�a.nr4prm,�a�r�a�,Xt�'z� .... � r .1 f .. \.. .. ..,..._. � , .., .. ... ., . ..�� .. . .,,. .. ,.�...t �. . . . . „ ., . . , � Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis Page 3 Metropolitan Airports Commission 18 (0.3%) IZ.unway 12L and �.2�2. Carrie�r Jet Departure Operations were 5° South of the Corridor (5° South of 3aL Localizer} I)uring November 2005 Mi�neapolis-St. Paul Penetration Gate Plot for Gate South Corridor_5deg 11/01/2005 00:00:00 - 12/01/2005 00:00:00 18 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 15 (83.3%), Right = 3(16.7°/a) .;. 6000 d d v 5000 c 0 �v 4000 > � W 3000 � O O' 2�� "a` � 1000 O � Q 0 -2 (Corridor End} 8 Arrival -1 0 1 2 Deviation From Center of Gate (Miles) �RWY �� Departure O OverFlight Page 4 Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Depariure Comdor Analysis Metropolitan Airports Commission Top 15 I�.unway 12I� and 121a I�eparture llestinations for Nove�nber 2005 Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Comdor Analysis Page 5 �; C. � c` '' �� ; �� ' �,.. .�L �. � "� �,.�'Y �F� � d � �. tt' .�k �,:, ,�€ �e- '� "'" '.'�: "P t ��. �' ,� �. .h, z. �:' q ,,� yi� N p'.. � �-, � :.,�, y,� . ✓;;.. .,�,t. a. ,�.'�� . +cri:� a � �' �,� �,�, �,� �;,:,�` a � i z�' €.,„�' :iS. y ..aS�ri>. A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments Volume 17, Number 41, 42 Research � ,. � . � ,. �,.� . � �� . � �. . .. ,. � .. � � In December 2003, as part ofthe Vision 100 — Century ofAviation Reauthoriza- tion Act, Congress authorized the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP), which will carry out applied research on problems of concem to airport operating agencies that are not being adequately addressed by existing federal research programs. Some $13 million is available to begin the program ($3 million appropriated in fisca12005 and $10 million appropriated in fisca12006). On Jan. 30-31, 2006, the Governing Board ofthe ACRP, recently appointed by Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta, will meet in Washington, D.C, to select the first research agenda for the program from the 105 proposed research projects covering a broad subject area that have been submitted for consideration. Twelve of the research proposals submitted address various aspects of airport -- noise impact and four of those submissions were made under the auspices of the � � Federal Aviation Administration's Center ofExcellence on Aircraft Noise and Aviation Emissions Mitigation, also known as PARTNER (Parinership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissians Reduction). PARTNER has its own research agenda, the results of which will be used to form the basis on new federal, and possibly international, policy on aircraft noise and emissions. Because the interests of ACRP and PARTNER overlap, it is appropriate for PARTNER to compete for ACRP funding, according to Lourdes Maurice, chief scientific and technical advisor in the FAA's O�ce of Environment and Energy. Noise Projects Under Consideration The four reseasch projects that PARTNER seeks funding for through the ACRP are (1) measurement of human response to noise from loud isolated noise events, (2) the effectiveness of residential sound insulation strategies far mitigation of noise impact and reduction of airport noise compiaints, (3) measurement and characterization of thrust reverser noise, and (4) development of tools that airports can use to assess the interdependencies of aircraft noise and emissions. In addition, the acoustical consulting firm Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. (HI��INIf�, along with various partners, proposed four additionat noise research projects (1) the effects of changes in aircraft noise on children's learning, (2) the development of guidance to airports in evaluating tradeoffs between noise mitigation and air quality, (3) development of a predictive model for community response to aircraft operations, and (4) development of guidance and criteria for smali airports and host communities to use in preparation for growth in operations. The final four noise projects proposed for ACRP funding are (1) a study of new runway development planning and its impact on homeowners submitted by officials ofMilwaukee General Mitchell International Airport, (2) development ofa benchmark report on RNAV procedures in use at major U.S. airports submitted by (Continued on p. 187) 179 December 19, 2005 In �'his I,�sue... Researcla ... The Governing Board ofthe newAirport Cooperative Research Program will meet atthe end ofJanuaryto decidewhichofthe 105 research proposals thaihave been submit- ted to it for consideration will be funded in fisca12006. Twelve of the proposals ' address a broad anay of issues dealing with aircraft noise impact and several were submitted through the F.AA's Center of Excellence onAircraftNoise and Aviation Emissions Mitigation, lazown informally as PARTNER This special 'rssue ofAirport Noise Report includes excerpts and summary information from the 12noiseresearchproposals submittedtoACRP, detailingthe research problem to be investi- gated, the researchproject proposed, the urgency ofthe project, and itspotentialpayoff. Further information on the ACRP program and the research proposals underconsideration is available attheweb site ofthe Transportation Research Board, which is administeringthepro- gra�n: http://www.irb.org/ACRP. Five of the research proposals address aircraft emissions, speci- fically HazardousAirPollutants or HAPS. �ecember 19, 2005 Measurement of Human Response to Noise from Loud Isolated Aircraft Events Objective: To investigate human response to loud isolated events and research the development of ineasures of noise that correlate with both annoyance and sleep disturbance. PARTNER ranked this project as the highest unfunded research need related to the effects of noise on humans. The proposal was submitted through PART'NER by Robert Bernhard and Patricia Davies, Ray W. Herrick Labs, Purdue University School of Mechanical Engineering. The project is expected to cost $300,000 and talce three years to complete. Problem Statement: Existingtime-averaged noise rnetrics tend to de-emphasize loud isolated events. However, such events tend to cause more annoyance than similar noise in a high level background and may cause a significant part of the public reaction to noise in regions which are judged by federal aviation noise criteria to be unaffected by noise. This problem has relevance particularly to airports with low iraffic levels, such as reliever airports with nighttime cargo tra�c, mil9tary bases, supersonic transportation, and airports with occasional Stage 2 tra�c. Sleep disturbance also is an issue for this class of noise. Studies indicate that people tend to habituate to continuous noise, whereas isolated events tend to arouse sleepers and can affect the sleep architecture — how much time is spent in each stage of sleep, and thus the same sounds will have a different impact when heard in different stages of sleep. The meaning of the sound for the listener also impacts its effect. World Health Organization guidelines say that for good sleep, sound levels of about 45 dB LAmax should not appear more than 10-15 times per night but there must be a trade-off between peak level and number of events, and the rate of increase of the noise level may also be a factor in sleep disturbance. Cunent federal policy does not address this type of problem. Furthermore, local jurisdictions interested in addressing such problems do not have either the science to evaluate the legitimacy of such complaints or the tools to address real problems when they do occur. Research Proposed: A three-phase research prograrn is proposed, inciuding a literature review, experiments to evaluate the impact of isolated noise events on people, and evaluation of existing noise metrics to determine how well they correlate with human responses and, if necessary, development of new metrics to improve predictability. Urgency and Payoff Potential: Isolated loud events can give rise to irritability, and thus complaints. At night, they may result in changes in sleep patterns, which may in turn lead to ]ower productivity of workers and long-term fatigue and adverse health effects. Understanding the relationship between noise factors such as: number of events, when they occur, maximum level and rate of increase, and human responses will lead to the development of a predictive tool that airports can use to determine flight operations that have the lowest adverse impact on the community. 