05-09-2007 ARC Packetl.
2.
3.
4.
5.
G
7
CIT'�' OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
AIRPORT RELATIONS COlVIMISSION AGENDA
May 9, 2007 — City Council Chambers
Call to Order - 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call
Approval of the Minutes from ihe April 11, 2007 Airport Relations Comrnission
Meetings.
Un�nished and New Business:
a. Update Plan of Action
b. Edit Thanlc You Letters
c. Guy Heide Letter Discussion
d. Updates for Introduciion Book
Acknowled�e Receipt of Various Reports/Corresuondence:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
March 2007 ANOM Technical Advisor's Report
March 2007 ANOM Eagan/Mei�dota Heights Depa:�iure Corridor Analysis
Airport Noise Report, Apri16, 2007.
Airport Noise Report, April 13, 2007.
Airport Noise Report, Apri120, 2007.
Airport Noise Report, Apri127, 2007.
Oiher Co��iss�o�ea� Cona�en�s oa- Coaace�-�as
�Jpcomin� 1Vleeti��s
City Council Meeting
NOC Meeting
MA.0 Meeting
8. Public Comments
9. Adiourn
5-15-07 - 7:30
5-16-07 - 1:30
5-21-07 - 1:00
Auxiliary aids for persons witlz disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in
advaiice. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will malce
eveiy attelnpt to provide the aids. This may not, however, be posszble on short notice. Please
contact City Administration at (651) 452-1850 with requests.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES
APRIL 11, 2007
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on
Wednesday, April 11, 2007, at 7:00 p.m., in the Large Conference Rooin at City Hall,
1101 Victoria Cuxve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota.
The following Commissioners were present: Liz Petschel, Chair; Ellsworth Stein, Vice
Chair; Bill Dunn, Robin Ehrlich, Brian Linnihan, Sally Lorberbaum, and Dave Sloan,
Commissioners.
Also present were: Jim Danielson, City Administrator, Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the
City Administrator, and Mary Heintz, Recorder.
Not Present: None.
Anproval of Minutes
A motion was made by Cominissioner Lorberbaum, seconded by Commissioner
_. Linnihan, to approve the March 14, 2007, Airport Relations Commission Meeting
( ) minutes as submitted.
� __
Chair Petschel requested, and it was agreeable with all Commissioners, that the evening's
agenda items be moved to the following order: A) Cities Meeting Update, B) NOC
Meeting Update, C) Legislative Report, D) MAC Open House, and E) P1an of Action.
�Tn�'inished a�d New 8usisaess
A. Cities Meeting Update
Chair Petschel described the history and meeting schedule of the NOC Cities oversight
committee, which comes together informally as a workshop to talk about past and future
agendas and is a good opporhuiity to share information in terms of cities bringing forward
noise issues. She said one goal is to be cohesive and mufually supportive, noting MAC's
past effective strategy being to divide and conquer. Chair Petschel said now is the chance
to build the cohesiveness to the cities' advantage.
She described Merland Otto as the Minneapolis point person on airport issues and who is
involved in the Minneapolis lawsuit against MAC, now joined by Richfield and Eagan.
Chair Petschel reported that the lawsuit won't get a favorable resolution, the judge
refused in both cases and feels there was a binding agreement in the 60/64 part of the
Contour. She said the judge should be ruling in the suit from residents and will go to
trial, making a decision on homes that should be insulated, using the 2006 and 2007 maps
Commission Meeting — April 1 I, 2007 - �
Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission ;�
as reference. Chair Petschel stated that MAC says a new map is needed but she
anticipates tne Contour would be shrunk if that occurred. She said the issue was
discussed at the Cities Meeting and some of the Contour work should be done in NOC, �_
adding that everyone would have to be on their toes to ensure the figures utilized to create
the Contour are accurate.
Commissioner Linnihan inquired as to whether Mendota Heights would be affected.
Chair Petschel responded that anything 65 and above has been insulated, including .
schools. She said the 60/64 was built to specifications of what would be full
soundproofing for the City, adding, however, fihat Rogers Lake might be in question.
Commissioner Dunn noted that night-time use is different than other places in the country
and it should be consistent.
Chair Petschel said Contour will . be the issue, citing that Eagan's Assistant City
Administrator, Diane IVliller, had raised the issue of actual percentages not matching FEIS
for Runway 17. She also said it had been underutilized and so there are some days when
it is used 60% of the time, which is MAC's attempt to accomplish a lot in a sliort time,
and Ms. Miller had made a point at the meeting of acknowledging that fact so Caxl
Rydeen was aware she knew what the Tower was doing.
Chair Petschel also reported that she learned from Vern Wilcox, Bloomington
Councilmember and NOC Co-Chair, that Senator Larson (who represents Bloomington)
is bringing forward a bill he feels has a good chance of passing that would eliminate �
airport zoning and go back to "safe zones" at the end of the runway. She said businesses
affected by such a change would have to be grandfathered in or taken down.
Commissioner Linnihan commented that it would be counterproductive and hurt
Bloomington businesses to return to "safe zones." He then asked if the Mal1 of America
would be affected, and Chair Petschel responded that it would not, with the whole
orientation of the runways having been consfiructed to accommodate the Mall, being one
foot at the end of the "safe zone" area. She said that she and Merland Otto had been
appointed by the group to work on the legislative effort, to have a period of time before
the committee hearings on issues, and that Rick Hanson had suggested lobbying begin.
Chair Petschel reported that the next NOISE conference will be held in Atlanta and one
agenda item is giving sound insulation money directly to cities, rather than to
organizations such as MAC who currently distribute funds. Commissioner Linnihan
commented that such a change would create a liability for the City, having to hire
contractors, etc. Chair Petschel said it could be possible that cities utilize MAC staff to
do the work. She noted the NOISE website for additional information regarding the
nationallobbying group.
Chair Petschel reported that all NOC terms were renewed and NOC appointments would
need to be reviewed, for purposes of the roster.
�
Commission Meeting — April 1 l, 2007
Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission
B. NOC Meeting Update
Chair Petschel stated that the NOC Meeting is used to address and share information and
today the NWA chief pilot reported that 29 DC9s are coming out of service, reducing the
fleet io under 200 and all being replaced by quiet regional jets, which is good news. She
said it will happen gradually over the next few months.
She next described the background of the six-week trial for Runway 17's 250-degree
departure over Burnsville and reported that MAC agreed unanimously that it had worked
well and should be adopted as a permanent heading, though a few clusters of
Bloomington residents had complained of increased noise.
Chair Petschel commented on how the use of Runway 17 has changed since the Carl
Rydeen letter. She displayed the March Technical Advisors Report and stated the
numbers are looking better, down to 7.9% departures over Mendota Heights, noting the
yearly average is around 11 % and it is suppose to be around 9%. Chair Petschel said
Mr. Rydeen is on record now saying that he can do this, it's a work in progress, and a lot
of training has occurred for current controllers.
Comrnissioner Ehrlich gave great credit to the submitted letter and Chair Petschel agreed,
saying that a debt of gratitude was owed to Chad Levque. Commissioner Ehrlich
suggested that a fozmal letter be written to keep the positive momentum going, and it was
Commission consensus to send a letter of appreciation to Mr. Levque, Jeff Ferman (Mr.
Levque's supervisor), and Mr. Rydeen and say AR.0 looks forward to further
improvement. Chair Petschel commented that it shows NOC is working and there is
accountabiliiy.
Commissioner Linnihan said he is interested in seeing if it will have a long-term effect.
He cited having to wait recently 40 ininutes to take off on Runway 17/35. Chair Petschel
responded that the Tower is monitoring the departure bank of aircraft and 17/35 should be
no different than the 12L departure bank. She noted that the NWA chief pilot had said
the difference between 17 and the 12s is that a waiting line zs formed for the 12s, whereas
a plane taxis a distance to a moving line for 17, resulting in same time.
Mr. Sedlacek commented that good weather conditions have enabled numbers to look
great for March, which may not be normal. He reported Mr. Rydeen said he will direct
aircra$ to parallels at night, as only two runways are needed on a given night, and so
those percentages should remain high. Chair Petschel added that he would absolutely
move aircraft to Runway 17 if there was a big back-up departure bank due to bad weather.
Commissioner Linnihan asked about night-time operations once the runway is closed.
Chair Petschel responded that MAC had not commented specifically about night-time
operations but would be coming to the Mendota Heights' open house on August 6 and
could address those types of questions.
3
Commission Meeting — April 11, 2007
Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission
Mr. Danielson stated that Ms. Miller had reported increased phone complaints over her
city with the increased Runway 17 use. Chair Petschel said Ms. Miller had also stated the
third runway had not been built for sound mitigation but rather for capacity, which Chair �
Petschel said was definitely not true, that it had been sold to Mendota Heights inasmuch
for sound relief.
Commissioner Lorberbaum cited questions to be addressed in the future, such as where is
the regional air plan, is there a long-term plan utilizing reliever airports, a.nd what about
Rochester? She said there doesn't seem to be a sense of a master plan.
Chair Petschel commented that Judge Aldridge is very keen a.nd picks up on dynamics
very quickly, is very outspoken, and has been tough on MAC and NIWA legal counsels.
She said Merland Otto mentioned that parties a.re anticipating an appeal directly to the
Supreme Court, as it is assumed by parties that the lawsuit won't go their way, but the
Judge would like to see an agreement between MAC and the cities.
C. Legislative Update
Mr. Sedlacek reported that Senators Dahl and Metzen had not been heard at the day's
meeting and the Senate version of the proposed bill was laid over. He stated that Apple
Valley's agenda concerned noise; Richfield's included noise, house moves, support for
the expansion, and economic development; and Bloomington's concerned MAC
governance and training facilities for Public Safety staff. Mr. Sedlacek stated that
discussion had ensued regarding the bill, that Bloomington's Dan Larson was angry �;
because he wanted action now and stated that it should have gone through.
He also noted that Bloomington and Richfield do not have an appointed official on MAC
and that no appointment has been made for the vacant seat, so their citizens' voices are
not being heard and there is no accountability. Chair Petschel added that there are
currently no rninimum qualifications for a MAC seat appointment, other than being a
resident.
Mr. Sedlacek said there was good discussion and a captive audience for the topic. He
said Ann Rest mentioned wanting a joint hearing session but it has moved forward and
there is opportunity to the get the information out to the Senators and come back with a
pair of companion bilis at the next session. Mr. Sedlacek said it was most surprising that
MA.0 was not provided an opportunity to speak at the legislative meeting, though it was
well represented.
Discussion ensued regarding MAC's reluctance to consider six representative seats
(Mendota Heights, Eagan, Richfield, Bloomington plus Burnsville and Apple Valley),
rather than the original one seat. It was noted that bringing more people on board and
having more councils involved is an advantage to Mendota Heights but it also has
muddied the waters. Chair Petschel said the NOC Cities Group needs io organize and get
its message out, also consider disaster planning (to determine what happens if an aircraft r
goes down), MAC structure and how appoinhnents are made, accountability, '� ,
0
Commission Meeting — April 11, 2007
Mendota Heights Aiiport Relations Commission
requirements for appointrnents, who approves appointments regionally in areas being
;.__ represented. She said right now the Governor makes the six-year appointrnents, usually
� those who are politically in favor, and it may be good to change the method of
appoinixnent.
Comrnissioner Ehrlich suggested that MAC structure be the topic of another meeting and
consider what should get done if the whole thing were reformulated. Mr. Danielson
added that it may be good to have someone attend who knows the legislature.
Commissioner Linnihan said Mendota Heights' position has to be presented to the NOC
meeting and a timeline is needed. Chair Petschel agreed and said each city needs to do so
and pool input and consensus. She said the City needs to find out what the schedule is for
hearings and get the message out, also suggesting that Merland Otto (who is
knowledgeable about the airport side) attend a future ARC meeting.
Commissioner Lorberbaum suggested preparing after the State Fair to spread the message
at the March 2008 caucuses, bringing the topic forward from grassroots to the legislature.
Chair Petschel added that it is not a single-party issue, rather bipartisan, and she would
like to see something tangible come out of this.
Discussion ensued as to when Chair Petschel's term would expire on NOC, and
Mr. Danielson said he would check and email the Commission. Commissioner
Lorberbaum said knowledge and history are lost when a long-term member must step
down, but it brings to light the need to be aware and figure out a leaniing process so
someone new can step smoothly into the vacancy. Chair Petschel said she would email
Scoit Beaty and ask for input, as she valued his opinion.
D. MAC Open House
Chair Petschel reported that MAC will be distributing information postcards in two
mailings to 100,000 holnes regardiiig Runway 12R (unavailable during construction from
August 13 through October 17), expected increased flights on 12L (over nontraditional
flight tracks), and MAC would be attending the Mendota Heights August 6 open house,
6:30-8:30 p.m. She recommended that AR.0 Commissioners attend, and all agreed to do
so.
Discussion ensued regarding a possible workshop and a future televised AR.0 meeting
with a planned agenda (perhaps inviting Mr. Levque for an update).
E. Plan of Action
Chair Petschel asked Commissioners to review the 2006 Airport Noise Plan of Action
document, make any revisions (things no longer pertinent, rewording, andlor
deletions/additions), and bring back to the May A.RC meeting, noting that it will be
important to prioritize issues.
G
Commission Meeting — April 11, 2007
Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission
She also noted that the Minneapolis lawsuit was in the March 30 Airport Noise Report
and the balance was going well for the class action suit and cities.
The Technical Advisor's Report was reviewed and percentages compared. The new
runway was utilized at 34.8%, with a goal of 37%, and Eagan was receiving its fair share
of traffic. Night-time departures for Mendota Heights were at 23.2%, down from 28.6%
last year, though Eagan received only 17.4%. It was noted that Mendota Heights is closer
to the gates being used at night.
Vice Chair Steirr inquired about calibration of City noise meters. Chair Petschel
responded that it is part of routine maintenance but it would be a good question to ask
Mr. Levque when he attends a future meeting. Commissioner Linnihan also questioned
how often the meters are tested for accuracy. Chair Petschel responded that it is claimed
RMT numbers are compared to computer modeling numbers and the two are used to
verify each other. She said routine maintenance is part of recalibration.
Acknow�ed e Receipt of Various Reports/Correspondence
A. February 2007 ANOM Technical Advisor's Report
B. February 2007 ANOM Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis
C. N.O.I.S.E.
D. Airport Noise Report, March 16, 2006
E. Airport Noise Report, March 23, 2007
F. Airport Noise Report, March 30 2007
Other Commissioner Comments or Concerns
None.
Upcoming Meetin�s
• City Council Meeting — April 17, 2007 — 7:30 p.m.
• NOC Meeting — May 16, 2007 —1:30 p.m.
a MAC Meeting — April 16, 200� —1:00 p.m.
Public Comments
Adjourn
Commissioner Linnihan made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sloan, to adjourn the
meeting at 8:39 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Heintz
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
�
ii• ` �• • -
���� �I� I�II�
Mendota I-�elghts Airport l�.elations
Conzm.ission
- 1 - 5/2/2007
7Che Mendota Heights Airport Relations Comnussion 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 pa�cels 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 N aircraft.
Non simultaneous departure procedures.
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 airport ��
issues.
Define Capacity at MSP
Oversight of 2020 P1an
Assess Anoms Locations
Monitor CDC for any collateral positive effects to Mendota Heights
Other issues that will req,uire continued monitoring_
Noise mitigation in the Rogers Lake East neighborhood.
The implementation of global positioning satellite technology and magnetic ground
tracking depari�are procedures.
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 - 5/2/2007
� )
Issue #1: Residential land use in Mendota Heights, particularly developable parcels that
may be affected by airport noise.
Action St_eps: Who: When:
1. Monitor applications for development for the
Acacia site and the Furlong neighborhood.
2. Provide recommendations to the City Council for
development rezoning and or acquisition of these sites.
3. Provide ARC with all application materials submitted
sites.
ARGStaff
AR.C/Staff
Staff
As apps are filed
As apps are filed
As apps are filed
Issue #2: Continue input and dialog with the MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC)
Action Steps: Who: When:
l. Monitor activities and processes of MSP Noise Oversight ARC monthly
Committee
2. Regular meetings with NOC representatives and ARC ARC/NOC as needed
to i�entify issues that can be advocated
Issue #3: Adherence of Runway 17-35 to the environmental impact statement.
Action Steps: Who: When:
1. Monitor data and information regardang the use and ARC/Staff as avail
impact of new runway 17-35 in the technical advisors
report and its conforn�ance to the EIS.
2. Ask MAC to provide ARC with data regarding nu�way ARC/Staff monthly
17-35 use (staying under 93%) on parallel
3. Revisit corridor operations after a few months of use 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 AR.C/StafF
5. Ask MAC to revisit/revamp the Technical Advisors
report once the new runway is complete
6. Review tower operations with MAC staff for 17-35
effects.