180 Effectiveness of Insulation Strategies • for Mitigation of Noise Impact and Reduction ofAirport Noise Complainis The objective of this study is to investigate the effective- ness of current noise insulation technology and programs for addressing noise problems near airports as well as for reducing community noise concerns. The research proposal was developed by PARTNER and submitted by John-Paul Clarke, Georgia lnstitute of Technol- ogy School of Aerospace Engineering. It is expected to cost $450,000 and take three years to complete. Problem Statement: Building insulation programs have played a central role in cunent airport noise mitigation strategies. It is estimated that between $300 million and $500 million are spent each year from Airport Improvement Program and local airport funds for sound insulation of homes and schools near airports. T'his is a significant investment and it is imperative that this investment be effective in protecting the public and reducing public resistance to airport growth and aviation expansion. Currently contractor exit surveys report 95 percent or greater satisfaction with the home insulation programs. However, there is some question whether these data repre- sent the true effectiveness of the sound insulation program or satisfaction with contractor performance. Also, public resistance to airport building projects and expansions would indicate that overall public acceptance of airports has not been significantly improved by these programs. With large projected continued expenditures, and a significant sample of completed programs available, it is timely to examine the true effectiveness of these programs. Various contractors and municipalities also have done miscellaneous validation of home and schooi insulation programs to verify that performance targets are met and any architectural acoustics models used for designing home and school insulation are correct. Such data are available in an anecdotal form but have not been collected and published in a way that is suitably available to the public, other contrac- tors, or to airports and municipalities. A coordinated effort to coliect, reduce, and publish such data would be very helpfui to the public, airports, municipalities, and contractors. Research Proposed: A four-phase research program is proposed, including: Phase 1: A review of current technology and strategies used in sound insulation pro,grams to address airport-related noise complaints. The review should include a survey of different insulation program strategies, review of contractor survey methodologies, and an evaluation of survey results to evaluate the validity of using such data as a basis for judging noise annoyance mitigation. Data related to noise complaints at the airport will be scrutinized in an effort to identify any correlation between sound insulation and reductions in noise annoyance complaint levels; Phase 2: Design and conduct surveys to evaluate the true effectiveness of home insulation programs and investigate the degree that indoor reductions alone are satisfactory to Airport Noise Report December 19, 2005 the pubiic and whether the addition of air-conditioning to provide alternative ventilation to open windows is actually utilized; Phase 3: Collect existing data and conduct experiments to measure the effectiveness of various types of noise insula- tion technology and construction strategies. This effort will include development of standard methods for measuring the effectiveness of home insulation and validation of architec- tural acoustic models of the prediction of home insulation programs; Phase 4: Synthesize survey and measurement data to evaluate the effectiveness of existing sound insulation projects and recommend improvement for future programs; develop communications mechanisms such as web sites and short courses for dissemination of data and training to implement recommended practices. Urgency and Payoff Patential: The insulation ofhomes and schools adjacent to airports currently costs $300 million to $350 million per years. While contractor surveys indicate a very high degree of satisfaction, the rate of noise complaints for affected areas remains relatively unchanged. It is urgent that the effectiveness of these expenditures be evaluated and, if new practice is recornmended, that those new procedures be initiated quickly. Improved practice can either result in reduced costs or increased application of insulation programs, and potentially, generate greater public accept- ability of airport growth. There is an ongoing study of Standards for Best Practices for aviation sound insulation programs. This effort focuses on contractor issues and future projections. Various contractors and acoutical consultants have collected, and continue to collect, information about both the qualitative and quantitative effectiveness of sound insulation programs. These data will be useful for the proposed research program. Several of the consultants (Wyle Laboratories, FQvU�II-i) also have been commissioned by certain municipalities to investigate metrics that can be used for special situations. Some of the data collected for these studies will be complementary and useful for evaluat- ing the effectiveness of sound insulation. Measurementand Characterization of Thrnst Reverser Noise The objective of this study is to measure the radiated noise levels and directional characteristics of thrust reverser noise at one or more airports and to correlate the results with relevant aircraft parameters (aircraft and thrust reverser type, thrust setting, landing weight, etc). The results are intended to supplement noise-source databases used in noise prediction models. The bandwidth ofthe measurements will extend below 50 Hertz to allow characterization of low- frequency noise. The research will be carried out under PART'NER. The research proposal was submitted by Prof. Anthony Atchley, T'he Pennsylvania State University Graduate Program in Acoustics. 181 It is expected to cost $450,000 and take three years to complete. Problem Statement: Noise generated during engagement of thrust reversers has been identified in previous studies of airport noise as a potentially significant contributor to noise in the vicinity of airports, particularly at low frequencies. However, there is a general lack of information on the characteristics of this noise source, including radiated noise levels and directivity. While Society of Automotive Engi- neers (SAE-AIR-1845, "Procedure forthe Calculation of Airplane Noise in the Vicinity of Airports") includes detailed instructions for accounting for the noise while an aircraft is on the runway during takeoff, it provides no guidelines for doing the same during landing. Determining the characteris- tics of this noise source under operational conditions and correlating these characteristics with relevant aircraft parameters are necessary steps towards fully incorporating the impact of thrust reversers into noise prediction models, such as the Integrated Noise Model (INM). Standard modeling practice for assessing airport noise is given in SAE-AI1Z-1845 and internationally in the Interna- tional Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Circular 205 and ECAC Document 29R. These modeis neglect source noise below 50 Hz and the propagation algorithms include empirical adjustments based on the A-weighted relationship. The identification of thrust reversers as a source of low- frequency noise suggests that sowce characterization should e�ctend to frequencies below 50 Hz. Research Proposed: A three-phase research program is proposed, including finalizing the experimental design for the study and selecting and airport at which it will be carried out and possibly a partner airline; make field measurements; and analyze data. Urgency and Payoff Potential: Accurate assessment of the noise associated with airport operations is a necessary step in managing airport noise and expanding airport capacity. There is a knowledge gap in relation to thrust reverser noise. The proposed research is intended to begin to fill this gap. An Integrated Airport-Level Tool to Assess Interdependencies in Aircraft Noise and Emissions Mitigation Options The objective of this study is to develop and use system- level performance and cost estimation tools to evaluate interactions among technology, operations, policy, and environmental impacts. These assessments will be based upon explicit valuations of the external costs of noise, local air quality, and climate changes, and the related costs and benefits of abatement and mitigation options. A specific focus will be on the development of an inte- grated, airport-level tool that enables interdependencies to be understood, such as the technological and policy implications o£trades between reducing noise versus emissions, or particulate matter verus NOx. Airport Noise Report December 19, 2005 The research proposal was submitted through PART'NER by Prof. Ian Waitz, deputy head of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics and Stephen Lukachko, a PhD candidate in the deparhnent. The research is expected to cost $1.5 million over three years. Problem Statement: Implementation oftechnological and operational improvements to the envirozunental performance of the air transportation system requires a broad consider- ation oftheir relative cost and e�cacy in alleviating noise, local air quality, and climate impacts on human and ecosys- tem health and welfare. There currently is no mechanism through which the environmental performance of the air transportation system can be assessed in an integrated manner. Policy decisions are often compartmentalized, focusing, for example, on an individual emissions species without consideration of impacts on other areas of environmental performance. Furthermore, policies are often established without direct appeal to their benefits towards reducing health and welfare risks, opting instead for decisions based on technicai metrics such as decibels of noise reduction. Developing an integrated assessment capability is particularly important at the airport level where there is a critical choice among operational or technological improve- ments and local mitigation measures. Research Proposed: To develop an integrated approach, this research will combine several tools currently in develop- ment and/or used in policy assessment by U.S. agencies, including the MIT/Stanford University Environmental Design Space (EDS), the FAA System for Assessing Global Emissions (SAGE), the FAA Emissions Dispersion and Modeling System (EDMS), and the FAA Integrated Noise Model (INM). Merging these capabilities [into an Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT)] will enable joint consideration of noise and emissions impacts associated with airport related policies. The development of this integrated tool will enable questions to be addressed such as `What is the impact of typical take-off thrust de-rate procedures on noise and local air quality emissions?', `What is the impact of thrust cutbacks for noise on local air quality and climate impacts?', and `What are the impacts of continuous descent ap- proaches on local air quality and climate change?' Urgency and Payoff Potential: Capacity expansion at airports is dependent upon assessing the environmental impacts. Most of tt�e largest airports in the United States are facing increasing scrutiny with regards to both local air quality and noise. Joint consideration of noise and emis- sions abatement and mitigation strategies is an urgent need. The reseazch proposed would build on the foundation provided by MIT and Stanford while serving to identify and resolve many of the key research challenges in advance of the development of the FAA AEDT. 182 The Effect of Changes in Aircraft Noise on Children'sLearning The results of the proposed research should inform prevention and intervention efforts to combat the harmful effects of ambient noise exposure on young children's cognitive development. If it can be shown that interference in basic psycholinguistic processes such as phonological processing are interfered with by chronic noise, early interventions at school by speech and reading specialists may help overcome some of the risk for noise-related delays in reading acquisition. Further, results may infonm develop- ment of guidelines for school sound insulation, including not only noise reduction guidelines, but also standards to evaluate impact. The research proposal was developed by Mary Ellen Eagan, president, Harris Mi1lerMiller & Hanson Inc.; Gary W. Evans, associate professor of Design and Environmental Analysis, Cornell University; and Barbara �I. Fiese, profes- sor and chair, Department of Psychology, Syracuse Univer- sity. The research is expected to cost $450,000 and take 2.5 years. Problem Statemeni: There is considerable evidence that chronic exposure to noise is associated with reading deficits in children. Recent results greatly strengthen previous correlational evidence for a noise-reading link. There are also preliminary data from a few cross-sectional studies suggest- ing that speech and language related processing might be interfered with by chronic noise exposure, which, in turn, partially account for noise-related deficits in reading. Research Proposed: The goal of the proposed project is to bring together an interdisciplinary team of noise and reading experts to investigate in depth why chronic noise has adverse effects on reading in children. The team should take advantage of natural experiments afforded by two types of changes in aircraft noise exposure: (1) airport expansion/ ciosure, and (2) schooi sound insulation, and evaluate the effects by collect'rng both cross sectional and prospective data among elementary school children. This will enable the first developrnental study of ambient noise and reading. Analysis should focus on the major underlying process hypothesized to interfere with reading: phonological processing. Urgency and Payoff Potential: Community concerns over the effects of noise on children's learning support real opposition to airport expansion and can contribute to delays in capacity improvements. A better understanding of the nature of the problem, and identification of guidelines for intervention to minimize and/or eliminate these effects has the potential to improve community relationships, and ultimately allow airports to proceed with development projects. Perhaps more importantly, it could provide a significant social benefit in improving academic performance for students learning in areas around airports. Related Research: Upwards of 10 million children in the U.S. are routinely exposed to ambient airport noise of levels Airport Noise Report December 19, 2005 equal to or greater than those associated with reading deficits. Close to 20 empirical studies show that children attending schools proxirnate to airports have delays in reading acquisition. Thus, we know with some reasonable certainty that chronic exposure to airport noise is associated with reading deficits in young, elementary school children. From a scientific perspective, however, the body of research on noise is unsatisfactory. Principally, we know extremely little about how noise interferes with reading and we know essentially nothing about the developmental course of these adverse effects. The Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN) has recently completed a pilot study investigating the effects of changes in aircraft noise level — through sound insulation or airport closure — on academic performance, as measured by standardized test scores. The FICAN study used a variety of noise exposure metrics in an attempt to identify the most reliable relationship between aircraft exposure and effects on learning. 'The preliminary results suggest sorne improvement can be obser'ved through the kinds of interventions identified, but more comprehensive research needs to be done that would include: individual test scores and testing, prospective data collection, and acoustic measurements of classrooms. Noise and Air Quality Tradeoffs — ATechnological Conundrum The results of the proposed project would provide guidance to airports in evaluating the tradeoffs between noise and air quality, and assist airports itt understanding not only what tradeoffs exist, but also how they might change with future aircraft fleet planning and other opera- tional measures. The research proposal was developed by Mary Ellen Eagan, president, Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. and Michael A. Kenney, and environmental scientist with tTRS Corp. The research is expected to cost $150,000 and take one year to complete. Problem Statement: Historically, noise has been the major environmental constraint facing airports. Increasingly, however, airport emissions have been growing as a concern aznong both community members and other governmental review agencies, particularly in air quality non-attainment areas. One challenge facing airport and aircraft operators is that the technological improvements made to jet engines to quiet them (prirnarily higher bypass ratios) have degraded emissions characteristics of some engines — in other words, noise levels have been reduced at the expense of increased emissions loads (especially NOx). Research Proposed: The goal of the proposed project is to bring together an interdisciplinary team of noise and air quality experts to prepare a set of guidelines, or "best practices," for airports to use in evaluating