ARC/Staff
ARC/Staff
7. Monitor MAC/FA.A accommodations to connmunities AR.C/Staff
� v,� affected by 17/35 operations for consistency with treatment
of Mendota Heights and adherence to EIS
-3-
as avail
as avail
as avail
as avail
as appropriate
5/2/2007
Issue #4: Elimination of head to head operations
Action Steps: Who: When:
l. Negotiate elimulation/minilnization of head to head ARC/NOC when possible
operations (with MAC assistance) with FAA
Issue #5: Conversion from hush laited to Manufactured Stage III and Stage IV aircraft.
Action Steps: Who: When:
1. Determine when phase out of hush kitted 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 IV aircraft and when
conversion to Stage IV will occur
Issue #6: Non sim�ultaneons departure procedures
.ARC/Staff
ARC/Staff
as appropriate
as avail
Action Steps: Who: When:
1. Monitor and encourage use of non-simultaneous departure ARC/Staff as appropriate
Procedures.
Issue #7: Nighttime restrictions on aircraft operations
Action Steps: Who: When:
1. Have NOC representative lobby for fiu-ther restrictions on
Nighttime operations (preferred nighttime headings) ARC/NOC ongoing
2. Monitor legal precedent/litigation concerning noise ARC continuous
level averaging
Issue #8: Definition of the air corridor over Mendota Heights.
Action Steps: Who: When:
1. Monitor flight data to ensure adherence to corridor ARC/StafF monthly
- 4 - 5/2/2007
Issne #9: Legislative oversight of the MA.0
Action Steps: Who: When:
1. Establish strong relationship with legislators and airport StafflARC continuous
officials �
2. Testify as necessary on MAC/airport legislation StafF/ARC as necessary
3. Propose a bill to our Legislators to have MAC Board AR.C/Staff as necessary
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 mtg 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 mtg
(LTpdate 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/ARC
Winter 2006
Spring 2006
Action Steps: Who: When:
l. Deterniine parameters to define capacity at MSP AI�tC/Staff Spring 2006
- Dialog with FAA/MAC/NOC
- Voluntary night time restrictions
- 15° Separation
- Runway use
- After runway 17-35 opening
Issue #12: Oversight of 2020 Plan
Action Steps: 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
ongoing
" 3. Work to require MAC's expanded use of reliever airports ARC/Staff ongoing
� )
�
5/2/2007
Issue #13: Assess Anoms Locations
a
1. Work with NOC to deternuiie if noise monitors are at the ARC/Staff
best locations, are they moveable, is technology updated
Other Issues To Be Monitored:
Issue #l: Noise mitigation in the Rogers Lake East Neighborhood
ongoing
Action Steps: Who: When:
1. Monitor conespondence between Rogers Lake East Noise ARC/StafF as avail
Noise Reduction Committee and MAC
2. Provide a foxum for dialogue between MAC and Rogers
Lake East Noise Reduction Committee
3. Provide supportlinformation to Rogers Lake East Noise
Reduction Committee as requested if possible
4. Provide recommendations to the City Council on Rogers
Lake East Neighborhood issues
5. Facilitate political solutions for the neighborhoods with
MAC
.•
ARC/Staff
ARGStaff
ARC/Staff
as needed
asneeded
asneeded
asneeded
(,,
Issue #2: The implementation of global positioning satellite technology and magnetic ground
tracl�ng departure procedures
Action Steps: Wbo: When:
, 1. Promote standard instnunent deparhues and final AR.C/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 matigation efforts including a new DNL metric
Action Steps: 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
- 6 - 5/2/2007
� �
Issue #4: Part 150 Study
Action Steps: Who: When:
1. Monitor/Support Mpls's efforts to require greater sound ARC/Staff continuously
abatement measures
2. Monitor the MPLS and Bloomington lawsuits
continuously
ARC/Staff
Issue #5: Heighten awareness and conanaunication of Mendota Heights noise concerns
Action Steps: Who: When:
1. Develop long term strategic approach to relationship with ARC/Staff continuously
the legislature.
2. Convey to MAC representatives our concerns and ARC/Staff continuously
issues with operations and the use of the MSP airport
3. Continue to work on fmding e�cient means of
communication with the residents
4. Heighten Council awareness of airport issues
ARC/Staff
ARC/Staff
continuously
continuously
Issue #6: Mendota �eights land use planning has respected limitations to the MSP air corridor
r�ction Steps: Who: When:
1. Investigate whether lack of respect/enforcement of Azc/Staff
corridor by MAC and FAA constitutes an inverse
condemnation?
-7-
2006
5/2/2007
CC
' '� �
r
��i�� �
� � +,� ��:�E
' + _3 :
;- � 'r
�.?: � �}
a.:
k t
[h'" �,», :..1"�. } ;,-;
April 30, 2007
Mr. Chad Leqve
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Manager
6301 34th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Dear Mr. Leqve:
r �" ", :
� � r
��'t...... � `at, �,'� �..
� ��
.3 t �p, w y .. �r " '
� � _
_
. �. r ti- ,� , r.. , � � �� � ,.�, � '��.,�
�. ,+� u rz�,... _:G .
This letter is to formally express the City of Mendota Height's Airport Relations Commission's
gratitude for your recent work in addressing the City's concerns over the operation of the new
17/35 Runway. We greatly appreciate you talcing the time to facilitate through the NOC our
concerns regarding Runway 17/35's operation and its discrepancies with the FEIS. Your
understanding of flight operations and your grasp of comm.unity concerns was invaluable to
solving the operational issues regarding the FEIS.
Chad, we are extremely impressed with you and your airport/community knowledge and sawy.
Thanlc you.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Petschel
Airport Relations Commission Chair
cc: Mendota Heights City Council
�10� �Ific�oa�a� Ceaa�ve m l�ena9o� �ei��n�s, N�Y 5�1IlS (66ff) ��B-fl��O � 1F,+�C (fx�&) 452-�9�0
}t ' � �css .�r�"s'n.� #.:,. "� ��5
� j
s
�`f
t J'
K: p
t r }.
�, i
,e.Y..- ; X ta.
April 30, 2007
Mr. Carl Rydeen
Minneapolis Airport FAA ATCT
Manager — MSP Air Traffic Control Tower
6311 34th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Dear Mr. Rydeen:
St�'...;' � ,� _
r,
� �� � ;�
Y Y `'
..,r4 �r: , � ' :, r, ; � �> � �I� e k€i
'' � � _ � � r r �q._ � �� � c.e �. , a�
This letter is to formally express the City of Mendota Height's Airport Relations Comrnission's
gratitude for your recent work in addressing the City's concerns over the operation of the new
17/35 Runway. Thank you for listening to our concerns and being willing to worlc with us to
resoive them. We look forward to working with you as the process for using the new runway
matures and evolves to more closely reflect the FEIS use percentages. We are excited to see the
new runway operations off to such a smooth start and feei that the runway will be a tremendous
asset to the Airport and the Communities sutxounding the airport.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Petschel
Airport Relations Commission Chair
cc: Mendota Heights City Council
ll�� @l�ctorn� c�ana�v� � l��aaa3o� �IIen�h�s, i�i 5�i�8 (651) /��SB-fl�SO a IF� (65fl) 1&5�B-��I4�D
,:../ l. r, ii
CITY OF tVIENDOTA HEIGHTS
���
�iFt�l+�►�iZ�y�
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Airport Relations Commission
James E. Danielson, City Adminis at
Letter from Guy Heide
DISCUSSION:
Attached is a letter from Guy Heide to MAC Commissioner Foley for your
information/comment.
VIA F.AX & MESSENGER April 17, 2007
Guy Heide, Secretary .
Airport Noise Reduction Coinmittee
881 Bluebill Drive
Mendota Heights, MN SS 120
Voice: 651-454-'7440
Facsim�.l.e: 952-548-5930
Mr. Tom Foley, Commissioner-District G,
Metropolitan Airports Commi.ssion
6040 2$� Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799
Dear Comsnissioner Foley:
We have received a letter from the Commission, acting under your supervi.sion,
dated April 11, 2007. Based on this April 11, 2007 letter, we are corresponding with
our Commissioner to con.f'irrri. that the Comtnissioner-District Gi is refusing to produce
the followin.g government data requested under the Minnesota Government Data Prac-
( � � tices Act ("DPA"):
• Governrnent dafa reportin.g any and all paym.ents to Tom Foley for official services
and "actual and necessaxy expenses," pursuant to Minn.Stat. � 473.605 subd. 2;
� Government data reportir�.g any and all paym.ents to Bert McKasy for official ser-
vices and "aeival and necessary expenses," pursuant to Minn.Stat. � 473.605
s-ubd. �; �
• Governrnent data documenting each and every statement of economic interest,
and disclosure of interest in a contract, contracting parties or properf.y, by Tom
Foley and Bert McKasy, pursuant to MAC Ordinance 65 � 3;
• Government data concernin.g Tom Foley's claim $653,599,535 was required to fi-
nance bonds and debt service associated with Passenger Facility Charge (herein.-
after, "PFC") Application 6;
1 The government �.ata. requests were filed with the Commission.er of District G as we
believed you had taken an� oath, to �"keep �records contaisiiizg governinent data in sitch
an arrangement and conditiori as�to make them easily accessible for. convenient use,"
"insure tliat requests for�government�data �are' received and complied with in ***[a]
prompt manner," "upon reqiiest ***�[pern.zi.t a person] to inspect and copy public gav-
ernrrient data," and "upon request, [inform a person] of the data's r.n.eanisig."
Minn.Stat. § 13.03 subds. 1, 2(a), 3(a)].
C�
�� _.
_ _ _ ,, .
Page Two
April. 1'7, 2007
• Government data concerning a$5,284,604 beginning PFC receivable, a
$5,081,684 ending PFC receivable, and the relevant "Comprehensive Annual Fi-
nancial Report" incorporating these PFC receivables;
a Goverrunent data concerniizg notifications and financial reports prepared pursu-
ant to Tom Foley's assurances to the Secretary of Transportation concerni.ng PFC
Applications Nos. l, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and S; �
• Government data containi�zg the public hearing notice referenced in MAC's Au-
gust 14, 2006 letter to the undersigned;
• Government data consisting of Commissioners' meeting minutes held concerning
a Heari.ng Officer's Report, pursuant to Minn. Stat. � 473.608 subd. 18;
• Government data on which Tom Foley based a"2006" noise exposure rnap for
Minn.eapolis-St. Paul International Airport.
Pursuant to your July 26, 2006 written request to the undersigned (viz., "Please
forward any and all future correspondence to me [Tom Foley] at the following address:
6040 -- 28� Avenue South, Min.neapolis, MN 55450 I*** do not want to miss your
correspondence"), the abave DPA requests were submitted (original and one duplicate
copyj to the address furnished.
REQUEST
Our Committee is in need of this govei-nment data, Comrnissioner Foley.. Since
you have held some of the above DPA requests over 200 calendar days (almost 8
months) without a DPA response, we do not believe it is unreasonable to request a
prompt reply to this inquiry.
If we have not received a written response withi.n. 7 days of the facsimil.e transmis-
sion of this letter to your attention, I will contact you by telephone. I can be reached
by facsimile service at 952-548-5930.
Sin cerely,
����,�,�.c.✓
Guy Heide
cc: Ultan Duggan, Council Member/NOC Representative, City of Mendota Heights
Elizabeth Petschel, Alternate NOC Represexitative, City. of Mendcjta Heights
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
�
May 2, 2007
TO: ARC Commissioners
FROM: Linda Shipton, Senior Secretary
SUBJECT: Updates for Introduction Packet
Please replace the following pages in your ARC Introduction Packet
Table of Contents
Operations North of the 090° Corridor Boundary
(, ��)
The following should be replaced from your monthly ARC Meeting Agenda Packet.
# 7 Airport Noise Report — Put the latesfi issue of this in your Intro Packet
#13 March 2007 - Technical Advisors Report
#14 March 2007 - Eagan Mendota Heights Corridor Report
Section
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
S.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Glossary
Historical Review Eagan-MH Corridor
Creation of AR.0
Ordinance No. 290
ARC Brochure
2006 Airport Noise Plan of Action
Airport Noise Report, Arpil 27, 2007
NOC Bylaws
P&E Committee Regular Monthly Meeting Mi.nutes
MAC Approved 2007 Capita.l Improvement Program
What's New at the MAC Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
ANOMS Monthly Reports
March 2007 Technical Advisor's Report
March 2007 Eagan Mendota Heights Corridor Report
Frequently Asked Questions
Contract Pertaining to Limits on Construction of a Third Parallel Runway
Crossing in the Corridor
Minneapolis Tower Operational Order
Ru.nway Use
Nighttime Volu.nta.ry Noise Agreements
Maps
ARC DVD
�' ' '
' ' • , • � ' � � ,
�
� � � ' ' � � ':- ,
G �� } . i=� "�.
f O
���ic
�1F�r'�;rri cci�t��'�ty
� � � � ' � � ' � ' �' � '.'
Table of Co�.tents for 1V.�a�rch 2007 �
C
Complaint Summary 1
Noise Complaint Map 2
FA.A Available Time for Runway Usage 3
MSP All Operations Runway Usage 4
MSP Carrier Jet Operations Runway Usage 5
MSP Carrier Jet Fleet Composition 6
MSP A11 Operations Nighttime Runway Usage 7
MSP Carrier Jet Operations Nighttime Runway Usage 8
MSP Top 15 Nighttime Operator's by Type 9 (
MSP Top 15 Nighttime Operator's Stage Mix 10
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks 11-14
MSP ANOMS Remote Monitoring Tower Site Locations Map 15
Time Above dB Threshold for Carrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events 16
Time Above dB Threshold for Carrier Jet Departure Related Noise Events 17
Carrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events 18
Carrier Jet Departure Related Noise Events 19
MSP Top Ten Aircraft Noise Events per RMT 20-32
Analysis of Daily and Monthly Aircraft Noise Events DNL 33-35 (
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
MSP Complaints by City
March 2007
Note: Shaded Columns represent MSP compinints filed via thc Intcmet.
Sum oI % Tomi of Compinin�s mny not equal l00% due ro rovndin&
�� � "As of May 20D5, ihe MSP Comploints 6y City rcpon includcs multiple
compinint dcscriptors per individual compioint Theretorq the numberof
�� comptaint descriptors may be morc than �he number of rcported complaints.
Repo�t Generated: 04/09/2007 14:45 - 1-
MSP International Air�ort
Aviation Noise Complaints for March 2007
Number of Compiaints per Address
' � �`; �:
1-7 8-22 23-50 51-81 82-148 149-294
-2-
295-453 454-741
Report Generated: 04/09/2007 14:45
�
Available Hours for Runway Use
March 2007
FAA Average Dailv Count
Air Carrier 860 829
Commuter 384 384
General Aviation 98 48
7 ( 8
Report Generated: 04/09/2007 14:45
-3-
All Operations
Runway Use Report March 2007
Note: Sum of RUS % may not equal 100% due to rounding.
- 4- Report Generated: 04/09/2007 14:45
�
�
�
Carrier Jet Operations
Runway Use Report March 2007
Note: Sum of RUS % may not equal 100% due to rounding.
Report Generated: 04/09/2007 14:45 - 5-
March 2007 MSP Carrier Jet Fleet Composition
Note: Sum of fleet mix % may not equal 100 % due to rounding. •
Note: Stage III represent aircraft modified to meet all stage III criteria as outiined in Federal Aviation Regulation � ,�
(FAR) Part 36. This includes hushkit engines, engine retrofits or aircraft operational flight configurations.
•The Provided Noise levels from FAR Part 36 are the loudest levels documented per aircraft type during
take-ofF measured in EPNL dBA (Effective Perceived Noise �evel).
•EPN� is the level of the time integral of the antilogarithm of one-tenth of tone-corrected perceived noise level
of an aircraft flyover measured in A-weighted decibels.
- 6- Report Generated: 04/09/2007 14:45
Nighttime All Operations 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
' . - '-•• . 11
Note: Sum of RUS % may not equal 100% due to rounding.
Report Generated: 04/09/2007 14:45 - 7-
Nighttime Carrier Jet Operations 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
Runway Use Report March 2007
Note: Sum of RUS % may not equal 100% due to rounding.
- $ - Report Generated: 04/09/2007 14:45
�
{��
March 2007 Top 15 Actual Nighttime Jefi Operators by Type
10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
Total Nighttime Jet
Operations by Hour
American
America West
America West
�ntinental Expres:
Champion
DH�
Fed Ex
Fed Ex
Fed Ex
Fed Ex
Pinnacle
Kitty Hawk
Kitty Hawk
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Narthwest
�epublic Airlines
Sun Country
Sun Country
Sun Country
Shuttle America
United
United
United
UP5
UPS
US
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Note: The top 15 nighttime operators represent 91.8% of the total nighttime carrier jet operations.