the tradeoffs between noise and air quality. This would be of particular interest for airports seeking to expand capacity, introduce 183 new aircraft service and/or develop mitigation measures for either noise or air quality impacts. The guidelines would identify: typical aircraft noise exposure levels, typical aircraft emission levels, and other sources of air emissions that must be considered (i.e., ground equipment, ground traffic, etc.); the guidelines would also present a range of potential solutions airports and airlines might consider for reducing both noise and air quality in order to minimize the total environmental burden from these two elements. Urgency and Payoff Potential: Community concerns over both noise and air quality pose serious threats to airport expansion and can contribute to delays in capacity improve- ments. A better understanding of the interrelationship between the two environmental effects, and guidelines for minimizing the total environmental burden could assist in moving airport development projects forward. A Predictive Model for Community Response to Aircraft Operations The overall objective of this research is to speed the aviation planning process by developing tools and guidance for anticipating the type and extent of community reaction likely to occur, and by producing methods and metrics for communicating effectively with affected communities. This research could be used by airport planners to immediately identify the significance of the resistance they are likely to fact, from community displeasure to full congressional action. The research proposai was developed by Nicholas P. Miller, senior vice president, Harris Miller Mil ler & Hanson Inc.; Grant S. Anderson, HIVIIvII-i principal scientist; and Richard D. HoronjefF, consultant in acoustics and noise control. The research is expected to cost $1.1 million and take four years to complete. Problem Statement: Time and again, plans to increase airspace/airport capacity are met with significant community resistance. In part, our inability to anticipate where and under what circumstances this resistance will occur and to communicate effectively with communities about expected changes in the noise environment contribute to this resis- tance. Though attempts have been made to refine our reliance on DNL as a predictor, these attempts have been based on relatively little or old data. Now, with over 50 airports in North America collecting airport operations, noise and complaint data, and many of these dealing constantly with communities on noise issues, it is possible to develop an extensive database that can be mined to identify variables that correlate with community reaction. Research Proposed: The research is proposed to have four phases. It wil] be refined and executed by a multi-disciplinary team including acousticians, airport planners, social psy- chologists, database experts, airport operators, and social survey professionals. The first phase will be development of a hypothetical model for predicting community reaction and Airport Noise Report � .cPmher 19, 2005 184 will determine what information is available, how bestto coliect it, and the structure of the database that will hold the infonmation. Though there is considerable consistency in the data collected by airport monitoring systems, data not coilected in these systems — specifics about the communi- ties, such as organization of community advocacy groups and legal actions, about airport programs (Part 150 studies, community outreach), data from the census, etc — will be of immense value in the data base. These data will aid in characterizing how communities react to aircraft operations, how airports have responded to these community reactions and in providing demographic/socio-economic community variables. The second phase will be consiruction of the database to test the hypotheses. The third phase will be the multivariate statistical analysis of the database, guided by the hypotheti- cal model and its hypotheses, and reporting of inethods and results. The fourth phase will be to develop and administer a series of social surveys at different airports to further refine the understanding of the third phase results. Urgency and Payoff Potential: It is national policy to invest in increasing the capacity of the U.S. air transportation system three-fold over the next 15-20 years. If community resistance delays each capacity expansion, capacity goals will not be met, and system delays like those that began occurring prior to Sept.11, 2001, are likely to become common. By developing a much clearer understanding of community reactions, based on data collected nation-wide, these reactions can be integrated early into the planning process, and changes to both the process and the alterna- tives studied can help speed the entire planning process and the public involvement. Related Research: Most research in the U.S. on human and community reaction to noise occurred 10 to 30 years ago, much of which sought relationships between sound exposure and annoyance ... More recently other nations, especially Europeans and Australians, have been examining responses other than annoyance and the general complexity of factors that relate to human responses to noise ... A thorough literature search will be part ofPhase I, as will interviews with researchers in Europe, Australia, and elsewhere. Some of these may form part of the design team. CommunityRelationsforSmall Airports The objective of this research is to analyze existang regulations and the research efforts behind those regula- tions to determine their applicability to small airports, and to develop guidelines and criteria for small airports and their host communities to prepaze for a growth in operations. The research proposal was developed by Mary Ellen Eagan, president, Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. and David A. Crandall, a consultant at the finm. The research is expected to cost $175,000 and take one year to complete. Problem Statement: Many ofthe tools and available resources for smali airport community relations were developed for large airports, and have been applied to small airports. However, many of these tools are inappropriate solutions to a challenging problem. In addition, there are usually significant differences in land use around small airports as compared to large airports. NASA and FAA initiatives, such as the Smali Aircraft Transportation System (SATS), and the development of several low-cost corporate jets, could lead to a tremendous increase of operations, especially by jet-powered aircraft, for the nation's general aviation airports. Research Proposed: There are a number of technical areas where additional research would prove useful to answer questions, such as: (1) Is there a need to establish different noise thresholds for small airports versus lazge airports? (2) Does the number of operations play a greater role in annoyance than perhaps the same DNL? (3) What ha�ve airports with vocal community groups done to successfully coexist with the community? (4) Many small airports have residences at distances of 1,000 feet from a taxi-way, run-up pad, and the runway. Currently, this arrangement may be satisfactory to the residents, however as jet operations increase at an airport, will the residents become more annoyed? Urgency and Payoff Potential: This research could provide adequate guidelines for communities to deal with growth at small airports and possibly lead to additional research for new regulations. Recent market entries of large corporate jets like the Boeing Business Jet (BB� and Airbus Corporate 7et (AC� and the growth of fractional ownership programs have already cause public outcry at many airports. Unchecked, there will be more public outcry and opposition to small airports as newer, more cost-efFective small jets models enter the market and the markets for large corporate jets and fractional ownership prograzns continue to mature. New Runway DevelopmentPlanning and Its Impact on ]H[omeowners The objective of this research is to develop funding, legal, and environmental mechanisms to allow airports to purchase land before EIS completion and federal approval, and to determine what legaUenvironmentai hurdles must be met, or defened, until an EIS Record ofDecision is complete. The research proposai was developed by C. Barry Bateman, airport director atMilwaukee General Mitchell International Airport, and Anthony D. Snieg, deputy director of finance and administration at the airport. The research is expected to cost $150,000 and take nine months to complete. Problem Statement: New runway development is critical to meeting the nation's airport infrastructure needs. Many of the new runways are needed at major airports that are located in or neaz major urban areas. Planning and construc- tion for new runways is typically a 10-20 year process. The genesis of a new runway originates with the master planning process, adoption of an Airport Layout Plan (ALP), forecasts being realized, and an Environmental Impact Airport Noise Report Tit�rnmhnr �9�73��f �O� Statement (EIS) being conducted. Only after EIS is performed and a Record of Decision (ROD) reached, does the airport become eligible for federal funding for land acquisition and ultimate construction. In the meantime, however, homeowners in the project area are left in a terrible limbo, not being able to sell their home, unwilling to improve the home, and not eligible to be purchased by the airport. Although planning for transportation improvements is a legal, legitimate purpose of cities, counties, and authorities, placing the "line on the map" can have a harmful impact on the value of homes, and on the lives of the homeowners particularly as the need for that improvement moves within a 10-year horizon, public comments/debates about the runway increase, and EIS's (and their follow-on lawsuits) commence. Research Proposed: Determine extent ofthe problem by reviewing recent runway projects and proposed runway projects to see if this issue is delaying or stopping runway projects. Were citizens harzned? Have any airports devel- oped solutions? Is new legislation or regulation needed? Urgency and PayoffPotential: Runway capacity is acritical infrastructure need. Unforiunately, they are needed in major urban areas, not remote airports. Federal and local govern- ments have become more sensitive to the impact of improve- ments on citizens, typically reviewed by an EIS. However, the impact of runway pre-planning can be just as significant and can cause some local o�cials not to plan for the needed runway improvements. No known research is completed or pending on this topic. Benchmark Report on RNAV Procedares at Niajor U.S. Aarpoa-ts The objective of this research is to develop a benchmark report ofRNAV procedures at major commercial U. S. airports (top 25 airports) to serve as a reference for the aviation industry. The report will document the type of procedures, intended purpose, users, frequency of use, requirements, estimated benefits, and estimated impacts to the subject airport and its associated airspace. The research proposal was developed by the airport consulting firm Landrum & Brown. The research is expected to cost $250,000 and take seven to nine months to complete. Problem Statement: AreaNavigation (RNAV) technology offers a number of capacity-enhancing, operational, and noise reduction benefits for airport users and sunounding communities. By increasing the precision of a flight's path along the desired air route, RNAV procedures can improve the efficiency of airspace operations, reduce inter-arrival variability, and concentrate noise exposure along compatible corr3dors to reduce noise impacts. Many airports in the U.S. are developing or have imple- mented RNAV procedures to take advantage of the benefits that this technology offers. These applications, however, may vary among airports, regions, and airlines, as no two situations are alike. The extent to which RNAV procedures are being used at major commercial airports, their purpose, and resultant benefits are not documented in a comprehen- sive, comparative manner. Airport operators, airlines, and air traffic controllers often reach out to their peers looking for solutions that might work for them. A benchmark report on this subject can serve as a reference of "actual applications and opportunities" of RNAV procedures for the aviation industry. Research Proposed: The research consists of a combina- tion of on-site visits, surveys, and interviews at the selected airport sites with airport operators, FAA air traffic control experts, and airlines to collect the desired information relative to existing and/or proposed RNAV procedures. Urgency and Payoff Potential: Procedures based onRNAV technology are believed to offer great relief to airport users and surrounding communities with minimum capital invest- ment on the part of the airport sponsor. As airports continu- ally strive to reduce delays and to be better neighbors, the merit of RNAV technology should be well documented so others may take advantage of similar opporiunities. RNAV is a technology not fully leveraged to achieve noise mitigation and operational benefits. The benchmark report may increase the rate at which this technology is applied, thus it is an urgent need. The payoff potential is significant, as every airport will be able to compare how others are applying this technology and identify opporiunities that may be implemented without significant capital investment. A,ssessing the Impacts of Incompatible Land Uses Near Air�orts: Can Zoning Be the Solution? The objective of this research is to define incompatible use and its limits, and to develop a tool that state and local governments can use to assess the current and future impacts incompatible land uses will have on future airport expansion and ultimately the life ofthe airport. The research proposal was developed by Raymond J. Rought, director of the Minnesota Department of Transportation's Office of Aeronautics, and by Michael R. Louis, planning director/airport land use administrator for MDOT, in conjunction with the 50 state aeronautical o�ces, the National Association of State Aviation Officials, and is of interest to the Transportation Research Board committees addressing airport environmental issues. The research is expected to cost $500,000 and take 18 months to complete. Problem Statement: The encroachment of land uses around airports, particularly in the critical approach/ departure paths, is a significant national problem. Often the encroachments happen on land not under the direct control of the airport owner. Without appropriate guidance, neigh- boring jurisdictions permit such conflicting uses regardless of the best efforts of airport owners and state agencies to ensure that land uses are compatible with airport operations, Airport Noise Report I�ecember 19, 200_5 186 from both safety and noise mitigation standpoints. We accept a certain level of risk when we board an airplane but what level of third party risk is acceptable to people on the ground near airports? Will new aircraft safety standards and technological advances eliminate the risk, and will protecting airspace be sufficient in the future? With property values escalating, continued development of incompatible uses threatens the very existence of airports. The fact that such incursions are happening nation-wide indicates a need for a national discussion of the problem and a review of laws, policies, and regulations governing land uses around airports. Presently, there is not a model in place against which the encroachments of incompatible land uses can be assessed. Research Proposed: The research consists of: (1) Coliecting and publishing data on existing land uses ihat are incompatible with federal and/or state land use , safety standards for airports, including types of develop- ment and numbers of people congregating in the approaches to the airports; (2) Collecting and evaluating state compatible land use legislation, rules, and directives to identify commonality; (3) Collecting data on aircraft accident locations in the vicinity (five miles) of airports to update past studies, to establish potential high risk areas, and to evaluate the likelihood of a crash occurring in the specific approach using aircraft mix and type of approach; (4) Identifying airports where major expansion projects have been delayed or abandoned due to opposition from surrounding communities that arose from a failure to have taken appropriate measures to ensure compatible land uses around those airports and attempt to quantify the cost of those delays or the inability to implement the expansion plans in relation to the costs that would have been involved if land use planning were in place; (5) Developing a third pariy risk analysis for persons in runway approach areas and recommend acceptable risk levels, and (6) Based on the data collected, produce a land use compatibility zoning model incorporating land use and third pary risk that state and local governments can use as a basis for their ordinances. Urgency and Payoff Potential: Several states, including Minnesota, California, Washington, Oregon, and Pennsylva- nia have zoning plans in place, while Wisconsin and Colorado are in the process of developing standards. Dallas and Denver are examples of