Report Generated: 04/09/2007 14:45
��
900
800
� 700
C
++
� 600
G:.
O'
�; 500
�
tl7
.O
� 400
�
Z
300
200
100
O
AAL AWE BTA CCP DHL FOX FLG KHA NWR� RPA SCX TCF UAL UPS USA
i�Ec[ir��
G� �htanufactured, �,5tage � 3; � Stage 3;..;;OStage 2�, ;
March 2007 Nighttime Fleet Stage Mix for Top 15 Airlines
10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
March 2007 Nighttime Fleet Stage Mix for Top 15 Airlines
Note: UPS DC8Q and B727Q aircraft are re-engined with manufactured stage 3 engines.
- 10 - Report Generated: 04l09/2007 14:45
C.
C, -
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks
Carrier Jet Operations — March 2007
Mar 1 thru 8, 2007 — 3950 Carrier Jet Arrivals
Mar 1 thru 8, 2007 — 3971 Carrier Jet Departures
Mar 1 thru 8, 2007 — 362 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals Mar 1 thru 8, 2007 — 262 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures
Report Generated: 04/09/2007 14:45 - 11 -
Airport �toise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks
Carrier Jet Operations — March 2007 �
�,
Mar 9 thru 16, 2007 — 4293 Carrier Jet Arrivals
Mar 9 thru 16, 2007 — 4285 Carrier Jet Departures
Mar 9 thru 16, 2007 — 385 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals Mar 9 thru 16, 2007 — 195 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures
-12-
Report Generated: 04l09/2007 14:45
C
C �,
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks
Carrier Jet Operations — March 2007
Mar 17 thru 24, 2007 — 4246 Carrier Jet Arrivals
Mar 17 thru 24, 2007 — 4208 Carrier Jet Departures
Mar 17 thru 24, 2007 — 396 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals Mar 17 thru 24, 2007 —198 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures
Repo�t Generated: 04/09/2007 14:45 - 13 -
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks
�arrier Jet Operations — IVlarch 2007
Mar 25 thru 31, 2007 — 3740 Carrier Jet Arrivals
Mar 25 thru 31, 2007 — 3757 Carrier Jet Departures
Mar 25 thru 31, 2007 — 329 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals
Mar 25 thru 31, 2007 — 192 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures
-14-
Report Generated: 04/09l2007 14:45
�
C
C
�� �
MSP International Airport
Remote Monitoring Tower (RMT� Site Locations
� ) r;, ;�� ��� Remote Monitoring Tower
- - h,y
Report Generated: 04/09/2007 14:45
-15-
Time Above dB Threshold for Arrival R.elated Noise Events
March 2007
, , , ,
,. ; n : . t i + .��_ �� u ' 1� k S�. E u� �
RMT � �� ' ' , � ,�� ime � � �Time > � x �Time�> T�me >
� �
,; _ ID, ,.�. : `..�.� :��:� C��!...� :. ..... .: .. ...`. . : ! Address � ' �� T65dB ' �; 80dB � 90dB " „ �'�OOtlB '
. .. ..... .. .. .:.. ..: . ...... . ; _. .. ...... ....::. �
.. ._.._. . � . : ...... __ . ... ..:. . . . ............ . �..:
1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 41st St. 26:00:48 00:03:16 00:00:00 00:00:00
2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 24:41:52 00:23:43 00:00:17 00:00:00
3 Minneapolis West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. 32:32:29 02:06:38 00:01:07 OO:OQ:00
4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48th St. 26:27:26 00:48:02 00:00:19 00:00:00
5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 36:97:51 07:17:54 00:07:55 OO:OO:QO
6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 32:36:20 05:33:43 00:11:18 00:00:02
7 Richfield Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. 01:05:33 00:00:09 00:00:00 00:00:00
8 Minneapolis Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. 00:18:02 00:00:09 00:00:00 00:00:00
9 St. Paui 5aratoga St. & HartFord Ave. 00:01:35 00:00:07 00:00:00 00:00:00
10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 00:03:17 00:00:05 00:00:00 00:00:00
11 St. Paul Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 00:01:34 00:00:09 00:00:00 00:00:00
12 St. Paul Aiton St. & Rockwood Ave. 00:00:53 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
13 Mendota Heights Souiheast end of Mohican Court 00:14:22 00:00:02 00:00:00 00:00:00
14 Eagan 1 st St. & McKee St. 20:51:47 00:02:27 00:00:00 00:00:00
15 Mendota Heights Cuilon St. & Lexington Ave. 00:38:29 00:00:28 00:00:00 00:00:00
16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane 17:41:55 00:52:28 00:00:00 00:00:00
17 Bloomington 84th St. & 4th Ave. 00:02:05 00:00:00 OO:Q0:00 00:00:00
18 Richfield 75th St. & 17th Ave. 00:27:16 00:00:11 00:00:00 00:00:00
19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & 84th St. 00:10:59 00:00:02 00:00:00 00:00:00
20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 00:01:39 00:00:08 00:00:00 00:00:00
21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 00:12:09 00:00:00 00:00:00 Q0:00:00
22 Inver Grove Neights Anne Marie Trail 09:59:00 00:00:37 00:00:00 00:00:00
23 Mendoia Heights End of Kenndon Ave. 03:41:38 00:02:06 00:00:00 00:00:00
24 Eagan Chapel �n. & Wren Ln. 19:39:57 00:01:50 OO:Q0:00 00:00:00
25 Eagan Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 01:34:03 00:00:10 00:00:00 00:00:00
26 Inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 02:15:11 00:00:31 00:00:00 00:00:00
27 Minneapolis Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S. 00:56:21 00:00:08 00:00:00 00:00:00
28 Richfield 6645 16th Ave. S. 02:01:45 00:00:59 00:00:00 Q0:00:00
29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31 st Ave. S. 00:00:06 00:00:00 OQ:00:00 00:00:00
30 Bloomington 8715 River Ridge Rd. 03:32:30 00:00:02 00:00:00 00:00:00
31 Bloomington 9501 12th Ave. S. 00:01:23 OO:OO:OQ 00:00:00 00:00:00
32 Bloomington 10325 Pieasant Ave. S. 00:01:27 00:00:00 OO:Q0:00 00:00:00
33 Burnsville North River Hilis Park 00:01:30 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
34 Burnsville Red Oak Park 00:03:33 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
35 Eagan 2100 Garnet Ln. 05:18:29 00:00:09 00:00:00 00:00:00
36 Apple Valley Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 07:14:41 00:00:14 00:00:00 00:00:00
37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate Ln. N. 00:03:01 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 00:01:19 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
39 Eagan 3477 St. Charies PI. 00:01:17 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
� � 1 �. Total,T�me;#orArr�val Noise Events ;i ;:, 276 55 32 17'1fi 27�' 00 20 56 , QO 00 02:`
,
�
Report Generated: 04/09/2007 14:45
�
C.
�� )
Time Above Threshold dB for Departure Related Noise Events
March 2007
:� : � �
, � t
, � , ,; , � , �
RMT � � � f , � , � � , . � nTime > T�me > r T�me ? � T�me a
,-:,ID�., '...... :;CitY.3 ... .: ...�. ... ... .. � �`..... :.. Address. ; ._ . . ..' : . _�.. ..:..65dB::• �.....80dB ` � :: t 90dB r.' ...�1.00dB ,
1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 41st St. 01:44:51 00:00:11 00:00:00 00:00:00
2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 02:36:46 00:01:46 00:00:00 00:00:00
3 Minneapolis West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. 07:24:28 00:08:58 00:00:18 00:00:00
4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48th St. 09:22:10 00:17:45 00:00:19 OO:OO:QO
5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 32:23:45 03:29:53 00:31:15 00:00:23
6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 39:05:55 04:57:53 00:57:41 00:00:22
7 Richfield Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. 16:40:06 00:43:06 OQ:02:20 00:00:00
8 Minneapolis Longfellow Ave. & 43rd 5t. 10:00:54 00:25:40 00:00:06 00:00:00
9 St. Paul Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. 00:08:50 00:00:39 00:00:00 00:00:00
10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. . 00:08:35 00:02:24 00:01:01 00:00:00
11 St. Paul Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 00:08:33 00:01:44 00:00:22 OO:OO:QO
12 St. Paul Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. 00:07:17 00:00:04 00:00:00 00:00:00
13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 08:22:43 00:04:21 00:00:00 00:00:00
14 Eagan 1 st St. & McKee St. 13:42:43 00:44:26 OO:Q1:53 00:00:00
15 Mendota Heights Cullon St. & Lexington Ave. 11:43:58 00:11:10 00:00:06 00:00:00
16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane 15:42:58 01:38:57 00:11:16 00:00:00
17 Bloomington 84th St. & 4th Ave. 00:28:47 00:03:18 00:00:09 OO:OO:QO
18 Richfield 75th St. & 17th Ave. 24:20:08 00:21:37 00:02:05 00:00:01
19 Bloomingtan 16th Ave. & 84th St. 18:00:33 00:07:09 00:00:18 00:00:00
20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 00:47:20 00:01:00 00:00:08 00:00:00
21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 02:35:00 00:00:15 00:00:00 00:00:00
22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 03:39:40 00:02:21 00:00:00 00:00:00
23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Ave. 19:20:23 01:04:55 00:05:41 00:00:00
24 Eagan Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. 08:3021 00:12:24 00:0024 OO:OO:QO
25 Eagan Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 11:28:44 00:03:14 00:00:03 00:00:00
26 inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 05:06:17 00:06:27 00:00:03 00:00:00
27 Minneapolis Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S. 08:07:55 00:14:43 00:00:50 00:00:00
28 Richfield 6645 16th Ave. S. 37:02:47 00:50:15 00:00:18 00:00:00
29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31 st Ave. S. 05:58:56 OQ:05:12 00:00:00 Q0:00:00
30 Bloomington 8715 River Ridge Rd. 34:31:07 03:08:32 00:08:30 Q0:00:00
31 Bloomirigton 9501 12th Ave. S. 02:53:26 00:02:37 00:00:26 00:00:00
32 Bloomington 10325 Pleasan# Ave. S. 01:07:50 00:00:26 00:00:00 00:00:00
33 Burnsville North River Hilis Park 03:40:00 00:01:20 00:00:00 00:00:00
34 Burnsville Red Oak Park 01:14:49 00:00:57 00:00:00 00:00:00
35 Eagan 2100 Garnet Ln. 06:28:22 00:05:14 00:00:00 00:00:00
36 Apple Valley Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 02:21:24 00:00:07 00:00:00 00:00:00
37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate Ln. N. 04:08:05 00:02:45 00:00:00 00:00:00
3$ Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 06:45:30 00:05:24 00:00:00 00:00:00
39 Eagan 3477 St. Charles PI. 08:13:24 00:10:16 00:00:05 00:00:00
` , Total Time for.:Deparfure, Noise Events i, 386 15 20 19 3,9 25 02 Q5 37 00 oa as ::.
:� �
Report Generated: 04109/2007 14:45 - 17 -
Arrival Related Noise Events
. ii
� � ' � ' t Arn�ral Acnval Arrival Arnval
�
RMT� '° ' � � � " ;' � � Events > � Events > � Events > Euents > � �
..ID.. �:.�.Li � yj.�._G!t�!�...._.'''�G� z,, , �. Address �.... ' � � 4 '� �65dB ? " 80dB�' 90dB ' ��'IOOdB
. ... ... . .... ._. . �. . :.. .. .. . �. .. _.. .:...... _ :.. ... . .. :, � . ��._ r..
.. ..._�. � ,_.., ..... _ _ ..� . . ..�.. ..,......
1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 41 st St. 5700 62 0 0
2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 5045 304 3 0
3 Minneapolis West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. 5797 1436 26 0
4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48th St. 5383 658 3 0
5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 6030 4361 146 0
6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 5654 4361 345 1
7 Richfield Weniworth Ave. & 64th St. 194 2 0 0
8 Minneapolis Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. 55 1 0 0
9 St. Paul Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. 5 2 0 0
10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 7 1 0 0
11 St. Paul Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 5 1 0 0
12 St. Paul Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. 5 0 0 0
13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 47 1 0 0
14 Eagan 1 st St. & McKee St. 4485 47 0 0
15 Mendota Heights Cuilon St. & Lexington Ave. 121 7 0 0
16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane 3443 642 0 0
17 Bloomington 84th St. & 4th Ave. 8 0 0 0
18 Richfieid 75th St. & 17th Ave. 118 5 0 0
19 Btoomington 16th Ave. & 84th St. 41 1 0 0
20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 5 1 0 0
21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 53 0 0 0
22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 2329 10 0 0
23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Ave. 809 17 0 0
24 Eagan Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. 4247 39 0 0
25 Eagan Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 285 3 0 0
26 Inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 573 9 0 0
27 Minneapolis Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S. 173 4 0 0
28 Richfield 6645 16th Ave. S. 351 12 0 0
29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. Schaol 4315 31 st Ave. S. 1 0 0 0
30 Bloomington 8715 River Ridge Rd. 986 1 0 0
31 Bioomington 9501 12th Ave. S. 6 0 0 0
32 Bloomington ' 10325 Pleasant Ave. S. 5 0 0 0
33 Burnsville North River Hills Park 7 0 0 0
34 Burnsvilfe Red Oak Park 21 0 0 0
35 Eagan 2100 Garnet Ln. 1265 3 0 0
36 Apple Valley Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 1561 5 Q 0
37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate Ln. N. 15 0 0 0
38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 7 0 0 0
39 Eagan 3477 St. Charles PI. 5 0 0 0
� , ' � `� � Total �#rr�val �do�se Events ' .` ' ;; , 54847 � ' 11996 ' � 523 ' 7 ,
- 18 - Report Generated: 04/09/2007 14:45
C.
�
� �
Departure Related Noise Events
March 2007
� ; �; ;
- ,. �; , 4 De art De art D art Depart
RMT , Events > Ev nts �e Ev nts >e Events >e
; .:: ; ,
� , . �._..: r , ,^.
e
� 1D CitY .,. ..� ;. . . �� : ....�. . :� . .. Address . . .. :: :.. .. �'..�.:: . . ��..65dB,.'.��.: .�...80dB.... � ;.. .. 90dB 100dB ; ,:.
. .._:. .� ,.. .... _
...:........ .. .. .... .
� .::....,. A. . .. .. _
1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 41 st St. 406 4 � 0.
2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 555 20 0 0
3 Minneapolis West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. 1355 71 7 0
4' Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48th St. 1684 161 6 0
5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 4791 1131 303 8
6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 5880 1822 487 15
7 Richfield Weniwo�th Ave. & 64th St. 2650 323 26 0
8 Minneapolis Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. 1678 211 3 0
9 St. Paul Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. 27 4 0 0
10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 24 10 8 0
11 St. Paul Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 21 8 4 0
12 St. Paul Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. 24 2 0 0
13 Mendata Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 1556 56 0 0
14 Eagan 1st 5t. & McKee St. 2092 327 19 0
15 Mendota Heights Cullon St. & �exington Ave. 2069 125 4 0
16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas �ane 2165 528 96 0
17 Bloomington 84th St. & 4tti Ave. 91 19 2 0
18 Richfield 75th St. & 17th Ave. 4039 317 17 1
19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & 84th St. 3237 117 3 0
20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 155 8 1 0
21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 510 8 0 0
22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 627 30 0 0
23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Ave. 2994 394 75 0
24 Eagan Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. 1400 131 5 0
25 Eagan Moanshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 1224 27 1 0
26 Inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 901 77 2 �
27 Minneapolis Anthony Schooi 5757 irving Ave. S. 1473 139 11 0
28 Richfield 6645 16th Ave. 5. 5135 603 5 0
29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31 st Ave. S. 1089 52 0 0
30 Bloomington 8715 River Ridge Rd. 5125 1085 136 0
31 Bloomington 9501 12th Ave. S. 627 19 5 0
32 Bloomington 10325 Pleasant Ave. S. 240 3 0 0
33 Burnsville North River Hills Park 747 15 � 0
34 Burnsville Red Oak Park 231 10 0 0
35 Eagan 2100 Garnet Ln. 1171 74 0 0
36 Appie Valley Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 437 3 0 0
37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate Ln. N. 698 44 0 0
38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 1172 88 0 0
39 Eagan 3477 St. Charles PI. 1475 119 1 0
'. ` ; . '�` ,, Tatat Departure Noise Events ; .,.; 61775 ; 81$5 ; 1227'� � 24
Report Generated: 04/09/2007 14:45 - 19 -
Top Ten Loudest Aircrafit Noise Events for MSP
March 2007
(RMT Site#1)
Xerxes Ave. & 41 st St.
(RMT Site#2)
Fremont Ave. & 43rd St.
(RMT Site#3)
West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave.
- 2� - Report Generated: 04/09/2007 14:45
C
C.
C
� �1
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
March 2007
(RMT Site#4)
Park Ave. & 48th St.
(RMT Site#5)
12th Ave. & 58th St.
(RMT Site#6)
25th Ave. & 57th St.
Report Generated: 04/09/2007 14:45 - 21 -
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
March 2007
C
(RMT Site#7)
Wentworth Ave. & 64th St.
(RMT Site#8)
Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St.
(RMT Site#9)
Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave.
- 22 - Report Generated: 04/09l2007 14:45
Top Ten �oudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
March 2007
(RMT Site#10)
Itasca. Ave. & Bowdoin St.
(RMT Site#11)
Finn St. & Scheffer Ave.
(RMT Site#12)
Alton St. & Rockwood Ave.
Report Generated: 04/09/2007 14:45 - 23 -
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
March 2007
C
(RMT Site#13)
Southeast end of Mohican Court
(RMT Site#14)
1 st St. & McKee St.
(RMT Site#15)
C
- 24 - Report Generated: 04/09/2007 14:45
( )
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
March 2007
(RMT Site#16)
Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane
(RMT Site#17)
84th St. & 4th Ave.
(RMT Site#18)
75th St. & 17th Ave.
Report Generated: 04/09/2007 14:45 - 25 -
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
March 2007
C
(RMT Site#19)
16th Ave. & 84th St.
(RMT Site#20)
75th St. & 3rd Ave.
(RMT Site#21)
Barbara Ave. & 67th St.
C
- 26 - Reporf Generated: 04/09/2007 14:45
( �i
Top Ten �oudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
March 2007
(RMT Site#22)
Anne Marie Trail
(RMT Site#23)
End of Kenndon Ave.
(RMT Site#24)
Chapel �n. & Wren Ln.
Report Generated: 04/09/2007 14:45 - 27 -
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
March 2007
(RMT Site#25)
Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdv Rd.
03/17/2007 7:48
03/01 /2007 10:23
03/20/2007 20:42
03/08/2007 20:37
03/30/2007 6:16
03/15/2007 14;39
03/27/2007 20:41
03/25/2007 7:04
03/22/2007 22:52
03/20/2007 23:21
CC P416
CC P416
DHL197
DHL197
CCP410
DAL449
DHL304
DHL1648
CCI705
GC1705
90.1
87.3
86.1
85.9
84.7
84.5
84.1
83.7
83.2
82.9
(RMT Site#27)
Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S.
- 28 - Report Generated: 04/09/2007 14:45
C
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
March 2007
(RMT Site#28)
6645 16th Ave. S.
(RMT Site#29)
Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31 st Ave. S.
(RMT Site#30)
8715 River Ridge Rd.
Report Generated: 04/09/2007 14:45 - 29 -
Top Ten �oudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
March 2007
C:
(RMT Site#31)
9501 12th Ave. S.
(RMT Site#32)
10325 Pleasant Ave. S.
(RMT Site#33)
North River Hills Park
- 30 - Report Generated: 04/09/2007 14:45
( �i
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
March 2007
(RMT Site#34)
Red Oak Park
(RMT Site#35)
2100 Garnet Ln.
(RMT Site#36)
Briar Oaks & Scout Pond
Report Generated: 04/09/2007 14:45 - 31 -
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
March 2007
(RMT Site#37)
4399 Woodqate �n. N.
03l23/2007 22:37
03130/2007 14:27
03114/2007 0:12
03I17/2007 14:27
03/29/2007 13:48
03/26l2007 13:51
03(22/2007 15:04
03/24/2007 16:16
03/20/2007 13:41
DHL197
NWA766
KHA772
AAL1925
N WA1026
NWA1696
NWA1430
AAL1230
NWA3
NWA1696
(RMT Site#38)
3957 Turauoise Cir.
(RMT Site#39)
3477 St. Charles PI.
85.2
84.8
84.7
$4.4
84.1
84
83.6
83.5
83.4
March 2007 Remote Monitorina Tower Top Ten Summary
The top ten noise events and the event ranges at each RMT for March 2007 were comprised of 872% departure
operations. The predominant #op ten aircraft type was the B72Q with 36.2% of the highest Lmax events.
March 2007 Technical Advisor Report Notes
Unknown fields are due to unavailability of FAA flight track data. Missing FAA radar data for 0 days during the
month of March 2007.
- 32 - Report Generated: 04/09/2007 14:45
C
�
Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events DNL
March 2007
Remote Monitoring Towers
,.
! Date #1Y �#2 #3 #4� #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 �#19 #12 #�3 #14 #15'.;
�
Q3/01/2007 59.5 60.5 65.5 62.7 7Q.7 71.8 60.5 59.1 29.5 35 34.7 NA 51.9 62.4 54.6
03/02/2007 49.8 51.1 57.4 62.4 72.2 75.1 66.7 62.1 28.3 NA NA 31.9 25.7 61.6 39.9
03/03/2007 50.4 50.4 54.9 55.9 66.8 712 64.9 58.5 33.7 35.8 28.3 NA 38.7 57.6 42.4
03104/2007 52.2 51.4 56.7 57.1 66.6 71.2 60.8 57.7 35.9 29.9 34.4 NA 44.3 59.7 47.3
03/05/2007 51.4 56 56.9 57 66.2 69.4 59.3 54.6 NA NA NA NA 50.6 56 52
03/06/2007 55.1 59.1 64.8 60.5 68.1 67.5 32.5 30.3 46.8 42.3 NA 42.9 52.1 63.1 55.6
03/07/2007 55.5 57.6 63.6 60.1 69.4 69 57.9 55.2 27.3 NA 31.9 NA 52.6 63.4 55.8
03108/2007 58.5 62.1 65.5 63.3 69.8 70.9 41.4 35 36.3 28.3 38.2 35.2 58.8 64.1 62.5
03/09/2007 54.8 57.4 61.7 63.2 70.2 73.9 61.2 60.1 NA 28.4 38.3 29.5 48.9 63.2 53
03/10/2007 49.1 53.7 56.1 59.4 69.1 73.6 64.5 59.5 40.8 29.8 41.7 NA NA 61.2 31.9
03/11/2007 5$.1 57.9 64.3 60.7 70.8 68.3 49.8 52.4 40.$ 46.4 NA 27.9 56.6 61.8 62.6
Q3J12/2007 51.1 53.9 56.2 60.4 67.7 74.6 552 60.2 41.7 37.4 44 24.8 46.7 63.7 45.2
03/13/2007 50.3 54.4 56.1 63.1 69.6 74 60.9 61.9 35.1 27.6 33.6 NA 33.5 63.1 46
03/14/2007 50.9 52.2 58.7 61.4 72.4 72.7 64.3 62.5 34.9 52.8 51.8 NA 43.6 61.4 43.3
Q3/1512�07 57.4 59.4 65.3 64.1 71.8 73.8 61 61 25.7 27.2 NA 342 55.1 62.9 58
03/16/2007 53.2 54.4 59.8 62.3 72.9 74.5 68.7 64.9 39.7 54.4 49.4 NA 32.1 61.1 39.3
Q3/17/2007 55:9 59.4 63.6 60.3 69.1 69.3 49.9 NA 31.4 28.1 NA 35.8 55.2 64.2 55.1
03/18/2007 59.9 60.6 68.6 62.3 72.4 68.7 32.2 40.4 NA NA NA NA 58.9 66.6 59
03/19/2007 54.7 53.5 61.8 60.6 72.1 74.8 66.4 64.1 NA NA NA 32.3 30.6 60.2 39.5
03/20J2007 61.1 64 67.5 64.6 71.3 70.7 47.7 52.1 NA NA NA 33.9 58 58.9 60.6
03/21/2007 60.$ 64.9 68.7 65.6 73.7 74.8 65.3 56.$ 44.8 NA 48.3 NA 52.3 62.4 56.5
03/22/20Q7 56.3 58.3 64.5 62.2 71.6 72.6 62.5 59.7 NA 28 NA NA 57.3 63.4 63.1
03/23/2007 59.4 60.2 66.8 62.8 72.4 70.4 55.6 55.9 42.3 36.9 3Q.8 45.6 60.5 67.1 63
03/24/2007 60 62.7 66.4 64.2 69.8 69.2 40.4 44.4 NA 39.9 41.8 NA 59.9 65.2 60.7
03/25/2007 59.8 60.2 68 63.3 73 72.8 50.2 59.4 39.4 41.6 NA 29.3 55.1 67.7 57
03/26/2007 57 64 64.4 64.9 72 72.8 65.4 62.3 46.3 NA 46 NA 51.4 61.4 54.1
03/27/2007 60.3 61.8 67.1 64.3 72.3 69.8 62.7 53.9 41.5 56.6 46.9 51.3 60.7 66.1 61.6
03/28/2007 65.1 65 71 65.5 74 70.5 48.2 38.7 43.3 51.7 44.4 31.7 59.3 62.7 61.7
03/29/2007 63.8 63.5 69.7 64 73 69.8 42.6 39.6 37.1 54.1 52 NA 60 65.1 60.9
03/30/2007 63.8 64.9 70.1 65.5 73.4 70.9 49.2 40.6 36.6 54.3 54.2 37.8 59.4 64.7 61.1
03/31/2007 61.5 63.6 69.2 64.1 72.9 69.6 50.7 36.7 48.3 57.6 47.9 35.5 57.4 63.2 61.2
, , , .
Mo Dt�L 58`8 60 6, 65 7;62 8 71 4 72 1 61;6 58 6 40 2 48 7`45 38 5 55':8 63 5 58'4
Report Generated: 04/09/2007 14:45
-33-
Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events DN�
IVlarch 2007
Remote Monitoring Towers \,_
Date�y � #16� ,#17' '#18 , #19 #20 #21, #22 #23 #24 #25 #26 #27 #�8 #29
. _ ,..� .. .,,.. ,� , .� ..... .. ...... .. . ... .. .. ..� . ..:.. . . . . ,.: . . _.�.. :... � . �
a., .. ... � ... .. . .... . ..... ... ,.. . , ,�,
03101 /2007 66.3 NA 39.3 NA 36.3 46.8 54.1 60.8 58.6 57.3 53.7 58.8 61.3 47.4
03/02/2007 66.3 35.7 45.5 29.1 43.7 NA 58.1 52.1 61.8 40.8 48.3 57.7 64.1 56
03103/2007 63.6 34.$ 38.1 44.1 42.1 39.2 51 49.8 57.1 36.2 46.9 53.9 58.5 50.8
03/0412007 64.6 39.6 52.9 50.2 45.1 37.6 52.9 50.$ 57.9 50.8 47.6 53.1 59.3 55
03/05/2007 61.7 NA 56.7 50.3 29.7 41 48.3 57.2 55.8 43.2 47.2 54.5 60 48.7
03/06/2007 62 NA 61.1 55.7 NA 50.5 54.3 62.2 59.3 54.6 56.3 35 62.1 25.1
03/Q7/2007 65.1 35.9 60.1 57.1 35.3 48.7 53 65.2 59.2 54.3 58.3 58.5 58.1 50.2
03/08/2007 64.3 35.7 61.4 58.1 33.1 54.8 55.9 68.2 60.7 57.3 62.1 47 63.1 27.4
03/09/2007 67.7 53.1 57.2 57.4 52.3 40.8 57.8 60.6 63 51.3 57.7 55.7 58.3 55.7
03/1012007 65.2 48.8 59.3 55.8 49.9 35.7 56.8 52.7 60.5 43.2 51.2 58.5 57.5 54.2
03I11 /2007 64.4 36.1 62 58.4 38.3 51.5 53.3 68.3 58.8 55.1 59.6 59.1 60.5 40.7
03/12/2007 66 47.5 62.4 58.2 55.3 47.6 59.2 56.5 63.1 52.7 55.8 54.5 58.5 57.2
03/13/2007 67.1 52.2 61.9 58.9 50.9 34 59.2 57.1 62.4 5Q.1 55.3 56.6 58.4 59.3
Q3/14/2007 64.6 46.5 60.2 56.7 48.5 36.4 57.8 51.4 60.9 48.1 51.1 61.9 64 56.4
03/15/2007 67.9 50.2 58.6 57.4 472 47 57.1 63.2 60.4 56 55.2 52.6 64.1 56.4
03/1612007 64.2 27.1 47.8 41.4 46.8 39.5 57.$ 48.6 60.7 33 48.7 62.5 63.3 58.8
03/17/2007 68.1 47 59.5 57.5 41.2 55.5 57.6 65.1 61.4 55.8 57.4 48.4 59.1 NA
03/18/2007 65.2 30 62.8 58.9 29.1 53.6 55.3 64.7 61.3 56.8 60.6 45.8 62.7 NA
03/19I2007 65.2 41.9 46.8 45 44.4 39.2 58.5 50.9 60.5 46.1 51.4 59.9 62.9 58.9
03/20/2007 63.5 48.3 66 62.2 42.1 46.8 54 64.9 55.8 57.5 53.3 49.4 66.9 54.3
03/21/2007 66.5 47.3 62.7 55.7 52.1 45.1 57.1 61.3 60.3 53.6 53.4 58.$ 66.2 54.3
03/22/2007 67.5 49.7 63.6 59.9 48.6 51.6 59 67.9 62.4 58.8 55.7 52.1 65.6 5$.$
03/23/2007 67.5 31.1 59.4 58.9 NA 58 59.7 70 62.3 54.9 62.5 55.4 57.2 45.7
03/24/2007 70.7 51..1 60.4 54.5 NA 54.1 59.3 66.8 62.6 56.3 59.1 37.1 57.3 NA
03/25/2007 70 42.3 61.7 57.6 38.5 49.5 60.5 62.3 64.9 57.6 58 46.8 60.1 50.5
03/26/2007 66.5 61.6 65.6 59.4 49.7 45.9 55.6 60.7 59.3 51.5 54.8 58.7 62.3 55.5
03/27/2007 69.8 NA 41.9 37.4 45.3 56.4 57.5 67.2 63 60.5 59.1 57.8 62.9 55
03/28i2007 65.4 39.8 63.9 62.4 NA 54.1 52.5 65.6 57.9 52.6 61 42.4 66.2 NA
03/2912Q07 67.9 44.8 63.8 62 47 56.4 55.5 67.4 60.3 57 58 44 65.5 29.6
03/30/2007 70.6 35.8 60.5 57.4 26.6 54.7 55.1 67.4 60.3 58.5 57.7 49.6 64.6 3Q
03/31 /2007 68 39.1 56.7 53.8 NA 49.1 51.3 66.5 59.1 54.3 55.3 45.3 61.4 NA
, Mo DNL 66 8 49 2 6Q 8 5�:4 46 8 5� 3: 56 8 64 3 60 9 55' S7 1 56 2 62 6`; 53 9
- 34 - Report Generated: 04I09/2007 14:45
C
( '�
Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events DNL
March 2007
Remote Monitoring Towers
� � Date #30 #31 #32: #33 '#34 #35 #36 #37 #38 #39 ;
03/01 /2007 NA NA 33.3 NA 34.7 NA NA 33.6 32.1 32.9
03/02/2007 NA 31.4 37.2 29.5 NA NA 27 28 NA 26
03103/2007 47.4 NA 26.3 NA 29.8 48.5 51.9 30.1 NA 31.9
03/04/2007 61.3 41.7 46 53.1 49.6 55 54.8 35.1 27.7 NA
03/05/2007 63.4 5Q.8 43.6 41.5 41 52.6 48.9 52.7 54.2 54.6
03/06/2007 63.4 44.5 33.2 45.6 NA 48.3 33.7 52.9 54.5 59.9
03/07/2007 64.1 49.8 33.3 45.1 37 49.7 50.5 5Q.7 55 55.9
03/08/2007 65.4 52.5 46.5 48.7 41.6 47.7 43.1 49.9 54 57:8
03/09i2007 67.4 54.2 512 53.9 45.4 59.7 57.3 45.9 41 NA
03/10/2007 66.2 46.1 47.8 50 43.2 56.8 55.2 26.8 40.2 NA
03/11/2007 66.4 45 42.7 52.9 44.6 58.5 49.5 55.6 55.1 56.7
03/12/2007 68.8 54.3 55.8 57.2 58.3 62 55.8 52.3 49 NA
03/13/2007 69.9 52.3 52.4 55 56.3 63.3 60.5 42 42.7 NA
03/14/2007 68.6 5Q.9 46.3 53 57.6 58.3 56.6 55.7 55.6 37.9
03/15/2007 65.1 492 38.3 4$.9 43.4 55.9 54.3 53.8 53.7 55.1
03/16/2007 54.9 37.6 38.7 29.1 39.4 53.8 56.3 NA NA NA
03i17/2007 65.9 50.6 37 50.3 43.7 56 47.2 55.9 56.9 55.4
03/18i2007 65.8 51.7 46.6 48.4 42.4 52.2 39.4 55.5 58.5 59.5
03119/2007 52.4 39.4 NA NA 35.7 53.8 56.3 NA NA 37.2
03/20/2007 68.6 56.9 47.1 49.6 42.2 51.3 37.3 53.8 58.6 60.9
03/21 /2007 63.8 52.2 43.8 48.5 43.1 51.5 46 47.8 51.7 59
03/22J2007 68 54.2 45.5 50.4 4G.3 5G.6 54.3 53.8 57.1 60.7
03/23I2007 67.4 49.7 36.3 54.8 44.1 53.8 53.1 55.5 59.7 56.7
03/24/2007 62.1 55.8 38.9 43.8 30.5 50.6 43.4 50.4 52 55.2
03/25/2007 66 52.8 44.4 52.7 45.6 59.1 53.9 51.9 51.8 55.4
03/26/2007 65.6 48.7 42.8 55 45.6 56.5 56 53.5 55.2 56.4
03/27/2007 50.9 NA NA 35 39 51.3 51.4 32 39.7 45.8
03/28/2007 70.4 56.2 52.7 46.8 40.2 53.5 44.3 55.1 59 57.1
03/29/2007 69.1 48.7 44.4 48.6 49.6 56.1 52.3 55.8 58 59.8
03/30/2007 65.9 42.3 35.1 46.9 43.8 51.6 45.8 52.3 53.4 60.1
03/31/2007 62.8 45.3 34.5 46.8 NA 43 36 47.8 49.8 46.8
;:: , ,,
�
Mo DNL 65 8 51 46 7: 50 5 48 7 55 9 53:'� 52 54 2; 55 8
,.:. : . . . ..