major airports that have had to be relocated at great public expense due in part to the encroachment of incompatible land uses. For Minneapolis-St. Paul, the Dual Track planning process looked at expanding MSP or building a new airport to replace it. The estimate for a new airport was $5 billion to $10 billion versus $2 billion to $3 billion to upgrade the present facility; however, social costs versus development costs were not part of the decision process. Now, as the actual new runway expansion is occurring, the land within the approach zone is so valuable that public ownership is prohibitive. Other airports are unable to build new runways to add needed capacity because they are boxed in by urban sprawl that has come to the airport boundary. Closing and replacing airports will continue to be a high cost option. Establishing a national model would give states and local governments a common basis for establishing zoning regulations that, using the police powers of govern- znents, could protect the public interest and investment in airports. These controls could be in place without having to purchase development rights saving the airport and the system development costs and making the funds available for other needs. Dynamics of the Effects of Airport Egpansion on Residential Property Values This study would be conducted at Piedmont Triad Interna- tional Airport, which is in the process of expanding to accommodate a future hub/distribution center for FedEx, expected to open in 2009. The study would be the first to consider the dynamics of residential price adjustments before, during, and a$er construction of a hub to calculate hedonic prices. No previous reseazch has considered such a dynamic or included community reaction to noise. The "revealed and stated preference approaches" will be used to test the assertions that values of residential proper- ties adjacent to an expanding airport (where a cargo hub and a runway are to be constructed) are lower than comparable properties elsewhere because of the potential increase in aircraft noise. In addition, the study assesses community reaction to exposure to aircraft noise, i.e., how increased noise exposure afFects quality of life. It is assumed that the value of noise pollution is implicitly revealed through its impacts on local housing markets (i.e., revealed preferences). The research proposal was developed by Prof. K. Obeng and Associate Prof. R. Sakano, Deparhnent of Economics and Transportation/Logistics, School of Business and Economics North Carolina A&T State University. The research is expected to cost $430,000 and take two years to complete. Problem Statement: When an airport expands to accom- modate flights, aircraft fly-over noise interrupts conversa- tions, and sleep, creates nervousness, damages buildings, affects quality of life, and the preferences of individuals for residential location. Thus, noise affects the utility individu- als attach to residential location and willingness to pay to be in those locations. Based upon this rationale, many studies have estimated airport noise costs by relating noise to the final price of residential properties. However, none used before, during, and after construction (or expansion) data, thus preventing an understanding of the dynamics of market price adjustments that occur. This lack of understanding can lead to an over or underestimation of the noise costs of airport expansion. Furthermore, residents may misperceive the impact of aircraft fly-over noise, and such misperception may affect property transfers and values. For example, an Airport Noise Report .. � \\ . December 19, 2005 187 ANR EDITOR.lAL announcement of a new hub location may create fear of increased aircraft noise exposure and such fear may increase residential property transfers, and � ADVISORY BOARD lower residential properly values even if increased exposure to fly-over noise does not occur. Studies of the impact of aircraft fly-over noise do not JohnJ.Corbett,Esq. address this misperception; they only examine post-construction data. Spiegel & McDiarmid Research Proposed: The research will include a questionnaire survey of Washington, DC residents, obtaining data on residential real estate transfers from county Carl E. Burleson records, measuring noise levels at each properiy, and coding and combining Director, Office of Environment and Energy the previous data into a dynamic hedonic model. Federal Aviation Administration UrgencyandPayoffPotential:SomeresidentslivingnearPiedmont International Airport have expressed strong concerns on possible noise John C. Freytag, P.E. pollution and decline in real estate values, and have filed lawsuits to block Director, Charles M. Salter Associates San Francisco the expansion. Undaunted, the airport authority has started clearing the site after receiving permits from the state and federal government. The result of Michaei Scott Gatzke, Esq. the research will provide information on many of the concerns of the cratzke, Dillon & Ballance residents, possible ways to resolve these concerns, and will be applicable to Cazlsbad, CA many other airport expansion projects. Furthermore, the results can be used Peter J. Kirsch, Esq. to predict the economic effect of the environmental consequences of airport Kaplan, Kirsch & Rockwell LLP expansion and the perceptions of these consequences on real estate values Denver , in SutCounding areas. Suzanne C. McLean Chief Development Officer Tucson Airport Authority Vincent E. Mestre, P.E. President, Mestre Greve Associates Newport Beach, CA Steven F. Pflaum, Esq. McDermott, Will & Emery Chicago MaryL. Vigilante President, Synergy Consultants Seattle Research, from p. 179 the airport consulting firm Landrum & Brown, (3) development of a land use compatibility zoning model that can be used by state and local governments submitted by the Minnesota Department of Transportation's O�ce of Aeronautics, and (4) a first of a kind study at Piedmont International Airport (which is being expanded to accommodate a new FedEx hub) to consider the dynamics of residential price adjushnents before, during, and after construc- tion of a hub submitted by two professors at the North Carolina A&T State University School of Business and Economics. Members of the ACRP Governing Board aze Charles M. Chambers, InterVISTAS-GA2 Consulting Inc.; James Crites, Dallas-Fort Worth Interna- tional Airport; Richard de Neufville, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Kevin C. Dolliole, St. Louis International Airport; John Duval, Boston Logan International Airport; Steve Grossman, Oakland International Airport; Jeff Hamiel, Minneapolis-St. Paul Intemational Airport; Tom Jensen, National Safe Skies Alliance; Gina Marie Lindsey, McBee Strategic Consulting; Carolyn Motz, Hagerstown Regional Airport; James W iiding (former head of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority); and Woodie Woodward of the Federal Aviation Administration. Non-voting, ex officio members of the governing board represent the Environmental Protection Agency, Airports Council International - North America, Air Transport Association, National Association of State Aviation Officials, Transportation Research Board, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the American Association of Airport Executives. AIRPORT NOISE .REPORT Anne H. Kohut, Publisher Published 46 times ayear at43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 20147; Phone: (703) 729-4867; FAX: (703) 729-4528. e-mail: editor@airportnoisereport.com; Price $694. Authorization to photocopy items for internai 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. 188 I : ''- :. .` , �;` � , ; �� ^, ;�► � '' _...:. .h� . ..� . ., . . ..- ... ... ._ �:: .�.: .. ,,. ,;: .. ... �.. ... . .. . ... ..... . . . - � .' �'i, << A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments Volume 17, Number43 December 26, 2005 Wc�slzington National . . . . �, �. � ., � .,,.�. ..