, .: . , ; . : .., � : ., ., _ ...
Report Generated: 04/09/2007 14:45
-35-
C�
�
�
42
� -. n � � . `'� ' t .w .�. ,� :� h�:u.:
A _ � i i.� +{•i
Y } �' Y
� �F' r I c S� �I � � � � �, � r . C, � I .I a
A weekly update on lifigation, regulations, and technotogical developments
Volumel9,Numberll April 6, 2Q07
Noise Metrics
-,- i '� �' 1 ! , i: . ,
� ' � � � •;�'_
Attorneys are expected to embrace the idea of drawing contour lines around
airports to depict the effects of aircraft noise (such as annoyance, sleep disrup-
tion, speech interFerence, decreased learning in schools, and rattle) because it
presents noise data in a way easily understood by judges and juries and avoids
the pitfall of directly attacking DNL (Day-Night Average Noise Level), the Federal
Aviation Administration's standard noise metric.
Noise-effects contours "will simplify enormously the effort we have made in
many cases to humanize the data on noise impact so that a judge or jury can
understand what we mean," Peter Kirsch of the Denver-based law firm Kaplan
Kirsch & Rockweil, told ANR. "I fully expect that we will use [effects-contours] in
litigation in an attempt to show the reai noise impact "
Effects-based contours also will be used by attorneys and consultants to help
local officiats set their own thresholds of significant noise impact that reflect the
concerns and standards of a particular community, Kirsch predicted.
He recently moderated a session on supplemental noise metrics at the annual
University of California Symposium on Aviation Noise and Air Quality, where
Mary Ellen Eagan, president ofthe acoustical consulting firm Harris Miller Miller
& Hanson Inc., discussed her proposal to present noise contours based on noise
effects instead of noise levels, a new idea in the United States (10 ANR 9).
Provides Frame ofReference
Rather than drawing contour lines around airports to depict noise levels ex-
pressed in various noise metrics, as is typically done, Eagan has proposed that
contour lines be used to graphically represent the extent of the most common
effects of aircraft noise. People have no frame of reference for understanding
contours based on noise levels but can intuitively understand effects-based
contours, she contends.
Effects-based contours would depict points such as where 10, 20, or 30 percent
of the population is expected to be highly annoyed by aircraft noise; where 50,
100, or 150 speech disruptions are expected to occur in a given period; or where
the chance of being awakened at night is 20, 30, or 40 percent.
The contours showing these levels of effects can be color coded and presented
separately on maps or superimposed over each other.
Such contour lines would extend far beyond the 65 DNL line which is the point
FAA uses to determine residential compatibility with airports and to fund noise
mitigation projects and would clearly show that noise impacts do not stop at that
line.
Contours can be drawn in terms of effects, Eagan contends, because well-
documented close relationships exist between various supplemental metrics and
certain noise effects. DNL relates closely to the percentage of the population
(Continued on p. A3)
IIZ �'IZZS �SSI�'L'...
Noise Metrics ... This special
issue oft�NR examines what
some view as the strengths and
theweaknesses ofaproposalby
Mary Ellen Eagan, president of
HMiV�-I Inc., to draw contour
lines around airports to depicfithe
most common effects of aircraft
noise, ratherthan noise levels.
It's a new idea in the United
States and attorney Peter Kirsch
predicts itwillbee�ctremelyuseful
in courtand in setting local
thresholds ofsignificantnoise
impact.
But Australia's experience with
efFects-based contours did not go
well, an Australian government
aviation official warns -p. 42
... Wyle Laboratories argues in
a Noise B ulletin that using effects-
based contours can be misleading
becausetheyrelyon averaged
research data, which may vary
considerably frorn the actual
effects of aircraft noise found in
any one community - p. 44
... But Eagan defends the use of
effects-basedcontours, asserting
, thattheyprovideasorely-needed
frame ofreference far communi-
ties to understand how noise
affectstheirdailylife. Peopleare
not concerned about noise levels
per se but about how noise '
affects them, she contends - p. 45
} .
ri16. 2007 43
highly annoyed by noise; the number of events above 75
dBA (N75) relates well to speech interference; an eight-hour
equivalent noise level (Leq (8)) relates to learning, etc.
Eagan's proposa( has been well-received at professional
meetings but is not without its critics, who contend it
oversirnplifies data and can be misleading. Kirsch, however,
is an enthusiasric supporter.
Avoids Criticism of DNL
"The elegance of her approach is that it addresses head
on the criticisms of DNL without attacking DNL," Kirsch
said.
"Eagan is not saying DNL is a bad metric. She is sayin$ it
is a tenific metric but it doesn't go far enough." Her
approach avoids the need to criticize DNL, "which is a very,
very dicey area, given its acceptance in the industry," the
attorney said.
Eagan's approach also does not require that FAA
abandon DNL, he said, and in that regard it provides a very
interesting solution to the criticism of the metric, which is a
complex averaging of noise data that often confuses the
pubiic.
FAA has for a long time had guidance that recommends
the use of supplemental metrics, which are standard now in
environmental impact statements and Part 150 airport noise
compatibility studies, I�irsch said. The problem is that there
are no national threshoids of significance for applying
supplemental noise metrics. Using Eagan's approach gets
the FAA out of that bind because local thresholds of
significance would be used.
Loca1 Thresholds ofImpact
Eagan's approach, he said, can be adapted to local
situations and allow local officials to set their own thresh-
olds of significance for various issues: where schools and
residential development are compatible with the airport, the
extent of sleep and speech disruption or annoyance that is
acceptable to the community, etc.
"DNL is one size fits all," Kirsch told ANR. Eagan's
approach is the antithesis of that. It ailows communities to
select the contours where they think noise impacts are
significant enough to warrant action by the local govern-
ment. Noise impact thresholds can be tailored to a commu-
nity.
`Fhe attorney said he hopes the FAA is not concerned
about Eagan's approach because it does not undermine
DNL. FAA could, however, establish criteria that local
o�cials could follow in setting their own local thresholds
for noise impact, he said. Such FAA criteria would say that,
if Eagan's approach is used, then the following steps need
to be taken to determine community noise acceptance
thresholds, Kirsch explained.
"Mary Ellen's work is trailblazing in its simplicity," Kirsch
told ANR. It opens the door to using established methodol-
ogy and metrics but locat thresholds.
Criticism ofApproach
But others are critical of her proposal.
At the UC air and noise symposium, David Southgate,
director oiAviation Environmental Policy in the Australian
Government Department of Transport and Regional Services,
asserted that noise data should be presented to communities
only in terrns of objective measures, such as number of
operations above a certain noise level.
"I fully support Mary Ellen's aim, which is to help people
get a better appreciation of noise exposure patterns than can
be portrayed by DNL contours," Southgate told ANR.. Sut he
said that when an effects-based approach was used in
Australia to describe the noise impact that would occur from
a third runway at Sydney International Airport in the early
1990s, "it was the underlying cause for much of the strident
accusations of the public that they had been `lied to' and
`deliberately misled' as to the noise impacts of the new
runway in order to get the project approved."
The lack of clarity in the terms "sleep disruption," "speech
disruption," and "annoyance," has a high potential to lead
people to claim they have been misled, he said.
"The term `disruption' is a subjective and non-transparent
term in which the expert takes control and decides what is or
is not a disruption. Our experience strongly indicates that it is
much more transparent, and much less likely to be misinter-
preted, if we say there are x events per day louder than 70
dB(A). Our explanatory material provides advice on the
meaning of 70 dB(A)."
Wyle Bulletin
Following the UC symposium, Jawad Rachami, Wyle
Laboratories' Aviation Program manager, authored a Wyle
Noise Bulletin that also addressed what he views as prob-
lems with effects-based contours.
He wrote: "Effects-based metrics — related to annoyance,
speech interference, sleep disturbance, etc. — introduce new
local variables, such as windows open/closed for speech
interference and sieep disturbance. Furthermore, the mea-
surement of annoyance, an important effect of aircraft noise
on residential communities, is an average of surveyed data
points, which may vary considerably with the actual effects
that wouid be found locally. Besides, it will always be
difficult to convince a community that their `level of annoy-
ance' is something that `can be measured'."
The Wyle Noise Bulletin is included below as is Eagan's
response to it, in which she defends her approach.
"How," she asks, "is presenting time-above a decibel level,
number of events above a decibel level, average hourly
decibel level, or some other pure noise-based descriptor more
valuable to residents, unless they have a basis for under-
standing how those levels might affect their day-to-day life?
Should we avoid helping residents to interpret decibels
because we do not know each individual's personal sensitiv-
ity? Almost every major public policy decision involves use
of statistical analyses to estimate overall benefits and costs
for a population rnade up of very different individuals."
Airport Noise Report
C
6, 2007
Bill Albee, director of Special Projects for Wyle, said he
shares the goal of helping local officials look beyond the 65
DNL contour in terms of noise impacts and to set local
standards of significant noise impact.
Wyle has already assisted several airports and communities
in doing just that and summarizes 15 of these projects in a
new Wy1e Noise Bulletin pubiished this week (http://
vwvw.wylelabs.com/serviceslarc/documenttibrary/
featuredproj ects/sa).
Albee believes it is batter to define thresholds of local
noise impact in terms of objective data, such as numbers
above or time above a certain noise threshold.
But he concedes that the thresholds chosen by local
officials are based on the effects data that Eagan advocates
using directly.
Wyle Bulletin by Jawad Rachami
"CuttingthroughtheFog: Why Words Won'tFix It"
The air transportation market is entering a new era featur-
ing the introduction of new vehicles (i.e., UAVs, VLJs) into
the skies, the expansion of gioba] trade regimes, the integra-
tion of advanced information technologies into the NAS,
and the implementation of new financial and operational
models by air carriers. It is a market that is increasingiy
shaped by the consumer and one where the demand for air
travel is expected to double in the next two decades. In fact,
the FAA predicts passenger enplanements at U.S. airports to
exceed 1 biliion by 2015 and the Joint Planning & Develop-
ment O�ce (JPDO) is planning for a tripling (3X) ofthe
existing system capacity by 2025.
Yet, environmental concerns (i.e. noise) continue to be the
biggest impediment to public acceptance of the expansion
projects needed to respond to the forecast growth in the
demand for air travel.
1'he use of alternative (supplemental) metrics to describe
the airport noise environment represents a recent atternpt at
simplifying the discussion of airport noise, and improving
communication on this technical matter with the community.
Based on community feedback from several recent Wyle
projects at Boston-Logan, Los Angeles International, St.
Petersburg-Clearwater, Toronto-Pearson, and Vancouver
Internationai, alternative noise analyses at those airports
have, indeed, helped improve public understanding of
airport noise exposure. In addition, such metrics were
valuable to the pmcess of assessing the reiative benefits of
various operationai alternatives, hence, helping airports and
communities identify effective abatement measures.
Airports were not the only ones to notice such benefits.
The Department of Defense (DoD) tasked Wyle to conduct a
comprehensive survey of supplemental metrics and prepare
a"Guide to Using Supplemental Metrics" to help DoD
officials determine which effects-based metrics would best
communicate noise exposure to the community.
However, in the pursuit of simplicity, although a worth-
while goal, there is a risk of achieving just the opposite,
44
particularly when all problem-source issues are not carefully
considered. Effects-based metrics — related to annoyance,
speech interference, sleep disturbance, etc. — introduce new
local variables, such as windows-open/windows-closed for
speech interference and sleep disturbance.
Furthermore, the measurement of annoyance, an important
effect of aircraft noise on residential communities, is an
average of surveyed data points, which may vary consider-
ably with the actual effects that would be found locaily.
Besides, it will always be difficult to convince a community
that their "level of annoyance" is something that "can be
measured: ' One also ponders the impact of breaking a singie
standard ofeligibility for noise mitigation (DNL 65 or CNEL
65) into several subsets that may risk the feasibility of
program implementation all together.
There is, in fact, a communication gap created by federaily-
mandated metrics that complicates the ability of airports to
achieve common ground with communities on noise
exposure and its effects. This is mainly due to the mismatch
that exists between the perceived experience of the commu-
nity and the modeled average noise exposure (DNL or CNEL)
produced for Part 150 Noise Compatibility Programs. This
communication deficit is far from being the only problem.
One truism to also consider is that standard guidelines aim
for clarity on eligibility for noise mitigation, because airport
noise rnitigation actions continue to largely rely on federally-
apportioned funds.
Although it is important to enhance community under-
standing of noise exposure through effects-based metrics, it
is also important to be aware of the complexity that those
metrics may introduce to ongoing federal and local planning
and rnitigation progr-ams. This will be a difficult challenge to
overcome so long as Federal programs are used as the main
and only driver for local airport noise management and land-
use planning.
That is why innovative local approaches shouId be central
to new efforts aiming to produce truly sustainable solutions
ta airport expansion projects. Such approaches should, for
instance, include, where feasible, the leveraging of local
economic incentives such as community development
projects (i.e., building social capacity through investment
programs or user-fee-based services (i.e., toll roads, parking,
county/city/State service fees, etc.) to bring impacted
neighborhoods to the table in order to reach a negotiated
local solution. From a consultant's standpoint, we must
continue to develop tools that effectively analyze system
interdependencies and tradeoffs in order to develop reliable
and comprehensive information for stakeholders to reach an
agreement on future development.
In short, there is no silver-bullet solution to the challenge
we face, but we do know that we can either try to manage it
with words and slogans or invest in achieving the hard
compromises that are needed through a system of smart
giobaUnational policy and better technology wrapped
around effective conflict resolution rnechanisms and
9nnovative local planning and decision-making. I sure hope
we do the latter.
Airport Noise Report
Apri16, 2007 45
• �) � , � � �%�' I 1
JohnJ. Corbett,Esq.
Spiege( & McDiarmid
Washington, DC
Carl E. Burleson
Director, Office of Environment and Energy
Federal Aviation Administration
John C. Freytag, P.E.
Director, Chazles M. 5alter Associates
San Francisco
Michael Scott Gatzke, Esq.
Gatzke, Dillon & Ballance
Carlsbad, CA
Peter J. Kirsch, Esq.
Kaplan, Kirsch & Rockwell LLP
Denver
Vincent E. Mestre, P.E.
President, Mestre Greve Associates
Laguna Niguel, CA
Steven F. Pflaum, Esg.
McDermott, Will & Emery
Chicago
Mary L. Vigilante
President, Synergy Consultants
Seattle
Eagan's Response to Wyle Bulletin
"Cutting through the BS: Why Words Alone Won't Fix It,
But We Need to at Least Be Speaking t6e Same Language"
Mr. Rachami's recent posting on the Wyle listserve includes a not-so-veiled
criticism of the efFects-mapping that I and other HMME-I'ers have proposed at
several conferences and in a recent TRB paper (TRB's Research Record. It is
available on HMMH's website at: http://www.hmmh.com/presentations.html.
Put simpiy, I believe that discussion of aircraft noise needs to be conducted
in a language that people — airport staff, decision-makers, the community, and
judges — can understand. I fully support the use of "supplemental" noise
rnetrics (which HMMI-I has used in virtually every airport noise study we
have conducted since 1981), and encourage the move toward transparency
Dave Southgate has advocated for some years (see http://www.dotars.gov/
au/aviation/environmentaUtransparent%SFnoisen. Yet even with these newer
tools, we still have trouble engaging in constructive discussions about airport
noise, decision-makers struggle with longer documents that are often no less
obfuscating than previous versions, and airport capacity continues to be
constrained.
I believe that people, both citizens and decision-makers, are not concerned
by the decibel value of any given noise event. What they are concerned
about is how noise affects them as individuals or affects the public they are
serving — whether it is annoyance, speech interference, sleep disruption,
Iearning, rattle — and T think one way to present noise is by effects-mapping.
Yes, these maps rely on a�erage response, and we must be careful to point
out that any individual might be more or less affected than the average. These
effects are supported by decades of research. And yes, the analysis should
be tailored to reflect local conditions (i.e., outdoor-indoor noise level reduc-
tions) — any good study would do this.
EfFects-mapping may, however, offer an opportunity for people to draw their
own conclusions about how noise might affect them —either before they buy a
new house, before they approve construction of a new runway, or before the}�
engage a lawyer.
How is presenting time-above a decibel level, number of events above a
decibel level, average hourly decibel level, or some other pure noise-based
descriptor more valuable to residents, unless they have a basis for under-
standing how those leveis might affect their day-to-day life? Should we avoid
helping residents to interpret decibels because we do not know each
individual's personal sensitivity? Almost every major public policy decision
involves use of statistical analyses to estimate overall benefits and costs for a
population made up of very different individuals.
HMMH believes that innovative approaches — such as effects-mapping and
virlual soundscapes (see: http://www.hmmh.com/
soundscape_02sbuilder.html) — can begin a dialogue with people on their own
terms. We welcome your feedback.
A�RPORT NOISE REPORT
Anne H. Kohut, Publisher
Published 44 times ayear at43978 UrbancrestCt., Ashburn, Va. 20147; Phone: (703) 729-4867; FAX: (703) 729-4528.
e-mail: editor@airportnoisereport.com; Price $850.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients,
is granted by Airport Noise Report, provided that the base fee of US$1.03 per page per copy
is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. USA.
46
�_ � ,`; ,• '"", ,. '�' ..; , • -
- - >.�:°,
A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments
Volumel9,Numberi2 Apri113, 2007
Sansas City Int'l
�. �• � � . . � , .
; i � �; i � , �. � � . �
In what is believed to be precedent-setting action, a local land use plan will be
prepared in conjunction with updates of the Master P3an and Part 150 noise
compatibility program at Kansas City International Airport (KCI) in an effort, in
part, to block residential encroachment around the airport.
"Kansas City is making history with these three studies happening at the sarne
time because this is the first time anywhere that an Airport Master Plan and Noise
Compatibility Study ha�e ever been combined with a generai land use plan for the
surrounding area," said Mark VanLoh, director of Aviation for the Kansas City
Aviation Deparhnent.
"The Master Plan and the Noise Study are regularly required of airports by the
Federal Aviation Adminisiration, and Kansas City is in a unique position because
we are also exploring opportunities for community and economic development of
the IargerKCI area."
The city has contracted with the aviation consulting firm Landrum & Brown
(L&B) to conduct all three studies. L&B will work with the City Planning and
Development Department on the general land use plan.
(Continued on p. 47)
NoiseMeasurefnent
__
' • `f t 1 • • fi �
: .� : � : �. �. r: i -
Environmental documents on airport expansion projects routinely include
estimates of predicted noise impact and the community's expected reaction to it
but they do not disclose to the public the many uncertainties in the data on which
such predictions are based, two noted acousticians explained in a paper reported
in the most recent issue of "Noise Control Engineering Journal."
To avoid misleading those who read these environmental irnpact disclosure
documents, the degree of precision of estimates of both noise impact and commu-
nity response to it should be included, said Sanford Fidell of Fidell Associates in
Woodland Hills, CA, and Paul Schomer of Schomer and Associates, Inc., in
Champaign, IL,.
"Noise contours are not engraved on the earth with infinite precision by God's
own hand but are, at best, expedient estimates based on many assumptions of
convenience," Fidell told ANR, "VJhen used to infer cornmunity reaction to
aircraft noise, the many uncertainties of noise measurements and predictions are
compounded by further errors of prediction that are inherent in dosage-effect
analyses."
"Aircraft noise contours are much more reasonably depicted in shades of gray
than as misleading precise lines on a map. The uncertainties of noise impact
(Continued on p. 47)
In This Is�ue...
Sansas City Int't ... Airport
officials saytheyaremaking
'� historybybeingthefirstplacein
� the couniry to develop a compre-
� hensivelocallanduseplanin
' conjunctionwithupdatesofthe
airport's master plan and Part 150'
noise mitigation program - p. 46
Noise Measurement ...The
uncertainty inherent in noise
measurementandmodelingand in
estimatingcommunityresponseto
noise is addressed in a paper by
notedacousticians SandyFidell
andPaul Schomer.
Environmental documents
should disclose the degree of
precision ofthese estimates in
orderto avoidmisleadingthe
public, they assert - p. 46
Legislation ... Identical bills
introduced by CaliforniaDemo-
crats in House and Senate would
permit release of $110 million to
insulate schools nearLosAngeles
Int'1 Airport - p. 48
Louisville Int'l ... FA.A
awards $10 millionAIP grantto
airportto help relocate 56 families
inhighnoise contourto lessnoisy
E:�iC�%��
FAA. is expected to announce
moreAlP noise grantsto airports
on its web site soon - p. 49
2007
In addition to being integrated with the Master Plan and
Part 150 update, the KCIA Area Plan (as it is called) also
must include individual infrastructure plans for street
construction and stormwater management. "These plans
must be adapted to work together, resulting in a single,
coordinated plan for the area," the airport said.
The goals for the KCIA Area Plan are:
* To create a vision for the future development of the
airport area;
* To build consensus among stakeholders;
* To develop a strategy "to create a thriving, sustainable
and desirable community, which addresses land use, zoning,
area identity, urban design, transportation, capital improve-
ments, public safety, and health and vitality ofthe neighbor-
hood"; and
* To recognize and protect the character of the Kansas
City Airport Area.
Planning the Way It Ought To Be IDone
Kansas City International presents an opportunity to do
land use planning the way it ought to be done because the
land sunounding the airport is largely undeveloped, said
Jon Woodward, execurive vice president of the Environmen-
tal Division of Landrum & Brown.
"The area around the airport is like Dallas [Internationai
Airport] was 30 years ago. It's almost vacant," he explained,
adding, the KCLA Area Plan will consider infrastructure
development in a 100 square-mile area.
In terms of residential development, the ciry and airport do
not want homes to encroach beyond the geographic point
where they currently are limited: the 60 DNL contour line
based on old noise maps that estimated the worst case
scenario in terms of noise impact.
The airport has in place a policy that strongly discourages
residentiai development within the 60 DNL contour based
on 1998 worst-case noise maps that still included noisy
Stage 2 platies.
The problem is that updated noise maps, to be put on the
airport's web site next week, will show a 50 percent decrease
in the size of the 60 DNL contour, Woodward said. Fortu-
nately, he added, the airport and/or city owns about 95
percent of the land around the airport.
The airport is located about 15-20 miles from the city
center and is not experiencing any operational delays.
However, the population of the area is expected to double in
the ne�ct 20 years. Currently, the airport only gets 10-12
noise complaints per year, Woodward said.
He expects the Part 150 update to be finished next winter
and the area plan and Master Plan to be done next spring.
On April 10, the Kansas CiTy Aviation Department held the
first open house on the three studies to explain them to the
public. "An important factor that makes these studies carry
impact is the sheer siza of the land we're talking about," said
Wayne Cauthen, city manager. "The KCI Airport planning
area is the city's largest, and comprises one-third of all land
in Kansas City North and approximately 17 percent of all
land citywide. °
47 •
Uncertainty, from p. 46
predictions shouid be frankly acknowledgad by inciuding
error bounds in all statements about predicted noise im-
pacts," he said.
Fidell and Schomer contended in their paper that it would
aid in the interpretation data on noise impact and cornmunity
reaction "if they were accompanied by an indication of their
uncertainty and of the confidence that they merit."
For instance, they said, "one might state that the estimated
65 dB DNL contour predicts that 12 percent of a community
will be highly annoyed by aircraft noise, with a 95 percent
prediction interval that ranges from less than 2 percent to 50
percent."
Fidell told ANR that this statement "means that although
FICON's dosage-effect curve predicts that exactly 12.3
percent of a community's population will be highly annoyed
by 65 dB of noise exposure as measured by DNL, the actual
percentages of highly annoyed respondents in 95 percent of
samples drawn from households in such neighborhoods
have ranged from 2 percent to 50 percent."
Put another way, he said, "FICON's prediction is a highly
imprecise and unreliable one when interpreted as a prediction
of any given community's reaction to aircraft noise expo-
sure."
FICON is the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise.
Conventional Wisdom Questioned
It� their paper, Fidell and Schomer present data which they
say contradicts the "conventionai wisdom" that:
� Source classification errors are negligible in routine,
unattended monitoring of aircraft noise;
• Software-based estimates of aircraft noise exposure
are of comparable accuracy and precision to field measure-
ments;
• Measures of community response to aircrai� noise
are more "subjective" and hence, inherently less precise than
estimates of aircraft noise exposure per se; and
• Regulatory criteria may nevertheless be interpreted
"as though they were simple engineering calculations of
unlimited precision."
Miscalculation of noise sources "can be a non-trivial
source of error" in unattended monitoring of aircraft noise
exposure, they said, presenting data indicating that a noise
monitoring system mistakeniy attributed the noise of some
aircraft events to community sources.
"Neither vendors nor purchasers of airport noise monitor-
ing systems typically have strong incentives to conduct
costly or rigorous examinations of the classification perfor-
mance of such systems, especiaily for the purpose of
estimating the community noise component. Their perfor-
mance is therefore poorly documented in the open literature
and worthy of careful scrutiny, especially at high ambient
noise monitoring sites, at sites distant from flight tracks, and
along runway sidelines," Fidell and Schomer said.
Regarding the accuracy of noise modeling, they said that
the noise-power-distance relationships and the long-range
Airport Noise Report
C.
C,
13, 2007
acoustic propagation algorithms contained in aircraft noise
exposure prediction models, such as the Integrated Noise
Model (INM) and NUISEMAP, "are heir to a variety of errors
of ineasurement and estimation."
The Federal Aviation Administration has never published
"a definitive analysis" of the accuracy and precision of its
INM, they noted, adding that partial analyses done by some
noise experts outside the agency "are not particularly
reassuring"
For instance, a report examining the accuracy of the INM
done for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) in 2000 found that errors on the order of 3-4 dB or
more in software-based predictions of noise exposure values
are likely, especially at long ranges and small angies of
incidence.
The information fed into noise models, such as fleet mix,
flight paths and profiles, and other operational data, also is a
source of prediction error, they said. "In many cases, an
`annual average day' (that is, a day on which all of an
airport's many operational parameters simultaneously
assume their annual average values) may be little more than
a convenient fiction that is atypical of arry actual day's
operations, much ]ess of seasonat conditions."
Fidell and Schomer present data in their paper comparing
two years of DNL levels, as measured at 29 locations of a
major (unidentified) airport's aircraft noise monitoring
system, with spot predictions made by INM of DNL values
at the same locations.
"The predictions are the end product of considerable effort
to minimize differences between predicted and empirically
measured estimates of aircraft noise exposure leveis. These
include multiple refinements of fight tracks and flight path
assumptions based on intensive analyses of radar returns,
and repeated calculations of predicted DNL values for
comparison with measured values.
"Despite these costly efforts to reconcile predictions with
measurements by adopting variant modeling assumptions,
the standard deviation of the differences between monitored
and predicted leveis is about 2.3 dB, implying a range for 95
percent of the differences between monitored and predicted
values of about plus or minus 4 dB.
•"It is unlikely that agreements between measured and
modeled noise exposure is appreciable better at most
airports, particularly for monitoring systems with multiple
sideline and/or distant noise monitoring sites," Fidell and
Schomer said.
Community Response to Naise
They also asserted that "uncritical reliance on dosage-
effect relationships that attempt to predict community
reaction to aircraft noise exclusively from estimated noise
exposure levels can lead to substantial enors of prediction."
They point to the opening of a new runway at Vancouver
International Airpor�t as an illustration of this problem. A
community in line with the new runway was expected to be
exposed to an increase in approach noise of 7 dB DNL (from
4$
54 dB DNL to 61 dB DNL).
Dose-response relationships on annoyance developed by
the Federal Interagency Committee onNoise (FICON),
predicted such an increase would increase the percentage of
the community highly annoyed by noise by 4.5 percent (from
2.9 percent highly annoyed at 54 dB DNL to '1.4 percent
highiy annoyed at 61 dB DNL).
However, Fidell and Schomer wrote, "the actual prevatence
rate of annoyance in the community increased nearly
fivefold, from 11 percent (15 months prior to the opening of
the runway) to 52 percent (21 months after the start of
operations on the runway:'
"Such a change in noise exposure at an American airport
would have been characterized by FAA's standard interpre-
tive criteria as insignificant because the cumulative noise
exposure in this instance did not exceed 65 dB DNL. The
change in noise exposure would thus have escaped prospec-
tive analysis under FAA's implementing regulations for the
U.S. National Environmental Pol icy Act (NEPA)."
The paper, "Uncertainties in measuring aircraft noise and
predicting community response to it," is reporied in the
January -February 2007 issue ofNoise Controi Engineering
Journal published by the Institute of Noise Control Engi-
neering.
Legislation
:i � 1 1
�, ,�; . � . � .
Legislation introduced simultaneously in the House and
Senate on March 27 would permit the release of $110 million
to insulate schools in the Los Angeles Lennox School
District that are impacted by noise from Los Angeles
International Airport.
The bills (H.R. ]'708 and S. 996) were introduced by Rep.
Jane Harmon, Rep. Maxine Waters, Sen. Dianne Feinstein,
and Sen. Barbara Boxer, all Democrats.
In 1980, the Lennox School District and the City of Los
Angeles settled a lawsuit regarding flight paths over the
schools. Under the agreement, Lennox gave the City of Los
Angeles an easement that allowed aircraft canying up to 40
million passengers per year to fly overhead. In return, the
City ofLos Angeles paid Lennox approximately $2.5 million.
But, due to increases in air traffic and noise at LAX in the
years following that settlement, the school district filed
another lawsuit recently, which was settled in 2005. Under
that settlement agreement, Los Angeles World Airports
(LAWA) agreed to pay the school disirict $110 million in
airport funds for noise mitigation.
However, in interpreting the original 1980 agreement, the
Federal Aviation Administration determined that the money
could oniy be released through legislative means, which the
bills just introduced are meant to provide.
They would expand Passenger Facility Charge (PFC)
eligibility to include the Lennox School District sound
insulation project.
Airport Noise Report
Apri113,2007 .__ _ 49 _
. � � �� •�I
. � � � , ;�. �;�
John J. Corbett, Esq.
Spiege( & McDiarmid
Washington, DC
Carl E. Burleson
Director, Office of Environment and Energy
Federal Aviation Administration
John C. Freytag, P.E.
Director, Charles M. 3alter Associates
San Francisco
Michael Scott Gatzke, Esq.
Gatzke, Diilon & Ballance
Cazlsbad, CA
Petcr J. Kirsch, Esq.
Kaplan, Kirsch & Rockwell LLP
Denver
Vincent �. Mestre, P.E.
President, Mestre Greve Associates
Laguna Niguel, CA
Steven F. Pflaum, Esq.
McDermott, Will & Emery
Chicago
Mary L. Vigilante
President, Synergy Consu(tants
Seattle
"Lennox students are essentially attending class on an airport runway and
that is no way for a child to learn," said Sen. Harman. "These funds are
essential. They will be used to help replace mobile units with permanent
soundproofed facilities and to soundproof other, existing buildings. Our
legislation will right a wrong and give Lennox kids a quiet environment that
better promotes a quality education."
Said Sen. Feinstein: "Currently, an airplane flies a few hundred feet above
the Lennox and Inglewood schools about every three minutes. The noise is
deafening. It rattles windows, disrupts lessons, and makes it very difficult for
these students to learn."
Feinstein said her legislation "offers a straightforward solution to an
untenable problem: '
Louisville Int'l
. ',' � r . ' '�
� � i � .'
The Federal Aviation Administration recently awarded a$10 million Airport
Improvement Program grant to Louisville Intemationai Airport to help
relocate 56 families from a high noise contour near the airport to less noisy
areas.
The grant is part of an ongoing r.esidential relocation program at the airport
that began in 1994 with 2,159 homes. To date, all but 166 families in five
neighborhoods south of Louisville International have been relocated.
The airport pays for the cost of a comparable home (most are in the $70,000
to $150,000 range) plus moving costs and other costs associated with
purchasing a new home.
The families being relocated can either find a new home on their own or can
move into Heritage Creek, a development created by the airport authority.