� , . Alaska Airlines announced Dec. 20 that it is the first U.S. air carrier to use the new Required Navigation Performance (RNP) precision approach technology to land at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. RNP technology allows an aircraft to fly safer and more reliable approaches and landings. Rather than relying exclusively on ground-based navigational aids, an RNP-guided approach uses a combination of onboard navigation technology and the Global Positioning System satellite network, Alaska explained. The airline said that it pioneered the RNP technology during the mid-1990s to help aircraft land at some of the world's most remote and geographically challeng- ing airports in the state of Alaska. Recognizing the safety and environmental advantages of RNP approaches and landings, the Federai Aviation Administration has worked diligently to make RNP procedures publicly available to all airlines that operate at Reagan National, Alaska said. "Alaska Airlines applauds the FAA, and specifically thanks FAA Administrator Marion C. Blakey for making these safeiy-enhancing RNP flight paths available to the broader airline community," said Kevin Finan, Alaska's vice president of flight (Continzred on p. 189) Appr•opriatiorzs AIP A]CRCRA.F7C NOISEI]ElVIISSIONS SET ASIDE WILL BE ABOUT $290 MII,LION IN I+'ISCAL 2006 The special aircraft noise and emissions set-aside in the federal Aiiport Improve- ment Program will be funded at a level of about $290 mill ion in fisca12006, down about $10 million from the $300 million appropriated for the set-aside in fisca12005, according to very rough estimates by the Federal Aviation Administration. The noise and emissions set-aside will be less in fisca12006 because airports have carried over more entitlement funds from last year, which reduces the amount of discretionary money left in the AIP program. Last year airports carried over $415 million in entitlement funds; this year they will carry over $450 million. Any entitlement funding carried over to another fiscal year reduces the amount in the AIP discretionary fund, from which the noise and emissions set-aside is drawn. By law, the noise and emissions set-aside is 35 percent of the discretionary fund. Funding for the AIP program was part of the fisca12006 appropriation for the Department of Transportation and FAA approved by Congress in November. It included $8.2 billion for FAA operations, $3.55 billion for the AIP program, and $110 mi 11 ion for Essential Air Services. The $3.55 billion appropriated for the AIP program was less than the $3.6 billion authorized for the program is fiscal 2006 but more than the $3.0 billion sought by the Bush Administration. (Continued on p. 189) In Thzs Issue. . . Waslzington National ... AlaskaA irlines is the firstU.S. carrierto use new Required Navigation Performance (RNP) precision approach techno logy which allows planes to more precise]y follow noise abatement flightpaths-p.188 I Approprzations ... FAA � estimatesihattheaircraftnoise ' and emissions set-aside inthe federal AIP grant program will be funded at a level of $290 million in ' fisca12006 - p.188 FCight Tracking ... FAA, Rannoch reach settlementoffirm's protest ofsole-source contract extension - p.189 Part 1 SO Program ... FAA reviewing proposed noise mitigationprogra�n for Southwest Florida Int'1- p. 190 Co�zferences... Final program issued for annual U.C. Berkeley Aviati on Noise and Air Quality Symposium - p.190 News Briefs ... HMaVI.H, GA Tech added to FA.A. Center of Excellence forAircraftNoise and Aviation Emi ssions Mitigation ... FAA seeks comment on minor revisionsto environmental Order l 050. lE but none a:ffectnoise impact analyses - p.191 December 26, 2005 operations. "We are proud to have pioneered the use of RNP nearly a decade ago and to have worked closely with the FAA to share this important technology." Said Blakey, "We're tapping the high-performance computing capabil ity of today's aircraft to move more planes more safely and efficiently. The environmental benefits are terrific too because flying straight down the middle of the flight path means that people on the ground perceive less jet noise and experience fewer engine emis- sions." The FAA administrator said that the new RNP procedure at Reagan National can be used by any operator who can meet specific FAA requirements for aircraft navigation perfor- mance and pi lot training. In addition to Reagan National, the FAA said it has authorized RNP procedures at Juneau, San Francisco, Portiand (OR), Palm Springs (CA), and Hailey (Sun Valley) Idaho. At ali the airports, RNP's "repeatability"— allowing aircraft to fly the same path consistently — Iets the FAA design procedures to avoid noise-sensitive areas with the assur- ance that aircraf� will fly the exact path every time, FAA said. The agency said that when performance-based navigation is fully implemented at airports across the nation, it will establish precise approach, arrival, and departure proce- dures. It aiso will improve situational awareness for pilots and air traffic controllers, and provide smoother traffic flows saving fuel and benefiting the environment. At Reagan National, RNP-guided approaches will reduce the number of flights delayed, diverted, or canceled due to poor weather conditions. The technology atso will support noise abatement efforts by aliowing more aircraft to fly the preferred approach directly above the Potomac River instead of above nearby residential neighborhoods. In addition, RNP wi I1 provide a supplemental confirmation of an airplanes' precise location in relation to restricted airspace surrounding the nation's capital. Alaska currently is the only carrier with approval from the FAA to use the RNP approach to Reagan National. Its first RNP flight landed there on Sept. 28. AIP Funding, fi-om p. 188 The FAA's funding for environmental research was set at a level of$16 mill ion in the fisca12006 appropriation, up from the $12 mi 1I ion appropriated for RE&D (research, engineer- ing, and development) last fiscal year. FAA estimated that about $3.5 million to $4 million of the $16 million RE&D appropriation woulct go to fund the agency's Center of Excellence for Aircraft Noise and Aviation Emissions Mitigation, also known as PART'NER (Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction). However, because PARTNER industry members must match FAA's funding of the center, the research conducted under the program could be funded at a level of $7 million to $8 million in fiscal 2006. 189 � Flzght Tracking .. �. � � . � � . � • � � �, In mid-November, the Federal Aviation Administration and Rannoch Corporation reached a settlement of the firm's protest of a sole-source contract extension the FAA had issued to Sensis Corporation to develop second generation Airport Surface Detection Equipment, known as ASDE-X. "The entire aviation community, especially the NOMS (Noise and Operations Monitoring) community, will benefit from the increased deployment of multilateration technology made possible by this new agreement," according to Tom Breen, Rannoch's Airport Information Systems manager. The data that ASDE-X uses comes from a surface-mounted radar located on the air traffic control tower or remote tower, multilateration sensors, ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast) sensors, the terminal automation system, and from aircraft transponders. By fusing the data from these sources, ASDE-X is able to determine the position and identification of aircraft and vehicles:on the airport surfaces, as well as of aircraft flying within five miles of an airport. "From a NOMS perspective, this type of system has the potential to significantly improve flight tracking where it is most important, close to people at low levels," Breen said. "Rannoch's AirScene multilateration system has been deployed to a number of aiiports as part of noise and operations monitoring systems. This new agreement with the FAA guarantees that the rest of the aviation community will not have to wait for a single vendor to provide this vital technology to the market. Competition will reduce prices, increase availability, speed installation, and allow multilateration flight tracking systems to be deployed more quickly and more efficiently than would have been possible before the agreement." Rannoch Filed Protest In 2000, the FAA sought to get competitive bids for a contract to develop a new generation ASDE-X. Rannoch was interested in competing for the contract but did not submit a proposal because it felt the FAA's proposal effectively limited the competition to Sensis. On Nov. 4, Rannoch filed a protest of the FAA's procure- ment process, asserting that the contract extension awarded to Sensis, which ran through 2011, exceeded the scope of Sensis's original contract signed in 2000. Rannoch also asserted that FAA had failed to take into consideration cost overruns and problem with Sensis's equipment and had unfairly discriminated against their system, which was possibly superior to that of Sensis. Under the settlement, the FAA agreed to issue competitive bids for ali of the ASDE-X needs beyond those already purchased from Sensis under the 2000 contract and to work with Rannoch to identify a vehicle through with the firm can obtain FAA certification of its ASDE-X system. Airport Noise Report December 26, 2005 . The first ASDE-X system was activated for operational use and testing at General Mitchell International