Some 400 homeowners have opted to move to that development, which was
created to accommodate expansion of the airport and try to keep the relocated
neighborhoods intact.
In 1988, almost 1,600 families had to be moved under a mandatory relocation
program. The current program is voluntary.
"This $10 million wiil voluntarily relocate half ofthe remaining eligible and
interested families from the most noise-impacted areas around Louisvilie
Inteznational Airport, clearly moving the relocation process closer to compie-
tion," said J.D. Nichols, chairman of the Louisville Regional Airport Authority
Board.
Because Congress did not pass the fisca12007 appropriation for FAA until
well into the fiscal year, AtP grants are just now being announced. The FAA.
expects within the next few weeks to update it website with AIP grant data,
which includes funding of noise mitigation projects.
AIRPORT NOISE REPORT
Anne H. Kohut, Publisher
Published 44 times ayear at439'78 UrbancrestCt., Ashburn, Va. 20147; Phone: (703) 729-4867; FAX: (703) 729-4528.
e-mail: editor@airportnoisereport.com; Price$850.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personai 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 01923. USA.
��
;
50
.., .� E ' �, '�� it 't , ( �r + i,t ��. : � Y, r t .:k'm.
� n,�� ��.. C.a r�' >- d; �+ 4� +0
�y ;'+:
A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments
Votume 19, Number 13 April 20, 2007
Sale of Land
� . . �, .. � ; ;.
�,. ,, � � � � . . � .
In 2005, the Office of the Inspector General of the Federal Aviation Administra-
tion issued an audit report critical of the agency's management of the disposition
of land that airports have acquired under noise compatibility programs with
Airport ImprovementProgram (AIP) funds.
That audit report appears to be the basis for a provision in the Bush
Administration's FAA reauthorization proposal that clarifies and expands how the
proceeds of the government's share of the proceeds of such land sales shouid be
used.
As a condition of accepting AIP grants, airports agree to dispose of land that
was acquired for noise compatibiliTy purposes but is no longer needed for that
purpose. Current law, in the form of a grant assurance, requires that the proceeds
proportional to the government's share of the land acquisition (typically 80-90
percent) be used to fund other noise mitigation projects or to be returned to the
Airport and Airway Trust Fund.
The Bush Administration's FAA reauthorization proposal, currently under
consideration by Congress, would revise the law to expand the uses of the
(Continued on p. SI)
Naval Air Station Key West
. • � � ��11 . ����, .
� r , � � � � � � � ; �'
The U.S. Navy is considering whether to ask the State of Florida to override a
decision by the Monroe Couniy, FL, Pianning Commission approving a luxury
resort and marina project that falls within the high noise zone around Naval Air
Station Key West, a busy military jet training facility.
On April 18, the commission approved the project, called King's Pointe Marina,
despite a request by the Navy that the vote be postponed in order to discuss the
noise issue. Planning Commission Chairman Jim Cameron said that a decision on
the project was needed on that day and could not ba delayed.
The Navy strongly opposes the project because it would be located in the 75 dB
DNL contour on noise maps included in a 2004 update of the Air Installation
Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) program for the base. The AICUZ pmgram
defines areas where residential development would be incompatible with base
operations due to high noise impact or safety concerns.
Monroe County, however, is still relying on 1977 noise maps, included in the
original AICUZ prograrn for the base, to make land use decisions. The 1977 noise
maps indicate that the King's Pointe Marina project would in an area compatible
with residential development. However, the project falls within the area of incom-
patible residential use on updated 2004 noise maps, and on soon-to-be-released
2007 noise maps.
(Continued on p. SI)
�li T'Yals ISSUL's.•
Sale of Noise Land ... An
audit done in 2005 by the FAA
Inspector General appears to be
the basis foraprovision inthe
FAA reauthorization bil l that
would expand and clarify how
airports can use the government's
share ofthe proceeds ofthe sale
ofland acquired for noise com-
patibility -p. 50
Naval Air Station Sey West
... TheNavy is considering
whether to askthe State of
Floridato overturn Monroe
County's approval ofa luxury
resort andmarina inthehigh noise
contour of the base - p. 50
Spirit of St. Louis ... FAA
approves r�ost ofproposed naise
mitigation measures in airport's
Part 150 program; rejects a
runway extension -p. 52
News Brrefs ... Alexandria
(LA) International Airport Part
150 program underFAA review
... FA.A reauthorization bills
expected to go to floor of House,
Senate by June ... LAX residential
soundproofmg contracts awarded
to two firms ... Era Corp. names '
newvicepresidentforairports '
group ... Environznental Science ,
Associates opens new o�ce in
Northern San Diego - p. 53
April 20, 2007 51
government's share of the sale of land acquired for noise
compatibility, giving priority, in descending order, to the
following: (1) reinvestment in another noise compatibility
program at the airport; (2) reinvestment in another environ-
mentally-related project at the airport; (3) reinvestment in an
otherwise eligible AIP project at the airport; (4) transfer to
another public airport for a noise compatibility project; and
(5) payment to the Trust Fund.
AuditReport
The audit report, "Audit of the Management of Land
Acquired under Airport Noise Compatibility Programs,"
(Report Number: AV-2005-078), is available on line at: htlp://
www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?file=/data/pdfdocs/Fina19-
30.pdf.
It reviewed i l of the 108 airport sponsors who had
received AIP grants to acquire land under airport noise
compatibility programs from fiscal year 1982 through fiscal
year2003.
Each of these 11 airports had land that was either no longer
required for noise compatibility purposes or did not have a
documented need for airport development. The unneeded
acreage ranged from 12 acres at Reno-Tahoe International to
840 acres at Tucson International.
Together the 11 airports had 3,608 acres of unneeded
noise land, which representect 53 percent of the 6,820 acres
acquired with AIP funds for noise compatibility purposes.
The estimated value of the 3,608 acres was $19�.2 million,
with FAA.'s share being $160.6 million, the IG estimated,
although FAA contended that was an overestimation of the
value of the ]and.
The IG also found that eight of these 11 airports had sold,
leased, or exchanged some of their unneeded noise land.
Two of these airports (Charlotte Douglas Internationat and
CincinnatilNorthern Kentucky International) used all
proceeds from the land disposals for other noise compatibil-
ity projects, as required by grant assurances. However, the
other six airports did not return, or could not show that they
had returned, FAA's share ($81.7 million) of the land's
estimated value ($100.7 million) to the Trust Fund or used
the proceeds for other FAA-approved noise mitigation
projects.
The IG found no deliberate attempts by airports to
circumvent grant obligations but observed that airports "did
not clearly understand their obligations regarding disposal
of unneeded noise land." This is, in part, because FAA staff
did not always provide airports with appropriate guidance
on how to use proceeds from land dispositions, the audit
said. It aiso concluded that "FAA is not generally aware of
how much land airport sponsors have acquired under their
noise compatibility programs, the sources of funds for the
acquisitions, or the land's current status:'
The audit also found that FAA field staff either did not
have or were not using basic information, such as land
inventory maps and new master plans, needed to ensure
effective oversight of the 11 airports included in the audit.
The IG recommended that airports and FAA use geographic
information system (GIS) software to catalog information
required for land bought with federal funds.
In its response to the audit report, FAA said that the
importance of keeping noise land for airport development
cannot be understated. The agency agreed with the IG that
leasing unneeded noise land, rather than seliing it, was a
good idea because it allowed airports to retain control of the
land.
The audit noted that airports and the FAA offered various
reasons for not abiding by grant assurances for disposing of
unneeded noise land: depressed reat estate markets, uncoop-
erative local communities, infrasiructure limitations, environ-
mental concerns, and others. But the audit noted that "recent
experience at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport demon-
strates that, after two decades of land acquisitions, chal-
Ienges such as those cited by airport sponsors and FAA can
be overcome. Sea-Tac and local communities came together
[in 2004] to begin identifying, marketing, and utilizing vacant
land with development potential, including unneeded noise
land acquired with Federal funds."
FAAPromisedAcHon
In response to the audit, FAA promised to take the follow-
ing action before the end of fiscal 2006:
• Issue national guidance requiring airport sponsors
to have written plans for the disposal of unneeded AIP-
funded noise land and for either returning the proceeds from
such disposals to the Trust Fund or reinvesting them in other
FAA-approved noise mitigation projects. The Bush
Administration's reauthorization would expand the use of
proceeds to additional projects;
� Issue national guidance instructing FAA regions to
develop detailed maps and inventories of AIP-funded noise
land as part of Airport Layout Plans;
• Provide better educational resources and direct
training to FAA staff, airport sponsors, and consultants to
enhance the understanding of grant requirements and their
impact;
• Issue national guidance on using leases for land
disposals, both as a handout in training sessions and as
program guidance;
- Review all the circumstances surrounding each of
the l l airports included in the audit to determine the scope of
their repayment obligations (the agency did not commit to a
target date for completing this action).
The airports included in the audit were Bellingham,
Charlotte Douglas International, Cincinnati/Northern
Kentucky Intemationai, Detroit Metropolitan, Las Vegas
McCarran Intemational, Palm Beach International, Phoenix
Sky Harbor International, Reno-Tahoe International, Seatkle-
Tacoma International, Toledo Express, and Tucson Interna-
tional airports.
FAA has not yet confirmed to ANR that the agency has
carried out the action promised in response to the audit.
Airport Noise Report
C
April 20, 2007 52
Sey West, from p. SO
In 1977 the County agreed to abide by the AICUZ noise
maps and future noise rnaps for land use decisions but has
yet to agree to plan according to the 2004 noise maps.
The Navy has no way to force the County to use updated
noise maps other than to appeat to the Florida Department of
Community Affairs.
Monroe County has been designated by the state as an
"area of critica] concern," which means the state can
override local planning decisions, said Jim Brooks, a
spokesman for the base. He said that base officials are
exploring the option of appealing the Planning Commission's
approval of the King's Pointe Marina project to the Florida
Department of Commun ity Affairs.
In addition, the Florida Legislature has enacted laws
requiring each county with a military base to send to its
commanding officer any proposed changes that would affect
the density or intensity of land uses near the base. Counties
with military bases also are required to ha�e amended their
comprehensive plans by June 30, 2006, to ensure that their
development guidelines are compatible with military base
operations.
Ron Demes, business manager of the base, wrote Monroe
County planning officials prior to their approvai of the
King's Pointe Marina, expressing the Navy's concern about
the project and noting that he could find no reference to the
AICUZ restrictions in the County's planning documents.
Brooks told ANR that the noise impact of the base wili
increase in the future because the next generation of military
fighter jets will be louder than those currently being used.
No amount of sound insulation would be effective in
residences located in the 75 dB DNL contour, he said.
Spirit of St. Louis Airport
� � , ' . :' : � �. i' :' ,'. .�; �
` __._ � �_ :�i _ _ i' \ _'_' �� ` ; '1
�_.-- �.. ' -
On April 18, the Federal Aviation Administration an-
nounced its approval of most of the Part 150 Airport Noise
Compatibility Program for Spirit of St. Louis Airport, a
general aviation airport in the suburbs of St. Louis, MO, that
caters to business aircraft.
FAA granted outright approval for 12 of the 13 proposed
noise mitigation measures in the program. The agency
rejected a proposal to extend the north runway "for lack of
noise beneft to non-compatibie land uses exposed to noise
levels ofDNL 65 dBA:'
The airport had sought to extend the north runway to a
length of 6,600 feet to allow jet aircraft to use that runway,
especially at night, for both arrivals and departures. This
would amount to a nighttime preferential use of the north
runway by business jet aircraft and would shift noise away
from residences south of the airport, the airport explained in
its Part 15Q recomrnendations.
FAA, however, did approve the rest of the Part 150
recommendations, which are all voluntary measures. They
include:
• Extending arrival and departure paths so that
aircraft are at a higher altitude before turning over residential
areas;
Implementing a new north turn departure proce-
dure to reduce noise impact;
• Conducting a site selection study and constructing
a ground run-up enclosure;
• Sound insutate the three homes in the airport's 65
dB DNL contour;
• Modifying an existing Fly Quiet Program to monitor
adherence to ideal noise abatement flight tracks, evaluate
success of operators in following those procedures, monitor
late night departure procedures, quantify runway use, and
establish program goals;
� Establish a follow-up noise issues committee that
will meet quarterly to discuss noise issues;
• Purchase and install a flight track/noise monitoring
system. The airport cumently uses the system for nearby
Lambert-St. Louis International Airport. The new system
would cornbine flight track and noise monitoring specific to
Spirit of St. Louis Airport.
The FAA aiso approved a Part 150 recommendation that
calls on local jurisdictions to amend existing land use
controls to adopt an Airport Influence Zone, (2) require
notice to potential purchasers that their residences would be
within the Airport Influence Zone, (3) require granting of
avigation easements for all development with the zone;
prohibit new noise sensitive uses (schools, residences,
churches, health care facilities, day care facilities, or libraries)
with the 60 dB DNL contour unless they are built with sound
insulation that reduces outside noise levels by 25 dB.
For further information on the program, contact Mark
Schenkelberg in FAA's Kansas City, MO, office; tel: (816)
329-2645.
In Brief ...
Alexandria, LA, Part 150 under Review
The FAA announced on April 13 that it will complete its
review of a proposed Part 150 AirportNoise Compatibility
Prograrn forAlexandria (LA) International Airport by Oct. 6.
For fiarther information, contact Tim Tandy in FAA's Fort
Worth,TX,office;tel: (817)222-5644.
FAAReauthorization Bills
House and Senate Aviation Subcommittee staff inembers
said recently that they expect to soon complete work on
legislation to reauthorize the programs of the FAA. The
House Transportation & Infrastructure Comrr►ittee expects to
send a bill to the House floor no later than June. The Senate
Commerce Committee plans to have a biil done in the same
timeframe.
Airport Noise Report
20, 2007
• � � ��;.
�1 i' :�.•l,
JohnJ. Corbett,Esq.
Spiegei & McDiazmid
Washington, DC
Carl E. Burteson
Director, Ofiice of Environment and Energy
Federal Aviation Administration
John C. Freytag, P.E.
Director, Chazles M. Salter Associates
San Francisco
Michael Scott Gatzke, Esq.
Gatzke, Dillon & Ballance
Carlsbad, CA
�
t,
�1
_ ___. 53 _.
LAX Soundproofing Contracts
Two low-bid contracts have been approved by the Los Angeles Board of
Airport Commissioners for work being undertaken in the Los Angeles
International Airport Residential Soundproofmg Prograrn, Los Angeles World
Airports (LAWA) announced April 12.
A$1.2 million contract was awarded to AMD Construction Group Inc. of
Orange, CA, for soundproofing modification work on 64 dwelling units. A
second contract for $701,000 was awarded to �Iarry H. Joh Construction, Inc.
of Anaheim, CA, for soundproofing modification work on 32 dwelling units.
All the residences are located within the 65 CNEL contour of LAX. Modi�ca-
tions inciude installation of double-paned windows, solid-core doors,
fireplace doors and dampers, attic baffles, insulation, and heating-ventilation
air canditioning systems to achieve a noise level reduction of approximately
one-half of the home's interior noise level.
New Era Vice President Named
Peter J. Kirsch, Esq. Era Corporation (formerly Rannoch Corp.) announcedApril 11 thatBill
Kaplan, Kirsch & Rockwell LLP Colligan has been appointed vice president and general manager of the firm's
Denver Airport Operations Solutions group. He brings over 20 years of experience in
operations analysis, systems engineering, and air ira�c management to Era, a
Vincent E. Mestre, P.E. leadin su lier of aircraft surveillance and fli ht trackin technolo
President, Mestre Greve Associates g pp g g g3'•
Laguna Niguel, CA Colligan spent the last six years as president and chief operating officer of
CSSI, a systems engineering, analysis, and IT company, where he was the
Steven F. Pftaum, Esq. technical lead on numerous projects with the FAA, Department of Defense,
McDermott, Will & Emery and National Aeronautics and S ace Administration.
Chicago P
Era also announced that it recently shipped its 1,000"` surveillance sensor,
Mary L. Vigilante marking an important milestone in the company's history and signifying the
�resident, Synergy Consuttants growing demand for its products.
Seattle
ESA Opems San Diego Office
Environmental Science Associates (ESA) announced recently that it has
opened a new Southern California o�ce in the Gateway Center Complex in
Northern San Diego. The office is located at 9191 Towne Center Drive in San
Diego. Another new o�ce in Woodland Hills, CA, will open later this spring.
Correction
ANR incorrectly reported recently that Rudy Steinthal, who recently retired
as noise officer for Teterboro Airport, was an employee of the Port Authority
of New York and New Jersey. That is incorrect. He was an empioyee of
Macquarie AviationNorth American (AvPORTS), which performs daily
operationai fiuictions for the airport.