Airport in Milwaukee in June 2003 and decfared ready for national deployment in October 2003, Breen said. Other airports where ASDE-X is operational include T.F. Green State Airport in Providence, RI; Orlando International Airport, and William P. Hobby Airport in Houston. Breen said that major airports scheduled to receive ASDE- X include Baltimore-Washington International, Boston Logan International, Chicago Midway and O'Hare Interna- tional, Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport, Houston's George Bush Intercontinental, Los Angeles International, J.F.K International, LaGuardiaAirport, Minneapolis-St. Paul International, Seattle-TacomaInterna- tional, and Washington Dulles International. In related news, Rannoch announced Dec. 8 that it has a new airport noise monitoring contract with Dade County, FL, Aviation Department, which is responsible for Miami Homestead, Kendel l-Tamiami, Opa-Locka, and Miami International airports. Rannoch's Florida contracts now include 12 airports, including fivewith scheduled commercial service. Part 1 SO Program SW ]Ea..ORIDA 150 UNDER R�VI�W: LUNKEN NOISE MAPS APPROVED The Federal Aviation Administration announced Dec. 16 that it is reviewing the proposed Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program submitted for SouthwestFlorida International Airport in Ft. Myers, FL. The agency's review of the program will be completed by May 29, 2006. The public comment period on the proposed program ends on Jan. 31, 2006. For further information, contact Bonnie Baskin in FAA's Orlando Airports Aistrict Office; tel: (407) 812-6331. Lunken Noise Maps Approved On Dec. 14, the FAA announced that noise exposure maps submitted by the City of Cincinnati, Ohio, for Cincinnati- Municipal Lunken Aiiport meet federal requirements. For further information, contact Brad Davidson in the FAA's Detroit Airports D istrict O� ce; tel: (734) 229-2900. Changes to Las Vegas Air Space On DEc. 16, the FAA announced that it will extend the public comment period for the Draft Supplemental Environ- mental Assessment for the proposed modification to the Four Corner-Post Plan at Las Vegas International Airport until Jan.13, 2006. The original deadline was Dec. 30. The FAA proposes to modify an existing departure procedure that was implemented as part of the original air route restructuring done under the Four Corner-Post Plan at McCarran International Airport. The plan was put into effect in 2001 to address growing airspace and inefficiencies. 190 The Draft SEIS assessed the potential environmental impacts that may be associated with the proposed modifica- tion of an Area Navigation (RNAV) Standard Instrument Departure (SID) to accommodate eastbound departures from Runway 25 at McCarran. For further information, contact Kathryn Higgins, an environmental specialist in FAA's Western Terminal Service Area Office in Lawnda(e, CA; tel: (310) 725-6597; e-mail: kathryn.higgins@faa.gov. Conferences I: � . � � � � r_ • ,� • . � � . Los Angeles Mayor Antonio 12. Villaraigosa has been invited to give the keynote address at the upcoming Aviation Noise and Air Quality Symposium, which is sponsored by the University of California at Berkeley's Institute forTransportation Studies, and will be held in Palm Spring, CA, on March 5-8, 2006. Mayor Villaraigosa recently fulfilled a campaign promise by bringing about an historic settlement of state and federal lawsuits challenging the modernization plan for Los Angeles InternationalAirport(17ANR 17�). Other sessions at the symposium will address: * Increasing noise and air impacts in light of growth in aviation operations and sustainability of aviation; * A panel discussion of a federaf appeals court's decision in the Naples case, * Accommodating increased demand with smart solutions, * Innovative land use scenarios in Ganada, Australia, and France; * Air traffic control strategies and coordinating airspace redesign with environmental irnpacts; * The latest research findings from the FAA's Center of Excellence on aircraft noise and emissions mitigation; * Recent research findings on the effects of aircraft noise on children's learning and school performance and hazard- ous air pollutant data revisited, * Best practices for noise monitoring systems, * Evaluating an airport's impact on the community, and * Envisioning a model airport of tomorrow. Air quality sessions will focus on commercial jet emissions tests at Oakland International Airport, preliminary findings of air quality impacts at T.F. Green Airport, analysis of Hazardous Air Pollutants at airports, SIPS (state implementa- t'ton plans), emissions, and climate impacts. Four pre-symposium tutoriais wi Il be held on March 5 focusing on introductions to aviation noise, air quality, and environmental impacts at general aviation airports, and on advanced topics in noise modeling. Further information about the symposium is available at the web site of the Institute of Transporation Studies Techno]- ogy Transfer Program at www.techtransfer.berkeley.edu. Airport Noise Report December 26, 2005 Ile , ! � , � �. ; ,� �� . � I; •' � I�:��'�1 John J. Corbett, Esq. Spiegel & McDiarmid Washington, DC Carl E. Burleson Director, Office of Environment and Energy Federal Aviation Administration John C. Freytag, P.E. Director, Charies M. Salter Associates San Francisco Michael Scott Gatzke, Esq. Gatzke, Dillon & Ballance Cazlsbad, CA Peter J. Kirsch, Esq. Kaplan, Kirsch & Rock�vell LLP Denver Suzanne C. McLean Chief Development Officer Tucson Airport Authority Vincent E. Mestre, P.E. President, Mestre Greve Associates Newport Beach, CA 191 In Brief ...� HMMH, AIA, GA Tech. Added to PAI2TNER The acoustical consulting firm Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Tnc., (HMMH) and the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) have been added to the Advisory Board ofthe Federal Aviation Administration's Center of Excellence for Aircraft Noise and Aviation Emissions Mitigation, also known as PART- NER (Partnership for Air Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction). In addition, the Georgia lnstitute of Technology has been named a new university member ofPARTER, which is a consortium of universities, aero- space industry firms, and government agencies that conduct research on various aspect of aircraft noise and emissions and the interdependencies between those impacts. The research conducted through the PARTNER consortium will serve as the basis for future public policy development by the FAA. HMMH said that it will contribute to PART`NER on research dealing with aviation noise issues and in particular on noise metrics, sleep disturbance, community reaction, land use and airport controls, public education , Continu- ous Decent Approach (CDA), and low-frequency noise. The firm said it has been providing assistance to PART'NER informally over the past two years. In related news, the FAA also is "exploring options" with European govern- ments to bring them into PARTNER but has nothing to announce yet. Transport Canada already is a member of PARTNER Proposed FAARevision to Environmental Order Steven F. Pflaum, Esq. On Dec. 20, the Federal Aviation Administration issued a notice for public McDermott, Will & Emery Cl�;cago comment on minor proposed revisions to the agency's Order 10�0.1 E on policies and procedures for impiementing theNational Environmental Policy Mary L. Vigilante Act (NEPA). None of the proposed minor changes will impact the way the President, Synergy Consultanu agency assesses noise impact in environmental analyses. Seattle The revisions proposed by the FAA would clarify language, make changes for consistency, add information and corrections, make editorial changes, and add a categoricai exclusion for "prohibited areas," a type of Special Use Airspace. Comments on the proposed changes must be submitted to the agency by Jan. 19, 2006, and should be submitted, in triplicate, to FAA Office of the ChiefCounsel, Attn: Rules Docket(AGC-200), DocketNo. FAA 2005 22020, 800 IndependenceAve., S W., Room 915G, Washington, DC 20591. For further information, contact MattMcMillen at tel: (202) 493-4018. The FAA is trying to coordinate its finai revision to Order 1050.1 E with pubiication ofits final Order 5050.4B (AirportEnvironmental Handbook), which is scheduled for publication on Feb. 13, 2006. AIRPORT NOISE REPORT Anne H. Kohut, Publisher Published 44 times a year at 43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 20147; Phone: (703) 729-4867; FAX: (703) 729-4528. e-mail:editor@airportnoisereport.com; Price$694. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personai 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 O1923. USA. C