AIRPORT NOISE REPORT
Anne H. Kohut, Publisher
Pubtished 44 times ayear at43978 Urbanerest Ct., Ashbum, Va. 20147; Phone: (703 ) 729-4867; FAX: (703) �29-4528.
e-mail:editor@airpartnoisereport.com; Price$850.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients,
is granted by Airport Noise Report, provided that the base fee of US$1.03 per page per copy
is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. USA.
54
� , ,.
�� �Y` �, r �, ! Y 7� `��• r� , .:, {:
... .�.... .�„ ..� . _a. < .,.'- u=. �� •,��� '
a.>o " '
A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments
Volume 19, Number 14 Apri127, 2007
�and I3isposition
.. i ��. � � .� �
� � . � . , ; � � .
By the end of May, the Federal Aviation Administration plans to issue guidance
on a broad range of issues regarding how airports should dispose of land they
have acquired for noise compatibility with Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
grants but no longer need for that purpose.
The soon-to-be-released guidance will address matters such as:
• How to determine when land is no longer needed for noise compatibility
purposes w9thin the meaning of federal Grant Assurance No. 31 that airports
commit to as a condition of accepting federal AIP grants to purchase the land;
• What constitutes a disposal of land acquired for noise mitigation
purposes within the meaning of that grant assurance;
• What constitutes a reasonable period of time to allow an airport sponsor
to dispose of land determined to be unneeded;
• How to determine fair market value for land ripe for disposal and land
already disposed; and
• How to recover the federal share of the proceeds of a land disposition in
a case of a disposal by lease or exchange.
(Continued an p. SS)
Airspace Redesign
OBERSTAR AGREES TO HOLD �ARIlVG
IN DELAWAR� CC�ITNTY, PA, ON REDESIGPd
At sorne point in late June or early July, Rep. James Oberstar (D-IviN), the
influential chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
will hold a congressional hearing in Delaware County, PA, on the Federal Aviation
Adrninistration's controversial plan to redesign the airspace over 31,000 square
miles in five states on the East Coast (all of New Jersey and parts of Connecticut,
Pennsylvania,New York, Delawaze).
The date for the hearing has yet to be determined.
Oberstar decided to hold the field hearing following an April 20 meeting in his
office with Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), Rep. Rob Andrews (D-I�1J), and FAA Adminis-
trator Marion Blakey during which the impact of the airspace redesign was
discussed.
Oberstar's decision also comes during a week when FAA held public hearings in
New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut on its plan to redoce the noise impact of
the airspace redesign. Public officials and citizens attending those meetings were
critical of FAA's noise rnitigation plan and said they could not provide comment
on it because FAA has not released crucial information, such as specific flight
patterns and aircraft altitudes.
Rep. Sestak, a retired Navy admiral, represents Delaware County, PA, near
Philadelphia lnternational Airport, and Rep. Andrews represents residents in
(Continued on p. SS)
I�c This dssue...
Sale of Noise Land ... By the
end of May, FAA plans to have
issued guidance on the disposirion
ofland acquired fornoise com-
patibi lity but no longer needed for
that purpose - p. 54
Airspace Redesign ... The
powerful chairman ofthe House
Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee agrees to hald a
congressionalfieldhearingon I
controversial FAA airspace
redesign plan - p. 54
Atlanta ... FAA is reviewing
proposed update to the Part 150
airport noise mitigation program
forHartsfield-JacksonAtlanta
International Airport - p. 56
Airlines ... V irgin Atlantic
Airlinesplaces largestorderyet
by aEuropean carrier for
Boeing'snew 787Dreamlinerin
efforttogetmore environmen-
ta lly-friendly fleet - p. 56
LongBeach ... City Council
approves tong-soughtterminal
expansion projectandpragrams
to reduce noise, air emissions
from airport- p. 56
News Briefs ... Lochard
announces that Jaime Locquiao
has joinedthe iurn as manager of
its Service Delivery Team -p. 57
27,2007
The guidance also will address leasing land acquired for
noise compatibility purposes. FAA supports the use of
leasing as a disposal method for noise ]and because it
ensures compatible land use around airports.
"However, depending on the circumstances existing at the
airport and the terms of the lease, a lease may or may not
always qualify as a disposal within the meaning of the grant
assurance. As an example, an airport may lease on a short
term or other basis in a manner that is not tantamount to
disposal," Dave Bennett, director of the FAA Office of
Airport Safety and Standards, warned in a March 2006
memorandum to all FAA regional airport managers and
headquarters office directors.
The memorandum outlined how the agency would
respond to the problems in FAA's management of the
disposal of noise land raised in an audit report by the
FAA's Office ofInspector General (OIG) (19 ANR 50).
Regions Will Make Determanations
Bennett stressed in his memo that "determinations of
whether land is `unneeded' are airport-specific and should
be made at the regional level in close consultation with
airport sponsors ... Because determinations are so fact
specific, we anticipate issuing further guidance on these
issues, as well as others, after FAA has received land
inventories firom the 11 airports specifically reviewed in the
OIGreport."
Those 11 airports had to have completed noise land
inventory maps by 7anuary 2007 and must submit noise land
reuse plans to the FAA by September.
The remaining 97 airports that have received AIP grants
to purchase land for noise compatibility must complete their
noise land reuse plans by August 2009.
Airports are already required to keep an updated Airport
Properiy M�p, which shows the airport's property interests
including noise land. Now they will have to keep a separate
map of grant-acquired noise land, Bennett said in his mema.
Beginning in fiscal year 2006, FAA also imposed a special
condition on all noise land AIP grants requiring airports to
prepare a written plan for the reuse of unneeded noise land
before closing the grant. That special condition is prospec-
tive and will not apply to past grants.
Bennett said that by the end of fisca12007, the FAA also
will have developed a training curriculum on disposition of
noise land for staff in its regional offices.
The 11 airports inciuded in the OIG's report were
Bellingham International, Charlotte/Douglas Internationai,
CincinnatilNorthern Kentucky International, Detroit
Metropolitan, Las Vegas McCarran International, Palm
Beach International, Phoenix Sky Harbor International,
Reno-Tahoe International, Seattle-Tacoma International,
Toledo Express, and Tucson International.
The Inspector General's audit report said that six of those
airports (Detroit, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Reno-Tahoe, Toledo,
and Tucson) have already disposed of noise land without
using the proceeds as required by Grant Assurance 31.
55
Those six airports will have seven months following FAA's
acceptance of their noise land reuse pians to develop a
repayment plan for any acreage the FAA determines to be
owed proceeds from, aithough that date can be extended if
the airport is negotiating with the agency in good faith.
Grant Assurance 31 stipulates airports must either return the
federal government's share of the proceeds of the sale of
noise land to the Aviation Trust Fund or reinvest it in
another airport noise mitigation project.
However, the Bush Administration proposed in its FAA
reauthorization bill to expand this grant assurance to ailow
the federal proceeds of the sale of noise land to also be
reinvested in other environmentally-related projects or other
AIP eligibie projects at the airport or transferred to another
public airport for a noise compatibility project.
Airspace, from p. 55
southern New Jersey. Both districts wouid get increased
noise impact under FAA's airspace redesign plan which
would fan departure routes at Phiidalephia lnternational.
The two congressmen are in the process of developing
legislation to ensure that FAA's airspace redesign process
addresses concerns about citizen safety, health, education,
and property values, and takes into account a"real costl
benefit" analysis of the proposaI.
In a press release following their meeting with Oberstar and
Blakey, Sestak said, "The FAA Noise Mitigation Report is
inadequate and has placed unacceptable constraints on the
full and open consideration of environmental, sociat, and
economic benefits. Additionally, the FAA airspace redesign
process has failed to consider any alternatives other than
those dictated strictly by the purpose and need for opera-
tional efficiency, providing inadequate consideration to
environmental, social, and ecanomic considerations. And, to
that end, I believe there are other viabie avaition planning
strategies, such as the increased utilization of outlying
airfields."
"Additionally, I am concerned that the Noise Mitigation
Report has omitted important details that raise serious
questions to the public about the stated impact of the
mitigation strategies. For instance, minimum flight altitudes at
various points along the proposed flight paths are not
provided. Thera is no clarification about the stated'initia]
headings' [for noise abatement paths] that guarantees that air
traffic controllers will follow the same heading for all flights,
while the FAA has also failed to indicate the volume of
flights assigned to each heading at Philadelphia lnternational
Airport, as was provided for Newark International Airport."
Meanwhile, Pennsylvania State Rep. Bryan Lentz, a
freshman Democrat from Delaware County, is getting bi-
partisan support in the state Legislature for a bill he intro-
duced that wouid create a regional airport authority to take
controi ofPhiladelphialntemational andLehigh Valley
International Airport, located to the west in Allentown, PA.
T"he regionai airport authority would provide a vehicle for
shifting traffic out of PHL to reduce congestion and obviate
the need for the airspace redesign at the airport.
Airport Noise Report
�
27, 2007 .
Harlsfield-Jackson Atlanla Int't
. . � ' �' �
� �'� � �' ''� '• I
By Oct. 7, the Federal Aviation Administration plans to
complete its review of a proposed update to the Part 150
AirportNoise Compatibility Program for I3artsfield-Jackson
Atlanta InternationaI Airport, where a new runway recently
opened and it is estimated that 25,092 people will reside
within the airport's 65 DNL noise c.ontour in 2010.
T'he original Part 150 program for the airport was approved
in 1985 and two updates were approved in 1987 and 1988.
Noise mitigation measures proposed in the Part 150
program include monitoring RNAV procedures already in
use to document their effectiveness in reducing deviations
from noise abatement departure tracks; establishing night-
time preferential runway use; voluntary acquisition of the
five single family homes and 873 renta( units in the 70 DNL
and greater contours on the 2010 noise maps; and establish-
ing a voluntary sound insulation program for the 74 single
family homes, 4,963 rentat units, six schools, six day care
centers, 22 churches, and one health care retirement center
located within the 65-70 DNL contour on noise maps
estimated for2010.
The proposed Part l 50 program also recommends that local
jurisdictions adopt airport overlay wnes that would:
• Bar new residential and other noise sensitive
construction in the 70 DNL and higher contours;
• Discourage new residential and other noise
sensitive construction in the 65-70 DNL contour and require
avigation easements and sound insulation; and
� Require written notification to owners ofall new
development in the 60-65 DNL contour indicating the area is
subject to aircraft over�lights and noise. This notification
would have to be signed by the buyer and recorded in the
records of local jurisdictions.
FAA announced on Apri123 that it has approved the
updated noise exposure maps submitted for the airport and
that the public comment period on the proposed Part 150
program update ends on June 11.
Airlines
VIl2GIN ATL.ANTIC PLACES
I.ARC'iEs�' BCiEINCv �%8�% oRD +'R
Virgin Atlantic Airlines placed the largest order yet by a
European airline forBoeing's new 787 Dreamliner, ordering
15 Boeing 787-9s with options for another eight aircraft and
purchase rights on a further 20 planes.
Deliveries will begin in 2011 in the deal, which is estimated
to be worth up to $8 billion. The airline has yet to decide
whichmanufacturer(General ElectricorRollsRoyce)wil�
produce the engines for the planes.
The 787-9 Dreamliner burns around 27 percent less fuel per
passenger than the A340-300, the aircraft it wili replace in the
56
Virgin Atlantic fleet. "The innovative design, with over half
of the aircraft built from composite materials, helps to reduce
fuel burn and carbon emissions significantly. The noise
footprint of the 787-9 is atso 60 percent lower than the A340-
300, benefiting local communities living ciose to airports,"
Virgin Atlantic and Boeing said in an Apri125 press release.
Sir Richard Branson, chairman of Virgin Atlantic, said the
787 Dreamliner "symbolizes the environmentally-kinder
aircraft of the future — cleaner, quieter, lighter, and truly the
best experience in the air."
As part of its drive for greater fuel efficiency, Virgin
Atlantic also announced that it will conduct a joint biofuei
demonstration in 2008 with Boeing, Virgin Fueis, and engine
maker GE Aviation. The demonstration, using one of Virgin's
Boeing 747-400 aircraft, "wiil be the first worldwide by any
commercial airline and aims to develop sustainable fuel
sources suitable for commercial jet engines and the aviation
industry," Boeing and Virgin Atlantic said.
The two companies also are working on a partnership to
cut aircraft emissions and noise on the ground by testing the
use of electric tugs to puil aircraft to "starting grids" near
runways on which they wili depart. Trials with the tugs at
London's Heathrow and Gatwick Airports and at San
Francisco International Airport "have produced significant
positive results which will be used to find alternatives to
traditional taxiing procedures at thc worid's busiest air-
ports," Virgin Atlantic and Boeing said.
Boeing will review aircraf� technical requirements for
towing to enable other airlines to develop towing proce-
dures, which are expected to reduce fuel burn and carbon
emissions by up to 50 percent.
Long Beach
NOISE, AIR QUALITY ADD]E�ESSED
��� ����5��� ��' �'�����.
On Apri125, the Long Beach, CA, City Council voted 5-3 to
increase the size of the old and outdated Long Beach Airport
terminal to 89,995 square feet, a compromise of competing
options for terminal size that ranged from 56,320 square feet
sought be some in the cornmunity to 133,000 square feet
sought initially by city o�cials.
The size of the terminal has been a contentious issue in the
community because of fears of increased noise impact and
degradation of air quality. The Long Beach Unified School
District and the Long Beach PTA have filed lawsuits
challenging the state Environmental Impact Report on the
terminai project, contending that the city must sound
insulate a number of schools to reduce noise impacts on
students.
The day before approving the terminai expansion, the City
Council unanimously approved recommendations directing
the city manager to develop and implement plans for two
prograrns: a Green Airport program and a Neighborhood
Protection Program.
Airport Noise Report
��, Zoo�
•. � �.� ' ,. .;/ M� �. • '�.
., ,. ;,..,
JohnJ. Corbett,Esq.
Spiegel & McDiarmid
Washington, DC
Cari E. Burleson
Director, Ofiice of Environment and Energy
Federal Aviation Administration
John C. Freytag, P.E.
Director, Chazles M. Salter Associates
San Francisco
Michael Scott Gatzke, Esq.
Gatzke, Dillon & Ballance
Cadsbad, CA
Peter J. Kirsch, Esq.
Kaplan, Kirsch & Rockwell LLP
Denver
Vincent E. Mestre, P.E.
President, Mestre Greve Associates
Laguna Niguel, CA
Steven F. Pflaum, Esq.
McDermott, Will & Emery
Chicago
Mary L. Vigilante
President, Synergy Consultants
Seattle
S7
The Neighborhood Protection Program includes: (1) the addition of six new
noise monitors at the airport, (2) covenants not to challenge the city's Airport
Noise Compatibility Ordinance incorporated into all airport leases, (3) creation
of an Airport Noise CompatibiliTy Ordinance lega] defense fund, (4) require
that a new Environmental Impact Report be completed if the Long Beach
Airport ever exceeds the level of 4.2 million annual passengers the terminal
expansion is intended to handle; (5) creation of terminal deed restrictions or
covenants prohibiting use changes within the post-security terminal area, and
(6) elimination of one parcel of land as part of the terminal expansion project.
'1'he Green Airport Program includes (1) development of a policy to reduce
pollution related to aircra$, ground equipment, and vehicle transportation, (2)
development of a policy committing the city to strive to meet state air quality
attainment levels by 2020, and (3) implementation of a full air quality monitor-
ing program.
The Long Beach Airport terminal was built in 1941 to handie DC-3 aircraft.
Long Beach has an Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance that is based on
curnulative noise impact and allows additional comrnuter and air carrier flights
if they do not exceed their respective Community Noise EquivaIent Level
(CNEL) limits stipulated in the ordinance.
A settlement agreement of a challenge to the ordinance allows air carriers to
operate a minimum of 41 flights per day and commuter carriers to operate a
minimum of25 flights perday.
�In Braef ... �
�,ocquiaoJoins Lochard
Lochard, which provides airport noise and operations mon'ttoring systems,
announced April 24 that Jaime Locquiao has joined the company as manager
of its U.S. Service Delivery Team.
He served for the past eight years as manager of airport noise abatement for
San Jose International Airport and prior to that served for 14 years in military
air traffic control operations.
"Having Jaime on-board as Manager of Service Delivery continues to
strengthen our commitment to delivering first class service to our clients,"
said Robert Brodecky, vice president of Lochard Americas. "Not only is Jaime
a highly respected and seasoned professional in the aviation industry, but his
persona, work ethic, and commitment to succeed make him the ideal fit for
Lochard."
AIRPORT NOISE REPOR7'
Anne H. Kohut, Publisher
Published44 times ayear at 43978 UrbancrestCt., Ashburn, Va.20147; Phone: (703) 729-4867; FAX: (703) 729-4528.
e-mail:editor@airportnoisereport.com; Price$850.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients,
is granted by Airport Noise Report, provided that the base fee of US$1.03 per page per copy
is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, Z22 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. USA.
C
C
�•..